EXP: Geekbuzz - Share your Warez: Set Up a Secure Server

Geekbuzz - Share your Warez: Set Up a Secure Server

Trying something new this time - a tutorial! Don't worry, you're gonna love this. Learn the best way to set up a secure network between Linux, Mac and Windows machines all while protecting your pron. (I mean data.)

Watch Video

I think i actually learned something, so thanks. Still makes you wonder why the default settings aren't the most restrictive to begin with, so normal people can't screw it up for themselves. *shrug*

Been watching Nixie for a little over a year now. Glad to see the Escapist picked her up.

Love the nixie, she does a great job explaining stuff, and doesn't resort to the drama that so many youtubers resort to draw viewers to their channel.

No one else going to say it?

...

Fine. I will. That was bloody complicated. I know there's reasons why there's such depth of options for configuring a network, but really comparing the amount of configuring it takes to achieve an "acceptable, safe default setting" with Samba compared to something like installing DropBox on a Windows or Mac OSX partition is a flipping odyssey, and for much of it I'm blinding following instructions with no clue as to why its important.

I know the saying goes use Ubuntu if you want to learn Ubuntu and use Slackware if you want to learn Linux but nothing about installing Samba felt like it was intended to be used with Ubuntu.

EclipsiumRasa:
No one else going to say it?

...

Fine. I will. That was bloody complicated. I know there's reasons why there's such depth of options for configuring a network, but really comparing the amount of configuring it takes to achieve an "acceptable, safe default setting" with Samba compared to something like installing DropBox on a Windows or Mac OSX partition is a flipping odyssey, and for much of it I'm blinding following instructions with no clue as to why its important.

I know the saying goes use Ubuntu if you want to learn Ubuntu and use Slackware if you want to learn Linux but nothing about installing Samba felt like it was intended to be used with Ubuntu.

Kudos to the author of this video for the content. I've never seen her work but she does a damn fine job of providing a simple walk-through that most people can understand.

However I'm ashamed to admit this but I totally agree with the quote above, I've moved from a linux platform simply because everything was so fricking complicated to learn, and my job only allows me so many hours a day to learn the computor stuff. I'll be damned if I have to learn the lastest rewrite of ImageMagick and the 100+ other ext programs my boss demands and then spend my free hours learning how to do simple folder/file sharing in Ubuntu.

Until the folks making these linux operating systems figure out that not everyone wants to, or is able to, learn how to migrate across they'll just stick with Windows 7. (Or at least wait till Windows 8.2 bugs out and wipes their hard drives leaving them with no other option).

EclipsiumRasa:
No one else going to say it?

...

Fine. I will. That was bloody complicated. I know there's reasons why there's such depth of options for configuring a network, but really comparing the amount of configuring it takes to achieve an "acceptable, safe default setting" with Samba compared to something like installing DropBox on a Windows or Mac OSX partition is a flipping odyssey, and for much of it I'm blinding following instructions with no clue as to why its important.

I know the saying goes use Ubuntu if you want to learn Ubuntu and use Slackware if you want to learn Linux but nothing about installing Samba felt like it was intended to be used with Ubuntu.

It's only complicated if you want to be secure about it. Otherwise it's about as complicated as anything else from Mac/windows.

As someone who knows a good bit about Linux it really doesn't seem that complicated to me, it's just basic groups and permissions something all OSes have, even Windows it's just most people never deal with them even when there is a good reason to.

As someone who uses Linux basically every day, I agree it can be pointlessly obtuse for what seems like no reason at all.

EDIT: I just realized that I got a couple of technical details wrong in this post, and, while I can't be assed to correct the errors, I'd rather not leave them lying around.

Just started watching and all I can think is. Sooo why is this not one of the main shows on the escapist? far more interesting then many of the main shows.

fredorpaul:
Just started watching and all I can think is. Sooo why is this not one of the main shows on the escapist? far more interesting then many of the main shows.

Funny you should say that ...

fredorpaul:
Just started watching and all I can think is. Sooo why is this not one of the main shows on the escapist? far more interesting then many of the main shows.

It is almost like The Escapist is thinking about picking up a person with a voice for Linux before the SteamOS launches....

