Technology

I honestly don't understand why I would ever write up or share a Microsoft document.

As for word, it's just fucking rich text format. It's obvious they're manipulating the format to lock down users with less computer knowledge. Otherwise, why is it so fucking complicated?

Markdown accomplishes 90% of what a word doc does and it is legible with or without rendering.

EDIT: If I want data in or out of a spreadsheet program, I'm using CSV.

All of the "special features" of office docs wind up being security nightmares, unusable junk, or both.

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.

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?"

I think the point about convenience is more about familiarity than Windows being inherently easier. Speaking as someone who switched from Linux to Windows previously, I found the change very difficult as a lot of the FOSS software I was using didn't have Windows versions. I had a nightmare trying to read one of my LUKS-encrypted drives on Windows. I was practically using WSL for everything. That's not that Windows is inherently harder than Linux; it's just that I was used to Linux and the FOSS ecosystem, just as some are used to Windows and their proprietary ecosystem.

If your hardware isn't working properly, you have to find drivers that run on Linux; if the developer never made Linux-compatible drivers, you have to figure something else out.

Most drivers come pre-installed with the Linux kernel or your distro—I never had to manually install any drivers for my current hardware. Compared to Windows where you will have to go out of your way to install graphics drivers for NVIDIA or AMD depending on your graphics card, if you want to make the most out of your card's capabilities.

Installers made for Windows don't need any special TLC; you double-click them and they work.

See, I think if you've used Linux for any length of time you'd quickly find the system of package managers way easier than the system of having to hunt down an .exe on the internet, guess whether or not it's a legit copy or if it's malware, and manually manage updates for all the different software you have installed.

I agree that people stay on Windows out of convenience, but it's not convenience as in Windows is inherently easier, but it's convenience as in you're used to the way things work on Windows. Because in my perspective, things do "just work" on Linux, and that's because I'm used to the way things work here.

Also they already start shortening the live cycle of the non subscription office licenses, calling it „Modern-Lifecycle-Policy“. Up to now you hat 7-10 years of update support. But this year Office 2016 and 2019 phase out, next year already Office 2021! And Office 2024 only has support til 2029. Thats from today only 4 years (at the same price!)

There's a phrase that gets passed around the tech scene: "Linux is only free if your time has no value." Because, yes, Linux and other open-source apps are free to download and use. In a world driven by money, you'd expect the free version to overtake the paid one. The problem is, the paid option...just works.

Sure, until the paid option does something anti-competitive or gets too expensive or shuts down entirely, and you have to switch to a different paid option, sometimes burning dozens of hours in switching time (and/or hundreds of hours of work through lost or corrupted data) in the process. Not to mention the transition costs of just figuring out the new thing. Why not just switch to something that won't go away, or be changed under your feet?

The problem is that it needs that initial time investment to get it working the way you want it.

Maybe I'm just enough of a tinkerer in any situation that I've put pretty much the same amount of time into fiddling with my Linux settings as I did with my last Windows computer.

If your hardware isn't working properly, you have to find drivers that run on Linux; if the developer never made Linux-compatible drivers, you have to figure something else out.

People have been talking about this for my entire life, but in the past year of my switch to Linux, it has literally never happened once. I downloaded a new, open-source driver for my drawing tablet because it had some extra features that I wanted, but even it worked out of the box. I've never experienced this incompatibility. Honestly I've never even had trouble with software I wanted not being available for my distro.

Am I doing Linux wrong?

Windows doesn't have this problem.

LOL.

Installers made for Windows don't need any special TLC;

ROFL!

you double-click them and they work.

OH wait they're serious?!

Once they're installed, they work. If you need to install a driver, it works. You open a document in Office, it works.

Sure, if you don't run into a permissions issue. And if the system registry doesn't get corrupted. And if you're not on an ARM machine. And if your TPM is the right version. And if you're on the right subversion of Windows. And if a previous install didn't leave some remnant of itself behind. And if you don't want to do anything with an Apple device at all. And if sometimes you have the right fonts installed?

Honestly, I think I've had fewer problems installing Linux applications than Windows applications, but I can't attest to that. I think I can be pretty confident in saying that they're mostly equivalent. Both of them are pretty mature platforms with fairly minimal hiccups, in my experience.

And if something doesn't work, we can yell at Microsoft until they publish a fix that makes it work again.

That's a weird way of spelling "until they ignore it for six months and then lock the support thread for inactivity."

Microsoft has gotten us into a state where we don't need to think, tinker, or troubleshoot our software. We just double-click the icon and wait for it to "just work." If it doesn't, it's someone else's issue to solve, and we flood social media and support emails until the issue is resolved.

Here I have to agree with the article, because whatever the reality of installing applications on Windows, this is the fiction they've sold us. Apple, too. All operating systems have troubles, and all vendors try to downplay them and fix the stuff that causes problems for most of their users. Linux is just honest about the fact that they can't make everything a perfectly smooth experience for everyone.