5 ms·

Surely choice is good? I fail to see a single use for comments that dismiss the right of optionality for others.

mseepgood 13y ago
No, choice is poison to a software program and should be avoided unless there are very good reasons to justify an additional option.
- keithpeter 13y ago
  I would suggest that retaining an option needed by some users with unusual perceptual requirements is a 'very good reason' (Personally, I do leave my XFCE4 desktop on default settings, but I do alter defaults in some packages)
  - jodrellblank 13y ago
    If it was the only terminal emulator, there would be a good reason. The person in the link commenting "PUT IT BACK EVERY OTHER TERMINAL EMULATOR HAS IT" is more baffling. Both wanting choice and options, but at the same time not wanting to have to change when there are other options.
    - keithpeter 13y ago
      "If it was the only terminal emulator, there would be a good reason." Gnome Terminal may (effectively) be the only terminal emulator available to you if you do not have rights to install software or to change default software.
      - jodrellblank 13y ago
        If you are in an environment where you have to take what you are given, then whinging to the software developers to add in the functionality your boss won't let you have seems like the wrong move.
        mpyne 13y ago
        Yes, you're right. They should apparently be whining to their boss to use something other than GNOME instead instead of trying to fix their work environment at the source.
        jodrellblank 13y ago
        I'm assuming the said boss would not have approved the update to GNOME without first checking that all the features they require the workforce to have in order to work, are present. Then yes, they should. If the boss gives you lemons, you don't go to the lemon tree and ask if it can make lemons that read email, browse NFS shares and change screensaver settings. You go to your boss and say "just-lemons isn't good enough".
        vacri 13y ago
        When you cook, do you just give people a bowl of nutrient paste, saying "that's all you need to remain functional"? But we'd like something with texture and flavour. "So what, it's not like those things are needed to be functional. You can get by without them."
- lambda 13y ago
  You know, I understand wanting to put a little pressure back on the "make everything configurable" crowd; there are a lot of software engineers who go a bit overboard on the "just make it an option" approach to design, and then wind up with big, bloated, buggy software that tries to do everything but fails at most of it and is frustrating to configure. However, "choice is poison" is a rather extreme over-compensation for this problem. Sometimes, options really do provide value. And many times, if they are designed correctly, they don't substantially increase cost; if the features are orthogonal and implemented independently, the additional complexity is only linear with the number of features, not quadratic or worse as happens if they are too interrelated. I understand that we want to get away from the "you need to spend hours customizing your environment to make it usable" approach to design that plagues some open source project, but going to the other extreme and saying that "choice is poison" is just as bad.
- DanBC 13y ago
  This is a baffling opinion to have on HN.
  - cturner 13y ago
    There's plenty of precedent. The plan9 guys were very explicit about not having variable colours in acme. The suckless.org team say that you can configure whatever you like, but only through changing the source code. BeOS aimed to have no configuration and good defaults. I'd rather have something that was well thought through and is internally consistant than a grab-bag of customisation, none of which coexists well - like most linux desktops.
  - Joeboy 13y ago
    I'm not baffled. Giving people fewer options seems like a pretty popular paradigm these days. We tried "Give people choice" in the '90s and '00s, and it turned out people were mostly unimpressed. "Opinionated software" is the paradigm du jour.
wereHamster 13y ago
Linux is not about choice (http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/m...) was posted to HN a few days ago.
- mattacular 13y ago
  And still, a lot of seemingly smart people are baffled by the fact that Linux has failed to penetrate the mainstream OS market for personal computing...
- mseepgood 13y ago
  Also relevant: http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html This text is the unofficial Gnome UI manifesto. If you don't agree with it then you probably will never be happy with Gnome and should use something else.
- tobiasu 13y ago
  The personal opinion of Adam Jackson is the ultimate and only truth.
marssaxman 13y ago
Choice may be good, but it always comes at a cost. Each choice takes time to design, to code, to test, to document, to support, and most importantly to learn. Software designers should aim to offer the smallest number of options they can get away with.
- keithpeter 13y ago
  In new software, I can see your point. This issue relates to a removal of a previously available option.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  > Software designers should aim to offer the smallest number of options they can get away with. That's should always be second to providing solutions. Solve the problems that transparency solved first. If you aren't aware of the problems that transparency in terminals provided, then removing it is purely an act of ignorance.
  - mseepgood 13y ago
    The thing is transparency didn't solve any problem. It was just a nerdiness thing.
    - chumpalump 13y ago
      Nerdiness is evolution. Flowers are colorful and fancy to attract bees. Transparent terminals are colourful and fancy to attract hackers (aka users).
    - keithpeter 13y ago
      How do you know? 1) Have you searched the literature on perceptual defects and enablement? If so I'd love to see references. 2) Have you consulted widely on mailing lists that Gnome Terminal users use and checked use cases? If so, can you link to those? I'd like to see them.
    - arjie 13y ago