*edit* see do not open a comments section and come back to comment later. The editor comments before you

Greg Tito:

fredorpaul:
Just started watching and all I can think is. Sooo why is this not one of the main shows on the escapist? far more interesting then many of the main shows.

Funny you should say that ...

ENGAGE THE RUMOR MILL!

synobal:

EclipsiumRasa:
No one else going to say it?

...

Fine. I will. That was bloody complicated. I know there's reasons why there's such depth of options for configuring a network, but really comparing the amount of configuring it takes to achieve an "acceptable, safe default setting" with Samba compared to something like installing DropBox on a Windows or Mac OSX partition is a flipping odyssey, and for much of it I'm blinding following instructions with no clue as to why its important.

I know the saying goes use Ubuntu if you want to learn Ubuntu and use Slackware if you want to learn Linux but nothing about installing Samba felt like it was intended to be used with Ubuntu.

It's only complicated if you want to be secure about it. Otherwise it's about as complicated as anything else from Mac/windows.

As someone who knows a good bit about Linux it really doesn't seem that complicated to me, it's just basic groups and permissions something all OSes have, even Windows it's just most people never deal with them even when there is a good reason to.

Right, but as someone who knows a good bit about Linux even the most obtuse scripting needed to achieve the result you want won't be a dealbreaker for you if the functionality is worth it; this is essentially why long time Linux users universally have a "I'll give up using the shell when you can pry it from my cold dead hand" relationship they just don't with a GUI. As percentages of users go this almost certainly reflexs a majority of open source developers but a relative minority of the total number of Ubuntu's users.

None of this is probably news to you or other long term users, so why is it news to anyone that the provided defaults and GUI user-friendliness and layman's configurability for software like Samba is still so poor? Many Linux devs rightly criticised the amount of security headaches the defaults used in Windows softwares were responsible, but just look at the state Samba in 2013.

This isn't an attempt by me being a Windows fanboy pushing an veiled apologist agenda, I'm just wishing that higher standards were demanded for release versions of intuitive GUI based software on Linux.

I completely understand the CLI for a knowledgable user will always have advantages in terms of power and speed over any GUI but releasing a poor GUI offering is not the right way to motivate a user to spend more time learning Linux in depth, especially if its resulting in their system running with poor security from the entire time between first install something and then learning how to configure it like an advanced user would.

I just don't get the reason behind this video... Why would you install a samba server on your linux box if you wnat to access files on windows boxes? For a centralized file server, yeah, but for box-to-box, simply open FILEMANAGER_OF_CHOICE and type smb://NAME_OF_OTHER_BOX/NAME_OF_SHARED_FOLDER in the path... Maybe install cifs-utils beforehand, depending on the distro, that's it. And if you don't know how to share a folder on Windows, then you also don't know how to access a samba share...

Migrating data is a pull operation, not a push. I pull the data off the old box and onto the new. And there's no system more secure than a system that isn't there...

EclipsiumRasa:
I completely understand the CLI for a knowledgable user will always have advantages in terms of power and speed over any GUI but releasing a poor GUI offering is not the right way to motivate a user to spend more time learning Linux in depth, especially if its resulting in their system running with poor security from the entire time between first install something and then learning how to configure it like an advanced user would.

What most people don't get is that CLI != Configuration.
People fear the CLI because they fear they'll trigger something bad or just plain don't know the options. In the above case, we're dealing with configs. And let me tell you, as someone who spent 13 hours last friday to get friggin' Exchange/IIS to behave, that a GUI for configuring things is just plain crap. A GUI by it's very design can't replace a config file, unless it BECOMES a config file that's just not viewed through a text editor. And even then it's worse, because you're relying on the GUI working properly, instead of opening plain text files with ANY tool that works with them. Of course, obtuse, cluttered or plain unstructured config files are bad (looking at you, grub2...), too, but if we compare things, let's compare them at their best. And at ANY comparable level, config files always win over GUI-Driven configs, hands down.

Well that was overly complicated. It is things like this that make it impossible to get people to use Linux. Think to yourself if you can describe these actions over the phone without seeing the screen, if you cannot then this isn't a operating system for your everyday user. I love Linux but thinking of putting my parents on this would make me consider cutting off my ear just to not talk with them.

