I have the funny idea that the US should care of their own business and let those countries alone... In the past the intervention of the US in such countries to "eradicate dictatorship" usually changed the life of those ppl for the worst.
Though in this case, I have to agree that the US are caring bout their own business : oil and a crappy economy. But to take a dictatorship as an excuse to kill people and make (even) more money doesn't get well with my idea of world relationships. Sorry.
Ouch. You hit fast and hard. If only you hadn't posted anonymously, I would add you to my friendlist:)
So, let's bite.
--I used to work at the help desk at a big company: people ARENT as adaptable as you think, nor do they want to be. They want to use a computer for what they need it and live their life without having to go through manuals.
Going through manuals is an essential part of operating _any_ device. If you want people not to read manuals, I hope you don't have much faith in our technical progress this century. Just imagine what the first people that used microwave owens would have done if they didn't read the manual. (First reflex, put the pan in the owen. Boom.)
--Ask any floor monkey at a large computer store and they'll tell you what the average Joe knows and he wants./.er living in his own little world:
I'm happy to know you have such a high opinion about me:] I actually meet normal people and have non-geek friends (and I do work also;), and it's your average joe six-pack that told me a few years ago "man, the internet is the only revolution we had this century". The data of your floor monkey is IMHO obsolete. In a few years joe six-pack will buy your l33t computer knowledge from specialized companies or learn it by himself, just like joe six-pack did with cars (and washing machines) a few decades ago.
--What is this macho 'emasculated' crap about?
I realize I may have chosen the wrong words, though I suspect this is mere nitpicking;) Well, if you like using computers able to support multiple distributed remote connexions _transparently_ as a mere C64 clone, you won't understand the use I made of 'emasculated'. And don't get me started into benchmarks already;p
--Apple realized long time ago that people prefer easy and intuitive interfaces.
They claim so, and I'm quite interested in their guidelines, as I stated in a previous post.
--THAT superior atittude is probably the biggest problem facing Linux desktop acceptance.
I think you misunderstood my post. I said I think joe user is able to hanle linux, not that he's a complete moron. I think the superior attitude in this case is to reason along the line "our OS is too advanced for simpletons to use, so let's downgrade it to their level instead of trying to find the right explanation for its features and capabilities."
IMHO the natural evolution process says that your children will be more proficient with computers than you are, however proficient you may be;)
You, my friend, don't put trust info the adaptation ability of the human species, at least once they start to use something that make their life easier.
I may be mistaken, but remember, not too long ago using a _washing machine_ was a little more difficult than uing a computer nowadays. But many women were happily using them at that time (I've never messed with an antique washing machine's operating device, but I heard it was quite complicated and nasty).
People have been educated by the powers at hand in the last few years to consider that computers _must_ be as usable as your common toasters. The whole Apple concept is based on that feature, and that's why I try to learn about the Apple UI as much as I can.
That said, I nethertheless think that the whole idea is wrong. Computers are _not_ easy to use. Period. They were not meant to be. Trying to make them as usable as possible for as much people as possible is always putting features away from the user, and you can't do a thing about that how much hard you try (trust me).
You can make computers easy to use, but they would would become emasculated, tied-to-a-task, a pale shadow of what they were designed for. Though you will find many, many people nowadays that think this is the way to go for computers. Some of them even make laws in the US. Go figure.
In addition, I do think IMHO the average joe user is far more adaptable than you think, given that you provide him with the best product around. People are not too stupid to use a different OS, they have to discover again what computers are capable of.
Give them remote X displays. Give them remote SSH sessions. Give them Coda folders. Explain to them they can turn off their machine for _anywhere_. Explain to them they're in control. Explain it's complicated, but it's worth it. They'll learn.
Re:Don't compare Mac OS Finder to Windows Explorer
on
The Captains of Nautilus
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Well, I've never met the opportunity to use Finder... as well as MacOS in general.
As a developper, I find the enthusiasm of your reply quite interesting. Can you provide examples/urls about the features of Finder you find superior to Nautilus' ? I mean, features not also found on win platforms ?
No flame intended, I'm just interested in the UI concepts of as many platforms as I can handle.
I understand this is an early post, but I've seen that concept elsewhere before. When do you start to care as much about your explorer application as, say, your window manager ? Isn't this whole explorer metaphor quite new to *NIX, and borrowed from win/mac OSes ?
I don't think the gnome community should become as depend on nautilus as windows users are on explorer. It's a nice shell, granted, but it's an app like many others, and many users don't... use it.
My point is, that kind of integration is just not the way to go for desktop on linx. If you want to be recognized, don't follow the (questinable) ideas of others.
moz development has been considered sluggish by many a few months ago... now that they have the infrastructure right, they do release early and often. Nice:)
Too bad I'm still stuck to 1.0.1-r1 on my gentoo distro...;)
It just might... what ? Fully apply to non-US citizens ?
