6 ms·

What you seem to be saying is that in order to use a personal computer, you should be an expert. I disagree, and I'm glad that most people disagree as well. Us

What you seem to be saying is that in order to use a personal computer, you should be an expert. I disagree, and I'm glad that most people disagree as well. User-friendliness is important regardless of what system it is, even Linux. Have you noticed that the most successful distributions of Linux are the ones that are most friendly to beginners? This elitism is destructive and serves only to make the "experts" smug and keep everyone else in the dark. I've found that the real experts are the ones who are writing guides for solving issues so that beginners can solve them too. That way, everyone benefits... and the beginners get to learn too. Almost all of my experience with config files has come from having a problem, Googling it, copy-pasting some commands into the terminal, and then becoming interested and messing around with it.

TallGuyShort 14y ago
While I agree that we should do everything we can to be user-friendly and not allow what I'm about to suggest to take the form of "elitism", I think we underplay the importance of helping the user understand the system. I think your typical user should understand SSL before they do online banking and shared libraries before they let their work rely entirely on their computer, in the same sense that I think you should know how to change a tire and change your oil before you buy a car or go on a long road trip. Yes, they all should just "work out of the box", but in a more and more literal sense we trust a lot of machine with our lives. We ought to understand all of these machines better before we trust them with our lives or vote on the leaders who will regulate their use.
- takluyver 14y ago
  We have abstraction layers precisely so that you can use things without understanding them. It's not just computers, every day we use all kinds of technology without properly knowing how it works. Of course, sometimes those abstractions are leaky, and we have to change a tire or apply an update. But suggesting that typical users should read up on SSL (and therefore asymmetric cryptography) before they use online banking is as ridiculous as saying that every new driver should study the detailed workings of the internal combustion engine. Someone needs to know how it works, but my mother really doesn't.
  - TallGuyShort 14y ago
    I've personally seen people click through the most alarming-looking certificate errors and start entering their bank login credentials. I've driven in cars with people who had put up with that knocking sound in the engine for months because it wasn't getting any worse. If your mother did any of these things, I would be very worried about her financial and physical safety.
    - takluyver 14y ago
      You don't have to know how either works to recognise something is wrong with them. My mother, happily, is quite cautious and would go and find someone who understands the machine better. In the computer case, I'd likely be getting a phone call. The certificate errors are kind of a design failure. Users are so used to clicking through messages they don't really understand, and this is just one more. Even the most alarming certificate errors are usually innocuous, in my experience - someone forgets to renew a certificate, or fails to get a new one for a domain change. That doesn't mean it's OK to ignore them, but we really need systems that don't cry wolf unless there's a really good chance that there's a wolf.
      - jarek 14y ago
        > Even the most alarming certificate errors are usually innocuous, in my experience - someone forgets to renew a certificate, or fails to get a new one for a domain change. That doesn't mean it's OK to ignore them, but we really need systems that don't cry wolf unless there's a really good chance that there's a wolf. How do you propose to algorithmically determine if a certificate not matching a domain change is innocuous? This is a bit like suggesting having a "check engine" light that only comes on when there's an immediate risk of an engine fire.
        csense 14y ago
        Malicious intent can be algorithmically determined by checking for packets with the "evil" bit set to 1, as specified in RFC 3514 [1]. [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt
claudius 14y ago
> What you seem to be saying is that in order to use a personal computer, you should be an expert. No. What I am saying is that a) using a device is different from administrating it and b) in order to administrate a device you have to be an expert. You don’t expect to buy a car and never ever go to a workshop with it, because, you know, you shouldn’t have to be an expert to service your car. Similarly, expecting to be able to service a PC without being an expert is as futile. > Have you noticed that the most successful distributions of Linux are the ones that are most friendly to beginners? What metric/definition of successful are you using? [0] > (third paragraph) Exactly. Your point being? [0] Hint: Number of users is not a measure of quality, and hence not necessarily a measure of success.
- omegaham 14y ago
