Minimal

Philosophising

Jason Kottke makes an interesting point today in his note about Microsoft vs. Linux dominance:

If Unix development philosophy is small pieces loosely joined, Microsoft�s philosophy is big chunks tightly coupled.

I wouldn’t contest that, but it made me wonder why two major systems, both ultimately dedicated to making money by pleasing users, would take such diametrically opposite approaches. Which philosophy is better for the user?

Truth is, there’s no one philosophy that best for all users, as people are so different. The benefit of the Unix approach is that it allows people to trade flexibility for a little bit more work in joining things together. If you’re willing to put the work in, great. The Microsoft approach, on the other hand, helps out those who can’t be bothered and will sacrifice the flexibility for an integrated set of tools that require little effort, but ultimately tie you in.

Personally, I favour the Microsoft approach, but that’s just because I’m lazy. However, I also think there are more lazy, pragmatic people in this world than there are those who will go the extra mile for flexibility. And that is why I see Microsoft’s operating systems succeeding over Linux.

Now, Apple on the other hand... I’m stuck there. Why aren’t they more successful? I don’t know. I guess it doesn’t help that I’ve never even used a Mac. Anyway, I can’t help wonder whether they’ll eventually go the way of the Betamax — a good technology that just lost the race. I doubt it — it’s got too many followers and a few unrivalled apps — but I’d be surprised if it ever goes mainstream.