Now, if anyone asks for Windows help, I politely say "I'm sorry, but I don't use Windows".
Yeah, this is the approach I started taking a few years back. It's sortof the truth: I don't use Windows on any of my personal machines and servers. I do, however, use Windows on a single development machine for when I have to write Windows software.
You have an odd experience. According to Ubuntu's release history (and planned future schedule), they update the kernel every 6 months.
Also, when the kernel is updated there is no need to reboot right away. You can keep using your machine without rebooting for as long as you wish. You just won' t be using the new kernel until you reboot.
Except that's not how it works out in the real world. How it works in reality is that the disruptions caused by updating now occur much more often than every year or so. Also, it used to be that if you couldn't afford the disruption, you simply didn't update at all. That's no longer an option with far too much software.
The real problem is that software developers exist in permanent beta, adding and removing features whenever they please.
I agree 1000% with this. The industry trend of constant automatic updates, rolling releases, whatever you want to call them, is an absolutely horrible one. It turns using a computer into a very frustrating and tense activity, and further reduces the amount of control you have over your own damned machine.
Are you really arguing that Windows 10 has made people's computers so unreliable that using the cloud is considered to be the fix? That just reinforces the point that Windows 10 is broken for serious computing..
I don't really buy the economic argument. It's possible to allow customization in a way that doesn't have a huge impact on development costs. You don't even need a fancy UI. An editable config file would suffice. True, the majority of people would never use the functionality, but for minimal expense you could also retain the people who won't use your software because they can't make it work the way they need. Those people tend to be the "power users" who will recommend for or against your software to other people.
Why abandon possible sales, even if they're a small percentage, when you could keep them with a small amount of work?
And how come no one, and I mean *no one*, is working on a project where the computer bends itself to the user's expectations and not the other way around?
Hear, hear!
I'm old enough to remember when one of the design ideals centered around the notion that the computer should learn how you work and accommodate that, not the other way around. I wonder where we as an industry lost that plot?
That's true, lots of people don't want to customize anything. There's nothing wrong with that, but why do you think that you can't have both a reasonable standard set of defaults for those people, while at the same time allowing others to customize to their hearts delight?
That's a broken job description. It seems that way too many websites want to treat webpages like they're magazines. They're not, and treating them like they are just breaks things.
Seriously, there is a limit to the width of a column of text that it's comfortable to read, so for continuous text on large screen there may be reasons for having large amounts of whitespace.
But what that limit is varies from person to person, and web designers should not force their particular preference on anyone else. I should be able to make the text column as wide or as narrow as I want.
In fairness to fine artists, the very definition of "fine art" is art without a practical purpose. Any company that is employing fine artists to produce functional things like user interface is making a terrible, terrible mistake -- and it's not the fault of the artists.
I agree that if you must use the mouse, the UI has failed. But this has been true for a lot longer that modern UIs have been around.
The way that modern UIs tend to implement keyboard shortcuts has a serious discoverability problem, though. It used to be that you could pop open a menu and see what the keyboard shortcuts are. That's becoming impossible, forcing you to leave the application to google or open a help page (if you're lucky) to learn what the shortcuts are.
Does anyone think they are an improvement over what we had before
Not me. There may be things that are improved (although I spent a couple of minutes trying to think of them, and failing), but in the big picture, modern user interfaces are a huge step backwards.
I could not disagree with this more strongly. Customizability is the only thing that lets me mitigate terrible UI decisions. Without it, many applications and GUIs become extremely painful to use.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, if anyone asks for Windows help, I politely say "I'm sorry, but I don't use Windows".
Yeah, this is the approach I started taking a few years back. It's sortof the truth: I don't use Windows on any of my personal machines and servers. I do, however, use Windows on a single development machine for when I have to write Windows software.
You have an odd experience. According to Ubuntu's release history (and planned future schedule), they update the kernel every 6 months.
Also, when the kernel is updated there is no need to reboot right away. You can keep using your machine without rebooting for as long as you wish. You just won' t be using the new kernel until you reboot.
I sense an excluded middle in your argument. It's entirely possible to address the security problems without this insane updating scheme.