  I was specifically using "successful" to mean "number of users." People use what they like, and Ubuntu has gotten a lot more users than, say, Gentoo. Is Ubuntu superior to Gentoo? That's a matter of opinion; I'm sure that there are plenty of applications where people have decided that Gentoo is the perfect fit for what they want to accomplish. But for personal computing needs, people tend to use what is most user-friendly. I don't mean that it's okay to be completely illiterate in how a computer works, especially if you're using Linux. To take your car example, I don't think that a driver should know how to rebuild his engine. I do expect the driver to know how to change his oil and brake pads and know about scheduled maintenance. The same is true for computers. A Linux user should know basic bash commands, how to install software, how to research problems, and so on. But he shouldn't be expected to know how to troubleshoot driver problems or know the ins and outs of xorg.conf. That's what Google and the aforementioned benevolent experts writing guides are for.
- sirclueless 14y ago
  I would argue that popularity is actually a great indicator of the quality of an OS and your experience with it. I am what you would consider an "expert" (or at least, I can definitely competently administer a linux computer) but I don't use linux distributions for day-to-day computing. The reason is that linux computers, even ones running "popular distros" such as Ubuntu, are considerably more prone to interoperability foibles and installation/updating problems. The reason popularity matters, even though I have the technical skill to administer any OS competently, is that popularity is the single best incentive to encourage third parties to iron out the kinks on a particular platform. The reason AMD drivers work better on Windows than they do on Linux is not because Windows is "better" by any of the metrics of quality you espouse, it's because Windows is more popular. The reason Steam for Linux is only supported on Ubuntu is not because Ubuntu is "better" it is because it's the most popular distro. The reason to use popular platforms is because all of the little things that require a half-hour of expert time to work around would have already been solved by the vendor who recognized that such issues are worth testing for and fixing for a platform with 100 million users, but not for one with 20,000. That's distasteful to some because it doesn't seem meritocratic and it's out of the control of the creators of the OS, but it's a fact of business, and it does affect the quality of an OS in tangible ways. As for the "expert" thing, the costs really aren't that different for various kinds of users. The reason I care about this stuff is because the opportunity cost of my time spent solving menial issues that would have been solved by the vendor if I were on a more popular platform is too high. The reason my mother cares about this stuff is because the transaction costs of finding someone who will spend the time to figure out what's going on and fix her computer is too high.
Stratoscope 14y ago
I had a taste of those elitist attitudes a few years ago when I was looking up how to add a user on an Ubuntu server and the top result for a search on "ubuntu add user" was this page: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/ubuntu/add-a-user-on-ubuntu-server/ http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/ubuntu/add-a-user-on-ubuntu-s... Ubuntu has two commands for this, useradd and adduser, where adduser is the easier one for newbies, while useradd is more flexible but has a lot of ways you can get it wrong. In fact, 'man useradd' recommends using adduser instead. Unfortunately, that how-to page starts with useradd, and the first example on the page is: useradd <username> It isn't until later on the page that it mentions that there are some options you must add to the command if you want it to set up everything correctly for a typical user. And if you leave these options out, the page doesn't explain how to fix it after the fact. Finally, near the bottom of the page it mentions the adduser command that would have worked with no special options and no hassles. So, being at the time a Linux newbie, I worked through the how-to and tried the useradd command it suggested, got myself into a situation where I wasn't sure exactly what I'd really done and hadn't done, then finally discovered the adduser command I should have used in the first place. I posted a reasonably polite complaint that the how-to had led me down the wrong path and it ought to start with the recommended adduser command instead of just mentioning it in passing at the end. The responses I got were fairly eye-opening. (Click the "show archived reader comments (36)" link to see them.) This one was my favorite: > Michael Greary [sic] you are a D&%K H#$&D. You’re the 1 that messed it up no1 else, and anyone else for that matter. > Hopefully you’ve learnt by now that when blindly running linux commands you should read the whole article to make sure it’s what you want first. > Blaming it on other ppl isn’t gonna help either. You should’ve said it by admitting your mistake, asking for a way to rectify it. > (sigh) I bet you have no friends I have to admit he was right. Clearly, I am not worthy of using Ubuntu!
- omegaham 14y ago
  And this is what's so frustrating. I love Linux. I truly love the idea of making everything open from the kernel to the desktop environment to all of the applications you can run on it. I truly love the idea of customizing everything... and if you don't like what's there, you can modify it to your heart's content if you learn how. That's just freaking cool to me. Except... we have douchebags in the community who talk shit to newbies and then cry, "Why does everyone use Windows? How come Linux isn't more widely used?" Just check your post history and read the number of times you wrote "RTFM." That's why.

