Are you talking about sending the output of one process to the input of another?
I think the shaders I’ve mentioned are a great example of that: you do something in a block, then send the result to the input of another block.
Sorry if it’s not what you mean, but my point is that, with some effort, you can create a visual representation of even the most abstract concepts. Physicists do this constantly. If we can make a visual representations of 4D, for example, what prevents us from doing the same for programming logic? Or for commands?
Agreed. But that’s not my point. My point is that it can be done.
And in some cases, even if it’s less than ideal, and is way more cumbersome than using a CLI, you are helping non-tech-savvy people do things they couldn’t do any other way.
Put those two statements together and the logical conclusion is that Linux users simply want everybody to be tech-savvy (although I’d use a different term: computer-literate). What’s wrong with that?
Not everyone has the same interests. All car people would love everyone to be car people. All bikers would like everyone to ride bikes. The difference is that you pretty much need to be interested in computers to run Linux.
It’s not about having the same interests; it’s about the fact that the single distinguishing factor between a computer and any other mere machine is its ability to be programmed, and you therefore don’t really know how to use a computer unless you can create novel workflows to solve your own novel problems. If you can’t script, you aren’t literate in the 21st century.
All car people would love everyone to be car people. All bikers would like everyone to ride bikes.
It’s funny you should use those particular examples, (and not just because they also happen to be things I’m particularly passionate about).
In particular:
If you live somewhere that’s built wrong (i.e. is car-dependent) and you can’t drive, you’re homebound. It’s not about being a “car person;” it’s about the skill being necessary to function.
Conversely, places that aren’t built wrong are precisely those that facilitate cycling as a matter of design and policy. It’s not about what “bikers would like;” it’s about what empirically works best for a functioning city.
I used to examples because in both cases it’s things you can do without it being an interest to you, you do it out of convenience, no need for a deep analysis, I could have said people who love camping would like everyone to love camping, it would be the same thing.
And just like those things, people use computers out of convenience and it’s perfectly acceptable that some people don’t have a deep interest in them and therefore wouldn’t be interested by an OS that requires a deeper understanding of computers to make it work.
I used to examples because in both cases it’s things you can do without it being an interest to you, you do it out of convenience
No, they’re things you have to do without it being an interest to you; you do it out of necessity.
And that’s exactly my point: you have to know how to, if not “program,” at least chain functional components together into a workflow, if you are to be considered computer literate. IDGAF if you’re using Linux or not; that applies equally to folks using Windows or MacOS too. Just like how the concept of (regular) literacy requires being able to write, not just to read, the act of using a computer is inherently one of creation and synthesis. If you’re not doing that, you’re merely consuming content.
Nobody capable of defining an algorithm in a visual flowchart like that isn’t also capable of doing it in a CLI (or at least, in text in general – writing a script). It’s thinking through what you want to happen that’s the hard part; expressing it in the UI is trivial in comparison.
Some people have problems remembering commands, for example. And it’s easier for them if they can see it.
Yes, you can teach a kid to program (with some effort), but there’s a reason why Scratch presents logic units with shapes and colors and a GUI.
There are many reasons why a visual representation may be easier to grasp than just resorting to memory and remembering abstract concepts.
I mean, do you remember everything that you write? You’ve never had to visit Stack Overflow to remember how to do something, because you forgot the exact syntax of an operation? Now, how about if I put things visually in front of you? What would be easier?
Things like that have been around for a long time. It was like two decades ago that I saw this shader scheme in softimage|xsi.
For implementing something like that, each node in that graph would have an array of inputs and outputs. Each of those would have a type like vector, scalar, colour, string. Then you only allow connections if the inputs and outputs match types (though you can also have conversion nodes or selectors that say pick the red channel of a colour to turn it into a scalar). Each input can be set to a constant value instead of connecting something else to it. Outputs don’t need to be connected, which is mostly useful if a node has multiple outputs. Then each node has an evaluation function that takes all input parameters and maybe internal configuration parameters (though you might as well make everything an input param since there’s no real functional difference) and uses them to calculate the outputs, which it then sends on to anything connected to those.
I’m not much of a UI guy but displaying it for the GUI would just involve drawing boxes or some shape for the node, then spaces for each of the inputs on the left side and outputs on the right side maybe colour code them by type, and lines running along the connections. Then just add the name and/or other visual information you want to display and positional information to let users move it around their work area.
Are you talking about sending the output of one process to the input of another?
I think the shaders I’ve mentioned are a great example of that: you do something in a block, then send the result to the input of another block.
