Modern software development is cancer
I&#x27;m going to give the benefit of the doubt and say this article is designed to be from the point of view of the user and to imply that you simply shouldn&#x27;t get carried away with new systems, because they don&#x27;t provide <i>inherant</i> value.<p>However, the author doesn&#x27;t write that clearly (except maybe right at the end), and instead comes across as &quot;I don&#x27;t get the value of this, so I&#x27;m going to claim it has none.&quot; PulseAudio gave me a ton - individual volument control for aplications, routing different devices to different applications easily, routing audio over a network, etc... Likewise, most of the examples provide some value. Everyone just has hatred for it because Ubuntu rolled it out too early when it was still not very stable, and people still remember it as this buggy problematic thing, even though it&#x27;s been rock-solid for years, in my experience.<p>The Firefox example is the most stupid - they are moving to a shared standard with other browers precicely to get away from the issue of every browser having their own standard.<p>To me, this just reads as another &quot;Wah, things are changing and I want everything to stay the same&quot;. Suck it up. Yes, often developers make or use new things just because we like learning and exploring. That doesn&#x27;t mean new things can&#x27;t do something it would be excessively hard to do in the old thing. It&#x27;s about weighing up the cost&#x2F;reward.<p>Again, I&#x27;m probably being too hard on the article - it does kind of make this point at the end, but in my opinion ends up making the point of &quot;fear new!&quot; instead of the more nuanced point of &quot;address the cost to your user of using something new before using it&quot; that I <i>think</i> it&#x27;s actually trying to make.