Please take care that modern design practices and the latest materials are used in construction of the house, as I want it to be a showplace for the most up-to-date ideas and methods. Be alerted, however, that kitchen should be designed to accommodate, among other things, my 1952 Gibson refrigerator.
That’s actually too easy, because electrical systems have been standardized for a long time.
Should be something like “15 highpowered electrical stoves, but keep the total power consumption below 15 Watts.”
Or, homeautomation and integration with google/alexa, but using the old fridge.
“This button turns on the light in the hallway. Sometimes it brings the whole house down on you, but we haven’t found a way to reliably reproduce this. If that happens just crawl from under the rubble, rebuild the house, and try again. This time the light should turn on.“
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!
No, Richard, it’s ‘Linux’, not ‘GNU/Linux’. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS – more on this later). He named it ‘Linux’ with a little help from his friends. Why doesn’t he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff – including the software I wrote using GCC – and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don’t want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title ‘GNU/Linux’ (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn’t the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you’ve heard this one before. Get used to it. You’ll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn’t more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn’t perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
Last, I’d like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn’t be fighting among ourselves over naming other people’s software. But what the heck, I’m in a bad mood now. I think I’m feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn’t you and everyone refer to GCC as ‘the Linux compiler’? Or at least, ‘Linux GCC’? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?
If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux’ huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don’t be a nag.
Yes, I think that most of us realized from some of the self-aware wording that this is a parody. But like many parodies it’s a real trope taken to a silly extreme, so we’re talking about users who fit that trope (including ourselves, sometimes!).
Oh the idea is that it hunts down users across different social media accounts with limited information. Just a way to automate something someone could do themselves.
As you can see here though, it checks a lot of sites
Sometimes I can understand this struggle. For example let’s play a game. There is this app from e-foundation “Blisslauncher” it’s the default of eOS. And since I like it but don’t use eOS I want to download the apk from their gitlab page.
They actually call the android releases “cookies” because of this tradition for the code names. You can read phrases like “This will be fixed in the next cookie”
Then created a GitHub account to post three separate issues complaining about how the project’s executable is an obvious Trojan, patting themself on the back for keeping the community safe with their expert sleuthing.
All this really means is they grew up navigating digital spaces socially. I’ve discovered first hand that the generation at large has little-to-no knowledge of the technical workings of even the computers they use regularly, imo due to the “apple-fication” (one button? Really?) of digital devices. Most exclusively use their cell phone as their digital device, or a chromebook provided by their school, all of which have been streamlined to the extreme to “enhance” the user experience, but have in actuality given them absolutely zero-experience learning how to troubleshoot or incentive to dig into how their devices operate. I’ve had to walk teens through how to navigate the file directories on their laptops.
In the past, the only people to be “techies” (ie people seeking out spaces like the Internet) were ones willing and able to deal with hurdles and issues, and the window is apparently quiet narrow for people who grew up with tech (to an extent) and also had to learn how to handle issues like that. The majority of others are either those described above, or those that never saw tech as important or worth it (though we’re also seeing the consequences of those people finding their way onto the “one-button” internet in meme/conspiracy addicted boomers).
Agreed, Big Tech’s quest for UX and frictionless Interfaces has lead to a generation of people who vastly overestimate their tech savviness and are basically only great at navigating walled gardens made specifically to be easy to use.
It’s not really their fault though: in addition to frontends becoming ever easier to use, backends are also becoming increasingly complex. 20 years ago you could learn a bit of HTML and CSS and throw a decent website together, but nowadays you need to master tons of other skills (graphical design, scripting, etc.) to make even so much as a web page that won’t scare people away immediately. It’s hard to get interested in this stuff when the barrier of entry is getting higher and higher, while tons of GAFAM-made alternative are already available for “free”
Definitely not, and to clarify, I am laying any blame there is to be doled out at the feet of companies.
I do wonder if it’s reversible at this point, though. I don’t see any company choosing to reverse course, at least not in a way that would cause a large-scale shift. Incapable users are the best they could hope for - uninterested in seeking out anything other than what they are handed and, if they ever did decide to look around, unable to adapt to “harsher” alternatives. Legislation certainly isn’t going to be expected. No government is going to mandate citizens have a “worse” experience. Perhaps a purposeful cultural shift, but that would take a lot of coordination of people that likely don’t see the issue or simply don’t care. I feel like we’re past the watershed here, as frustrating and concerning as that is.
Seriously. It’s infuriating. Everything is so damn dumbed down now it’s ridiculous! People are incapable of doing so much as reading error messages and doing basic troubleshooting, sometimes I wonder where society went wrong. They’re completely helpless with the technology that makes up more and more of our lives, and I hate to see it.
20 years ago you could learn a bit of HTML and CSS and throw a decent website together, but nowadays you need to master tons of other skills (graphical design, scripting, etc.) to make even so much as a web page that won’t scare people away immediately
Looking at it this way is what stops people from trying though :(
Expecting people who grew up after the Internet was mainstream to all be developers is like expecting everyone who grew up in the 60s and 70s to be a mechanic
You can usually find step by step instructions for fixing most cars. My library has a subscription to Chilton online, so I can use it from home and look at repair procedures and wiring diagrams. Just use forums and YouTube to fill in the gaps. I've even diagnosed a car from Amazon reviews since I suspected a certain part was bad and looked at reviews that said the exact symptoms.
Sure, a lot of people can do that. A lot of people absolutely can’t, too. A lot of people can look up and solve computer issues too, and a lot of people can’t. It’s not a generational thing or specific to computers.
On second thoughts you’re probably right. It lacks ebonics and other n*ggerspeak so it might not be a zoomer or it may be an extremely rare zoomer that knows some english.
Man these comments are fun. The patricians defending the (admittedly) bad UI/UX as the skill-hurdle it is, while the rest are finding inventive ways to rephrase “gib button plz”
Plenty of developers also use GitHub for software distribution for end users, so that’s where the problems lie. I’m not saying GitHub should change their UI to match something the site wasn’t made for, but it’s still an issue for people who choose to use it that way.
But it is often additionally used as a software package distribution platform, so it would be helpful for some developers to reach their users by having a clearer path to the most current release.
I can personally do without a special button, and the op is obviously making a joke, but why not improve the UX for some users? It’s certainly possible to do this without impacting the smelly nerds who wouldn’t use the button.
While it may have begun that way (and may still be the overwhelming use case, idk the breakdown) devs are using it for FOSS releases, and that’s where the ‘less literate’ crowd enters. Sourceforge was very simple to use, and had a consistent layout. GitHub wasn’t meat to be a SF replacement, but here we are having this discussion
programmer_humor
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.