Why do people prefer everything work out of the box?
 

I have been using UNIX family based OS's for a while now. Can some one answer me on why people prefer things "Just Work TM" I understand it's more convenient for the software to do everything, but what happens when something goes wrong?

I am used to setting up all my hardware, I dislike HAL, D-Bus, Udev and the lot but I understand they are a necessary evil. But why do people get mad when xxx hardware doesn't get automagically detected in yyy distro?

How hard can it be to do an lspci -vv | Network Controller and find out what driver it needs and configure it to load at start up? it's not rocket science. Also why not google the hardware model and see if someone has already found a way to get it working?

I am used to setting in a shell with nothing but lynx, a toolchain and sometimes if I am lucky ssh. I am just curious on why people just distro hop when zzz feature doesn't work out of the box.

It also scares me, because are these the people that are going to be creating programs for linux in the future, without any actual knowledge of how UNIX works? Do they known anything about POSIX standards?

This question popped in my head when I was asked why I use /bin/sh instead of /bin/bash or /bin/dash in my shell scripts.

Also with recent things coming up like systemd (which IMHO is an absolute mess and is in no way worth its trouble, it's not even POSIX complaint). I realize there is speed to be gained from systemd, but not much. I did some tests of my own and the results were interesting, systemd preforms well in a single core environment, but in a multicore environment, if one rewrites their init scripts to span across multiple cpu's their is not that big of a speed advantage to be used with systemd so why break everything just for speed gains that aren't worth it?

I donno as I get older I am starting to see that most people aren't getting smarter, they are getting stupid. It's like we have reached our potential and now we are going back down


What do you guys think?

Your attitude is fine for people who want to focus on computers and take the time to learn all about various OSs and distributions. Others have different interests and time needs. I like to dabble in linux, but being a lawyer who is not involved with computer-related law, I have no desire to get too deep (for me) into computer workings. I don't like apt-get, because I learn nothing from installing things that way, but I admit that there are times when cryptic and vague instructions from the computer intelligensia make me run screaming to it and other package installers. I simply won't (and can't) spend the time to get that deeply into computer technology and theory.

No doubt there are things that you do that others would look down their noses on. For example, do you drive an automatic, or a manual transmission? If an automatic, how is your "failure" to use a stick shift any different from someone else wanting to have plug and play on their computer?

I could say the same thing about the law, but I am sure we all get the idea.

Moxieman

I have a reasonable understand of how my computer works (I hope!), but that's because I'm interested: I can't see that it's essential. What goes on in my TV or my central heating system? Other people know about these things: that's called division of labour and characterises complex societies. Or, as Belloc wrote, "It is the duty of the moneyed man to give employment to the artisan".

As for the "Unix compatibility" issue, that could become the tail wagging the dog. AIX and HP-UX are still on offer, but alongside Linux. Solaris and BSD are very minor products. Look at the statistics for web servers:
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-unix/all/all
When governments and companies switch, it's Linux they switch to. Solaris added Linux compatibility in 2002: I think that tells us which way the wind's blowing.

I guess, but I can drive manual (in fact I don't think to date I have ever owned an automatic) Law I know nothing of however.

I was always blessed with the curiosity to take things apart even if I broke them. But has Linux evolves I ask myself why this and why that.
Has anyone noticed the unnecessary changes? For example, I think Slackware 9.1 has a much cleaner code base then Slackware 14 does...
To me it seems that we are too eger to break things that have always worked but we aren't so eager to provide a solution that solves the
problems of the past and the current problems, we just care about fixing current problems and don't care if they break support that has been
their for ages!

Easy answer for you, /dev/random, not everyone has time. If you don't like how things are going create your own distro.
If you're so self-sufficient it ought to be easy for you, you're not too stupid are you? ;)

Actually, I have been looking at LFS and CLFS as a base to start such a project. I wouldn't say I am the smartest person on the planet, I would say before posting something I usually look into it before asking someone else to help me out.

Making a distro sounds awesome in theory, but even a smaller distro like slackware has more then one person developing and maintaining it, I couldn't possibly create a disto from scratch, develop and maintain it all by myself. It's like having a pit crew of one at NASCAR... not gonna happen. :P

If time is a factor though, how would downloading endless amount's of distos be less time consuming then digging into the problem tho? Or do people settle when most of their problems are fixed and just live with the annoyances they can't fix?

