4 ms·

Linus has a serious problem understanding what products are, and what usability means. The commands for git are an example of that -> they don't make sense. Th

Linus has a serious problem understanding what products are, and what usability means. The commands for git are an example of that -> they don't make sense. They are very poorly designed and counterintuitive. Linus I think has this belief that 'technology & complexity = power' when really, it's 'products that do useful things' that matter. Making seamless experiences matters. Consumers really don't care how many techies think something is cool, they don't care about drivers, or open-source, they just want it to work. Linux could absolutely provide the foundation for the desktop, but whatever is on top of it will have to be equally innovative and provide a lot of value, so much so that I'd argue that the high level OS layer will be 'the hard part' not the kernel. Here's an example: "system, orangeFS, bringing the number of supported file systems to 35. (Remind me, how many file systems do Mac OS X and Windows support?)" Really? Who cares. You only need to support ONE, the right one, and support it well. Maybe there is an advantage in supporting a few others, but not really. This is a perfect example of 'engineering' that doesn't necessarily ad up to any end-user value. "Pretty is not my primary thing." and here it is. Linux conflates 'aesthetics' with 'design'. A very common failure. They are not the same thing, not remotely.

meira 10y ago
Do you know/use git? I'm really laughing of all these stupid HNers who think they are better product developer than Linus. Poor boys. Edit: this place should not be named "hacker News"
- ajankovic 10y ago
  Topic is Desktop computers. Not Development computers. Users of Desktop computers have specific requirements not necessary related to the development. Ignoring their requirements would definitely not allow you to take over the desktop. > this place should not be named "hacker News" Well couldn't you be a "hacker" in terms of UX, product design and other things as well?
  - meira 10y ago
    What is "desktop" computers? In my vision, desktop computers are becoming "development" computers very fast. Day-to-day use with tablets and smartphones are already full of GNU/Linux. It's only a matter of time for it to take desktop too. But "hackers" from here have a little difficult to see it coming (and probably missed it happen in servers and mobile, and have NO IDEA how this impossible shit happened)
    - icebraining 10y ago
      "Android is very different from the GNU/Linux operating system because it contains very little of GNU. Indeed, just about the only component in common between Android and GNU/Linux is Linux, the kernel. People who erroneously think “Linux” refers to the entire GNU/Linux combination get tied in knots by these facts, and make paradoxical statements such as “Android contains Linux, but it isn't Linux.” Absent this confusion, the situation is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU; thus, Android and GNU/Linux are mostly different, because all they have in common is Linux." -- rms (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.en....)
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  I use git daily, and I'm comfortable and familiar with it. Git commands are poorly designed. My friend, I suggest you are part of the problem: smart people who grasp arcane things as a badge of honour and lord it over others in a demeaning way, totally lacking in self-awareness. Git would be a better product if the commands were more coherent and structured. Some people - especially Linus - have no ability to grasp this. Given what I've seen from Linux - he basically added commands and features will nilly, without much thought. There is no 'design' of the git command line 'api'. There are some other bad flaws in git design. Which is why Linux will never be on the desktop ... (again with the caveat that someone may build something on top of Linux that is good for the desktop)
  - meira 10y ago
    > Which is why Linux will never be on the desktop .. You would say the same before GNU/Linux took over mobile. Stop fucking with the results of Free Software. If someone appears to build a top GNU/LINUX desktop, it'll be based on the work of Linus and RMS. Forever.
