As with much of Spolsky's writing, it's a really fun piece to read, and thought-provoking too. But I think the bigger distinction between Unix and Windows is not differential valuation of programmers and non-programmers: it's believing that non-programmers exist or not. From the Unix perspective, everyone is a programmer, and that is appropriate: anyone is capable of directing a computer to achieve tasks. From the Windows perspective, programmers are wizards who deliver things to end-users (and there are higher programmers who deliver things to lesser programmers as well, which is why proprietary software is okay).

I'm pretty firmly in the Unix camp on this. 'I can't program' should be as rare as 'I can't read.'

Programming exists so most people don't need to program - in the same way that other professions exist so most people don't need to become experts in medicine, law, engineering, building trades, or car maintenance.

What makes programming so special that it needs to be different here?

> Programming exists so most people don't need to program - in the same way that other professions exist so most people don't need to become experts in medicine, law, engineering, building trades, or car maintenance.

You might as well write, 'reading exists so most people don't need to read,' which would be equivalently true.

> What makes programming so special that it needs to be different here?

Because directing computers to perform work is as fundamental a skill in the modern world as is reading. Yes, there are people nowadays who cannot read, and there are some few jobs for them. But there aren't many, and it's not a good place to be.

Programming is not a specialised skill: it is a general skill with applicability in almost every field of human endeavour.

It's not that unix folks don't appreciate it, but that it's not clear what to appreciate. From solely a personal standpoint, years of both using and programming on Windows taught me nothing about its values. However, I can talk about Apple and its values for hours and I've never owned anything Apple except its keyboard.

Joel, the author of the article you linked to, states the core value of Windows as being "useful to non-programmers" basing it on "By contrast, Windows was created with one goal only: to sell as many copies as conceivable at a profit". The former does not follow from the latter.

Microsoft didn't need to rely on usefulness to anyone to sell many copies, and they didn't. As for why Linux isn't non-programmer friendly, I beg to differ. Android is a prime example and the argument as to why it's not doing well on desktop, as Linus Torvalds puts it, is because no one ships Linux on their desktops. Microsoft has a lot to do with that. When and if they ever do, Aunt Marge will be as happy using Linux without even knowing it's Linux (does the average non-programmer know that Android is Linux?)

I'd say on the contrary, Android shows what it takes to make Linux do well with the general public - a huge company to ignore like 80% of the standard Linux install and build a whole new UI layer from scratch that is designed to appeal to end users.

That's a testament to the inescapable conclusion that X11 is terrible for mobile devices.

There's still Linux underneath -- it's not stock Ubuntu, not by a long shot -- but it's Linux.

"Aunt Marge will be as happy using Linux without even knowing it's Linux"

Unless she wants to print something... [1]

[1] http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cups-horror.html

A lot's changed since 2006...

"1. Make sure the printer is turned on. 2. Connect the printer to your system... 3. A message will appear when the system is finished installing the printer..."

https://help.ubuntu.com/stable/ubuntu-help/printing-setup.ht...

You know that was written over a decade ago, right? Clearly, you're not using a Linux-based desktop on a daily basis, so please stop spreading FUD.