We talk all the time about our preferred operating systems, programs, and window managers, but how do you think software affects people beyond productivity? Can an operating system push people towards creativity or make them lazy? Can chat protocols or different kinds of message boards shape how people think and act? Does using a window manager or the raw virtual console benefit you as a person more than suffering through Gnome Shell? Or are all our software choices just personal tastes that don't affect anything?
>software affects people beyond productivity
Not sure what you are after. I will name one. Freedom.
Software differ from other tools by the nature of machine and programming language. Look at your screwdriver and you know accurately how it works. Look at binaries and you can't know for sure. This property has been exploited by various groups to lock-in, control and manipulate population.
Binaries are series of CPU instructions that are mostly compiled(translated) from human-read/writeable program languages. The CPU does what is written on the binary and it is very difficult to understand and modify binaries.
Using proprietary software (including pirating, paid and free as in beer) contribute to their monopoly and therefore control over everyone. Ever got asked to send only Word docs for job application? Group work on jewgle docs? Required to join chinkcord? Or outrageously having to deal with Windows Servers? There goes your freedom of choice.
You may wonder how do they control population, afterall they are just tools. If you look at how our lives depend on software and their applications, you will see the connection. USA 2020 election uese non-free software which is suspected to be an instrument of fraud. Whether there is fraud isn't important, the possibility of it being suspected is. Can any normal concerned voter look at what the machine is doing? No, because the source code is hidden.
A more direct example: Do you know what your computer is doing?
>Can an operating system push people towards creativity or make them lazy?
If I knew about free software when I was small, I could be a lot more creative.
>Can chat protocols or different kinds of message boards shape how people think and act?
Yes. Look around. Eg: discord trannies
>Does using a window manager or the raw virtual console benefit you as a person more than suffering through Gnome Shell?
Yes. I focus more on what I am doing, instead of the desktop.
>just personal tastes that don't affect anything?
Not just personal tastes. Everyone is connected. Every (software) choice affect your actions and thoughts, which affects others. This goes beyond monopoly and personal freedom.
>are all our software choices just personal tastes that don't affect anything
Yes. It doesn't matter what you do, you're a free spirit, wear rainbow dildos in your anus and mouth, it doesn't affect anything or anyone, stop telling other people what's good and what isn't you fucking nazi bigot.
On a serious note, this is an important topic that humans aren't ready to discuss yet (or anymore) because arguing against freedom of choice and the "subjectivity of good" is the worst offense you could make to anyone in current society.
>arguing against freedom of choice and the "subjectivity of good" is the worst offense
That's due to a problem I discovered about freedom. Give them freedom and they always attack the facilities that makes freedom possible. Criminals commit crimes. Users try their best avoid free software. The hard to accept fact is most people are retarded normalfags, and they are blocking others from freedom along with (((them))).
Sage for off topic
I think you are confusing cause and effect. Software is just a tool to get a given task done. It doesn't affect people's personality, people's personality affects their choice of software. Their skill level obviously also does.
Specific software panders to specific mentalities so it's no suprise sometimes there is sometimes cult like behaviour in communities that evolve around certain pieces of software.
Might be true a few years back, when only people with brains can operate a computer. Choosing software that control users leads to the user being controlled. See how social media app users learn about wrongthink and fagshit? Chrome users not even knowing what urls are (google planning to hide url completely)?
>how do you think software affects people beyond productivity?
It's a prime industry for encouraging "of the time" people and going with the flow, especially anywhere outside desktop PCs and laptops. And even there shit's locked down and all you're allowed to do is use and consume, but rarely modify.
>Can an operating system push people towards creativity or make them lazy?
Outside of systems administration, no. You can develop software on any OS, for example. The critical factor is your attention span.
>Can chat protocols or different kinds of message boards shape how people think and act?
If the communications protocol or infrastructure that is powering it does some shady shit, there will be a chilling effect for people who think it might affect them negatively. This prevents criticism and opinions different from the norm being shared. As for kinds of message boards, it's again a people problem. COINTELPRO and other things like it aren't software related.
>wm, raw FB
Individual choice, I use a WM because DEs don't have anything necessary for my use case.
