Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

shortlord · 2009-05-13 15:01:35

Dear Arch Community,

the "Arch Way" states: 'Another guiding principle of Arch Linux development is freedom. The users are not only permitted to make all decisions concerning system configuration, but also get to choose what their system will *be*.' The implications are clear. A user of Arch Linux is not only permitted to choose, he is forced to choose. Not only a few simple configuration options, but a huge amount compared to other distributions. 'Arch is what you make it!' And that's good, isn't it?
I have recently heard and read a lot of articles about the question whether total configurability is good for a user. I am not talking about simplicity vs. complecity such as unnecessary graphical abstraction of CLI utilities. I am only talking about the dogma: 'The more configuration options the better!'. In the debate the central point of the 'Less configuration is good'-approach is that more configuration may lead to a better suited working environment, but will also lead to more disappointed users. Worse is better, even a system that is not perfect for a particular user will make him or her happier than a perfect system that took time to configure.

I recommend to watch this excellent TED talk, which explains the phenomenon:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barr … hoice.html

For even more information there is this study:
http://www.columbia.edu/~ss957/whenchoice.html

I would like to discuss this phenomenon in regard to Arch Linux. Simplicity is so wonderful, rolling releases are great and pacman and the ABS are just a charm to use, but is the configurability really something good? What do you think about 'Fewer choices mean fewer worries'?
I have tried to reflect my own Arch Linux system and the software I use all the day. There are many apps I use but don't really like, there are many apps I like and there are a few apps that are just a joy to use. My personal selection of wonderful programs is: Blender, Sonata, Transmission, dwm. Why do I like these apps? All of them have a great UI. But furthermore all of these applications are usable out of the box. Blender for example is one of the most powerful CG applications out there. It has not only basic modelling capabilities, but also a Game Engine, a Text Editor, a Video Editor and a File Browser. Despite of this feature-richness the configuration dialog is smaller than the dialogs of most standalone Text Editors / Video Editors / File Browsers. And the best thing: I didn't even had to change any of the configuration options, because Blender just had sane defaults.
The same applies for Sonata and Transmission, however dwm is another interesting example. Xmonad is definitely much more configurable and could be configured to mimic dwm completely. So why are there still dwm users out there? Only because ghc is such a big dependency? I don't think so. Many dwm users, at least I, really like that dwm does what it should without many configuration. You can change basic things, which is good, but you cannot make xmonad out of dwm.
The last time I used Windows was a shock. I really wondered how I could ever use a computer without a tiling window manager. Well, I did exactly that for years without a problem. It may not have been the perfect workflow, but it didn't made me unhappy. What made me unhappy is dwm. I know that it is a better window manager than what I was used on Windows XP, but the whole choice between the myriad of different Linux WMs has not made me more happy. I still wonder sometimes when I miss a tray in dwm, whether xmonad or awesome would be a better choice. A few days ago, I started awesome again to try it, but after one day I missed dwm, so I switched back. Am I more productive with dwm than with Windows XP (or Gnome's Metacity, if you want to stay in the Linux world)? Certainly. Does that make me feel better? No, worse was better.

As another example Linus Torvalds does not use any of the distributions targeted at competent Linux users. He just uses Fedora. Why? He said he did not want to fiddle with his system and decide everything on his own. That is the purpose of a distribution according to him.

Is much configuration and choice really good? Has Arch maybe marched to far on his path to give all the power to the user? What do you think?

Greetings,

Frederic

btartsa · 2009-05-13 16:17:26

What? Me worry?

Last edited by btartsa (2009-05-13 16:18:39)

u_no_hu · 2009-05-13 16:17:37

Ignorance is bliss.

Anonymo · 2009-05-13 16:24:08

I think Arch gives users the default settings coming from the developers themselves. If there is any configuration that has to be done, it's because the developers intended this or the project has not yet reached a good default that is "usable" by most users.

