[opensuse] Computers for users or computers for geeks? (was: btrfs problem - how to run btrfsck on boot

On 01/01/2017 01:13 PM, Dave Howorth wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 20:23:48 +0100 Richard Brown wrote:

...

In the real world I expect users to spend some time to understand the tools they have chosen to use and to use them appropriately

I'm sorry but that is completely unrealistic, IMHO. I see two situations:

(1) it's a new install - the person is likely to want to default everything and just get a running system so they can decide quickly whether they like linux/opensuse/the latest release.

I can see a further bifurcation. Is that a home user or a commercial/industrial user? Or asked another way, is it about desktop or server. Or asked another way, is it someone with a PC/Windows background or someone with a Big iron (even if its AIX or HP/UX or Solaria) background? I keep saying "Context is everything" that applies here too. Having used those Big Iron things like LVM and Btrfs's snapshotting were not strange to me, just a matter of learning a new CLI. But they are the sort of thing that are totally alien to a home Windows user. So, does the installer present them and get a "DUH? what am I supposed to do with this?" reaction form the Windows user or hide them and get a "Well this is lame and incapable!" reaction from the evaluator used to Big Iron?

[snip]

...

I do not expect them to continue using them the way they have been used for many years, just because they used to work in a certain way

Why on earth not? Do you live in a superinsulated passivhaus? Why not?

Explain, please, why FORD, GM, Toyota and others produce automobiles that use steering wheel and pedals and not reins and spurs? Personally I think part of the problem is in terminology. When we stopped calling them "horseless carriages" we let go of the concept of typing carriages to horses. "Automobile" is a descriptive generic; "car" is a new term even if it is an abbreviation of 'carriage'. We're going though the same thing with 'smartphones'. All the apps on your 'phone, well better than 90% of what's there has nothing to do with making POTS-like voice communication. For many people its a camera first and foremost. many SF stories recognise the utility , that it will evolve into portable 'smarts', possibly with a personal AI UI to the calendar and your 'life manager'. And we stop calling it a phone, but what do we call it? Even when I use my Samsung/iPhone as a voice communicator I don't use a dial-pad, and certainly not a rotary dialler, I simply say "Call Sandy". "Evolve or Die".

No. Whoever designed an fsck program that can't safely be run without precursors should be shot. Programs should always be programmed defensively and expecting people to read documentation before running them is certifiably insane. Let alone understand the documentation and act upon it.

Again, changes go through phases. When "horseless carriages" and the early automobiles were introduced they were expensive and limited to hobbyists and the Very Rich. The latter employed enthusiasts and specialist who know how it all worked. Yes computers followed that same path, but Bill gates did what Hank Ford had done and made the technology into a consumer item by simplifying it down for people who weren't enthusiasts and who didn't have the time or inclination to read the manual. It took a few iterations. if a time traveller had taken back a workstation from the early 200s to t a PC user of the 1980 it would have been like that scene in the Star Trek movie where Scotty travels back in time and you see him picking up the mouse as if it were a microphone and is trying to give the computer commands by voice. To a PC/AT user a mouse, a 23" screen, 250G or hard drive, hi-res graphics, pop-up context sensitive menus and more was an innovation yet to come. Most computer users today no more read the operating and technical manuals than car drivers read the operating manuals and technical manuals of their cars. And the car designers are savvy enough to realise this and design the cars to accommodate such. Our problem isn't that the software designers are geeks. Techies are like that in all industries. its that they are in command. Part of the success of Apple is that Human factor designers got an upper hands, they worked to design a computer that didn't need manuals - something they boasted of. That was the difference between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. "Context is Everything". -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org