Perhaps YOU'RE the one missing something:) Could it be that Linux is simply a Microsoft plot to keep all of the 3l33t people in one place, thus keeping them out of Microsoft's hair?
One of my favorite quotes from the book 'Generation X':
OPTION PARALYSIS: the tendency, when given unlimited options, to choose none.
Giving the users only X (where X is sufficiently small) number of choices would probably open up the field for more users, as there would no longer be the hassle of determining if elm is better than pine or vice versa. And the best part is, later on, you can install your own things after you've got things taken care of. I remember, with scary memories, my last Linux install. I just stared at the huge list of packages available and went 'Huh?' Even several years of using Linux (various distros: slackware, red hat, SUSE, caldera) hasn't gotten me over that initial WTF?
As an average user with an oppposing viewpoint, I don't want a jack-of-all-trades system. I want a system that does one thing really well and Windows is that system for me. It plays games. Lots of games. This pleases me. Stability is such a minor point that if my machine regularly caused nuclear war to breakout, I would only get concerned a small amount.
On a side note, I do agree about the lack of care about licenses. It's just another click-through for me:)
(I think the idea of the 'average user opinion' is kinda silly, since there is no way to average it:)
>>
In the meantime, you're going to have to be pragmatic and settle for something that is even remotely feasible.
Care to revise your blue-skying downward a little?
<<
Actually... no. If there's no acceptible alternative (and as I work with Explorer-type interfaces far better than, say, bash or tcsh), then I simply won't use it. When an acceptable NLP interface becomes available, then I will be more than happy to use it. Until then, I will stick with what works for me.
It's a matter of preference and standards:)
'Course, I would be a major hypocrite if I said I didn't try. I've actually worked on designing such an interface and I quickly contemplated suicide. I guess I'll live for now. At least I have an idea of what to do with my psychology degree.:)
Somewhere.. I have the URL for an extension written in HTML+Javascript+VBscript for Windows Explorer that adds a command line to Explorer and actually opens a window to display the output in. It only uses things built into Windows 2000. It also adds a quick directory creation (type the name in the text box and hit the button) and quick file selection (type the pattern in the box and hit the button). I thought it was one of the coolest things I have ever seen anywhere.
The critical period for learning language is about age 10. After that, learning a new language becomes progressively more and more difficult. That probably has a lot to do with it, since, in essence, learning the command-line is learning a new language. Children are always interesting toys to play with (heh) because they often don't have any of the habits that adults have and so aren't set in their ways. Interestingly enough, CLI vs GUI is the same thing; often the people arguing for either side are simply set in their ways and not comprehending that both are equally productive. I, for example, can handle file management/much/ easier using something similar to Windows Explorer. The tree view and the icons help me a lot more than 'ls', 'pwd', and the like do. That's just me, though:) I'm still waiting for an NLP shell that would make me weep. I've worked on designing one (and considering porting bash or, more likely, tcsh) but there are some tasks that I am not ninja enough for.
Anyway, teaching children GUI or CLI doesn't do anything special, since all you're doing is locking them into a paradigm anyway. The True Warrior teaches both and lets the child choose as he or she will. (this, of course, almost lead me to my rant on binarism, but I resist...)
Humans are NOT exact things - computer/human interfaces should be designed to interact with humans, not humans having to be trained to become explicit and precise.
Dear GOD, this is the most insightful and true thing I've ever seen on this topic. And I'm not being sarcastic; I agree completely.
Yup! Zork was my inspiration for everything, although any NLP shell should allow for the addition of new predicates, otherwise it's not real advantage, since you're still stuck using a limited form of communication.:)
The ambiguity is part of it. A design I had was to have pronouns default to the most recent named direct object, which would make things a lot easier.
And yes, it is a lot different from my plain-english equivalent. Prepositions, lists, adjectives, adverbs, and other parts of speech are what - almost impossible to move over?
How about this:
temporarily delete file_1.txt
quickly execute file_2.exe (upgraded priority!)
print all files older than 1 day
delete any file containing the word "you"
change ownership of any file containing 'kidder' to me
either execute file_3.exe or mail me
Simple aliasing is not going to handle these sort of things. Piping, of course, and judicious use of 'find' will, but I don't want either of those. I want a system that can understand context and ambiguity. I want an NLP shell.
