←back to thread

Free software scares normal people

(danieldelaney.net)
917 points cryptophreak | 6 comments | 30 Oct 25 15:07 UTC | HN request time: 1.03s | source | bottom
Show context
andreldm ◴[30 Oct 25 16:12 UTC] No.45761642[source]▶
If handbrake scares them, don’t you dare to demonstrate how to use ffmpeg. I remember when I used handbrake for the first time and thought “wow, it’s much more convenient than struggling with ffmpeg”.
replies(7): >>45761715 #>>45761913 #>>45761996 #>>45762179 #>>45762626 #>>45762929 #>>45764672 #
phoronixrly ◴[30 Oct 25 16:18 UTC] No.45761715[source]▶
Handbrake's UI is in the uncanny valley for me -- too complicated for use by laymen, and way too limiting for use by people who know what they're doing...
replies(2): >>45761770 #>>45761778 #
1. fellowniusmonk ◴[30 Oct 25 16:23 UTC] No.45761778[source]▶
ffmpeg with disposable or llm backed dnd interfaces.

for certain types of tooling UIs should be cheap, disposable and task/worlflow specific.

replies(2): >>45761937 #>>45762131 #
2. throwaway173738 ◴[30 Oct 25 16:34 UTC] No.45761937[source]▶
Actually I think this is a killer use case for local LLMs. We could finally get back to asking the computer to do something without having to learn how to string 14 different commands together to do it.
replies(1): >>45762306 #
3. jraph ◴[30 Oct 25 16:49 UTC] No.45762131[source]▶
The last thing we want for a user-friendly interface is nondeterminism. Some procedure that works today must work tomorrow if it looks like you can repeat it. LLMs can't be the answer to this. And if you go to the lengths of making the llm deterministic, with tests and all, you might as well code the thing once and for all and not ship the local llm to the end user at all.
replies(1): >>45762542 #
4. multjoy ◴[30 Oct 25 17:04 UTC] No.45762306[source]▶
I’ve been computer touching since the mid eighties.

Exactly what golden era of computing are you harking back to, and what are you doing that requires 14 different commands?

replies(1): >>45779143 #
5. fellowniusmonk ◴[30 Oct 25 17:22 UTC] No.45762542[source]▶
Sorry, I see how my post lacked sufficient clarity.

The idea behind a cheap UI is not constant change, but that you have a shared engine and "app" per activity.

The particular workflow/ui doesn't need to ever change, it's more of a app/brand per activity for non-power users.

This is similar to how some apps historically (very roughly lotus notes springs to mind) are a single app but have an email interface/icon to click, or contacts, or calendar, all one underlying app but different ui entry points.

6. throwaway173738 ◴[01 Nov 25 03:57 UTC] No.45779143{3}[source]▶
Linux shells, and that was an exaggeration. The shell is about as general purpose as it gets, but it’s hard to know a priori how to do a certain use case. But if you can explain it in plain language the LLM can do that for you. And at that point maybe you don’t need a gui except to present and manipulate visual output of the shell.