Very often, you may hear a freetard talk about how Linux teaches you about computers, due to it’s “superior design” and openness.
If this is the case, then why there is so much effort in loonland to completely hide the operating system from the user?
Aren’t all new versions of Gnome and Unity essentially a massive effort to hide the filesystem from the user, by providing direct links to drives and folders instead of a traditional file explorer? Aren’t app managers a tool to hide where your applications are installed and what they install? What was the last time an appmanager told you where it installed something?
Aren’t all popular Linux distros essenitally dumbed down toy boxes, where they don’t even bother to tell you what they do on your system? Click, drool, pray. Shout “yeah” when things go well. Curse when things fail. This sumps up the experience on most popular linux ditros.
I don’t know, probably this happens because Linux’s design is a horrible mess that, once exposed to any sane user, will make him to want to commit suicide. The filesystem is a weird kludge (originally designed to be used on systems with only one drive), the appmanagers are designed to hide the horrible dependency hell problems of loonix (an unfortunate result of the linux api wars), and don’t even get me started on sound and graphics.
The freetards know that, and they also know that providing dumbed down toy boxes is the only way to make linux even half-usable to the average user.
But, what will the average user do when things go bad, and the toy box fails? Oh, don’t worry, those nice people at ubuntu forums can help you by giving you a string of weird commands to paste on your terminal, so that you won’t have to bother will the nasty system details.
Unless of course you dare to post something that isn’t at least 60% praise, in which case the nice people at ubuntu will not help, and you will be left standing in the water.
The really funny things, is that freetards will try and convince you that this is a good thing (even if it contradicts their previous teachesyoucomputerscience TM): “Hiding the system for the user is cool, you don’t need to know what goes on your system, all hail dumbed down toy boxes, all hail the power of Linux!”
(i am starting to think that loonix is a plot to make the world dependent on freetards).
PS: Yes, MacOS X can be blamed for hiding the system details from the user too, but it’s done in a way that works, and it never claimed to teach you computers.
Comments
I think one of the problems here is that obfuscation is “old school” *nix, whereas silly new desktop twiddles are “new school” linux. I vividly remember going through post-graduate work at Cambridge, watching people mutter over insanely complicated command line exhortations that didn’t really appear to do anything and thinking “Good God, this is all too complicated for me.”
The theory behind a good GUI is that it hides (even a fine, well-designed) CLI. The problem is that linux GUIs conspicuously fail in this. Part of the problem is that generally the GUI is just a shiny skin on top of the CLI — which makes it worse than useless — and part is that the people “contributing” are unskilled in graphic design, user interface, or indeed anything much else … but I suspect that a large part is still the traditional *nix obsession with obfuscation that you point out. If normal sheeples can use it without effort, then what’s the point? I mean (shudder) then we’d be no better than the sheeples!
I still love the “teaches you computers” idea. On one hand it’s apparently so easy anyone can use it without a manual. On the other hand, it challenges you and makes you check the man pages to figure out what the hell is going on.
Well, a man page is hardly a manual, is it?
That’s why Mr Stallman invented the info pages.
And, you know, every time I use info, it just takes me straight back to those days in the mid ’80s in Cambridge. It’s rather sad, really.
You must be signed in to leave comments.