    - grobaru 10y ago
      GNU/Linux did not take over mobile. Google did. Linux was a tool but what really sold it to customers were the services and convenience. That could have been done with FreeBSD or any other UNIX or nonUNIX clone. People like you are toxic. But I can't blame you as you have been probably brainwashed in your 3rd world leftist oriented country.
    - tingol 10y ago
      Gnu didn't take over anything, there is no GNU in android.
- addicted 10y ago
  Git, even for a command line system, is hardly an example of good UI. It's a very powerful system, but when you compare its commands and usage to something like Mercurial, for example (especially early in GIT's lifecycle) Mercurial had much better named commands, it was designed to be a lot easier for someone coming from the popular RCSes at the time, and did not have contradictory argument placements in different but related commands.
  - meira 10y ago
    I think git has a wonderful UI and mainly UX. I don't think the quality of a sword should be discussed based on the easiness to use to an apprentice. It's good to be a great tool for the ones who master it. And someone can master a lot of things in life, but not everything that he is not able to master is because of a bad UI/UX.
    - addicted 10y ago
      That's exactly why I provided Mercurial as an example. Mercurial is as complex a system as GIT, yet the commands are not close to being as messy as GIT's (or as numerous, for that matter, but it can still achieve the same things, as far as RCS is concerned). But you don't even have to compare it to anything else. GIT's lack of design and thought is completely evident at simply looking at how certain commands arbitrarily reverse the orders of source and dest params. This adds absolutely no value, and only makes things more difficult, even for experts. What it does do is display is a lack of thought and design. Which, as is evident, may not be an issue in professional circles, but is a huge problem in achieving success on the desktop, which will necessarily require usage by a lot of newbies and people who don't want to know much more about their computers than the location of the on switch and how they can get to Facebook.
    - dhimes 10y ago
      But as a sword is it any better than hg?
  - angry-hacker 10y ago
    Let's face it, git is only popular because of github. Most the people just use commit and push. All other systems are more user friendly and make more sense. Linus built git for his own needs and that's fine, but in reality git for the majority of devs is not necessary.
detaro 10y ago
> "Pretty is not my primary thing." and here it is. Linux conflates 'aesthetics' with 'design'. A very common failure. They are not the same thing, not remotely. Is it conflating the two? Or is it saying "I don't care about aesthetics as long as it's well designed (= comfortable to use)?" Linus is famous for rants about how the Linux Desktop requires to much technical detail to know for the average user. > Linux could absolutely provide the foundation for the desktop, but whatever is on top of it will have to be equally innovative and provide a lot of value, so much so that I'd argue that the high level OS layer will be 'the hard part' not the kernel. Did anyone argue that the hard part would be the kernel? I understand your frustrations, but to me it seems you are picking an odd target for them. Linus opinion and knowledge about UX doesn't matter very much, because he doesn't work on anything that an end-user should have to see.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  I agree with your points - but in the article we're talking about Linux for the desktop - which is inherently about design. I think it's maybe better to think of the kernel as something like a 'chipset' in terms of it's relevance to the desktop. Linux? BSD? It's like AMD vs. Intel. The user-based OS is so abstracted it almost doesn't matter. It's a technical detail.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  > Linus is famous for rants about how the Linux Desktop requires to much technical detail to know for the average user. huh? Only thing i recall was him ranting at the Gnome/Freedesktop people over having to enter the root password to connect to a wifi hotspot (network manager and polkit not getting along).

