Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux kernel, have surprisingly never met before. That all changed at a recent dinner hosted by Sysinternals creator Mark Russinovich.
The worlds of Linux and Windows finally came together in real life, and Dave Cutler, Microsoft technical fellow and Windows NT lead developer, was also there to witness the moment and meet Torvalds for the first time. “No major kernel decisions were made,” jokes Russinovich in a post on LinkedIn.
[Image: Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds meet for the first time. https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/06/1750435121315.jpg?quality=90&strip=all]
Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds have apparently never met in person before, despite their pseudo-rivalry.
I’ve said this before here, but techy people vastly overestimate both the ability and the patience of the typical user, and it’s the reason so few people use FOSS products.
Products from big tech aimed at private individuals are designed to be as simple to use as possible, which is why they’re so popular.
Nah, I have worked in IT education and in helpdesk. Average user doesn’t have a better time getting into Microsoft products, it’s not easier for them than FOSS. The reason for Windows domination is Microsoft spending money and lobbying power to put it in front of every user.
When I actually started doing hobby projects, I remembered that feeling with Windows 9x where you learn to avoid “wrong” actions which have a potential of hanging your PC. You don’t even think about it. Just get used that you don’t move the cursor after clicking there, you don’t click here again after a first double click, and other such.
While things like editing config files were … more normal for the average person even, you’d have a paper manual generally. For everything, kitchen appliances and anything technical you could buy too. You wouldn’t expect everything to just work without reading it. Freezes and crashes were worse.
Windows won because most people didn’t know of anything else.
And it is still true today. Windows has the lion share of the market because we were raised with Windows and the vast majority of people don’t want to learn a new OS.
Luckily they learned from it and redesigned the kernel from scratch – hold on, my producer’s telling me that no, it’s still the NT kernel under there. Outstanding.
Barf. Or maybe, just maybe, we have other shit to do rather than spend hours trying to figure out how to do one thing in Gimp. It’s great that YOU’RE passionate about tech. Some of us have other hobbies. Imagine that holy shit
Buddy, if I open Photoshop it’s gonna take me hours to learn how to do one thing too, what a horrible example lmao. There’s like so many easy slam dunks you could’ve said too.
Also, I never mentioned Photoshop. Open any standard drawing app that was developed recently: Procreate, Infinite Paint, Krita, Fresco. Look how straightforward it is to start working. Look at the Ui. It doesn’t get in the way.
Edit: oh no the FOSS evangelists are not feeling it. I get it. I use a lot of FOSS apps for work. That doesn’t mean we have to be evangelical in our defense of FOSS. Recognize there are issues and we can work to fix them. Don’t get so defensive, Lemmy. My god.
You should not expect to use a tool (edit: competently) without spending time learning how to use it. Photoshop has a learning curve too, even if it’s an easier one.
As someone who’d learned Photoshop and, eventually, learned GIMP (just because it was easier to run after eventually switching to Linux), trying to argue that Photoshop has an industry stranglehold because it – apparently – is just so much more intuitive than GIMP is absolutely wild. No one I knew learning Photoshop was finding that the UI or layout just magically clicked (or even swiftly got less impenetrable, as time went on).
Yeah, it’s very obvious that some of the people responding here don’t interact much with non-tech people, and they have DEFINITELY never worked IT.
Most people aren’t interested in learning the more intricate things. And if you try to force them, they’re not going to get more interested as they learn, because they literally are not interested in tech. They want to accomplish a task, if that takes a bunch of learning just for one thing, they’ll go a different route, or pay someone else to do it for them.
Keep in mind this status quo is already the result of decades of oversimplification. I am not saying everyone needs to compile the Linux kernel in order to have a computer. I’m saying you should have a basic level of familiarity with the computer you’re using, same as any other tool.
You should know how to check and top up your engine oil, change a tire in an emergency, etc, if you’re going to own a car.
You should know how to safely handle, operate, store, transport, and clean your firearm if you’re going to own a gun.
You should know how to empty the chamber or bag, clean the filters correctly, what not to suck up and how to troubleshoot if you do, if you’re going to own a vacuum.
You should know how to operate it, when and how it should be cleaned, and what not to do while it’s running, if you’re going to own an electric range.
You should know the difference between a web browser and your computer’s filesystem, the difference between RAM and storage, and that you can Internet search most errors to judge whether you’re comfortable trying to fix them yourself or not, if you’re going to own a computer.
There will ALWAYS be a point where it’s more worth paying someone else instead of learning something yourself. But it’s about the cost-benefit analysis, and the threshold for what’s considered “intricate” is a depressingly low bar where computers are concerned. As I’m sure you are well aware.
