I always thought the term was at least a little self deprecating; it definitely and doesn't mean "dumbed down so the stupid wife can actually use it."

There are a lot of technical enthusiasts and hobbyists, mostly dudes, who optimize for dumb parameters that nobody in the real world actually cares about. In this case, setting up a clunky, but fully open source password manager, when there are alternatives with objectively better UX available for relatively cheap (considering you use the thing many times each day).

In the home theater world, for a long time guys would brag about the disgusting monstrosities they've jankily hooked up in their living rooms, but a setup with high WAF means building something that's actually aesthetically appealing and congruent with the interior decor, hidden cords, not having to switch between 4 remote controls, etc.

But you're right - it should probably be SAF (Spouse Acceptance Factor).

Yeah, GP's acronym ain't great. But if you sub out "wife" for "significant other" or just "family" then you have to admit that this is a real phenomenon.

I use pass [0]. To me, it is the best password manager that I've ever used. Command-line-first, free & open source, built on git... it's great, and suits all my needs. From the perspective of someone who spends most of their day behind a CLI, it is "simple" and "just works" more than anything else.

But it's not going to work for my significant other, who is very intelligent but isn't a software engineer. They're not going to learn git so that they can manage passwords, and the app doesn't abstract away git enough for them to avoid needing learning it. Hence, despite its merits, it fails the "SO acceptance factor" or whatever you want to call it.

[0] https://www.passwordstore.org/

Sounds like the Lkxijjlewlf Acceptance Factor (LAF) is also very low. You have something in common with the parent’s wife!

The parent did no shaming; as you pointed out it’s extremely reasonable to not want to jump through hoops. Any shame is projected by yourself.

I wouldn't assume the phrase is casting a value judgement.

I hear the phrase from time to time in aviation. "Have to sell the first plane" / "Doesn't pass the WAF" / "Wife thinks owning two planes it too expensive." I have no reason to believe these folks are not in a loving relationship.

Nothing to do with intelligence.

Same thing with email. Everyone COULD run their own email server but it's pretty clear most people don't want to. We also see it with tech companies running their own servers. Again they COULD runt heir own hardware (and some do) but it's pretty clear most companies don't want to. There are decades of examples of where people could run something themselves and having very strong preferences for using a centralized and more user friendly alternative. I don't know why we'd expect it to be any different here.

Stop morality projecting on others. Having something your untechnical wife is willing/able to use matters.

My wife has this problem. I have a bit more tolerance. There is no else I try to convince to use such software. WAF is accurate but because I don't run it by someone else.

>I, a computer programmer who has more than enough intelligence >Stop blaming/shaming wives.

It seems like it is you who is equating tech illiteracy with intelligence, pal. There is nothing wrong with being technically illiterate (most people are) and I don't think GP is shaming his wife because of it.

If I may chime in, and sorry for acting like an annoying dude, but I also really dislike the term WAF. Of course the term makes sense if we look at IT and the world historically, but I don't get why in 2021 we still have to act like wives are tech illiterate by default, and also, what about women in IT who have tech illiterate husbands.