TallGuyShort 14y ago

While I agree that we should do everything we can to be user-friendly and not allow what I'm about to suggest to take the form of "elitism", I think we underplay the importance of helping the user understand the system. I think your typical user should understand SSL before they do online banking and shared libraries before they let their work rely entirely on their computer, in the same sense that I think you should know how to change a tire and change your oil before you buy a car or go on a long road trip. Yes, they all should just "work out of the box", but in a more and more literal sense we trust a lot of machine with our lives. We ought to understand all of these machines better before we trust them with our lives or vote on the leaders who will regulate their use.

takluyver 14y ago
We have abstraction layers precisely so that you can use things without understanding them. It's not just computers, every day we use all kinds of technology without properly knowing how it works. Of course, sometimes those abstractions are leaky, and we have to change a tire or apply an update. But suggesting that typical users should read up on SSL (and therefore asymmetric cryptography) before they use online banking is as ridiculous as saying that every new driver should study the detailed workings of the internal combustion engine. Someone needs to know how it works, but my mother really doesn't.
- TallGuyShort 14y ago
  I've personally seen people click through the most alarming-looking certificate errors and start entering their bank login credentials. I've driven in cars with people who had put up with that knocking sound in the engine for months because it wasn't getting any worse. If your mother did any of these things, I would be very worried about her financial and physical safety.
  - takluyver 14y ago
    You don't have to know how either works to recognise something is wrong with them. My mother, happily, is quite cautious and would go and find someone who understands the machine better. In the computer case, I'd likely be getting a phone call. The certificate errors are kind of a design failure. Users are so used to clicking through messages they don't really understand, and this is just one more. Even the most alarming certificate errors are usually innocuous, in my experience - someone forgets to renew a certificate, or fails to get a new one for a domain change. That doesn't mean it's OK to ignore them, but we really need systems that don't cry wolf unless there's a really good chance that there's a wolf.
    - jarek 14y ago
      > Even the most alarming certificate errors are usually innocuous, in my experience - someone forgets to renew a certificate, or fails to get a new one for a domain change. That doesn't mean it's OK to ignore them, but we really need systems that don't cry wolf unless there's a really good chance that there's a wolf. How do you propose to algorithmically determine if a certificate not matching a domain change is innocuous? This is a bit like suggesting having a "check engine" light that only comes on when there's an immediate risk of an engine fire.
      - csense 14y ago
        Malicious intent can be algorithmically determined by checking for packets with the "evil" bit set to 1, as specified in RFC 3514 [1]. [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt

claudius 14y ago

> What you seem to be saying is that in order to use a personal computer, you should be an expert. No. What I am saying is that a) using a device is different from administrating it and b) in order to administrate a device you have to be an expert. You don’t expect to buy a car and never ever go to a workshop with it, because, you know, you shouldn’t have to be an expert to service your car. Similarly, expecting to be able to service a PC without being an expert is as futile. > Have you noticed that the most successful distributions of Linux are the ones that are most friendly to beginners? What metric/definition of successful are you using? [0] > (third paragraph) Exactly. Your point being? [0] Hint: Number of users is not a measure of quality, and hence not necessarily a measure of success.

omegaham 14y ago
I was specifically using "successful" to mean "number of users." People use what they like, and Ubuntu has gotten a lot more users than, say, Gentoo. Is Ubuntu superior to Gentoo? That's a matter of opinion; I'm sure that there are plenty of applications where people have decided that Gentoo is the perfect fit for what they want to accomplish. But for personal computing needs, people tend to use what is most user-friendly. I don't mean that it's okay to be completely illiterate in how a computer works, especially if you're using Linux. To take your car example, I don't think that a driver should know how to rebuild his engine. I do expect the driver to know how to change his oil and brake pads and know about scheduled maintenance. The same is true for computers. A Linux user should know basic bash commands, how to install software, how to research problems, and so on. But he shouldn't be expected to know how to troubleshoot driver problems or know the ins and outs of xorg.conf. That's what Google and the aforementioned benevolent experts writing guides are for.
sirclueless 14y ago
I would argue that popularity is actually a great indicator of the quality of an OS and your experience with it. I am what you would consider an "expert" (or at least, I can definitely competently administer a linux computer) but I don't use linux distributions for day-to-day computing. The reason is that linux computers, even ones running "popular distros" such as Ubuntu, are considerably more prone to interoperability foibles and installation/updating problems. The reason popularity matters, even though I have the technical skill to administer any OS competently, is that popularity is the single best incentive to encourage third parties to iron out the kinks on a particular platform. The reason AMD drivers work better on Windows than they do on Linux is not because Windows is "better" by any of the metrics of quality you espouse, it's because Windows is more popular. The reason Steam for Linux is only supported on Ubuntu is not because Ubuntu is "better" it is because it's the most popular distro. The reason to use popular platforms is because all of the little things that require a half-hour of expert time to work around would have already been solved by the vendor who recognized that such issues are worth testing for and fixing for a platform with 100 million users, but not for one with 20,000. That's distasteful to some because it doesn't seem meritocratic and it's out of the control of the creators of the OS, but it's a fact of business, and it does affect the quality of an OS in tangible ways. As for the "expert" thing, the costs really aren't that different for various kinds of users. The reason I care about this stuff is because the opportunity cost of my time spent solving menial issues that would have been solved by the vendor if I were on a more popular platform is too high. The reason my mother cares about this stuff is because the transaction costs of finding someone who will spend the time to figure out what's going on and fix her computer is too high.

Stratoscope 14y ago

I had a taste of those elitist attitudes a few years ago when I was looking up how to add a user on an Ubuntu server and the top result for a search on "ubuntu add user" was this page: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/ubuntu/add-a-user-on-ubuntu-server/ http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/ubuntu/add-a-user-on-ubuntu-s... Ubuntu has two commands for this, useradd and adduser, where adduser is the easier one for newbies, while useradd is more flexible but has a lot of ways you can get it wrong. In fact, 'man useradd' recommends using adduser instead. Unfortunately, that how-to page starts with useradd, and the first example on the page is: useradd <username> It isn't until later on the page that it mentions that there are some options you must add to the command if you want it to set up everything correctly for a typical user. And if you leave these options out, the page doesn't explain how to fix it after the fact. Finally, near the bottom of the page it mentions the adduser command that would have worked with no special options and no hassles. So, being at the time a Linux newbie, I worked through the how-to and tried the useradd command it suggested, got myself into a situation where I wasn't sure exactly what I'd really done and hadn't done, then finally discovered the adduser command I should have used in the first place. I posted a reasonably polite complaint that the how-to had led me down the wrong path and it ought to start with the recommended adduser command instead of just mentioning it in passing at the end. The responses I got were fairly eye-opening. (Click the "show archived reader comments (36)" link to see them.) This one was my favorite: > Michael Greary [sic] you are a D&%K H#$&D. You’re the 1 that messed it up no1 else, and anyone else for that matter. > Hopefully you’ve learnt by now that when blindly running linux commands you should read the whole article to make sure it’s what you want first. > Blaming it on other ppl isn’t gonna help either. You should’ve said it by admitting your mistake, asking for a way to rectify it. > (sigh) I bet you have no friends I have to admit he was right. Clearly, I am not worthy of using Ubuntu!

omegaham 14y ago
And this is what's so frustrating. I love Linux. I truly love the idea of making everything open from the kernel to the desktop environment to all of the applications you can run on it. I truly love the idea of customizing everything... and if you don't like what's there, you can modify it to your heart's content if you learn how. That's just freaking cool to me. Except... we have douchebags in the community who talk shit to newbies and then cry, "Why does everyone use Windows? How come Linux isn't more widely used?" Just check your post history and read the number of times you wrote "RTFM." That's why.