Home > Linux > Those Danged Automobiles…

Those Danged Automobiles…

Horses are the simplest and most efficient way to get around, plain and simple. That’s been the way of the world for years and I do not see how something like this should change. We’re good enough as we are right now, but some people who love “change for the sake of change” are pushing the stupid idea of “automobiles”. It’s pointless, it’s inefficient, and it’s destructive of the ways we’ve had for years! Why do I say so, you ask? I’ll tell you exactly why I’m so cross at this idiotic “innovation”:

First thing’s first, horses have been around for ages and ages. We haven’t been riding them this long because that’s all we had; we’ve been riding them because it works! You can talk to nearly any man off the street and they’ll know how to ride a horse, or at least how to ride in a carriage pulled by one. With automobiles, you have to re-learn every single thing you know about getting around, and for what? So you can look fancy in your shiny metal deathtrap? These automobile designers think that by dumbing down the flexibility of getting around they’re “innovating”, but it’s all just change for the sake of it, I say!

Horses don’t need to be wound-up and re-fueled nearly as much as those automobiles. When I need to rush off to work in the morning, I don’t have to spend a minute turning the car on, locking all of the doors, making sure that I’m safe and secure, only to go off and realize that I took so long that I’m late for work already. I can just jump on my horse and go! Horses are much more customizable than automobiles as well. I can get horses of all different sizes, shapes, colors and strengths. I can put whatever horseshoe or saddle that I want on it. You can’t do those with an automobile, and they don’t even have those things! What’s the big idea, taking away the features and functions of having a horse that we’ve all been so used to throughout the years?

Those automobile designers must think we’re all idiots that don’t know how to ride a horse; their shiny chrome and their gigantic size are only there to appeal to the “younger generation” that can’t possibly appreciate anything unless it’s shiny, new and large. Well let me tell you this: those danged automobiles won’t get any popular because nobody’s going to use them! Horses will be around forever and will always be popular. Automobiles are just a fad, so pointlessly reinventing the wheel (quite literally)… Stick with what you know and with what works right now, as I see no good reason whatsoever to switch over to these “innovations” any time now or in the future. It’s all a waste of time and bad design.


Categories: Linux Tags: ,
  1. fukawi2
    April 8, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    Poor analogy. What is being done is completely changing the way to operate the car/horse. For example, Instead of being able to step on the brake or tell the horse to stop, you now have to open a safety cover that prevents us from being distracted by the brake pedal (or say the horses name to get it’s attention before it will act on our command)

    • April 8, 2011 at 9:18 pm

      @fukawi2, The problem with what you just said is that, in the case of computers, there are very few, if any, life-or-death situations that involve turning off a computer that aren’t better handled by forcing it to shutdown. Logging out to shut down, or even holding down the Alt key to enable shutdown, is very trivial to do and, unlike braking in a car, rarely needs to be done today with operating systems that include Suspend, Hibernate, and operating systems that boot in less than a minute 😉

  2. April 21, 2011 at 1:02 am

    The problem with your quote is the following one:

    Henry Ford was *not* the main provider of horses, nor of carriages.

    By providing the world with automobiles, he did not *cut* the sources of horses and carriages.

    People had really the *choice* to use either of them.

    This is not the case with GNOME3: the classical GNOME2 style is never to be continued, the same way KDE4 meant support for KDE3 stopped right away.

    GNOME 2.32 and older versions are still available in LTS distros (e.g. RHEL), but nobody will fix or improve them. GNOME3 and its Shell are “the new way” and the single way supported by the “providers/developers of GNOME”.

    In contrast, while Henry Ford was selling cars, all the “providers of horses” and “providers/developers of carriages” continued to sell their merchandise, and they continued to do so for *decades* before the automobile took over.

    It’s the difference bewteen *true choice* and forced choice.

    Even Microsoft decided eventually to extend the support of Windows XP after Vista was seen as a failure. The KDE and the GNOME projects are *worse than Microsoft* in the way they *force* their userbase to use only the latest and greatest shit.

    • April 21, 2011 at 9:06 am

      @BĂ©ranger, Of course Ford didn’t provide horses. Likewise, GNOME doesn’t provide “Windows 95-style Desktops”. Why should GNOME be developing two different desktop UIs at once? Not even Microsoft, like you say, does that; they’re only supporting XP because there are so many customers already using it that refuse to switch to anything newer/better. RHEL would be stupid not to provide support for GNOME 2.32, and they as well as several other companies are providing support for it. It’s not completely dead, but it’s just like the XP situation you described above, albeit less important due to there being less customers than Microsoft has for XP. How can you say that GNU/Linux users are forced to change when we have LTS distros, several desktop environments besides KDE/GNOME? Choice is not always a good thing, you know, and the GNOME team is doing a great job at developing a usable desktop environment. Some choices, like supporting GNOME 2 for extended periods of time, are stupid because GNOME 2 has been around for a long time and, if you forgot, GNOME 3 has a “fallback mode” that uses the old GNOME 2 UI style. Saying there’s no choice here is ignorant of the reality; there’s plenty choice.

      • April 21, 2011 at 5:33 pm

        No, the FALLBACK mode in GNOME3 does *not* provide a 100% complete GNOME 2.32 experience — some features are still missing!

        And, in time, I’m pretty sure the fallback mode will be discontinued.

        So no, you’re not right.

      • April 21, 2011 at 6:26 pm

        @BĂ©ranger, I didn’t say it was a “100% complete GNOME 2.32 experience”. For the people that want the old GNOME 2 UI, they should use one of the distros that provides support for it (RHEL is 10 years, I believe) or use a similar UI, like XFCE. GNOME is moving on, just like Microsoft is with it ending support for Windows XP, which, like GNOME 2, has had a long life and needs to die sometime. Windows XP, for example, was released in 2001 and supports ends in 2014. GNOME 2 was released in 2002, and support from Red Hat (which develops a lot of the GNOME 2 desktop) ends in 2020 (though that’s for 2.32, which still counts as GNOME 2).

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: