I'm not saying one can't learn how to use Windows 8, of course you can. I'm saying that
it's badly designed which makes that
much harder than necessary.
And I'm not saying that resistance to change doesn't exist, of course it does. I'm saying that's not the problem with Windows 8. It
is different, yes, and yes some people will have a problem with that. But that is not an objective problem, the objective problem is that
it's badly designed.
I dunno, you seem to be arguing that there's no such thing as bad design, just things being different. Like there are no objective criteria in design. Which is like if I did some really shitty, inefficient code and you said "that's really shitty inefficient code". And I said "no it's not, I'm just coding
differently. You're afraid of
change, man".
I don't think throwing away 30 years of compatibility is a problem (or at least 25 of those years).
MS
could start from scratch, and I'm pretty sure it'd be profitable for them to do so. But there's more money in services and they're putting everything into Azure and shit like that, that's the future for them. They don't
care about the desktop any more and it
shows. Win8 is their just rehashing the old code cos they know some people will still buy it. Plus another half-arsed sally into the tablet market of course.
Aaaand... regarding the Linux kernel, it's not really comparable. New paradigms are adopted all the time but this doesn't impinge on compatibility since you compile in what you want and ignore the rest. So it's possible to have the best of both worlds. Systemd is a good example of this - it offers clear advantages and benefits (cgroups foremost amongst them) - but if you don't want to use it and want to cling to some old BSD style init system for compatibility reasons then you can do exactly that and everything will still work fine.
EDITED: 7 Feb 2014 20:07 by X3N0PH0N