One of the best things about Windows is the device manager, IMHO. Or rather, the whole "Computer Manager" application. A graphical way to 100% manage your devices is very helpful.
Personally, this is the one area that Windows has right and Linux/OSX has wrong. A graphical method for knowing what the system sees for hardware and then changing it is essential for the average user... sometimes even for moderate users like me, for that matter. I shouldn't ever have to drop to a line command as long as I have a graphical environment.
Man, i wish people woudl stop using "function over form"! The *POINT* of Apple's designs are simple: The FUNCTION of the computer (you know, people actually using it) requires a certain FORM to make it easier to use.
Form Follows Function.
That is the Louis Sullivan mantra, and I believe in it (and you should too). What this idea means is that the beige boxes we have setting under our desks are actually LESS functional than, say, an iMac (new or old) because it is harder to use; you have to fiddle with openin the case a lot, you have a lot of cables, the calbes are hiden behind your desk so you have to get underneath to do anything...
Yes, there are some people for whom "function" means "fiddling," and i assume that many of the/. crowd are among them. However, most people who say the iMac/Apple products are "form over function" are actually completely missing the point: USING a computer is the function, and if you make it easier to use, you are increasing its function, not destroying it.
So yeah, nerds SHOULD stress function over form... they should demand better designs like teh iMac, but expandable. They should demand the ugly beige box be replaced by something more elegant, more beautiful, easier to use, and just generally better.
From what I understand, the point of the "Viedo Out" port is that you can basically have ANY video out you want coming from it. You want S-Video? great, get the S-video adaptor. You want VGA? fine, get the VGA adpator. OH, you want a DVI? fine, get the DVI adpator. Oh, they just came out with a new "standard", oh crap, well then just get that adaptor and you have no woriees.
OK, now try to get all of those ports on the back of your machine ELEGENTLY. In the PC world, you would slap Yet Another PCI Card into your machine, and have a million hookups, etc. etc. etc.
When I first saw this setup (i was considering an iBook) I thought it was stupid, too. But it makes a LOT more sense to me now. If nothing else, a businessman with a tiBook/iBook can simply bring their laptop plus whatever dongles they have, and have access to ANY monitor/TV they want, instead of having access to just VGA or whatever. Makes more sense in the long run.
The quote that you mangled and repuposed is "Form Follows Function" from Louis Sullivan, an architect of skyscrapers. The point of the quote is that if a creation is to be successful, its form must be molded from what you do with it.
In computer terms, then, it would make complete sense that Apple would try to create new forms of products that follow the function to which they are detailed. People use them on their desktop and look at them all day. It therefore makes sense that you try to meld the computer into their environment.
The current iMac does this in the following ways:
1) reduces the total number of cables you need. Theoretically, if one was to use AirPort and a wireless keyboard/mouse, one would have the power cord as the only thing mucking up the desktop. What cords are there come out of the back but are still easily reachable.
2) The high use of firewire and USB devices in daisy-chains with no power requirements (although many devices still have external power) further reduces the need for cabling.
3) The screen is highly positionable, making working with it much more ergonomic. Using LCDs are easier on the eyes, especially if positioned correctly.
4) The ease of postioning of the screen makes changing the environment easier... if the environment CAN be changed, but only with a great deal of work, then most people will not change it.
5) The power of the G4 (with a decent amount of RAM that is) is enough for most people... and by most people I mean even most geeks. Gamers would probably not like the iMac because you *CAN* get more powerful boxen for cheaper, but this is a very specialized use. For what most people use their computers, including developers, the new iMac is well within their power requirements (and if you need more, then you probably should be compiling or developing on a more powerful machine or a server farm).
So I think that you are completely missing the point about why Apple is doing such a great job. To put it in a "geek's" perspective, they are simply fulfilling the same goal as we (developers) want: to enable people to do stuff. Sometimes we do this in the form of a J2ee b2b app. Sometimes we make it easier to share files, sometimes we make burning CDs easeir... but the point of software is to make tasks that used to be impossible easy to do.
To those that hate Apple because they are trying to bring ergonomic Human-Computer interfaces to both hardware and software, I say get out of the business. You make all of us true developers look bad. Real developers realize that the end goal is not to satisfy some egotisitcal power trip (BOFH), but rather to maybe make the world a little better through computing.
And I personally think that Apple is doing that.
P.S. Apple's sales are down (isn't everyone's?) but their profits are still VERY healthy. Since Jobs has taken over, what was once a company on the edge of irrelevance and bankruptcy is now a pretty powerful company again. Beware in saying that people do not want well-designed Apple products: the numbers will say that you are wrong.
I like the fact that there is a solution (KDE) that replicates Windows functionality. It makes it easier for the transition from Windows to Linux. Given, not many people will every use that, but it could ease the tenstion of, say, a windows developer to linux.
However, I don't use KDE and I don't like KDE because of this. I would rather use WindowMaker or Enlightenment or just plain sawfish. We, as the linux community, need a way to ease people to linux for the unwashed Windows masses.... but we aslo need "hacker" frineldy, interesting, fun, alternate interfaces for the Rest Of Us that want to experiement.
I think the cool part of linux is this ability to be both conservative (KDE) and fantastic (E17... once it is out).
So all you people dissin on KDE stop it. It is now what YOU want, but who cares? the whole ponit is CHOICE.
Now, given, it would be nice if choice also meant working TOGETHER instead of bashing each other, as is the norm of KDE and Gnome....
the GPL violations of various folks was just one of the MANY reasons chrisp quit. I think it is jsut a little skewed to take this one aspect and say, "See, see! Apple has a problem with Open Source!!"
No, people, it was not Apple or Apple people. The problem came from THE COMMUNITY not from a corporation. And even so, it was only a part of the problem.
PLEASE read the letter and see for yourself that Mr. Malda is being pretty irresponsible with his journalistic integrity here.
I agree with above statements that window managers are actually a symptom of the backwordness of X and the linux GUI in general. Instead of trying to replicate the windows/Mac way of doing things, we should take a look at what future technologies and start them now.
On of the boldest yet underdeveloped technologies is OpenDoc, an idea where instead of having one application for each file type, you have one application that simply needs a plugin to handle a different file type.
For example, right now you on Windows porfessionals usually have Illustrator for vector graphics, Photoshop for rasters, Word for word processing, Excel for spreadsheets, WinAmp for MP3s, and other software for sound editing, email, instant messaging, IRC, unzipping files, et.etc. etc.
OPenDoc is a more "unix" way of doing a GUI. Essentially, all you have is are tools that can manipulate a document or communication or whatever. So, if you are working on a piece of sound in a doc, then you would have appropriate sound editing toolbars (or whatever you need). If writing text, you would use the "text editor" feautres, and the same goes for any other type of document.
Of course you can view this data in several ways: for instance, there may be "creating a docuemnt" and "viewing incoming documents" (i.e email, icq, chat, and maybe even FTP, etc.)... but ultimately anything that touches your computer is in the same GUI world that any other document is in and is able to be manipulated in teh same way.
Installing a program shouldn't add icons to your taskbar or something, it should add a plugin to the structure, kinda like how in BASH, adding a command simply now allow you to use that tool in the same environment... now just carry that to the GUI.
The real problem with the linux desktop is that we have gotten so carried away with looking like other environments that we have forgotten the UNIX philosophy... carried over to the OpenDoc philosophy.
This design would allow for an EASY and simple and integrated experience but still allow for extensibility of power users.... AppleScript on the Mac is a step in the right direction with this because applications can be scripted, even to the point of talking with XML-RPC or SOAP over a network!! Think of this as a BASH script for the GUI and suddenly this is an incredibly exciting idea.
Also, this would all very possible with *gasp* open standards like XML, XML-RPC, and other formats. Also, because open source doesn't have to worry about 3rd party contracts or whatever, then anything that can be integrated into the framework WOULD be integrated. Also, while the default tools in a distro should work, a user could exchange out plugins if they wanted (say, if a commercial plugin were petter than a non-commercial, etc., or if someone comes out with a better plugin).
Once this is in place, then all the user would need is a good way to display information on the screen. This is a far different scenario than having to launch and manage applications. When all that matters is having info on the screen, a lot of the BS of current winodwmanagers would go away.
The value of software is NOT the software, it is what the software allows people to do. If software is free (as in beer) and it allows the user to double productivity, then the value of the software was 2X (2 times the previous productivity). If the user paid $500 for the software, then it was 2X-500. If X is less than 500, then the person got shafted. If it is greater, then they made more money.
The point of this is that SOFTWARE ITSELF WAS NOT THE REASON THE ECONOMY GREW. Software let other sectors of the economy grow. It made OTHER people more efficient.
If software companies all of a sudden stopped charging for products and just charged for services, then the economy would grow just as quickly. Why? Because the companies that benefit from added productivity (less money spent, etc.) would now be able to grow faster.
One could argue that the fact that MS is so big HURT the economy... What if 1/10th of the money MS received over the years was actually spent in an open-source coop that simply made code that EVERYONE could use? Instead of paying for marketing and legal fees, money could have gone to good coding and fixing bugs.
So screw MS for saying open source is un-american. It is MS that is unAmerican for keeping software out of the hands of all Americans (by the way, MS is also un-Indian, un-Japanese, un-German.... unHUMAN)
I think the guy who wrote the advogato article had a good point, but expressed it in such a way that Slashdotters would be quick to skewer him.
What he is TRYING to express is that the CLI needs an update, it needs a more rich set of user feedbacks. Instead of just 'write and wait', why not have indicators? Why not have a better, easier, cleaner syntax for doing complex things? Why not have feeback loops, designed to scale to your level of competence?
While bash has been around a long time, most people use linux in a GUI... not that this is BAD, i usually end up using the GUI to display a lot of terminals w/vi... but I think we are missing an opportunity to make a GOOD interface to the command line.
Signs point to the power of CLI+GUI: EFM was neat. XMLterm is cool. Cisco IOS/Kermit have a neat interface... we can combine these disparate interfaces to make a GOOD interface to empower people; not to talk down to them but rather to let them more easily use the powerful tools of UNIX.