That has to be one of the most out of touch takes I’ve seen in a while. You’re basically saying that things should be intentionally more complicated, and you expect the result to be people just power through and getting used to things being that way, instead of just stopping.
To add to subignition’s point, there is a value in learning useful software. More complicated software means that there is a learning curve - so while you are less productive while learning how to use it, once you gain more experience, you ultimately become more productive. On the other hand, if you want the software to be useful to everyone regardless of his level of experience, you ultimately have to eliminate more complex functionality that makes the software more useful.
Software is increasingly being distilled down to more and more basic elements, and ultimately, I think that means that people are able to get less done with them these days. This is just my opinion, but in general I have seen computer literacy dropping and people’s productivity likewise decreasing, at least from what I’ve observed from the 1990s up until today. Especially at work, the Linux users that I see are much more knowledgeable and productive than Apple users.
…No. I am saying that too much abstraction of how something actually works is detrimental to the end user. It’s not about making things intentionally more complicated, it’s about removing the need to understand key components of something ultimately causing more harm than good.
This is also far from my personal experience, you might not even realize what free software you’re depending on?
Your browser is most likely the most complex piece of software you interact with daily and it is most likely FOSS. The Linux kernel is FOSS and is incredibly robust. Most compiler suites, FOSS. Most programming languages, FOSS. These are all incredibly well written and robust tools. AOSP, kinda FOSS, and the forks like Graphene are definitely FOSS. Hell even a lot of macOS programs are actually FOSS. I could go on and on, there is absolutely amazing work being done on FOSS by incredibly talented people.
There is great paid and proprietary software out there, sure, but no it’s not the majority of top quality software in my personal experience and likely a lot of people’s experiences and it is almost guaranteed to rely on a FOSS library somewhere
I’ve said this before here, but techy people vastly overestimate both the ability and the patience of the typical user, and it’s the reason so few people use FOSS products.
Products from big tech aimed at private individuals are designed to be as simple to use as possible, which is why they’re so popular.
Nah, I have worked in IT education and in helpdesk. Average user doesn’t have a better time getting into Microsoft products, it’s not easier for them than FOSS. The reason for Windows domination is Microsoft spending money and lobbying power to put it in front of every user.
Maybe true today, but less true in earlier times (90s and early 2000s) when Microsoft was really gaining dominance.
I don’t think you remember how insanely terrible Windows was in the 90s.
When I actually started doing hobby projects, I remembered that feeling with Windows 9x where you learn to avoid “wrong” actions which have a potential of hanging your PC. You don’t even think about it. Just get used that you don’t move the cursor after clicking there, you don’t click here again after a first double click, and other such.
While things like editing config files were … more normal for the average person even, you’d have a paper manual generally. For everything, kitchen appliances and anything technical you could buy too. You wouldn’t expect everything to just work without reading it. Freezes and crashes were worse.
Windows won because most people didn’t know of anything else.
And it is still true today. Windows has the lion share of the market because we were raised with Windows and the vast majority of people don’t want to learn a new OS.
Luckily they learned from it and redesigned the kernel from scratch – hold on, my producer’s telling me that no, it’s still the NT kernel under there. Outstanding.
Most users neither know nor care what that is.
good talk
Big tech designing their products to be overly simple is one of the driving forces behind the average user having poor patience and aptitude for tech.
No, it’s not. We have other shit to do and very limited quality time.
Barf. Or maybe, just maybe, we have other shit to do rather than spend hours trying to figure out how to do one thing in Gimp. It’s great that YOU’RE passionate about tech. Some of us have other hobbies. Imagine that holy shit
Buddy, if I open Photoshop it’s gonna take me hours to learn how to do one thing too, what a horrible example lmao. There’s like so many easy slam dunks you could’ve said too.
Also, I never mentioned Photoshop. Open any standard drawing app that was developed recently: Procreate, Infinite Paint, Krita, Fresco. Look how straightforward it is to start working. Look at the Ui. It doesn’t get in the way.
Edit: oh no the FOSS evangelists are not feeling it. I get it. I use a lot of FOSS apps for work. That doesn’t mean we have to be evangelical in our defense of FOSS. Recognize there are issues and we can work to fix them. Don’t get so defensive, Lemmy. My god.
You should not expect to use a tool (edit: competently) without spending time learning how to use it. Photoshop has a learning curve too, even if it’s an easier one.
But, also, who thinks Photoshop is easier‽
As someone who’d learned Photoshop and, eventually, learned GIMP (just because it was easier to run after eventually switching to Linux), trying to argue that Photoshop has an industry stranglehold because it – apparently – is just so much more intuitive than GIMP is absolutely wild. No one I knew learning Photoshop was finding that the UI or layout just magically clicked (or even swiftly got less impenetrable, as time went on).
