[email protected] (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> > I can't parse that sentence. Each part of it makes sense
>> > individually, but put together the result is noise. What do you
>> > mean by a completely stupid design being sound?
>
>> Small decisions are often right. Issues which do not touch on
>> semantics are often fine. Multi-arch JIT has strong work.
>
> OK, "Mono contains many sound components, but the design is completely
> stupid"?
>
> So it's like audiofool speaker wires with gold-plated optical connects
> and homeopathically aligned oxygen-free copper decals?
It seems to me like the GNOME "user friendly" policy:
Problem:
Users are finding the degree of choice offered intimidating, and
what most people want is things that "just work."[1]
Solution:
Rip out the UI controls every single option you can find, especially
if they are software interaction fundamentals. Everyone must
interact with the software the same way. You must *not* have a
choice about what triggers what, or what reacts how.
Then leave all the actual "twiddle X, Y and Z" options that you need
to fiddle with in place, but put the settings into the Windows
Registry ^W^W gconf database, without documentation, and still
depend on people twiddling them.
Yay. Thanks team. Your efforts made it much harder and less
comprehensible for end users -- unless they have a systems administrator
to twiddle things for them. Good plan.
Daniel
Footnotes:
[1] I agree with this sentiment, incidentally.
--
Digital Infrastructure Solutions -- making IT simple, stable and secure
Phone: 0401 155 707 email: [email protected]
http://digital-infrastructure.com.au/