Lets face it, we are a conservative bunch. We like the fact that 'ls' gives us a list of files, even though it takes a newbie a while to know this... and it knowledge to make 'cdl' do a cd to a dirtectory, then a listing of that directory.... something that should be simple, but is hidden from the user.
The guy is just saying that we should update our tools. Simple as that.
I posted above, but this is even more appropriate:
APPLESCRIPT does this. You make a VERY easy applescript/macro (you can either write it as a shell script with very easy but powerful syntax.... or you can 'record a macro' and input commands) and then run it via your voice.
I have set up scripts that go to X location and then had the computer read it back to me.
This is nothing new, again the Mac has already done, WITH a good interface, what people say, "Hey, in 5 years it would be cool to do X."
I agree that apple needs to stress that macs can DO such things... kinda like applescript is the equivalent of shell scripting and line command, but most linux bigots don't see that because they don't use macs.
Of course, I am a linux bigot: I want the line command power of a SERVER OS like linux, with the ease of use and powerful interface of the Mac.
I just wish apple would OSS OSX eventually... I think OSX is the direction that Gnome should go in, not a ripoff of a crappy interface (windows).
Umm... sorry, but MacOS has had integrated speech with scripting for a LONG time, and it is easy to use because most apps use the appletalk API which in turn integrates speech. I use it all the time at home, and it is very nice for things that voice would do naturally: open an app, issue commands, etc. Line command is still faster, though.
So no, this isn't a killer app, else Mac would be 50% or more of the market.
However, if this were FREE (beer and speech) and integrated into Gnome and KDE, then that would be Yet Another Reason To Switch To Linux.
THat's why you buy a 4-button+wheelmouse MS optical (or a logitech) after you but the machine. The one-button mouse is a DEFAULT mouse that you then upgrade depending on your need. The purpose of the design is to make it SIMPLE and POWERFUL at the same time, and then allow the idea to scale up from there.
In other words, allowing one-button mousing is the bst UI because it scales from the REALLy simple (instead of having to explain right-clicks you just have one button for newbies) to advanced (MS mouse with all of the buttons mapped to commands).
The thing I hate about Linux people is that they will go out and buy the newest piece of wiz-bang hardware, but won't think to buy a fscking mouse!
Why is it that when i do TOP it says X is using some 26 megs of memory?? Either all of the gnome stuff is wrapped in teh X process (possible) or X takes up some 10% of my memory..... to me this does NOT make X 'lightweight'
OK, here's the deal.... there is NO REASON to make a system that has a prime number of months. Why have months in the first place? Why not simply have 52 weeks, with new year being 'day 0' and to heck with the rest.
if you want to name the different weeks, fine. If not, fine. With this system, everything is divisible by 4 (four quarters, four seasons, etc.)
The old calendar, btw, has the advantage of being based on base 12: divide by 2, 3, 4, and 6. base 12 is a much better way of doing numbers that need to be divided rather than base 10 or *ich* base13
If you are going to make a new system, at least make a better system!
The point is NOT the look and feel, the point is trademark. Unfortunately, under current trademark laws, Apple *HAS TO* defend its trademark. In this case, it is the Apple logo.
I believe (and am not 100% sure about this) that the only themes that were taken down were ones that used an Apple icons and logo.
If the authors of the themes had not used the Apple logo/icon, and instead put their own logos and icons, then they could do the 'look and feel' of Aqua or classic mac without getting their themes pulled.
To prove my point, what does this sentence mean:
" pending resolution of Apple's objections with the theme developers. "?? it means that there are objectionable things in the theme (the logo) that, if the thememaker removes, they can remain on themes.org.
Hey guys, I don't like the trademark system any better than anyone here. If it were up to me, i would get rid of every f***ing patent, trademark, and copyright there is. However, let's not blame a company for defending what they consider their property. Instead, let's try to create an environment that removes the necessity of defense.
And beleive me, this is a big thing. For the stupid suits to even CONSIDER linux is a big deal. No really, I mean it. The current thinking is that NT is the NEXT BEST THING even thought they have a lot of UNIX infrastructure. idiots.
Sorry to shout, but this needed to be said: Python was orginally designed to be a beginner's scripting langauge that scaled up to other (real world) tasks. Actually, Guido says it best:
So yeah, it wasn't intended to be SOLELY a learning language, but it had enough of Guido's 'learning language' ABC background to make it a synthesis of ease and power. What use, says he, of a leanring langauge that you immediately have to drop using once you understand it?
Once you add SQL server and all the other crap, it get pretty expensive. Oh yeah, and the liceneses for the amount of connections, and the.... and the....
OK, here is my prediction (despite all the people who think SGI is in league with the devil, microsoft, Saddam Hussein, and Ronald Reagan):
SGI is(are*) the white hats.
That's right, I think that SGI is going to be a major player in making linux kick NT's buttocks. How? I think in 3-5 years they are going to open source most if not all of the IRIX OS. Considering their state right now, wouldn't it make sense that they JUST sell hardware and not worry about the OS part?
