Live data from Hacker News

Free software scares normal people

danieldelaney.net

621–630 of 641 posts

Re: Free software scares normal people

#621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Graphic designers and artists get ripped off, all the time ; frequently, by nerds, who tend to do so, in a manner that insults the value of the artist's work. It's difficult to get those kinds of creatives to donate their time (trust me on this, I'm always trying). I'm an ex-artist, and I'm a nerd. I can definitively say that creating good designs, is at least as difficult as creating good software, but seldom makes…

Most fields just don’t have the same culture of collaborative everyone-wins that software does. Artists don’t produce CC art in anywhere close to the same influence as engineers produce software. This is probably due to some kind of compounding effect available in software that isn’t available in graphics. Software people love writing software to a degree where they’ll just give it away. You just won’t find artists d…

Users are trying to solve their own problems.

Graphic artists are creating graphics editors (Gimp, Krita, Blender, ComfyUI, etc.) with tons of options.

Re: Free software scares normal people

#622
post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, I feel this is where programmers just don't "get" good UI design. Photoshop is good UI design. A normie can use photoshop the same way they use MS paint. Albeit it just loads slower. A normie doesn't need all the bells and whistles. They can just use photoshop like a glorified MS paint. You can't do that with GIMP. It's actually really fucking annoying, if you try to use GIMP to do a MS paint job.

> Photoshop is good UI design. A normie can use photoshop the same way they use MS paint. This is just straight up not true. You're only saying this because you, presumably, have used Photoshop. It has a million buttons, layers are a thing, there's a million tools, etc. No, they can't just pick it up because it's complex software for a complex problem domain. Maybe you disagree. Okay. Pick a different example. 3D Max…

"It has a million buttons, layers are a thing, there's a million tools, etc. No, they can't just pick it up because it's complex software for a complex problem domain."

See this is the thing that software devs don't "get" about UI design.

It's the exact thing the original author is trying to communicate.

You CAN have a powerful tool. And still have it be user friendly for normies!

You hide away it's complexities. So it's not INDTIMIDATING for new users.

You know what. I'm going to reinstall gimp. Just to prove my point.

Let's compare photoshop with gimp.

Before I begin, let me preface. Modern photoshop is an enshitified piece of garbage. I would never use it.

But this is nothing to do with enshitification. That's a whole different thing.

Ok let's start:

- I grab a random image from imgur. Copy paste. Ctrl-V. Both apps passed the test. I was a little worried gimp couldn't even do this.

- On load this is what photoshop looks like: https://imgur.com/a/3uYsm2h

- On load this is what gimp looks like: https://imgur.com/a/DnPcRTc

First impressions:

- GIMP is ugly as fuck. It looks outdated. There's information overload on the left side. Too much shit happening. Too much text squashed together. INTIMIDATING.

- In contrast, photoshop has a more minimalist look. There is a "Layers" window on the right. New users don't need to touch it.

- There is a "Size & Position" window. This is key. Notice how there's only 3 things inside that window. Notice how it's not squashed with all the other shit on the left. Think about that. Why did the designer do this? Because those 3 things are what 90% of normies are looking to do.

- This is exactly what the original author was talking about, with the TV remote. The most common operations should be sectioned off at the top of the remote. Similarly, the most common operations in photo editing should be sectioned off, in clear view.

Ok, Step 2. Let's try and crop this image. A common operation:

- Photoshop. Click the crop button. Shows you a bit more complexity in it's settings. You don't have to touch it. It gives you a helpful grid UI: https://imgur.com/a/tLjL6en

- And then it has a blue "Done" button at the bottom. Finished easy.

- GIMP. We start with a brush by default??? Whoops I accidentally drew on the picture. I didn't want to do that. Thank god I know ctrl-Z.

- So it's that cross thing right? That's the move button. Nope that's not what I want to do :(

- It must be the one next to it. The rectangle. Ok, some random corner thingies appear in the corners. I click on one of the corners. The image gets split into two. But now what? WTF do I do now: https://imgur.com/a/f7TTHJs

I can go on and on and on and on, criticizing gimp's terrible UI design. I hope, the little I have demonstrated, is a tease into what UI design is really about.

Re: Free software scares normal people

#623
post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That the Gnome team has different priorities from other DEs, one of them being "keep the design consistent and sustainable," is completely valid and preferred by many users like myself. A new design metaphor can be "completely valid" and simultaneously an aggravating rug pull if it is pitched as a new numbered version of an existing program---especially an existing desktop environment that many people use daily---r…

> The funniest thing to me is I used to think of Gnome 3 as a effort toward Apple-esque design which wasn't as well put together as MacOS... But now, even though Gnome today is still not up to the consistency of 2011 MacOS, it is more consistent than 2025 MacOS because Apple has been driving drunk on desktop software design for a decade and a half. I guess I agree? I never used OS X and actively avoid MacOS post-2013…

> To my tastes these days Gnome Shell and associated GTK3/4 apps (see Gnome Circle), plus Flathub, are easily the most consistent and pleasant desktop app experience around.