Outside of strictly personal things, your choices are often not personal, which relates to freedom >>266 and >>269 mentioned. They are effected by your social environment. For example, you wouldn't need Discord to fully participate in /tech/, but your family/normalfag friends/work colleagues are a different matter. They also affect your social status. That might not say much to you, but a majority of people are pliable and take whatever shape is most convenient. So being seen as using "outdated programs" or being "that techie nut" is not desirable for them.
>Software is just a tool to get a given task done. It doesn't affect people's personality
For a lot of software, that is true. Shitty UI doesn't really have the power to affect somebody's personality. But there are a couple of examples. If some unfortunate retard uses Twitter as his primary social media platform, he might get desensitized to longform posting. Outside of personality, the notification spam and (1)s you get from thread refreshes impact your ability to focus on things. Because of how many programs do this, you are affected. A new alert might not seem much, but your animal brain definitely notices and not only does it break the flow of whatever you were doing, you will subconsciously be returning to the notion of this new thing that happened again and again.
I've come to believe that nearly all software today is made to enslave. I say this because I have had the misfortune of attempting to use computers for a wide variety of personal and professional work, and have nearly always been disappointed by the shoddy workmanship of my peers. There is no perfect example which encompasses all of my complaints, instead I will describe best practices for designing modern software:
>GUI? A minefield of widgets. One wrong click and you'll undock all the windows, hang on an expensive operation, or just crash the program. Modals and notifications should pop up directly underneath the cursor, right before you're about to click what's under them. If a button is commonly used, it must be made small and surrounded by big buttons that do unrelated and annoying things. If two items are often used in sequence they must be placed as far away from each other as possible.
>Batch operations? You should rarely implement these, but if you must, be sure they are poorly designed, and unreasonably slow for what they do. Processing thirty items should take at least five seconds. Your users have never heard of moore's law and they certainly don't know how many operations per second their CPU can perform. Whatever you decide to do, make sure it strongly dissuades anyone from using it. Users need to know the joy of doing things by hand.
I swear you'll find at least half of these problems in any program for editing multimedia. Libre Office, Open Office, MSWord; Gimp, Inkscape, Photoshop; Godot, Unity, Unreal; Ardour, Audacity, Reaper. Ironically, developer tools are the most garbage software you'll ever come across. GCC is slow and diarrhetic. Most languages are niggerlicious. I shouldn't need to mention visual studio. All IDE's are bloated trash. Free or proprietary. It's all trash.
These problems won't magically disappear with hard work and innovation. The good goyim are happy with their shiny toys. The wise ones know that it's good job security. Employers don't need power users, they need loyal dependents. "I wish to God these calculations had been executed by steam." That's apparently what Babbage said when he decided to design the difference engine. We wanted to automate the mindless drudge work so that we could freely pursue more meaningful labour. Instead we have used these machines to automate all works of culture and innovation, at last making it possible convince the masses to love their slavery.
The complexity of modern software is also a factor that impacts quality in a negative way: Everything is so bloated it's more likely to win the lottery than creating something like that without major fuckups. Of course everything is supposed to be "user-friendly", i.e.
made for normalniggers or phonefags. This adds another layer of completely unecessary bloat.
>I think you are confusing cause and effect. Software is just a tool to get a given task done. It doesn't affect people's personality, people's personality affects their choice of software.
>Specific software panders to specific mentalities so it's no suprise sometimes there is sometimes cult like behaviour in communities that evolve around certain pieces of software.
So does Reddit create Redditors or do Redditors create Reddit?
Completely agree. What'd be an acceptable design then? For example: an image editing software. How'd you go about it?
It is either natural or artificial. Some things are made intensionally difficult. Others are not. It is not always clear which is which. Speculative execution for example, it can be said to be a requirement for higher performance, but its complexity led to previously unimaginable security problems. Is it intentionally made to be difficult? idk
Much software can be made simpler, as well as a lot of hardware. ARM CPUs all follow their own way of initialization, Chink Krin Cores have a different partition scheme then other ARM processors used in Android phones. That is definitely man-made complexity horror.
