This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
The "windows just works" claim is stupid. Especially the statement the author makes on how you just double click an icon and it just works everytime and if ever there is an issue, someone else will eventually fix it.
on windows id just give up if I couldnt solve an issue, on linux I actually find a solution, the solution for windows is click 50 obscure things if it exists, linux is usually modifying something with the terminal which can be scary if you arent used to it and don't know what commands do, eventually youll realize its mostly heading to a director and editing a file, technically you can click around and do that without opening a terminal, using a file editor and manager instead.
The problem: our desire for convenience
Bring on the downvotes, but: When it comes to tools like computers, convenience is synonymous with productivity. People aren't unreasonably demanding to have their hands held, they want to get stuff done. We need to stop acting like ~~convenience~~ productivity is just one of many concerns. It is the primary concern.
Freedom is nice but to most people it's only important if it helps us do the things we want to do.
I find dealing with Micros~1 a giant pain in the ass. It's always getting in the way of productivity with pointless rearranging of menus all the time, constantly trying to get me to use One Drive, shoving AI into every corner of everything.
I'm trying to make a spreadsheet to figure out and share budgets, instead I'm spending my time hunting for that menu that disappeared and figuring out how to disable copilot because I'm legally not allowed to share client data with third parties.
This an incredibly tech-brained answer. "Sure, lots of OSS is difficult to install, breaks frequently, and lacks key features, but did you know Microsoft sometimes moves a menu item?"
I love OSS and I want it to succeed but "an item moved" isn't in the same ballpark as the barriers to OSS adoption.
This is probably the stupidest hill to die in I have ever seen. Of all the things to defend MS for you try to justify their destruction of the pull down menu!?
They broke 30+ years of standard GUI just to keep breaking and changing their stupid ass ribbon bar.
I don't really care for Macs but god damn does their universal PDM system work great.
The amount of times I have had to click through and memorize their dumb as fuck ribbon bar just to have them change it again the next version is ridiculous.
I started the name calling by saying "tech brained" so I apologize and I'll ease off on that.
With that said, I have to strongly disagree with you. I use MS Office, LibreOffice, and Google Docs regularly, and IMO the ribbon was a huge improvement for word processors and spreadsheets over traditional drop-down menus. Drop-Down menus have their place but for document editing they are not ideal.
You are going to die on that hill. You sir have some serious screws loose and I will never take anything you say seriously again.
Oh no, some crank who can't understand that other people have preferences won't take me seriously. This is a major loss. I am so owned. This definitely isn't emblematic of the problem with the OSS community.
You also act like an idiot. Now you are a victim as well. The big bad OSS community!? Do you even listen to the shit that is pouring out of your mouth.
Micros~1
I see what you did there. 😆
Yes, exactly that! That convenience == productivity connection is exactly why I am a Linux Mint fan!
Convenience has value, so a lot of people will give their "free" information, attention, and control to commercial entities in exchange for it. Enshittification ensues and many of us are conditioned to beware of things that are simple to use because it REALLY just means you've been locked out of 95% of the options.
When a good FOSS project can bring convenience and productivity to more people around the world with NO strings attached, that is an incredibly good thing. It's like, humanity actually working together just for the sake of the greater good, but doing it on the internet because governments can suck at it.
Damn, I need to find a good open source project to help out this winter when I'm forced to stop my oudoor "engineer turned farmer" hobbies for the season.
Edit: probably something Jellyfin related. Can't believe I forgot to mention that!
In addition to that, with great respect to the hard working developers on LibreOffice, at least some of what seems like “unnecessary complexity” in Microsoft’s format is most likely just requirements LibreOffice isn’t solving or haven’t even encountered yet. You don’t get to Office’s size without having to deal with the most insane batshit crazy backcompat or compatibility issues.
They are intentionally obfuscating their file formats. It has nothing to do with complexity or "backwards compatibility" Microsoft has a LONG history of stuff like this.
That may be but without sources that say “let’s make the format more obscure” this is just opinion. Your opinion, OpenOffice opinion, IBM opinion etc.
