5 ms·

>This should apply to computers. No, no, a thousand times no. What happened to cars - the replacement of mechanical, inspectable, (dare I say it) hackable comp

>This should apply to computers. No, no, a thousand times no. What happened to cars - the replacement of mechanical, inspectable, (dare I say it) hackable components with electronic black boxes was not a good thing. You used to be able to fix and replace most things in an automobile engine with parts from the local auto shop and a shop manual. No longer. Now you have to spend hundreds or thousands to get the correct electronic doohickeys to talk to the closed source, locked down, DRM'd to hell and back engine control modules. And many of the parts aren't repairable in any meaningful sense - you have to go to the dealership to get a new widget, and if your car is too old or too rare, you're just SOL and you have to buy a new car. If this is the world you want for software, I want no part of it.

snewman 12y ago
Old cars: you could fix it yourself. Modern cars: rarely need fixing; also much more efficient. I know which I prefer.
- Crito 12y ago
  > Modern cars: rarely need fixing; also much more efficient. That really has nothing to do with what is being discussed though. The reliability and efficiency of modern cars are consequences of advances in technology and engineering, not user interface redesign.
  - comex 12y ago
    Modern computers have also gotten... not more reliable exactly (they have, but it's not the point), but more robust against the need for manual configuration. When's the last time you had to defragment a disk, or figure out why some device in Windows Device Manager had a question mark next to it or what driver cocktail to install, or enter complicated settings to access the Internet? (Or XF86Config, for that matter...) In other words, just like modern cars, it's not as necessary to pay attention to the innards for continued operation.
    - Figs 12y ago
      figure out why some device in Windows Device Manager had a question mark next to it or what driver cocktail to install I did this just last week with a fresh Windows 7 installation because the drivers for the Ethernet adapter had to be manually installed...
      - surye 12y ago
        When was the last time you thought about IRQ settings?
        alandarev 12y ago
        Is it some kind of a test? Why is knowing IRQ relevant? I am joining many people here, who prefer having configurable tools. I do not want to configure 'IRQ' on any tool I use, but if it will misfunction, I will search for it and find out what IRQ means and how I adjust it to my needs. Worse, is being unable to change 'IRQ' when you need to, because people in charge decided it draws 95% customers away, and you are being in a 5% boat.
    - the_af 12y ago
      I don't think robustness has much to do with the need for manual configuration. Configuration is needed not (only) because users need to do troubleshooting, but also because they want to adjust and tweak their cars/computers/gadgets to their needs. The current trend is less configuration, less control in the hands of the consumer, more lock-down. I believe hiding implementation details is part of this trend to reduce complexity (which is good) but also to wrestle control away from the user (which is bad).
  - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
    Umm... Actually, yes, it is relevant. A large chunk of the reason behind the efficiency in particular of newer cars is the addition of those opaque black boxes. Being able to have the car's engine directly tune things according to complicated algorithms, instead of power-hungry mechanical controls, etc, etc.
    - Crito 12y ago
      Those black boxes would function just as well if they had public and standard specifications. Their opaque secrecy is not a feature.
      - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
        True. I was commenting on the black boxes, not the software contained within.
- brc 12y ago
  Every modern car becomes an old car. It's fine if you want to turn over your vehicle every three years. 'Modern' cars are not fixable - even the specialists tear our their hair on some cases and give up completely. Classics are rising steeply in value for people who want to own and understand a piece of machinery for its own sake. Much of modern automotive history will disappear into the maw of the crusher because irreplaceable, irrepairable parts render them useless.
  - gohrt 12y ago
    > It's fine if you want to turn over your vehicle every three years. more like eight years, which is not a bad deal.
- chronid 12y ago
  Are you implying that new cars rarely need fixing and are much more efficient because they are completely closed down and harder to work on than old cars?
  - 1stop 12y ago
    It's pretty obvious that is the implication... How about rather than condescension you make your counter point?
  - snewman 12y ago
    The converse: advances in automotive engineering have made cars more reliable and efficient, with the unfortunate but tolerable side effect of making them internally more complex and inaccessible.
- forgottenpass 12y ago
  There is this weird phenomenon I see happen online sometimes. There have been two steps forward. Simultaneously released alongside, but not dependent on, one step backward. So why do people defend the step backward under the guise of the steps forward.
cheese1756 12y ago
That's not a problem with abstraction, though, that's a problem with the manufacturers. You can have complex, highly configurable software that's still locked down, and you can have simple, abstracted software that's open source. It's not a result of the simplification of UIs.

snewman 12y ago

Old cars: you could fix it yourself. Modern cars: rarely need fixing; also much more efficient. I know which I prefer.

