If you show a nonprogrammer a screen which has a user interface which is 100% beautiful, they will think the program is almost done.
People who aren't programmers are just looking at the screen and seeing some pixels. And if the pixels look like they make up a program which does something, they think "oh, gosh, how much harder could it be to make it actually work?"
Today, if you want to stick with El Capitain, you can run that on a 9 year old Mac.
How can you install it? It's no longer visible on the App Store. Is there a way to order a physical disc?
Apple *do* know their target markets after all!
Personally I wouldn't want one. Too many VMs, and I want 32GB in my next laptop, but that's some sales, so whodathunkit, I'm not your typical purchaser; and, probably, neither are those who were complaining...
Why not both ?
As an aside, can you imagine the unholy shitstorm that would be making the rounds if any of this were happening to Apple ?
Exploding iPhones... The internet might not cope with that, and then Apple bribing people to keep quiet about the whole thing ? We might have a singularity event...
Looking on etymonline.com I see that Venerian was the older form of the word but has been displaced by Venusian. A pity.
I've been coding for about 30 years now, a bit longer actually. Something that's become apparent over the years is that there ought to be a law of conservation of complexity. You can abstract and then re-abstract, you can use well-known design patterns, you can write defensively, and you can document until the cows come home. All of these help, they help by spreading out the complexity onto a larger surface - it becomes less opaque as it gets "thinner", the more it spreads out.
However, it remains the case that some things are just inherently complex, that understanding them, or their particular interfaces and parameters, requires the understanding of the system as a whole, not the parts in isolation. Sometimes divide does not conquer, at least in the real world. There's not *many* problems like this, and I've no idea if this is the sort of thing Linus is referring to - I don't keep up with the Linux kernel these days, but there may be a good reason why he's done what he's done. You "calling him out" without explicit reasons why, or (better) giving a superior approach than what is already there is just showing ignorance, IMHO.
Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan