4 ms·
I believe you miss the main issue: Most people don't know or don't want to do computer systems administration. People don't need to know mechanics to drive a c
by hevi_jos 8y ago
I believe you miss the main issue: Most people don't know or don't want to do computer systems administration.
People don't need to know mechanics to drive a car, or architect to live in a house and Facebook, Google... are doing the same with computers. You don't need to know anything about how computers work in order to use them.
There is no FOVO when you can convince your friends or family members to use a different and better alternative. The problem is that there is no alternative.
There is no alternative. There is not some kind of box I can buy for 30 dollars, connect to my network and instantly being able to connect with my friends, family or workers with another box automatically and without work on my and their side like you can do with a physical telephone.
There are lots of tinkering boxes for geeks. But they are too complex.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoThat's the main problem. But there's also a secondary problem, often tangled up with this one, that IMO deserves a separate attention: the problem of drawing everything down to the lowest common denominator. Geeks are fine with tinkering boxes, and those boxes give them superpowers. But the computing environment is moving to remove this ability across the board - to make it impossible to use your tinker-box to interact with the world at large, essentially neutering much of the use for it.
- type0 8y agoRight, and right now we are having the choice to use just those oligopolies. If we bring this down to the car analogy, it would be like if you had the choice between Ford, Toyota, VW and a bicycle. You could ride your Ford on the ford-roads, your Toyota on toyota-roads VW on vw-roads and if you feel mighty you could even bike but there's no way you will be allowed on the same road as the big guys and eventually you'll meet the dead end.