Linux-Advocacy Digest #81, Volume #35 Sat, 9 Jun 01 15:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IBM Goes Gay ("Edward Rosten")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Dave Martel)
Re: 25% of computer users have physically attacked their computer (Dave Martel)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: UI Importance (John Jensen)
Re: UI Importance ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: UI Importance (John Jensen)
Re: Laugh, it's hilarious. (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:51 GMT
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:42:20
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:00:13
>> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:44:43 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>
>> >Windows GUI is as good or as
>> >bad as the tools you run in it.
>>
>> Then it isn't any good, obviously.
>
>Guess Perl must be shit then? Or grep? Or gawk? Or sed? Yep, they're all
>useless tools aren't they?
The "it" was Windows GUI. The tools which aren't any good are the ones
that run on the Windows GUI. In contrast, these things you've named
are, in fact, extremely powerful, robust, reliable tools. The Linux
platform is not at issue. It is the Windows GUI that ends up being bad,
because it is as good or bad as the tools you run on it.
Learn to read.
>> >Bash is almost completely useless without
>> >all the little tools and utils that you need to run it, same applies to
>> >cmd.exe
>>
>> Hardly. Bash is enormously more capable than command.com or cmd.exe.
>> Always has been, always. You sound as stupid as Chad Myers when you say
>> something like this.
>
>I'd like to see a few examples of what you can do with bash without using
>any other programs.
I have already provided several in post you are replying to. Learn to
read.
>Out of a natural curiousity and a desire to learn. Of
>course, you do seem to enjoy "teaching people a lesson", so this should be
>fun for you :)
>
>> Sure, the large expanse of conventional Unix tools are important. But
>> then, it isn't like cmd.exe is any different.
>
>Exactly - like I say, your shell is mostly limited by the tools you can use
>in it.
How could being able to use external tools be a limitation? You are not
making any sense.
>> >Give me an example of how it's crippled?
>>
>> No korne, bourne, OR c shell syntax support.
>
>So it sucks because it isn't Unix?
No, it sucks because it does not support the de facto standard shells
for Unix.
>> It finally has tab
>> completion,
>
>What do you mean finally? Since 1996?
That one didn't work. MS didn't even mention it exists, really; some
'NT secrets' researcher figured out NT had tab completion, but it was
off by default. It wasn't until 2000 that Windows "finally" had a
usable tab completion feature.
>> but it still fucks up how more should work. No c shell
>> "bang" history syntax support, either.
>
>Not familiar with this sorry, can't offer a comment.
Indeed. Now, explain to us why you are claiming BASH doesn't have any
features that cmd.exe has when you obviously don't even know what
features BASH has to begin with?
--
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: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:52 GMT
Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:25:07
>In comp.sys.mac.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 03 Jun 2001 21:25:22
>
>>>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?
>
>This argument is usually made by people with an agenda.
That statement is a good way to pretend that you, uniquely, do not have
an agenda. In point of fact, the agenda the person making that argument
(me) has is upholding federal law. Go figure; a nefarious plot, to be
sure.
>I certainly remember
>choices through the whole thing. I used CP/M 86 before the IBM PC showed
>up, and I remember that OS being made available for the PC very early.
>Dozens of OSes have shown up for the PC architecture since then.
So why did you not choose CP/M again when the PC became available? If
there is an alternative that nobody ever selects, is it really a
"choice"? Are you going to even bother examining the alternatives, or
the reasons that nobody chose them, or just keep making assumptions?
>There was always someone who could decide to use them.
As there is always someone who 'could' decide not to use a computer at
all, or to substitute a calculator or a pad and pen.
>Microsoft's OSes were
>certainly the most promenent choice, and the nearest to a default choice that
>we've ever seen, but it was a choice.
One would think, so, if one never overcame one's naive assumptions, and
one never bothered to actually check. It turns out that, regardless of
how possible some alternative choice to MS-DOS was theoretically
available (if not 'prominent'), nobody much *chose* it.
The PPL was not about having a choice. MS-DOS wasn't a "prominent
choice", it was a "monopoly". Monopolies are illegal in this country,
and, no, it doesn't matter how you got them. (Or, rather, there is no
competitive way to get them, so only illegal anti-competitive strategies
could cause one to form.)
If you think DOS became the prominent choice because of competitive
merit, then you simply don't know much about the matter. A more careful
and reasoned examination makes the situation more clear.
--
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: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:53 GMT
Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:18:35
>In comp.sys.mac.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 Jun 2001 21:58:09 GMT;
>
>>> 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.
>
>I'll give you this much:
>
> I think it is possible to discuss "better" and "worse" UIs, but only
> in the context of a target audience.
Sort of begging the question, isn't it?
>IMO it is mis-application of what we (the industry) have learned about UI
>to discuss it without defining the target audience (or to assume that what
>you've learned in one audience will totally carry over into another).
