5 ms·

The core argument is the same as a recent post here [1] about using older computers - that it reduces distractions and that older technology was better in its s

The core argument is the same as a recent post here [1] about using older computers - that it reduces distractions and that older technology was better in its simplicity. Today's we are teetering on the brink of complexity breakdown. These are good arguments that stand alone. The counter-arguments are always the same "Hey, that's a problem with people - just exercise willpower and don't get distracted". Or "Hey, modern electronics and software is more 'efficient', just throw more cycles at it (silicon and cognitive) and get with the programme" But these only serve to minimise and deny real sentiments that smart software developers would pay close attention to. There's lot's of sentiment out there that is being mistaken for 'nostalgia', which is genuine dissatisfaction with modern tools. That's why projects like suckless.org [2] seem more relevant every day. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31001296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31001296 [2] https://suckless.org/ https://suckless.org/

sanderjd 5y ago
I am sympathetic to the argument here, but I think this misrepresents the counterargument. I think the argument against this is simply that it's not what people actually want, it's what people like us want them to want. It sort of reminds me of that series where an architect makes fun of mcmansion monstrosities. The architect is right - those mcmansions suck - and we're right - simplicity in computing is better - but I think people want the mcmansions and I think people want the flashier more interactive software.
- krapp 5y ago
  >but I think people want the mcmansions and I think people want the flashier more interactive software I think that's a bit too condescending. People don't want mcmansions and flash, they want to publish to the internet quickly and efficiently. The web is a tool for them, a means to an end. The HN set might prefer to live in a world where computers only shipped with Emacs and the web was just a raw JSON API and you had to write your own software for everything from scratch, but no one else does. And that's perfectly legitimate. Why should someone making music, or art, or who wants to set up a business or network with people have to hand-code their own HTML or write their own backend just because some self-appointed gatekeepers decided that using a service ruins the artisinal quirkiness of the web? That's like saying authors should have to hand-write their manuscripts or set their own type. The web is a tool that's supposed to serve everyone.
  - sanderjd 5y ago
    > People don't want mcmansions and flash, they want to publish to the internet quickly and efficiently. The web is a tool for them, a means to an end. I think for many and probably most people, the web is an entertainment much more so than a tool. What I said is only condescending if you add a judgment to it, rather than it just being an observation. I think I did that when I said that the architects are "right" about mcmansions and that we're "right" about simplicity. But those are just my own preferences and I really don't begrudge people for having different ones. I think it is more condescending (or perhaps patronizing is a better word) to claim that we know what's better for people, that they'd see that they really prefer simple brutalist software design if only that's what we would give them. I've just been around long enough to see this evolution from web applications that were very barebones to the current state, and my interpretation of what has happened during this period of time is that we've been following the preferences of most people who use software, as we should.
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  Edit: Sorry Sandersd, I did not carefefully read what you said "it's what people like us want them to want." - which is even more interesting! I would go one stage more "meta" and say; No. Actually one of the deep, deep problems in computer science and digital technology is the very idea that "we know what people want". Or that they know themselves. There is so much said in this forum and other software communities about "what people really want". Outside of quite narrow UX psychology - which deals mainly with how people prefer to complete tasks within paradigms that have already been selected for them - I know of little or no evidence based research on the lifestyle and societal choices around technology. That is why I frequently use the phrase *foisted upon" in Digital Vegan [1][2], to indicate the extraordinary errors of sentiment attribution that occur around tech. [1] https://digitalvegan.net https://digitalvegan.net [2] 'Foisted' is not the same as 'forced', but nontheless there is a 'great lie' that we tell ourselves about how markets of demand and supply work in realtion to technology.
  - sanderjd 5y ago
    I agree with this somewhat. But I also think in the face of unknowable true desires, that the preferences revealed by what does and doesn't get used by more people should be taken seriously and at face value. I saw "web 1.0" versions in the early to mid 2000s of pretty much every product that became big in the late 2000s and 2010s. People made their choice.
allo37 5y ago
I think there's another point to consider with older technology: It was hard to use! The technical know-how required to get a site online in the 90's, early 2000's was a big filter for the quality of its content.
- krapp 5y ago
  >The technical know-how required to get a site online in the 90's, early 2000's was a big filter for the quality of its content. It really wasn't. I don't know why people here believe that being able to set up a web server and write HTML has any relationship to the quality of the content being marked up and served. They're completely different things. And by then Geocities, etc. were a thing and it didn't exactly take an engineering degree to use those.
  - allo37 5y ago
    Did it take an engineering degree? Of course not. But knowing how to write HTML and get it on the internet was harder than, say, sending a tweet is today. I might also just not be remembering all the crappy Geocities sites with perfect clarity :)
    - dolni 5y ago
      When I was ten years old (late 90s) I was able to publish a site using a WYSIWYG host of the time (Homestead). It was crappy, of course, but it was something. And it was easy.
rollcat 5y ago
> There's lot's of sentiment out there that is being mistaken for 'nostalgia', which is genuine dissatisfaction with modern tools. That's why projects like suckless.org [2] seem more relevant every day. Suckless (the org) is too elitist to produce software usable by non-power users, which is a shame, because these folks are for the most part excellent at balancing perfectionism and minimalism with pragmatism; they could go a very long way to help "fix" rampant complexity, but their complete disinterest in accommodating people who can't program in C will keep their projects irrelevant on the grand scale of things.

