🔥 The CLI/Git... it burns! It burns us... It freezes...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Continuing the discussion from Status: Statme: Stathim: Stather: Statyou: Stathem: AgriCultural Appropriation:

    @dse said:

    It is more like:

    I have learned this technology half-arsed, and insist on using shitty GUI, therefore it must be doing EVERYTHING wrong. I am a weenie afraid of dark-skin terminal colors of CLI.

    [root post for some Jeffing...]



  • Look. I don't use the CLI not because I'm "scared" of it. (Although it is a scary environment, because there's no safety nets whatsoever, but if work forced me to use it and they lost THEIR data as a result, I sure wouldn't be crying.)

    I don't give a shit whether you believe me or not about my reasons for not using the CLI.

    The point I'm making is simply that if Git were good software, it wouldn't matter which UI I used to interact with it. If Git were good software that required learning concepts, it'd teach itself to me as I used it.

    While you're pointing and laughing at me, you're also supporting a HUGE cabal of software developers whose "got mine, fuck you" philosophy serves to alienate a high proportion of computer users. Why do you think people like me hate open source products? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that, not only do open source developers frequently fail to create anything useful to me, they also actually make fun of me for their failure to create a usable product?

    Assholes like you are the reason people hate computers. And that's awful, because computers are amazing and I'm sure those same people would love computers if they could get a hold of one that wasn't ruled by assholes like you. Oh wait, that exact thing has happened with the success of the iPhone and iPad.

    But sure. Laugh at me. That'll solve all the problems in Git.



  • @dse said:

    It is more like:

    I have learned this technology half-arsed, and insist on using shitty GUI, therefore it must be doing EVERYTHING wrong. I am a weenie afraid of dark-skin terminal colors of CLI.

    Yeah, and then he defends crazy stuff in software he likes when it benefits him. Like how Windows new way of booting has a habit of overwriting disk changes. Obviously, the people losing data by restarting Windows are the crazy people.

    But refuses to listen to people trying to help him use git? Well, of course, they're maniacs!



  • @boomzilla said:

    Yeah, and then he defends crazy stuff in software he likes when it benefits him. Like how Windows new way of booting has a habit of overwriting disk changes.

    How does that benefit me, exactly? What the fuck are you talking about?

    "Oh hey guys, I got such a huge benefit from my data being overwritten! Assuming that ever happens! Which it doesn't, Boomzilla's just making shit up!"

    @boomzilla said:

    But refuses to listen to people trying to help him use git?

    You could not have missed the point more completely.

    Have I ever expressed even the slightest desire to use Git? No. I use it because it's been rammed down my throat.

    @boomzilla said:

    Well, of course, they're maniacs!

    Imagine how much better the IT world would be if people who thought Git was a good product were mocked for their delusion instead of embraced.

    Imagine if the open source community actually gave a shit about creating quality products, and instead of bickering with each other other SystemD or which software license was best, they bickered with each other over interpreting the results of the latest usability study.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    How does that benefit me, exactly? What the fuck are you talking about?

    The fast boot thing, you goldfish.

    @blakeyrat said:

    You could not have missed the point more completely.

    LIES. I could have refused to even listen to it like you do.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Imagine how much better the IT world would be if people who thought Git was a good product were mocked for their delusion instead of embraced.

    I'm not saying they shouldn't be mocked. I'm saying you're a dick who prefers to be miserable than listen to people who can help you.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I'm not saying they shouldn't be mocked. I'm saying you're a dick who prefers to be miserable than listen to people who can help you.

    If learning Git means becoming like dse or Ben L and making fun of "those idiots who refuse to use the CLI", then FUCK LEARNING GIT. Because I'm SURE AS FUCK never going to become that person.

    What I suspect is that I already know Git more than they assume (I do successfully use it every fucking day), but they're so delusional they think it's impossible that someone who knows Git also dislikes it. If learning Git means I become that delusional, then FUCK LEARNING GIT. Because I'm SURE AS FUCK never going to become that person.

