[dead]

> One big problem is that for any product/feature not used in isolation in a very controlled context, simplicity is often suboptimal, inflexible and limiting.

"suboptimal" from the global perspective, because to me a simple solution should be a local optimum for a specific problem. For instance, one could argue that the Unix motto "do one thing well" generate lots of specialized programs that, even though they are an order of magnitude smaller than generic programs individually, together they take globally more space for same service level - a symptom of that is e.g. Busybox.

For physical devices, the problem is probably more acute, or at least more visible.

"inflexible and limiting" are terms I can agree on, that's generally how simplification works unless you have a genius idea. I don't see those words as absolute negatives, though, but rather as terms in a trade-off. If the software is open those issues can be mitigated sometimes by hacking; one advantage of starting from a simple (simplistic even), inflexible and limiting solution is that it's easier to evolve - that is to add the necessary complexity.

Completely agree here. Complexity is the result of combining simple things together to optimally solve a specific problem under specific boundary conditions. The reason so many software devs are frustrated by complex artifacts, is that the initial problem and boundary conditions are usually not documented, often because some boundary conditions are actually a hidden agenda hostile to the recipient of the artifact.

And thus the emergence and rise of "opinionated software".