Most highly rated comments are repeating the tired old mantra of "zOMG piracy isnt thef!!" Wouldn't it be great to see more comments that actually address the other issues with piracy?
Sure there are real differences between theft and piracy. There's also real differences in the marriage of two different genders and the same gender, but spending all your time focusing on that is pretty pedantic when the bigger issues are sitting next to the elephant in the room.
Yours is the first comment I've seen that gives the proper perspective: programmers and tech support people are rarely user interface designers, so they should stop acting like they are.
The combination of nerds hating on 'lusers', and everyone thinking they're usability experts really drowns out that clear message.
We're going to be stuck with poor interfaces until that mindset changes.
I feel the same way as OP when trying to make sense of some open source library I'm interested in extending. Doxygen has been a big help. In the future I might also try Source-Navigator.
It's something to get stuff done. The amount of maintenance a computer needs is absurd (defragging, virus scanning, updates, firewalls, file management, etc, etc), yet the computer savvy are baffled when "lusers" don't do it. Maybe if maintenance was more like 6 (like a washer) people could do it. Currently though, if you try turning on a computer after 6 months you are bombarded with notifications requesting maintenance.
Apple really is ahead of the game on this one, and it's a huge reason why the iPhone is such a hit.
the problem with a certain company from us free-software types is... with the company's LICENSING.
Like the licensing that controls how you cannot use their software except in approved ways so as to mitigate the chances issues?
We say the *same* thing about apple, and about adobe and about every other proprietary program regardless of the source.
Indeed all componies that try to control how people may use thier software receive a ton of flack. Apple was chosen as the example due to the unique polorizing and often paradoxical love and hate shown by the crowds.
there is no *official* sources of information
Fine fine, I'll use the term "officially recognized". You want to encourage people to go to "officially recognized" sources of information--places that we know are more trustworthy. Does this finally restate what you were trying to say?
so that users do not find malicious misinformation BEFORE they find us.
I had assumed--on top of actively encouraging reliance on certain "offically recognized" sources of information--you wanted to actively discourage people from going to "unoffical" ("less official", "unrecognized officially", etc) sources of information and software. This is where I see a parallel. You want to try to control what the user does with her/her software. It's a benevolent control, but control none-the-less.
But you didn't actually say it, so if the assumption is wrong, then I agree your approach can't really compare to corporate entities. Only in Linux will we not discourage you from going to places that could trash your system. We hope you don't, but you're free to do what you want.
nothing like this exists in the windows world
Forums where people can go to get help, or freedome to do whatever you want with the software, including damage it?
So part of what you're saying is that people should be strongly encouraged to go to the official source for information/updates/programs/etc and strongly discouraged from browsing around freely for such things. Doing this helps prevent unpleasant things from happening (and also provides the best user experience).
I find it quite interesting that a certain fruity company does this very well, yet developers and hackers cry out in dismay, condemning the enforced limitations. Even when the great company is benevolent, the crowd still carry on in condemnation for any remaining lack of freedom.
Taking U.S. History this semester and that's exactly what the founders thought.
Two intelligent people would run for president. Whoever wins would clearly be the brightest and became the president, and the loser being the 2nd brightest would be the vice president.
Of course that arrangement was scrapped less than 3 terms later when two heavily partisan parties appeared.
Windows sucks. Gnome sucks. KDE sucks. etc, etc, ad naseum. The consistent theme I see in these comments is that everyone is an expert. "Designing a GUI is simple, you simply..." "Why aren't they doing this simple..." "I would like to see them add a simple..." Be prepared to have your mind blown:
It isn't simple.
Do you have any idea how challenging it is to design a desktop that basically meets the needs of EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET. Not just programmers. Not just open-source proponents. Not just mom and dad. Not just the elderly. Not just the young. Not just those with 2 iPhones and 6 computers. Not just artists. Not just professionals. Not just luddites. Not just English speakers. Not just multilingual. Not just those who can see. Not just those who can hear. Not just those that are colorblind.
Everyone.
Where do you find the balance between simplicity and capability? What conventions are most of the millions of people going to be familiar/comfortable with? Should new conventions be established despite them being unfamiliar?
One thing Microsoft has over open-source community projects: enormous amounts of research. Even with all that, it's still going to be hard. The majority of users will probably dislike it, simply because you have to design it for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Nudity == nudity not porn. It is our natural state and nothing to be ashamed of.
If you're going to bring up what's natural, it's also natural to be ashamed of being naked.