Look for example at the 1904 dating system that Microsoft still has to support. Real customers still use this shit.
I’m not saying Microsoft has always exhibited good behaviour. But their crappy approach tends to be on the go to market side.
Office still has to support a leap year bug to allow banks to run their crappy Lotus based record keeping. Lotus for Darwin’s sake!! There is so much history in these files and what office has to do with them.
No, what you say makes sense, and I think it's part of the reason why linux usage (as a daily driver) is starting to increase now versus 20 years ago. It's just easier to install and use linux distros nowadays.
And most folks who want office for free are going to go with google docs, for the convenience factor.
Not sure why this author is spreading "paid software is convenient and just works" rhetoric. Simply isn't the case. You just get addicted to trying to solve your problems with money.
Right?! That's how this article ends?! "Sorry, but people are lazy, so, uh....Microsoft just wins I guess."
If the XML standard is overly complex, does that mean it'll be a bigger pain for MS employees to maintain? Sounds like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Iirc the openXML standard was open sourced due to some anti trust stuff brewing. They then expanded on the standard with proprietary addons that give LibreOffice/Google Docs trouble.
I mean, they could just really suck at writing good software. Isn't some sort of rule of thumb law to never attribute to malicious intent what can just as easily be explained by stupidity?
There is such a law, but many of us feel that Microsoft has proven malice a few times, when it comes to open standards.
I've heard this comment about OpenXML (the xml format of the office documents) before, and i'm a bit on the fence about it.
It's of course indeed ridiculously complex, but so is office. Microsoft both adds a shit ton of functionality to their documents, and keeps an impressive amount of backwards compatibility.
In the past i heard complaints about part of the OpenXML spec that also allows older binary data in there for backwards compatibility reasons, which of course means for OSS implementations that they don't just have to implement this spec, but also the older spec that came before to be truly compatible with everything a modern office version can open.
But on the other hand, if i look at it from the side of Microsoft, they opened up their format, they've got a gazillion functionalities, should they remove functionality to appease the open source developers? If so which? Should they stop being backwards compatible with documents of decades ago to appease the open source developers? If so how long should they support? Are you going to tell their customers?
Office is an immense program with an immense amount of legacy features, backwards compatibility, ....
It's incredibly complex by nature. And might they have made the format more complex to dissuade competition? Could be. However, in this instance Occam's razor pushes me more to "write a huge program over a timespan of many decades, with thousands upon thousands of programmers working on it, and you'll indeed most likely end up with something very complex...."
Office Open XML was only standardized in order to combat the threat posed by Open Document as organisations were starting to mandate use of standardized formats.
You write as if Microsoft did this because they wanted interoperability, when in reality they only begrudgingly accept that some must be allowed in order to avoid losing control of the market.
The real solution would have been to never approve the OOXML standard and not legitimize Microsoft's attempt to make their proprietary format appear open.
The one thing you have to give Microsoft is backwards compatibility. They make hot garbage, but God damn if you can't run that garbage from 10 years ago.
Sure, but it's not quite the compelling argument it used to be.
Today, I'm not sitting here pining for old Linux software that stopped working. And the small amount of old windows software that did finally stop working actually works now only works on Linux with Wine.
That's another of the decision points that finally switched to fully favoring Linux, for me, in the last decade.
Although 10 years ago isn't that long in computer terms any more. Those are machines that can still run Windows 10 without issue. It's an older computer, but still perfectly usable these days.
Disappointing Fox news version of Windows' take of something somebody at Libre once said about Windows' domination of markets.
This read like basics. Was hoping for more info on how unusable XML was fot LibreOffice or if it wasn't (unusable to OSS versions). Obviously, OSS is better for enough reasons that a few in the EU are switching government computers from Windows to Linux.
Yes, corporate & proprietary schtick is lame & crippling. Old news. Guess it needs to be yelled until we research start taking about (marketing) FOSS Solutions.