As one person I read put it, why buy 1 machine with NT on it for $10,000 when you can buy 2 machines with Linux (LIRIX??) on it for $10,000..... It makes sense for the hardware-oriented vendors (can anyone spell IBM?) to support Linux so there will be more HARDWARE and less SOFTWARE money being spent.
So b***h all you want about offices in Redmond and any other 'atrocities' you want. I think that SGI is going to be the company that comes out with the Linux fix for 256 SMP, an awesome file system, a cohesive GUI (tie GNOME and KDE together with Indigo Magic or something), high-end graphics programs, and enough other stuff to kill NT.
That's right, you heard me: if SGI does what I've described above, NT is dead. Long live Linux/LIRIX.
--
* I don't agree with the philosophy of seeing corporations as a corporate, anthropomorphic entity. It makes them faceless, like Microsoft....
Here are some peenses: 1) The Matrix is Dark City if written by William Gibson: it had a cyber-chic darkness, Descartes/Taoist echoes, enough postmodernist ideology to choke Derrida, and a good soundtrack.:-)
2) There were a lot of cool pop-culture references (can you say cyberpunk anyone??): Baudrillard to Disneyland, (sur)really.
3) Man, the first 30 minutes creeped me out and made my mouth gape. After a few of the special uber-chan moves that Trinity did, I literally went forward in my seat and just drooled. It was damned cool.
4) To those who are 'fighting' over which symbology is used in teh movie, you've missed the point: Postmodernism is pastiche. The dudes took every possible angle from every philsophy and movie they could get their hands on. Christian? yeah. Taoist? Definitely? Deist? Sure, why the hell not.
5) There was only 5 minutes of disappointment in teh movie: the expalnation fo the matrix. Dammit, read Dan Simmons HYPERION and ENYMION series if you need a few pointers on how AIs should/will react in teh future. Or maybe Neuropmancer (but that's too easy...).
6) Did I mention it was damn cool?
7) I hate flaunting my credentials... and I hate when people do it. But I will say that I wish my thesis had been about Dark City and THe Matrix. God this movie was cool. Oh, don't get me wrong: it wasn't Star Wars, it isn't going to shape my life, but it is one of the only Cyberpunk movies out there. Which reminds me:
8) This is the movie that JOHNNY MNEMONIC should have been. Funny that Keanu was in both fo them./ Maybe he's a Gibson fan.
WEll I guess that's all for now. I saw the movie with my sister and immediately called (at 1 o'clock in the morning) my best friend to talk about it. It was THAT cool. (and as any postmodernist/cyberpunk knows, that is THE thing)
Maybe this isn't the forum to try to explain how I feel, but here goes:
What I took from the article was an overwhelming sense of optimism. A sense that, dammit, the human spirit IS getting better, that despite all of the talk about Generation X, we ARE progressing, and despite the horrors of our race, that we can, somehow, make things better.
I admit it, I cried when watching contact and the alien said to Jodie Foster's character:
"You humans are so interesting. You have the most beuatiful dreams and the most horrible nightmares."
and I kinda got choked up when the writer wrote: "though it may test my audience's suspension of disbelief: maybe this is the beginning of something different, something wonderful. Maybe Open Source will be the beginning of a grand new adventure for the business community."
Isn't it wonderful, despite the fact that we are talking about human greed and mischief (i.e. business), that people can try to make something better? Isn't amazing that in our small ways we can hope, dammit, that we can shape the world through trust and caring and community even in the face of the 'nightmares' that we live in now?
Maybe I am overreacting, but I see this as one of humanity's beautifdul dreams. Maybe after reading Larry Wall's piece on deconstruction I see the human spirit going more toward freedom and trust. Squabbling aside, strong logic aside, I see OSS and Linux being a spirit-changing phenomenon.
No offense to anyone, but I can understand why 'Buffy' and 'That 70s Show' rank high while Babylon5 ranks low in people's opinions. Babylon5 is hard to understand sometimes. Not only from the standpoint of how much you have to watch, but also from an intellectual standpoint.
The first time I really got into B5, it was after a 20+ stragiht hour marathon. Before that, B5 was simply an occasional curiosity that I KNEW was cool on some level, but I didn't understand. To really appreciate the VERY deep characters, the twisting plots, the rich atmosphere.....you have to spend TIME with it.
Just like any good thing (books, learning Linux, etc.) you can't just hop into it and expect to understand everything. But once you do, WATCH OUT! B5 will knock your socks off (And you would be surprised how good the acting is: especially from the people who play G'Kar and Londo).
But one more thing: B5 takes on issues that no one else would think about. What is the basis of the B5 story? Human Free Will, the effects of technology on culture, and the continuing value of things like love, honor, and faith (humanity, God, and/or otherwise).
Again, no offense to others and I see your opinions, but I really do not think that Buffy or That 70s Show or the X-Files, or any other show on TV comes to grips with those issues.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the best things about Windows is the device manager, IMHO. Or rather, the whole "Computer Manager" application. A graphical way to 100% manage your devices is very helpful.
