5 ms·

No, see this twitter thread for what happens when you leave everything to user choice: https://twitter.com/jasonlong/status/1549857059495084032 https://twitter.

No, see this twitter thread for what happens when you leave everything to user choice: https://twitter.com/jasonlong/status/1549857059495084032 https://twitter.com/jasonlong/status/1549857059495084032 In general, it is better to leave nothing to user choice, if you can get away with it. By using any developer's software, you are conceding that their way is the correct way to do things, otherwise why waste your time with that software? There is no software in existence that is able to do every possible thing that anyone would ever want to do.

HeckFeck 4y ago
Hard disagree. And no one is arguing that _everything_ should be user choice, but there is certainly a meaningful accommodation that makes power users and tinkerers happy. We've had it more in the past and still have it with some software in the present. I'd argue this friendliness and synergy with the user is always the case in the most powerful and beloved software. It just feels smug and talked-down when someone comes along and sands over a reasonable amount of control and complexity that previously existed. I hate having my workflow disrupted because I like getting work done. Would you argue that we should have no shell aliases? No BIOS and boot order? No desktop wallpaper? No ability to set homepages in the web browser? Etc etc. The computer is like anything else I own and the more it responds to my wishes, the better. Small tweaks left to my discretion remind me of that, losing control piecemeal provokes disquietude. If it doesn't accommodate my needs then it feels less mine and for that reason I reject software that restricts my choices.
- Crysstalis 4y ago
  I do not understand what you are disagreeing with. Not every project is aimed at power users and tinkerers. You seem to be suggesting that they all should be, that is not realistic. If you feel talked down to, please consider that you may not be the target of discussion. >Would you argue that we should have no shell aliases? No BIOS and boot order? No desktop wallpaper? No ability to set homepages in the web browser? Those could be nice to have. I can say I do not actually need any of those things when I use my computer to write documents in a word processor. Do you see where I am going with this? Any "control" you want to have is completely up to what you are trying to do, if all I am trying to do is write my novel then all those other things can get in the way.
ayushnix 4y ago
> In general, it is better to leave nothing to user choice, if you can get away with it. I'm glad there are people out there that do not follow this user-is-an-idiot philosophy and created essential software like Emacs, Vim, ranger file manager, and i3wm.
- Crysstalis 4y ago
  Surely you can see that those are a very small subset of the software available in the world, and most software is not like that. It is not "user-is-an-idiot philosophy" to have developers actually do their job, which is to make the tough decisions about how the software should be designed for purpose, instead of offloading that task onto the user.
  - ayushnix 4y ago
    > and most software is not like that. If I wanted to use software that works for most people and doesn't believe in allowing users to make choices, I'd use MacOS or Windows. I can't see a reason to use Linux or BSD in that case.

HeckFeck 4y ago

Hard disagree. And no one is arguing that _everything_ should be user choice, but there is certainly a meaningful accommodation that makes power users and tinkerers happy. We've had it more in the past and still have it with some software in the present. I'd argue this friendliness and synergy with the user is always the case in the most powerful and beloved software. It just feels smug and talked-down when someone comes along and sands over a reasonable amount of control and complexity that previously existed. I hate having my workflow disrupted because I like getting work done. Would you argue that we should have no shell aliases? No BIOS and boot order? No desktop wallpaper? No ability to set homepages in the web browser? Etc etc. The computer is like anything else I own and the more it responds to my wishes, the better. Small tweaks left to my discretion remind me of that, losing control piecemeal provokes disquietude. If it doesn't accommodate my needs then it feels less mine and for that reason I reject software that restricts my choices.

Crysstalis 4y ago
I do not understand what you are disagreeing with. Not every project is aimed at power users and tinkerers. You seem to be suggesting that they all should be, that is not realistic. If you feel talked down to, please consider that you may not be the target of discussion. >Would you argue that we should have no shell aliases? No BIOS and boot order? No desktop wallpaper? No ability to set homepages in the web browser? Those could be nice to have. I can say I do not actually need any of those things when I use my computer to write documents in a word processor. Do you see where I am going with this? Any "control" you want to have is completely up to what you are trying to do, if all I am trying to do is write my novel then all those other things can get in the way.

ayushnix 4y ago

> In general, it is better to leave nothing to user choice, if you can get away with it. I'm glad there are people out there that do not follow this user-is-an-idiot philosophy and created essential software like Emacs, Vim, ranger file manager, and i3wm.

Crysstalis 4y ago
Surely you can see that those are a very small subset of the software available in the world, and most software is not like that. It is not "user-is-an-idiot philosophy" to have developers actually do their job, which is to make the tough decisions about how the software should be designed for purpose, instead of offloading that task onto the user.
- ayushnix 4y ago
  > and most software is not like that. If I wanted to use software that works for most people and doesn't believe in allowing users to make choices, I'd use MacOS or Windows. I can't see a reason to use Linux or BSD in that case.