7 ms·

Having left the Windows ecosystem 7 years ago or so, I couldn't be more confused these days when sporadically having to use it. For the reasons mentioned here:

Having left the Windows ecosystem 7 years ago or so, I couldn't be more confused these days when sporadically having to use it. For the reasons mentioned here: all power user features are burried. Though it's very debatable if full paths and hidden files should be that much tucked away to begin with.

pjmlp 10y ago
All successful desktop operating systems tend to cater for the use cases of the common man. Those people that don't even know what save means and scatter files across all devices in the locations suggested by the applications, using whatever was suggested as default name. These are the people that macOS, Windows, Ubuntu/GNOME, browser based OS cater for. I share the same feeling every time I have to dig into Chrome or Firefox settings, specially on Canary.
- dozzie 10y ago
  ...and then we have plenty of idiots who don't know how the world works and think magically, because they were always isolated from OS internals, how the electricity works, how combustion engines work, etc.
  - unsignedqword 10y ago
    I understand that you don't think computers should be effectively reduced to becoming 'black boxes' to most people, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that the simplification and abstraction of operating systems to average joes isn't exactly a bad thing. It's been happening for a very long time and I would think some of those advancements - inteded for the convenience of these 'average joes' - ended up gladly used by developers anyway. I feel it would be wrongful to call the wider audience 'idiots,' - these average joes might not be so average after all and have special understanding in fields that I don't. Another thing is not just handling adults, but younger people. Of course there are some kids that may take a keen interest in OS internals, but then there are those who will keenly take advice they see on the internet to delete System32, so there's the need for some degree of 'safety'. Although I suppose I'm extrapolating a little, as it's pretty easy to shoot yourself in the foot in most OSes nowadays anyway, in spite of the default protections Windows/macOS offers.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      > I feel it would be wrongful to call the wider audience 'idiots,' - these average joes might not be so average after all and have special understanding in fields that I don't. My opinion is that the average Joes and Janes are not idiots. We're just turning them into idiots. They're much smarter than the industry practice would give them credit for. Ask them to learn something, and they will. Just that nobody today wants to expect learning from people. Everything is supposed to be so simple, that it can be mastered in 5 seconds of initial exposure. Of course this goal isn't possible except by dumbing the thing down so that there's nothing your product can do that can't be mastered in 5 seconds. You have a good point about abstraction - it isn't a bad thing. We reduce insane amounts of complexity to the level a human mind can handle by layering abstractions on top of more abstractions. But the particular example of "features" like hiding file extensions or full paths is something else. It's creating a second, disconnected set of user-facing abstractions that obscure the real ones. The OS is literally lying to you in an attempt to make itself "less scary", but in the process taking away your chances of building a working mental model. Average Jane and Joe aren't dumb, they can figure stuff out. Just look at anyone who ever did anything with accounting - they're all probably Excel whizzes. Your random teenager can likely hack the Steam client in and out. People can learn stuff when they're expected to. They're not dumb. We're making them dumb though. > Of course there are some kids that may take a keen interest in OS internals, but then there are those who will keenly take advice they see on the internet to delete System32, so there's the need for some degree of 'safety'. Honestly, that's how you learn. In today's age of cloud-backup-everything, there's little pain and all gain when a kid bricks the OS and has to figure out how to reinstall it from scratch.
      - ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
        I often imagine a dystopian future where the only children interred in software engineering are the children of software engineers, because they are the only people who'll have full access to their machines, or use anything other than glorified read only devices like tablets.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - rfrey 10y ago
    I'm sure we could find a subset of human knowledge that you are not familiar with, and also a group of people who are willing to call you and idiot because of it.
    - dozzie 10y ago
      Of course we can, but it's not a field I interact with daily, it's not a fundamental thing in my life, and I don't think about how it operates as a magic that just happens.
  - snaky 10y ago
    They don't know because they don't want to know. And they willing to pay (by money or by privacy) for the products that allow them to continue not knowing.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  That's why they all kind of suck. I mean, there's a tradeoff - by catering to the use cases of the common man, you're limiting them to your interpretation of what the common man's use cases are. Computers are tools for creative problem solving - limit them too much, and you're literally taking away almost all the reasons to have one. I particularly dislike ideas like "hide full path of folders" or hiding extensions for known file types - because it's in fact confusing the common man in a misguided attempt to help them. The filesystem and the way the OS interacts with it is a set of abstractions. Hierarchical folders and associating files to programs via name extensions isn't that hard to grasp. But when you obscure that abstraction, paper over it with some nice display features, you're taking away the ability of a common man to ever understand what's going on. When before one could be expected to maybe figure out a mental model for those things, now it's close to impossible - because the OS is lying or refusing to divulge essential information. So I actually agree with dozzie's parallel comment. By treating users like idiots, we're turning them into idiots. And since "pros" are a market niche, we're literally turning mainstream computing into toys for idiots. It's a waste of potential, IMO.
  - adrianratnapala 10y ago
    Yep. It's about making things feel simple and easy, without actually being simple and easy. My parents both started using word processors in the days of MS-DOS and they had no trouble grasping the idea of files and directories, or that a WordPerfect file ends in `.wpd`.
  - tonyedgecombe 10y ago
    >>Hierarchical folders and associating files to programs via name extensions isn't that hard to grasp. Actually a lot of people seem to struggle with it, I used to run training courses on a product that had a tree based configuration. As soon as you got beyond a basic list and started building a hierarchy half the class would fade away.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Compare it to some trees they know from real life. Company organizational chart. School organizational chart (principal has teachers who have children). Country organizational chart (president over ministers over ...). Trees are not a trivial abstraction, but they aren't also hard.
- vblord 10y ago
  I agree. The catering to the common man has become more and more prevalent over the years. The first thing I do on a fresh windows install is show full paths and full extensions. I was so pissed when I couldn't change the installation drive of Microsoft Office. Kinda like iOS vs Android. I think iOS purposely doesn't provide features/customizations to make their product easier to use for "the common man". I wish all these products would ask you on installation, how hands off do you want the product.
perspectivep 10y ago
Except they're not. Full paths, hidden files, and file extensions are also now check boxes on the default File Explorer ribbon, along with a button for copy full path. Plus, all the individual settings are searchable through the Start menu or the search box in the Settings app.

