Hacker News Reader

Comment by davidedicillo | Hacker News Reader

Not to be a jackass, but "regular" people don't want open source. They want things that "just work."

And there's no such thing as secure, unless you build your own software, that only talks to your own servers and that only uses your personal telco and your own infrastructure.

View on HN

>Not to be a jackass, but "regular" people don't want open source. They want things that "just work."

By what logic do you come to the conclusion that these things are mutually exclusive?

Firefox "just works." 7zip "just works." There are innumerable things (like ssh) that "just work" so well that you don't even know when you're using them half the time.

The difference is that with free software you can do the things that don't just work. With Apple if you want to do X thing and Apple deigns to provide X thing then you can do it without any futzing around. But if you want to do X thing and Apple deigns to neglect it then you will not be doing X thing whatsoever, regardless of how much you need it.

So for example if you want to install the latest version of Debian on a PowerMac, you boot the install CD and press enter until it's installed. Generally speaking it "just works." And in the event that it doesn't, chances are that you yourself can make it work. By contrast, if you want to install the latest version of OS X on a PowerMac, you can't. Enjoy your paperweight. The end.

>By what logic do you come to the conclusion that these things are mutually exclusive?

That conclusion is not in the post you're replying to.

Are you trolling? If you don't read the post's first paragraph to say that regular people want software that "just works" rather than open source (thereby implying said conclusion), it would turn the paragraph into gibberish. Reading the two statements as unrelated makes the statement about regular people not wanting open source into a baseless conclusion without explanation and makes the statement about wanting things that just work into an irrelevant tangent having nothing to do with the topic of discussion. I prefer to give the poster the benefit of the doubt that the post was intended to convey a coherent meaning rather than an arbitrary amalgamation of unsubstantiated opinions.

The argument is that regular people do not care about open source.

You're reading too far into posts or something. I never said the statements were unrelated. They're definitely related, just not in the way you thought they were.

Compare to: "Regular users don't look for 'health' food, they want something purple." Nowhere is it concluded that something can't be both healthy and purple.

Bonus link: http://www.fastcompany.com/1739774/how-carrots-became-new-ju...

Let me put it this way: If the post I responded to didn't conclude that open source doesn't "just work" then using the same logic, my post didn't say it did. All I did was point out that healthy food can be purple, and that "regular" people may benefit from retaining their ability to choose to eat food of more than one color.

Your post did a good job of showing examples of software that does both, and making an argument that open source improves the chances of working.

But your very first line, the line I quoted, directly states that davidedicillo was calling them mutually exclusive. That line is what I was objecting to.

Ok, audio on Android does not really fit under "just works". It's open source, is it fixed yet?

Ok, sharing files between third party applications on iOS does not really fit under "just works". It's Apple, is it fixed yet?

What point are you trying to make, that humans are fallible?

Yes, they want things that "just work", but not against them. Most people realize that security is not perfect, but then most probably did not expect that that meant extensive and chronic surveillance.

Haven't seen a phone that would "just work" if this term means "do what I want it to do". It's always tons of "you can't do it that way" and "you're not supposed to want this." And sometimes it "just works (but not in a way you think it does)".

How is this different from any other product of any kind you have not custom-built yourself?

Indeed, it's applicable to many things (although not any kind of not custom-built products, only those with high complexity and use possibilities), not exclusive smartphones by any means. But this discussion is about very particular matter, so I wrote the word "phone".

I agree. Grandma is worried that the NSA is spying on her. I told her to switch to Android and read the source code.

I've never understood the idea that there's all these "regular" people out there with "regular" concerns. Sounds absurd to me.

They "just want it to work" is a lazy generalization that comes from lack of effort in finding out what the real concerns, motivations and thoughts are of the people in our communities.

I'm quite sure it was "regular" people behind the class action lawsuit against Apple for allowing misleading or rip-off practices around in-app purchasing in otherwise so-called "free" games targeted at children. Slow clap for the "curated" protective measures from Apple on that one.

In the end, it turns out that "regular" people are not passive drones, wanting nothing more than for something to "just work". Regular people are complex. Try having a conversation with a regular person, you'll soon find they have all sorts of interesting and complex opinions and concerns about the world they live in

Sometimes, even people who love open source and can code themselves still want things that "just work." I'm one of those people, and I enjoy being able to hack a lot of my electronic equipment, but my phone is something I'd rather have "just work."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com