> You could say I'm trading one complexity > for another: arguing for growing system directories instead.
It's hard and not always possible to replace complexity with simplicity. Sometimes, even in Plan 9, the choice is to simplify by convention rather than refinement, there are quite a few heuristics in Plan 9 that could be replaced by configuration arguments, say, but then the namespace definitions would be insufferably large. My favourite example is acme: I'd love message templates in Mail, but it's almost impossible to create such things without adding complexity. So, yes, one trades one complexity for another. Considering that the computer is a general-purpose tool that can be programmed to execute an infinite number of tasks, wildly different and simultaneous, it is hard to condone simplification for the sake of permitting access to users who just want to be able to use it. Not because access should not be permitted, obviously, but because it restricts what those in the know can do. If you want an example, consider the mobile phone: there are many, many functions I would dearly like my particular handset (Sony-Ericsson C905) to perform, but are prohibited to me by the manufacturer, not by my skills and abilities. I think there are ethical issues here that need exploring and this type of discussion seldom reaches any conclusions, probably because we're all busy, result oreiented technologists. This is the realm of philosophy and I wish more people would focus not so much on the technology, but on the long-term effect of different technological alternatives. I guess that's just me. ++L