>These problems won't magically disappear with hard work and innovation. The good goyim are happy with their shiny toys. The wise ones know that it's good job security. Employers don't need power users, they need loyal dependents
The good goyim are never going to contribute anything worthwhile or use anything except the most popular thing. The truth that nobody, especially in the FOSS space is willing to admit is that popular things are popular because they do something better than any alternative. If you try to criticize Linux or point out things that Windows does well, Linuxfags will lash out in autistic rage and won't listen, that's not the attitude of someone who makes great things, that's the attitude of someone who makes an image editor without basic features that even MS Paint has like the ability to draw rectangles.
You're not "wise" if you waste your life chasing shekels instead of pursuing greater heights and knowledge. "Employers" aren't going to hire people to do anything innovative or good. If you want to improve software then you need to work towards improving something, of course hard work isn't going to do anything and you're not going to innovate shit if you're working for some slave company making shitty proprietary toolkits for some internal company shit.
Let's take a hypothetical; the web is fucking garbage, how would you fix it? Do you think you can fix it by getting a job at Google? No you fucking can't. There's nowhere you can get employed in that will do anything at all towards that goal. If you want to fix the web then you make an alternative to it, and actually do a good job at it, not make some half assed piece of shit that's buggy and clumsy to use and has 5% of the expected features and then start screeching at people like some FOSS nigger when they tell you that your thing isn't good.
Reddit create Redditors more than the other way around.
People are grew up under different environments and have different personalities. But there is something about Redditors that I just can't quite put my finger on. The userbase of Reddit is very big. But most of them have that pleb trait, despite only a part of users should have such natural disposition.
>despite being a small% of the userbase, nearly all Redditors are retards
Redditors go to reddit because they don't bother to look beneath the surface. They use google because it's the most famous search engine, see reddit show up in the top 10 results frequently, find a few things they were looking for and think Reddit is where it ends. A lot of that mentality gathered in one place makes it what it the Reddit you know.
Many people have some kind of inhibition when it comes to using websites they don't know. They have their 10 sites they use and don't bother with anything. That's no suprise when everything is centralized and monopolized. Social media has replaced many actual websites. It already began 15 years ago when bands started abandoning their homepages for myspace. But you still had a internet of websites that were largely independent from another. I couldn't possibly count how many phpbb accounts I had in the early 2000s, everything was its own thing.
Also I notice how search engines have replaced the address bar for many people. Did the software do that to them? No. I use the same browsers, I search from the address bar too (when I do actual searches) but I still type URLs and use the address bar in a sane way. Even many very skilled colleagues don't seem to care that they are effectively proxying their entire browsing history through Google. But Google didn't make them like that, people are still fully responsible for their own laziness and lack of thought.
I like CLIs and Unix philosophy. But that is not to say that there weren't many great gui applications too in the 90's and early 2000's. It doesn't even matter which operating system environment you're looking at, there was nothing wrong with guis before they became bloated as fuck. I started noticing it a lot around 2003-2005, everything had to become more colorful. Everything had to take more space on the screen. It seems developers seemed to grow more and more tired with the default gui apis and all the developers started doing their own thing. I think the tipping point was when higher screen resolutions became the standard and 800x600 was phased out completely. Windows was always symptomatic of this, compare the general size of gui elements to those in XP, 7 and 10. Everyone had more screen space and faster PCs, so developers had more freedom to do dumb, flashy shit.
>popular things are popular because they do something better than any alternative
I rarely find this to be true. I think you missed some implications of what I said. I agree with you, to a point; the wise goy is not wise and the good goy is not good. My point is that software is being progressively lobotomized, and bloated to the point of being unsalvageable. Free or proprietary is irrelevant. It's time to burn the rot and start again.
>people are still fully responsible for their own laziness and lack of thought
Of course. But this is a two-way relationship. There may be a chance for them to come around and learn about the importance of freedom and privacy, but it is carefully extinguished in every scenario possible. Both of them are to be blamed.
>Google didn't make them like that
It did by setting it as the default for many browsers, by making the most popular browser, by predicting their users searches and by being fast at that. It is the same as drugs, drugs have addictive properties, drug makers and druggies should both be blamed.
>I think you missed some implications of what I said
I'm mostly just ranting because I hate everything and everyone.
