> This is not a sensible or technically sound thing to do. It is purely irrational. It is not purely irrational, in fact it is spelled right out in the article

> This is not a sensible or technically sound thing to do. It is purely irrational. It is not purely irrational, in fact it is spelled right out in the article why the author does so: he finds the Windows XP interface much better as a user than any other OS. I can't say i fully agree personally, but the core of the problem and really the reason i don't see any of this as irrational is that people do get used to the interfaces of the OSes and programs they use and updates pretty much always tend to come with changes to those interfaces that are seen as degradation. Though i do disagree with his assessment of Linux: while perhaps whatever he tried was slower than Windows XP (i remember reading that Lubuntu doesn't focus on low end systems anymore), Linux can be much faster. And also it is the only mainstream OS where you can have the latest and greatest underlying kernel and libraries without being forced to change your desktop interface (though depending on your choices, some DE can take more works than others).