I generally agree with this, with respect to the apps. There are a few dead simple Gnome apps I've found are great to use, but it's just as easy to use them from another desktop environment. I'm inevitably going to have both Gnome and KDE libraries installed, even if I'm using neither desktop environment, and the sheer amount of storage and memory on modern machines makes that just fine. So I don't look at those apps as a selling point of Gnome per se. But you're absolutely right: Gnome's sleek, tiny little applications are often very well designed and useful. It's more the desktop environment around them that irks me every time I try it.

> I don't run it (yet), but Fedora Silverblue is the future (for consumers running desktop Linux). I believe this in my heart.

I also agree here about atomic distros. They're the future. I'm running Kinoite on most of my machines now and am loving how stable and out-of-the-way it is. The size of the frequent updates was a bit shocking at first, but I have gigabit Internet now so...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Free software scares normal people

#624
post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mistake is in trying to understand the business case. There is nothing to understand! The business case is the aggregate of what people actually do. There is no proper procedure that's actually followed at the ground level. Workflows are emergent and in constant flux. In this environment, the role of a dev should not be to build internal products, but to deliver internal hacks and ad-hoc solutios, maintain them,…

The thing about that is that you can only ever YOLO the superficial layers of your architecture, and only ever in certain ways. Having a YOLOable system requires deliberate and considered architectural choices deeper down.

YOLOable systems are built out of flexible pieces. That's why Excel "abuse" is a constant theme in enterprise :).

We should not be thinking about architecture at the business process level. This is just repeating the mistake that needs to be avoided here. This is, and will ever be, a pile of ad-hoc hacks. They're not meant to add up to a well-designed system in a bottom-up fashion, because there is no system to design. The structure we naturally seek, is constantly in flux.

The right architectural/design decisions to make here is to make it possible to assemble quick hacks out of robust parts that fulfill additional needs the people on the ground may not consider - logs/audit trail/telemetry, consistency for ergonomic reasons, error handling, efficient compute usage, tracking provenance, information access restrictions dictated by legal obligations, etc.

The most important change needed is in the mindset. Internal dev needs to stop thinking of itself as the most important part of the company, or as a well-defined team that should own products. To be useful, the opposite is needed - such devs need to basically become ChatGPT that works: always be there to rapidly respond to requests to tweak some software by people on the ground, and then to retweak is as needed. They need to do this work rapidly, without judgement, and never assume they know better.

Only then people will stop weaving ad-hoc Excel sheets into business-critical processes.

Re: Free software scares normal people

#625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what most people use computers for at work. And it's not what magic Excel sheets and Access forms are made for.

Are you sure? Almost all excel sheets are emulations of some process. They’re not great at it, but they work better than the alternatives. But organizations need automation more than emulation, i.e. they want to improve their process, not merely replacing them.

Those sheets are not emulations of some process, they are the process. There is no perfect, platonic process, that the Excel sheets are merely shadows of. There is no fixed goal to approach iteratively. The process is defined by what people do, and it's improved by them through adjusting to situations as they occur and eliminating waste - and creating and evolving these Excel sheets is part of this continuous improvement.

Top ends of organizations need and want a lot of dumb, self-defeating things - this is very much the same thing that's described in "Seeing Like a State". Doing this blindly is, of course, a prerogative of the executives, but internal IT is actually low enough in the food chain that it could focus more on helping the org by improving the bottom layers, instead of embracing and encouraging the top to create more rigid structures.

EDIT: to refer back to the example I gave upthread:

"Steve from ACME Shipping" is not meant to be a special case of an "external vendor assigned to auxiliary shipping itinerary"; the system needs not to be designed to express the concepts of "external vendor" and "auxiliary shipping itinerary" and "shipping itinerary assignment for shippable resources". Steve is just Steve, the whole "extra evening run" thing is probably just a one-off emergency measure for Q3 that will disappear come Q4 (or persist, and then some executives will start talking talk about deeper changes to mailing process). Right now, all the mailing room needs is for someone to add a boolean flag:

  // Steve from ACME Mailing
  bool boundToACMEEVeningRun;
and hook it up to a button that sets it and logic that displays it with a yellow highlight. And yes, this means all that code will likely need to be thrown away next month (or rather, gated by a config flag so versioning/audit trail still works). Making it work out is what the dev is paid for.