    How about instead of me learning Git, these idiots learn empathy?

    The problem here is that I'm forced as a condition of employment to use software that makes me miserable. Same as the poor schlub who has to struggle with Lotus Notes every day. ("Well why doesn't he just learn Lotus Notes better?") How about showing a little consideration for my feelings? Instead of offering to tutor me in "directed acyclic graphs", as if I (or any normal person) gave a shit.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    How about instead of me learning Git, these idiots learn empathy?

    Yes, it does sound like their lack of empathy is the problem.

    @blakeyrat said:

    The problem here is that I'm forced as a condition of employment to use software that makes me miserable. Same as the poor schlub who has to struggle with Lotus Notes every day. ("Well why doesn't he just learn Lotus Notes better?")

    Yeah, see, if they had a tip that made using Notes 10% less awful, you'd abuse them instead of thanking them.

    @blakeyrat said:

    How about showing a little consideration for my feelings

    It's true. They're ignoring that...

    @boomzilla said:

    you're a dick who prefers to be miserable than listen to people who can help you.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Yeah, see, if they had a tip that made using Notes 10% less awful, you'd abuse them instead of thanking them.

    If there's a tip that makes Git 10% less awful, I'm willing to hear it.

    If it's, "cram it up your ass and use the CLI and also you're a stupid idiot moron dummy-face", then don't bother. Because I know that's the only advice dse has for me.

    @boomzilla said:

    you're a dick who prefers to be miserable than listen to people who can help you.

    I don't want to be miserable. But I also don't want to go through whatever brainwashing Git fans have gone through which leaves them incapable of criticizing it.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @blakeyrat said:

    The point I'm making is simply that if Git were good software, it wouldn't matter which UI I used to interact with it. If Git were good software that required learning concepts, it'd teach itself to me as I used it.

    Do you also want it to hold your dick for you when you take a piss? Should it wipe your ass for you?

    Git is not made for Aunt Mabel to track changes to her scrapbooking stuff. It was made for developers who are able to find the information that they need.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @blakeyrat said:

    How about instead of me learning Git, these idiots learn empathy?

    Empathy has bounds. When a person just bitches and bitches and bitches without taking even the most basic steps to try and better themselves, even the most empathetic person will stop caring.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    This post is deleted!


  • @blakeyrat said:

    The point I'm making is simply that if Git were good software, it wouldn't matter which UI I used to interact with it.

    How does that make sense!? Think of the best software you can imagine...now imagine that there is a UI for it that only has a single button and the action that button does changes every minute and you just have to wait until it changes to what you want and then press it.

    My point is, you're blaming the engine for the crappy leather seats.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    While you're pointing and laughing at me, you're also supporting a HUGE cabal of software developers whose "got mine, fuck you" philosophy serves to alienate a high proportion of computer users.

    Here's where I get off the blakey train.

    While I can see why this is a problem for user-land, git is not intended for that. It's a professional tool, made for programmers by programmers. If ordinary users have a need for a similar tool, git is certainly not the right choice for them. It was never intended to be. Same goes for a bunch of other ugly-looking CLI based utilities. They are tools of trade. Not toys.

    It's be like if someone was complaining that medical textbooks are too poorly written and rely too much on memorization of Latin terms, which prevents "ordinary" people from getting into medicine. Or that law has too much different rules and clauses, which prevents "ordinary" people from being lawyers. Or electrical engineering... you get the idea.

    Maybe the subject itself requires some effort and dedication, no matter what kind of tooling or learning material you produce? Maybe not everyone is meant to be able to do everything, which is why he have specialists and experts? Maybe there's just no financial incentive to produce better tools, when enough people can use the existing tools to get the job done?

    Whatever the case, you don't hear this attitude anywhere else except in programming, and mostly from you.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If there's a tip that makes Git 10% less awful, I'm willing to hear it.

    Learning to use it is a start. I hear that trying to use something you have no familiarity with is pretty awful, but that might just be hearsay.