I think that is tap-dancing. There are objectively more efficient and
less efficient interface designs. No examination of individual
preference is really necessary, though I don't suggest it wouldn't be
helpful once you have the basics down.
Sure, every user would be better off with an entirely unique and
personalized interface. That isn't pragmatic. That 'target audience'
for a UI is "anyone using this UI", so your theory really doesn't seem
very convincing, I'm afraid.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 19:42:59 +0100
In article <eO9U6.9780$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jim Polaski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
>>
>> Now if I'm the owner of a website and someone using M$ software comes
>> along and alters my site, I should think my lawyer is going to be
>> contacting someone about what unauthorized actions they have done. I
>> want to think I' see a legal issue here.
>
> If you consider that HTLM is a very weak page layout format to begin
> with, you will realize that no two web browsers ever display a page
> exactly the same, thus *EVERY* web browser alters it to some extent.
> It's possible for your page to be included in other pages via frames and
> many other things.
>
> This is the nature of the net. It's also not all that different from
> Netscapes "What's related" function. The only difference is that the
> smart tags appear inline (it doesn't change your actual page, just
> provides a way to hover over words and get more information).
Would you agree that this system could be subject to abuse since IE is
the dominant browser. Do you trust MS not to abuse it?
For instance, on every occurance of "Operating System" there could be a
link to WinXP but not Linux or Solaris, etc.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:44:02 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 5 Jun 2001
>"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9fji5f$hb1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:My9T6.8045$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:9fi8iq$md7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > Okay, why I don't like this?
>> > > Why would the kernel BSOD just because the GUI crash? It should
>restart
>> > it,
>> > > not stop.
>> >
>> > Why should it restart it? If the GUI crashes, that means something is
>> > seriously wrong, and will likely just crash again.
>>
>> Why should the GUI crashing cause a full system halt?
>> NT is aimed at servers, not just desktops. This just doesn't makes sense.
>> Other platforms don't crash if there is a crash in the GUI (well, not
>> always.)
>
>What you fail to realize is that the GUI subsystem ran in the same subsystem
>as other critical services as well. If that subsystem crashes, then you
>lose a lot more than just the GUI.
But this is begging the question; had they not designed it this way, it
wouldn't be the case. You seem to understand why competent engineers
see putting the GUI subsystem in the same area as critical services is a
bad decision, but you come at it sideways by claiming, with no
justification, that it doesn't matter. So why not build everything into
kernel space, since once something crashes, it doesn't matter if the
whole kernel crashes, by your logic?
>> > > This doesn't sound right, and it's certainly not an excuse.
>> > > It would crash *anyway* ?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>>
>> Why? What is the reason for this decision?
>
>How should I know? It just is.
Backward compatibility with the DOS monopoly. A way to get around the
piss-poor performance of NT. Incompetence of engineering, lack of
competitive capabilities, inability of the market to reject badly
designed software when it is monopoly crapware. Take your pick, Ayende.
--
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: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:44:03 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 5 Jun 2001
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:43:59 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > That depend, if MS standartise .NET, then you could write a client to
>any
>> > platform.
>>
>> It is highly doubtful that MS will write a .NET client for Linux. It is
>> nearly as doubtful that they will publish enough of a spec for a third
>> party to make a client that is 100% compatible with the Windows one.
>
>They have already published such a spec, and MS has already said that a
>Linux client was coming.
Nobody has successfully implemented the spec, so whether it is
"published" is meaningless. Similarly, MS has been known to lie about
what "was coming". Ergo, you haven't made a point, despite your
attempts at quibbling.
>> On top of that, it is doubtful that developers will avoid the tempation
>> to use unmanaged code to begin with.
>
>This will make porting easier, since they don't have to port the managed
>portion, only the unmanaged portion.
It makes the idea of porting into a sham, since they can only be sure
their managed portion will port. MS can (and will, we know, because
they have) use churn to prevent any such attempts from providing a
competitive threat to Microsoft's dominance.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM Goes Gay
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 19:48:23 +0100
>>>> Didn't you call someone a limey in a recent post? I suppose that's
>>>> not as bad as being a homophobe, although I'm not sure why.
>>>
>>> I might have. I hate the english.
>>>
>>> -----.
>
>> Racism is comtemptible.
>
> Hating the english isnt racism, its nationalism.
Hating someone based on a steroetype of their race is racism.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 11:48:44 -0600
On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:43:34 GMT, Charles Lyttle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I maintain that it is a violation of my copyright and amounts to
>defacement of the page. MS has appropriated my work and republished it
>with modifications for commercial gain. Also, I suspect it might violate
>laws passed to prevent defacement of web pages. I will support anyone
>who has a page defaced in this manner if they choose to file complaints.
