What is stopping someone; say the FSF or some other group championing libre software from coming up with their own web engine completely different from the incumbent engines?

Building a browser engine is hard, especially when the target is moving at a rapid pace, and that target is controlled by Google. Like it or not, the web as it is today, is pretty much driven by Google (and to a lesser extent by Apple and Microsoft) these days. They can throw infinite resources into developing the browser engine and the browser itself. The closest competitor we have today is likely Servo, and they scrape by on pennies.

Developing something from scratch, with even less funding and expertise than Servo is a non-starter. It’s not going to happen. Sure, sure, there’s LadyBird and some other independent efforts, but I very highly doubt they’ll ever catch up to the three major engines.

To develop and maintain a browser, you need people, and they need to be paid. Paying open source developers is… quite a big problem in and of itself, even for things considerably easier and smaller in scale than a web browser.

surely if Web Devs tell them to go pound sand, or intentionally break the site when using Google Chrome, and put a message saying, “Go to Firefox / Safari for a better experience”, that will make Google backtrack.

They would not, because for every developer who would do this, there’s 100 who would not, because their livelihood depends on people with Google browsers being able to use their stuff. Google is in a position of power here: they are the #1 search engine, they are the #1 browser, they’re pretty well positioned on the mobile phone market too. The vast majority of businesses (companies or individuals, doesn’t matter) simply can’t afford to go against Google.

If the vast majority would, then yeah, Google would backtrack. But that would require a coordinated effort, from the vast majority of the internet. Likely multiple months of protest. That’s not going to happen, people can’t afford it.

Again, you’re misunderstanding the problem. Keeping applications up to date is not a problem. Keeping things working the way my family got used to is an entirely different matter, and it’s actually worse on Android & iOS (thus, most phones and tablets).

The main reason the family even has desktop PCs is because we couldn’t make tablets work for them. Something as simple as reading email was a problem, because the various email apps (gmail, k9, etc) changed their UIs, confusing the heck out of my parents. It would’ve been possible to improve that situation, but the tooling to remotely manage an android phone are far more limited than on a bog standard Linux desktop.

A lot of people do use phones tablets as their main computer, yes. Ask them how happy they are about it, how much trouble updates and random UI changes cause. Just because they “can live with it” does not mean they enjoy the experience, or want to live with it. Chances are, they don’t have other options. My family does. I think more people should have those options available to them.

(Also, the blog post is about desktop, specifically, and is a critique of distros trying to aim at non-enthusiasts. When it comes to mobile, those efforts are even more futile, because those specialised distros will have absolutely no chance of working on anything but a very tiny subset of mobile devices.)

I don’t like it. I don’t hate it, but I don’t like it. It’s not flexible enough for what I - and my family - needs from an operating system.

That does not address the problem at all, though. That solves the upgrade and maintenance problem, but does nothing for users who just want things to work as they always did. It does not address change.

By maintaining a system for my family, I can address that: either by undoing things, working them around, or preparing them in advance. No amount of automation will solve that. It’s not a technical problem.

Sadly, no. That doesn’t account for software changing, which is the #1 reason my family hates upgrades, and which is why I manage their systems, so I can either undo a change they don’t want, work it around, or prepare them in advance. No amount of A/B updates and automation helps with this.

I’m going to disagree here, partially. I agree that teaching people how to use a computer, at an early age, is important. It’s also important to teach them about failure, and set realistic expectations.

That has little to do with constant system updates & maintenance. That is an entirely different skillset. Like, I can use my oven just fine, I know how to get around its kinda awkward menu system, to tell it whether I want to heat up frozen pizza, or if I’m baking bread, and stuff like that. I’m okay with learning a new menu system if I have to replace my oven. I will, however, leave the replacement to a professional. I will let a professional fix it too, should it break.

Same goes for computers and my family: they are perfectly capable of using computers. They can - reluctantly - adapt to change. They do not want to fix or maintain things, however. And that’s fine! It’s not their area of expertise, nor are they interested in it.

Most end-users are like that: they can use their systems, but don’t want to keep up with the constant change. That’s tiresome and distracting and annoying and error-prone. I believe these things are best done by someone who can smooth out the experience, someone who can help the end-users adapt, too, perhaps even prepare them in advance. That is what we should focus on, rather than trying to force unwilling people into maintenance. That never ends well.

A capable user is already a willing one. A whole lot of them aren’t, and that is fine.

There is a huge difference between being able to use something, and being able to fix them, and being willing to fix them.

Case in point, if my car breaks down, I take it to a professional to fix it. Not because it is magic I have no hope of learning, but because I am absolutely uninterested in it.

If my pants rip, I take it to a professional, because that’s far more practical than trying to fix it myself.

Same goes for computers: my Dad is a very capable user. He spent 3 decades in IT, authored succesful books on subjects that interested him. He would be capable of learning how to maintain his system, but he simply doesn’t want to. It isn’t interesting, nor fun for him. So I help him by doing it myself.

My wife is also a very capable user, she can do everything on her computer that she wants. She hates computers, though, and would sooner divorce me than learning how to run apt update. She is a very capable user because I built a system she’s ok with.

Similarly, she is an amazing cook, and I am not. I am a disaster in the kitchen even if I try. So I simply don’t. The best I can do is throwing frozen pizza in the oven, amd I am not interested in becomimg more capable than that. Why should she become more familiar with computers then?

What I am trying to say is that people have wildly varying interests. We should not expect everyone to be competent at everything they may ever encounter.

Nope. That leads to frustration on both sides. If they want to learn - sure! I will teach them.

But if they aren’t into computers at all, trying to teach them sysadmin skills is a recipe for disaster.

You should not need to be a sysadmin to use a computer.

Even if you could, it would change nearly nothing. The average computer user doesn’t want to maintain their system either. They want a system they don’t need to care about, or at worst, a system their friends & family can help with. Thus, the best way for a Linux enthusiast to help their family use Linux is to install and maintain it for them. For that, you need a general purpose distro you’re familiar with, one that’s easy to maintain remotely.

In other words, distros that target the average computer user are futile, because the target audience is not interested in neither installing, nor maintaining their systems.

(And this is what the linked blog post is about, in more words.)

I self host my email, and I have one mailbox, but countless addresses. Everything that needs an email address, has its dedicated one. Not because of security considerations (if someone would get into any of my aliases, I’d be fucked either way), but because I find it easier to filter and manage.

Like,if I get an email to randomwebshop@, and it hasno relation to said place, I will know that they either sold my data, or were compromised. I can then route it to /dev/null, and then everyone who tries to spam that address will be gone from my inbox.

It also makes it easier to tag mail, because I tag based on a property that I control. No reliance on sender, subject, list id or anything that the sender controls.