Post #3143624

2026-05-23 23:00 UTC

@gabriel@fedi.gvisoc.com @odr_k4tana@infosec.exchange @Gargron@mastodon.social @aj@gts.sadauskas.id.au , I do not argue against being open or repairable. Those are unambiguously good things. The start of the thread was about old-time computers and their CLI/Basic interfaces, and how they directly expose the system internals. I argue that this is *bad* for most potential users. Most people need interfaces that let you use things without being a hobbyist or engineer. Today's abstract UIs are what let regular people use computers at all. And that is good.

Replies (2)

@jannem@fosstodon.org 2026-05-23 23:08

@gabriel@fedi.gvisoc.com @odr_k4tana@infosec.exchange @Gargron@mastodon.social @aj@gts.sadauskas.id.au To be clear: I argue against a nostalgia-driven desire to return to the kind of simple interfaces we had in microcomputers before the desktop and mobile UIs completely swallowed it up. And I argue *in favour* of the abstract, containerized systems exemplified by Android; that finally let non-technical people use computers without fear and anxiety. None of that is in necessary opposition to *also* being open, repairable and hackable! Two different things.

Open ##3143625
@simon_brooke@mastodon.scot 2026-05-24 09:57

@jannem@fosstodon.org @gabriel@fedi.gvisoc.com @odr_k4tana@infosec.exchange @Gargron@mastodon.social @aj@gts.sadauskas.id.au I understand your argument, but disagree with it. Command line interfaces enable essentially conversational interaction with the machine, using language. Humans are exceedingly good at using language, it's our superpower. Yes, we can devise better languages for interacting with the machine, and we should; but giving the user as much intimate access to the machine as they care to use is a good thing.

Open ##3143629