It's identifying (and rectifying) why services have become unreliable to the point people don't want to use them.
Yes, but the "rectifying" part costs a bunch of money. Hence the need for additional funds.
What they're saying is that the system is already in a death spiral. It hasn't had enough funding to repair and modernize itself, which has caused it to become less reliable, which has hurt ridership, which reduces funding, which means they become less reliable, which hurts ridership, which reduces funding... and so on.
Transit pays for itself by keeping pollution out of your stupid lungs.
Also it pays for itself by allowing NYC to function. Traffic is bad enough already. If everyone had to drive to work, it would be a disaster.
Saying that it needs taxpayer money doesn't negate that. There are tons of companies and rich people who benefit from having the capability to bring workers and customers into their locations, and the fact that traffic flows allows them to get shipments in and out. Those rich people and companies should contribute to the transportation infrastructure, but they're not going to willingly, out of the goodness of their heart.
So you have taxes. There's nothing inherently bad about taxes. The fact that public transportation is subsidized by taxes is not a sign that it's not doing a good job, or that it's not 100% worth the money spent on it.
My immediate reaction is that the article is nonsense, but I'm willing to withhold judgement unless there's some concrete proposals. For example, it's not uncommon for people to greylist email or have a timeout after a number of failed login attempts. Both of those could be considered "friction" of the sort the author is talking about, and I don't have a problem with those.
But I think we should also be thinking about the opposite: What happens if everything is open and virtually frictionless? What if computers get so fast that we can't trust encryption anymore?
We send around encrypted traffic all the time with the idea that it's safe, and then we hear stories about how some encryption scheme had a flaw and can be cracked (or will soon be able to be cracked). So consider what would happen if someone were to have intercepted and stored your encrypted email or HTTPS traffic, and in 5 years it becomes trivial to crack. Are you going to be fine with all of that information to be out in the open? Scarier still, what happens if a suitable replacement isn't created in time, and we can't adequately encrypt things. How will we keep the world operating if we can no longer secure our transactions? Is there another model of operation that can exist in a transparent world without secrets?
I'm not saying it will happen, or even that it's likely to happen, but I think we should be considering what we want to do if it does happen.
I agree up to a point. For most personal users doing normal things, it's worth having one very lightweight AV that will catch obvious and egregious malware, and Defender fits the bill for that. I don't recommend a lot of the 3rd party stuff. Some of it's fine, but a lot of it is more trouble than it's worth, especially if you don't understand it.
However, for businesses, you should get something in addition to Defender, if only to get a centralized console that the IT people can use to monitor and configure the AV. Further, some of the "next gen" antivirus products are good for monitoring behavior and flagging things that may be of concern. Unfortunately, those new technologies tend to require some babysitting, so it's not necessarily great for individual use.
The Democrats choosing the wrong candidate and Russians having an impact are not mutually exclusive. It could be (and is likely the case) that the Russians had an impact, but it was a relatively small impact, only swaying a few percent of the vote.
However, they'd really only have to sway a small percentage of the vote-- a few thousand out of over 120 million-- to change the outcome of the election. Given the numbers at play, it's almost certain that the outcome would be different if not for Russian interference.
But then you could say the same about a bunch of stuff. The outcome would probably have been different if Comey hadn't announced reopening the investigation right before the election. The outcome might have been different if Clinton hadn't given her "basket of deplorables" speech. At a certain point, we start going down the rabbit hole of talking about the butterfly effect, and it becomes unclear what we're arguing about.
Let's posit that they didn't succeed in having an effect on the 2016 election. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to stop them from trying again in the future? Does that mean we shouldn't investigate the spies who broke various laws in an attempt to violate our elections and undermine our government?
Russia had no significant motivation to hack the midterm elections. They're not republicans. They supported Trump to a degree as a practical matter because they have a degree of hold over him.
To the degree that they support Trump, they have a motive to keep Republicans in power. Republicans have shown that they'll protect Trump regardless of what he does.
Further, the current incarnation of the Republican party has shown itself to be pro-authoritarianism, pro-isolationism, anti-trade, and anti-liberalism*. All of that is good for Putin.
* To be clear, I'm not just saying they're not liberal, I'm saying they're opposed to Liberalism. Being pro-liberalism has, until recently, been a normal part of being an American conservative.