I'm probably being old(new?)-fashioned and definitely inflexible, but no moreso than those who think that the command-line is what God uses.
I use words for things that words are best for and draw pictures for things pictures are best for. Words are/not/ natural for me, images are, and it shows in the way I communicate: lots of gestures and pictures, I draw something in almost every conversation.
And what makes the command-line so 'natural'? Could it be because that is what you were trained to use? I find it to be very unnatural, especially since current implementations rarely have the capability to do what I want them to do in the words I want to do it. If it was so natural than I should merely have to say 'do this' and it would be done. This, of course, is not a problem with a command-line per se, just the current implementations of it. If a NLP command-line could be easily developed, I'd certainly flock to it for some things. I'd rather tell my computer:
> copy file_1.txt as file_2.txt, print it, and delete it
than
> cp file_1.txt file_2.txt; lpr file_1.txt; rm file_1.txt
Even better if the implementation could learn new predicates and prepositions. I wouldn't use a command-line for everything either. For me, file management is much better handled with icons and pretty pictures and trees so I can get a nice feel of where things are located in relation to each other and icons are more meaningful to me than filename extensions.
Query: what is the ratio of 'ditch the land line' to 'non-ditch the land line' people? I'm curious:)
(I wouldn't ditch mine. I always forget to charge my cell.)
Naw, I disagree. Seeing all the hell that Ameritech is going through because of their service issues, SBC is going to keep service personnel. Heck, most of the people who left were non-service. It was something like a 15% across-the-board cut... with most of it coming from IT.:) And I probably broke an NDA somewhere, I think..:/ I got re-orged in the middle of it... right back to my old group.
It took more than sixteen years? Oh yes, how quick am I to forget: DirectX has been in development since the early 80s!
On to other topics: a Linux framework would be an interesting sight to see, but I do wonder of the plausibility. While there is quite a few tons of technical genius out there, is there a 'need' for such a thing?
I am currently working on the design document of an "improvement" to (either bash or tcsh). I like to call it NLPsh for Natural Language Parser shell. Instead of running executable files, NLPsh would interpret P->NP* statements. For example:
copy happy.txt to sad.txt, print it, and delete it
Basically, I want to merge a UNIX shell and the Zork interface:)
I would have a serious problem with a voice-input system. The speech/hearing parts of my brain are severely out of whack compared to the reading/writing parts. Verbal communication just doesn't work in my brain, especially if I'm trying to do visual communication at the same time. No multitasking in Eric's brain!
I think that Lynch got the idea from near the end of the book. Paul, with his mightah powah over the Voice, manages to seriously screw with a Bene Gesserit. The applicaple passage:
>>
"Silence!" Paul roared. The word seemed to take substance as it twisted through the air between them under Paul's control.
The old woman reeled back into the arms of those behind her, face blank with shock at the power with which he had seized her psyche. "Jessica," she whispered. "Jessica."
"I remember your gom jabbar," Paul said. "You remember mine. I can kill you with a word."
The Fremen around the hall glanced knowingly at each other. Did the legend not say: "And his word shall carry death eternal to those who stand against righteousness."
<<
I think Lynch just got a little too creative with this:)
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines int he hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
"'Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind,'" quoted Paul.
"Right out of the Butlerian Jihad and the Orange Catholic Bible," she said. "But what the O.C. Bible should've said is: 'Thou shalt not make a machine to counterfeit a/human/ mind.' Have you studied the Mentat in your service?"
>> The biggest problem, in my mind, is that it has long been rumored that humans are poor at memorizing sequences that are more than 7 digits long.
>That's an Urban legand. When we switched from five to seven digits, people said the same thing.
Ah, to have my cognitive psychology books at work. Okay,/short term/ memory is generally limited to 4-10 'items' (and 'item' is a pretty abstract term) and averages out to 7. Long term memory has no such limitations. Plenty of studies have been carried out which back this idea and if I had my books with me, I'd cite a few:)
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps YOU'RE the one missing something :) Could it be that Linux is simply a Microsoft plot to keep all of the 3l33t people in one place, thus keeping them out of Microsoft's hair?
One of my favorite quotes from the book 'Generation X':
OPTION PARALYSIS: the tendency, when given unlimited options, to choose none.