If it is then adblockers are also a violation. There's also a program
out there that lets you "attach" your comments to a website, and other
visitors using the same program can view them.
Heck, maybe lynx is even a violation since it "removes" graphics. :(
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 25% of computer users have physically attacked their computer
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 11:48:51 -0600
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 13:32:32 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Get TweakUI, it lets you disable it.
>I believe that Win2K has it disable by default.
Personally I find a 5-pound mallet more satisfying.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 20:02:36 +0100
> It depends on what you mean by "computer". The US was using a
> sophisticated mechanical computer to break the Japanese "Purple" cipher
> as
> early as 1937. The British (and earlier the Poles) used the "Bombe" to
>
> break the Enigma code. These machines were for all intents and purposes
> single-program computers.
>
> The US Navy in 1938-1944 was also using machines to calculate artillery
> trajectories (COLOSSUS?).
Colossus was built in 1939 (or 40?) in the UK. The US started using the
computer to generate artillery tables in 1943. Colossus was used along
with the Bombes to crack the Enigma code.
The first turing complete computer buile was the Z3 built in 1942 by
Konrad Zuse in Germany. he then went on to build the Z4 (a much more
advanced machine) still before either the US or UK had a turing complete
machine.
He also built the Z1 which although not turing complete was the first
generally programmable binary digital computer (with an FPU amazingly).
The key to this machine which seperates it was the degree of
programability it offered without touching any of the internal
mechanisms: it was far more than a single program computer.
> And the first real "digital" computer was created for the Los Alamos
> scientists to model nuclear explosions -- Alan Turing advised much of
> the design.
That is not true. Very few analogue computers have ever been built. Most
were digital. The first binary one was the Z1.
> There is even an argument to be made that the Jacquard loom (which used
> punched cards to generate patterns) was a real "computer", and that
> happend in the late 1880's. (A variant of this machine was used to
> conduct the US Census prior to 1900.)
>
> Regards,
>
> quux111
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: 9 Jun 2001 18:16:03 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:25:07
: >In comp.sys.mac.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >> Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 03 Jun 2001 21:25:22
: >
: >>>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?
: >
: >This argument is usually made by people with an agenda.
: That statement is a good way to pretend that you, uniquely, do not have
: an agenda. In point of fact, the agenda the person making that argument
: (me) has is upholding federal law. Go figure; a nefarious plot, to be
: sure.
I'm not the one pretending.
: >I certainly remember
: >choices through the whole thing. I used CP/M 86 before the IBM PC showed
: >up, and I remember that OS being made available for the PC very early.
: >Dozens of OSes have shown up for the PC architecture since then.
: So why did you not choose CP/M again when the PC became available? If
: there is an alternative that nobody ever selects, is it really a
: "choice"? Are you going to even bother examining the alternatives, or
: the reasons that nobody chose them, or just keep making assumptions?
I was using CP/M 68K and CP/M Z8000 at the time (early 80's). We _chose_
to use DOS initailly, but ... let's see what all I've used (I'll limit it
to the workplace) on PC hardware:
DOS, Windows, Concurrent DOS, QNX, SCO UNIX, Unixware, Solaris x86,
OS/2, and Linux.
: >There was always someone who could decide to use them.
: As there is always someone who 'could' decide not to use a computer at
: all, or to substitute a calculator or a pad and pen.
True, and I don't think that changes anything.
: >Microsoft's OSes were certainly the most promenent choice, and the
: >nearest to a default choice that we've ever seen, but it was a choice.
: One would think, so, if one never overcame one's naive assumptions, and
: one never bothered to actually check. It turns out that, regardless of
: how possible some alternative choice to MS-DOS was theoretically
: available (if not 'prominent'), nobody much *chose* it.
A spelling flame, you must be loosing.
: The PPL was not about having a choice. MS-DOS wasn't a "prominent
: choice", it was a "monopoly". Monopolies are illegal in this country,
: and, no, it doesn't matter how you got them. (Or, rather, there is no
: competitive way to get them, so only illegal anti-competitive strategies
: could cause one to form.)
: If you think DOS became the prominent choice because of competitive
: merit, then you simply don't know much about the matter. A more careful
: and reasoned examination makes the situation more clear.
They were a monopoly also. I think monopolies can commonly arise from
market choice (dirty deeds certainly help). The only other way is for
monopoly to be granted by law. That didn't happen in Microsoft's case.
John
--
33° 39' 44N 117° 45' 06W
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 20:16:16 +0100
> for i in *.zip; do mv $i $(echo $i|sed 's/\(.*\)\.zip/\1.blah/');done
> There will now follow a big flame thread about how I'm an idiot and the
> above command is completely wrong and will destroy the world.
Indedd, this is a religous issue.