  • The problem with your point, however, is that you're essentially saying that for something to be useful to developers, it necessarily has to be unusable for people with dyslexia.

    Things don't have to be hard to use to be useful. That makes no sense.

    For any piece of software, there is some way to improve the workflow and make simple tasks easier. Do you really believe git is designed to take that into consideration? Or even the idea that someone else may be able to make a better workflow. It isn't designed in such a way to make it even slightly easy to improve on it. If that isn't bad design, I don't know what is.



  • But is it worth the effort to make an already usable tool more accessible to an entirely different audience? Sometimes "good enough" is good enough. It could definitely be better, but I think there are other problems which are more pressing, like fixing bugs...



  • @Magus said:

    The problem with your point, however, is that you're essentially saying that for something to be useful to developers, it necessarily has to be unusable for people with dyslexia.

    Things don't have to be hard to use to be useful. That makes no sense.

    The problem with your point, however, is that you're essentially saying that for something to exist, it necessarily has to be usable by people with every possible handicap.

    Things don't have to be handicap accessible to exist. That makes no sense. I'm sorry that there are people that are blind, or that are quadruple amputees, but I don't want them driving a car.



  • @cartman82 said:

    While I can see why this is a problem for user-land, git is not intended for that. It's a professional tool, made for programmers by programmers. If ordinary users have a need for a similar tool, git is certainly not the right choice for them. It was never intended to be. Same goes for a bunch of other ugly-looking CLI based utilities. They are tools of trade. Not toys.

    Yeah, but I totally get his push back on this. Just because it's a tool doesn't mean it should be difficult to use. Competing software is less sucky than git in seemingly many ways.

    It's where he gets angry (and otherwise ignoring) at the people trying to help him that I feel the urge to stomp his throat.



  • @rc4 said:

    The problem with your point, however, is that you're essentially saying that for something to exist, it necessarily has to be usable by people with every possible handicap.

    No, I'm saying that it should be possible to extend things, and designing something in such a way that to build a proper API, you have to reverse engineer the original product is completely stupid.



  • Then why try and make that point through the narrow scope of dyslexic users...?



  • Because we have one of those who is directly affected by your idiocy.



  • @Magus said:

    The problem with your point, however, is that you're essentially saying that for something to be useful to developers, it necessarily has to be unusable for people with dyslexia.

    Things don't have to be hard to use to be useful. That makes no sense.

    How much extra effort would it take to make things more usable for people with dyslexia?

    What's the ROI in terms of extra value these people would then be able to generate?

    Remember, we are talking about tools here. Work stuff. That is meant to produce profit or extra value. This isn't putting up ramps in supermarkets or adding daltonist switches in video games. It's just business.

    @Magus said:

    For any piece of software, there is some way to improve the workflow and make simple tasks easier.

    Of course. You could take git, and refactor it into the best fucking version control system in the Galaxy. With super-intuitive UI, all the safe guards, all the bells and whistles you can think of.

    Invest millions on man hours to get all the 100 extra people into the git ecosystem who couldn't participate before.

    I'm sure it will all pay off in the end.



  • Then why not say that?

    Also, how is this "my idiocy"? I have nothing to do with the development of Git. I've only ever used Git to clone a few repos and to make a few test commits. I know next to nothing about it, because I don't need to. I'm just making a few generic points.



  • @cartman82 said:

    How much extra effort would it take to make things more usable for people with dyslexia?

    0%. I haven't once said that they have to do anything except expose a sane API. They have one internally that they don't expose.

    @cartman82 said:

    Invest millions on man hours to get all the 100 extra people into the git ecosystem who couldn't participate before.

    Shoulder aliens.



  • @rc4 said:

    Also, how is this "my idiocy"?

    @rc4 said:

    I don't want them driving a car.

    Look, I never thought I'd say this, but you've actually made me understand what the word 'ableist' means.



