What does “bad” means to you exactly? They are the hypocrites just like any big corporation, value only money, they reinvent wheels all the time, but their products pretty good despite being non-free, and making programs is much easier for Windows then GNU/Linux.
It would be even better if they didn’t force you to use only their products.
You value simplicity or free of choice and privacy? The “bad” definition depends on it.
It really depends on your perspective if windows is „easier“ to produce for. They are fully and redundantly vertically integrated which means they have the means to produce IDEs and even create programming languages.
But it is hugely easier to create a small app on linux imo. The simplicity of linux and the modularity of the different desktop environments is pretty great.
Is it tech illiterate friendly like windows? No! It would be great if everyone would be able to use linux now but we‘re gonna have to be patient.
In this particular case I meant that linux is the same in all regards: open source. You can look everything up if you have the time. This makes it possible to change everything and anything you need. Even through different DEs you still have the same structure.
Now if you go try that with windows, you‘re properly hosed. Different package manager? No! Different desktop environment? No!
Simple might not have been the best choice of words though. Modularity might be better.
My last straw was the privacy and lack of control.
I didn’t like software being released by Microsoft telling me my choices were bad or unoptimal, I like my software, I made my choices from listening to others and forming my own opinion. I had a shift in thinking recently, I wanted to start selecting my software based on my values rather than just choosing whatever works.
What does “bad” means to you exactly? They are the hypocrites just like any big corporation, value only money, they reinvent wheels all the time, but their products pretty good despite being non-free, and making programs is much easier for Windows then GNU/Linux.
It would be even better if they didn’t force you to use only their products.
You value simplicity or free of choice and privacy? The “bad” definition depends on it.
It really depends on your perspective if windows is „easier“ to produce for. They are fully and redundantly vertically integrated which means they have the means to produce IDEs and even create programming languages.
But it is hugely easier to create a small app on linux imo. The simplicity of linux and the modularity of the different desktop environments is pretty great.
Is it tech illiterate friendly like windows? No! It would be great if everyone would be able to use linux now but we‘re gonna have to be patient.
I wish everyone use GNU/Linux too. Mostly agree with you. Except of calling Linux simple. I wish it was simple… (Unless you mean simplicity of use?)
In this particular case I meant that linux is the same in all regards: open source. You can look everything up if you have the time. This makes it possible to change everything and anything you need. Even through different DEs you still have the same structure.
Now if you go try that with windows, you‘re properly hosed. Different package manager? No! Different desktop environment? No!
Simple might not have been the best choice of words though. Modularity might be better.
I do lean to having privacy and freedom to do whatever with my tools as “good” things
Then it’s very unusual question that GNU/Linux user could ask. If I may ask, what is your story with Microsoft? What was the last drop for you?
My last straw was the privacy and lack of control.
I didn’t like software being released by Microsoft telling me my choices were bad or unoptimal, I like my software, I made my choices from listening to others and forming my own opinion. I had a shift in thinking recently, I wanted to start selecting my software based on my values rather than just choosing whatever works.