You said it yourself, Blender and other programs have sane defaults, but also what might seem sane to you might not seem that way to other people. It's also a thing of point of view, diferent user experience levels and so on. Someone who worked on Unix computers vs Windows might have a different attitude to what sane is. (Like Bill Clinton's argument on what "is" is.)

I also find that with distros like Fedora and Ubuntu, especially OpenSUSE, I don't know what is going on with the system. Granted everything works but not nessarily how I would like it, I am seeing more the slant of a Red hat or Ubuntu developer, not the original developer. Adding to this, I feel that when it comes to the lion's share of features, I can easier implement Fedora or OpenSUSE features into Arch than the other way around. For example, I am trying out the gnome-main-menu from AUR that someone brought over from OpenSUSE. It works great, has no branding and does not include Beagle or whatever that mono search option is called. This would not be so effortless in OpenSUSE, which I would have to find a way to remove mono without breakage, remove the logo, etc (not that I know since I have not used OpenSUSE for long [I'm not dissing it either, it's just not for me]), which brings me to another point, package creation. It's so simple with Arch because I can open any PKGBUILD and edit anything to my needs. If I need another link to the program, md5 not found or needs a dependancy, I can change this myself. Not so easy with other package managers or to package creaters.

So while Arch might not seem as easy out of the box as other distros, once past that, it is easier to maintain and just brings more user satisfaction than hold-your-hand distros. If it's sane defaults you seek, don't look at Arch, go to the program developer for these and then we will see these changes trickle down by default to every distrbution instead of just Ubuntu or Fedora, who patch the programs themselves.

Edit:
Forgot to mention, I am by far not even an intermidiate user nor very intellegent when it comes to mathematics, programming and such. I am not a programmer (yet, but I have written a helloworld program in python, ), an admin or very good with networking, and I have been switching between Windows and many linux distros for years, but I always seem to come back to Arch and feel it has reached a level of usability not found in any other place, not Ubuntu, Fedora or OpenSUSE and certainly not at the other extreme like Gentoo, Slackware and Crux, which I have tried but not some stuck with the philosophy. Arch is a good balance.

Last edited by Anonymo (2009-10-16 21:26:04)

Dusty · 2009-05-13 17:06:02

This is a really interesting discussion, I've been considering it myself. For me, the question came up at pycon when I saw how many python devs were carrying macs (60-70%!!). I wondered about the correlation because I work on a mac and while I don't outright hate it, I definitely find it far inferior to Arch. I've often said people who prefer Python tend to prefer Arch and tend to prefer Vim, so seeing people that like both Python and Mac made me step back and think.

Python is a 'one best way to do things' language. I really like that philosophy. MacOS, on the other hand is a "One way to do things" operating system. Note the omission of the 'best', its important.

Arch is highly configurable, but its also elegant and simple. The question I've been bouncing around while using Arch is whether or not it is a "one best way" operating system or not. Because its true, there are so many choices, you'd think it was Perlish, not Pythonish.

What Arch actually is is a springboard, a platform into your personal 'one best way' OS. I used to spend hours tweaking, but I've found what works for me now and I barely change anything these days. Its very very different from Aaron's operating system, but his version is very much a one best way system as well.

Obviously, Arch is a 'many best ways' system. The key thing, though, is that it promotes good decisions, good choices, and good practices. While you may not choose the same configuration as me, the Arch system you build will probably be simple and elegant. Its actually takes work to make a bloated, confusing mess in Arch. In most operating systems its a one-click install (or comes preinstalled).

Dusty

karol · 2009-05-13 17:38:16

shortlord wrote:

As another example Linus Torvalds does not use any of the distributions targeted at competent Linux users.

There are some people who say that back in the good ol' days "the whole thing" was just a few KB, not hundreds MB or more. I don't mind them using an abacus, if they wish to <shrugs> Just for Pete's sake don't treat K&R, Linus Torvalds or Patrick Volkerding as all-knowing oracles.

I can't hack the kernel (or anything really) but I may want to choose which WM I use - do I need any?
Now, I'm writing this from Zenwalk, but I'm determined to get the bloody fonts to work on my other box, which is running Arch :-)

shortlord wrote:

He just uses Fedora. Why? He said he did not want to fiddle with his system and decide everything on his own. That is the purpose of a distribution according to him.

