But Linux, and open source in general, chooses performance first, then ease of use. That's because they are put together by programmers, for fun.
This just isn't true. The "ease of use" characteristics of Linux are those of Unix. None of the "open source" gang behind Linux were involved in making any of these choices. And it's not true in any case. If all that these "programmers" cared about was performance, they'd do their programming in hand-optimised assembly language. There are always tradeoffs, and given that "performance" is a problem which can always be solved by increasing processor power, while an unusable system is usually unusable by design, I would guess that it is very rare that "performance every time" is a sensible rule. Which is why the Linux developers don't follow it.
Lets see, I use ls, mv, cp, rm, (and, on win, copy, move, del, dir) and others all the time. It's quicker to type them in than it is to mouse around clicking on links
I'm sorry, but no. Apple did the definitive ergonomic study on this and you're wrong. Typing seems faster but is slower.
When I did industrial machinery programming priority one was functionality. The machine had to do what it was supposed to without crashing. Putting a pretty user interface on it was secondary. That's why so many automated machines have text mode interfaces, if they don't just have a bunch of pushbuttons and dials, controlling them. Our customers would tell us specifically not to use windows, or X, because of the robustness issue. When there's $1E6 of product in the line you do not want the computer, or program, to fall over.
Bully beef. But Linux is not first and foremost an industrial machinery operating system, and in the vast majority of its applications, ease of use matters.
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]