I understand your point and I'm as pessimistic as you are, but there will be global war long before US laws apply to any citizen in the EU, Japan, Russia, and China (at least).
Understand that this case is an _isolated_ case, and at most a premise of things to come, but now is not the time to panic. We have to keep aware of the possible influence of the US on our lives, and hope our local government stands firm if needed, period. Any superfluous crusade is an additional case in those not-watching-our-ads-is-stealing people's folder.
This reply is getting quite lengthy. I put the remaining of it in this journal entry.
--I get a virus on my Linux system. It has permissions to my files, so it infects every file I have. My user gets b0rked, I log on as root and wipe my user.
You say that because you naturally assume that a linux user with any common sense won't surf web/read mail as root.
--I get a virus on my Windows box, pre 2K or I'm logged on as admin (seems like most 'normal' users do this anyway). Oops, it has write access to my entire system. Bye bye!
Here you assume "most" "normal" windows users surf web/read mail as Administrator. Though I have to agree they have no choice on 95-98-Me systems (NT4, which is pre-2K, already supported unprivileged users), they don't have to do that on recent windows OSes. And they can be just as stupid and always use a linux system as root.
So it's not really the superiority of the OS that is the culprit here, it's the common sense of the user.
--I get a virus on my Windows box post 2K. It has permissions to more than just my files and ends up infecting the majority of the system. How to clean it? I guess a $50 virus scanner.
If it has (write) permissions to more than just your files, then: 1) you're Administrator, and clearly you shouldn't, or 2) the permissions of your filesystem are screwed.
My point is, everyone using linux knows letting/usr/bin writable by the users group is just plain silly. Why don't windows users consider the ramifications of having "Everyone" with "Full Control" access on \Progra~1 or \WINNT ? We're talking about common sense again here.
Flame away, do consider that some ppl are just not ready to use *NIX systems, and to them Windows is just the right thing. Remember, a stupid user can screw *any* OS. Let it be Windows then.
Just my 2 cents, but... in latin a neutral noun usually uses the 3rd variation, not the 2nd, so anything having a plural nom. form of "vira" must have a singular nom. form of "virum", not "virus" AFAIK.
Of course, the 5th variation also has a singular nom. form ending in "us" (as well as its accusative form) so "virus" may be using that as well one.
--Automated software is a good baseline approach, but it falls far short of cunning humans hammering away at systems.
Automated software cuts costs. That's why they use it. Human security testers are expensive, even though IMHO it might be a good way for the most talented script kiddies to make a buck during summer...
--The testing companies make money by certifying products, not catching problems.
Of course they do, they're _certification_ companies, not tech support for security problems. Their job is not to catch problems in your software for you. It is to tell if a product is "secure" or not, according to tests. Which bring us to the point:
1) You can't predict the future. Tests run today can't reproduce new problems that will be discovered next year. So this "security certification" is short-termed at least.
2) There is a bias, both in the test suite used and the conception they have of "security". They're human beings too, and to them "good enough" can mean a whole less (or more) than to you.
So what is the problem ? The problem is that apps that pass their tests is instantly classified as "secure". So we have to:
- Expand the concept of "security" to give it a little more subjectify ("secure", according to company X, not just "secure, period).
- Use peer-to-peer review, which has proven good at detecting security flaws, and is quite inexpensive for free software projects.
--"it will start again in a garage" - no it won't - they are busy illegalizing any kind of homebrew, do-it-yourself, build-a-better-mousetrap kind of innovations that created the computer revolution in the first place.
Well, that simply means that the next computer revolution won't happen _in the united states_. You're aware that there are still some free countries abroad, don't you ?;)
Slashdot Mirror
I have the funny idea that the US should care of their own business and let those countries alone... In the past the intervention of the US in such countries to "eradicate dictatorship" usually changed the life of those ppl for the worst.
Though in this case, I have to agree that the US are caring bout their own business : oil and a crappy economy. But to take a dictatorship as an excuse to kill people and make (even) more money doesn't get well with my idea of world relationships. Sorry.
Sorry to bother you, but freedom of press in the US has been in jeopardy at least since Kennedy's murder.
In other news, the US government is about to bomb a country for the second according to oil priorities and economic agendas. Film at 11.
Ouch. You hit fast and hard. If only you hadn't posted anonymously, I would add you to my friendlist :)
/.er living in his own little world:
:] I actually meet normal people and have non-geek friends (and I do work also ;), and it's your average joe six-pack that told me a few years ago "man, the internet is the only revolution we had this century". The data of your floor monkey is IMHO obsolete. In a few years joe six-pack will buy your l33t computer knowledge from specialized companies or learn it by himself, just like joe six-pack did with cars (and washing machines) a few decades ago.
