Except it doesn't show any such thing. The author admits, for example,
there is a version of Skype for Linux, which says that you can, in fact,
use such apps in Linux - just not on the pad. This suggests there is
something about the pad itself, or their customized version of Linux,
which interferes with the installation or usage of Skype.
So, let's see: does Skype work in Linux? Yes. Does it work on the pad?
No. Does this mean the author dislikes: a) Skype, b) Linux, c) the pad
and/or its customized version of Linux? Correct answer is c. Not b, as
your comment would require.
Similarly, transferring files. Does one need to install an app onto
the other PC in order to transfer files from it? Depends. Most versions
of Linux I've seen include ssh support, so scp, if nothing else, would be
available. If the PC is a Windows box, installing a samba client on the
linux device would do the trick. Neither requires installing anything on
the PC which doesn't already exist in the vast majority of cases. Thus
we're left to conclude that, again, it isn't Linux the author dislikes,
but the pad's implementation of it.
In short, the only two "Linux" items the author mentions have nothing
whatosever to do with Linux; they are specific and unique to the pad.
Regular Linux implementations manage both these functions quite handily,
meaning that failures in those two functions are not a Linux problem at
all - and that your comments are unfounded.