I think this has less to do with Microsoft and more to do with the average human has no interest in learning something that only passively helps them.
I only know a handful of things about working on an automobile, while my father could practically take one apart and put it back together wholesale.
I can take apart a computer and put it back together wholesale, but I'm lost on an internal combustion engine.
I pay someone with expertise to handle the engine, because I've spent my time learning other things.
Look, unless the people you're talking about are doing tech jobs, there isn't a reason for them to learn the depths of it, just like there isn't a reason for them to learn the depths of how their car works. Both a car and a computer are tools, and those tools are made to be used by people who may not know the depths of the internal workings of either.
This post feels like elitism and gatekeeping to me, as someone who thinks Windows sucks and prefers Linux. The idea that it's the OS that is "holding people back" and not that those people might have more important things to do with their time than dedicate half their life to an operating system is absurd. If someone spends 20 years becoming a doctor, I'm not going to act like they're a dumbass because they don't know everything about fucking computers.
People don't want to learn more because for most people not knowing more doesn't impact their fucking life. Just like me not knowing more about my car doesn't generally impact my fucking life. Because I've never had trouble finding someone to pay to fix it for me.
Surprise, we're the people who are paid to fix computers for the people who are just using them as simple tools. Maybe we shouldn't be so upset about that.
Also, last but not least, Android is a strain of Linux and it suffers from all the same issues listed above as Windows. Acting like you couldn't pull the same bullshit in Linux if you wanted to is kind of a joke, because it's already been done with Android.
All the ad infested bullshit we all hate about Windows 10 and 11? Blame Linux-based Android.
EDIT: Also, personal opinion, if we're talking about which CLI is easier to learn and use. Microsoft has made great strides with Powershell being easy and accessible to people who haven't faced a command line environment before. The things that make its command line better than Linux's are two things, and only two things. (I hate that it's object oriented instead of text oriented, Powershell has a lot of bad things, too)
First, human-readable commands whose names describe what the command does in a verb-noun format. This means instead of Linux with some very, very obscurely named commands that are not descriptive and you just have to sort of memorize, you can just sort of remember because the name is human readable.
Secondly, the get-command command is huge because it allows me to search these verb-noun names for the command I'm looking for. On Linux, if I don't know the specific command, I have to search the internet, because there isn't a built-in tool that will give me an idea of what each command does and allows me to search for them through a filter. Once you find a command you think might work, it has the get-help command which produces something similar to a Man page.
Linux has Man pages, but because there is no rhyme or reason to how any commands are named, it's not very easy to find the command you're looking for if you don't already know the command. On Windows, if I know what the command does I may already have enough information to find the command using get-command instead of having to turn to Google and be like "what command do I use if I am trying to do X?"
So if we're talking about the superiorly designed command line that's easier for first time users. Powershell is where it's at. Because Linux is a confusing fucking mess of 30 years of random decisions by lone programmers. Literally the only reason I know commands in Linux CLI is because I had to memorize them. I don't do so much memorizing Powershell commands. If Linux was being built from scratch today, I'd practically demand a similar naming convention system to make it easier to understand what the fuck commands do.
Regarding the Android bit, it's so cancerous because everything is locked down and users have no control over the OS. They don't have admin rights on their own device. Nothing to do with Linux, that's jus the kernel. Android + GNU utils & root access would be completely different.
People shit on the GNU/Linux meme, but Android actually proves that just the Linux kernel can be put in an OS that's just as hostile to the user as anything proprietary.
Not having root is done on Android for some very good security reasons to be fair, it opens up a giant attack surface and risk for all kinds of malware and nasty stuff to take advantage of. I don't think it's done completely in malice as you think. Its a very important part of the app sandbox and Android's security model at large.
With that said, I do think that people should have the option to root if they want to, I'm not a fan of OEMs like Samsung and whoever else purposely preventing people from rooting at all costs. I think people should be able to do whatever they want with their own device, root just certainly shouldn't be the default, and users should be aware of the risks if they choose to use it. But I do think it should be a possibility for those who really do wish to do so.
With Android, it all just comes down to the OEM and variant of it that you're stuck with. As a whole, I think its an amazing project and OS, though unfortunately Google, and especially OEMs, tend to make a lot of bad choices. It's similar to Linux as a whole in that aspect. You've got options like ChromeOS which are a nightmare for privacy and user freedom any way you look at them, but then you've got your traditional distros like Debian, Arch, Fedora, etc, which are the exact opposite. Its an important distinction.
This post feels like elitism and gatekeeping to me, as someone who thinks Windows sucks and prefers Linux.
