Facebook seems to be stitched together as a set of "solution de jour" technologies without any real architecture behind it. Too many languages, frameworks and other gems.
I was thinking the opposite - they have developed an architecture that is modular enough to allow them to develop different pieces using different technologies, yet they all work together pretty seamlessly. I'd say that's quite an accomplishment!
Hey, here's an interview question they forgot to ask you:
Q: When dealing with an associate who doesn't understand a concept, do you a) dismiss him, b) take the opportunity to educate, or c) act like a condescending jerk?
OMG that's the worst advice ever. Never lie about what you know, they almost always will test you on it or at least talk about it. If you lied, that's an instant no go.
"Oh, I'm sorry... did I say Python? I meant Perl.":)
> Joel(onSoftware) has a nice article about what makes things usable and unusable (rule of least surprise IIRC).
Joel has some good insights, as did the original Mac OS designers. But forgive me for saying that if these little design differences are enough to make an OS "unusable" to him, perhaps computing isn't a good career choice for him!
I was actually referring to basic graphical usage there.
Okay, meaning you're used to something else, and expect the Mac to work the same way?
The windowing system, where maximizing doesn't work, is just quite annoying, especially for browsing the Internet of stuff like that where fullscreen apps are better.
The Mac doesn't have a "maximize" button - it has a "zoom" button, but this is a fair complaint because most apps don't handle it like they're supposed to. It's supposed to toggle between a user-selected state and an app-selected state. (Note to Apple: why doesn't it look like a toggle button?)
Me, I don't worry about it... I just set the window size to what I like, and it stays that way even when I quit and relaunch the browser.
The fact that apps don't stay closed when you close them is another annoyance.
A matter of taste - I hate when apps assume that I want to quit just because I closed the last window. Recent Apple apps behave this way, and it drives me nuts. What if I just want to open a new document? I can't close the existing window until after I've opened another?? Either way, it's not a show-stopper for usability. Is it that big a deal that the app stays open? How does that get in your way?
The fact the menu is elsewhere is also quite annoying, since you have to be careful of focus and move the mouse across the screen.
Again, a matter of taste. To me, the menus in Windows are "elsewhere", which is quite annoying. You still have to click in the window to use the embedded menu, so it's not that different from clicking a window to gain focus. Maybe one extra click if you don't know keyboard shortcuts or use contextual menus.
There is also the issue of weird keyboard layout and keyboard shortcuts. Basically all Fx keys are disabled unless you press the Fn key
That's a new one. It used to be function keys worked like function keys, until Apple decided that controls for volume, brightness, and Expose were more important than program functions.
and everything you usually use Ctrl for you now need to use the Option key instead, which is less practical to press in my opinion due to being more to the right of the keyboard.
Saying you "usually use Ctrl" is Windows-centric, but even so, on my keyboard the Option key is right next to the Ctrl key - not that big a leap.
I simply find the classical layout, with normal windows and a real taskbar, more efficient to work with
The "classical" layout is Mac style, it was Windows that took a different approach to the GUI. Basically all your gripes are minor things that annoy you because you learned something else first. That doesn't necessarily make the Mac way "wrong," it's just different than what you're used to. Trust me, to someone who learned on a Mac, these are not hindrances at all. If you learn some keyboard shortcuts (such as Command-Tab to see open apps and switch between them) you can be very efficient on a Mac.
Sorry if you don't enjoy using a Mac, but as someone who has to work with Windows, Mac, and X11 interfaces every day, and know what to expect on each, I just don't see this as a tough nut to crack.
I just find it [the Mac] unusable, even to do the simplest of things. And I've actually spent time to read up on how Finder, Apps, the dock, and all those weird things work.
I'm curious to know what kinds of tasks you're talking about, because unless you're doing a lot of command-line type stuff, piping things around, there's nothing too difficult about the Mac interface.
> But OS X is Mach with BSD extensions, and is really a NextStep-like OS, which was in turn UNIX-like.
Actually, the NeXT cube was released in 1988, when BSD still required a license from AT&T. So it was in fact Unix, even if they moved to an unencumbered BSD-licensed version later on.
> Perhaps the personality change caused by brain damage is the result of the soul becoming less able to command the body. I, personally, believe this theory may very possibly be truth.
But no other types of bodily injury affect the personality. How do you account for the difference in function between brain tissue and other types of tissue?
There's nothing particularly special about neurons that might make them a likely candidate for an "interface" between soul and body. They're just cells like any other kind - they follow the laws of physics and chemistry.
How do you know that? There's no scientific theory that can explain why we're conscious, which means there's no way we can predict what happens to one's consciousness after death. Nobody can experience death and come back to tell us about it, so there's really no way of telling what happens after death. You can't say for sure that you just 'wink out of existence'.