  • @cartman82 said:

    How much extra effort would it take to make things more usable for people with dyslexia?

    Not much. Many of the GNU coreutils are already set up for dyslexia support. For example, ls has sl in case you mix up the two letters in the name of the command somehow. And for command line switches, you can type rm -rf or rm -yl and achieve the same effect since rm can intelligently guess what you would have typed if you weren't dyslexic. It's pretty cool!



  • Oh boy. Please tell me why blind people should be allowed to drive a car.

    Also, this is software. If you can't use it, sorry, that really sucks. Find something that you can use, nobody owes you software that works with your specific handicap. Holy fuck, you are seriously retarded and entitled. (OOOH CAIN AND ABELISM!!!1)



  • All I'm saying is that you should expose an API so that if someone wants to write something usable by someone other than your target market, they can. That's what Open Source is about, isn't it?

    It's not a matter of 'write code for every disability' it's a matter of not completely screwing them over and preventing people from helping them.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    If learning Git means becoming like dse or Ben L and making fun of "those idiots who refuse to use the CLI", then FUCK LEARNING GIT. Because I'm SURE AS FUCK never going to become that person.

    One is forced to assume from this that you've considered and rejected the possibility of learning git and not becoming an asshole.

    Which is ironic considering

    1. your displayed persona here
    2. the fact that you've admitted you know how to use git.

    Also: :disco::carousel_horse:


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @cartman82 said:

    If ordinary users have a need for a similar tool, git is certainly not the right choice for them.

    Gee, isn't it too bad there's no tool like git that ordinary users could use because it was powerful and user-friendly?

    Imagine such a thing. Devs could use it too and we could all tell Linus to FOAD.



  • Sure, API support would be nice. But it's FOSS (like you said) and it works for a lot of people. If it doesn't work for your needs, then either

    1. Add the feature yourself
    2. Find someone to add the feature for you
    3. Lobby for the feature to be added (not difficult these days, especially with big projects)
    4. Use something else
    5. Modify your workflow
    6. Work around it

  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @cartman82 said:

    What's the ROI in terms of extra value these people would then be able to generate?

    It's hard to overestimate the value of (to give a made-up example because I barely know git) being able to choose between 2 or 3 clearly- and distinctly-labelled options on a radio set in a window versus a bunch of rather arbitrary switches on a CLI when typing the wrong command might eat your changes or corrupt the repo.



  • @FrostCat said:

    Gee, isn't it too bad there's no tool like git that ordinary users could use because it was powerful and user-friendly?

    Imagine such a thing. Devs could use it too and we could all tell Linus to FOAD.

    If you think there's a market, go for it and get rich.



  • @FrostCat said:

    It's hard to overestimate the value of (to give a made-up example because I barely know git) being able to choose between 2 or 3 clearly- and distinctly-labelled options on a radio set in a window versus a bunch of rather arbitrary switches on a CLI when typing the wrong command might eat your changes or corrupt the repo.

    It's also hard to overestimate the value of love.
    Yet, it usually doesn't participate in ROI calculations.



  • I started Visual Studio for the first time in who knows how long.

    It said there was an update. I clicked the link to download the update.

    The updater said I need to reboot.

    Okay, I'll reboot.

    Now it says I should uninstall "Git extensions for Visual Studio" because it's deprecated. Right below that is "Git extensions for Visual Studio", which it says to install.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election Banned



  • Yeah, the update to the newer version isn't terribly clear.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @cartman82 said:

    If you think there's a market, go for it and get rich.

    Doesn't sound fun enough to me. But you betcha I'd use it if it were easier. Like Blakey, I'd rather use my brain for solving work-related challenges than how to use my tools.

    You ever watch Elementary, at least the US version? (I've never seen the original.) At at least one point, Holmes expresses frustration at having to use his brainpower on other things than solving murders, things that he sees as a distraction. While he, like Blakey, is not a particularly sympathetic character, I can see where he's coming from.



  • @FrostCat said:

    Like Blakey, I'd rather use my brain for solving work-related challenges than how to use my tools.

