While I use linux more and more (archlinux), I kinda like Windows because it's straightforward to use. Linux is much more powerfull, and it can do wonders, but

While I use linux more and more (archlinux), I kinda like Windows because it's straightforward to use. Linux is much more powerfull, and it can do wonders, but to unlock this potential you have to spend hours learning the innards of it's working. And it ain't pretty. Most software nowadays are incredibly complicated, and what Windows does in essence is hide this complexity from you. That comes at a steep cost as you lose control over the machine. But let's face it, the common user rarely needs more than windows has to offer. Also, what this article bash is complexity, and I dare say that Windows is simpler than Linux. Perhaps not under the hood, but Windows gives you a neat interface to the machine. And under it everything mostly works, sometimes it doesn't and you get a piece of frustrating error message. In Linux on the other hand, you need to have a hand at everything to keep things smooth, but you can shape the interface any way you want and fix almost everything. The problem is I have found the rate of software failure to be much more important on linux which kind of cancels this effect out. Finally, when you see that the article states "But the damned computers get in the way of all the things the computers help us do. There’s this whole artificial paradigm about administrator accounts, and security, and permissions, and all other manner of things that people don’t care about. A host of ancillary software is required just to keep your computer running, but that software introduces more complexity and more points of failure, and ends up causing as much grief as it’s intended to resolve." It's hard to defend that switching to linux would help like computers. Ancillary software has more to do with linux 10.000 libraries at a package each, than with crapware, which is not required and can easily be removed.