"If you're not technically competent you shouldn't use windows because it's harder to use than linux or mac".
Harder but easier and less challenging. The distinction I would make is for users who are comfortable interpreting the command line and those who aren't. That comfort level is what should dictate the user's decision to opt for linux vs windows/mac.
(PS: IMO, mac power use often requires the CLI, but macOS has built-in some guardrails to prevent noob users from completely messing up the system. Linux has no such guardrails).
It's much easier to us the command line on unix-likes than on windows, but it's not really a necessity. I know linux users who say they never use the terminal because they don't want to, and they're doing just fine.
Have you guys even used linux in the recent years? Sure it's a bit janky sometimes but so is windows and only getting worse. You can get quite far with linux by using graphical package management apps only, and now with steam you can even install games as easily as on windows.
Linux is way easier and more intuitive to use even for a novice than windows. I don't get why people think windows is somehow easy to use.
> The distinction I would make is for users who are comfortable interpreting the command line and those who aren't.
The use of the command line stopped being mandatory years ago. Everything that an average user is likely to do can be done though the GUI, just like other OSes.
Both the examples cited here, Airbnb and Apple, have been through difficult times as a result of "manager mode failure".
In other words, "founder mode" worked after a failure of "manager mode".
Yet, would Apple even had continued to exist to this day had Steve not been fired?
From the essay, one thing is obvious, "founder mode" looks very different for a 20 person company than it does for a 2000 person company.
> Obviously founders can't keep running a 2000 person company the way they ran it when it had 20. There's going to have to be some amount of delegation. Where the borders of autonomy end up, and how sharp they are, will probably vary from company to company. They'll even vary from time to time within the same company, as managers earn trust. So founder mode will be more complicated than manager mode. But it will also work better. We already know that from the examples of individual founders groping their way toward it.
The question that I have is, "is it possible for a founder to discover what 'founder mode' is for a 2000 person company, without going through some form of 'manager mode' as the company scaled from 20 to 2000"?
What would be even more interesting is comments from founders/employees of startups where "founder mode" persisted as the company scaled up from 20 employees. Were these companies successful? Do they continue operating successfully?
