Linux-Advocacy Digest #26, Volume #35 Thu, 7 Jun 01 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (Josiah Fizer)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:30:40 GMT
Said flatfish+++ in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:59:47
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 19:43:23 GMT, Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>No, vi is the only program *you* need to design web sites. The
>>popularity of good web design tools among profesisonal web site
>>designers is proof that GUI design tools are worth paying money for.
>
>I took a course in Aix Sysadmin a couple of years ago and on the day
>the instructor taught vi he brought in a pair of ear muffs because all
>of the beeping (aka frustration's) of newbies trying to use that
>abortion of a program drove him crazy.
>
>Anyone who does anything but churn out code, and that means a
>professional programmer, in vi or Emacs for that matter is nuts.
Well, if you're a newbie, maybe. :-D
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:30:41 GMT
Said drsquare in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:21
>On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 05:11:10 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps it's my ancient box at work then - PII 300 with 64MB RAM running
>>> NT4 WS. Explorer is useless until the coping finishes.
>>
>>What is happening, exactly? Does the coputer stop working? Or does it work,
>>but the copying box don't allow you to use Explorer until it's done?
>>
>>If the latter, than that is a sign of some of the bad UI slips of MS. They
>>shouldn't have used a modal box here.
>>It was present in 95, and fixed in 98.
>>Maybe installing a recent IE would solve it?
>
>What would IE have to do with it?
>
>>> Programming environments (rhide), text editors (emacs, pico etc), FTP
>>> clients, IRC clients, Telnet, File Management (mc in Linux?), SSH,
>>> Office Apps (yes, I still use WordPerfect for DOS on my ancient laptop -
>>> and I like it),
>>
>>Those are all personal choices, except fo Telnet & SSH, which is a little
>>like cheating, in this case, since you are openning a *CLI* session on
>>another computer.
>
>Yeah, but there's nothing stopping you from opening a telnet client in
>a GUI.
A surprisingly effective (as in, even if you think it would be
effective, you would be surprised how effective it is) method I used for
turning newbies into computer users on Unix systems was to simply have
them repeat the same command over and over at different CLI prompts. At
each step, I would explain the working relationships of the various
pieces of software and processes (human processes, not ps entries) they
were dealing with.
First we boot the system. (They were SunOS boxes, and this left us at
the boot prompt.) Then we get to a shell prompt. A simple cwd, ls, and
a couple cds later, we start X. Then we get a 'console' window, and do
the same thing. Then we get a 'terminal' window, and we do the same
thing. We do the same thing, explaining in very general terms the
concepts of 'client' and 'server' and 'program' and 'processor',
'memory', and 'disk', of course what we are doing and how we are doing
it at each step. We do the same with a telnet session then, from within
the terminal. Throughout the session we use FTP, Xterms, telnet (SSH
wasn't common at the time) in various permutations. If the group was
advanced, by the end of the several hours we have a terminal window from
a remote host displayed locally with X, running a telnet client back to
the local workstation, and a local Xterm window running a telnet
connection to the remote host.
It sounds complicated, maybe, but only because you know how complicated
it is. It is very simple to build up to, and by the end, if you're
clear and patient and consistent in your explanations (this is the hard
part, of course), then it is surprising how effectively a newbie can
become a confident computer user, with just this simple exercise. The
repetitive commands, introduction to concepts, and variation in the
basic theme (controlling a computer through a shell) make it a very
productive method of learning.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:30:42 GMT
Said Woofbert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 03 Jun 2001 19:40:19
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>The average user will be
>> stopped dead in their tracks if they try to use a CLI)
>
>This last is the real reason why some people claim that the CLI will
>remain KING.
Indeed; so that average users will learn the CLI. Any user is stopped
"dead in their tracks" by having to do something they don't already know
how to do. Du-uh!