Crito 12y ago
> Modern cars: rarely need fixing; also much more efficient. That really has nothing to do with what is being discussed though. The reliability and efficiency of modern cars are consequences of advances in technology and engineering, not user interface redesign.
- comex 12y ago
  Modern computers have also gotten... not more reliable exactly (they have, but it's not the point), but more robust against the need for manual configuration. When's the last time you had to defragment a disk, or figure out why some device in Windows Device Manager had a question mark next to it or what driver cocktail to install, or enter complicated settings to access the Internet? (Or XF86Config, for that matter...) In other words, just like modern cars, it's not as necessary to pay attention to the innards for continued operation.
  - Figs 12y ago
    figure out why some device in Windows Device Manager had a question mark next to it or what driver cocktail to install I did this just last week with a fresh Windows 7 installation because the drivers for the Ethernet adapter had to be manually installed...
    - surye 12y ago
      When was the last time you thought about IRQ settings?
      - alandarev 12y ago
        Is it some kind of a test? Why is knowing IRQ relevant? I am joining many people here, who prefer having configurable tools. I do not want to configure 'IRQ' on any tool I use, but if it will misfunction, I will search for it and find out what IRQ means and how I adjust it to my needs. Worse, is being unable to change 'IRQ' when you need to, because people in charge decided it draws 95% customers away, and you are being in a 5% boat.
  - the_af 12y ago
    I don't think robustness has much to do with the need for manual configuration. Configuration is needed not (only) because users need to do troubleshooting, but also because they want to adjust and tweak their cars/computers/gadgets to their needs. The current trend is less configuration, less control in the hands of the consumer, more lock-down. I believe hiding implementation details is part of this trend to reduce complexity (which is good) but also to wrestle control away from the user (which is bad).
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  Umm... Actually, yes, it is relevant. A large chunk of the reason behind the efficiency in particular of newer cars is the addition of those opaque black boxes. Being able to have the car's engine directly tune things according to complicated algorithms, instead of power-hungry mechanical controls, etc, etc.
  - Crito 12y ago
    Those black boxes would function just as well if they had public and standard specifications. Their opaque secrecy is not a feature.
    - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
      True. I was commenting on the black boxes, not the software contained within.
brc 12y ago
Every modern car becomes an old car. It's fine if you want to turn over your vehicle every three years. 'Modern' cars are not fixable - even the specialists tear our their hair on some cases and give up completely. Classics are rising steeply in value for people who want to own and understand a piece of machinery for its own sake. Much of modern automotive history will disappear into the maw of the crusher because irreplaceable, irrepairable parts render them useless.
- gohrt 12y ago
  > It's fine if you want to turn over your vehicle every three years. more like eight years, which is not a bad deal.
chronid 12y ago
Are you implying that new cars rarely need fixing and are much more efficient because they are completely closed down and harder to work on than old cars?
- 1stop 12y ago
  It's pretty obvious that is the implication... How about rather than condescension you make your counter point?
- snewman 12y ago
  The converse: advances in automotive engineering have made cars more reliable and efficient, with the unfortunate but tolerable side effect of making them internally more complex and inaccessible.
forgottenpass 12y ago
There is this weird phenomenon I see happen online sometimes. There have been two steps forward. Simultaneously released alongside, but not dependent on, one step backward. So why do people defend the step backward under the guise of the steps forward.

cheese1756 12y ago

That's not a problem with abstraction, though, that's a problem with the manufacturers. You can have complex, highly configurable software that's still locked down, and you can have simple, abstracted software that's open source. It's not a result of the simplification of UIs.