control that they think they need. It can be tough learning that your child (or OS) can survive and make good decisions without you. All systems have good and bad points. And there is some good in being able to change something -- but many refuse to admit the bad and costs associated with it. Imagine you could reconfigure a car so that the pedals could be reversed. Some might like that -- but the costs are too high. That inconsistancy means everyone must know that the pedals MIGHT be reversed on the car they get into. They should also know how to switch them back. Of course there may be no known logical reason for reversing the pedals -- but in computers that extra feature sells, and only an idiot wouldn't design it without that possibility (or so the anti-logic goes). It doesn't matter that drivers will making mistakes since their reflexes can be trained only one way. It doesn't matter if those mistakes cost lives (or time and money). Many want their BAD configurability anyway. But since it has so many costs, and so few returns, less choice is often better. Standards The number of true standards is equal to 1 divided by the number of competing standards. If you have 4 different UI's, then you really have 1/4 of a User Interface Standard. If you walk up to a machine at random (assuming balanced distribution among "standards"), you have a 1 in 4 chance that it is