Most highly rated comments are repeating the tired old mantra of "zOMG piracy isnt thef!!" Wouldn't it be great to see more comments that actually address the other issues with piracy?
Sure there are real differences between theft and piracy. There's also real differences in the marriage of two different genders and the same gender, but spending all your time focusing on that is pretty pedantic when the bigger issues are sitting next to the elephant in the room.
Yours is the first comment I've seen that gives the proper perspective: programmers and tech support people are rarely user interface designers, so they should stop acting like they are.
The combination of nerds hating on 'lusers', and everyone thinking they're usability experts really drowns out that clear message.
We're going to be stuck with poor interfaces until that mindset changes.
I feel the same way as OP when trying to make sense of some open source library I'm interested in extending. Doxygen has been a big help. In the future I might also try Source-Navigator.
It's sad when the tech crowd mock folks who don't know what a web browser is. Poor nerds have no concept that the majority of people treat computers like an appliance.
It's something to get stuff done. The amount of maintenance a computer needs is absurd (defragging, virus scanning, updates, firewalls, file management, etc, etc), yet the computer savvy are baffled when "lusers" don't do it. Maybe if maintenance was more like 6 (like a washer) people could do it. Currently though, if you try turning on a computer after 6 months you are bombarded with notifications requesting maintenance.
Apple really is ahead of the game on this one, and it's a huge reason why the iPhone is such a hit.
the problem with a certain company from us free-software types is ... with the company's LICENSING.
Like the licensing that controls how you cannot use their software except in approved ways so as to mitigate the chances issues?
We say the *same* thing about apple, and about adobe and about every other proprietary program regardless of the source.
Indeed all componies that try to control how people may use thier software receive a ton of flack. Apple was chosen as the example due to the unique polorizing and often paradoxical love and hate shown by the crowds.
there is no *official* sources of information
Fine fine, I'll use the term "officially recognized". You want to encourage people to go to "officially recognized" sources of information--places that we know are more trustworthy. Does this finally restate what you were trying to say?
so that users do not find malicious misinformation BEFORE they find us.
I had assumed--on top of actively encouraging reliance on certain "offically recognized" sources of information--you wanted to actively discourage people from going to "unoffical" ("less official", "unrecognized officially", etc) sources of information and software. This is where I see a parallel. You want to try to control what the user does with her/her software. It's a benevolent control, but control none-the-less.
But you didn't actually say it, so if the assumption is wrong, then I agree your approach can't really compare to corporate entities. Only in Linux will we not discourage you from going to places that could trash your system. We hope you don't, but you're free to do what you want.
nothing like this exists in the windows world
Forums where people can go to get help, or freedome to do whatever you want with the software, including damage it?
So part of what you're saying is that people should be strongly encouraged to go to the official source for information/updates/programs/etc and strongly discouraged from browsing around freely for such things. Doing this helps prevent unpleasant things from happening (and also provides the best user experience).
I find it quite interesting that a certain fruity company does this very well, yet developers and hackers cry out in dismay, condemning the enforced limitations. Even when the great company is benevolent, the crowd still carry on in condemnation for any remaining lack of freedom.
Taking U.S. History this semester and that's exactly what the founders thought.
Two intelligent people would run for president. Whoever wins would clearly be the brightest and became the president, and the loser being the 2nd brightest would be the vice president.
Of course that arrangement was scrapped less than 3 terms later when two heavily partisan parties appeared.
Windows sucks. Gnome sucks. KDE sucks. etc, etc, ad naseum. The consistent theme I see in these comments is that everyone is an expert. "Designing a GUI is simple, you simply..." "Why aren't they doing this simple..." "I would like to see them add a simple..." Be prepared to have your mind blown:
It isn't simple.
Do you have any idea how challenging it is to design a desktop that basically meets the needs of EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET . Not just programmers. Not just open-source proponents. Not just mom and dad. Not just the elderly. Not just the young. Not just those with 2 iPhones and 6 computers. Not just artists. Not just professionals. Not just luddites. Not just English speakers. Not just multilingual. Not just those who can see. Not just those who can hear. Not just those that are colorblind.
Everyone.
Where do you find the balance between simplicity and capability? What conventions are most of the millions of people going to be familiar/comfortable with? Should new conventions be established despite them being unfamiliar?
One thing Microsoft has over open-source community projects: enormous amounts of research. Even with all that, it's still going to be hard. The majority of users will probably dislike it, simply because you have to design it for everyone.