Giving the users only X (where X is sufficiently small) number of choices would probably open up the field for more users, as there would no longer be the hassle of determining if elm is better than pine or vice versa. And the best part is, later on, you can install your own things after you've got things taken care of. I remember, with scary memories, my last Linux install. I just stared at the huge list of packages available and went 'Huh?' Even several years of using Linux (various distros: slackware, red hat, SUSE, caldera) hasn't gotten me over that initial WTF?
AdSubtract. Friend, teacher, secret lover.
Not too hard to decide; pretty paranoid.
As an average user with an oppposing viewpoint, I don't want a jack-of-all-trades system. I want a system that does one thing really well and Windows is that system for me. It plays games. Lots of games. This pleases me. Stability is such a minor point that if my machine regularly caused nuclear war to breakout, I would only get concerned a small amount. :)
:)
On a side note, I do agree about the lack of care about licenses. It's just another click-through for me
(I think the idea of the 'average user opinion' is kinda silly, since there is no way to average it
ConglomCo
We Own You
(with apologies to Rocko's Modern Life)
>>
:)
:)
In the meantime, you're going to have to be pragmatic and settle for something that is even remotely feasible.
Care to revise your blue-skying downward a little?
<<
Actually... no. If there's no acceptible alternative (and as I work with Explorer-type interfaces far better than, say, bash or tcsh), then I simply won't use it. When an acceptable NLP interface becomes available, then I will be more than happy to use it. Until then, I will stick with what works for me.
It's a matter of preference and standards
'Course, I would be a major hypocrite if I said I didn't try. I've actually worked on designing such an interface and I quickly contemplated suicide. I guess I'll live for now. At least I have an idea of what to do with my psychology degree.
Somewhere.. I have the URL for an extension written in HTML+Javascript+VBscript for Windows Explorer that adds a command line to Explorer and actually opens a window to display the output in. It only uses things built into Windows 2000. It also adds a quick directory creation (type the name in the text box and hit the button) and quick file selection (type the pattern in the box and hit the button). I thought it was one of the coolest things I have ever seen anywhere.
The critical period for learning language is about age 10. After that, learning a new language becomes progressively more and more difficult. That probably has a lot to do with it, since, in essence, learning the command-line is learning a new language. Children are always interesting toys to play with (heh) because they often don't have any of the habits that adults have and so aren't set in their ways. Interestingly enough, CLI vs GUI is the same thing; often the people arguing for either side are simply set in their ways and not comprehending that both are equally productive. I, for example, can handle file management /much/ easier using something similar to Windows Explorer. The tree view and the icons help me a lot more than 'ls', 'pwd', and the like do. That's just me, though :) I'm still waiting for an NLP shell that would make me weep. I've worked on designing one (and considering porting bash or, more likely, tcsh) but there are some tasks that I am not ninja enough for.
Anyway, teaching children GUI or CLI doesn't do anything special, since all you're doing is locking them into a paradigm anyway. The True Warrior teaches both and lets the child choose as he or she will. (this, of course, almost lead me to my rant on binarism, but I resist...)
Humans are NOT exact things - computer/human interfaces should be designed to interact with humans, not humans having to be trained to become explicit and precise.
Dear GOD, this is the most insightful and true thing I've ever seen on this topic. And I'm not being sarcastic; I agree completely.
Yup! Zork was my inspiration for everything, although any NLP shell should allow for the addition of new predicates, otherwise it's not real advantage, since you're still stuck using a limited form of communication. :)
The ambiguity is part of it. A design I had was to have pronouns default to the most recent named direct object, which would make things a lot easier.
And yes, it is a lot different from my plain-english equivalent. Prepositions, lists, adjectives, adverbs, and other parts of speech are what - almost impossible to move over?
How about this:
temporarily delete file_1.txt
quickly execute file_2.exe (upgraded priority!)
print all files older than 1 day
delete any file containing the word "you"
change ownership of any file containing 'kidder' to me
either execute file_3.exe or mail me
Simple aliasing is not going to handle these sort of things. Piping, of course, and judicious use of 'find' will, but I don't want either of those. I want a system that can understand context and ambiguity. I want an NLP shell.
