https://donhopkins.medium.com/bill-joys-law-2-year-1984-mill...
Firefox tells me it had to download 1.9MB, despite that the only graphic in the article weighs just 60kB.
Thankfully modern browsers have 'reader mode'. There's no such simple solution for Windows.
Using Linux, you suffer for better reasons that may even be worth it in some cases.
When you use Linux, your suffering might push you to break and waste a weekend fixing an upstream bug, from which the entire world benefits for free. When you use Linux, your suffering builds positive karma, and next life you get to reincarnate as a cat, released from the hell that is software engineering.
I just started a new job that has forced me to use OSX. It truly feels like a form of asceticism to me. Can't change anything, accept what Apple gives you and suffer quietly.
Having to relearn how to do things less efficiently (and being mostly powerless to improve it) was very humbling for me.
I've been telling everyone who asks that Windows has lost the Laptop market. The market just hasn't realized yet.
Edit: It very much feels like being on a Symbian phone in 2005 or 2006. They were horrifically broken, couldn't load a web page, had no path forward towards even basic note taking, calendar organization, social media, or anything. But the iPhone hadn't shown up yet, so a majority of the world still used Symbian.
It's not just the laptop market. Windows used to be a tool that allowed you to easily use your computer and programs. It no longer does this and is now mostly a vehicle to sell Microsoft's services.
That's why I think a fork that implements the requisite changes would be of value.
I would probably also overhaul the settings app. For example, the whole Appearance & Style group and its two drill-down sections could be pretty easily reworked into a single panel that directly surfaces the most pertinent settings while tucking away the rest under an "Advanced…" button that opens a modal — with themes for example the average user will at most be interested in changing the global theme. Only advanced users even know the difference between window decorations, application styles, etc much less want to be able to change any of those individually.
The two biggest issues I'd have with Linux full time would be audio and video. I haven't even attempted to run Linux audio in like 5-10 years - it was always so titchy with multiple 'standards' to configure. Video was not quite as bad, as I don't game much so I just needed basic functionality. But now I have multiple 4k monitors, high dpi, and all that jazz, I don't know how big a pain it would be. I just run linux in VMs (standard device drivers and setup) or ssh into a linux server for now.
Audio/video has more to do the distribution being used than it does one's desktop environment, though the DEs can do things to smartly design configuration UI and surface the most commonly used A/V settings in the right places.
But I've never had a computer where everything just works, I guess that's because I expect too much, but I could never say this.
If you mean a Linux desktop PC, then no. I have been using a Linux desktop for many years, but not exclusively. I have tried, but I always have had at least a dual-boot with Windows. Yes, you have more control under Linux, but the reason I still use Windows sometimes is that many things just don't work properly.
Just look at here for a list:
https://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.t...
Or, from a less technical perspective, look at the LinusTechTips video series where he tries to use Linux as a daily driver:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0506yDSgU7M
And I love linux, I have a Linux desktop at home, which is pretty minimal by the way (Debian mini.iso), and that that it doesn't do weird things behind my back is appreciable. But it absolutely doesn't "just work".
super tangential but am I the only one who has an undying love for the Tahoma font?
Think about it from a 5-year-old person's perspective, or an average computer user. Which one do you think is more comfortable to use, Windows, or Linux?
But they get a lot of things right, like their backwards compatibility via statically linked packages and a large "standard library".
Unfortunately it's all proprietary and doesn't work if you can't live with the random updates, or if you need to support small cheap embedded things well...
That said, linux is in a way like processed foods, and windows is organic.
Linux is distilled down to the essential components through chemistry, it's like sugar or table salt, or maltodextrine.
Windows is just a thing that is alive, but not even a single thing, it has a flora that the manufacturer can't even tell you what it is in the ingredient list (can't share source code, they don't have it) they can't put all of the natural bacteria that coats an apple in an ingredient list.
I don’t become less ascetic by wearing fewer hair shirts.
I would have said the opposite.
Linux is organic - you get the bare essentials (whatever grew from the ground), and little more.
Windows is highly processed - you get the food, but also the chemicals and sugars and additives (AI in your taskbar! Candy Crush and political clickbait in your start menu!) designed to keep you addicted and coming back for more.
So windows is pure in the first sense, but linux is pure in the second sense.
You say that with linux you get the bare essentials, whatever grew from the ground, but take a look at the size of a linux distro, linux is actually very distilled, Windows is RAW. You get a binary in there that nobody knows how it got there and there is no source code.
There is source code/recipe/ingredient list/dependency manifest for a vanilla and fudge pastrie, but there is no source code for an apple/windows, you get what it is. For the most part windows didn't have source code in the early stages themselves, it's not like they kept the source code hidden under lock, rather they discarded it or lost it to the ages. It's like compilers, it's just something that grows over a couple of generations from the previous version.