4 ms·

No, the best [insert unfavorable stereotype here]-proof OS in 2013 is iOS. Compared to iOS, Linux compares unfavorably on almost every factor: - For truly cas

No, the best [insert unfavorable stereotype here]-proof OS in 2013 is iOS. Compared to iOS, Linux compares unfavorably on almost every factor: - For truly casual, non-savvy users the iPad is the ideal hardware platform. It's small, it's unintimidating, it's inexpensive. - Touchscreens are great. They're the natural interface for a casual user. I have a grandmother who became somewhat notorious for breaking LCDs in my family. This was back in the early 2000s before touchscreens were remotely common, but that interface mode still managed to stick in her head so firmly that she never did develop an instinct for using the mouse. - For users this casual, a Linux setup depends critically on having a friend or family member who's able and willing to set up and administer their computer for them. Very few people have that. - By contrast, the biggest problem I've had to support with non-nerdy friends/family and their iPads is, "I can't get this Send to Evernote bookmarklet working in Safari." That's obviously coming from one of the less intimidated ones. - The onscreen keyboard is generally fine because people this uncomfortable with computers generally don't touch-type anyway. For those who do, a case with a built-in keyboard is an easy solution. Now I'll grant there are some political objections to iOS out there, and for people to whom those political objections are important, Linux is less problematic. To them I say, get over yourself. This isn't a computer for you. This is a computer for people who neither know nor give a damn about the GNU Manifesto. Or if you think they really do want something that folds, a Chromebook probably works too. Haven't had a chance to try one of those, honestly.

betterunix 13y ago
"This isn't a computer for you. This is a computer for people who neither know nor give a damn about the GNU Manifesto." The point of the GNU manifesto is that nobody, not even people who are hopelessly unable to manage their own computer, should be forced to give up control of their computers. It is one thing to lack a working knowledge of computers, but quite another to receive a computer that deliberately traps you. Beyond that, the GNU manifesto is about not dividing people into special social classes like "programmers" and "end users;" everyone should have the same rights over their computers, regardless of their ability to exercise those rights on their own. Some of us are not going to recommend computers that are designed to be controlled by their manufacturers. I would rather deal with a million annoying demands for computer help from my family members than to see their technical ignorance taken advantage of by Apple or by anyone else. Consider what you are saying in the context of free speech (not such a stretch, considering the censorship of political apps in the Apple app store). Would you say that free speech only matters for philosophers and political commentators? Would you say that it is OK to curtail certain speech for everyone else, because most people never say those things anyway? That is what you are saying about computers: that the freedom to hack belongs only to people who have the technical knowledge needed to do so.
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  Yes. And for all that, if you present it as an argument for why people need to be using a computer that's inscrutable to them, they'll dismiss you as a hopeless ideologue at best. At worst, they'll get offended by your nerd chauvinism. "No you can't do as much with this system and are generally much more dependent on others if you use it, but the point is that you could be if you did have the technical knowledge. Which you don't, but that's beside the point!" might be a well-intentioned position, but it's horrendously privileged. For someone to whom the abstract Freedom offered by free software is, by any practical measure, inaccessible, the concrete freedom offered by well-designed user-friendly products is vastly more valuable.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    I do not think you can say that the freedoms offered by Free software are entirely inaccessible to even the most technically illiterate users. We usually talk about things like the freedom to copy or study or modify software, but the most basic freedom is the freedom to use software (and by extension, your computer) however you wish. That is not something Apple's snappy interfaces deliver -- you are only free to use iOS for the things Apple approves, and subverting that control (i.e. jailbreaking) is no less intimidating than using a modern GNU/Linux distro. My experience has been that deliberate restrictions on software use affect non-technical people as much as they affect me: "What does 'activation failed' mean?" "Why can't I copy this DVD?" "I want to record this TV show and then watch it on my tablet, how do I copy it from my DVR?" "My friend had that app, why can't I find it in the app store? How do I install it?" Dismissing the freedoms offered by Free software as abstract and inaccessible ignores the reality of how people use their computers. Nobody is claiming that someone who never touched a computer in their life is going to be hacking the kernel, but it is not far-fetched to think that they might want to copy a movie or that they might be angry if their books mysteriously disappear one night. The snappy UI is little more than bait -- it is attractive to people who are frustrated by more complicated systems, but hidden behind it is a system that denies people the right to use their computers they way they want to use their computers. In other words, what I said in my comment: an attempt to take advantage of technical ignorance.

betterunix 13y ago

"This isn't a computer for you. This is a computer for people who neither know nor give a damn about the GNU Manifesto." The point of the GNU manifesto is that nobody, not even people who are hopelessly unable to manage their own computer, should be forced to give up control of their computers. It is one thing to lack a working knowledge of computers, but quite another to receive a computer that deliberately traps you. Beyond that, the GNU manifesto is about not dividing people into special social classes like "programmers" and "end users;" everyone should have the same rights over their computers, regardless of their ability to exercise those rights on their own. Some of us are not going to recommend computers that are designed to be controlled by their manufacturers. I would rather deal with a million annoying demands for computer help from my family members than to see their technical ignorance taken advantage of by Apple or by anyone else. Consider what you are saying in the context of free speech (not such a stretch, considering the censorship of political apps in the Apple app store). Would you say that free speech only matters for philosophers and political commentators? Would you say that it is OK to curtail certain speech for everyone else, because most people never say those things anyway? That is what you are saying about computers: that the freedom to hack belongs only to people who have the technical knowledge needed to do so.

bunderbunder 13y ago
Yes. And for all that, if you present it as an argument for why people need to be using a computer that's inscrutable to them, they'll dismiss you as a hopeless ideologue at best. At worst, they'll get offended by your nerd chauvinism. "No you can't do as much with this system and are generally much more dependent on others if you use it, but the point is that you could be if you did have the technical knowledge. Which you don't, but that's beside the point!" might be a well-intentioned position, but it's horrendously privileged. For someone to whom the abstract Freedom offered by free software is, by any practical measure, inaccessible, the concrete freedom offered by well-designed user-friendly products is vastly more valuable.
- betterunix 13y ago
  I do not think you can say that the freedoms offered by Free software are entirely inaccessible to even the most technically illiterate users. We usually talk about things like the freedom to copy or study or modify software, but the most basic freedom is the freedom to use software (and by extension, your computer) however you wish. That is not something Apple's snappy interfaces deliver -- you are only free to use iOS for the things Apple approves, and subverting that control (i.e. jailbreaking) is no less intimidating than using a modern GNU/Linux distro. My experience has been that deliberate restrictions on software use affect non-technical people as much as they affect me: "What does 'activation failed' mean?" "Why can't I copy this DVD?" "I want to record this TV show and then watch it on my tablet, how do I copy it from my DVR?" "My friend had that app, why can't I find it in the app store? How do I install it?" Dismissing the freedoms offered by Free software as abstract and inaccessible ignores the reality of how people use their computers. Nobody is claiming that someone who never touched a computer in their life is going to be hacking the kernel, but it is not far-fetched to think that they might want to copy a movie or that they might be angry if their books mysteriously disappear one night. The snappy UI is little more than bait -- it is attractive to people who are frustrated by more complicated systems, but hidden behind it is a system that denies people the right to use their computers they way they want to use their computers. In other words, what I said in my comment: an attempt to take advantage of technical ignorance.