>Of course, if you are specifically looking for consumer tech, ease of use and support, then open source probably isn't for you.
If you can look past your smugness a bit, why? Why is it that if I want "ease of use", open source isn't for me? Do you not see the problem here? I can't see how you can argue your favorite projects are more "innovative & stable than anything Apple have ever produced", but in the same breath say that open source isn't for someone who wants ease of use. What exactly does "stable" mean to you?
Ubuntu are trying for ease-of-use and it's a noble goal. But if you are going to judge them only on ease-of-use, then it is difficult for them to compete with the resources of Apple, who are the richest company on the planet.
My point was that there are quality open-source projects out there, after you appeared to assert otherwise. But ease-of-use is not something developers/startups seem to be interested in spending time on.
If you want me to qualify stable, then let's compare Apple's bidirectional iCloud sync to Unison, or Time Machine to ZFS snapshots.
I used to enjoy tinkering with computers and spending all my time on Linux trying to get things working. I didn't edit any code, just spent days getting ndiswrapper working, reconfiguring my desktop after an upgrade, refinding my partitions after LLVM upgrade decided to forget them, adjust myself to the steady removal of configurability in GNOME, adjust to the deprecation of things I used every day (Konqueror has gone! Use Dolphin! It didn't do half of what Konqueror did), faff around with bust graphics and failed sleep/resume, adjust to the "new" way of window management that decided that 30+ years of windowing paradigm was "distracting" and stopped the use-case tests of someone's mum who had never used a computer before finding it easier to use etc. etc. etc.
I eventually got fed up of all of this and went to OSX with Windows alongside after 15 years of Linux use, and that's from RedHat 5.0 and 6.2 days. No not RHEL, RedHat.
The "ease of use" argument is sad, and precisely what some forget when developing software - it's there to be easily used, else nobody will use it. The computer is there to work for YOU, not YOU work for it (ie, spend hours fighting with it).
You only have to look at Windows 8 to see that "ease of use" was abandoned on the Start menu and see what a mess that was.
Linux doesn't have to be that inconvenient. You can now buy machines preinstalled with Ubuntu LTS. If you want to keep upgrading to the latest and greatest, yes it can be a rough ride.
Don't listen to him, there are open source UIs that are easy to use. Gnome, KDE, and XFCE all behave pretty darn well and are pretty stable.
i3wm, the window manager the post above is talking about, is incredibly complicated, but provides efficiency and a sense of accomplishment when learned. That reward from learning something complicated is where the smugness of most open source enthusiasts comes from. Don't look too much into it.
Any perceived smugness on my part was a response to baiting from the parent such as "It's kinda sad nobody can compete with Apple".
Open-source can compete on many fronts and offers many other advantages (i.e. freedom), but on a pure ease-of-use assessment, I do not agree with you that Gnome or KDE could sway the parent, if Ubuntu completely failed to do so.
If you can look past your smugness a bit, why? Why is it that if I want "ease of use", open source isn't for me? Do you not see the problem here? I can't see how you can argue your favorite projects are more "innovative & stable than anything Apple have ever produced", but in the same breath say that open source isn't for someone who wants ease of use. What exactly does "stable" mean to you?