No, choice is poison to a software program and should be avoided unless there are very good reasons to justify an additional option.

keithpeter 13y ago
I would suggest that retaining an option needed by some users with unusual perceptual requirements is a 'very good reason' (Personally, I do leave my XFCE4 desktop on default settings, but I do alter defaults in some packages)
- jodrellblank 13y ago
  If it was the only terminal emulator, there would be a good reason. The person in the link commenting "PUT IT BACK EVERY OTHER TERMINAL EMULATOR HAS IT" is more baffling. Both wanting choice and options, but at the same time not wanting to have to change when there are other options.
  - keithpeter 13y ago
    "If it was the only terminal emulator, there would be a good reason." Gnome Terminal may (effectively) be the only terminal emulator available to you if you do not have rights to install software or to change default software.
    - jodrellblank 13y ago
      If you are in an environment where you have to take what you are given, then whinging to the software developers to add in the functionality your boss won't let you have seems like the wrong move.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Yes, you're right. They should apparently be whining to their boss to use something other than GNOME instead instead of trying to fix their work environment at the source.
        jodrellblank 13y ago
        I'm assuming the said boss would not have approved the update to GNOME without first checking that all the features they require the workforce to have in order to work, are present. Then yes, they should. If the boss gives you lemons, you don't go to the lemon tree and ask if it can make lemons that read email, browse NFS shares and change screensaver settings. You go to your boss and say "just-lemons isn't good enough".
        vacri 13y ago
        When you cook, do you just give people a bowl of nutrient paste, saying "that's all you need to remain functional"? But we'd like something with texture and flavour. "So what, it's not like those things are needed to be functional. You can get by without them."
lambda 13y ago
You know, I understand wanting to put a little pressure back on the "make everything configurable" crowd; there are a lot of software engineers who go a bit overboard on the "just make it an option" approach to design, and then wind up with big, bloated, buggy software that tries to do everything but fails at most of it and is frustrating to configure. However, "choice is poison" is a rather extreme over-compensation for this problem. Sometimes, options really do provide value. And many times, if they are designed correctly, they don't substantially increase cost; if the features are orthogonal and implemented independently, the additional complexity is only linear with the number of features, not quadratic or worse as happens if they are too interrelated. I understand that we want to get away from the "you need to spend hours customizing your environment to make it usable" approach to design that plagues some open source project, but going to the other extreme and saying that "choice is poison" is just as bad.
DanBC 13y ago
This is a baffling opinion to have on HN.
- cturner 13y ago
  There's plenty of precedent. The plan9 guys were very explicit about not having variable colours in acme. The suckless.org team say that you can configure whatever you like, but only through changing the source code. BeOS aimed to have no configuration and good defaults. I'd rather have something that was well thought through and is internally consistant than a grab-bag of customisation, none of which coexists well - like most linux desktops.
- Joeboy 13y ago
  I'm not baffled. Giving people fewer options seems like a pretty popular paradigm these days. We tried "Give people choice" in the '90s and '00s, and it turned out people were mostly unimpressed. "Opinionated software" is the paradigm du jour.

wereHamster 13y ago

Linux is not about choice (http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/m...) was posted to HN a few days ago.

mattacular 13y ago
And still, a lot of seemingly smart people are baffled by the fact that Linux has failed to penetrate the mainstream OS market for personal computing...
mseepgood 13y ago
Also relevant: http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html This text is the unofficial Gnome UI manifesto. If you don't agree with it then you probably will never be happy with Gnome and should use something else.
tobiasu 13y ago
The personal opinion of Adam Jackson is the ultimate and only truth.

marssaxman 13y ago

Choice may be good, but it always comes at a cost. Each choice takes time to design, to code, to test, to document, to support, and most importantly to learn. Software designers should aim to offer the smallest number of options they can get away with.

keithpeter 13y ago
In new software, I can see your point. This issue relates to a removal of a previously available option.
jasonlotito 13y ago
> Software designers should aim to offer the smallest number of options they can get away with. That's should always be second to providing solutions. Solve the problems that transparency solved first. If you aren't aware of the problems that transparency in terminals provided, then removing it is purely an act of ignorance.
- mseepgood 13y ago
  The thing is transparency didn't solve any problem. It was just a nerdiness thing.
  - chumpalump 13y ago
    Nerdiness is evolution. Flowers are colorful and fancy to attract bees. Transparent terminals are colourful and fancy to attract hackers (aka users).
  - keithpeter 13y ago
    How do you know? 1) Have you searched the literature on perceptual defects and enablement? If so I'd love to see references. 2) Have you consulted widely on mailing lists that Gnome Terminal users use and checked use cases? If so, can you link to those? I'd like to see them.
  - arjie 13y ago