Rather than this mess of intermediate-level configuration that assumes skills a person watching this almost certainly doesn't have, I instead recommend getting Amahi. It's a full home server package that includes not only Samba, but also Greyhole, a program that allows you to spread files across a bunch of drives just in case of a hard drive failure. After installation, you can control nearly everything via a web browser-based interface. Right now, the newest version has some issues, so I'd recommend getting Amahi 6.

The cons are that you have to install a fresh Ubuntu 12.04.1 and you're not going to want to use the computer as a desktop, but it doesn't even have to be a good machine. My server is on a six year old Dell piece of crap and it runs just fine.

Its not a video intended for me, but I watched to learn a bit, and the instructor provided good insight. Not sure right or wrong, like some of you smarter people, but it led to some good discussion aye. IN this case, I hope she is monitoring this thread, because it would be good to address your concerns, vs. the typical review videos.

EclipsiumRasa:
No one else going to say it?

...

Fine. I will. That was bloody complicated. I know there's reasons why there's such depth of options for configuring a network, but really comparing the amount of configuring it takes to achieve an "acceptable, safe default setting" with Samba compared to something like installing DropBox on a Windows or Mac OSX partition is a flipping odyssey, and for much of it I'm blinding following instructions with no clue as to why its important.

I know the saying goes use Ubuntu if you want to learn Ubuntu and use Slackware if you want to learn Linux but nothing about installing Samba felt like it was intended to be used with Ubuntu.

I agree with you. This seems unnecessarely obtuse and much mroe complicated than it ever needs to be. If anything, it shows how little Linux developers have done in comparison to other platforms. If you need to work the terminal to set things up your doing it wrong.
Meanwhile as you mention there are plenty of software like DropBox that does it much easier and without any headache, while keeping the same amount of security (and id argue that in some cases - more).

proghead:
Still makes you wonder why the default settings aren't the most restrictive to begin with, so normal people can't screw it up for themselves. *shrug*

Default settings always have to be least restricting. If you give most retricting settings as default you are signing your own death warrant. This is because majority of computer users arent smart enough to ever remove these restrictions and will just declare the program as "not working". And they will be very vocal about it.

Capcha: which one is the easiest. Certainly not Samba.

Strazdas:
If you need to work the terminal to set things up your doing it wrong.

And if you had paid attention, you would have noticed that, aside from installing 1 piece of software, there was no set up or configuration done from terminal. Everything was done in GUI and terminal was only used to verify that changes were made. She could have easily forgone checking changes, but I would assume that this being a tutorial it would be important to demonstrate.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Dropbox is file syncing over the internet, correct? This and drop box are not the same thing. This is for the LOCAL network, no files need to be sent over the internet to remote servers and back. Arguably this method is much more secure since it functions within your local network. Which, as someone stated earlier...

synobal:
It's only complicated if you want to be secure about it. Otherwise it's about as complicated as anything else from Mac/windows.

Strazdas:
If you need to work the terminal to set things up your doing it wrong.

Erm... no. Absolutely not. If you need a graphical interface because your terminal commands are too obtuse to be figured out, you're doing it wrong. If I need a graphics stack (be it X11 or wayland or whatever), a bunch of extra libraries and tools and overall a bunch of added unneeded complexity, then you're doing it wrong. A GUI can be a nice thing, but in no way, shape or form can it ever be better or faster than a GOOD cli. The only thing you NEED a GUI for is graphical programs, but things that are by their very nature text-based don't need a GUI. Period.

And a case example: I can spell a command on the phone. Easy Peasy. But try to tell people over the phone where to find their GUI and to make sure they've clicked (with the right mouse button, no less) on the right spot on a modal interface (i.e. a GUI) and you're going to have a bad time.

It's
"Type f-i-r-e-f-o-x in the black box..."
vs.
"OK, click on the Firefox Icon... The one you use to go on the internet... No, NOT the blue "E"... Aha... No, I don't know where the Firefox Icon is on your desktop... It looks like a fox wrapped around a globe... YES, Mozilla, that sounds about right... NO, Mother, that's your MAIL client... See? It has a phoenix around an envelope, not a fox around a planet... y'know what? I'll just come over..."

Waaghpowa:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Dropbox is file syncing over the internet, correct? This and drop box are not the same thing. This is for the LOCAL network, no files need to be sent over the internet to remote servers and back. Arguably this method is much more secure since it functions within your local network. Which, as someone stated earlier...

