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.

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

Down to the red shirt.

That really nails it, I think. Tech is a hobby for some, a means to an end for the vast majority.

Sounds like you're cherry picking both; I've seen plenty of garbage that costs money as well.

And hoodie!

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.

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.

No, it's not. We have other shit to do and very limited quality time.

There's Dave Cutler in the article. They both heard boss music and it wasn't theirs.

See, Dave Cutler's level of "boss" for Unix would be Kirk McCusick or Bill Joy.

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.

Yeah, 10% went to good causes but imagine what the society could afford if 100% went through instead of 0.

It's the US, so more weapons I presume.

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.

But but but... my parents stories about self-made, and cheapskate, and he's rich cause apparently he's not frivolous, and wears sweatpants, and other dumbass lies they ate up...

That's the sentiment that allows these rich fucks to avoid paying taxes without big backlash. First focus on collecting, then on spending...

Do you hunt for all of your food and cook it from absolute scratch?

I bet you sometimes use a grocery store.

In my head this means gamepass on linux

I know it's fun to bash on Gates, but it's also bullshit. Dave Cutler worked on at least two major operating systems. He's way up there in the Hall of Fame.

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.

What are you even talking about? You're trying to make an analogy here but it's a really poor one.