I think it's the opposite. There are, of course, Linux elitists, but they don't want normies using Linux. They love to talk about how Linux isn't ready for mainstream usage, and it's so difficult and only super-smart people like them can use it. They're like those hipsters that don't want their favorite band to become popular because then they wouldn't be underground and cool to listen to anymore. If ordinary folks were using Linux, then they wouldn't feel so smart and special.
It is gatekeeping and elitist to say that Linux is hard to use, you wouldn't understand it, and you should stay on Windows.
People don’t want to learn more because for most people not knowing more doesn’t impact their fucking life. Just like me not knowing more about my car doesn’t generally impact my fucking life. Because I’ve never had trouble finding someone to pay to fix it for me.
Surprise, we’re the people who are paid to fix computers for the people who are just using them as simple tools. Maybe we shouldn’t be so upset about that.
It isn't about every computer user becoming a computer engineer. It's about learned helplessness. It's about being afraid to try anything new, even something that's only slightly different.
To use the car analogy, it's like somebody who will only drive Fords, and is terrified of the prospect of getting behind the wheel of a car made by any other manufacturer.
EDIT: I gave you an upvote here because you don't deserve downvotes for your well stated opinion.
I have done computer work for a bunch of little old ladies, and when they couldn't afford to upgrade to new hardware, I would put a lightweight version of Linux on their computers for them.
Only one of them really struggled with the difference, and she wasn't against learning, she just struggled. The rest handled the transition fine and didn't do a lot of complaining that it wasn't what they were used to. (Probably partially because I made clear what apps were what and put shortcuts to each on their desktop, each shortcut well labeled.)
I don't think it's unusual for people to "get used to" how certain things work and expect that. In fact, I'd say that's pretty normal.
But I think there's far less fear of change from regular people than you seem to think. I see far less addiction to the "brand" of Windows than you might think.
To use the car analogy, it’s like somebody who will only drive Fords, and is terrified of the prospect of getting behind the wheel of a car made by any other manufacturer.
I mean, lots of people are scared as hell of driving a stick shift and refuse to learn.... soooo yeah. I'd say that's a closer approximation. Because a Ford and a Chevy both have steering wheels and pedals all in the same place. You add that extra pedal and some folks lose their minds. Which at least makes sense because it is different.
Only one of them really struggled with the difference, and she wasn't against learning, she just struggled. The rest handled the transition fine and didn't do a lot of complaining that it wasn't what they were used to
When my granddad was born everyone in his village made their money doing manual labour for the local lord. Old people have handled a lot of transition in their lives, arguably more than any generation in history. I'm patient with him not knowing how to use a computer he was alive when computers were invented
I think this has less to do with Microsoft and more to do with the average human has no interest in learning something that only passively helps them.
I only know a handful of things about working on an automobile, while my father could practically take one apart and put it back together wholesale.
I can take apart a computer and put it back together wholesale, but I'm lost on an internal combustion engine.
I pay someone with expertise to handle the engine, because I've spent my time learning other things.
Look, unless the people you're talking about are doing tech jobs, there isn't a reason for them to learn the depths of it, just like there isn't a reason for them to learn the depths of how their car works. Both a car and a computer are tools, and those tools are made to be used by people who may not know the depths of the internal workings of either.
This post feels like elitism and gatekeeping to me, as someone who thinks Windows sucks and prefers Linux. The idea that it's the OS that is "holding people back" and not that those people might have more important things to do with their time than dedicate half their life to an operating system is absurd. If someone spends 20 years becoming a doctor, I'm not going to act like they're a dumbass because they don't know everything about fucking computers.
People don't want to learn more because for most people not knowing more doesn't impact their fucking life. Just like me not knowing more about my car doesn't generally impact my fucking life. Because I've never had trouble finding someone to pay to fix it for me.
Surprise, we're the people who are paid to fix computers for the people who are just using them as simple tools. Maybe we shouldn't be so upset about that.
Also, last but not least, Android is a strain of Linux and it suffers from all the same issues listed above as Windows. Acting like you couldn't pull the same bullshit in Linux if you wanted to is kind of a joke, because it's already been done with Android.
All the ad infested bullshit we all hate about Windows 10 and 11? Blame Linux-based Android.
EDIT: Also, personal opinion, if we're talking about which CLI is easier to learn and use. Microsoft has made great strides with Powershell being easy and accessible to people who haven't faced a command line environment before. The things that make its command line better than Linux's are two things, and only two things. (I hate that it's object oriented instead of text oriented, Powershell has a lot of bad things, too)
First, human-readable commands whose names describe what the command does in a verb-noun format. This means instead of Linux with some very, very obscurely named commands that are not descriptive and you just have to sort of memorize, you can just sort of remember because the name is human readable.
