Comment

I’m not sure it’s that simple, really. And I definitely don’t think this is limited to Windows. I agree with other comments that this is mostly related to complexity. The more complex the domain the more difficult it is to implement/maintain a good solution. Delivering the new shiny feature is more exciting for all people (product management, development, users, etc.) than to fix bugs. And if you don’t have the resources/maturity to keep technical debt under control, the software quality will suffer over time. Free software may be the exception here as profit is not always the primary concern.

source

Sort:hotnew top

thingsiplay@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
@canpolat My point was not being limited to Windows, but more that his view is limited to DOS/Windows world, but making general judgements about software. And because Windows and it's eco system of applications he listed gets worse, he extrapolates this to all software.

Let's look at Linux, which is probably the biggest software ever and used on every possible way one can imagine. It got better and better, even though it's extremely big and has a lot of complexity to it and does not want to break compatibility if possible. But I am not saying all software is like that. That's my point. Some software get better, some get worse.

source
- canpolat@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  
  And because Windows and it’s eco system of applications he listed gets worse, he extrapolates this to all software.
  
  They admit that bias in the article:
  
  […] since I’ve always been working in the Microsoft tech stack, I use a lot of it. Thus, selection bias clearly is at work here.
  
  Now, I mentioned free software as the exception. I don’t have any data as to how big free software vs proprietary software. But I think his points extends at least to other proprietary software and is not limited to Windows.
  
  Some software get better, some get worse.
  
  I can agree with that.
  
  source