4 ms·

As a long-time Linux user with habit of throwing everything into the mix, I got quite used to number of inconsistencies that I have, so I don't think that MS de

by n1vz3r 4y ago

As a long-time Linux user with habit of throwing everything into the mix, I got quite used to number of inconsistencies that I have, so I don't think that MS deserves criticism for having them too (although article is not very critical, it just counts the inconsisitencies). I have GTK2/3/4 apps, KDE apps, Qt apps, Electron apps, AND Windows apps running under wine. So the only consistency on my desktop is an inconsistency. Also Windows has good track record for backwards compatibility, no surprise that an OS has some "ancient" parts.

herbst 4y ago
Linux user here as well. The thing that upsets me with windows in the inconsistency in the OS not the applications. Take Fedora, Manjaro or Ubuntu with any major flavour like Gnome or KDE and you get a very consistent way of how your OS works and responds to common tasks. It's kinda easy for non experienced user to find the right settings with no UI change on a modern Linux Desktop.
- noisy_boy 4y ago
  I think with Linux, the amount of OS-level GUI screens is much more smaller compared to Windows. The main OS level GUI screen I interact with is the Settings screen and that basically has been a left-side tree showing the content on the right side or a grid that points to the individual sections. That is comparatively a much easier change in terms of UI level changes. Other OS-level screens are usually separate applications e.g. gparted which looks different from the Settings screen in KDE plasma (and totally understandably so, not complaining).
  - hajile 4y ago
    This MS inconsistency is entirely the fault of MS. You could build thousands of KDE environments with the amount of money MS spends on Windows, yet KDE has managed to update everything across 5 versions of their desktop environment. In fact, EVERY common operating system GUI with the exception of Windows manages to update all the things. If MS had spent some of those billions on updating those legacy apps each generation, they wouldn't be stuck with so much legacy garbage today. It's also telling that MS has never bothered to stick with a framework that would allow them to upgrade UI themes in-place. I'd also note that "complexity" isn't a good reason because MS could have gone with other solutions that were both more simple and more usable, but chose a convoluted design instead.
    - rhdunn 4y ago
      Part of the complexity is that there are Win32 APIs that allow applications to add UI to the Windows 95/2000-style control panels. In order to keep compatibility with those applications/code the control panels need to be kept around. It may be possible to provide an updated UI while still allowing the existing APIs and applications to work and integrate with the control panel, but it is not straightforward.
      - hyperdimension 4y ago
        An example: the TrackPoint tab in the Mouse Control Panel applet on a Thinkpad.
- Arainach 4y ago
  Linux does this by breaking things wholesale. Any Gnome extensions etc. need constant maintenance or they break in between versions, while Windows provides binary compatibility and doesn't even require recompiling.
  - doodlesdev 4y ago
    Windows breaks "extensions" to the desktop environment so often it's ridiculous. Sometimes they even override your settings over an update which is so maddening.
vladvasiliu 4y ago
That's fair when it comes to apps from random sources. But KDE apps all look consistent. I don't really use it, but it seems to me that Gnome apps also are consistent. Ditto for XFCE. Whereas Windows, even among out-of-the-box and "system" applications, there's a variety in the look & feel. Until 7 it was more or less the same. But starting with 10, it all went downhill, and 11 didn't really fix anything in that department.
- nazgulsenpai 4y ago
  While I don't blame you for purging it from your memory, you seem to have forgotten about Windows 8. It introduced the Settings concept and who can forget that start menu!
  - vladvasiliu 4y ago
    It was never in my memory to begin with – since I've never used it. I don't use Windows a lot, just for games and occasionally at work. I went from 7 to 10.
INTPenis 4y ago
You're such a nice person, but Windows is developed by one company while Linux is a mishmash of volunteer software. Additionally Windows is raking in MONEY for their OS. So from that perspective, Microsoft have no excuse for the shitty software they make people endure.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >Linux is a mishmash of volunteer software Only if you intentionally ignore all the billions big-tech has poured into Linux over the years.
  - BenjiWiebe 4y ago
    That money would mainly be going to the kernel, not the desktop applications.
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      And then why aren't big-tech also investing in the Linux desktop? AFAIK IBM, SUSE, Red-HAt and Canonical are heavily investing in Gnome while other companies are investing in KDE. KDE/Gnome aren't just some guys in a garage developing them in their spare time.
  - INTPenis 4y ago
    Sure, but that doesn't improve microsofts case. The fact that hundreds of companies allow their employees to contribute to open source software, not just the kernel, also Gnome and surrounding software. So dozens of huge companies, hundreds of smaller companies, they can all contribute code to an OS that is on-par with Windows, but missing things like patents and gaming hardware support that Microsoft pays for. While Microsoft with all their advantages, all their insights and cooperations with hardware vendors still can't deliver. It's really pathetic, and I put it down to their company culture not having any common goal.
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
GuB-42 4y ago
Linux distros are a mix of mostly independent projects, there is no central authority telling them how it should be done and therefore inconsistency is inevitable. It applies to the command line too (looking at you "ps"). And yet, the parts that the distro vendor controls, usually the default desktop environment and settings screens are usually rather consistent. For Windows, I don't think anyone complains about the fact that if you run an ancient Windows app, it looks like an ancient Windows app. In fact, backward compatibility has always been one of Microsoft strongest selling points. What people complain about is that Windows itself is inconsistent. Windows branded components, made and owned by Microsoft, included in the main OS with no alternative offered are inconsistent. The worst part is the control panel, it is a mess and they have no excuse, it is an unfinished job that shouldn't have been out of beta.
- _y5hn 4y ago
  Many distros adds their own layers of complexity, which inevitably breaks during upgrades or adding packages from third-party repos. Arch packages do very little extra usually, and often works more like if you install from source. So it's not always the fault of devs, and is why installing from source was/is a thing. Bonus with Arch is Aur, one big repo with most open source software available from git.