;) Well, if you like using computers able to support multiple distributed remote connexions _transparently_ as a mere C64 clone, you won't understand the use I made of 'emasculated'. And don't get me started into benchmarks already ;p
;)
So, let's bite.
--I used to work at the help desk at a big company:
people ARENT as adaptable as you think, nor do they want to be. They want to use a computer for what they need it and live their life without having to go through manuals.
Going through manuals is an essential part of operating _any_ device. If you want people not to read manuals, I hope you don't have much faith in our technical progress this century. Just imagine what the first people that used microwave owens would have done if they didn't read the manual. (First reflex, put the pan in the owen. Boom.)
--Ask any floor monkey at a large computer store and they'll tell you what the average Joe knows and he wants.
I'm happy to know you have such a high opinion about me
--What is this macho 'emasculated' crap about?
I realize I may have chosen the wrong words, though I suspect this is mere nitpicking
--Apple realized long time ago that people prefer easy and intuitive interfaces.
They claim so, and I'm quite interested in their guidelines, as I stated in a previous post.
--THAT superior atittude is probably the biggest problem facing Linux desktop acceptance.
I think you misunderstood my post. I said I think joe user is able to hanle linux, not that he's a complete moron. I think the superior attitude in this case is to reason along the line "our OS is too advanced for simpletons to use, so let's downgrade it to their level instead of trying to find the right explanation for its features and capabilities."
IMHO the natural evolution process says that your children will be more proficient with computers than you are, however proficient you may be
You, my friend, don't put trust info the adaptation ability of the human species, at least once they start to use something that make their life easier.
I may be mistaken, but remember, not too long ago using a _washing machine_ was a little more difficult than uing a computer nowadays. But many women were happily using them at that time (I've never messed with an antique washing machine's operating device, but I heard it was quite complicated and nasty).
People have been educated by the powers at hand in the last few years to consider that computers _must_ be as usable as your common toasters. The whole Apple concept is based on that feature, and that's why I try to learn about the Apple UI as much as I can.
That said, I nethertheless think that the whole idea is wrong. Computers are _not_ easy to use. Period. They were not meant to be. Trying to make them as usable as possible for as much people as possible is always putting features away from the user, and you can't do a thing about that how much hard you try (trust me).
You can make computers easy to use, but they would would become emasculated, tied-to-a-task, a pale shadow of what they were designed for. Though you will find many, many people nowadays that think this is the way to go for computers. Some of them even make laws in the US. Go figure.
In addition, I do think IMHO the average joe user is far more adaptable than you think, given that you provide him with the best product around. People are not too stupid to use a different OS, they have to discover again what computers are capable of.
Give them remote X displays. Give them remote SSH sessions. Give them Coda folders. Explain to them they can turn off their machine for _anywhere_. Explain to them they're in control. Explain it's complicated, but it's worth it. They'll learn.
Well, I've never met the opportunity to use Finder... as well as MacOS in general.
As a developper, I find the enthusiasm of your reply quite interesting. Can you provide examples/urls about the features of Finder you find superior to Nautilus' ? I mean, features not also found on win platforms ?
No flame intended, I'm just interested in the UI concepts of as many platforms as I can handle.
Cheers
And have mercy, please ignore the typos... Should have used that preview button arrrrr :/
I understand this is an early post, but I've seen that concept elsewhere before. When do you start to care as much about your explorer application as, say, your window manager ? Isn't this whole explorer metaphor quite new to *NIX, and borrowed from win/mac OSes ?
I don't think the gnome community should become as depend on nautilus as windows users are on explorer. It's a nice shell, granted, but it's an app like many others, and many users don't... use it.
My point is, that kind of integration is just not the way to go for desktop on linx. If you want to be recognized, don't follow the (questinable) ideas of others.
Thank you for your very informative reply (so that's how you unmask packages !), I'm eager to experiment around.
:)
I hope emerge rsync doesn't overwrite package.mask, though... that would be a pain for upgrades
moz development has been considered sluggish by many a few months ago... now that they have the infrastructure right, they do release early and often. Nice :)
;)
Too bad I'm still stuck to 1.0.1-r1 on my gentoo distro...
It is illegal to crack a site and deface the copyrighted pages there, but you can reformat local content on your machine with no problem...
If your reasoning was true, it would lead to not being able to write a little poem on the book you offer to your mother, for instance...
Have you considered the odds that this article has not been written by a corrupted freelance writer, but by a corrupted squadron of MS marketroids ?
I almost felt like reading the good old MS splash screens during setups... It must have taken a whole documentation team to write this crap.