Yeah, I think your trust ratings are close to mine. Apple's the company that has the least incentive to invade your privacy and, as far as I know, the best track record. I'm actually getting annoyed with Apple that they're tightening security too much. It's getting to the point where you need to use DEP and MDM in order to be able to administer Apple devices. With their newest OS, even if you have root access it blocks you from doing all kinds of things without user intervention.
I think it's probably better stated as "22% of Americans aren't paying any attention."
... or, and I don't want to get into a political pissing match, but there are some people who like to be in denial or defiance of common knowledge, science, and the news. You know, conspiracy theorists, flat earthers, people who think global warming is an elaborate hoax, what have you. There are probably some people in that 22% who know plenty to know that Facebook isn't trustworthy, but think the news they're getting on Facebook is the *real* news and "the mainstream media" is lying about Facebook to keep the truth from us.
This seems like nonsense to me. Apple's success has never been due to being an "inventor", and they're not currently "rent seeking". Apple is, and has been, primarily a hardware company. They sell Macs, iPads, iPhones, iPods, watches, and accessories. They sell a lot of them because they have a reputation (whether you think it's earned or not) for making high quality and widely supported products that are easy to use. That's still the case, and Apple is showing no sign of moving away from that.
Are their products inventive? I can see both sides of the debate. Most of their stuff is based off of some technology someone else invented, but on some level you could say that about all technology products. However, MP3 players weren't very popular before iPods. Smart phones weren't relatively unpopular before the iPhone. Tablets weren't selling much until the iPad. Smart phones didn't generally include virtual assistants until Apple introduced Siri. Not many people were wearing smart watches before the Apple Watch. In each case, the product class existed before Apple entered the market, but Apple seemed to introduce the first product in the class that people really wanted, and then a ton of imitating products followed.
None of those products were invented by Apple, but Apple still creates fairly innovative designs that have changed the way people use technology.
Apple, aside from the firewire, hasn't invented anything. They repackage, copy-pasta ideas, from others.
So what?
I don't totally agree with you that Apple just "copy-pasta ideas from others", but even if so, why should I care? Their stuff is generally well designed and high quality. Why shouldn't I just buy whatever product works best for me, completely ignoring who invented what?
In fact, to be honest, I think a lot of companies would do better to follow established standards instead of trying to invent things. I'm glad Apple is generally using standard USB and Thunderbolt ports, for example, and would prefer that they use USB-C instead of Lightning. It's telling that people will complain that Apple only uses their own proprietary technology and standards in one breath and then complain that they never invented anything in the next.
I just hope that if they have "convergence" between the iPad Pro and Macbook, it keeps the relative openness of the Macbook. I can't use a computer that requires I get all of my apps from their app store. I can't use a computer that refuses to give me access to the terminal.
I'm a bit annoyed right now with Apple, the way recent versions of MacOS keeps making scripting, automation, and administration more difficult. They're increasingly blocking access to the OS itself, requiring manual user intervention to grant access to various functions of the OS.
I think it's more that we figured out that free markets are good things. Allowing free trade is generally good, and that freedom includes allowing people to buy from local sources if they find value in it.
What made you think that was a proud proclamation? I read it as a complaint.
It seems like nehumanuscrede is complaining that their internet-only plan is $100/month, and that it should be much lower, and would be much lower if there were any competition.
Apple actually pushes open standards all the time. Apple was one of the first companies to push USB in the first place. I think they created the mini-displayport connector standard and released it patent-free. A lot of times, when people complain about "proprietary" Apple stuff (e.g. Thunderbolt, AAC audio files), they simply don't know what they're talking about.
The RAM being soldered on does nothing to harm the user experience.
I'm not saying you're wrong to complain about the soldered RAM, but that you're wrong to cite that as an example of Apple providing a "bad experience". It's like if someone said that a certain car provided a great driving experience, and you said, "No way, it's too hard to replace the carburetor on that car!"
I didn't say there was no changes. I said the fundamental interaction remains unchanged. And yes I was specifically talking about changes to Windows 10 given that the GP was talking about waking up to find changes which systems prior to Windows 10 didn't do.
That post doesn't mention Windows 10. In fact, it's paraphrasing an old post that I've seen a bunch of times on Slashdot and other sites, definitely dating back to before Windows 10.
The details of using something vs its fundamentals are different things.