People use a distro that "just works" like Mint or Ubuntu do for many people. If those don't work, or they want games, they stick with Windows. If they want real simplicity without having to think they buy a Mac.
If you feel people are stupid or lazy for not working through pages of threads to solve Linux problems when they could just buy and OS then you;'re a little hypocritical if you don't create your own distro after bemoaning the direction distros are taking. If Linus could create the kernel, and Pat create Slackware then why can't you create your own distro?

Creating something is hard, do able but hard, maintaining something and steering it in the right direction is harder, I look at Slackware from when it was SLS until now and Pat really knew what he was doing, I don't think I could do that, I mean I am sure I could finish an LFS and BLFS install, but then where do I take it from there? What made Pat choose the things he did?

I guess what I am saying is I am a fearfull of what others might think of my end result. Also how did Slackware get it's following? What dove people to like it the way people do?

Then I don't understand the point of this topic.
You bemoan other people who want things handed to them on a plate yet you want the same.

Um, obviously people prefer things not go wrong, ie Just Work (TM).

Slightly harder than having the computer do the legwork.

The grass is always greener...

So you would prefer the current init system that Just Works (TM)? ;)

It's mainly a difference in attitude. In a mechanic's shop, I saw a poster which said that your attitude is the most important thing in like, more important than fame, riches, intelligence, etc. I think it was right.

The only thing I run now is D-bus ... but I'm not completely sure if anything actually needs it. I have seen errors on the CLI in the past concerning D-bus, so I will leave it on.

I always use '#!/bin/sh', mostly because I learned to program in bash in a different way. You see, I got bored with the howto. I mean, I had a goal in mind of what I wanted to do, and the howto was getting boring, so I decided to just start coding. I never learned all the features of bash, and I don't need them. In fact, I consider this a good thing, because they don't improve performance or readability or functionality. I only need 'sh' and all my scripts work with sh. I mostly use the other well-known programs to do all the work, because they are much more efficient than doing it in bash ... like awk, sed, grep, find, comm, etc. These are programs optimized to do their task and do it well ... you know like UNIX and POSIX philosophy.

It is easier when everything works out-of-the-box, but you learn less, and when something breaks ... well just look at Ubuntu users, they are the best example.

ntubski,

Haha INIT just works? It works because it's been around for years and years and years (possibly before I was born), so it doesn't just work, it took a lot to get INIT where it is now.

273,
I don't want anything handed to me, I just wish people would open their eyes before then attempt to drive. (meaning if your going to waste time on distro hopping, why not just take the time to learn what you are going to need to know anyways if they want to keep their box up and running, things break)

The point of this thread is to help me understand why people waste so much energy looking for that perfect distro that has all these changes to it (that are not complaint with anything else) but they don't even consider taking all that time they just spent on distro hopping and just make the distro they choose in the first place just work.

As you pointed out time maybe a factor here, but I see people spending an equal amount of time looking for something that simply doesn't exist.
I mean no disrespect to anyone, I just am curious why people take this direction and not the other?

But the thing they are looking for does exist. If, for example, Debian doesn't support their wireless card out of the box chances are mint Might. There are other similar examples regarding other distros. Slackware, for example, doesn't give X out-of-the-box (if you don't to don't want to understand) but Fedora "just works".
Distro hopping takes less time than finding a solution in many cases -- certainly would have, for example, in my case of not having Google Earth in Sid. It would have been much simpler to go to Xubuntu and not look back. Can't say I gained much for it apart from a system I'm more comfortable with.
Of course, as I mentioned, if that doesn't work they'll go to Windows or mac.
I know a guy who used Slackware from pretty much day one, worked day-in day-out with Unix, used to mess with setting up various client-server relationships for fun using Solaris, Linux and Windows when he felt like a masochist. He now writes Unix and Linux based system-monitoring applications and scripts for living. He uses OSX exclusively at home. Why? Because he got "sick of pissing around getting things to work".

It depends on what you are trying to achieve and your priorities. I am learning also Java and Python so can only put so much time in at the moment learning Linux. I will be lucky to get to LPIC 1 in the next 12 months but if I did it would be fine and dandy. Linux is an extremely expansive subject and I am constantly noting the superior knowledge of some of the posters here who have been involved perhaps 10-20 years or more.

The above is improbable as it would be necessary to have reasonable knowledge of Linux to create a program for it, I would have thought.

I know all about computers.