Secondly, the get-command command is huge because it allows me to search these verb-noun names for the command I'm looking for. On Linux, if I don't know the specific command, I have to search the internet, because there isn't a built-in tool that will give me an idea of what each command does and allows me to search for them through a filter. Once you find a command you think might work, it has the get-help command which produces something similar to a Man page.
Linux has Man pages, but because there is no rhyme or reason to how any commands are named, it's not very easy to find the command you're looking for if you don't already know the command. On Windows, if I know what the command does I may already have enough information to find the command using get-command instead of having to turn to Google and be like "what command do I use if I am trying to do X?"
So if we're talking about the superiorly designed command line that's easier for first time users. Powershell is where it's at. Because Linux is a confusing fucking mess of 30 years of random decisions by lone programmers. Literally the only reason I know commands in Linux CLI is because I had to memorize them. I don't do so much memorizing Powershell commands. If Linux was being built from scratch today, I'd practically demand a similar naming convention system to make it easier to understand what the fuck commands do.
Regarding the Android bit, it's so cancerous because everything is locked down and users have no control over the OS. They don't have admin rights on their own device. Nothing to do with Linux, that's jus the kernel. Android + GNU utils & root access would be completely different.
People shit on the GNU/Linux meme, but Android actually proves that just the Linux kernel can be put in an OS that's just as hostile to the user as anything proprietary.
Not having root is done on Android for some very good security reasons to be fair, it opens up a giant attack surface and risk for all kinds of malware and nasty stuff to take advantage of. I don't think it's done completely in malice as you think. Its a very important part of the app sandbox and Android's security model at large.
With that said, I do think that people should have the option to root if they want to, I'm not a fan of OEMs like Samsung and whoever else purposely preventing people from rooting at all costs. I think people should be able to do whatever they want with their own device, root just certainly shouldn't be the default, and users should be aware of the risks if they choose to use it. But I do think it should be a possibility for those who really do wish to do so.
With Android, it all just comes down to the OEM and variant of it that you're stuck with. As a whole, I think its an amazing project and OS, though unfortunately Google, and especially OEMs, tend to make a lot of bad choices. It's similar to Linux as a whole in that aspect. You've got options like ChromeOS which are a nightmare for privacy and user freedom any way you look at them, but then you've got your traditional distros like Debian, Arch, Fedora, etc, which are the exact opposite. Its an important distinction.
I think it's the opposite. There are, of course, Linux elitists, but they don't want normies using Linux. They love to talk about how Linux isn't ready for mainstream usage, and it's so difficult and only super-smart people like them can use it. They're like those hipsters that don't want their favorite band to become popular because then they wouldn't be underground and cool to listen to anymore. If ordinary folks were using Linux, then they wouldn't feel so smart and special.
It is gatekeeping and elitist to say that Linux is hard to use, you wouldn't understand it, and you should stay on Windows.
It isn't about every computer user becoming a computer engineer. It's about learned helplessness. It's about being afraid to try anything new, even something that's only slightly different.
To use the car analogy, it's like somebody who will only drive Fords, and is terrified of the prospect of getting behind the wheel of a car made by any other manufacturer.
EDIT: I gave you an upvote here because you don't deserve downvotes for your well stated opinion.
I have done computer work for a bunch of little old ladies, and when they couldn't afford to upgrade to new hardware, I would put a lightweight version of Linux on their computers for them.
Only one of them really struggled with the difference, and she wasn't against learning, she just struggled. The rest handled the transition fine and didn't do a lot of complaining that it wasn't what they were used to. (Probably partially because I made clear what apps were what and put shortcuts to each on their desktop, each shortcut well labeled.)
I don't think it's unusual for people to "get used to" how certain things work and expect that. In fact, I'd say that's pretty normal.
But I think there's far less fear of change from regular people than you seem to think. I see far less addiction to the "brand" of Windows than you might think.
I mean, lots of people are scared as hell of driving a stick shift and refuse to learn.... soooo yeah. I'd say that's a closer approximation. Because a Ford and a Chevy both have steering wheels and pedals all in the same place. You add that extra pedal and some folks lose their minds. Which at least makes sense because it is different.
When my granddad was born everyone in his village made their money doing manual labour for the local lord. Old people have handled a lot of transition in their lives, arguably more than any generation in history. I'm patient with him not knowing how to use a computer he was alive when computers were invented