by n1vz3r 4y ago

herbst 4y ago

Linux user here as well. The thing that upsets me with windows in the inconsistency in the OS not the applications. Take Fedora, Manjaro or Ubuntu with any major flavour like Gnome or KDE and you get a very consistent way of how your OS works and responds to common tasks. It's kinda easy for non experienced user to find the right settings with no UI change on a modern Linux Desktop.

noisy_boy 4y ago
I think with Linux, the amount of OS-level GUI screens is much more smaller compared to Windows. The main OS level GUI screen I interact with is the Settings screen and that basically has been a left-side tree showing the content on the right side or a grid that points to the individual sections. That is comparatively a much easier change in terms of UI level changes. Other OS-level screens are usually separate applications e.g. gparted which looks different from the Settings screen in KDE plasma (and totally understandably so, not complaining).
- hajile 4y ago
  This MS inconsistency is entirely the fault of MS. You could build thousands of KDE environments with the amount of money MS spends on Windows, yet KDE has managed to update everything across 5 versions of their desktop environment. In fact, EVERY common operating system GUI with the exception of Windows manages to update all the things. If MS had spent some of those billions on updating those legacy apps each generation, they wouldn't be stuck with so much legacy garbage today. It's also telling that MS has never bothered to stick with a framework that would allow them to upgrade UI themes in-place. I'd also note that "complexity" isn't a good reason because MS could have gone with other solutions that were both more simple and more usable, but chose a convoluted design instead.
  - rhdunn 4y ago
    Part of the complexity is that there are Win32 APIs that allow applications to add UI to the Windows 95/2000-style control panels. In order to keep compatibility with those applications/code the control panels need to be kept around. It may be possible to provide an updated UI while still allowing the existing APIs and applications to work and integrate with the control panel, but it is not straightforward.
    - hyperdimension 4y ago
      An example: the TrackPoint tab in the Mouse Control Panel applet on a Thinkpad.
Arainach 4y ago
Linux does this by breaking things wholesale. Any Gnome extensions etc. need constant maintenance or they break in between versions, while Windows provides binary compatibility and doesn't even require recompiling.
- doodlesdev 4y ago
  Windows breaks "extensions" to the desktop environment so often it's ridiculous. Sometimes they even override your settings over an update which is so maddening.

vladvasiliu 4y ago

That's fair when it comes to apps from random sources. But KDE apps all look consistent. I don't really use it, but it seems to me that Gnome apps also are consistent. Ditto for XFCE. Whereas Windows, even among out-of-the-box and "system" applications, there's a variety in the look & feel. Until 7 it was more or less the same. But starting with 10, it all went downhill, and 11 didn't really fix anything in that department.

nazgulsenpai 4y ago
While I don't blame you for purging it from your memory, you seem to have forgotten about Windows 8. It introduced the Settings concept and who can forget that start menu!
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  It was never in my memory to begin with – since I've never used it. I don't use Windows a lot, just for games and occasionally at work. I went from 7 to 10.

INTPenis 4y ago

You're such a nice person, but Windows is developed by one company while Linux is a mishmash of volunteer software. Additionally Windows is raking in MONEY for their OS. So from that perspective, Microsoft have no excuse for the shitty software they make people endure.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Linux is a mishmash of volunteer software Only if you intentionally ignore all the billions big-tech has poured into Linux over the years.
- BenjiWiebe 4y ago
  That money would mainly be going to the kernel, not the desktop applications.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    And then why aren't big-tech also investing in the Linux desktop? AFAIK IBM, SUSE, Red-HAt and Canonical are heavily investing in Gnome while other companies are investing in KDE. KDE/Gnome aren't just some guys in a garage developing them in their spare time.
- INTPenis 4y ago
  Sure, but that doesn't improve microsofts case. The fact that hundreds of companies allow their employees to contribute to open source software, not just the kernel, also Gnome and surrounding software. So dozens of huge companies, hundreds of smaller companies, they can all contribute code to an OS that is on-par with Windows, but missing things like patents and gaming hardware support that Microsoft pays for. While Microsoft with all their advantages, all their insights and cooperations with hardware vendors still can't deliver. It's really pathetic, and I put it down to their company culture not having any common goal.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago

GuB-42 4y ago

Linux distros are a mix of mostly independent projects, there is no central authority telling them how it should be done and therefore inconsistency is inevitable. It applies to the command line too (looking at you "ps"). And yet, the parts that the distro vendor controls, usually the default desktop environment and settings screens are usually rather consistent. For Windows, I don't think anyone complains about the fact that if you run an ancient Windows app, it looks like an ancient Windows app. In fact, backward compatibility has always been one of Microsoft strongest selling points. What people complain about is that Windows itself is inconsistent. Windows branded components, made and owned by Microsoft, included in the main OS with no alternative offered are inconsistent. The worst part is the control panel, it is a mess and they have no excuse, it is an unfinished job that shouldn't have been out of beta.

_y5hn 4y ago
Many distros adds their own layers of complexity, which inevitably breaks during upgrades or adding packages from third-party repos. Arch packages do very little extra usually, and often works more like if you install from source. So it's not always the fault of devs, and is why installing from source was/is a thing. Bonus with Arch is Aur, one big repo with most open source software available from git.