meira 10y ago

Do you know/use git? I'm really laughing of all these stupid HNers who think they are better product developer than Linus. Poor boys. Edit: this place should not be named "hacker News"

ajankovic 10y ago
Topic is Desktop computers. Not Development computers. Users of Desktop computers have specific requirements not necessary related to the development. Ignoring their requirements would definitely not allow you to take over the desktop. > this place should not be named "hacker News" Well couldn't you be a "hacker" in terms of UX, product design and other things as well?
- meira 10y ago
  What is "desktop" computers? In my vision, desktop computers are becoming "development" computers very fast. Day-to-day use with tablets and smartphones are already full of GNU/Linux. It's only a matter of time for it to take desktop too. But "hackers" from here have a little difficult to see it coming (and probably missed it happen in servers and mobile, and have NO IDEA how this impossible shit happened)
  - icebraining 10y ago
    "Android is very different from the GNU/Linux operating system because it contains very little of GNU. Indeed, just about the only component in common between Android and GNU/Linux is Linux, the kernel. People who erroneously think “Linux” refers to the entire GNU/Linux combination get tied in knots by these facts, and make paradoxical statements such as “Android contains Linux, but it isn't Linux.” Absent this confusion, the situation is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU; thus, Android and GNU/Linux are mostly different, because all they have in common is Linux." -- rms (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.en....)
jomamaxx 10y ago
I use git daily, and I'm comfortable and familiar with it. Git commands are poorly designed. My friend, I suggest you are part of the problem: smart people who grasp arcane things as a badge of honour and lord it over others in a demeaning way, totally lacking in self-awareness. Git would be a better product if the commands were more coherent and structured. Some people - especially Linus - have no ability to grasp this. Given what I've seen from Linux - he basically added commands and features will nilly, without much thought. There is no 'design' of the git command line 'api'. There are some other bad flaws in git design. Which is why Linux will never be on the desktop ... (again with the caveat that someone may build something on top of Linux that is good for the desktop)
- meira 10y ago
  > Which is why Linux will never be on the desktop .. You would say the same before GNU/Linux took over mobile. Stop fucking with the results of Free Software. If someone appears to build a top GNU/LINUX desktop, it'll be based on the work of Linus and RMS. Forever.
  - grobaru 10y ago
    GNU/Linux did not take over mobile. Google did. Linux was a tool but what really sold it to customers were the services and convenience. That could have been done with FreeBSD or any other UNIX or nonUNIX clone. People like you are toxic. But I can't blame you as you have been probably brainwashed in your 3rd world leftist oriented country.
  - tingol 10y ago
    Gnu didn't take over anything, there is no GNU in android.
addicted 10y ago
Git, even for a command line system, is hardly an example of good UI. It's a very powerful system, but when you compare its commands and usage to something like Mercurial, for example (especially early in GIT's lifecycle) Mercurial had much better named commands, it was designed to be a lot easier for someone coming from the popular RCSes at the time, and did not have contradictory argument placements in different but related commands.
- meira 10y ago
  I think git has a wonderful UI and mainly UX. I don't think the quality of a sword should be discussed based on the easiness to use to an apprentice. It's good to be a great tool for the ones who master it. And someone can master a lot of things in life, but not everything that he is not able to master is because of a bad UI/UX.
  - addicted 10y ago
    That's exactly why I provided Mercurial as an example. Mercurial is as complex a system as GIT, yet the commands are not close to being as messy as GIT's (or as numerous, for that matter, but it can still achieve the same things, as far as RCS is concerned). But you don't even have to compare it to anything else. GIT's lack of design and thought is completely evident at simply looking at how certain commands arbitrarily reverse the orders of source and dest params. This adds absolutely no value, and only makes things more difficult, even for experts. What it does do is display is a lack of thought and design. Which, as is evident, may not be an issue in professional circles, but is a huge problem in achieving success on the desktop, which will necessarily require usage by a lot of newbies and people who don't want to know much more about their computers than the location of the on switch and how they can get to Facebook.
  - dhimes 10y ago
    But as a sword is it any better than hg?
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  Let's face it, git is only popular because of github. Most the people just use commit and push. All other systems are more user friendly and make more sense. Linus built git for his own needs and that's fine, but in reality git for the majority of devs is not necessary.

detaro 10y ago

> "Pretty is not my primary thing." and here it is. Linux conflates 'aesthetics' with 'design'. A very common failure. They are not the same thing, not remotely. Is it conflating the two? Or is it saying "I don't care about aesthetics as long as it's well designed (= comfortable to use)?" Linus is famous for rants about how the Linux Desktop requires to much technical detail to know for the average user. > Linux could absolutely provide the foundation for the desktop, but whatever is on top of it will have to be equally innovative and provide a lot of value, so much so that I'd argue that the high level OS layer will be 'the hard part' not the kernel. Did anyone argue that the hard part would be the kernel? I understand your frustrations, but to me it seems you are picking an odd target for them. Linus opinion and knowledge about UX doesn't matter very much, because he doesn't work on anything that an end-user should have to see.

jomamaxx 10y ago
I agree with your points - but in the article we're talking about Linux for the desktop - which is inherently about design. I think it's maybe better to think of the kernel as something like a 'chipset' in terms of it's relevance to the desktop. Linux? BSD? It's like AMD vs. Intel. The user-based OS is so abstracted it almost doesn't matter. It's a technical detail.
digi_owl 10y ago
> Linus is famous for rants about how the Linux Desktop requires to much technical detail to know for the average user. huh? Only thing i recall was him ranting at the Gnome/Freedesktop people over having to enter the root password to connect to a wifi hotspot (network manager and polkit not getting along).