The average user is perfectly capable of learning how to use a command
line interface. It is much easier and simpler, in fact, than learning
to use a GUI file manager. There really is no question here; this is
demonstrable fact. The "GUI v. CLI" debate comes up because of
confusion between learning to use a computer, and using to learn the
interface. Mostly, it is an issue of the fact that the average person
is incapable of *teaching* these things. Properly instructed (see my
previous post) anyone is capable of learning them.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:30:43 GMT
Said Woofbert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:48:49
[...]
>> >>If you find that difficult to do, then you should consider
>> >> selling your computer and taking up flower arranging.
>
>I think that the anti-GUI attitude illustrated by that snippet only
>damages the user community. It encourages programmers to disrespect
>their lay users.
I think your position is ludicrously silly. Programming isn't a
priesthood, and "lay users" aren't supplicants who deserve respect. You
are taking the idea of a 'user community' to some hippy-dippy bullshit
extreme, and as a nominal member of that community, I think that is
silly.
Programmers show respect by programming; non-programmer users are not
"lay users", they are "real" users. Neither group should have any
respect at all for the other, in an efficient community of developers
and users. The other group is 'the enemy'. An anti-moron-luser bias on
the part of a developer is not an "anti-GUI attitude", nor does it
damage the user community. On the contrary; it is a pro-CLI attitude,
and it strengthens both the user and the developer community.
If you can't manage to remember a few command names, you should burn
your computer and take up basket weaving. Certainly mastering the CLI
is much more than just remembering a few commands, but that isn't the
point.
The point is that CLIs are more efficient, effective, expedient, and
productive once you learn how to use them. GUIs are a useful technique,
but getting hung up on them is an excuse for stupidity, not a matter of
efficiency.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:30:44 GMT
Said Woofbert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:36:35
>In article <9fh5ka$mdb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger) wrote:
>
>> Woofbert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
>> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : Butwhen I need to do something I don't often do, the Mac's command
>> : menus let me hunt for the thing I want to do, and it's fairly
>> : efficient: the menus are organized by what sorts of things they act
>> : on and do. Complex commands have dialog boxes that let me set
>> : command parameters. And the best part is I don'thave to know the
>> : name of the command that does what I want.
>>
>> I actually raced someone. I read the manual and he hunted through
>> random menus trying things, nothing was working. I found the right
>> command in the index and read the description. I _like_ reading a
>> paper manual. Much better use of a program, the reason why they have
>> clasesses to learn word.
>
>Bad example. They have classes to learn Word because it has a zillion
>features no one uses, and the features people actually do use are hidden
>deeply behind multiple nested menus and tabbed dialog boxes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Seems like a good example to me. Perhaps you forgot what your point
was, Woofbert. :-D
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:30:45 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 Jun 2001 22:18:04
[..]
>Are you suggesting that, no matter if it sucks or not, once a UI is created
>it should forever be locked that way so that idiot users can't get confused
>when something changes or moves slightly?
Yes, it should; if I learn how to use a program, what reason in the
universe would there be that I should "need" to have how it works
changed making my acquired knowledge useless?
Let other people use other UI's; there is no reason ever to change the
one I've already learned. Only MS software is hung up on everyone doing
things the same way. Why is that?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:30:46 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 05 Jun 2001
15:01:59 +0100;
>>> Secondly, by using aliases, I have created a "safe" way of deleting
>>> files (with the rm command in Linux). It now moves files to a trash
>>> directory, from where all files older then 3 months gets permenantly
>>> deleted, using a cron job.
>>
>> In other works, you've re-created the Recycle Bin. :-D
Excuse me. MS's 'recycle bin' just re-created the Macintosh's 'trash
can'. :-/
>> What do you mean, though, using aliases?
>
>The shell picks up on rm, so that instead of calling the rm program, it
>simply moves the file to the trash directory.
>
>Something like
>
>function rm()
>{
> mv $* ~/.trash/
>}
>
>would be a very simplistic version in BASH.
What's the more complex version?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:30:47 GMT
Said Robert Morelli in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 03 Jun 2001
>In article <9fda7d$o8l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
><don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$51 A good article
>> about why people think so highly about UI. It's a good approach, I
>> believe.