Personally, this is the one area that Windows has right and Linux/OSX has wrong. A graphical method for knowing what the system sees for hardware and then changing it is essential for the average user... sometimes even for moderate users like me, for that matter. I shouldn't ever have to drop to a line command as long as I have a graphical environment.
Man, i wish people woudl stop using "function over form"! The *POINT* of Apple's designs are simple: The FUNCTION of the computer (you know, people actually using it) requires a certain FORM to make it easier to use.
/. crowd are among them. However, most people who say the iMac/Apple products are "form over function" are actually completely missing the point: USING a computer is the function, and if you make it easier to use, you are increasing its function, not destroying it.
Form Follows Function.
That is the Louis Sullivan mantra, and I believe in it (and you should too). What this idea means is that the beige boxes we have setting under our desks are actually LESS functional than, say, an iMac (new or old) because it is harder to use; you have to fiddle with openin the case a lot, you have a lot of cables, the calbes are hiden behind your desk so you have to get underneath to do anything...
Yes, there are some people for whom "function" means "fiddling," and i assume that many of the
So yeah, nerds SHOULD stress function over form... they should demand better designs like teh iMac, but expandable. They should demand the ugly beige box be replaced by something more elegant, more beautiful, easier to use, and just generally better.
Get it right, people.
From what I understand, the point of the "Viedo Out" port is that you can basically have ANY video out you want coming from it. You want S-Video? great, get the S-video adaptor. You want VGA? fine, get the VGA adpator. OH, you want a DVI? fine, get the DVI adpator. Oh, they just came out with a new "standard", oh crap, well then just get that adaptor and you have no woriees.
OK, now try to get all of those ports on the back of your machine ELEGENTLY. In the PC world, you would slap Yet Another PCI Card into your machine, and have a million hookups, etc. etc. etc.
When I first saw this setup (i was considering an iBook) I thought it was stupid, too. But it makes a LOT more sense to me now. If nothing else, a businessman with a tiBook/iBook can simply bring their laptop plus whatever dongles they have, and have access to ANY monitor/TV they want, instead of having access to just VGA or whatever. Makes more sense in the long run.
The quote that you mangled and repuposed is "Form Follows Function" from Louis Sullivan, an architect of skyscrapers. The point of the quote is that if a creation is to be successful, its form must be molded from what you do with it.
In computer terms, then, it would make complete sense that Apple would try to create new forms of products that follow the function to which they are detailed. People use them on their desktop and look at them all day. It therefore makes sense that you try to meld the computer into their environment.
The current iMac does this in the following ways:
1) reduces the total number of cables you need. Theoretically, if one was to use AirPort and a wireless keyboard/mouse, one would have the power cord as the only thing mucking up the desktop. What cords are there come out of the back but are still easily reachable.
2) The high use of firewire and USB devices in daisy-chains with no power requirements (although many devices still have external power) further reduces the need for cabling.
3) The screen is highly positionable, making working with it much more ergonomic. Using LCDs are easier on the eyes, especially if positioned correctly.
4) The ease of postioning of the screen makes changing the environment easier... if the environment CAN be changed, but only with a great deal of work, then most people will not change it.
5) The power of the G4 (with a decent amount of RAM that is) is enough for most people... and by most people I mean even most geeks. Gamers would probably not like the iMac because you *CAN* get more powerful boxen for cheaper, but this is a very specialized use. For what most people use their computers, including developers, the new iMac is well within their power requirements (and if you need more, then you probably should be compiling or developing on a more powerful machine or a server farm).
So I think that you are completely missing the point about why Apple is doing such a great job. To put it in a "geek's" perspective, they are simply fulfilling the same goal as we (developers) want: to enable people to do stuff. Sometimes we do this in the form of a J2ee b2b app. Sometimes we make it easier to share files, sometimes we make burning CDs easeir... but the point of software is to make tasks that used to be impossible easy to do.
To those that hate Apple because they are trying to bring ergonomic Human-Computer interfaces to both hardware and software, I say get out of the business. You make all of us true developers look bad. Real developers realize that the end goal is not to satisfy some egotisitcal power trip (BOFH), but rather to maybe make the world a little better through computing.
And I personally think that Apple is doing that.
P.S. Apple's sales are down (isn't everyone's?) but their profits are still VERY healthy. Since Jobs has taken over, what was once a company on the edge of irrelevance and bankruptcy is now a pretty powerful company again. Beware in saying that people do not want well-designed Apple products: the numbers will say that you are wrong.
I like the fact that there is a solution (KDE) that replicates Windows functionality. It makes it easier for the transition from Windows to Linux. Given, not many people will every use that, but it could ease the tenstion of, say, a windows developer to linux.
However, I don't use KDE and I don't like KDE because of this. I would rather use WindowMaker or Enlightenment or just plain sawfish. We, as the linux community, need a way to ease people to linux for the unwashed Windows masses.... but we aslo need "hacker" frineldy, interesting, fun, alternate interfaces for the Rest Of Us that want to experiement.
I think the cool part of linux is this ability to be both conservative (KDE) and fantastic (E17... once it is out).