Can computers read minds? Don't thinks so. And there are only ;-) a couple thousand GNU/Linux distros (when you count different editions like LiveCD, GNOME, KDE, mini, micro etc. it might be) around and I'm picky. I might want XFCE like in Xubuntu but w/ Slackware-like simplicity but w/ apt-get-like package manager :-D

scv5 · 2009-05-13 18:19:03

u_no_hu wrote:

Ignorance is bliss.

I don't know if it's true ignorance as it is a split in personality types.

There's plenty of people who want something preconfigured and set up for them (and i'm not limiting this to linux) and who will whine later that it doesn't have an option for A, B, or C. But they're willing to pay the price of not having those options/features/customizations if it means less overall headaches.

And then there's those of us in which those headaches motivate us into action. to have our.. phone, or computer or whatever just the way we want it.

uid0 · 2009-05-13 18:42:31

Hello

I think that as everything, more choices or fewer for that matter are a relative topic to discuss

From the fewer choices the better part, most of those I've read it from say that Linux is complex system, too many programs, too many configuration files, too many concepts (old and new ones constantly evolving), and so on, and is this kind of things where people start to ask things

The fact is that, people is very different from each other, based on that, if people uses systems the result is that people will want to adapt its system to how they are, persons are different, systems in turn should behave differently depending on who uses them

When a system behave the same to everyone, then people start to criticize as well, now the problem isn't that they have few things to worry about choices, the problem now is that they don't have choices to worry about

Other thing is that in those systems where everything is already done out of the box so the user don't have to worry about configurations and the like, when the user is presented with an error somewhere, the user ends up being incapable to troubleshoot because he/she doesn't know where the application gets its configuration, nor what they're loading. The same goes when an application do something that isn't an error but it isn't something that the user is expecting or is something that the user just don't want the application do "why my application is doing that? where can I change that? it can be changed right?"

So, white is wrong, black is wrong and even gray is also wrong. Doesn't matter the point of view, there's no way to satisfy all

Personally I like to have lot of choice and if we see linux distros for example that's is something that benefits everyone, you don't like to choose if apache loads a module or not? no worries, grab a distro that has everything configured out of the box and be happy. You don't like the persons who made the distro deiciding what is in your system and how should it work? no matters either, just grab a DIY distro and be happy

Nobody is forced to use one or the other, anyone is able to choose whatever fits them better so in the end, choices are good and more choices you have, the better

regards

Last edited by uid0 (2009-05-13 18:45:18)

dolby · 2009-05-13 18:43:45

shortlord wrote:

Is much configuration and choice really good?
Greetings,
Frederic

Of course its good. But its not for everyone & certainly not for every system.
For example i started using Ubuntu Netbook Remix on my EEE. Although i cant stand Ubuntu, and i literally HATE dpkg, i find it the most suitable OS for it.
I dont plan on installing much software than its already got loaded, and all things work out of the box.
But i wouldnt even consider using anything other than Slackware or Arch anywhere else. Because i want to have control, and control comes with configuration options.

Don't think about such stuff much. Its futile. Either do or don't.

Last edited by dolby (2009-05-13 18:44:30)

CuleX · 2009-05-13 18:44:22

Fewer choices means more work to fix the system up or a billion of split up distributions which are essentially the same with different defaults.

GNOMEArch, KDEArch, XFCEArch, Hacked-in-CDEArch, LXDEArch, MiniArch, FullArch, Arch Mint, MiniX11Arch, Arch/FreeBSD, IonArch, XMonadArch, StarOfficeArch, CommercialArch, ArchArch, DemocraticArch, NoWorkingPackageManagerYetArch, NoDependencyResolvingArch, Ubuntarch, NewbArch, SysadminArch, AlternateInitArch, ArchXP, Arch Studio, 3DArch, GamingArch, ZSHArch, FISHArch, DASHArch, BusyboxArch, MoreArchThanArchArch, AntiArch, Arch/OS X, Arch/Cygwin, Arch 8086, Arch for IBM mainframes and more.

