• is the fact that people can with effort and error figure out how to do something a reason not to make it easier for them to do?

    I mean

    you can in theory write multi-threaded bug-free C code – just read the docs and the specs and the source of your libs and never ever do something that seems to work but is subtly fatally incorrect

    and yet we still have golang and rust and many other options to do things more safely and easily

    if someone wants to use Linux but doesn’t want to memorize the Hundred Mandatory Commands and Thousand Flags lest they accidentally cat > /dev/sda, why shouldn’t there be a system for them?

    • rtxn@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The community abhors change. Especially changes that break conventions, even informal ones. Look at the temper tantrums people are throwing because Wayland does things differently from X.org. Changing output redirection in Bash, or how dd works, or any number of long-standing conventions because new users are unwilling to adapt to a new system and might end up dding over the root partition would break established workflows, and worse, existing scripts and services.

      But the solution already exists, it’s called wrapper programs. You don’t have to manually update AUR packages because yay and paru already do that. You don’t have to figure out how fdisk and mkfs work because Gparted and Partition Manager do it for you.

      Nevertheless, using a system should always and forever be the user’s responsibility. Otherwise Linux would turn into a locked-down play pen like Apple products.