>I rarely find this to be true.
I find it almost always to be true. While alternatives usually offer a solution to some of the problems the popular thing has and do certain things better, they almost never offer the same kind of things at the same capacity that the popular thing does.
>muh rectangles fag again
Maybe people would listen to you if you complained about something that wasn't so stupid. You could talk about the GTK+ file picker, how glibc has intentionally fucked up static linking and made shipping cross-distro Linux binaries more difficult, how all the recent attempts at working around this suck, how X11 is a dumpster fire or how Linux audio is a mess, but no, it's muh rectangles. Nevermind that you can make rectangles in Gimp or stop being a nigger and install Krita, there just isn't one dedicated tool for drawing them and it's an incredibly minor problem compared to everything else wrong with Gimp.
I have a feeling that if you respond, your first instinct is to deflect by complaining that Linux prefers package managers over installer wizards. You probably also want to accuse me of being one of those autists who lashes out in rage and doesn't listen too. Point is, Windowsfags tend to make asses of themselves by complaining about blowing really minor shit out of proportion or whining that their new OS isn't exactly like Windows, then are shocked when they're called newfags and laughed at.
The way modern graphical programs work doesn't fit the Unix philosophy either, but fixing that would take creativity, will, and probably more borrowing from Plan 9 and Multics than some are comfortable with. Will this ever happen? Probably not. Software in general is overrun with cancer, /tech/ is unproductive, I am unproductive and haven't programmed shit in years, Suckless.org will continue doing their thing, the 9front people will continue doing their thing, Drew Devault will continue being a salty cunt, and unless someone steps up nothing will happen. I have a sinking feeling I'll have to start it myself, and rambling on /tech/ will do nothing.
Since there's talk of replacing the web in here, some of you guys might find the Gemini protocol interesting. https://gemini.circumlunar.space/
>"same kind of things at the same capacity"
>"same ways of doing specific kinds of things at the same capacity"
Different software behave differently, blindly catering to popular habits is not a strength.
>Maybe people would listen to you if you complained about something that wasn't so stupid
You're not even accepting the complaint as valid. I've been an "artist" since I was a kid and have been using graphics programs regularly my entire life, even my job is related to graphics, and I'm telling you that the ability to draw basic geometric shapes is essential to doing graphics work. Yet you keep insisting that noooo it's totally fine if you have to do some 4-step workaround process every time you want to draw a fucking rectangle. Why is so important that Gimp doesn't have a geometric shape drawing tool? It's possibly the absolutely simplest tool to implement, Gimp literally has 39 tools so it's not like they're afraid of clutter, they have like 6 fucking different brush tools and 7 selection tools. You even admit that Gimp has lots of problems but why is this particular problem so important to never fix? It's like you're offended at the mere suggestion that it's a problem and start barking about "l0l window$ n00bs gtf0", how can you expect to ever make software good this way?
Of course Linux and Gimp are full of problems, what did you expect me to do, list every single one of them in that sentence? I'd have needed to make several posts to fit them all in.
It's more that:
>A: Literally all of Gimp's other problems are more important than not having a square drawing tool and I'd rather they focused on those first
>B: Use Krita you fucking faggot
>you have problem with X program? well then use Y other program that's also filled with problems
I'll ask again, how can you expect to ever make software good this way?
>ADD THE SQUARE TOOL
>HOW CAN YOU HAVE GOOD SOFTWARE IF YOU DON'T HAVE SQUARE TOOL
By prioritizing bigger problems first like Gimp's developers are finally doing. I'll take all of Gimp 2.99's refactoring, better support for color space (the biggest issue holding professionals back from using Gimp, not muh squares), and other improvements over a dinky square tool anyday.
Firstly a geometric shape tool is much more fundamental and important to much more people than some color spaces, secondly "professionals" aren't going to give a shit about Gimp for a long long time when they can just pay $40 to get Affinity Photo which does everything 50 times better, thirdly it would take a day or two to add a geometric shape tool to the program, and fourthly Krita, the program you're suggesting as an alternative is the apex example of completely fucked up priorities.
Tried this? https://www.pinta-project.com/
>when you e-beg but accidentally make your web service look worthless