Is this really what we want?

shortlord · 2009-05-13 19:01:09

You are missing the point. I don't say that many configuration options lead to a bad system. What I say is that many configuration options lead to a system that may better for you needs than something preconfigured but will make you less happier than a preconfigured system, because the more options to choose from there are, the higher you expectations are at the same time. Please take the time and watch the TED talk, it's not long but explains the phenomenon perfectly. It is human to think: "I have just bought a great mobile phone. But wait, I did not test all of these 200 available mobile phones, maybe xy was better? Was the one I took really the BEST one? The perfect one?"

I don't talk about a Distro aimed at total beginners that tries to hide as much as possible from the users. I claim that Barry Schwartz has a point when he says: "Some options are better than no options. But many options are worse than some options." There is a point where too many options lead to paralysis. It is a phenomenon described by psychology and I wonder why it does not seem to apply in Arch Linux. Are all Arch Linux users different from normal people who are better off with not too many configuration options? Please watch the TED talk and tell me what you think.

Peasantoid · 2009-05-13 19:12:19

CuleX made a good point.

Also, since Arch was never intended to be "user-friendly" (in the usual sense) anyway, only people who like configuring a system from scratch are going to use it in the first place.

# I also hate it when distros such as Ubuntu stick in custom functionality, causing me to have no idea what the hell is going on when something breaks.
# shortlord: Arch users are leetness incarnate. Just accept that.

Last edited by Peasantoid (2009-05-13 19:14:45)

bender02 · 2009-05-13 19:15:14

shortlord wrote:

I don't talk about a Distro aimed at total beginners that tries to hide as much as possible from the users. I claim that Barry Schwartz has a point when he says: "Some options are better than no options. But many options are worse than some options." There is a point where too many options lead to paralysis. It is a phenomenon described by psychology and I wonder why it does not seem to apply in Arch Linux. Are all Arch Linux users different from normal people who are better off with not too many configuration options? Please watch the TED talk and tell me what you think.

Well the problem is what's too many. For me, arch maybe does have "too many" options overall, but it's always just a couple of them *at a time*, so no paralysis so far.

karol · 2009-05-13 19:23:46

shortlord wrote:

It is human to think: "I have just bought a great mobile phone. But wait, I did not test all of these 200 available mobile phones, maybe xy was better? Was the one I took really the BEST one? The perfect one?"

Did you read my post? Go read it again then. Don't take what that guy says for a fact. His talk was nice and cheerful but that doesn't mean he's right. And surely it doesn't mean that his (or rather your) conclusions apply to everyone.

Take a brick, drop it from the roof and it will fall. You can take ten thousand bricks and treat them the same way, and they will respond the same way - by falling to the ground. People are *not* like bricks (but please don't drop them to test).

As everyone in this forum I believe I'm special and I don't really think like this: "I've never used Fedora, so many people use it and like it, even Linus Almighty himself uses it - gasp - I'm surely making a mistake! And what about openSUSE, Mandrake, Lunar?". I tend to be prefectionist-ish but I sometimes settle for "good enough" - good enough for me that is :-)

uid0 · 2009-05-13 19:35:30

The talk certainly have valid points however trying to analyze "arch's way" or "ubuntu's way" or some other distro's way to work for its users can't be seen from a psychology perspective, not entirely at least. Psychology is quite complex because humans are a quite complex specie, there'll be always different points of view, there will be always different perspectives about one thing so either we want or not, there will be always things that you can object of trying to reach some sort of "perfect state" where there will be none such a thing

In my personal point of view I can't agree that a system with many configurations options will make me less happier than preconfigured system and that is because my expectations will be fulfilled as long I have all the options I need to do so

I used gentoo for a long time before start using arch so maybe I'm not the best person to talk about if more options will be better or not, however, regarding of what you ask about what one might think about the talk, personally, I think that the talk doesn't quite fit well in a operating system world where there's not only diversity on choices, there's also diversity of users, if all users were the same then surely there wouldn't a need for diversity of choices in every system, but users are never the same so as long as different users keep needing different things, operating systems will need to offer different choices in different degrees

zenlord · 2009-05-13 19:48:00

shortlord wrote:

Are all Arch Linux users different from normal people who are better off with not too many configuration options?

