I think this has less to do with Microsoft and more to do with the average human has no interest in learning something that only passively helps them.
I only know a handful of things about working on an automobile, while my father could practically take one apart and put it back together wholesale.
I can take apart a computer and put it back together wholesale, but I'm lost on an internal combustion engine.
I pay someone with expertise to handle the engine, because I've spent my time learning other things.
Look, unless the people you're talking about are doing tech jobs, there isn't a reason for them to learn the depths of it, just like there isn't a reason for them to learn the depths of how their car works. Both a car and a computer are tools, and those tools are made to be used by people who may not know the depths of the internal workings of either.
This post feels like elitism and gatekeeping to me, as someone who thinks Windows sucks and prefers Linux. The idea that it's the OS that is "holding people back" and not that those people might have more important things to do with their time than dedicate half their life to an operating system is absurd. If someone spends 20 years becoming a doctor, I'm not going to act like they're a dumbass because they don't know everything about fucking computers.
People don't want to learn more because for most people not knowing more doesn't impact their fucking life. Just like me not knowing more about my car doesn't generally impact my fucking life. Because I've never had trouble finding someone to pay to fix it for me.
Surprise, we're the people who are paid to fix computers for the people who are just using them as simple tools. Maybe we shouldn't be so upset about that.
Also, last but not least, Android is a strain of Linux and it suffers from all the same issues listed above as Windows. Acting like you couldn't pull the same bullshit in Linux if you wanted to is kind of a joke, because it's already been done with Android.
All the ad infested bullshit we all hate about Windows 10 and 11? Blame Linux-based Android.
EDIT: Also, personal opinion, if we're talking about which CLI is easier to learn and use. Microsoft has made great strides with Powershell being easy and accessible to people who haven't faced a command line environment before. The things that make its command line better than Linux's are two things, and only two things. (I hate that it's object oriented instead of text oriented, Powershell has a lot of bad things, too)
First, human-readable commands whose names describe what the command does in a verb-noun format. This means instead of Linux with some very, very obscurely named commands that are not descriptive and you just have to sort of memorize, you can just sort of remember because the name is human readable.
Secondly, the get-command command is huge because it allows me to search these verb-noun names for the command I'm looking for. On Linux, if I don't know the specific command, I have to search the internet, because there isn't a built-in tool that will give me an idea of what each command does and allows me to search for them through a filter. Once you find a command you think might work, it has the get-help command which produces something similar to a Man page.
Linux has Man pages, but because there is no rhyme or reason to how any commands are named, it's not very easy to find the command you're looking for if you don't already know the command. On Windows, if I know what the command does I may already have enough information to find the command using get-command instead of having to turn to Google and be like "what command do I use if I am trying to do X?"
So if we're talking about the superiorly designed command line that's easier for first time users. Powershell is where it's at. Because Linux is a confusing fucking mess of 30 years of random decisions by lone programmers. Literally the only reason I know commands in Linux CLI is because I had to memorize them. I don't do so much memorizing Powershell commands. If Linux was being built from scratch today, I'd practically demand a similar naming convention system to make it easier to understand what the fuck commands do.
As someone who knows how to take apart and put back together both computers a day cars, your post is 100% accurate in explaining why people might not want to spend the time to learn something they have no interest in and do rarely.
In general unplugging anything in a car means that thing stops working, and unplugging parts of the radio makes the radio stop working. Beyond that it would depend on the car maker as whether it would just make some features stop working or a whole system requires it to be there to save data and settings.
Results may vary but you can always plug it back in after testing.
Toyota's have no negative effects beyond obviously no cellular functions and the microphone ceasing to work.
I recommend figuring out what the opt-out procedure is too. If I ended up with a Toyota, calling in via the SOS button will start the process of disconnecting the system.
Also note that some may have 3G radios, etc. which are already defunct.
Regarding the Android bit, it's so cancerous because everything is locked down and users have no control over the OS. They don't have admin rights on their own device. Nothing to do with Linux, that's jus the kernel. Android + GNU utils & root access would be completely different.
People shit on the GNU/Linux meme, but Android actually proves that just the Linux kernel can be put in an OS that's just as hostile to the user as anything proprietary.
Not having root is done on Android for some very good security reasons to be fair, it opens up a giant attack surface and risk for all kinds of malware and nasty stuff to take advantage of. I don't think it's done completely in malice as you think. Its a very important part of the app sandbox and Android's security model at large.
With that said, I do think that people should have the option to root if they want to, I'm not a fan of OEMs like Samsung and whoever else purposely preventing people from rooting at all costs. I think people should be able to do whatever they want with their own device, root just certainly shouldn't be the default, and users should be aware of the risks if they choose to use it. But I do think it should be a possibility for those who really do wish to do so.
With Android, it all just comes down to the OEM and variant of it that you're stuck with. As a whole, I think its an amazing project and OS, though unfortunately Google, and especially OEMs, tend to make a lot of bad choices. It's similar to Linux as a whole in that aspect. You've got options like ChromeOS which are a nightmare for privacy and user freedom any way you look at them, but then you've got your traditional distros like Debian, Arch, Fedora, etc, which are the exact opposite. Its an important distinction.
To be more fair, it should be way easier to use root on Android than it currently is, and it could be done without compromising security.
Like, I shouldn't have to dig through mountains of unofficial documentation from weird sources, only to the find that, whoopsie, this method doesn't work for your particular submodel of phone, you have to take this ultra-specific path that's prone to issues and may not work. Oh, and make sure you backup your entire device, because rooting will wipe it and now you have to spend your entire fucking day restoring everything.
Like, just give me the option to enable root access somewhere in the developer settings. It can even be an obscure (but simple) process like it is to enable developer settings in the first place by tapping "about" a dozen times or something. Put up a half dozen warnings explaining why it's "dangerous" for mortals to enable root for all I care, just make it work.
I'm OK with root not being available by default as long as the bootloader remains unlockable. This is bigger than root. I own the hardware so I should be able to use it for whatever OS I desire. If the bootloader is unlockable then I can flash a root package myself. This is fine. If the bootloader is unlockable then I can install non-Android Linux if I desire.
I'm not sure if it could be done without at least compromising security to some extent (at least in Android's current state, but maybe that could be changed or worked around in the future), but yeah, overall I do agree, that's what I was trying to get at. I definitely support there being an official and easier method to root on Android, as long as it isn't the default, and as long as the risks are clearly explained. People should certainly be able to do whatever they want with their own devices, it is unfortunate, and definitely an overstep from Google and OEMs.
Just because I have enough admin rights to fix basic issues on other people's computers doesn't mean I'm allowed to just install what-the-fuck-ever on my own computer. Even as someone in IT, our workstations are locked down, even if it's our team that is the one locking them down.
throw in “wanting to do something” versus “having to do something” – I want to build my own keyboard so I spend the time to learn about them, I have to use Windows at work but as long as it doesn’t catastrophically break I’m not spending any more of my time on it than I have to – if it does break, there’s the paid IT department who’s going to be oh-so-thrilled that Amateur McJones decided he could fix it himself …
This post feels like elitism and gatekeeping to me, as someone who thinks Windows sucks and prefers Linux.
I think it's the opposite. There are, of course, Linux elitists, but they don't want normies using Linux. They love to talk about how Linux isn't ready for mainstream usage, and it's so difficult and only super-smart people like them can use it. They're like those hipsters that don't want their favorite band to become popular because then they wouldn't be underground and cool to listen to anymore. If ordinary folks were using Linux, then they wouldn't feel so smart and special.
It is gatekeeping and elitist to say that Linux is hard to use, you wouldn't understand it, and you should stay on Windows.
People don’t want to learn more because for most people not knowing more doesn’t impact their fucking life. Just like me not knowing more about my car doesn’t generally impact my fucking life. Because I’ve never had trouble finding someone to pay to fix it for me.
Surprise, we’re the people who are paid to fix computers for the people who are just using them as simple tools. Maybe we shouldn’t be so upset about that.
It isn't about every computer user becoming a computer engineer. It's about learned helplessness. It's about being afraid to try anything new, even something that's only slightly different.