You say it's just details, but then you go on to show how the behavior of the start menu-- the single biggest UI element of the Windows desktop environment-- has changed. If it's not moving the gas pedal to the ceiling, it's changing the layout of the gear shift. And though I'd agree that most people don't deal with most of the items in the control panel on a regular basis, it's not at all unusual for someone to have to deal with some item in the control panel. It's not a big part of a user's interaction since they're mostly just working inside applications, but it's a big part of the operating system's UI. The big parts of the operating system's UI are the Start Menu, File Manager, window borders and menu, and Control Panel (and now settings). All of those things have changed quite a lot, both in layout and function.
So maybe the "gas pedal moved to the ceiling" isn't the best comparison. The fundamental things you're dealing with all the time are where they always were, but they work a little differently. The gas pedal now requires that you push it side-to-side with your foot rather than just pushing it down. The steering wheel is more sensitive, and smaller adjustments make the car turn more. The gear shift layout has changed, and there's no 2rd gear anymore-- it goes straight from 1st to 3rd, and 3rd gear is where reverse used to be.
And then a ton of smaller things have changed. The entire console is shuffled around. The lever to pop the hood is now inside the trunk. The lever to pop the trunk and the lever to open the gas cap are now the same lever, and which one it opens depends on which direction you push it. The windshield wiper control lever has disappeared, and it's now a dial in the console. Just lots of little things, and you could say "it's better!" but it's still going to be confusing and disruptive to someone just trying to drive their car.
But the original metaphor was written a long time ago to generally point out the annoyance of having software UI changes, so we can't expect it to be tailored specifically to Windows 10. Also, my altered, possibly more accurate metaphor is a lot less clear and snappy.
To be honest I think power users would be more baffled by the changes than normal users.
I don't think that makes it better. But certainly normal users get confused by the Windows UI changes. There are plenty of people who still operate their computer on the basis of, "I don't understand how anything works, I just know that I press this button when I want that thing to happen," and if you move or rename the button, they can't function.
At this point, I really think it's mostly about the catch-22 of, developers don't develop apps for Linux because there aren't users, and users don't use it because there aren't apps. Similarly with hardware-- hardware vendors don't support it because there aren't enough customers using it, and users don't use it because their hardware doesn't support it.
And then, like you said, there are the legacy apps. Some company has some old application created 15 years ago. Their whole business runs on this crappy application that nobody knows how it works anymore, and it only runs on Windows. So that business needs Windows.
There are some really great, attractive, easy to install, easy to use Linux desktop distributions.
Honestly, I don't think iOS is that bad either. I've had a couple versions in recent years that were a little quirky, but mostly it's been trouble free, and some of the recent updates even seem to have made my device snappier.
I have other problems/annoyances with Apple, but I haven't had big problems with stability or just untested releases.
Disclaimer: I don't use that many apps on my phone and I usually wait at least a few days before installing software updates on my phone. If I hear that people are having problems with the updates, I wait until it sounds like things have sorted themselves out.
Well first, some of how you judge Microsoft's changes depends on when you're measuring from. The UI was *relatively* stable from Windows 95 until Windows 7, but even then, ignoring the re-skinning, they regularly shuffled settings around. I don't remember great examples, but the start menu organization changed now and then, and where a setting was in the control panel changed. You could argue that the changes were good, but still, it's a change.
The switch to Windows 8 was pretty much, "The steering wheel is on the other side and the gas pedal is on the ceiling now. Don't worry, you'll get used to it." Then Windows 10 was, "Ok, we'll put the gas pedal on the floor again, but we're moving it to the passenger side."
If you're just counting since Windows 10, it's been a lot more stable, but it's not true that things aren't being moved around. A lot of the Control Panel objects are being moved into "Settings" with each new version. Configuring network interfaces and VPN connections keeps changing within settings, for example. There's actually a lot of stuff that's been moved and reorganized since 2015. Again, you can argue that it's better, but regardless it's change.
And I might actually argue that the changes since Windows 10 are more confusing to end users than previous changes. For each incremental version of Windows that came before (e.g. 2000 to XP, XP to Vista, Vista to 7) there were a lot of little things shifted around, and it was accompanied by a change in name, branding, and overall look and feel.
If you were used to Windows XP and you then sat down at a Windows 7 machine, a lot of things would have moved around, which would be confusing. On the other hand, things were different enough that you'd immediately know you were on a different version of Windows, so the changes would have that context. Even if you understood very little about computers, you could understand, "I'm using a new thing now. Things look different and the controls have been changed."