I know nothing about cars ... except what I want to know:

• I get in the car. I put the key in the ignition and turn it. It starts instantly. Of course.
• I drive to wherever I want to go. I do not even consider that I might not get there.
• I do not change the oil or the air filter for 50,000 miles. Heck, I have no idea even how to do that. ... ;)
• If the car breaks down for any reason, the first time "I am royally pissed," and the second time (if any) I sell the damn car.
• I am not interested in "the car." I am interested in utterly reliable transportation.
• I am here. I want to go there. An automobile is therefore a necessary evil. Beyond that, my interest it completely ends, and I am happy for it so to do.

I am a computer hacker. The friend who maintains my car is an automotive hacker. :) (When his Corvette blew an engine somewhere in Florida, he stopped at a campground, ordered just-the-right parts, put them in, and drove on to his destination as though nothing at all had happened.)

I would have gone straight to Hertz rent-a-car, and sold the misbegotten car where-it-sat on eBay. :p

I pay him to exercise his expertise, using a portion of the income that I derive from mine, "and never the twain shall meet!!"

Your clients feel the same way about computers.

"And if you can't give me what I want, I will find someone else, and oh-by-the-way in very short order, who will!"

I see your point, sorta, you only want to know how to operate it, but doesn't figuring out why you can't pull the keys out of the ignition when the car is started part of that?
Or why you can take the keys out if the car is not in park?

Some of the simpler things I see are part of the operating procedure, compiling a kernel is not one of them obviously nor is rebuilding the entire engine in a car. But when your oil levels get low or your breaks stop working do you sell the car and buy the next one or do you have your friend look at it and replace the oil and pad/routers on your car? What about bulbs? DO you replace your tail/head and signal bulbs when they die?

So what is the difference between that and modprobing the proper driver for some hardware? It's not like they are being asked to re-write the driver or build the network card from scratch... it just seems a little silly to me that's all.


Terminator3000,
By the looks of things it seems that people really don't know how the UNIX world was/is, look at systemd and upstart, by no means are these even POSIX compliant. These will never work on anything but Linux, but what about BSD and Solaris or HP-UX? Instead of changing INIT why don't they figure out another way to keep it faster but make sure all UNIX like OS's can use it. The reason why this in particular concerns me is because when GNOME and KDE (the big two DE's) start integrating things like systemd and upstart, then features on the other OS's will not work, and it's all because of non-compliant software.

(I'm a Fluxbox man btw :) )


H_TeXMeX_H,
Ahh I think I am starting to understand thanx :)

It IS a bit of a pointless topic.

Not sure about that. My boss, for example, would rather his staff work from the office. Sometimes he lets me work from home. Tomorrow I'll ask if he'd let me work out of the box. To be honest, I really doubt it.

On the other hand, I know that LOL cats are fond of boxes....

Are you familiar with the expression, "Open source is free if you don't value your time?"

Yes, indeed ... and it's true. Not necessarily a "bad" thing, but certainly not what a majority (I think ...) of people want with their computers.

I can get into my car, turn the key, drive, and by driving, achieve my intended purpose, which emphatically is not to be stuck by the side of the road with my hood up. I know that there's a frightful amount of uber-engineering in even an ordinary car, and I want to take full advantage of that while being obliged to understand none of it in order to: "go from here to there, safely and with reasonable ;) dispatch."

And, you know ... that can be done, and by-and-large it has. Macintosh OS/X is a pure-Unix system. So is your phone and your pad, no matter what brand it is (today). There are some really great Linux distros out there, too, which can simply take care of themselves. That will "work right out of the box." (P.S. The work that distro-writers go through, and the success with which they do it, is a thing that is easily overlooked. Thanks, all of you.)

It's easy to underestimate just how much you do know about computer software, and how "easy" it is for you (not to mention "fun"), and thereby to seriously over-estimate how much someone else knows ... or wishes to know ... or maybe chooses to know. In the earliest days of automobiles, you took your mechanic along with you. Today, millions of car-owners never raise the hood. (And yet, they drive hundreds of thousands of miles. Now that's great engineering! Great enough that they didn't even know it existed ... and didn't have to.)

If you are being serious, then this is exactly the kind of attitude that I would like to focus on.