To use the car analogy, it's like somebody who will only drive Fords, and is terrified of the prospect of getting behind the wheel of a car made by any other manufacturer.
EDIT: I gave you an upvote here because you don't deserve downvotes for your well stated opinion.
I have done computer work for a bunch of little old ladies, and when they couldn't afford to upgrade to new hardware, I would put a lightweight version of Linux on their computers for them.
Only one of them really struggled with the difference, and she wasn't against learning, she just struggled. The rest handled the transition fine and didn't do a lot of complaining that it wasn't what they were used to. (Probably partially because I made clear what apps were what and put shortcuts to each on their desktop, each shortcut well labeled.)
I don't think it's unusual for people to "get used to" how certain things work and expect that. In fact, I'd say that's pretty normal.
But I think there's far less fear of change from regular people than you seem to think. I see far less addiction to the "brand" of Windows than you might think.
To use the car analogy, it’s like somebody who will only drive Fords, and is terrified of the prospect of getting behind the wheel of a car made by any other manufacturer.
I mean, lots of people are scared as hell of driving a stick shift and refuse to learn… soooo yeah. I'd say that's a closer approximation. Because a Ford and a Chevy both have steering wheels and pedals all in the same place. You add that extra pedal and some folks lose their minds. Which at least makes sense because it is different.
Only one of them really struggled with the difference, and she wasn't against learning, she just struggled. The rest handled the transition fine and didn't do a lot of complaining that it wasn't what they were used to
When my granddad was born everyone in his village made their money doing manual labour for the local lord. Old people have handled a lot of transition in their lives, arguably more than any generation in history. I'm patient with him not knowing how to use a computer he was alive when computers were invented
Yep. This post is largely mixing up cause and effect. The popular programs are like that not as the cause of people not learning underlying logic and such, but as the effect of it.
The only thing that would happen if popular GUI based interfaces had never come along would be that computers in general would still be something only a tiny amount of people use.
man -k will do the exact search you are asking about. Now I have found that some systems aren't setting it up properly lately, but that command and -k option have been there for decades. Maybe you should try: man man to see what all options are available.
Thanks, I think I'm on a distro where it's not set up properly (or I broke something, heh), since that has not worked for me. I did some search and saw some working examples though, so I get it. Although I'd still say the naming conventions for the programs in Powershell makes them far easier to sort through than they are with the man -k command.
Linux is great, but obtuse, not straightforward for a beginner. The fact that something like this can be broken out of the box is sort of proof of that. Linux expects a lot more of its sysadmins.
Yeah, I agree with you mostly, and hope my reply wasn't coming across as dickish. As a long time *nix user, I find the commands in Powershell to be equally nonsensically named at times. I do remember the times when it was joked that unix commands were usually named after the author's dog, but I think over time that has changed. I am sure if I had to use Powershell just a fraction of the time I use the linux command line on a daily basis I would get more familiar and comfortable with it. But you are correct that overall, this is a human issue, and not something that can easily be solved. Not everyone wants to delve into suspension tuning, some people just need to get in the car and reasonably expect to arrive at their destination.
Don't forget that you can set up alias commands. So if you don't like the name of a command, or don't want to keep typing things out, you can set up an alias. For instance, I have to continually switch to another user. I set up alias so I can type gouser instead of "sudo su - user". So if the name of something isn't easy or hard to memorize, you can just make it whatever you want within limitations.
@Bene7rddso@dingus pretty much like any tech stack, once you’re taking a close look at things. Since it’s open-source they have no interest whatsoever lying about the quality of their system - not to mention that any serious service cannot but run UNIX/UNIX-like. Proprietary stuff, most of the time, also require qualified workers to maintain their own mess. And if it looks messy, blame it on ignorance.
I like that you bring up Android. I went with Apple forever ago and kept in the ecosystem as I got my software engineering degree, and still am fully into the Apple ecosystem. I spend my days debugging things for work. I don’t want to spend my nights tinkering with my phone as much. I want it to just work.
I used to jailbreak for that freedom. Now, I have other things to worry about and just want my phone to be reliable and safe.
I think this has less to do with Microsoft and more to do with the average human has no interest in learning something that only passively helps them.