I think that's your answer right there.

Since Arch does not hide its nature and tells everyone upfront that you'll be confronted with setting up the system you want the way you want it, most of the people trying arch are looking for that specific quality in an OS. Every once in a while someone new jumps the gun in the forums screaming that he would like a beautiful little GUI to set up package foo the way he would want it, but those Arch-users are hard to find around here.

I think you are right for most computer users though. I don't know any exact figures, but most computer users just want to browse the web and use email. They use whatever program is supplied with the OS and have an account on hotmail or something like that. Those people should be given a fool-proof system without configuration options. That's what I gave my grandfather and my mother, both about equally interested in computers. They are reluctant to even search for, let alone *try* to change a configuration option.

The next big category is a category of people who have learned to use a computer, f.e. through education, own experience, experiences of others etc. Those people are dangerous from a computer's point of view: they are always looking to fiddle around and probably break some stuff because they don't really know what the configuration options do. Those people can be split up in two subcategories: the category of people that just wished there weren't so many options and say 'why can't it just work?', and secondly the category that will keep trying out those options until they know what the options do.

A third (very small) category is a bunch of people that know what all the options are and that are capable of making some extra options just to fit the package to there needs.

Arch mainly consists of people in category 2b and 3 (I'm somewhere between 2a and 2b ). Other distro's can fit the bill for other users and IMHO chances are really big that everyone can find the distro that fits his or her needs.

If you look beyond the scope of 'why (not) this distro' and look for packages that adhere to 'your' philosophy, there is GNOME obviously. GNOME has sane defaults for many, many people and you can probably change anything through gconf-editor, but only few options are configurable in the system menus. Some people hate it, other people love it. If 'your' philosophy were to be the one truth out there, there wouldn't be a such a big hurd of KDE-devotees.

I hope this text is not to incoherent to read. Long working day. Must stop and go to bed.

karol · 2009-05-13 20:25:38

zenlord wrote:

I think you are right for most computer users though. I don't know any exact figures, but most computer users just want to browse the web and use email. They use whatever program is supplied with the OS and have an account on hotmail or something like that. Those people should be given a fool-proof system without configuration options.

That's why post office isn't gone yet and there still are "appliances" called newspapers.

Sweet dreams.

Primoz · 2009-05-13 21:00:03

OK first of all: I just skimmed the whole thread. (lt;dr )
Anyway...
I would agree that more decision that you have to made to get to the goal can be overwhelming.
But that said it's up to you to decide which of this options are worth a lot of thought...
I as a KDE(mod) user have no real problems with decisions. If a KDEmod package for some app isn't working I'll probably use a gtk app, as I have to have Firefox alongside Konqueror for those sites that refuse to work...
And that's it. OK I do have Fluxbox which I have to try someday, but I don't see no reason to try anyother wm / de.

I don't see that many choices while installing Arch. You can *choose* to not edit rc.conf or something like that, but that would make your Arch useless.
And for a new Linux users who doesn't know Gnome from KDE there's begginers guide which has a lot of informations about DE / WM...
I really don't see what's the problem.
I mean theoretically it's similar to Achilles - Turtle race, but it's easily disproved in practice I'm using Arch and I think that my way is a good way.
I think that's what Arch is all about. There is no arbitrary "one good way" in Arch there is multitude of one good ways. And if you're not completely satisfied with your Arch it's because you're not satisified with your decisions; and what's more adventourus than searching for "yourself".