I don't buy the argument that windows just works or that it's somehow better or more stable. The reality is we all have grown to learn about computers specifically using windows and it's been a steep learning curve. We have gotten familiar with its specificities and its sporadic misbehavior and accepted that as the norm. And people prefer what they are used to even if it's suboptimal because they would rather not learn something else from scratch, even if in the long run it could be better.
Put any person who has zero computer experience in front of a windows computer or Linux computer and I doubt they would say the windows computer just works and the Linux one doesn't.
Put any person who has zero computer experience in front of a windows computer or Linux computer and I doubt they would say the windows computer just works and the Linux one doesn't.
I did this experiment on my own kids. They find Linux more usable, and find it hard to believe people tolerate Windows.
There's also some indoctrination involved.
But they have access to both, and they prefer Linux. I think that the "Windows is genuinely easier" argument doesn't hold any water anymore.
the windows just works argument actually refers to the fact that it's consistent.
If you have a problem with the desktop, nobody needs to ask you which de you use, or which parts you have substituted out. You have a graphics problem, nobody asks if wayland or x11. You have a problem with audio, nobody asks you whether you have pipewire-pulse installed and to use pipewire. Shit's the same everywhere.
I say this as an arch linux user. The choice we all love, is actually a detriment to the average non-power user.
Put any person who has zero computer experience in front of a windows computer or Linux computer and I doubt they would say the windows computer just works and the Linux one doesn't.
In my experience, usually with Linux they have less problems and it's easier to use. Until they need an application that only works on Windows.
microsoft is a dirty bastard
My only issue with Libre Office is that they are not available on mobile phones. I want to use spread sheets to make calculations and projections on my finances if I can't use my computer at a given moment.
I understand your desire, but I’ll be damned if I’m gonna use any spreadsheet software on my phone. I can think of few worse platforms for excel. Even my iPad Pro is a nightmare if I don’t have my Magic Keyboard and a mouse. I’ll crack out a laptop or talk through it with gpt.
There are people for whom this is news? Cheesus chroist
The comment about convenience trumping almost everything else reminded me of this old post (wasn't originally on The Urban Dictionary but they have it now under the definition of Linux).
If Operating Systems Ran The Airlines
When you board the plane, you are given a seat, four bolts, a wrench and a copy of the seat-HOWTO.html. Once settled, the fully adjustable seat is very comfortable, the plane leaves and arrives on time without a single problem, the in-flight meal is wonderful. You try to tell customers of the other airlines about the great trip, but all they can say is, "You had to do what with the seat?"
The thing with "just works" in monopolies is that it eventually stops working. I already have terrible excel bugs all the time on my work computer. Left clicking a cell sometimes just selects half a dozen adjancent cells. You vlick something and all of a sudden the rendering just goes completely haywire... You have two larger tables open and it just crashes...
Things will only get worse from this, until the global economy will loose trillions to being stuck with Microsoft.
I'mma just going to sit over here in the corner with my AbbiWord and Gnumeric.........
Shit, I've been right about microsoft for thirty-plus years and it doesn't make a damned bit of difference.
They are. A. MONOPOLY. They have never "fought fair", and it wouldn't ever occur to them to do so. Their heart is all BOGU.
I remember when Microsoft first attempted to prevent the standardisation of Open Document Format (used by LibreOffice and others) and then bullied its way into getting approval for own OOXML standard. Already back then, supporters of FOSS warned that Microsoft would use the overly complicated OOXML to maintain its stranglehold on users of Office-like software.:
Whenever applicable and possible, standards should build upon previous standardisation efforts and not depend on proprietary, vendor-specific technologies. Albeit, MS-OOXML neglects various standards and uses its own vendor-specific formats instead. This puts a substantial burden on all vendors to fully implement MS-OOXML. It seems questionable how any third party could ever implement them equally well, especially when a standard comes with 6000 pages of specifications without serving its minimalistic purpose.
Anyone who thinks this is new, please read this, this and this.
And there's also this. It's a topic since shortly after the standardization of the Open Document Format 2006. MS then feared to lose whole governments as customers, so they (pseudo)standardized their own format, with a whole bunch of traps (in the format) and abuses of market power.