I do agree, but hasn't MS been boasting about being "innovative" for ages ? Or has someone messed with my mind again ?
--it will alter the performance of power turbines, jet engines, medical instruments, cell phones and missile guidance systems.
;)
I can't believe it... a last a positive use for DRM hardware !
If this really perl code ? And I heard perl was so much harder to read... ;)
It just might... what ? Fully apply to non-US citizens ?
I understand your point and I'm as pessimistic as you are, but there will be global war long before US laws apply to any citizen in the EU, Japan, Russia, and China (at least).
Understand that this case is an _isolated_ case, and at most a premise of things to come, but now is not the time to panic. We have to keep aware of the possible influence of the US on our lives, and hope our local government stands firm if needed, period. Any superfluous crusade is an additional case in those not-watching-our-ads-is-stealing people's folder.
This reply is getting quite lengthy. I put the remaining of it in this journal entry.
It's not about market share, it's about market _control_.
Another proof, if any more was needed, that US laws don't apply to US citizens only...
I wonder how much of a precendent that can make for the Kazaa case, among others...
New tonight ! Try and slashdot the human resources department of a company near you ;p
--I get a virus on my Linux system. It has permissions to my files, so it infects every file I have. My user gets b0rked, I log on as root and wipe my user.
:
/usr/bin writable by the users group is just plain silly. Why don't windows users consider the ramifications of having "Everyone" with "Full Control" access on \Progra~1 or \WINNT ? We're talking about common sense again here.
You say that because you naturally assume that a linux user with any common sense won't surf web/read mail as root.
--I get a virus on my Windows box, pre 2K or I'm logged on as admin (seems like most 'normal' users do this anyway). Oops, it has write access to my entire system. Bye bye!
Here you assume "most" "normal" windows users surf web/read mail as Administrator. Though I have to agree they have no choice on 95-98-Me systems (NT4, which is pre-2K, already supported unprivileged users), they don't have to do that on recent windows OSes. And they can be just as stupid and always use a linux system as root.
So it's not really the superiority of the OS that is the culprit here, it's the common sense of the user.
--I get a virus on my Windows box post 2K. It has permissions to more than just my files and ends up infecting the majority of the system. How to clean it? I guess a $50 virus scanner.
If it has (write) permissions to more than just your files, then
1) you're Administrator, and clearly you shouldn't, or
2) the permissions of your filesystem are screwed.
My point is, everyone using linux knows letting
Flame away, do consider that some ppl are just not ready to use *NIX systems, and to them Windows is just the right thing. Remember, a stupid user can screw *any* OS. Let it be Windows then.
Just my 2 cents, but... in latin a neutral noun usually uses the 3rd variation, not the 2nd, so anything having a plural nom. form of "vira" must have a singular nom. form of "virum", not "virus" AFAIK.
Of course, the 5th variation also has a singular nom. form ending in "us" (as well as its accusative form) so "virus" may be using that as well one.
So it would be "viri" or "virii"...
--Automated software is a good baseline approach, but it falls far short of cunning humans hammering away at systems.
:
:
Automated software cuts costs. That's why they use it. Human security testers are expensive, even though IMHO it might be a good way for the most talented script kiddies to make a buck during summer...
--The testing companies make money by certifying products, not catching problems.
Of course they do, they're _certification_ companies, not tech support for security problems. Their job is not to catch problems in your software for you. It is to tell if a product is "secure" or not, according to tests. Which bring us to the point
1) You can't predict the future. Tests run today can't reproduce new problems that will be discovered next year. So this "security certification" is short-termed at least.
2) There is a bias, both in the test suite used and the conception they have of "security". They're human beings too, and to them "good enough" can mean a whole less (or more) than to you.
So what is the problem ? The problem is that apps that pass their tests is instantly classified as "secure". So we have to
- Expand the concept of "security" to give it a little more subjectify ("secure", according to company X, not just "secure, period).
- Use peer-to-peer review, which has proven good at detecting security flaws, and is quite inexpensive for free software projects.
--"it will start again in a garage" - no it won't - they are busy illegalizing any kind of homebrew, do-it-yourself, build-a-better-mousetrap kind of innovations that created the computer revolution in the first place.
;)
Well, that simply means that the next computer revolution won't happen _in the united states_. You're aware that there are still some free countries abroad, don't you ?
Can we use now the term "vaporware" for hardware as well as software ?
Great ! you beat /. on that one ! More power to you ! ;))
;p
But even through babelfish the comments are barely understandable... and I can't speak portugese, sorry
It's a stripped-down version that runs at ring 0 (in short, a small kernel-space "bundled" win2k).
Maybe it can understand CreateWindowEx(), but it sure won't understand half the routines needed to run PC Windows apps.
Maybe with a custom library CD...