Also, this. File Transfers over the Internet (onto servers NOT controlled by yourself, no less) are inherently less secure, simply by virtue of the physical path the data has to take.

DropBox and it's various alternatives have their place, but this is an example of "wrong tool for the job". Yes, you can hammer in a nail with a screwdriver, but a hammer is better suited for that, isn't it?

Personally I've never had a problem with unsecured shares and will just change them to read only. If you're concerned about share security there's an argument that you're better off making sure your perimeter security is up to scratch. There's nothing wrong with chmod 777 on a share if the share settings within Samba are then set to read only, there's also not much of an issue having an unsecured share at all if your router firewall is properly configured and your wireless password is strong, bear in mind any malware that enters your LAN will be able to access mounted shares anyway so securing a share with a password isn't helpful in the vast majority of cases.

Strazdas:

I agree with you. This seems unnecessarely obtuse and much mroe complicated than it ever needs to be. If anything, it shows how little Linux developers have done in comparison to other platforms. If you need to work the terminal to set things up your doing it wrong.

I've been using Linux casually for years now, and the few times I actually need the terminal, it's almost always trivial to find the exact commands I need by simply googling my problem. I can understand why you wouldn't want your mum to give it a try, but anyone with basic computer literacy has no reason to be afraid of the terminal. After a while, you'll also be using the terminal because for certain tasks it's a lot faster than clicking around in a GUI (you spend less time looking for things, you just type what you need).

I'm not saying that Linux is exceptionally user-friendly, but it's an irritating and common misconception that Linux is too hard for young, computer literate people to grasp, usually by people who have never used or even seen a modern Linux distro, based off some rumours that were relevant a decade ago. You don't need to touch the command line at all for common tasks if you don't want to (setting up a server is not a common task), and rarely for less-common issues. And when you do need it it's generally not exactly rocket science to figure out what you're supposed to do.

Driver issues are probably the most important lingering problem these days, but even that's getting a lot better. Nvidia and Intel GPU's have really solid Linux drivers today.

Whoracle:

Strazdas:
If you need to work the terminal to set things up your doing it wrong.

Erm... no. Absolutely not. If you need a graphical interface because your terminal commands are too obtuse to be figured out, you're doing it wrong. If I need a graphics stack (be it X11 or wayland or whatever), a bunch of extra libraries and tools and overall a bunch of added unneeded complexity, then you're doing it wrong. A GUI can be a nice thing, but in no way, shape or form can it ever be better or faster than a GOOD cli. The only thing you NEED a GUI for is graphical programs, but things that are by their very nature text-based don't need a GUI. Period.

And a case example: I can spell a command on the phone. Easy Peasy. But try to tell people over the phone where to find their GUI and to make sure they've clicked (with the right mouse button, no less) on the right spot on a modal interface (i.e. a GUI) and you're going to have a bad time.

It's
"Type f-i-r-e-f-o-x in the black box..."
vs.
"OK, click on the Firefox Icon... The one you use to go on the internet... No, NOT the blue "E"... Aha... No, I don't know where the Firefox Icon is on your desktop... It looks like a fox wrapped around a globe... YES, Mozilla, that sounds about right... NO, Mother, that's your MAIL client... See? It has a phoenix around an envelope, not a fox around a planet... y'know what? I'll just come over..."

This is not 1990. An average user should not see terminal at all in their usage. Terminal commands should be handled by software with GUI. That is the bare minimum standard we must uphold if we want linux to be widespread. Its not about how complex it is for the machine, its about how complex it is for the end user. and end users understand GUI.

Your example is grasping for straws. i can tell you the exact same story about trying to tell a person over the phone trying to tell a person how to start a command prompt.
Also i actually had people type "enter" in command promt instead of pressing it. yes, really.

The remote desktop (while unsecure) is very popular now simply because the best way to teach people is to show them. and text based interface wont work here.

TheNarrator:

I've been using Linux casually for years now, and the few times I actually need the terminal, it's almost always trivial to find the exact commands I need by simply googling my problem. I can understand why you wouldn't want your mum to give it a try, but anyone with basic computer literacy has no reason to be afraid of the terminal. After a while, you'll also be using the terminal because for certain tasks it's a lot faster than clicking around in a GUI (you spend less time looking for things, you just type what you need).