The one TRUE way is as follows:
ls *.zip | sed -e's/\(.*\).zip/mv & \1.blah' | sh
or than again, you could xargs instead of sh, or find instead of ls, or
grep instead of *.zip, etc, etc, etc.
Either way, there's about a billion trivial ways of doing it which are
perfectly effective and more flexibe than the
rename *.a *.b
method (ie you can put a grep in there for more advanced pattern
matching, or use another program instead of mv if you want to perform
another operation), which is probably why us UNIX users don't miss the
rename command at all.
Once again, UNIX rules!
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 20:22:50 +0100
> If they wanted 9x on IA64, *then* they would've to rewrite a different
> OS. Imagine, 32 bit OS on a 64 bits Chip using 16 bits code that it
> inherit from an 8 bit OS designed to run on a 4 bit chip. Yuck!
produced by a 2 bit company that can't stand one bit of competition?
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: 9 Jun 2001 18:27:45 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:18:35
: >I'll give you this much:
: >
: > I think it is possible to discuss "better" and "worse" UIs, but only
: > in the context of a target audience.
: Sort of begging the question, isn't it?
No, just a statement in opposition of any stated or implied "one size fits
all" UI strategy.
: >IMO it is mis-application of what we (the industry) have learned about UI
: >to discuss it without defining the target audience (or to assume that what
: >you've learned in one audience will totally carry over into another).
: I think that is tap-dancing. There are objectively more efficient and
: less efficient interface designs. No examination of individual
: preference is really necessary, though I don't suggest it wouldn't be
: helpful once you have the basics down.
You accuse me of tap-dancing, but you pretend "target audience" must be
reduced to "individual preference".
I think it might be more productive to consider medium sized groups, like
corporate knowledge workers, or casual home users.
: Sure, every user would be better off with an entirely unique and
: personalized interface. That isn't pragmatic. That 'target audience'
: for a UI is "anyone using this UI", so your theory really doesn't seem
: very convincing, I'm afraid.
Look around, we've go one of those perennial GUI/CLI threads going. Each
side thinks their UI is "better" for whatever and wants to convice the
other. Maybe CLI addicts are different than GUI addicts. It might be a
concrete example of something that can be applied to one audience and not
another.
I'm sure there are some general rules that apply across broad ranges of
user groups, but I object to those who assume their preferences or
opinions apply everywhere.
John
--
33° 39' 44N 117° 45' 06W
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.aol-sucks,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Laugh, it's hilarious.
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 18:31:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charles Lyttle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 09 Jun 2001 14:00:44 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Shice Beoney wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 16:24:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>>
>> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote
>> >on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:05:43 GMT
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >>Said Chris Ahlstrom in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 07 Jun 2001
>> >>>flatfish+++ wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >>>> ie: This machine comes with 40 gigabytes of memory right?
>> >>>
>> >>>On the other hand, in the auto section of Walmart you'll hear more
>> >>>intelligent questions. Why is that?
>> >>
>> >>Well put. Why *is* that?
>> >
>> >It might be that NASCAR is more interesting than the yearly competition
>> >amongst highly intelligent, computer-knowledgeable students (I forget
>> >the name, but it's an East vs. West competition setup). :-)
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I find it hard to believe there's ANYthing less interesting than
>> NASCAR.
>NASCAR - YECCCH. However, you will have to come to the track here and
>see my Linux/Java enabled '72 Charger 440.
Interesting application. But is Linux/Java being used within the
ignition system, or is it some sort of a map add-on, a la Etak, or
some sort of trip computer?
Those are the apps I can think of for use within an automobile.
Of course, there's also the ability to play video tapes, which is
very close to playing video games, in certain vans. (However, the
Charger was basically a sedan; the '68 ('69?) Charger, which I'm
familiar with only because I used to watch "them Duke boys", was
a two-door (and they never used the doors for some reason); dunno
if there's a four-door variant. However, IMO it's a bit big to
be called a "coupe".)
And one can even throw in satellite Web capability.
As for NASCAR being interesting -- dunno. A lot of people apparently
like to watch it (I'm not that avid a follower; it's something to
pass the time but that's about it -- and ever since Dale Earnhart
went to The Great Race Track In The Sky, I've lost interest for
some reason), and it is more interesting than golf (although it might
not be if I could actually *play* golf, as opposed to whacking at the
ball and watching it dribble 50 feet; Tiger Woods is a phenom, though).
But there are actually times I'd rather watch Scooby Doo.
But OK...how many of you actually watch the competition between
various "brains" in the industry -- I think it's a yearly thing? :-)
Assuming they're still having it...? At one point, it was on one
of our local channels (TV 20, KOFY, IIRC).
>--
>Russ Lyttle
>"World Domination through Penguin Power"
>The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
><http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- then again, I'm not a car aficionado
EAC code #191 40d:02h:29m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