So all you people dissin on KDE stop it. It is now what YOU want, but who cares? the whole ponit is CHOICE.
Now, given, it would be nice if choice also meant working TOGETHER instead of bashing each other, as is the norm of KDE and Gnome....
the GPL violations of various folks was just one of the MANY reasons chrisp quit. I think it is jsut a little skewed to take this one aspect and say, "See, see! Apple has a problem with Open Source!!"
No, people, it was not Apple or Apple people. The problem came from THE COMMUNITY not from a corporation. And even so, it was only a part of the problem.
PLEASE read the letter and see for yourself that Mr. Malda is being pretty irresponsible with his journalistic integrity here.
I agree with above statements that window managers are actually a symptom of the backwordness of X and the linux GUI in general. Instead of trying to replicate the windows/Mac way of doing things, we should take a look at what future technologies and start them now.
On of the boldest yet underdeveloped technologies is OpenDoc, an idea where instead of having one application for each file type, you have one application that simply needs a plugin to handle a different file type.
For example, right now you on Windows porfessionals usually have Illustrator for vector graphics, Photoshop for rasters, Word for word processing, Excel for spreadsheets, WinAmp for MP3s, and other software for sound editing, email, instant messaging, IRC, unzipping files, et.etc. etc.
OPenDoc is a more "unix" way of doing a GUI. Essentially, all you have is are tools that can manipulate a document or communication or whatever. So, if you are working on a piece of sound in a doc, then you would have appropriate sound editing toolbars (or whatever you need). If writing text, you would use the "text editor" feautres, and the same goes for any other type of document.
Of course you can view this data in several ways: for instance, there may be "creating a docuemnt" and "viewing incoming documents" (i.e email, icq, chat, and maybe even FTP, etc.)... but ultimately anything that touches your computer is in the same GUI world that any other document is in and is able to be manipulated in teh same way.
Installing a program shouldn't add icons to your taskbar or something, it should add a plugin to the structure, kinda like how in BASH, adding a command simply now allow you to use that tool in the same environment... now just carry that to the GUI.
The real problem with the linux desktop is that we have gotten so carried away with looking like other environments that we have forgotten the UNIX philosophy... carried over to the OpenDoc philosophy.
This design would allow for an EASY and simple and integrated experience but still allow for extensibility of power users.... AppleScript on the Mac is a step in the right direction with this because applications can be scripted, even to the point of talking with XML-RPC or SOAP over a network!! Think of this as a BASH script for the GUI and suddenly this is an incredibly exciting idea.
Also, this would all very possible with *gasp* open standards like XML, XML-RPC, and other formats. Also, because open source doesn't have to worry about 3rd party contracts or whatever, then anything that can be integrated into the framework WOULD be integrated. Also, while the default tools in a distro should work, a user could exchange out plugins if they wanted (say, if a commercial plugin were petter than a non-commercial, etc., or if someone comes out with a better plugin).
Once this is in place, then all the user would need is a good way to display information on the screen. This is a far different scenario than having to launch and manage applications. When all that matters is having info on the screen, a lot of the BS of current winodwmanagers would go away.
The value of software is NOT the software, it is what the software allows people to do. If software is free (as in beer) and it allows the user to double productivity, then the value of the software was 2X (2 times the previous productivity). If the user paid $500 for the software, then it was 2X-500. If X is less than 500, then the person got shafted. If it is greater, then they made more money.
The point of this is that SOFTWARE ITSELF WAS NOT THE REASON THE ECONOMY GREW. Software let other sectors of the economy grow. It made OTHER people more efficient.
If software companies all of a sudden stopped charging for products and just charged for services, then the economy would grow just as quickly. Why? Because the companies that benefit from added productivity (less money spent, etc.) would now be able to grow faster.
One could argue that the fact that MS is so big HURT the economy... What if 1/10th of the money MS received over the years was actually spent in an open-source coop that simply made code that EVERYONE could use? Instead of paying for marketing and legal fees, money could have gone to good coding and fixing bugs.
So screw MS for saying open source is un-american. It is MS that is unAmerican for keeping software out of the hands of all Americans (by the way, MS is also un-Indian, un-Japanese, un-German.... unHUMAN)
I think the guy who wrote the advogato article had a good point, but expressed it in such a way that Slashdotters would be quick to skewer him.
What he is TRYING to express is that the CLI needs an update, it needs a more rich set of user feedbacks. Instead of just 'write and wait', why not have indicators? Why not have a better, easier, cleaner syntax for doing complex things? Why not have feeback loops, designed to scale to your level of competence?
While bash has been around a long time, most people use linux in a GUI... not that this is BAD, i usually end up using the GUI to display a lot of terminals w/vi... but I think we are missing an opportunity to make a GOOD interface to the command line.
Signs point to the power of CLI+GUI: EFM was neat. XMLterm is cool. Cisco IOS/Kermit have a neat interface... we can combine these disparate interfaces to make a GOOD interface to empower people; not to talk down to them but rather to let them more easily use the powerful tools of UNIX.