I make it a point to try to understand everything that I am able to ... and I don't believe there is anything I cannot understand. If I cannot understand something because it doesn't make sense, then I deem it wrong. I am not a car hacker, but I do know things about a car, things that will keep it running. Honestly, I never really strived to learn about computers in-depth, I learned what I know mostly from using computers, figuring them out and a few articles here and there. I don't believe that anyone can teach me anything, they can only help me to focus and consider a problem, I have to be the one that teaches me ... the one that learns. That's really the only point of teachers to say "Hey, pay attention, I will demonstrate something, and you figure it out, while I'll try to explain." The explanation is almost not important, because it does not usually aid understanding, at least not for me. I have to look at the problem from multiple angles, generate theories on how it works and experiment until I believe more in one of them than the rest. With more experimentation, I can change my theory and I do. In fact, it's pretty useless to write most of my theories down, because they change quickly.

As for cars, everyone should know a few basic rules on maintenance, even if they themselves do not maintain their car. I check the oil every 2-3 months of driving, based on usage, and change it if it is dirty ... of course I don't change it, the mechanic does. You have to be just as weary of mechanics as of any other profession including computer repair. Not too long ago someone posted a link about an incident where Geek Squad was caught sabotaging people's computers just to have them buy new hardware. Recently, in a former communist country we were having problems with the brakes on our car. We went to a mechanic and he said it was the brakes and he will change them. However, when the time came to lift the car, they told us to leave the shop and wait outside. We refused, because not only are we in a former communist country, but also because other clients were not asked to do so. Our car was more expensive than their usual clients and he know we were foreigners who speak English. He said he can't change the brakes with us watching (probably for obvious reasons such as potential sabotage or used parts replacement) so we just asked for the keys and left. We later fixed it in a more civilized country.

The conclusion is that you don't need to know everything about your car or your computer, but you need to know the basics. If you don't, then you are the one that pays, and you deserve every bit of it.

I also keep the tires inflated properly on my car, mostly because it alters handling. I never trust others to inflate my tires, because it seems they don't care to check the pressures. I really do not have any respect for anyone who cannot even do their job properly. Someone who is a specialist or professional in their field and yet omits details and sometimes even larger things.

Vampires prefer working out-of-the-box.

LOL. Good one.
I hope you're not talking about the glitter-face vampire made famous by teenage girls these days. ;)


Regards.

Computers are a tool and many people have no interest in them apart from them working when they need them and doing what they need. That's why people want things working ootb and OEM PC suppliers used to supply install CDs/DVDs that were basically just ghost images of a fully set up Windows install. People don't want to set up wireless drivers or video/sound drivers to get things working they just want it working.

Seriously, do we really need a 2-page dedicated thread to answer this question?

Everybody is just having good time here, not answering 'coz that'd be pointless, no? :D

Regards.

I think it is important to have people who just want it to work using Linux and that those who want the relatively open and powerful flexibility to keep it flexible and controllable.

The more people that switch to Linux the more manufacturers will (I think) see the need to supply this growing market so it is in the interest of serious hackers to facilitate this symbiotic relationship (imo) and for simple users to ask for help and expect to get it tailored to their stated needs.

I don't think it need be seen as a problem at all.

Anyway, it is at the point at which it became easily usable that I switched and the way I see it things are only getting better except I see some trying to create distros that rely on proprietasry software and, like windows did with dos, hide the real OS in the gui. This is, imo, a problem to avoid because it is a reason I went sour on MS to start with. Ultimately I do like the idea of being able to be in control of my computer if I want to be.

I'm only on page 1!

If we aren't allowed to post our opinions then just say so, a question is asked and people post their individual thoughts. Last time I heard LQ had freedom of speech, to a certain extent, and that allows people to post in reply to questions if they so desire. As long as it is on topic what is the harm? You don't have to read it.

I think user sundialsvcs really hit the nail on the head with this one. I was going to reply to this yesterday but I got distracted and after finally reading it, his answer is very similar to how mine is.

It hasn't been very long since I've left university (a couple years). Coming from a engineering program where the focus was robotics, I've been surrounded by people who know their way around computers for the 5 years I was there. My (girlfriend at the time) wife did 3D animation at her school and I found that although most of her friends weren't quite as proficient with computers as I am, they knew their way around enough to fix most problems they encountered (I did help some of them on a couple of occasions). From this constant experience of being around different types of nerds and geeks for that long, I got a somewhat skewed sense of "average computer literacy". Now that I am in the real world, I see that most of the population treats computers as they do any other appliance: buy it in a "set and forget" format, and use it as intended until it breaks, then get it fixed by an "expert" or buy a new one (only difference I've noticed is that some people think they are experts for whatever reason and will mess it up even more, but I expect this happens in every field to a degree, not just computers).