However, if you're using Windows 10 1507 and you sat down in front of a computer running Windows 10 1809, it's all Windows 10 and it all looks kind of almost mostly the same. The visual style is tweaked a little, but it's not that different, and it still says Windows 10. However, all kinds of things are moved around, and a bunch of stuff doesn't work the same way. If you're not aware of Microsoft's current development model, it could be pretty baffling.
I don't really want to get into a political tangent, but I don't think Trump's ability to get away with things is a result of his handling of them. I think it more has to do with who is followers are. Republicans have spent years working their base into a frenzy over crackpot conspiracy theories, so they can easily be in denial about things that would otherwise upset them. A lot of them are completely hostile toward "political correctness" and therefore women claiming to have been assaulted (I know that shouldn't really be an issue that's connected to political correctness, but it somehow is). On top of that, many of them have extreme loyalty to their party, and will sacrifice a lot of their ethics and morals if it means the party gains power.
Contrast that with the Democrats. Yeah, there are still some conspiracy theories, but they're much more likely to pay attention to factual news. A lot of them are so politically correct that they'll torch someone's life for an accidental slip of the tongue. Often, members of the Democratic party seem ready to blow up the party if it means they get to push a particular agenda they favor (e.g. LGBTQ stuff, environmental issues, universal healthcare).
In that context, it's not weird that Trump gets away with some really awful stuff while Democrats get torn down for relatively minor and vague offenses. Bill Clinton is a weird case, though. He spent years weinsteining women, and even during the #metoo stuff he had feminists defending him. I've heard people condemn Al Franken and defend Bill Clinton in the same 5 minutes.
Why does all that need to be installed by default? The OS needs either a web browser or an app store (or package manager), so that you can easily download the apps you need. You could even have something pop up with recommended apps when you install the OS. "We recommend you download and install these 5 applications." If you want to include it with the install media, you could still make it an optional install.
Slashdot Mirror
It's identifying (and rectifying) why services have become unreliable to the point people don't want to use them.
Yes, but the "rectifying" part costs a bunch of money. Hence the need for additional funds.
What they're saying is that the system is already in a death spiral. It hasn't had enough funding to repair and modernize itself, which has caused it to become less reliable, which has hurt ridership, which reduces funding, which means they become less reliable, which hurts ridership, which reduces funding... and so on.
Yeah, it's publictransportation. Public government services shouldn't be profitable. If they're profitable, it means they're overcharging.
Transit pays for itself by keeping pollution out of your stupid lungs.
Also it pays for itself by allowing NYC to function. Traffic is bad enough already. If everyone had to drive to work, it would be a disaster.
Saying that it needs taxpayer money doesn't negate that. There are tons of companies and rich people who benefit from having the capability to bring workers and customers into their locations, and the fact that traffic flows allows them to get shipments in and out. Those rich people and companies should contribute to the transportation infrastructure, but they're not going to willingly, out of the goodness of their heart.
So you have taxes. There's nothing inherently bad about taxes. The fact that public transportation is subsidized by taxes is not a sign that it's not doing a good job, or that it's not 100% worth the money spent on it.
My immediate reaction is that the article is nonsense, but I'm willing to withhold judgement unless there's some concrete proposals. For example, it's not uncommon for people to greylist email or have a timeout after a number of failed login attempts. Both of those could be considered "friction" of the sort the author is talking about, and I don't have a problem with those.
But I think we should also be thinking about the opposite: What happens if everything is open and virtually frictionless? What if computers get so fast that we can't trust encryption anymore?
We send around encrypted traffic all the time with the idea that it's safe, and then we hear stories about how some encryption scheme had a flaw and can be cracked (or will soon be able to be cracked). So consider what would happen if someone were to have intercepted and stored your encrypted email or HTTPS traffic, and in 5 years it becomes trivial to crack. Are you going to be fine with all of that information to be out in the open? Scarier still, what happens if a suitable replacement isn't created in time, and we can't adequately encrypt things. How will we keep the world operating if we can no longer secure our transactions? Is there another model of operation that can exist in a transparent world without secrets?
I'm not saying it will happen, or even that it's likely to happen, but I think we should be considering what we want to do if it does happen.