I'm probably being old(new?)-fashioned and definitely inflexible, but no moreso than those who think that the command-line is what God uses.
I use words for things that words are best for and draw pictures for things pictures are best for. Words are /not/ natural for me, images are, and it shows in the way I communicate: lots of gestures and pictures, I draw something in almost every conversation.
And what makes the command-line so 'natural'? Could it be because that is what you were trained to use? I find it to be very unnatural, especially since current implementations rarely have the capability to do what I want them to do in the words I want to do it. If it was so natural than I should merely have to say 'do this' and it would be done. This, of course, is not a problem with a command-line per se, just the current implementations of it. If a NLP command-line could be easily developed, I'd certainly flock to it for some things. I'd rather tell my computer:
> copy file_1.txt as file_2.txt, print it, and delete it
than
> cp file_1.txt file_2.txt; lpr file_1.txt; rm file_1.txt
Even better if the implementation could learn new predicates and prepositions. I wouldn't use a command-line for everything either. For me, file management is much better handled with icons and pretty pictures and trees so I can get a nice feel of where things are located in relation to each other and icons are more meaningful to me than filename extensions.
Out of curiousity.. what is a Microsoft Apologist? Is it someone who always defends Microsoft, never defends Microsoft, or someone in between?
Ain't no hypocrite /here/. I've never given any support to Napster, etc. ^_^ As for whoring, well, 'Thank you, sir, may I have another?'
Query: what is the ratio of 'ditch the land line' to 'non-ditch the land line' people? I'm curious :)
(I wouldn't ditch mine. I always forget to charge my cell.)
Naw, I disagree. Seeing all the hell that Ameritech is going through because of their service issues, SBC is going to keep service personnel. Heck, most of the people who left were non-service. It was something like a 15% across-the-board cut... with most of it coming from IT. :) And I probably broke an NDA somewhere, I think.. :/ I got re-orged in the middle of it... right back to my old group.
It's as new and fresh as anything else in the world...
It took more than sixteen years? Oh yes, how quick am I to forget: DirectX has been in development since the early 80s!
On to other topics: a Linux framework would be an interesting sight to see, but I do wonder of the plausibility. While there is quite a few tons of technical genius out there, is there a 'need' for such a thing?
Jack of all trades, master of none.
I am currently working on the design document of an "improvement" to (either bash or tcsh). I like to call it NLPsh for Natural Language Parser shell. Instead of running executable files, NLPsh would interpret P->NP* statements. For example: :)
copy happy.txt to sad.txt, print it, and delete it
Basically, I want to merge a UNIX shell and the Zork interface
I would have a serious problem with a voice-input system. The speech/hearing parts of my brain are severely out of whack compared to the reading/writing parts. Verbal communication just doesn't work in my brain, especially if I'm trying to do visual communication at the same time. No multitasking in Eric's brain!
I think that Lynch got the idea from near the end of the book. Paul, with his mightah powah over the Voice, manages to seriously screw with a Bene Gesserit. The applicaple passage: :)
>>
"Silence!" Paul roared. The word seemed to take substance as it twisted through the air between them under Paul's control.
The old woman reeled back into the arms of those behind her, face blank with shock at the power with which he had seized her psyche. "Jessica," she whispered. "Jessica."
"I remember your gom jabbar," Paul said. "You remember mine. I can kill you with a word."
The Fremen around the hall glanced knowingly at each other. Did the legend not say: "And his word shall carry death eternal to those who stand against righteousness."
<<
I think Lynch just got a little too creative with this
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines int he hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them." /human/ mind.' Have you studied the Mentat in your service?"
"'Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind,'" quoted Paul.
"Right out of the Butlerian Jihad and the Orange Catholic Bible," she said. "But what the O.C. Bible should've said is: 'Thou shalt not make a machine to counterfeit a
>> The biggest problem, in my mind, is that it has long been rumored that humans are poor at memorizing sequences that are more than 7 digits long. /short term/ memory is generally limited to 4-10 'items' (and 'item' is a pretty abstract term) and averages out to 7. Long term memory has no such limitations. Plenty of studies have been carried out which back this idea and if I had my books with me, I'd cite a few :)
>That's an Urban legand. When we switched from five to seven digits, people said the same thing.
Ah, to have my cognitive psychology books at work. Okay,