So the point is, for us, a computer is something useful and something to tinker with. Just like a car for a mechanic.

But for everyone else: Computer = Microwave = Dishwasher = Refrigerator = Television. I don't care how it works as long as it works after I plug it in. And if it breaks, I'll get someone else to fix it or get a new one. What would you do if you had to buy the refrigerant separate from your refrigerator and charge the refrigerant loop yourself? If a motor dies in your dishwasher do you figure out what motor it needs, order the part and install it yourself? If you went to use your microwave one day and it gave you an error code saying the bulb is no longer working at an acceptable efficiency, do you take the microwave apart and replace the bulb yourself? What if you bought a new TV, turned it on and heard a capacitor pop in the back. Would you figure out which capacitor popped and solder on a new one, replace the whole board, or just send it back for warranty? I know people that could do these things themselves but for even those with the capability don't always "do it yourself" because it's easier to let someone else deal with the problem and they have other things they'd rather be doing than fixing things all day.

Very good answer, but if everything is always being done for you, then wouldn't the average intelligence level drop? I mean if you look back at the 60's, they had mechanics but most people fixed their own cars, not because they were experts, or they were in the field, they simply took the time to figure it out. My thinking is why pay someone you don't have to? If people solely rely on everyone else to do anything outside of their profession then what happens when society as a whole crashes? I was always taught that a person should always try to do something on their own before seeking help. Maybe this is why I have a hard time understanding this whole 'if it doesn't work, just chuck it!' mentality.

Relax. Nobody is taking any freedoms from you or any other members.


I was just wondering whether a "why do people prefer buying ready to use cars to ones that need to be assembled" type of question really needs so many answers (mostly similar answers)....

.....BUT THEN I noticed that it's a General section of LQ and realised that my comment might have been out of place.

if you are a $50 an hour lawyer and PC engineer charges $20 per hour it makes economic sense to call the expert. As mentioned before - division of labour is at the centre of industrail revolution ;)

I was relaxed and still am. just pointing out the rather obvious.

There are topics that keep being brought up, in LQ suggestions and feedback one has come up again, and in these topics someone always says something like it has been discussed before why do we have to do it again. If people don't want to discuss it they don't have to, that's the point of my post.

That's a VERY cheap lawyer.

I agree with you 100%, and although I was never explicitly taught to try and fix something rather than chuck it, I am a tinkerer by nature so messing around with broken things is something I enjoy. I find it hard to believe that average intelligence is declining, but I believe there are a few things that explain the behaviour you're seeing.

(1) There's a lot more things to do now than there was in the 60's. Whether those things are worthwhile is decided on a individual basis, something that's worthwhile to one person may not be worthwhile to another.

(2) 'Things' in todays society are becoming exponentially more complex as technology progresses at an exponential rate, to the point where you need an expert/special equipment to accomplish tasks that you could have easily learned from reading a manual and a fiddling around before. Take cars for example. 8-9 years ago I worked on a ginseng farm with a bunch of guys who liked to partake in demolition derbys. They were complaining then that it was become increasingly more difficult to find cars for derby because lots of functions that used to be mostly mechanical and electrical have been taken over by microcontrollers. This meant that they had to figure out which systems to disable/modified in such a way as to keep the car functional operation but disengage the necessary safety protocols so that they could make the car derby compliant. That kind of complexity is happening everywhere and people simply don't want to deal with it.

(3) People view computers as household appliances (as I said in my first post). While I agree with you that people worked on their cars a lot more in the 60's than they do today, how many people do you think worked on their own stove/oven, refrigerator, or washing machines/dryers in the 60's? What I do believe happened then (and I could be completely wrong since I wasn't alive then) is that people were more inclined to call the repair guy back then than they are now. I think we're all well aware that companies have been used 'planned obsolescence' increasingly more to our (the consumers) detriment, and people are increasingly in the mindset of "If it doesn't work, time to get a new one (unless it's still under warranty)". This, in combination of the "I don't want to deal with this new-fangled technology" people, are only leaving the subset of people that are true tinkerers in any particular field.

This hits the nail on the head. With companies like Apple and Samsung releasing new phones every other year and Tv technology moving faster than anyone could have imagined we just chuck our old stuff to get the newer stuff. We talk to our phones now instead of talking into them. We talk to our cars instead of driving them etc.