I agree up to a point. For most personal users doing normal things, it's worth having one very lightweight AV that will catch obvious and egregious malware, and Defender fits the bill for that. I don't recommend a lot of the 3rd party stuff. Some of it's fine, but a lot of it is more trouble than it's worth, especially if you don't understand it.
However, for businesses, you should get something in addition to Defender, if only to get a centralized console that the IT people can use to monitor and configure the AV. Further, some of the "next gen" antivirus products are good for monitoring behavior and flagging things that may be of concern. Unfortunately, those new technologies tend to require some babysitting, so it's not necessarily great for individual use.
The Democrats choosing the wrong candidate and Russians having an impact are not mutually exclusive. It could be (and is likely the case) that the Russians had an impact, but it was a relatively small impact, only swaying a few percent of the vote.
However, they'd really only have to sway a small percentage of the vote-- a few thousand out of over 120 million-- to change the outcome of the election. Given the numbers at play, it's almost certain that the outcome would be different if not for Russian interference.
But then you could say the same about a bunch of stuff. The outcome would probably have been different if Comey hadn't announced reopening the investigation right before the election. The outcome might have been different if Clinton hadn't given her "basket of deplorables" speech. At a certain point, we start going down the rabbit hole of talking about the butterfly effect, and it becomes unclear what we're arguing about.
Let's posit that they didn't succeed in having an effect on the 2016 election. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to stop them from trying again in the future? Does that mean we shouldn't investigate the spies who broke various laws in an attempt to violate our elections and undermine our government?
Russia had no significant motivation to hack the midterm elections. They're not republicans. They supported Trump to a degree as a practical matter because they have a degree of hold over him.
To the degree that they support Trump, they have a motive to keep Republicans in power. Republicans have shown that they'll protect Trump regardless of what he does.
Further, the current incarnation of the Republican party has shown itself to be pro-authoritarianism, pro-isolationism, anti-trade, and anti-liberalism*. All of that is good for Putin.
* To be clear, I'm not just saying they're not liberal, I'm saying they're opposed to Liberalism. Being pro-liberalism has, until recently, been a normal part of being an American conservative.
Yeah, I think your trust ratings are close to mine. Apple's the company that has the least incentive to invade your privacy and, as far as I know, the best track record. I'm actually getting annoyed with Apple that they're tightening security too much. It's getting to the point where you need to use DEP and MDM in order to be able to administer Apple devices. With their newest OS, even if you have root access it blocks you from doing all kinds of things without user intervention.
I think it's probably better stated as "22% of Americans aren't paying any attention."
... or, and I don't want to get into a political pissing match, but there are some people who like to be in denial or defiance of common knowledge, science, and the news. You know, conspiracy theorists, flat earthers, people who think global warming is an elaborate hoax, what have you. There are probably some people in that 22% who know plenty to know that Facebook isn't trustworthy, but think the news they're getting on Facebook is the *real* news and "the mainstream media" is lying about Facebook to keep the truth from us.
Yeah, I think the article is nonsense.
This seems like nonsense to me. Apple's success has never been due to being an "inventor", and they're not currently "rent seeking". Apple is, and has been, primarily a hardware company. They sell Macs, iPads, iPhones, iPods, watches, and accessories. They sell a lot of them because they have a reputation (whether you think it's earned or not) for making high quality and widely supported products that are easy to use. That's still the case, and Apple is showing no sign of moving away from that.
Are their products inventive? I can see both sides of the debate. Most of their stuff is based off of some technology someone else invented, but on some level you could say that about all technology products. However, MP3 players weren't very popular before iPods. Smart phones weren't relatively unpopular before the iPhone. Tablets weren't selling much until the iPad. Smart phones didn't generally include virtual assistants until Apple introduced Siri. Not many people were wearing smart watches before the Apple Watch. In each case, the product class existed before Apple entered the market, but Apple seemed to introduce the first product in the class that people really wanted, and then a ton of imitating products followed.
None of those products were invented by Apple, but Apple still creates fairly innovative designs that have changed the way people use technology.
Apple, aside from the firewire, hasn't invented anything. They repackage, copy-pasta ideas, from others.
So what?
I don't totally agree with you that Apple just "copy-pasta ideas from others", but even if so, why should I care? Their stuff is generally well designed and high quality. Why shouldn't I just buy whatever product works best for me, completely ignoring who invented what?