    This.
    It does seem that some tools are more complicated than they need to be because they're "designed for developers".

    I decided a while back, thanks to here, that git wasn't the right tool for the team I'm in and so we don't use it. I'd be pissed if it'd been forced on us.



  • @FrostCat said:

    While he, like Blakey, is not a particularly sympathetic character, I can see where he's coming from.

    But would Holmes be angry at the people who showed him a way to get back a little bit of that effort?



  • @Polygeekery said:

    Git is not made for Aunt Mabel to track changes to her scrapbooking stuff.

    Why not? Virtually every computer endeavor could benefit from good change tracking.

    @Polygeekery said:

    It was made for developers who are able to find the information that they need.

    I'm a developer, and I find using Git extremely painful. So if that was the target audience, well, they failed.

    @LB_ said:

    How does that make sense!? Think of the best software you can imagine...now imagine that there is a UI for it that only has a single button and the action that button does changes every minute and you just have to wait until it changes to what you want and then press it.

    If it had a UI that crappy, then it wouldn't be the "best software I can imagine". I don't get your point.The UI is the software. If a piece of software has a crappy UI, it's a crappy piece of software.

    @LB_ said:

    My point is, you're blaming the engine for the crappy leather seats.

    Maybe; but in Git's case the problem is that the engine has no driveshaft (read: API), and so you can't actually use it to drive a car. It just sits there and hums to itself.

    @cartman82 said:

    While I can see why this is a problem for user-land, git is not intended for that.

    It's not made for human beings? If that's true, it explains a lot.

    @cartman82 said:

    It's a professional tool, made for programmers by programmers.

    I'm a professional programmer and I think Git is ass. So, again, if that was their goal, they've failed.

    @cartman82 said:

    Same goes for a bunch of other ugly-looking CLI based utilities. They are tools of trade. Not toys.

    Because making a piece of software easy to use turns it into a "toy"? Right. I suppose Sony Vegas is a "toy". And Photoshop is a "toy". Makes perfect sense here in Backwards Upside-Down Land.

    Skipping dumb analogies...

    @cartman82 said:

    Whatever the case, you don't hear this attitude anywhere else except in programming, and mostly from you.

    What attitude? That software should be usable by everybody? Dude. I don't know about the third-world hellhole you live in, but here in the US we take great efforts to make everything usable to everybody.

    Like I've said in the past, your argument is equivalent to this:

    We should tear-down all the wheelchair ramps in buildings. If those stupid fuckers won't just get up out of their wheelchairs, well, they don't deserve to register to vote. Fuck them. If those idiots won't just get up out of their wheelchairs, well then they don't deserve to get a job programming in this building. Fuck those assholes!

    Do you genuinely believe that? You're such a dick you probably do.

    If you release software like Git that makes no attempt to be usable for the largest percentage of people, that's exactly what you're doing.

    @rc4 said:

    Learning to use it is a start.

    That is not nearly specific enough to help me. I do use it successfully, every single day. Just as I used Lotus Notes successfully back when I had to use that. That's not the point. The point isn't that I can't use it, it's that it's a painful awful experience to use it.

    @LB_ said:

    But is it worth the effort to make an already usable tool more accessible to an entirely different audience?

    If it's inaccessible due to the different audience's physical disability, then FUCK YES, DUH, WHY ARE YOU EVEN ASKING YOU JERK! is the answer.

    @LB_ said:

    It could definitely be better, but I think there are other problems which are more pressing, like fixing bugs...

    "People can't use it at all" should be primo bug number super-priority 1+++.

    @rc4 said:

    The problem with your point, however, is that you're essentially saying that for something to exist, it necessarily has to be usable by people with every possible handicap.

    Nobody's saying it has to be perfect. But it could at least try. Right now you're making a shitty slippery-slope argument that since someone like Stephen Hawking might be unable to use the software, therefore you shouldn't even bother to try improve it at all. Fuck that attitude.