>> Any comments?
>
>Wouldn't it be great if people from the Linux/UNIX world
>had the kind of common sense and competence that
>Windows programmers like the author of this article has.
What a set up. I'm 'guffaw'ing already.
>I actually have strong feelings about this issue because I think
>the neglect of UI is a serious bottleneck in the progress of
>Linux.
What precisely do you mean by 'UI' and 'neglect'. Or, for that matter
"bottleneck"? You really aren't making much sense.
>Unfortunately, a lot of Linux/UNIX people are still
>trying to understand the GUI revolution that took place 20
>years ago.
The Unix people were at the forefront of said revolution; Windows was
the latest of entries, in fact. But I know, you didn't mention Windows,
I did. You're just providing constructive criticism to the Linux
community.
>It's really a terrible shame because the payoffs
>could be so tremendous.
What payoffs? What form would these 'payoffs' take for the Linux
community?
>Think of where we'd be today if
>Linux had the technology to be a decent end user OS.
You've crossed the bounds into dishonesty, I'm afraid.
>Instead of confronting the challenge, UNIX people try to
>disparage UI by spouting vague bullshit about
>supposedly more serious aspects of programming.
No; it is the wintrolls they disparage, not this vague "UI" thing you
keep harping about.
>I have a PhD in mathematics and I don't like vague
>bullshit, so that kind of thing pisses me off.
I don't have a PhD in anything, but your opinions on OS software
development seems like vague bullshit to me. What does that tell you?
>If there's
>some fancy, deep, complex technology Linux
>programmers have been doing that's more important
>than UI, I'd like to hear about it.
GNOME and KDE seem strong efforts. There's no substitute for
competitive development.
>To my mind, a programmer who disparages UI is as ridiculous
>as a programmer who says he doesn't understand for-loops, or
>doesn't "get" syntax, etc.
You've never seen such a thing. Programmers disparage particular UIs,
or more often inefficient GUI UIs, but no programmer I know of has ever
disparaged [G]UIs as "ridiculous".
>The purpose of software is to create
>a bridge between a human user and computer hardware.
A rather silly metaphor, if you ask me.
>At
>the bottom, low level software interacts directly with the hardware.
>At the top, application software interacts directly with a
>human user. Other software sits between. Each layer of
>software performs some services, and interfaces
>layers below it, above it, and also at the same level.
>
>It takes intelligence and competence to design the interfaces
>at all levels well.
So why are you disparaging those who design said interfaces?
>I'm very skeptical of the idea that there are
>programmers who can program well but can't do UI well.
Your expertise is mathematics, I think. Stick to it. ;-)
>The
>same programmer who doesn't provide feedback on errors to the
>user, will probably be just as sloppy in any other programming
>task.
What use has a user for "feedback on errors"? A lack of errors is
preferred by the end user. "Useful error message" is an oxymoron.
>If he's writing a class library, he'll probably fail to pass
>exceptions properly to its clients. The same programmer who
>doesn't study UI seriously and reinvents the wheel in some
>aspect of the user interface, creating something weird and
>nonstandard, will probably create something weird and
>nonstandard in any other programming task. Etc.
Yea; innovation sucks. Everyone should just program things 'the right
way'.
>I also get very leary of the typical Linux programmer who
>can't put two coherent sentences together to document their
>software. That's just plain incompetent.
Competence at documenting != competence at programming, unfortunately.
>Of course, there're going to be people who take this an
>unwarranted attack on Linux. That's not my purpose.
To be honest, I think it is an unwarranted defense of Windows. Is that
your purpose?
>In my opinion, we ought to be thinking long term. The
>short term battle is progressing well. Linux has made
>incredible gains. Linux is overtaking Windows in some
>server markets and it's knocking the wind out of MS in
>the embedded market.
Ah, the magic word. So you were, as I suspected, thinking of Linux in
terms of competing with Windows. How sad.
>But Linux can't win the whole game
>in the short term.
There is no game.