Sorry if it’s not what you mean, but my point is that, with some effort, you can create a visual representation of even the most abstract concepts. Physicists do this constantly. If we can make a visual representations of 4D, for example, what prevents us from doing the same for programming logic? Or for commands?
Yeah, and doing this would take significantly longer to use every time than typing up a chain of commands in a terminal.
Agreed. But that’s not my point. My point is that it can be done.
And in some cases, even if it’s less than ideal, and is way more cumbersome than using a CLI, you are helping non-tech-savvy people do things they couldn’t do any other way.
Linux users: Non tech savvy people? Yuck
Also Linux users: Everyone should be running Linux instead of Windows!
Put those two statements together and the logical conclusion is that Linux users simply want everybody to be tech-savvy (although I’d use a different term: computer-literate). What’s wrong with that?
Not everyone has the same interests. All car people would love everyone to be car people. All bikers would like everyone to ride bikes. The difference is that you pretty much need to be interested in computers to run Linux.
It’s not about having the same interests; it’s about the fact that the single distinguishing factor between a computer and any other mere machine is its ability to be programmed, and you therefore don’t really know how to use a computer unless you can create novel workflows to solve your own novel problems. If you can’t script, you aren’t literate in the 21st century.
It’s funny you should use those particular examples, (and not just because they also happen to be things I’m particularly passionate about).
In particular:
If you live somewhere that’s built wrong (i.e. is car-dependent) and you can’t drive, you’re homebound. It’s not about being a “car person;” it’s about the skill being necessary to function.
Conversely, places that aren’t built wrong are precisely those that facilitate cycling as a matter of design and policy. It’s not about what “bikers would like;” it’s about what empirically works best for a functioning city.
Honestly i dont think any of my friends or family can script any thing.
I used to examples because in both cases it’s things you can do without it being an interest to you, you do it out of convenience, no need for a deep analysis, I could have said people who love camping would like everyone to love camping, it would be the same thing.
And just like those things, people use computers out of convenience and it’s perfectly acceptable that some people don’t have a deep interest in them and therefore wouldn’t be interested by an OS that requires a deeper understanding of computers to make it work.
No, they’re things you have to do without it being an interest to you; you do it out of necessity.
And that’s exactly my point: you have to know how to, if not “program,” at least chain functional components together into a workflow, if you are to be considered computer literate. IDGAF if you’re using Linux or not; that applies equally to folks using Windows or MacOS too. Just like how the concept of (regular) literacy requires being able to write, not just to read, the act of using a computer is inherently one of creation and synthesis. If you’re not doing that, you’re merely consuming content.
Nobody capable of defining an algorithm in a visual flowchart like that isn’t also capable of doing it in a CLI (or at least, in text in general – writing a script). It’s thinking through what you want to happen that’s the hard part; expressing it in the UI is trivial in comparison.
Some people have problems remembering commands, for example. And it’s easier for them if they can see it.
Yes, you can teach a kid to program (with some effort), but there’s a reason why Scratch presents logic units with shapes and colors and a GUI.
There are many reasons why a visual representation may be easier to grasp than just resorting to memory and remembering abstract concepts.
I mean, do you remember everything that you write? You’ve never had to visit Stack Overflow to remember how to do something, because you forgot the exact syntax of an operation? Now, how about if I put things visually in front of you? What would be easier?
I’ve probably spent more time looking up how to access specific functions in a GUI than for CLI.
Wow, you created this program for creating shaders visually? That’s impressive! You mind sharing the source code?
Things like that have been around for a long time. It was like two decades ago that I saw this shader scheme in softimage|xsi.
For implementing something like that, each node in that graph would have an array of inputs and outputs. Each of those would have a type like vector, scalar, colour, string. Then you only allow connections if the inputs and outputs match types (though you can also have conversion nodes or selectors that say pick the red channel of a colour to turn it into a scalar). Each input can be set to a constant value instead of connecting something else to it. Outputs don’t need to be connected, which is mostly useful if a node has multiple outputs. Then each node has an evaluation function that takes all input parameters and maybe internal configuration parameters (though you might as well make everything an input param since there’s no real functional difference) and uses them to calculate the outputs, which it then sends on to anything connected to those.
I’m not much of a UI guy but displaying it for the GUI would just involve drawing boxes or some shape for the node, then spaces for each of the inputs on the left side and outputs on the right side maybe colour code them by type, and lines running along the connections. Then just add the name and/or other visual information you want to display and positional information to let users move it around their work area.