Lets face it, we are a conservative bunch. We like the fact that 'ls' gives us a list of files, even though it takes a newbie a while to know this... and it knowledge to make 'cdl' do a cd to a dirtectory, then a listing of that directory.... something that should be simple, but is hidden from the user.
The guy is just saying that we should update our tools. Simple as that.
I posted above, but this is even more appropriate:
APPLESCRIPT does this. You make a VERY easy applescript/macro (you can either write it as a shell script with very easy but powerful syntax.... or you can 'record a macro' and input commands) and then run it via your voice.
I have set up scripts that go to X location and then had the computer read it back to me.
This is nothing new, again the Mac has already done, WITH a good interface, what people say, "Hey, in 5 years it would be cool to do X."
I agree that apple needs to stress that macs can DO such things... kinda like applescript is the equivalent of shell scripting and line command, but most linux bigots don't see that because they don't use macs.
Of course, I am a linux bigot: I want the line command power of a SERVER OS like linux, with the ease of use and powerful interface of the Mac.
I just wish apple would OSS OSX eventually... I think OSX is the direction that Gnome should go in, not a ripoff of a crappy interface (windows).
I said appletalk when i mean applescript. oops.
Applescript is very cool, btw: it is like an EASY linux line command!
Umm... sorry, but MacOS has had integrated speech with scripting for a LONG time, and it is easy to use because most apps use the appletalk API which in turn integrates speech. I use it all the time at home, and it is very nice for things that voice would do naturally: open an app, issue commands, etc. Line command is still faster, though.
So no, this isn't a killer app, else Mac would be 50% or more of the market.
However, if this were FREE (beer and speech) and integrated into Gnome and KDE, then that would be Yet Another Reason To Switch To Linux.
THat's why you buy a 4-button+wheelmouse MS optical (or a logitech) after you but the machine. The one-button mouse is a DEFAULT mouse that you then upgrade depending on your need. The purpose of the design is to make it SIMPLE and POWERFUL at the same time, and then allow the idea to scale up from there.
In other words, allowing one-button mousing is the bst UI because it scales from the REALLy simple (instead of having to explain right-clicks you just have one button for newbies) to advanced (MS mouse with all of the buttons mapped to commands).
The thing I hate about Linux people is that they will go out and buy the newest piece of wiz-bang hardware, but won't think to buy a fscking mouse!
Why is it that when i do TOP it says X is using some 26 megs of memory?? Either all of the gnome stuff is wrapped in teh X process (possible) or X takes up some 10% of my memory..... to me this does NOT make X 'lightweight'
OK, here's the deal.... there is NO REASON to make a system that has a prime number of months. Why have months in the first place? Why not simply have 52 weeks, with new year being 'day 0' and to heck with the rest.
if you want to name the different weeks, fine. If not, fine. With this system, everything is divisible by 4 (four quarters, four seasons, etc.)
The old calendar, btw, has the advantage of being based on base 12: divide by 2, 3, 4, and 6. base 12 is a much better way of doing numbers that need to be divided rather than base 10 or *ich* base13
If you are going to make a new system, at least make a better system!
The point is NOT the look and feel, the point is trademark. Unfortunately, under current trademark laws, Apple *HAS TO* defend its trademark. In this case, it is the Apple logo.
I believe (and am not 100% sure about this) that the only themes that were taken down were ones that used an Apple icons and logo.
If the authors of the themes had not used the Apple logo/icon, and instead put their own logos and icons, then they could do the 'look and feel' of Aqua or classic mac without getting their themes pulled.
To prove my point, what does this sentence mean:
" pending resolution of Apple's objections with the theme developers. "?? it means that there are objectionable things in the theme (the logo) that, if the thememaker removes, they can remain on themes.org.
Hey guys, I don't like the trademark system any better than anyone here. If it were up to me, i would get rid of every f***ing patent, trademark, and copyright there is. However, let's not blame a company for defending what they consider their property. Instead, let's try to create an environment that removes the necessity of defense.
And beleive me, this is a big thing. For the stupid suits to even CONSIDER linux is a big deal. No really, I mean it. The current thinking is that NT is the NEXT BEST THING even thought they have a lot of UNIX infrastructure. idiots.
So yeah, this IS a big story.
Sorry to shout, but this needed to be said: Python was orginally designed to be a beginner's scripting langauge that scaled up to other (real world) tasks. Actually, Guido says it best:
q uery=history&querytype=an ykeywords&casefold=yes
http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw.py?req=search&
So yeah, it wasn't intended to be SOLELY a learning language, but it had enough of Guido's 'learning language' ABC background to make it a synthesis of ease and power. What use, says he, of a leanring langauge that you immediately have to drop using once you understand it?
So Python IS meant to be a learning language...
Once you add SQL server and all the other crap, it get pretty expensive. Oh yeah, and the liceneses for the amount of connections, and the.... and the....
OK, here is my prediction (despite all the people who think SGI is in league with the devil, microsoft, Saddam Hussein, and Ronald Reagan):
SGI is(are*) the white hats.
That's right, I think that SGI is going to be a major player in making linux kick NT's buttocks. How? I think in 3-5 years they are going to open source most if not all of the IRIX OS. Considering their state right now, wouldn't it make sense that they JUST sell hardware and not worry about the OS part?
As one person I read put it, why buy 1 machine with NT on it for $10,000 when you can buy 2 machines with Linux (LIRIX??) on it for $10,000..... It makes sense for the hardware-oriented vendors (can anyone spell IBM?) to support Linux so there will be more HARDWARE and less SOFTWARE money being spent.
So b***h all you want about offices in Redmond and any other 'atrocities' you want. I think that SGI is going to be the company that comes out with the Linux fix for 256 SMP, an awesome file system, a cohesive GUI (tie GNOME and KDE together with Indigo Magic or something), high-end graphics programs, and enough other stuff to kill NT.
That's right, you heard me: if SGI does what I've described above, NT is dead. Long live Linux/LIRIX.
--
* I don't agree with the philosophy of seeing corporations as a corporate, anthropomorphic entity. It makes them faceless, like Microsoft....
First of all, the highest compliment I can give:
:-)
THE MATRIX WAS F&^*ING COOL!
Here are some peenses:
1) The Matrix is Dark City if written by William Gibson: it had a cyber-chic darkness, Descartes/Taoist echoes, enough postmodernist ideology to choke Derrida, and a good soundtrack.
2) There were a lot of cool pop-culture references (can you say cyberpunk anyone??): Baudrillard to Disneyland, (sur)really.
3) Man, the first 30 minutes creeped me out and made my mouth gape. After a few of the special uber-chan moves that Trinity did, I literally went forward in my seat and just drooled. It was damned cool.
4) To those who are 'fighting' over which symbology is used in teh movie, you've missed the point: Postmodernism is pastiche. The dudes took every possible angle from every philsophy and movie they could get their hands on. Christian? yeah. Taoist? Definitely? Deist? Sure, why the hell not.
5) There was only 5 minutes of disappointment in teh movie: the expalnation fo the matrix. Dammit, read Dan Simmons HYPERION and ENYMION series if you need a few pointers on how AIs should/will react in teh future. Or maybe Neuropmancer (but that's too easy...).
6) Did I mention it was damn cool?
7) I hate flaunting my credentials... and I hate when people do it. But I will say that I wish my thesis had been about Dark City and THe Matrix. God this movie was cool. Oh, don't get me wrong: it wasn't Star Wars, it isn't going to shape my life, but it is one of the only Cyberpunk movies out there. Which reminds me:
8) This is the movie that JOHNNY MNEMONIC should have been. Funny that Keanu was in both fo them./ Maybe he's a Gibson fan.
WEll I guess that's all for now. I saw the movie with my sister and immediately called (at 1 o'clock in the morning) my best friend to talk about it. It was THAT cool. (and as any postmodernist/cyberpunk knows, that is THE thing)
Maybe this isn't the forum to try to explain how I feel, but here goes:
What I took from the article was an overwhelming sense of optimism. A sense that, dammit, the human spirit IS getting better, that despite all of the talk about Generation X, we ARE progressing, and despite the horrors of our race, that we can, somehow, make things better.
I admit it, I cried when watching contact and the alien said to Jodie Foster's character:
"You humans are so interesting. You have the most beuatiful dreams and the most horrible nightmares."
and I kinda got choked up when the writer wrote:
"though it may test my audience's suspension of disbelief: maybe
this is the beginning of something different, something wonderful. Maybe Open Source will be the beginning of a grand new
adventure for the business community."
Isn't it wonderful, despite the fact that we are talking about human greed and mischief (i.e. business), that people can try to make something better? Isn't amazing that in our small ways we can hope, dammit, that we can shape the world through trust and caring and community even in the face of the 'nightmares' that we live in now?
Maybe I am overreacting, but I see this as one of humanity's beautifdul dreams. Maybe after reading Larry Wall's piece on deconstruction I see the human spirit going more toward freedom and trust. Squabbling aside, strong logic aside, I see OSS and Linux being a spirit-changing phenomenon.
No offense to anyone, but I can understand why 'Buffy' and 'That 70s Show' rank high while Babylon5 ranks low in people's opinions. Babylon5 is hard to understand sometimes. Not only from the standpoint of how much you have to watch, but also from an intellectual standpoint.
The first time I really got into B5, it was after a 20+ stragiht hour marathon. Before that, B5 was simply an occasional curiosity that I KNEW was cool on some level, but I didn't understand. To really appreciate the VERY deep characters, the twisting plots, the rich atmosphere.....you have to spend TIME with it.
Just like any good thing (books, learning Linux, etc.) you can't just hop into it and expect to understand everything. But once you do, WATCH OUT! B5 will knock your socks off (And you would be surprised how good the acting is: especially from the people who play G'Kar and Londo).
But one more thing: B5 takes on issues that no one else would think about. What is the basis of the B5 story? Human Free Will, the effects of technology on culture, and the continuing value of things like love, honor, and faith (humanity, God, and/or otherwise).
Again, no offense to others and I see your opinions, but I really do not think that Buffy or That 70s Show or the X-Files, or any other show on TV comes to grips with those issues.