>The technology just isn't there to knock
>Microsoft out on the desktop.
Technology has nothing to do with Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop.
You are, at best, tilting at windmills.
>Some people have gotton
>discouraged by some of the setbacks on the desktop. My
>attitude is, what did you expect? You can't expect progress
>there without good technology. Long term, I think it's possible
>and even inevitable that Linux will spell the destruction of
>Microsoft there too, provided the Linux community
>faces up to the challenges instead of just spouting
>bullshit.
Now you're pissing into the wind.
>So what do I think we need to do? If you write code, do
>your homework and gain competence in everything,
>including UI. If you use code, don't respect code with
>shabby UI and shabby documentation. Expect Linux
>programmers to strive for the same quality that Windows
>programmers produce. If you expect that, the capable
>programmers will step up to the challenge. Remember,
>OSS programmers are paid in respect, not dollars.
>If you don't respect the crap that most Linux
>programmers produce, it's like you're not paying
>them. On the other hand, you've got to be very
>encouraging for what's good, or else they're going
>to go looking for a "higher paying" job.
Now get out there and win one for Marc Andreesen, eh?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:30:48 GMT
Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 03 Jun 2001 21:25:22
>Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> It stikes me that developers could just invent what they like, and
>>> users could just choose to use what they like.
>
>> Yes John,
>
>> Well this isn't the way it currently works as of now.
>
>> You see Microsoft with Windows has been scaling along
>> the business front with the hardware vendors for years
>> by giving incentives for them to develop products which
>> are specifically designed for 'A' Windows product line.
>> [...]
>
>This is a complex question. There have been some pretty good choices
>for PC operating systems, but most people decided to stick with
>Microsoft.
"Decided to not decide", you mean? As in, didn't have a choice?
>You could argue (like us Mac users did in the mid 80's)
>that those users were just wrong ... or you could try to figure out
>what "utility" (to borrow a term from economics) those people were
>finding.
The ability to use a PC. MS monopolizes PC OSes, so that any user who
wishes to benefit from a PC is forced to pay them money. Get it?
>I think just being in the mainstream ("network effects") outweighed
>the disadvantages of UI & etc. DOS had a much much worse "UI" than
>the Macintosh of the day, but you could ask for DOS help anywhere.
>You bumped into DOS everywhere you went.
No shit. Why was that, do you think? Ever heard of per-processor
licensing agreements?
>The Microsoft-compatiblity factor made things easier for people then,
>just as it does now. So much so that Microsoft still has a lot of
>room to extract profit before many people start to leave.
It is much easier to pay a monopoly for nothing then to get something
for free, is that what you're saying?
>There may be a few people here and there mismatched with their OSes,
>but I expect the majority have got what they want.
Well, they want what they got, at least. Some of them, anyway. You
gotta wonder if they *all* do, given MS's conviction in federal court
and all.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:30:49 GMT
Said Woofbert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:45:00
>In article <9fgt89$a0v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> : In article <9fgimv$9gg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
>> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : > If someone likes slime-mold interfaces, who are we to deny them?
>>
>> : You're missing the point...
>>
>> : For one thing, you can't have a slime-mold interface on a CLI.
>>
>> : For another, I don't care how pretty (or attractivelyugly) the slime
>> : mold interface is, if the mouse gestures are badly set up and the
>> : command-key equivalents are stupid, then the UI is still a bad one.
>>
>> : Anyone who thinks that eye-candy alone makes an UI good is an idiot.
>>
>> I'm on my point.
>>
>> I think I have a good eye for interface, but I don't think I have to call
>> anyone an idiot who thinks differently. There is absolutely no reason
>> that every interface should please everyone (or even specifically you or
>> me). If 342 people in North Elbonia love their slime-mold-eye-candy
>> interface, I say more power to 'em.
>>
>> AFAIC they can have fun, and let us know how it all works out.
>
>No, you're still missing the point.
>
>Eye-candy is fine. You can have all the eye-candy you want.
>
>Let me try to think of the program with the worst UI in the world ...
