|»|16 guest@cc 2019-04-28T00:50:31
People like the GNU guys forget that at the core of all this the foundational stone is that: understandability of your system. Everything can be fully open and libre, but if it's unable to be understood by the average user (where a user isn't a mere luser), there's no point. The system as a whole, and ideally the individual programs, should be understandable. After all, the user is the master of the system, not viceversa. This reminds me of Alan Kay and the whole computers as a **tool** to aid the human mind vs. computers as things that think for the human: https://www.fastcompany.com/40435064/what-alan-kay-thinks-about-the-iphone-and-technology-now
Overall the whole trend is devastatingly against such a perspective. Of course, it's much easier to just bloat your software with unneeded dependencies and such, and it does make economical sense as people will end up buying into it more than a software that has a model of the user being a thinking being. After all, there are more stupid people than smart, and overall they tend to buy into useless stuff more easily. So the system itself benefits shitty software. Worst of all is, nobody is to blame for this. This whole thing is being generated organically. It's just a convergence of interests.
Those of us that value software that doesn't insult your intelligence will have to keep to our cliques and use the non-shit software made by our people.
|»|17 guest@cc 2019-04-28T18:47:49
>Noone is to blame for this ... [its] being generated organically
You just described it as being a consequence of tech firms persuing the profit motive.
> After all, there are more stupid people than smart,
This isn't really the answer.
Using any system requires learning it first, since all computer systems are arbitrary inventions that do not reflect reality closely in function or interface.
Once one has learned some system, learning any other will seem onerous, not worth doing. Think of learning a second language after you already know your first one.
People learn systems that act like 'sophisticated TV'(as alan kay put it) first, because phone companies, microsoft and apple market their products.
Additionaly, all existing, viable software systems that serve as tools(or more accurately toolboxes) that I know have a few features that give them a higher initial learning curve. The systems we're maligning here can be used in a rudimentary capacity by knowing only a few things about the system, knowing how to use a mouse and press buttons on a keyboard. From there, someone whos brain isnt totally calcified can learn more by fucking around and seeing which buttons and knobs do what, up to a (fairly low) cieling of skill. And in that time, they're able to make rudimentary use of the system.
all tool-like systems I know of, on the other hand, are more opaque at lower levels of proficiency, and require more particular skills to be discovered in the same way. Namely, they all emphasize a language-based interface, which makes using the system with an insufficient knowledge of its grammar and vocabulary like trying to speak in a foreign tongue. And learning the system requires reading documentation, ,which is a skill that has to be learned itself. Ideally most tools should be so trivial and straightforward that this is no trouble at all, but thats not realistic for /all/ useful tools in ones toolbox(though we should try to use the fizzbuz tier program wherever possible for this reason.) If someone is unused to reading text to learn new things, they'll have trouble learning any of these systems. That doesnt necessarially mean they're stupid, just that they havnt had to in the past.
If we want to live in a world where everyone uses sensible computer s ystems that empower them, rather than just enable them to do whatever the tech-clergy imagined/decided they want to, it has to be something thats taught in school like reading and writing.
Reading and writing are hard to learn, but we collectively agree that its worthwhile to teach everyone these skills, that a society in which everyone can read and write is better than one thats mostly illiterate. We'd have to make the same kind of agreement that a society in which everyone can do a good portion of their own computing is better than one in which they can't.