Actually, I decided to change '#!/bin/sh' to '#!/bin/ash' as it comes with slackware and is updated more regularly than dash, which comes with Debian. All I had to change in my scripts was '==' to '=', because I am used to C syntax, and 'let x++' to 'x=$(expr $x + 1)'. The rest seems to work, so I guess they are POSIX compliant now. I think I may try to make the slackware rc.d scripts work with ash, but I'm not sure if it is worth it.

Well said.

I am not very proficient with Linux-based systems yet, and until I get to a point where I trust myself not to break something by noodling around with config files, I prefer everything to work 'out-of-the-box'. That is why, right now, I use Xubuntu and CrunchBang as opposed to pure Debian. :)

Fixing a car from the 1960s is very different from fixing a car from the 2010s. It's about like the difference between repairing a full tower PC and repairing an iPhone. The theory is the same, and all the same parts are ... well ... present, but the "figuring it out" phase is gone to be a lot longer and more costly with the iPhone unless you have very specialized tools and training.

Yeah, yeah ... off-topic, I know ... Here, I'll fix that ...

The same can be said of fixing a software problem with a commercial operating system as opposed to open source, but the issue is reversed.

Experienced computer consumers have been led to believe that the conventions of popular commercial operating systems are generally applicable to all situations, a condition which has obfuscated the actual underlying functionality of the system. It's like taking a green-behind-the-gills mechanic back in time to 1960 and asking him to diagnose an issue with a car. "Where do you plug in the diagnostics terminal?," he might ask.

Of course, that diagnostics terminal was only implemented in the later designs to save time for high-volume shops and to present an obstacle for hobbyists who likely wouldn't own such a device. An "open" design might have an indicator light or some other such stand-in, but probably not even that; it would most likely be simple and elegant instead and require neither, since proprietary concerns wouldn't enter into the design considerations.

So, really, an end-user using Linux will "distro-hop" to "solve" problems, because that is all that they know how to do.

The root problem here is end-users using Linux at all. It's not meant for them, or, really, it shouldn't be. It's like if non-mechanics like myself were all trying to build their own cars from parts ... It might be achievable if kit makers got "idiot-proof" enough, but what would be the point? We'd all be better off buying commercially available cars and leaving the kits to the true hobbyists. (The kits could stay a lot cooler, too ... eg Gentoo or Slackware.)

The fact that end-users are trying to use Linux is, to me, a symptom of a deeper problem, and that is ridiculous market conditions which have given Microsoft a de-facto PC operating system monopoly for 25+ years. They don't like the only commercial car available, so they order kits.

We just need nerds from LQ to go out and start the GM and Chrysler to compete with Microsoft's Ford rather than spending so much time helping soccer moms put together do-it-yourself kits.

And now, another drink. ;)

I wasn't alive in the 60's so I wouldn't know, but maybe if I was I would also be tinkering with cars as well as computers.

It really concerns me how computing gets dumbed down:
http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/bill...ch-interfaces/

They want you to interface with your computer a very simplistic, almost kindergarten-like level. I mean when I was younger I saw similar things being marketed as computers for kids ... not for me of course, even tho I was a kid.

They also want you to only do one job and not try for more than that. If you do try to branch out, you'll be criticized, bad-mouthed and hated by all who's toes you step on. It's the attitude that if you can do what they can do, and this is the only thing they can do ... then obviously their job/position is useless. I've seen it often. The down side of such a system is that nobody would understand the bigger picture. I've heard people outside the computing field say that there is some type of god inside the computer making it run, maybe even God. I've heard physics professors say that computers defy the laws of physics because coping data is a process of creation. This is the kind of thinking that this kind of specialization promotes. I suppose the great majority are completely content with their ignorance, as can been seen in some posts in this thread, but it is worrying to me. I won't even mention the lack of professionalism of people in most jobs, I don't see how they can live with themselves like this. It's true I have a hard time understanding people and the world of people ... I don't know if it can be understand, maybe it is mad and thus cannot be understood. I'm getting off topic.

EDIT:
I am thinking about starting to tinker with cars, but as most are computerized now, I'll probably have to invest in some special software or computer. I don't like changing the oil for sure, I'll leave the dirty jobs to the mechanics. Maybe one day we won't need oil to lubricate anymore, maybe like the magnetic fans they have now, some type of magnetic levitation. I've thought of it but I'm not sure it is practical ATM.