Re: Free software scares normal people

#626
post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, except you end up with 20 different incompatible tools with different workflows. I'm not really arguing for mega-tools with locked-down workflows. But there's usually some happy-ish medium between chaos and rigid monoliths.

> 20 different incompatible tools with different workflows Kinda the whole goal behind (and "benefit" of) microservices, right? Totally independent dev teams, all uncoupled from each other, no need to look inside at the code, language-independent - just pass data according to an API and dont look behind the curtain.

Internally it could work if the teams understand that their services are never done - they're part of a living organism, and the responsibility of a team assigned to a service is to keep it working. Shit will break constantly, but that's not a problem as long as it gets fixed. It's labor-intensive, but done right, we're talking few devs being busy maintaining a process that benefits thousands, or hundreds of thousands of their colleagues. It's what the internal development is meant to be.

At some point in our industry, "service providers" started thinking of themselves as kings, instead of what they were supposed to be - servants.

Re: Free software scares normal people

#627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's precisely the mistake I'm talking about. You think you're smarter than people on the ground, and know better how they should do their job. It's because of that condescending, know-it-all attitude that people actively avoid getting IT involved in anything, and prefer half-assed Excel hacks. And they're absolutely right. Work with them and not over them, and you may get an opportunity to improve the process in w…

In my experience, it’s often the business side - rather than IT - that tries to use a technical change to force change to the business process that they have failed to change politically… and it usually turns out that a technical change isn’t enough either.

Right. But it would help if internal IT wouldn't reinforce the business side in their delusions, and it starts with a mindset problem: IT thinking of itself as a department that delivers products and solutions, instead of a support force of servants meant to run around in the background and respond to immediate needs of people in the field.

Re: Free software scares normal people

#628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, it’s often the business side - rather than IT - that tries to use a technical change to force change to the business process that they have failed to change politically… and it usually turns out that a technical change isn’t enough either.

Right. But it would help if internal IT wouldn't reinforce the business side in their delusions, and it starts with a mindset problem: IT thinking of itself as a department that delivers products and solutions, instead of a support force of servants meant to run around in the background and respond to immediate needs of people in the field.

You went too far and mixing IT with software development.

Software development delivers products, internal products and solutions that should be leveraged by business to improve rate of growth.

If you have software development department chucked into IT and make them be supporters that run in the background you are wasting potential or wasting money on their salaries.

If you want supporters make it IT only and pay for SaaS solutions that everyone is using.

Re: Free software scares normal people

#629
post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, except you end up with 20 different incompatible tools with different workflows. I'm not really arguing for mega-tools with locked-down workflows. But there's usually some happy-ish medium between chaos and rigid monoliths.

> 20 different incompatible tools with different workflows Kinda the whole goal behind (and "benefit" of) microservices, right? Totally independent dev teams, all uncoupled from each other, no need to look inside at the code, language-independent - just pass data according to an API and dont look behind the curtain.

That's the theory. You can also end up with a lot of effort devoted to maintaining totally independent tool chains which may have a single person bus factor.

Re: Free software scares normal people

#630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mac->Linux swapper here (back in April). I left after they screwed me on a hardware situation. Honestly I’ve really enjoyed the swap. But man I really miss having iMessages across my devices as well as the shared clipboard. By far the two things I missed the most. Everything else I’ve kind of moved on from and can’t even think of off the top of my head anymore

Yeah, Apple is well-known for being completely insane on this kind of stuff—whenever someone builds an app for this, Apple immediately sets about hunting down and banning iMessage users they suspect of using it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38646903 https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/21/doj-calls-out-apple-for-br... https://www.wired.com/story/beeper-apple-imessage-fight/

You seem pretty informed on this stuff. Do you have any insight into why I’m hearing, at least anecdotally, a much higher failure rate among their desktop offerings over their laptops? My M1 Pro Mac Studio crapped out after 2.5 years! Anytime it went to sleep it would kernel panic and restart. It got all green with their diagnostic test, they did a full firmware refresh, literally nothing could fix it and they had no idea what it was. They wanted me to pay over $700 to replace the logic board and weren’t even sure if that would fix it. Also, the ethernet port failed after a year.

My buddy has almost the exact same story about his M1 iMac. Just under 4 years, now it crashes and forces a safe mode boot randomly. The computer can take upwards of 10 minutes to even start up. They gave him the same business, exact same repair offering, and he’s moving on like I am. I’ve got 1 other friend with a similar unfolding right now, none of these situations were with laptops.

Post reply on HN