@Shamar@mastodon social It won't work. Just take some time to, say, explain recursion or graph algorithms, image compression or even cryptography math to a totally untrained user. We will never get to a point of end users to read or understand their software. IMHO, trying to do so is a waste of time that could better be spent on building more ethical solutions that just work for this crowd.
@MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon
@Shamar We're at a point where some adults have issues understanding higher math, some even have real issues learning to master natural language to understand complex texts or express themselves. And we actually did invent an alphabet to help these folks: Icons. Symbols. Easy interactions. So far this works well. Will we be able to do meaningful programming on that level?
@alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon
We need to be like Moses.
We can all see how badly broken is current IT.
We can all see how much power we have (which ultimately is much much more we are fooled to think).
We call all see how hard corporations try to lock us in, layer over layer.
Can we think the promised land?
Just like ancient scribes couldn't think of a phonetic alphabet.
@Shamar I think we very often fall victim to oversimplification because we have totally lost sight of how incredibly much specialized we already are - and how extremely basic and "trivial" some of the issues users are struggling with actually are. Google, Apple, ... are successful because they do better here, no matter why they do that.
@grainloom @alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon
@Shamar And now, provide those kids with, say, a batch of hardware and the most simple fully featured implementation of something like e-mail. Do you think they will have a chance to understand what happens, let alone fix it? If that was possible, most programmers apparently are pretty dumb, looking at how much time is spent on fixing ...
@grainloom @alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon
My take on that is that most of the required info is already out there, but I am all for simplifying it.
I don't think that would lead to some massive influx of programmers, because some people just have different passions like painting, music and such and some just want to watch TV.
There's a pretty large artist community on the Fediverse, don't think they're much interested in the tech side and that's honestly fine.
@MatejLach @z428 @Shamar @alcinnz @Wolf480pl @cbowdon idk, you need to know a lot of "engineeringy" stuff to get things done with digital art tools
you need to use logical thinking for setting up complex things in Blender or Krita
we are already forced to learn a large subset of MS Office, why couldn't we learn UNIX(or hopefully Plan 9) instead?
Well, am not saying we shouldn't But many people learn a specific tool to achieve a specific tasks. Things like operating systems, programming and such are such open-ended things that unless you're creatively interested in them, there doesn't seem to be as much of a point in doing so.
@MatejLach @z428 @Shamar @alcinnz @Wolf480pl @cbowdon I kinda agree but learning to use shell scripting for getting basic things done (in a good OS with a good shell language) is not much harder than learning Excel. And if all you learn is basic pipes and how to launch things, that can be used for the same things: launching applications, saving and converting files.
You don't need to understand them deeply either.
@deejoe @z428 @Shamar @alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon imho there were/are better systems that give users more freedom that were commercial failures because they weren't marketed properly or weren't lucrative enough for developers looking for a quick profit. Linux package managers are better than app stores, but app stores don't require you to share your source.
@grainloom I'm always back to XMPP and WhatsApp as maybe the most crucial example of everything that possibly could have been done wrong: The "tech" and FLOSS elite fully ignoring or laughing at a new piece of technology that doesn't fit their world view. The XMPP crowd that always focussed on a technology but never cared about building a product actually working for users - 1/4
@deejoe No. They *do* better because they made technology available to users in a way "accessible" to these. They do things such as thinking about "target groups" or user personas and actual requirements in term of usability as well. They do that for profit, and of course they use marketing for that, but in the end WhatsApp, Google, Facebook *did* make technology accessible to people who never used a computer before - 1/4
@Shamar This will fail. People never will have enough knowledge to compete with Google or Apple either. We shouldn't forget it's not just about marketing - they actually *do* have a bunch of very skilled people in their teams, way more skilled than average programmers or even an end user trying to write code.
@Shamar You will never get a tool on par with AutoCAD entirely built by a "free" community. Not as long as people have to pay bills. For a whole bunch of reasons, starting with those tools being utterly complex in any way and tools for users highly specialized in "not programming".
@Shamar Pretty interesting however, is that early Google freed a lot of internet users from flaky, incomplete and painful web searches and became the defacto search engine even within the FLOSS community for very long. Why Google? Why not something open or decentralized? 😉
@deejoe @grainloom @alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!