I only know a handful of things about working on an automobile, while my father could practically take one apart and put it back together wholesale.
I can take apart a computer and put it back together wholesale, but I'm lost on an internal combustion engine.
I pay someone with expertise to handle the engine, because I've spent my time learning other things.
Look, unless the people you're talking about are doing tech jobs, there isn't a reason for them to learn the depths of it, just like there isn't a reason for them to learn the depths of how their car works. Both a car and a computer are tools, and those tools are made to be used by people who may not know the depths of the internal workings of either.
This post feels like elitism and gatekeeping to me, as someone who thinks Windows sucks and prefers Linux. The idea that it's the OS that is "holding people back" and not that those people might have more important things to do with their time than dedicate half their life to an operating system is absurd. If someone spends 20 years becoming a doctor, I'm not going to act like they're a dumbass because they don't know everything about fucking computers.
People don't want to learn more because for most people not knowing more doesn't impact their fucking life. Just like me not knowing more about my car doesn't generally impact my fucking life. Because I've never had trouble finding someone to pay to fix it for me.
Surprise, we're the people who are paid to fix computers for the people who are just using them as simple tools. Maybe we shouldn't be so upset about that.
Also, last but not least, Android is a strain of Linux and it suffers from all the same issues listed above as Windows. Acting like you couldn't pull the same bullshit in Linux if you wanted to is kind of a joke, because it's already been done with Android.
All the ad infested bullshit we all hate about Windows 10 and 11? Blame Linux-based Android.
EDIT: Also, personal opinion, if we're talking about which CLI is easier to learn and use. Microsoft has made great strides with Powershell being easy and accessible to people who haven't faced a command line environment before. The things that make its command line better than Linux's are two things, and only two things. (I hate that it's object oriented instead of text oriented, Powershell has a lot of bad things, too)
First, human-readable commands whose names describe what the command does in a verb-noun format. This means instead of Linux with some very, very obscurely named commands that are not descriptive and you just have to sort of memorize, you can just sort of remember because the name is human readable.
Secondly, the get-command command is huge because it allows me to search these verb-noun names for the command I'm looking for. On Linux, if I don't know the specific command, I have to search the internet, because there isn't a built-in tool that will give me an idea of what each command does and allows me to search for them through a filter. Once you find a command you think might work, it has the get-help command which produces something similar to a Man page.
Linux has Man pages, but because there is no rhyme or reason to how any commands are named, it's not very easy to find the command you're looking for if you don't already know the command. On Windows, if I know what the command does I may already have enough information to find the command using get-command instead of having to turn to Google and be like "what command do I use if I am trying to do X?"
So if we're talking about the superiorly designed command line that's easier for first time users. Powershell is where it's at. Because Linux is a confusing fucking mess of 30 years of random decisions by lone programmers. Literally the only reason I know commands in Linux CLI is because I had to memorize them. I don't do so much memorizing Powershell commands. If Linux was being built from scratch today, I'd practically demand a similar naming convention system to make it easier to understand what the fuck commands do.
As someone who knows how to take apart and put back together both computers a day cars, your post is 100% accurate in explaining why people might not want to spend the time to learn something they have no interest in and do rarely.
So, how often do you take apart and put together cars?
And how often do they take a car apart and somehow end up with a computer?
It’s easy to take a car apart and end up with a computer (at least in cars from the last 30 years or so.
The trouble is putting them back together (I started on computers, and now take apart and put back together cars too).
Hey, I don't know anything about cars.
I wanted to ask: what could happen, in theory, if I simply unplugged the SIM/eSIM/radio transmission chip in my car?
In general unplugging anything in a car means that thing stops working, and unplugging parts of the radio makes the radio stop working. Beyond that it would depend on the car maker as whether it would just make some features stop working or a whole system requires it to be there to save data and settings.
Thanks!
Results may vary but you can always plug it back in after testing.
Toyota's have no negative effects beyond obviously no cellular functions and the microphone ceasing to work.
I recommend figuring out what the opt-out procedure is too. If I ended up with a Toyota, calling in via the SOS button will start the process of disconnecting the system.
Also note that some may have 3G radios, etc. which are already defunct.
