How "making things simple" makes things complicated
 

An interesting recent thread, now solved, neatly illustrates a pet peeve of mine: the increasing tendency of Linux distros to try and make things easy for the user while actually making everything much more complicated.

The OP had a couple of big plug-in disks which were being automounted, but precisely where depended on which one was detected first. This was very awkward for him/her because files created (for example by LibreOffice) could not be retrieved from the "Recent" menu. They had moved to a different branch of the tree, so the old address wasn't recognised.

Obviously this development is intended for people coming over from Windows, where automounting is normal. The argument seems to be that users "shouldn't have to" explicitly mount partitions. But if you don't mount them explicitly so that you know where they are, how do you find your files afterwards? Automounting might work fine for my friend Michelle, who only plugs in a pendrive occasionally to make a backup copy of something, but it gets seriously in the way of anyone who is doing anything slightly more complicated, as this poster was.

Preferring to do things by hand isn't just geeks showing off; it's actually a desire to make things simpler and safer.

I disagree. In the thread in question, the problem occurred because two NTFS filesystems had identical UUIDs (perhaps one disk was cloned to the other?). Normally, auto-mounting should result in a unique mount-point which will be consistent over multiple automounts, but this falls down if two disks have identical UUIDs (and I imagine also if two disks have identical filesystem labels, although I don't know what udisks does in this case).

If filesystems on external devices weren't auto-mounted, it would cause confusion for those users who do not have great technical knowledge. Just look at the number of threads on here where auto-mounting hasn't worked for proof of how great that confusion can be. Also, it is of convenience to we more technical bods.

Auto-mounting can usually be switched off through org.gnome.desktop.media-handling.automount.

Automounting has always peed me off! :(

Full stop!

I will mount a disk when I want to, & where I want.

Even my most favoured distro does it, & that causes problems when trying to install it.:doh:

I agree, Linux main line distros have become far too like MS Windows!

Yes, personally I really hate that "embedded/implied intelligence" which may try to help, but usually just make things worse.

I can't speak to that particular thread, but for years I've complained that, in trying to make things easy for the uninitiated, designers make things hard for the initiated. I'll give a pet peeve from Windows world: those stupid "libraries" which added another layer of frosting on top of directories--er--folders.

And there's bells and whistles just because they can. Heck, I dread the day I have to replace my little truck. I don't want a touch screen on my dashboard. I like to keep my hands on the wheel.

I guess my point is, it ain't just Linux, but, in the Linux world, I think the worst offender is Gnome.

Grump grump grump.

To be honest, I've moved most of my computers over to BSD, (OpenBSD in my case), as it still lets me do things my way.

As far as "auto-mounting" is concerned; I assume by this you mean that when you insert say a USB stick, the GUI "auto-mounts" it as opposed to fstab ?

From what I've noticed in KDE (at least in KDE 4.x anyway), it just automatically "offers" to mount it for you, but doesn't actually mount it unless you change the setting to tell it to. I leave the default setting as it is so it doesn't, although if I plug in a USB stick for example, it's usually because I do actually want it to mount it. But yes, I would rather choose when it gets mounted, rather than it "automatically" doing it for me.

While I can see what you're saying; I think there is more than just one side to this, and it's not as simple as it seems. As in: some people want it to be easy, some don't care, and some would prefer things get kept simple. I guess the simple answer is to either use a distro that does things your way, mod it to do things your way, or build your own distro. Which is the good thing about Linux; you can do all of the above. So given that, it seems at least a little pointless to whine about things "being too complicated". If I it bothered me that much, I see at least a couple of choices; 1) use something that I've built myself instead 2) use something other than Linux/or a different distro (as above) 3) don't use computers full stop.

Bottom line: what's "too complicated" for one person is convenience to another person - no-one is ever going to please everyone. Good luck with that one.

Yes and no. If you mean by way of "convenience" then a) it's not just "geeks" using Linux anymore b) it's mainly to do with GUI's in that department.

But why you would be using Linux if you want something like Windows is beyond me. I don't use Linux because I want something like Windows, if I did, I would use Windows instead. I use Linux because I want something different to Windows. More to the point: something I have control over, not something that some greedy corporation dictates to me.

Yeah...
They say...
Humans hate change, lots of evidence of that here.
20 years ago, Linux home computer users per capita were a very small fraction of society, so Linux developers came to a consensus. In an effort to get more people to use Linux, we need to ramp up GUI applications and make it easy for "Dummies" to use before we can get them to stick with it.
I remember Linux OSs back then, they were massively frustrating to migrate to, but not anymore. And there are lots of dummies sticking it out today compared to back then, largely because of Bill's vision and model.
68% of society have an average IQ, strength in numbers, the majority rules, that's the target market for any product.

2 possible reasons I presume:

• it's often free (like in free beer),
• it sounds cool.

Ditto. :D Happily plugging along with OSS instead of pulseaudio or alsa, mounting and unmounting like this:

No grub or lilo, clean uncluttered system that's a cohesive package instead of a chaotic collection of parts, etc.

Member Response
 

Hi,

I like to control things with my computer and no need for 'hold your hand'.

This situation is much like a manual transmission and drivers wanting a automatic transmission. Lazy and wishing to not learn a manual tranny with a clutch. To difficult for many!
So as a Slackware user, I feel comfortable with control of my equipment.

EDIT: I remembered this quote and felt it applicable;
Hope this helps.
Have fun & enjoy Slackware!
:hattip:

I'm surrounded by Luddites. ;)

Member Response
 

Hi,

Advancement is important but one should understand the operations period. Ease of operation is not always good! Look at the adversities with MS Windows users and why they cannot perform outside the MS model.
As a long time UNIX/Gnu Linux user I still had to support Microsoft based equipment and their user base at the University. Still these users had no real insight when it came to a OS.

I believe change is going to happen but a user is still responsible to understand the semantics along with syntax to truly operate.
Hope this helps.
Have fun & enjoy Slackware!
:hattip:

The key attraction of Linux, in my opinion, is its flexibility, the fact that you can do things how you want. So if ease-of-use, like the auto mounting of inserted external devices, can be default for the non-power users on user-friendly distros, but switched off for the power users and on other distros, then that's fine by me. It's all still Linux, an operating system that caters for a wide spectrum of users.

Another example might be the auto connection to recognised wifi networks to which you have connected before. It makes life easier for folk but it can be switched off at the drop of a hat. That's the way it should be.

Personally, I don't think people should have to know the nuts and bolts of a computer to use it. It's nice, preferable even, and it's how I was brought up with my ZX80 and Acorn Electron, but you shouldn't have to know how to repair a car to drive one.

I belong to the same generation of Hazel. I remember CP/M. I used version 1 of MSDOS. But I do not want to spend my time messing about with things like Slackware, let alone Linux from Scratch. And it's not because I've been corrupted by Windows, since I've never had a Windows computer. I'll do things I need to do for myself because my needs are very specialised, but if a machine is capable of doing things for me, I'm grateful. I'm not a tinkerer: I have better things to do with my time.