In reply to the OP:

Simple economics.

It's not economically efficient to have everyone be a polymath, RMS, Dennis Ritchie who writes their own programming language, operating system, userland toolset, license scheme and then uses it to get their work done. There's plenty of layers under that too: hardware, sourcing the materials for the hardware, researching the processes for *everything*, etc. Go read "I, Pencil" for some breathtaking perspective, then apply it to your computer.

By the elimination, or minimization of having to worry about all of those processes, we can worry about the things we actually want to do: browse the internet, use ssh or lynx, or write more software for others to use, or store data for dental appointments, or whatever.

Thankfully, there's plenty of Linux to go around for the minimalist and the maximality and the special needs, and it doesn't seem to be slowing down. :)

Unless you have the knowledge of what any changes you make to the control systems does please do not even attempt this. Control systems are very specialist units and changes here and there, without actual knowledge and testing in a safe environment, can have disastrous effects. It is not ony engines that are now controlled by computer modules, brakes, steering and body movement are all controlled to a certain degree (in quite a few new cars now) by control modules.

In 1986 when I was doing my apprenticeship we drained the oil out of a Holden Commodore and Wynns drove it from Darwin to Alice Springs without oil. Before they did this each time we serviced it we put in an additive from Wynns that had PFTE in it. After we drained the oil for the final time we changed the Camshaft and Lifters (originals were hydraulic new one was solid) that had previously been treated with the additive. The car performed without any problems apparently.

Interestingly ... people by-and-large don't want to "use Lynx" or even to "use a web-browser." They want to read a web-page. They don't want to "use ssh." They want their communications to be secure all the time. They don't want to "store data for appointments." They simply don't want to miss one. And so on.

Probably the biggest achievement lately has been Android, or iPhone. There's a Linux/Unix in there, and almost nobody knows it. Certainly millions of people don't care as they jabber away. No one has to. And, that's the key point.

A computer is a tool, and a complicated one at that. We're used to it only because that's the crazy thing that we do, but that's not what people want. Programmers should always be striving to work themselves out of a job.

I will speak for myself and answer this. While I can use any distro easy enough to set up all that I want but these days I often choose not to. I use Ubuntu Studio (XFCE4) because all the software I want to work out of the box works and is there. This leaves me more time to play around with what I want to. It also gives me the free time to trouble shoot issues right away if there is a problem. So while I joke about being lazy and choosing a distro like Ubuntu Studio but I am far from lazy. I just want things like Jack, Guitarix, Hydrogen, etc., already set up. Then I can go beyond all of that and do what I need or want to do. But as I said if I had to I could do it all myself, it really isn't that hard at all to do. For example in Debian, before I switched to Ubuntu Studio, I would combine testing, unstable and Experimental (For a few things.) The initial install of Debian would just be the basics to get me to the command line and connected to the internet. No DE, etc. Then I would go from there and install/set up only what I wanted.

I think it is more of a personal preference. As mentioned above people like buying cars that are assmebled and ready to go. Some people would rather buy a DvD player, TV, Bicycle, Calculator, Guitar... that was all together and worked out of the box without having to put it together. Depends on the person, what they know, what they want, what they feel like doing.

I'm in total agreement with your corrections. Now get out of my head! :P

The rest of your post is very eye-opening. That's come as a shock to me as I've only been using Linux for a short while and I seem to be seduced by the architecture or engineering aspects of it enough to kind of forget about or feel at odds with user facing interface.

It gives me a lot to think about, and I like that.

Linux is seductive. Seductive, and absolutely mind-blowing. In time, you too will look at Windows sysadmins with a beatific, indulgent smile. :D (The very kind that pisses them off really bad. ;) )

And what is more, you will know why.

Plus, it's disgustingly efficient on the hardware. I took a very old laptop that was built for Windows 98 and I still run Linux on it ... yes, in full graphics mode (thanks to the magic of X/Open) ... even though the actual graphics unit on the box fritzed out completely about six months ago. (Snif! I guess "Ol' Dobbin'" is still just part of the family ...) I thought of the machine as limited, pokey, slow, until I put a specifically-optimized Gentoo on it. I mean, the thing has only half-a-meg total, and yet now it's positively snappy! Boots to ready-to-go in eleven seconds or less. It's amazing what I can still usefully do with it. You simply won't look at operating systems, or computers, the same way again.

Seductive ...