An Operating System for adults, please

There's a discussion on the Issues list of Linuxchix that has me thinking. It started with a comment about Linux becoming "more Windows like" in that it tries to stupid-proof the software, and people being unhappy with that. This is completely understandable to me, there are many people who moved to Linux in the first place because they wanted software that just did what it was told, and did not ask over and over if you really meant to click that button, and by the way, didn't you want to install this software we want you to use? I've personally experienced the frustration of having to jump through hoops to get things done in Windows, like merely (insert scary music) browsing the system files, because the OS assumes all computer users are stupid.

One of the Chix mentioned a design discussion presented by Michael Schwern at her local perl meeting.
The talk was based on using the concepts in Donald's Norman's book "Design of Everyday Things" in programming. An example he used in the talk to illustrate bad design was including "rm -i" in programming. This asks the user over and over again "are you sure you want to delete this file" over and over. The user then goes on autopilot and enters yes repeatedly until they realize they hit yes when they meant to hit no.

I'm of the opinion that If I accidentally rm something important, the time & energy I have to put in to fix it is a reminder for the next time. The zoned out mentality people fall into with the "ask the user everything" programming approach was aptly pointed out by Michael Schwern. I know I've fallen into the "hit y to everything" fuzz, and prefer the "I know I need to pay attention" mindset.


From my readings of psychology, people tend to react the way you expect them to react, and they develop the same expectations of themselves. If you treat people like they are idiots, they will be idiots. If you treat people like they are capable of doing for themselves, they will (for better or worse).

Honestly, using a PC comes down to personal responsibility for me, much like the rest of life. We are responsible for the consequences of our actions. If I delete a file that causes the system to crash, I only have myself to blame. I can learn from my mistakes & avoid repeating them. We can learn how to do things right, and be comfortable using our computers or we can place blind trust in another programmer to put safety padding in the programs we use. It only provides a false sense of security, because who knows if that programmer really can protect you from everything you might do? Who knows that they didn't put something else destructive into the code in a misguided attempt to protect you? I will never forget the rm -rf some genius at Mandrake put into the urpmi --debug option that wiped my home directory a few years ago.

I don't believe in living in a world that tries to pad every sharp corner for me because I'm over the age of 3. As a grown, intelligent adult I insist on having the freedom to make responsible, informed decisions. I want to be able to use tools, including software, without being hampered by unecessary "safeties". I do not want some programmer who doesn't know me second guessing my intelligence and skill levels to decide what they think is best to keep me safe from myself.

There are people in the world who scream & cry when you mention personal responsibility and want other people or companies to keep them safe. They are the types who screamed at AOL to police their own children. They are perfectly happy with software that restricts what they can do. I am a grown adult who takes responsibility for my actions, so I'm very glad that there are mature OS's and software packages that I can use that will leave me to make my own decisions. I am Goddess on my own PC dammit.