>WordPerfect for DOS. I'll just port that to Windows, and give it a TTY
>interface with all the orginal keystrokes and format codes untouched.
>I'll add the world's best, most fabulous UI customizer, complete with
>Photohsop filters and sample green slime UI skins ... and the interface
>will still suck.
>
>If you think that skins alone will improve the usability of an
>interface, then you're an idiot.
Yes, but if you think that WordPerfect for DOS had "the worst UI in the
world", then you're an idiot, as well. So John obviously makes the
point, since this demonstrates the fact that what one person calls one
of the best UIs in the world another would call the worst. This
includes, then, slime molds with keyboard shortcuts you find entirely
nonsensical.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:30:50 GMT
Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 Jun 2001 21:58:09 GMT;
>Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: In article <9fgt89$a0v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
>: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: > [...] If 342 people in North Elbonia love their slime-mold-eye-candy
>: > interface, I say more power to 'em.
>: >
>: > AFAIC they can have fun, and let us know how it all works out.
>
>: No, you're still missing the point.
>
>: Eye-candy is fine. You can have all the eye-candy you want.
>
>: Let me try to think of the program with the worst UI in the world ...
>: WordPerfect for DOS. I'll just port that to Windows, and give it a TTY
>: interface with all the orginal keystrokes and format codes untouched.
>: I'll add the world's best, most fabulous UI customizer, complete with
>: Photohsop filters and sample green slime UI skins ... and the interface
>: will still suck.
>
>: If you think that skins alone will improve the usability of an
>: interface, then you're an idiot.
>
>You've got the old time religion, a belief in "absolute good" and
>"absolute evil" in UI.
>
>You've got it so bad, you think I must be arguing different absolutes,
>rather than against the whole idea.
No, I think he has a point. He goes too far with it, certainly, but the
fact is, there *is* an issue of objective efficiency in interface
design. Sure, opinions vary, as requirements do as well, so no one
interface is "the perfect UI". But he also has a point that there are
still badly designed interfaces.
>There are enough UIs out there that people can decide for themselves.
That would require an infinite number, I think. If there are only two,
people are forced to 'decide for themselves', but that doesn't mean
they've actually made any decisions about UI design. When the king of
the mountain is a monopoly crapware ripoff of a toy computer, 'deciding
for themselves' is a delicate subject you best not use as a guide on
this issue.
>They don't need any gurus (unless they want them, and even then they
>don't all have to choose the same one).
Which is, of course, why they always want and need gurus. Stop whining
because the gurus differ with your more naive opinion. Just ignore
them, and keep doing things the way you want. Maybe someday you'll be a
guru, too. Or maybe you'll just get rooked into supporting an illegal
monopoly in order to benefit from PC hardware.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 08:31:12 -0700
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 12:52:02 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 16:53:04 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 16:34:45 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>
>>>I've never used Win2k... does it have the basic sh shell, ksh korn
>>>shell, tsc tenex c shell, or bash?
>>
>>Not out of the box. But that's understandable since it would require
>>MS to write lots of extra documentation. However you can install all
>>of the basic shells from a number of sources, both comercial and
>>freeware.
>
>Why would MS need to write the documentation? With linux, when you
>install something, its man pages are automatically added. Won't the
>same thing happen on windows?
So your saying that on Linux the docs just magically appear? or does
someone have to write them? Why wouldn't MS have to write docs for a
new shell? Are you saying that all the curent docs that explain how to
use the WinNT/DOS/Win9x shell wouldn't have to be updated?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:30:51 GMT
Said Woofbert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 04 Jun 2001 22:26:30
>In article <9fh09h$a63$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to say, or why you're
>trying to argue against what I'm saying. I think you don't understand
>what I'm saying.
That's the problem; he feels the same way.
>Hang on, let me bolt this spike to my keyboard. It will make the
>following a little more productive while I bash my head against it.
Talk about speaking at cross-purposes. If you're into that kind of
thing, take it to alt.torture.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