    @rc4 said:

    Things don't have to be handicap accessible to exist. That makes no sense. I'm sorry that there are people that are blind, or that are quadruple amputees, but I don't want them driving a car.

    If doesn't matter that they can't drive a car; it matters that they can't reach their destination.

    @boomzilla said:

    It's where he gets angry (and otherwise ignoring) at the people trying to help him that I feel the urge to stomp his throat.

    There's no help.

    Look, the only improvement here is going to come from the people who maintain Git. And they're all incompetent assholes who think it's perfectly fine as-is and needs no improvement. In fact, they've even written the software in such an incompetent way that it's quite possibly impossible for them to significantly improve it, as we've discussed in other thread.

    The best hope I have for getting a decent source control system is to make sure every developer understands that and why Git is bad software, so bad software like that is never repeated. That's what I'm trying to do. And even if has a 5 year lead-time at best, so I'm really just fucked until someone decides to take Git head-on.

    @cartman82 said:

    How much extra effort would it take to make things more usable for people with dyslexia?

    What's the ROI in terms of extra value these people would then be able to generate?

    What's the ROI on adding wheelchair ramps to buildings? What about buildings in small towns that don't currently have any wheelchair-bound inhabitants?

    The answer is: FUCK YOU that's not the fucking point.

    @cartman82 said:

    This isn't putting up ramps in supermarkets or adding daltonist switches in video games.

    This is exactly that.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    There's no help.

    Not when you refuse it all.



  • @Magus said:

    All I'm saying is that you should expose an API so that if someone wants to write something usable by someone other than your target market, they can. That's what Open Source is about, isn't it?

    Exactly. And like I said above, the perplexing thing to me is that Git is about the ONLY thing in the open source ecosystem that isn't extensible in this way.

    EVEN THEIR WINDOW MANAGERS CAN BE SWAPPED OUT. But the UI for their most popular source control software? Nope! Fuck you!

    Even by "I'm an open source fan who loves open source and choice in all things" standards, Git is a failure as a piece of software.

    @FrostCat said:

    One is forced to assume from this that you've considered and rejected the possibility of learning git

    As I've said dozens of times, I already know Git.

    @boomzilla said:

    But would Holmes be angry at the people who showed him a way to get back a little bit of that effort?

    Nobody's done that yet, so it's kind of a hypothetical question, isn't it?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election Banned

    @blakeyrat said:

    While I can see why this is a problem for user-land, git is not intended for that.

    It's not made for human beings? If that's true, it explains a lot.

    This entire argument is like the Anti-Jeff. "CLOSED_WONTFIX, developers are the only users"



  • It's just assholes trying to make some "true Scotsman" argument that since I don't like Git, I can't possibly be a professional software developer. It really makes no goddamned sense, but I've seen it a lot from morons who think their readers are stupid enough to fall for an argument like that.

    In any case, the entire thought behind it:

    If the software is intended for developers, it's ok if it's a pain in the ass to use

    is utter bullshit, and should be called-out as such.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Nobody's done that yet, so it's kind of a hypothetical question, isn't it?

    True, except for pretty much any time someone tries to give you advice.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election Banned

    @blakeyrat said:

    In any case, the entire thought behind it:

    If the software is intended for developers, it's ok if it's a pain in the ass to use

    is utter bullshit, and should be called-out as such.

    QFT



  • @boomzilla said:

    True, except for pretty much any time someone tries to give you advice.

    Like when?

    Look, advice that requires using the CLI is useless to me because I won't use it. Advice that requires any changes to the server is useless to me, because I don't control the server.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election Banned

    @blakeyrat said:

    advice that requires using the CLI

    "Everything would be so much easier if you just stared at wall-o-texts and did the GUI's job by hand"



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Like when?

    Oh, I'm going to have to look a long ways to answer this. Hang on. Could take a while. Oh! OK, found it:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Look, advice that requires using the CLI is useless to me because I won't use it.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.