That really nails it, I think. Tech is a hobby for some, a means to an end for the vast majority.
Yeah, it’s very obvious that some of the people responding here don’t interact much with non-tech people, and they have DEFINITELY never worked IT.
Most people aren’t interested in learning the more intricate things. And if you try to force them, they’re not going to get more interested as they learn, because they literally are not interested in tech. They want to accomplish a task, if that takes a bunch of learning just for one thing, they’ll go a different route, or pay someone else to do it for them.
Keep in mind this status quo is already the result of decades of oversimplification. I am not saying everyone needs to compile the Linux kernel in order to have a computer. I’m saying you should have a basic level of familiarity with the computer you’re using, same as any other tool.
You should know how to check and top up your engine oil, change a tire in an emergency, etc, if you’re going to own a car. You should know how to safely handle, operate, store, transport, and clean your firearm if you’re going to own a gun. You should know how to empty the chamber or bag, clean the filters correctly, what not to suck up and how to troubleshoot if you do, if you’re going to own a vacuum. You should know how to operate it, when and how it should be cleaned, and what not to do while it’s running, if you’re going to own an electric range. You should know the difference between a web browser and your computer’s filesystem, the difference between RAM and storage, and that you can Internet search most errors to judge whether you’re comfortable trying to fix them yourself or not, if you’re going to own a computer.
There will ALWAYS be a point where it’s more worth paying someone else instead of learning something yourself. But it’s about the cost-benefit analysis, and the threshold for what’s considered “intricate” is a depressingly low bar where computers are concerned. As I’m sure you are well aware.
Do you hunt for all of your food and cook it from absolute scratch?
I bet you sometimes use a grocery store.
What are you even talking about? You’re trying to make an analogy here but it’s a really poor one.
It’s actually the perfect analogy, you just can’t see it because you’re stuck in the bubble.
Christ this is such a Lemmy take.
The other option is users just not using tech at all.
That has to be one of the most out of touch takes I’ve seen in a while. You’re basically saying that things should be intentionally more complicated, and you expect the result to be people just power through and getting used to things being that way, instead of just stopping.
To add to subignition’s point, there is a value in learning useful software. More complicated software means that there is a learning curve - so while you are less productive while learning how to use it, once you gain more experience, you ultimately become more productive. On the other hand, if you want the software to be useful to everyone regardless of his level of experience, you ultimately have to eliminate more complex functionality that makes the software more useful.
Software is increasingly being distilled down to more and more basic elements, and ultimately, I think that means that people are able to get less done with them these days. This is just my opinion, but in general I have seen computer literacy dropping and people’s productivity likewise decreasing, at least from what I’ve observed from the 1990s up until today. Especially at work, the Linux users that I see are much more knowledgeable and productive than Apple users.
…No. I am saying that too much abstraction of how something actually works is detrimental to the end user. It’s not about making things intentionally more complicated, it’s about removing the need to understand key components of something ultimately causing more harm than good.
What about the boat loads of marketing - ads - aimed at making you believe those proprietary programs are the best? Clearly you fell for it.
There are shit proprietary software and good proprietary software. There are shit FLOSS and good FLOSS
I’ve used my share of free software. Some of it worked well, but it always felt clunky, and just never as straightforward to use as a paid product.
But sure, I couldn’t possibly have reached that conclusion on my own, it’s obviously the marketing.
Sounds like you’re cherry picking both; I’ve seen plenty of garbage that costs money as well.
Sure, but if you look at the top quality softwares, the majority of them are paid.
Because money is a big encouragement to make them as flawless as possible. Something FOSS just doesn’t have.
This is also far from my personal experience, you might not even realize what free software you’re depending on?
Your browser is most likely the most complex piece of software you interact with daily and it is most likely FOSS. The Linux kernel is FOSS and is incredibly robust. Most compiler suites, FOSS. Most programming languages, FOSS. These are all incredibly well written and robust tools. AOSP, kinda FOSS, and the forks like Graphene are definitely FOSS. Hell even a lot of macOS programs are actually FOSS. I could go on and on, there is absolutely amazing work being done on FOSS by incredibly talented people.
There is great paid and proprietary software out there, sure, but no it’s not the majority of top quality software in my personal experience and likely a lot of people’s experiences and it is almost guaranteed to rely on a FOSS library somewhere
They are used due to support not quality. Companies need to be able to purchase service and support agreements and very often FOSS has none of that.
It’s a reason. Another reason is all the stuff that Microsoft was found guilty of doing during their conviction for abusing their monopoly.