In fact, to be honest, I think a lot of companies would do better to follow established standards instead of trying to invent things. I'm glad Apple is generally using standard USB and Thunderbolt ports, for example, and would prefer that they use USB-C instead of Lightning. It's telling that people will complain that Apple only uses their own proprietary technology and standards in one breath and then complain that they never invented anything in the next.
I just hope that if they have "convergence" between the iPad Pro and Macbook, it keeps the relative openness of the Macbook. I can't use a computer that requires I get all of my apps from their app store. I can't use a computer that refuses to give me access to the terminal.
I'm a bit annoyed right now with Apple, the way recent versions of MacOS keeps making scripting, automation, and administration more difficult. They're increasingly blocking access to the OS itself, requiring manual user intervention to grant access to various functions of the OS.
I think it's more that we figured out that free markets are good things. Allowing free trade is generally good, and that freedom includes allowing people to buy from local sources if they find value in it.
I suspect that the guy you're responding to is a troll of some kind.
What made you think that was a proud proclamation? I read it as a complaint.
It seems like nehumanuscrede is complaining that their internet-only plan is $100/month, and that it should be much lower, and would be much lower if there were any competition.
Apple actually pushes open standards all the time. Apple was one of the first companies to push USB in the first place. I think they created the mini-displayport connector standard and released it patent-free. A lot of times, when people complain about "proprietary" Apple stuff (e.g. Thunderbolt, AAC audio files), they simply don't know what they're talking about.
The RAM being soldered on does nothing to harm the user experience.
I'm not saying you're wrong to complain about the soldered RAM, but that you're wrong to cite that as an example of Apple providing a "bad experience". It's like if someone said that a certain car provided a great driving experience, and you said, "No way, it's too hard to replace the carburetor on that car!"
I didn't say there was no changes. I said the fundamental interaction remains unchanged. And yes I was specifically talking about changes to Windows 10 given that the GP was talking about waking up to find changes which systems prior to Windows 10 didn't do.
That post doesn't mention Windows 10. In fact, it's paraphrasing an old post that I've seen a bunch of times on Slashdot and other sites, definitely dating back to before Windows 10.
The details of using something vs its fundamentals are different things.
You say it's just details, but then you go on to show how the behavior of the start menu-- the single biggest UI element of the Windows desktop environment-- has changed. If it's not moving the gas pedal to the ceiling, it's changing the layout of the gear shift. And though I'd agree that most people don't deal with most of the items in the control panel on a regular basis, it's not at all unusual for someone to have to deal with some item in the control panel. It's not a big part of a user's interaction since they're mostly just working inside applications, but it's a big part of the operating system's UI. The big parts of the operating system's UI are the Start Menu, File Manager, window borders and menu, and Control Panel (and now settings). All of those things have changed quite a lot, both in layout and function.
So maybe the "gas pedal moved to the ceiling" isn't the best comparison. The fundamental things you're dealing with all the time are where they always were, but they work a little differently. The gas pedal now requires that you push it side-to-side with your foot rather than just pushing it down. The steering wheel is more sensitive, and smaller adjustments make the car turn more. The gear shift layout has changed, and there's no 2rd gear anymore-- it goes straight from 1st to 3rd, and 3rd gear is where reverse used to be.
And then a ton of smaller things have changed. The entire console is shuffled around. The lever to pop the hood is now inside the trunk. The lever to pop the trunk and the lever to open the gas cap are now the same lever, and which one it opens depends on which direction you push it. The windshield wiper control lever has disappeared, and it's now a dial in the console. Just lots of little things, and you could say "it's better!" but it's still going to be confusing and disruptive to someone just trying to drive their car.
But the original metaphor was written a long time ago to generally point out the annoyance of having software UI changes, so we can't expect it to be tailored specifically to Windows 10. Also, my altered, possibly more accurate metaphor is a lot less clear and snappy.
To be honest I think power users would be more baffled by the changes than normal users.
I don't think that makes it better. But certainly normal users get confused by the Windows UI changes. There are plenty of people who still operate their computer on the basis of, "I don't understand how anything works, I just know that I press this button when I want that thing to happen," and if you move or rename the button, they can't function.
Or even an "advanced" install option that lets you pick and choose what to install.