Except that's not how it works out in the real world. How it works in reality is that the disruptions caused by updating now occur much more often than every year or so. Also, it used to be that if you couldn't afford the disruption, you simply didn't update at all. That's no longer an option with far too much software.
Google Chrome update is in part ok.
It is not OK. Automatic updates are one of the top three reasons that I don't use Chrome.
99% of the time, that in itself reflects a weakness in the underlying OS and software architecture.
I disagree. 100% of the time it reflects poor design.
I have no issue with notifications for updates or updates done nicely where it will schedule a time when YOU choose to reboot your device.
And, equally important, having the ability to forgo updates should you wish.
The real problem is that software developers exist in permanent beta, adding and removing features whenever they please.
I agree 1000% with this. The industry trend of constant automatic updates, rolling releases, whatever you want to call them, is an absolutely horrible one. It turns using a computer into a very frustrating and tense activity, and further reduces the amount of control you have over your own damned machine.
Not true. There are a few good Linux distros which do not include systemD.
Are you really arguing that Windows 10 has made people's computers so unreliable that using the cloud is considered to be the fix? That just reinforces the point that Windows 10 is broken for serious computing..
I don't really buy the economic argument. It's possible to allow customization in a way that doesn't have a huge impact on development costs. You don't even need a fancy UI. An editable config file would suffice. True, the majority of people would never use the functionality, but for minimal expense you could also retain the people who won't use your software because they can't make it work the way they need. Those people tend to be the "power users" who will recommend for or against your software to other people.
Why abandon possible sales, even if they're a small percentage, when you could keep them with a small amount of work?
And how come no one, and I mean *no one*, is working on a project where the computer bends itself to the user's expectations and not the other way around?
Hear, hear!
I'm old enough to remember when one of the design ideals centered around the notion that the computer should learn how you work and accommodate that, not the other way around. I wonder where we as an industry lost that plot?
That's true, lots of people don't want to customize anything. There's nothing wrong with that, but why do you think that you can't have both a reasonable standard set of defaults for those people, while at the same time allowing others to customize to their hearts delight?
I don't think that moving to responsive design is the actual driver to minimalist design. The two are fairly orthogonal.
I agree with this. They are two independent things, but are both being done incredibly badly.
That's a broken job description. It seems that way too many websites want to treat webpages like they're magazines. They're not, and treating them like they are just breaks things.
Seriously, there is a limit to the width of a column of text that it's comfortable to read, so for continuous text on large screen there may be reasons for having large amounts of whitespace.
But what that limit is varies from person to person, and web designers should not force their particular preference on anyone else. I should be able to make the text column as wide or as narrow as I want.
In fairness to fine artists, the very definition of "fine art" is art without a practical purpose. Any company that is employing fine artists to produce functional things like user interface is making a terrible, terrible mistake -- and it's not the fault of the artists.
But then I'd have to use an iPhone. No thank you.
I agree that if you must use the mouse, the UI has failed. But this has been true for a lot longer that modern UIs have been around.
The way that modern UIs tend to implement keyboard shortcuts has a serious discoverability problem, though. It used to be that you could pop open a menu and see what the keyboard shortcuts are. That's becoming impossible, forcing you to leave the application to google or open a help page (if you're lucky) to learn what the shortcuts are.
Does anyone think they are an improvement over what we had before
Not me. There may be things that are improved (although I spent a couple of minutes trying to think of them, and failing), but in the big picture, modern user interfaces are a huge step backwards.
I agree. The "awesome bar" is amongst the worst features of FF.
Lack of customizability is a good thing.
I could not disagree with this more strongly. Customizability is the only thing that lets me mitigate terrible UI decisions. Without it, many applications and GUIs become extremely painful to use.
Every company creates a folder inside My Documents, so it's NOT *MY* documents any more, it's "Random Crap", which I have enough folders full of.
Which is exactly why I ignore the "My Documents" folder and put my stuff elsewhere.
Perhaps, but that doesn't explain the terrible UI choices being made for native applications.
I will often say screw it, and give the "artsy focused" people what they want because they are the ones that sign the checks.
Thus making you part of the problem.