I'm not saying that Linux is exceptionally user-friendly, but it's an irritating and common misconception that Linux is too hard for young, computer literate people to grasp, usually by people who have never used or even seen a modern Linux distro, based off some rumours that were relevant a decade ago. You don't need to touch the command line at all for common tasks if you don't want to (setting up a server is not a common task), and rarely for less-common issues. And when you do need it it's generally not exactly rocket science to figure out what you're supposed to do.

Driver issues are probably the most important lingering problem these days, but even that's getting a lot better. Nvidia and Intel GPU's have really solid Linux drivers today.

You assume the intelligence of the user. That is unrealistic. You are a "power user". Most people arent. most people will not think about googling stuff. i could tell you plenty of stories how "advanced computer knowledge" courses teach people such stuff as how to change your desktop background - and those people dont actually know beforehand.
The "young computer literate" is a very small minority of computer users. actually the word "young" wont really fit here. young people arent more computer knowledgable. most people wouldnt know it past their daily interface.
Yes, it is not rocket science. Neither is cooking, but how many of you are chiefs? Most people dont know and do not want to know, they just want to click this and let the magic happen.

I always had more software programs on linux (especially firefox strangely) than drivers, but then i do make a rule of using very widely available hardare after some hard lessons from limited series hardware that does not even have driver support on any OS form the manufacturer or the seller (i had to scavenge hosting sites to find somones backup when fixing that one up)

Strazdas:
This is not 1990. An average user should not see terminal at all in their usage. Terminal commands should be handled by software with GUI. That is the bare minimum standard we must uphold if we want linux to be widespread. Its not about how complex it is for the machine, its about how complex it is for the end user. and end users understand GUI.

No. End users understand close to nothing. neither GUI nor CLI. And end users shouldn't have to configure anything, really, which is why sensible defaults are important, no matter if GUI or CLI.

Your example is grasping for straws. i can tell you the exact same story about trying to tell a person over the phone trying to tell a person how to start a command prompt.

Someone who is unable to click on "Start" and then type 3 letters is equally unable to download teamviewer and give you the ID/passcode.
I work in 3rd level tech support, and I meet people like that every week... but those people have no (and I mean aboslutely no) need for interchanging files between different OSes, since they don't even know what a file IS or where it resides in the file system, OS be damned.

Also i actually had people type "enter" in command promt instead of pressing it. yes, really.

I believe that, but even then you can get them to read what it says EXACTLY on the prompt, as opposed to "But I clicked the mozilla icon". Also, have you considered that this specific example might be your fault? I don't want to attack you or anything, but I had a similar experience once, where I told a guy that I needed his logos for his website, and if he could send them to me. I got them printed out in the mail. And yes, that was my fault, because in his world, "to send" something doesn't mean by email.
Maybe the same with you: "Type COMMAND and then ENTER" as opposed to "Type COMMAND and then press the ENTER Key".

The remote desktop (while unsecure) is very popular now simply because the best way to teach people is to show them.

People don't want to be shown. They want someone to just "fix it" for them. They don't listen, they don't care. And neither CLI nor GUI will help there. And if there's a will to learn, it's easier for people to write down commands than GUI interactions. But I'm not talking about USING software via the CLI. I'm talking configuration here. And such people simply should never get to the point where they have to install and configure a service on their system.
Hence my first post in here: "Why samba? Let them create the share under windows and just click 'Browse Network' in their file browser of choice. Maybe let them install cifs-utils first, which doesn't need to be configured."

Yes, it is not rocket science. Neither is cooking, but how many of you are chiefs? Most people dont know and do not want to know, they just want to click this and let the magic happen.

While I concur with the rest of your paragraph, this is a false analogy. Yes, not everyone is a chef, but almost everyone can at least cook well enough to not poison themselves and not starve. No one expects the general user to configure his OS from the ground up, bells and whistles and everything. But people should have at least HEARD of a file browser, and should be able to input simple one line commands into a text prompt. Only on the computer, that is asked too much apparently. Even if said people do EXACTLY that every day, only not with a text prompt, but with a word processor.

young people arent more computer knowledgable. most people wouldnt know it past their daily interface.

