265 karma · joined March 13, 2026
Some of it is real need for things like support, payments, and compliance in a bunch of languages and jurisdictions and across a bunch of platforms and combinations of platforms.
A lot of it's just that large businesses tend to be shockingly inefficient, often taking literally many hundreds of person-hours to do things that a small company or small team might do in low-tens. Coordination costs are high, processes are often really bad in ways that nobody who could fix them is empowered to, serious principal-agent problems are the norm rather than the exception, et c.
One of the weirdest things to me about the AI craze is that I don't see how it fixes organizational problems, and most big orgs are already burning more cash on waste due to those than they could possibly gain from fairly-optimistic LLM gains. Like, if they wanted to 5x development speed, they already can without a single LLM involved, by managing better. They could have done that ten years ago. All the more wild that they're flipping out over LLMs. You can't even come close to efficiently organizing the resources you already have...
I hate modern MSOffice's UI, plus it's full of slow, heavy webtech which deducts a lot of points from basically anything for me. Google's leaks memory (like most of their software... so do Gmail tabs) and is so slow that it introduces a ton of input latency, which drives me nuts, I hate to type in it, aside from my experience with most of its formatting and editing features being that they're very janky even by the standards of GUI word processors. Both are very heavy on resources, which means they have a huge hurdle to overcome on the feature side before I'd consider them anything but extremely-unpleasant.
Old (like... '00s) MSOffice is pretty good because it's not such a resource hog, and the UI used to be really good.
After that, old copies of MSOffice.
Next-best would be a hodgepodge of the lighter options on Linux and such. Gnumeric, Abiword, that sort of thing. Not great, but at least they're light on resources and easy to use.
Distantly after that, LibreOffice.
Then, modern MSOffice in last place.
The only reason I'd count any of them as "worse" than modern MSOffice is that ~perfect office compatibility and a bulletproof excuse when things go wrong ("I'm also using MSOffice, don't know why your document isn't working") is non-negotiable in any business context.
[EDIT] Oh I forgot about Google. That's actually the true last-place. Modern MSOffice isn't worse than that. Christ the performance is awful.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
Still using Spectacle for window management, despite its being long-discontinued. Still works, never a problem or glitch at all.
America: throws a decades-long, ongoing tantrum
It’s fairly reductive… but still kinda true.
This seemed implausible, so I ran the numbers for my situation at the time that involved car costs and a commute distance that were both below median for my city, plus well above-median household income.
Sure enough! It worked out just the way they claimed, if only barely. For the median worker in my city though, it was very true.
Plus it usually looks better.
Not sure why you need any flag on you.
My experience is it hits both new-feature velocity and stability (or the balance between those two) really early, but lots of managers don't realize that this feature that's taking literal months could have been an afternoon with better choices earlier on (because they're not in a position to recognize those kinds of things). For that matter, a lot of (greener) developers probably don't recognize when the thing that's a whole-ass project for them could have been toggling a feature flag and setting a couple config entries in the correct daemon, with better architecture, because... they don't even know what sort of existing bulletproof daemon ought to be handling this thing that somehow, horrifically, ended up in their application layer.
So the blame never gets placed where it belongs, and the true cost of half-assed initial versions is never accounted for, nor is it generally appreciated just how soon the bill comes due (it's practically instantly, in many cases).
... it'd be even more likely if, as other have suggested in this thread, we actually had recorded the answer in writing but nobody had noticed it yet, say, but even without that I don't see why it couldn't happen.
6.
An enormous amount of the cost of developing a lot of native apps is customizing the appearance and behavior, to match some slide deck mockup or to make it “on-brand” or whatever. It’s better for the user, and way cheaper, if you just… don’t do that. Hell a lot of common UI elements are easier in native than web if you just don’t try to customize them a ton (data-backed tables and list views and such are sooooo nice)
Instead we get “webapps”.
Yeah sure we also risk some micromorts and the life-altering-disability equivalent every time we drive a car or get a sunburn, all right.
It was plainly really poorly-architected, just looking at its resource use patterns made this obvious in a heartbeat.
Their actions on systemd, Wayland, plus gnome and associated tech, sure look like classic “fire and motion”. Everyone else has to play catch-up, and they steer enough incompatible-with-alternatives default choices that it’s a ton of work and may involve serious compromises to resist just doing whatever they do.
Mostly due to chronic illnesses, of either the physical or mental variety.