sanderjd 5y ago

I am sympathetic to the argument here, but I think this misrepresents the counterargument. I think the argument against this is simply that it's not what people actually want, it's what people like us want them to want. It sort of reminds me of that series where an architect makes fun of mcmansion monstrosities. The architect is right - those mcmansions suck - and we're right - simplicity in computing is better - but I think people want the mcmansions and I think people want the flashier more interactive software.

krapp 5y ago
>but I think people want the mcmansions and I think people want the flashier more interactive software I think that's a bit too condescending. People don't want mcmansions and flash, they want to publish to the internet quickly and efficiently. The web is a tool for them, a means to an end. The HN set might prefer to live in a world where computers only shipped with Emacs and the web was just a raw JSON API and you had to write your own software for everything from scratch, but no one else does. And that's perfectly legitimate. Why should someone making music, or art, or who wants to set up a business or network with people have to hand-code their own HTML or write their own backend just because some self-appointed gatekeepers decided that using a service ruins the artisinal quirkiness of the web? That's like saying authors should have to hand-write their manuscripts or set their own type. The web is a tool that's supposed to serve everyone.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  > People don't want mcmansions and flash, they want to publish to the internet quickly and efficiently. The web is a tool for them, a means to an end. I think for many and probably most people, the web is an entertainment much more so than a tool. What I said is only condescending if you add a judgment to it, rather than it just being an observation. I think I did that when I said that the architects are "right" about mcmansions and that we're "right" about simplicity. But those are just my own preferences and I really don't begrudge people for having different ones. I think it is more condescending (or perhaps patronizing is a better word) to claim that we know what's better for people, that they'd see that they really prefer simple brutalist software design if only that's what we would give them. I've just been around long enough to see this evolution from web applications that were very barebones to the current state, and my interpretation of what has happened during this period of time is that we've been following the preferences of most people who use software, as we should.
nonrandomstring 5y ago
Edit: Sorry Sandersd, I did not carefefully read what you said "it's what people like us want them to want." - which is even more interesting! I would go one stage more "meta" and say; No. Actually one of the deep, deep problems in computer science and digital technology is the very idea that "we know what people want". Or that they know themselves. There is so much said in this forum and other software communities about "what people really want". Outside of quite narrow UX psychology - which deals mainly with how people prefer to complete tasks within paradigms that have already been selected for them - I know of little or no evidence based research on the lifestyle and societal choices around technology. That is why I frequently use the phrase *foisted upon" in Digital Vegan [1][2], to indicate the extraordinary errors of sentiment attribution that occur around tech. [1] https://digitalvegan.net https://digitalvegan.net [2] 'Foisted' is not the same as 'forced', but nontheless there is a 'great lie' that we tell ourselves about how markets of demand and supply work in realtion to technology.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  I agree with this somewhat. But I also think in the face of unknowable true desires, that the preferences revealed by what does and doesn't get used by more people should be taken seriously and at face value. I saw "web 1.0" versions in the early to mid 2000s of pretty much every product that became big in the late 2000s and 2010s. People made their choice.

allo37 5y ago

I think there's another point to consider with older technology: It was hard to use! The technical know-how required to get a site online in the 90's, early 2000's was a big filter for the quality of its content.

krapp 5y ago
>The technical know-how required to get a site online in the 90's, early 2000's was a big filter for the quality of its content. It really wasn't. I don't know why people here believe that being able to set up a web server and write HTML has any relationship to the quality of the content being marked up and served. They're completely different things. And by then Geocities, etc. were a thing and it didn't exactly take an engineering degree to use those.
- allo37 5y ago
  Did it take an engineering degree? Of course not. But knowing how to write HTML and get it on the internet was harder than, say, sending a tweet is today. I might also just not be remembering all the crappy Geocities sites with perfect clarity :)
  - dolni 5y ago
    When I was ten years old (late 90s) I was able to publish a site using a WYSIWYG host of the time (Homestead). It was crappy, of course, but it was something. And it was easy.

rollcat 5y ago

> There's lot's of sentiment out there that is being mistaken for 'nostalgia', which is genuine dissatisfaction with modern tools. That's why projects like suckless.org [2] seem more relevant every day. Suckless (the org) is too elitist to produce software usable by non-power users, which is a shame, because these folks are for the most part excellent at balancing perfectionism and minimalism with pragmatism; they could go a very long way to help "fix" rampant complexity, but their complete disinterest in accommodating people who can't program in C will keep their projects irrelevant on the grand scale of things.