And picking this out, as well, since this is so true it isn't even funny anymore. I've got a nice little anecdote to tell about that one:
A friend of mine thought tom himself after graduating University he'd go and learn something "down to earth", so he went and got himself an apprenticeship as a precision mechanic (I hope that's the correct translation...). So he with his 35 years of age is sitting in school again with a bunch of 16 to 18 year olds. All of those have their iDevices and AndroBots and whatnot.
One day they had CAD class. The assignment went "Take this thumb drive, copy the file on there over to your computer and open it with the CAD program."
And I shit you not, almost half the class sat in front of their computers and patted and pawed the screens, wondering why nothing happened, completely stumped by the concept of mouse and keyboard...

Whoracle:

Strazdas:
This is not 1990. An average user should not see terminal at all in their usage. Terminal commands should be handled by software with GUI. That is the bare minimum standard we must uphold if we want linux to be widespread. Its not about how complex it is for the machine, its about how complex it is for the end user. and end users understand GUI.

No. End users understand close to nothing. neither GUI nor CLI. And end users shouldn't have to configure anything, really, which is why sensible defaults are important, no matter if GUI or CLI.

I had much better exeprience telling people to "press this button that look like a disc" than telling people to enter commands. console seem to confuse people for some reason much more than nice looking pictures. But you are right, most users dont understand anything. however it is much simpler for them to learn to use GUI, and they have to learn unless they want to come running to me every day.
Sensible defauts does not mean most restricted. I remember there was a firewall (i wont name it now) that had all restrictions on by default. i took half an hour to set everything to "Sensible" levels where instead of automatically blocking everything it would indeed ask me if this new program i installed to conenct to internet really should connect to internet. most users - bah, itnernet is gone, it doesnt work, lets delete it (and they delete files and not uninstall meaning the firewall still blocks the internet and they call ctech support). On the other hand another firewall would allow all connections unless told to be blocked. It stopped being supported 4 years ago and people still use it sucesfully.
Simple user does not need restrictions. simple user need things to work. and since we dont know their configuration we should make the default settings as open to that as possible.

Someone who is unable to click on "Start" and then type 3 letters is equally unable to download teamviewer and give you the ID/passcode.
I work in 3rd level tech support, and I meet people like that every week... but those people have no (and I mean aboslutely no) need for interchanging files between different OSes, since they don't even know what a file IS or where it resides in the file system, OS be damned.

they usually get confused at finding command prompt. they seem to be unable to use the run program. mostly thgey end up writing the console commands into the run program line. Teamviewer though? send it via skype (and they all know how to use skype here, there isnt anyone with internet without skype in my country sadly (skype is shit)) they run it and bam your inside.
You do have a point with most of them not wanting file sharing between OSs since they usually dont even know what OS is, but that does not mean we should make such sharing unnecessarely complicated.

I believe that, but even then you can get them to read what it says EXACTLY on the prompt, as opposed to "But I clicked the mozilla icon". Also, have you considered that this specific example might be your fault? I don't want to attack you or anything, but I had a similar experience once, where I told a guy that I needed his logos for his website, and if he could send them to me. I got them printed out in the mail. And yes, that was my fault, because in his world, "to send" something doesn't mean by email.
Maybe the same with you: "Type COMMAND and then ENTER" as opposed to "Type COMMAND and then press the ENTER Key".

Granted im going from memory here but i believe i told him to type in command and "press enter". so what he did was press E N T E R on keyboard..... Hilarity ensued when i tried to tell him that there is a button called enter and he refused to believe me.
Yes prompt can read you things exactly (assuming they dont just go "oh and it says a bunch of numbers i dont understand" and dont read it, but you can also do exact stuff with the interface since interface is standardized enough. Also with interface once they do it they will know how to do it again. No such luck with command promt i fear.

People don't want to be shown. They want someone to just "fix it" for them. They don't listen, they don't care. And neither CLI nor GUI will help there. And if there's a will to learn, it's easier for people to write down commands than GUI interactions. But I'm not talking about USING software via the CLI. I'm talking configuration here. And such people simply should never get to the point where they have to install and configure a service on their system.
Hence my first post in here: "Why samba? Let them create the share under windows and just click 'Browse Network' in their file browser of choice. Maybe let them install cifs-utils first, which doesn't need to be configured."