PS. there might be a lot of spelling mistakes as I'm using Konqueror instead of Firefox and I still think that using Konqueror over Firefox is my "one good way" as it's better than Firefox in so many other departments that I can live without spell checker (at least now I can see how many mistakes I make writing in English)

Misfit138 · 2009-05-13 21:07:17

Not all people are 'techie'. It's as simple as that.
Some people have HTPC's, a home network, and spend their time ripping blue ray dvd's and running servers.
(More OS choices/configurability=better)
Some people are content to go to the movies once in a while for their entertainment and would rather raise dogs or chase girls than assemble their own OS from the command line.
(More OS choices=unnecessary)

ataraxia · 2009-05-13 22:00:35

Fewer choices are the best when one of the options is what I want. When none of them satisfy, then I want all the rest of the options. Therefore, Arch.

I already know what I want before I make the choices. I'd basically have to unlearn that previous knowledge in order to be happy with someone else's choice.

Wintervenom · 2009-05-13 23:44:12

CuleX wrote:

Fewer choices means more work to fix the system up or a billion of split up distributions which are essentially the same with different defaults.
GNOMEArch, KDEArch, XFCEArch, Hacked-in-CDEArch, LXDEArch, MiniArch, FullArch, Arch Mint, MiniX11Arch, Arch/FreeBSD, IonArch, XMonadArch, StarOfficeArch, CommercialArch, ArchArch, DemocraticArch, NoWorkingPackageManagerYetArch, NoDependencyResolvingArch, Ubuntarch, NewbArch, SysadminArch, AlternateInitArch, ArchXP, Arch Studio, 3DArch, GamingArch, ZSHArch, FISHArch, DASHArch, BusyboxArch, MoreArchThanArchArch, AntiArch, Arch/OS X, Arch/Cygwin, Arch 8086, Arch for IBM mainframes and more.
Is this really what we want?

You forgot Arch [insert religion here] Edition.

Last edited by Wintervenom (2009-05-13 23:47:10)

kgas · 2009-05-14 01:57:35

configuring the system depends on the users taste and Arch gives lot of that. personally unless there is a problem I won't fiddle with the default config files. Things are going good with Arch. As misfit 138 said all are not techie. Any one with basic Linux knowledge can go with Arch very well which is minimal and fast.

peets · 2009-05-14 03:17:58

As previously mentioned in reaction to the Talk: ignorance is bliss.

A middle ground is possible: simple configurability with sane defaults. For me, Arch already does this: I change about 2 lines in the config files during the install. Maybe Arch should choose a graphic driver & DE for you in order to remove the burden of choice; isn't that what Chakra does?

I understand what you're talking about, but I think it's a non-issue. You know,

Status: Closed. Reason: Won't Fix. Comments: You can't get your ignorance back.

Anonymo · 2009-05-14 17:02:45

Take the blue pill

ljshap · 2009-05-14 17:09:05

Anonymo wrote:

Take the blue pill

Sounds like a good idea, but I can't decide between the blue and red one.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-05-13 15:01:35

Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#2 2009-05-13 16:17:26

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#3 2009-05-13 16:17:37

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#4 2009-05-13 16:24:08

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#5 2009-05-13 17:06:02

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#6 2009-05-13 17:38:16

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#7 2009-05-13 18:19:03

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#8 2009-05-13 18:42:31

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#9 2009-05-13 18:43:45

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#10 2009-05-13 18:44:22

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#11 2009-05-13 19:01:09

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#12 2009-05-13 19:12:19

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#13 2009-05-13 19:15:14

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#14 2009-05-13 19:23:46

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#15 2009-05-13 19:35:30

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#16 2009-05-13 19:48:00

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#17 2009-05-13 20:25:38

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#18 2009-05-13 21:00:03

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#19 2009-05-13 21:07:17

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#20 2009-05-13 22:00:35

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#21 2009-05-13 23:44:12

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#22 2009-05-14 01:57:35

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#23 2009-05-14 03:17:58

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#24 2009-05-14 17:02:45

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

#25 2009-05-14 17:09:05

Re: Fewer Choices Mean Fewer Worries?

Board footer