Edit: Fixed typo
Thanks!
Regarding the Android bit, it's so cancerous because everything is locked down and users have no control over the OS. They don't have admin rights on their own device. Nothing to do with Linux, that's jus the kernel. Android + GNU utils & root access would be completely different.
People shit on the GNU/Linux meme, but Android actually proves that just the Linux kernel can be put in an OS that's just as hostile to the user as anything proprietary.
Not having root is done on Android for some very good security reasons to be fair, it opens up a giant attack surface and risk for all kinds of malware and nasty stuff to take advantage of. I don't think it's done completely in malice as you think. Its a very important part of the app sandbox and Android's security model at large.
With that said, I do think that people should have the option to root if they want to, I'm not a fan of OEMs like Samsung and whoever else purposely preventing people from rooting at all costs. I think people should be able to do whatever they want with their own device, root just certainly shouldn't be the default, and users should be aware of the risks if they choose to use it. But I do think it should be a possibility for those who really do wish to do so.
With Android, it all just comes down to the OEM and variant of it that you're stuck with. As a whole, I think its an amazing project and OS, though unfortunately Google, and especially OEMs, tend to make a lot of bad choices. It's similar to Linux as a whole in that aspect. You've got options like ChromeOS which are a nightmare for privacy and user freedom any way you look at them, but then you've got your traditional distros like Debian, Arch, Fedora, etc, which are the exact opposite. Its an important distinction.
To be more fair, it should be way easier to use root on Android than it currently is, and it could be done without compromising security.
Like, I shouldn't have to dig through mountains of unofficial documentation from weird sources, only to the find that, whoopsie, this method doesn't work for your particular submodel of phone, you have to take this ultra-specific path that's prone to issues and may not work. Oh, and make sure you backup your entire device, because rooting will wipe it and now you have to spend your entire fucking day restoring everything.
Like, just give me the option to enable root access somewhere in the developer settings. It can even be an obscure (but simple) process like it is to enable developer settings in the first place by tapping "about" a dozen times or something. Put up a half dozen warnings explaining why it's "dangerous" for mortals to enable root for all I care, just make it work.
I'm OK with root not being available by default as long as the bootloader remains unlockable. This is bigger than root. I own the hardware so I should be able to use it for whatever OS I desire. If the bootloader is unlockable then I can flash a root package myself. This is fine. If the bootloader is unlockable then I can install non-Android Linux if I desire.
I'm not sure if it could be done without at least compromising security to some extent (at least in Android's current state, but maybe that could be changed or worked around in the future), but yeah, overall I do agree, that's what I was trying to get at. I definitely support there being an official and easier method to root on Android, as long as it isn't the default, and as long as the risks are clearly explained. People should certainly be able to do whatever they want with their own devices, it is unfortunate, and definitely an overstep from Google and OEMs.
Even in tech jobs you can be doing things that don't require you to understand the nitty-gritties of the operating systems.
Just because I have enough admin rights to fix basic issues on other people's computers doesn't mean I'm allowed to just install what-the-fuck-ever on my own computer. Even as someone in IT, our workstations are locked down, even if it's our team that is the one locking them down.
throw in “wanting to do something” versus “having to do something” – I want to build my own keyboard so I spend the time to learn about them, I have to use Windows at work but as long as it doesn’t catastrophically break I’m not spending any more of my time on it than I have to – if it does break, there’s the paid IT department who’s going to be oh-so-thrilled that Amateur McJones decided he could fix it himself …
I think it's the opposite. There are, of course, Linux elitists, but they don't want normies using Linux. They love to talk about how Linux isn't ready for mainstream usage, and it's so difficult and only super-smart people like them can use it. They're like those hipsters that don't want their favorite band to become popular because then they wouldn't be underground and cool to listen to anymore. If ordinary folks were using Linux, then they wouldn't feel so smart and special.
It is gatekeeping and elitist to say that Linux is hard to use, you wouldn't understand it, and you should stay on Windows.
It isn't about every computer user becoming a computer engineer. It's about learned helplessness. It's about being afraid to try anything new, even something that's only slightly different.