Most people just want things to work. Thats why they are more willing to try to "fix" it themselves than turn the thing in for repairs, they dont want to bother. and if they end up needing to call multiple times for same issue they end up "fixing it themselves". of course that does not always mean they know what thiey are doing, but people are willing to learn for convenience. They dont like to call you as much as you dont like them calling.
However people are much more willing to learn GUI than commands. Maybe its irrational, maybe its just the way our brain works, but thats how it is. There is a reason why computers only became popular when almost everything went into GUI. people dont like consoles.

While I concur with the rest of your paragraph, this is a false analogy. Yes, not everyone is a chef, but almost everyone can at least cook well enough to not poison themselves and not starve. No one expects the general user to configure his OS from the ground up, bells and whistles and everything. But people should have at least HEARD of a file browser, and should be able to input simple one line commands into a text prompt. Only on the computer, that is asked too much apparently. Even if said people do EXACTLY that every day, only not with a text prompt, but with a word processor.

Anecdotical evidence, granted, but pretty much every married woman i know think thier husband dont know how to cook at all. I know enough not to starve, though im no chef, but i often get praised for maknig my own food instead of just going to eat in diners and all, because those people dont know how to do much more than boil eggs and put things in microwaves. sadly the new generation are terrible at cooking. sure they wont starve, as long as there is pre-prepared food in the store.
I hope for the day when the average user were knowledgeable enough to configure his OS. Not from ground up obviuosly but with the GUI we have in for example windows now they can configure it (even though i still think XP was more configurable on that level).
We resort to calling file browser "going to my computer" here because thats what people actually know.

Yeah there seems to be a problem of people not being able to work otuside of their confort zone. word processor - they can do anything. command prompt - unable to type simple command. But that seems to be common human trend and not in computers alone.

And I shit you not, almost half the class sat in front of their computers and patted and pawed the screens, wondering why nothing happened, completely stumped by the concept of mouse and keyboard...

God, its sooener than i anticipated. Hoard the tech! apocalypse is coming.
Its not that bad here but were getting there. Sad thing is, we got touchscreen monitors now, so they may as well be the future....

I like this thread. =3

The only thing I can think of is: "Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity."



~ Nixie Pixel ~
ESC newbie. Recovering misanthropist.
Shows: OS.ALT || Geekbuzz

Talk nerdy to me on:
My Facebook
Google +
@nixiepixel

Strazdas:

Default settings always have to be least restricting. If you give most retricting settings as default you are signing your own death warrant. This is because majority of computer users arent smart enough to ever remove these restrictions and will just declare the program as "not working". And they will be very vocal about it.

That, again, is the fault of the software for making it too hard. The defaults should have no side effects. Period. If you need more than the defaults, then there should be an easy way to configure advanced settings. Windows does that pretty well.

Or in other words: it's the dev's job to think and work harder so the user doesn't have to.

NixiePixel:
The only thing I can think of is: "Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity."

Oh dear hurd, how I hate that quote... No, general computing is not simple. Neither Windows, nor OSX, nor Unix and derivates. It's not that hard nowadays, but it's far from simple. Which is why people should learn how to use their systems. We don't allow people to steer 1 ton heaps of metal down the streets without SOME kind of understanding of how to work said heaps, but we allow people to create botnets left and right because they can't be arsed to learn what file extensions are and why you would want to view them, and thus the developers simply hide the extensions...

proghead:

Strazdas:

Default settings always have to be least restricting. If you give most retricting settings as default you are signing your own death warrant. This is because majority of computer users arent smart enough to ever remove these restrictions and will just declare the program as "not working". And they will be very vocal about it.

That, again, is the fault of the software for making it too hard. The defaults should have no side effects. Period. If you need more than the defaults, then there should be an easy way to configure advanced settings. Windows does that pretty well.

Or in other words: it's the dev's job to think and work harder so the user doesn't have to.

Yes, which is exactly the point i was making with GUI that people felt was "So wrong".

NixiePixel:
I like this thread. =3

The only thing I can think of is: "Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity."

I bring carnage everywhere i go :D
Yeah, Unix i not simple. If it takes a genius to understand it that should already prove that. If we use this measurement of understanding then rocket science is simple, it just takes a genius to understand it.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here