2 ms·
Man, "befriend" is the one part of the article I can totally stand behind! Why the heck doesn't my computer have a "befriend" command? No wonder FB/LinkedIn/eve
by seagreen 11y ago
Man, "befriend" is the one part of the article I can totally stand behind! Why the heck doesn't my computer have a "befriend" command? No wonder FB/LinkedIn/every webapp ever is beating us (meaning the FOSS OS community, i.e. Linux) on mindshare.
(You could implement this different ways, but I'm imagining that once you friend someone they can see a select subset of posts on your computer. For me that would be status posts, some photos, some WIP code, etc. This would be a huge deal. Think about how many webapps it would make unnecessary.)
EDIT: Less flowery sentences.
- tremon 11y agoI didn't mean to imply that was a bad idea. I meant that you provided no details on how it could be implemented or secured. That's more than just an implementation detail to me. For example, your code as shown implies that you can reach your friend's computer through an Internet name (through dns even?). That already assumes that these non-technical friends can register their own Internet names, and care enough to do so. But that assumption is well outside the bounds of "unix sucks".
- seagreen 11y agoThat's a totally fair point. Hey, I never said it was a good article! Perhaps a charitable reading of it would be that instead of reading "unix sucks" (sadly I use almost these exact words in the article) instead read "the mismatch between the tools provided by unix and the needs of a normal user, combined with decisions made with good intentions at the time and kept for backwards compatibility, make the unix user environment a bad user environment for normal people today". But of course I didn't write that, so I'm in no position to complain too much.