At this point, I really think it's mostly about the catch-22 of, developers don't develop apps for Linux because there aren't users, and users don't use it because there aren't apps. Similarly with hardware-- hardware vendors don't support it because there aren't enough customers using it, and users don't use it because their hardware doesn't support it.
And then, like you said, there are the legacy apps. Some company has some old application created 15 years ago. Their whole business runs on this crappy application that nobody knows how it works anymore, and it only runs on Windows. So that business needs Windows.
There are some really great, attractive, easy to install, easy to use Linux desktop distributions.
Honestly, I don't think iOS is that bad either. I've had a couple versions in recent years that were a little quirky, but mostly it's been trouble free, and some of the recent updates even seem to have made my device snappier.
I have other problems/annoyances with Apple, but I haven't had big problems with stability or just untested releases.
Disclaimer: I don't use that many apps on my phone and I usually wait at least a few days before installing software updates on my phone. If I hear that people are having problems with the updates, I wait until it sounds like things have sorted themselves out.
Well first, some of how you judge Microsoft's changes depends on when you're measuring from. The UI was *relatively* stable from Windows 95 until Windows 7, but even then, ignoring the re-skinning, they regularly shuffled settings around. I don't remember great examples, but the start menu organization changed now and then, and where a setting was in the control panel changed. You could argue that the changes were good, but still, it's a change.
The switch to Windows 8 was pretty much, "The steering wheel is on the other side and the gas pedal is on the ceiling now. Don't worry, you'll get used to it." Then Windows 10 was, "Ok, we'll put the gas pedal on the floor again, but we're moving it to the passenger side."
If you're just counting since Windows 10, it's been a lot more stable, but it's not true that things aren't being moved around. A lot of the Control Panel objects are being moved into "Settings" with each new version. Configuring network interfaces and VPN connections keeps changing within settings, for example. There's actually a lot of stuff that's been moved and reorganized since 2015. Again, you can argue that it's better, but regardless it's change.
And I might actually argue that the changes since Windows 10 are more confusing to end users than previous changes. For each incremental version of Windows that came before (e.g. 2000 to XP, XP to Vista, Vista to 7) there were a lot of little things shifted around, and it was accompanied by a change in name, branding, and overall look and feel.
If you were used to Windows XP and you then sat down at a Windows 7 machine, a lot of things would have moved around, which would be confusing. On the other hand, things were different enough that you'd immediately know you were on a different version of Windows, so the changes would have that context. Even if you understood very little about computers, you could understand, "I'm using a new thing now. Things look different and the controls have been changed."
However, if you're using Windows 10 1507 and you sat down in front of a computer running Windows 10 1809, it's all Windows 10 and it all looks kind of almost mostly the same. The visual style is tweaked a little, but it's not that different, and it still says Windows 10. However, all kinds of things are moved around, and a bunch of stuff doesn't work the same way. If you're not aware of Microsoft's current development model, it could be pretty baffling.
I don't really want to get into a political tangent, but I don't think Trump's ability to get away with things is a result of his handling of them. I think it more has to do with who is followers are. Republicans have spent years working their base into a frenzy over crackpot conspiracy theories, so they can easily be in denial about things that would otherwise upset them. A lot of them are completely hostile toward "political correctness" and therefore women claiming to have been assaulted (I know that shouldn't really be an issue that's connected to political correctness, but it somehow is). On top of that, many of them have extreme loyalty to their party, and will sacrifice a lot of their ethics and morals if it means the party gains power.
Contrast that with the Democrats. Yeah, there are still some conspiracy theories, but they're much more likely to pay attention to factual news. A lot of them are so politically correct that they'll torch someone's life for an accidental slip of the tongue. Often, members of the Democratic party seem ready to blow up the party if it means they get to push a particular agenda they favor (e.g. LGBTQ stuff, environmental issues, universal healthcare).
In that context, it's not weird that Trump gets away with some really awful stuff while Democrats get torn down for relatively minor and vague offenses. Bill Clinton is a weird case, though. He spent years weinsteining women, and even during the #metoo stuff he had feminists defending him. I've heard people condemn Al Franken and defend Bill Clinton in the same 5 minutes.
Why does all that need to be installed by default? The OS needs either a web browser or an app store (or package manager), so that you can easily download the apps you need. You could even have something pop up with recommended apps when you install the OS. "We recommend you download and install these 5 applications." If you want to include it with the install media, you could still make it an optional install.