pjmlp 10y ago

All successful desktop operating systems tend to cater for the use cases of the common man. Those people that don't even know what save means and scatter files across all devices in the locations suggested by the applications, using whatever was suggested as default name. These are the people that macOS, Windows, Ubuntu/GNOME, browser based OS cater for. I share the same feeling every time I have to dig into Chrome or Firefox settings, specially on Canary.

dozzie 10y ago
...and then we have plenty of idiots who don't know how the world works and think magically, because they were always isolated from OS internals, how the electricity works, how combustion engines work, etc.
- unsignedqword 10y ago
  I understand that you don't think computers should be effectively reduced to becoming 'black boxes' to most people, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that the simplification and abstraction of operating systems to average joes isn't exactly a bad thing. It's been happening for a very long time and I would think some of those advancements - inteded for the convenience of these 'average joes' - ended up gladly used by developers anyway. I feel it would be wrongful to call the wider audience 'idiots,' - these average joes might not be so average after all and have special understanding in fields that I don't. Another thing is not just handling adults, but younger people. Of course there are some kids that may take a keen interest in OS internals, but then there are those who will keenly take advice they see on the internet to delete System32, so there's the need for some degree of 'safety'. Although I suppose I'm extrapolating a little, as it's pretty easy to shoot yourself in the foot in most OSes nowadays anyway, in spite of the default protections Windows/macOS offers.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > I feel it would be wrongful to call the wider audience 'idiots,' - these average joes might not be so average after all and have special understanding in fields that I don't. My opinion is that the average Joes and Janes are not idiots. We're just turning them into idiots. They're much smarter than the industry practice would give them credit for. Ask them to learn something, and they will. Just that nobody today wants to expect learning from people. Everything is supposed to be so simple, that it can be mastered in 5 seconds of initial exposure. Of course this goal isn't possible except by dumbing the thing down so that there's nothing your product can do that can't be mastered in 5 seconds. You have a good point about abstraction - it isn't a bad thing. We reduce insane amounts of complexity to the level a human mind can handle by layering abstractions on top of more abstractions. But the particular example of "features" like hiding file extensions or full paths is something else. It's creating a second, disconnected set of user-facing abstractions that obscure the real ones. The OS is literally lying to you in an attempt to make itself "less scary", but in the process taking away your chances of building a working mental model. Average Jane and Joe aren't dumb, they can figure stuff out. Just look at anyone who ever did anything with accounting - they're all probably Excel whizzes. Your random teenager can likely hack the Steam client in and out. People can learn stuff when they're expected to. They're not dumb. We're making them dumb though. > Of course there are some kids that may take a keen interest in OS internals, but then there are those who will keenly take advice they see on the internet to delete System32, so there's the need for some degree of 'safety'. Honestly, that's how you learn. In today's age of cloud-backup-everything, there's little pain and all gain when a kid bricks the OS and has to figure out how to reinstall it from scratch.
    - ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
      I often imagine a dystopian future where the only children interred in software engineering are the children of software engineers, because they are the only people who'll have full access to their machines, or use anything other than glorified read only devices like tablets.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- rfrey 10y ago
  I'm sure we could find a subset of human knowledge that you are not familiar with, and also a group of people who are willing to call you and idiot because of it.
  - dozzie 10y ago
    Of course we can, but it's not a field I interact with daily, it's not a fundamental thing in my life, and I don't think about how it operates as a magic that just happens.
- snaky 10y ago
  They don't know because they don't want to know. And they willing to pay (by money or by privacy) for the products that allow them to continue not knowing.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
That's why they all kind of suck. I mean, there's a tradeoff - by catering to the use cases of the common man, you're limiting them to your interpretation of what the common man's use cases are. Computers are tools for creative problem solving - limit them too much, and you're literally taking away almost all the reasons to have one. I particularly dislike ideas like "hide full path of folders" or hiding extensions for known file types - because it's in fact confusing the common man in a misguided attempt to help them. The filesystem and the way the OS interacts with it is a set of abstractions. Hierarchical folders and associating files to programs via name extensions isn't that hard to grasp. But when you obscure that abstraction, paper over it with some nice display features, you're taking away the ability of a common man to ever understand what's going on. When before one could be expected to maybe figure out a mental model for those things, now it's close to impossible - because the OS is lying or refusing to divulge essential information. So I actually agree with dozzie's parallel comment. By treating users like idiots, we're turning them into idiots. And since "pros" are a market niche, we're literally turning mainstream computing into toys for idiots. It's a waste of potential, IMO.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  Yep. It's about making things feel simple and easy, without actually being simple and easy. My parents both started using word processors in the days of MS-DOS and they had no trouble grasping the idea of files and directories, or that a WordPerfect file ends in `.wpd`.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  >>Hierarchical folders and associating files to programs via name extensions isn't that hard to grasp. Actually a lot of people seem to struggle with it, I used to run training courses on a product that had a tree based configuration. As soon as you got beyond a basic list and started building a hierarchy half the class would fade away.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Compare it to some trees they know from real life. Company organizational chart. School organizational chart (principal has teachers who have children). Country organizational chart (president over ministers over ...). Trees are not a trivial abstraction, but they aren't also hard.
vblord 10y ago
I agree. The catering to the common man has become more and more prevalent over the years. The first thing I do on a fresh windows install is show full paths and full extensions. I was so pissed when I couldn't change the installation drive of Microsoft Office. Kinda like iOS vs Android. I think iOS purposely doesn't provide features/customizations to make their product easier to use for "the common man". I wish all these products would ask you on installation, how hands off do you want the product.

perspectivep 10y ago

Except they're not. Full paths, hidden files, and file extensions are also now check boxes on the default File Explorer ribbon, along with a button for copy full path. Plus, all the individual settings are searchable through the Start menu or the search box in the Settings app.