Good on them

Fun fact about Grenada: for a few years, it was a socialist monarchy. A Leninist group overthrew the government in 1979 and remained in power for four years, but in that time it never left the Commonwealth or stopped recognising Queen Elizabeth II as head of state

I don't buy the argument that windows just works or that it's somehow better or more stable.
The reality is we all have grown to learn about computers specifically using windows and it's been a steep learning curve. We have gotten familiar with its specificities and its sporadic misbehavior and accepted that as the norm. And people prefer what they are used to even if it's suboptimal because they would rather not learn something else from scratch, even if in the long run it could be better.

Put any person who has zero computer experience in front of a windows computer or Linux computer and I doubt they would say the windows computer just works and the Linux one doesn't.

I honestly don't understand why I would ever write up or share a Microsoft document.

As for word, it's just fucking rich text format. It's obvious they're manipulating the format to lock down users with less computer knowledge. Otherwise, why is it so fucking complicated?

Markdown accomplishes 90% of what a word doc does and it is legible with or without rendering.

EDIT: If I want data in or out of a spreadsheet program, I'm using CSV.

All of the "special features" of office docs wind up being security nightmares, unusable junk, or both.

The problem: our desire for convenience

This hits it right on the money. As nice as open source and open standards are, at the end of the day none of that matters to the 99% that want/need to do X as fast and painlessly as possible.

To people like my wife MS Office/LibreOffice/Google Docs are all the same thing in the category of productivity suite. And one of those does not meet her where she lives in day to day life. And it doesn't because there is no money in doing so for LibreOffice. And there is no benefit to her to seek out LibreOffice for her uses.

Hell, just take a look around at the number of people that preach about the evils of Microsoft, Google, or whoever but love them an iPhone and Macbook. As bad as Microsoft and Google can be for screwing over the user with vendor lock-in they don't hold a candle to Apple. But they get the money despite there being "better" options technically and philosophically for nearly everything they make, but Apple knows all of that pales in importance to 99% of potential customers compared to being convenient.

I've heard this comment about OpenXML (the xml format of the office documents) before, and i'm a bit on the fence about it.

It's of course indeed ridiculously complex, but so is office. Microsoft both adds a shit ton of functionality to their documents, and keeps an impressive amount of backwards compatibility.

In the past i heard complaints about part of the OpenXML spec that also allows older binary data in there for backwards compatibility reasons, which of course means for OSS implementations that they don't just have to implement this spec, but also the older spec that came before to be truly compatible with everything a modern office version can open.

But on the other hand, if i look at it from the side of Microsoft, they opened up their format, they've got a gazillion functionalities, should they remove functionality to appease the open source developers? If so which? Should they stop being backwards compatible with documents of decades ago to appease the open source developers? If so how long should they support? Are you going to tell their customers?

Office is an immense program with an immense amount of legacy features, backwards compatibility, ....

It's incredibly complex by nature. And might they have made the format more complex to dissuade competition? Could be. However, in this instance Occam's razor pushes me more to "write a huge program over a timespan of many decades, with thousands upon thousands of programmers working on it, and you'll indeed most likely end up with something very complex...."

I think the point about convenience is more about familiarity than Windows being inherently easier. Speaking as someone who switched from Linux to Windows previously, I found the change very difficult as a lot of the FOSS software I was using didn't have Windows versions. I had a nightmare trying to read one of my LUKS-encrypted drives on Windows. I was practically using WSL for everything. That's not that Windows is inherently harder than Linux; it's just that I was used to Linux and the FOSS ecosystem, just as some are used to Windows and their proprietary ecosystem.

If your hardware isn't working properly, you have to find drivers that run on Linux; if the developer never made Linux-compatible drivers, you have to figure something else out.

Most drivers come pre-installed with the Linux kernel or your distro—I never had to manually install any drivers for my current hardware. Compared to Windows where you will have to go out of your way to install graphics drivers for NVIDIA or AMD depending on your graphics card, if you want to make the most out of your card's capabilities.

Installers made for Windows don't need any special TLC; you double-click them and they work.

See, I think if you've used Linux for any length of time you'd quickly find the system of package managers way easier than the system of having to hunt down an .exe on the internet, guess whether or not it's a legit copy or if it's malware, and manually manage updates for all the different software you have installed.

I agree that people stay on Windows out of convenience, but it's not convenience as in Windows is inherently easier, but it's convenience as in you're used to the way things work on Windows. Because in my perspective, things do "just work" on Linux, and that's because I'm used to the way things work here.

“Piracy is not a pricing issue,” Gabe Newell, the co-founder of Valve, the company behind the world’s largest PC gaming platform, Steam, observed in 2011. “It’s a service issue.” Today, the crisis in streaming makes this clearer than ever. With titles scattered, prices on the rise, and bitrates throttled depending on your browser, it is little wonder some viewers are raising the jolly roger again. Studios carve out fiefdoms, build walls and levy tolls for those who wish to visit. The result is artificial scarcity in a digital world that promised abundance.

This hits the nail on the head...

I wonder if these greedy fuckers know this but don't give a shit in favor of short term profits,or if they're actually so dense and holed up in their own world disconnected from reality that they don't see it?

The problem is that all the competitors are enshittifying the same way at the same pace. If there was a holdout in a position to grow their platform we may at least go back to the days of "Netflix is all you need".

As it is, it makes more sense to go back to physical media purchases, and I blame absolutely nobody if their disposable income and lack of box fetishes makes them think downloading the content is perfectly equivalent. The Plex server where I store all my physical media backups is by far the best streaming library I have access to, at least if you discount novelty as a factor.

I know daddy Gabe said it is a service issue which is a fair point

But I am beyond that point. Hollywood and music industry are full of pedophiles. They regime whore for the owner class and shill propaganda to plebs to accept their deteriorating conditions.

These people are the enemy and this is the class war.

Don't be a dummy, don't fund your oppressor.