To use the car analogy, it's like somebody who will only drive Fords, and is terrified of the prospect of getting behind the wheel of a car made by any other manufacturer.
EDIT: I gave you an upvote here because you don't deserve downvotes for your well stated opinion.
I have done computer work for a bunch of little old ladies, and when they couldn't afford to upgrade to new hardware, I would put a lightweight version of Linux on their computers for them.
Only one of them really struggled with the difference, and she wasn't against learning, she just struggled. The rest handled the transition fine and didn't do a lot of complaining that it wasn't what they were used to. (Probably partially because I made clear what apps were what and put shortcuts to each on their desktop, each shortcut well labeled.)
I don't think it's unusual for people to "get used to" how certain things work and expect that. In fact, I'd say that's pretty normal.
But I think there's far less fear of change from regular people than you seem to think. I see far less addiction to the "brand" of Windows than you might think.
I mean, lots of people are scared as hell of driving a stick shift and refuse to learn… soooo yeah. I'd say that's a closer approximation. Because a Ford and a Chevy both have steering wheels and pedals all in the same place. You add that extra pedal and some folks lose their minds. Which at least makes sense because it is different.
When my granddad was born everyone in his village made their money doing manual labour for the local lord. Old people have handled a lot of transition in their lives, arguably more than any generation in history. I'm patient with him not knowing how to use a computer he was alive when computers were invented
Yep. This post is largely mixing up cause and effect. The popular programs are like that not as the cause of people not learning underlying logic and such, but as the effect of it.
The only thing that would happen if popular GUI based interfaces had never come along would be that computers in general would still be something only a tiny amount of people use.
man -k will do the exact search you are asking about. Now I have found that some systems aren't setting it up properly lately, but that command and -k option have been there for decades. Maybe you should try: man man to see what all options are available.
Thanks, I think I'm on a distro where it's not set up properly (or I broke something, heh), since that has not worked for me. I did some search and saw some working examples though, so I get it. Although I'd still say the naming conventions for the programs in Powershell makes them far easier to sort through than they are with the
man -kcommand.Linux is great, but obtuse, not straightforward for a beginner. The fact that something like this can be broken out of the box is sort of proof of that. Linux expects a lot more of its sysadmins.
Yeah, I agree with you mostly, and hope my reply wasn't coming across as dickish. As a long time *nix user, I find the commands in Powershell to be equally nonsensically named at times. I do remember the times when it was joked that unix commands were usually named after the author's dog, but I think over time that has changed. I am sure if I had to use Powershell just a fraction of the time I use the linux command line on a daily basis I would get more familiar and comfortable with it. But you are correct that overall, this is a human issue, and not something that can easily be solved. Not everyone wants to delve into suspension tuning, some people just need to get in the car and reasonably expect to arrive at their destination.
Nah, not dickish at all. None of us can know everything. I'd rather be informed that I'm wrong than continue walking around being wrong.
Don't forget that you can set up alias commands. So if you don't like the name of a command, or don't want to keep typing things out, you can set up an alias. For instance, I have to continually switch to another user. I set up alias so I can type gouser instead of "sudo su - user". So if the name of something isn't easy or hard to memorize, you can just make it whatever you want within limitations.
More like 50 years with all the stuff from Unix
@Bene7rddso @dingus pretty much like any tech stack, once you’re taking a close look at things. Since it’s open-source they have no interest whatsoever lying about the quality of their system - not to mention that any serious service cannot but run UNIX/UNIX-like. Proprietary stuff, most of the time, also require qualified workers to maintain their own mess. And if it looks messy, blame it on ignorance.
I like that you bring up Android. I went with Apple forever ago and kept in the ecosystem as I got my software engineering degree, and still am fully into the Apple ecosystem. I spend my days debugging things for work. I don’t want to spend my nights tinkering with my phone as much. I want it to just work.
I used to jailbreak for that freedom. Now, I have other things to worry about and just want my phone to be reliable and safe.
Cheers, mate! I don't use Apple stuff very often, but I do strongly respect their engineering and the fact that they're certified UNIX for macOS.
There just needs to be far less gatekeeping and acting like one solution fits all in the PC community in general.
Strong feelings.