Of course it's speculation, but the obvious answer is that you have no evidence that you were conscious before your birth, and that as your brain developed you became more conscious of the world around you.
There are also plentiful examples of brain damage victims who show no sign of consciousness, and people experiencing episodes of seizures and anaesthesia who report no conscious experience while their brains were not functioning normally.
Add all that up, and it supports the hypothesis that conscious awareness depends on normal brain function. It only stands to reason that once your brain has stopped functioning and has chemically deteriorated, you will not experience any kind of conscious state.
Slashdot Mirror
Which speed of light are you using? The moon is about 385,000 km from Earth.
They also designed their own website to use style "font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"
I'm sorry, but for that reason, I have a hard time taking their advice on font usage seriously!
Well, I'm glad you achieved your aspiration.
...this space unintentionally left unblank...
I was thinking the opposite - they have developed an architecture that is modular enough to allow them to develop different pieces using different technologies, yet they all work together pretty seamlessly. I'd say that's quite an accomplishment!
Hey, here's an interview question they forgot to ask you:
Q: When dealing with an associate who doesn't understand a concept, do you a) dismiss him, b) take the opportunity to educate, or c) act like a condescending jerk?
Lol!
"What did I just say?"
"You said.. for to not for to drink the drink."
"Well, why did you do it???"
"I dun-no."
"Well, that's BRAIN DAMAGE!"
Friggin' Slashcode form handling... so 1990's.
The link above is supposed to have an acute-accented 'o' between the 'g' and the 'n'.
"Oh, I'm sorry... did I say Python? I meant Perl." :)
No, actually. Her case was thrown out.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/matrix.asp
"My God, it'll be beautiful!"
> Hydrogen's not an energy source. It's an energy storage medium.
Sure, it's an energy source - if you pile up about 10^20 metric tons of it!
> Joel(onSoftware) has a nice article about what makes things usable and unusable (rule of least surprise IIRC).
Joel has some good insights, as did the original Mac OS designers. But forgive me for saying that if these little design differences are enough to make an OS "unusable" to him, perhaps computing isn't a good career choice for him!
To quote Michael Bolton in Office Space:
"No way. Why should I change? He's the one who sucks!" :)
Okay, meaning you're used to something else, and expect the Mac to work the same way?
The Mac doesn't have a "maximize" button - it has a "zoom" button, but this is a fair complaint because most apps don't handle it like they're supposed to. It's supposed to toggle between a user-selected state and an app-selected state. (Note to Apple: why doesn't it look like a toggle button?)
Me, I don't worry about it... I just set the window size to what I like, and it stays that way even when I quit and relaunch the browser.
A matter of taste - I hate when apps assume that I want to quit just because I closed the last window. Recent Apple apps behave this way, and it drives me nuts. What if I just want to open a new document? I can't close the existing window until after I've opened another?? Either way, it's not a show-stopper for usability. Is it that big a deal that the app stays open? How does that get in your way?
Again, a matter of taste. To me, the menus in Windows are "elsewhere", which is quite annoying. You still have to click in the window to use the embedded menu, so it's not that different from clicking a window to gain focus. Maybe one extra click if you don't know keyboard shortcuts or use contextual menus.
That's a new one. It used to be function keys worked like function keys, until Apple decided that controls for volume, brightness, and Expose were more important than program functions.
Saying you "usually use Ctrl" is Windows-centric, but even so, on my keyboard the Option key is right next to the Ctrl key - not that big a leap.
The "classical" layout is Mac style, it was Windows that took a different approach to the GUI. Basically all your gripes are minor things that annoy you because you learned something else first. That doesn't necessarily make the Mac way "wrong," it's just different than what you're used to. Trust me, to someone who learned on a Mac, these are not hindrances at all. If you learn some keyboard shortcuts (such as Command-Tab to see open apps and switch between them) you can be very efficient on a Mac.
Sorry if you don't enjoy using a Mac, but as someone who has to work with Windows, Mac, and X11 interfaces every day, and know what to expect on each, I just don't see this as a tough nut to crack.
I'm curious to know what kinds of tasks you're talking about, because unless you're doing a lot of command-line type stuff, piping things around, there's nothing too difficult about the Mac interface.
Can you give us two or three examples?
> But OS X is Mach with BSD extensions, and is really a NextStep-like OS, which was in turn UNIX-like.
Actually, the NeXT cube was released in 1988, when BSD still required a license from AT&T. So it was in fact Unix, even if they moved to an unencumbered BSD-licensed version later on.
No, this is why Australia exists - but isn't it worth asking where the Aborigines should exile their criminals to?
> Perhaps the personality change caused by brain damage is the result of the soul becoming less able to command the body. I, personally, believe this theory may very possibly be truth.
But no other types of bodily injury affect the personality. How do you account for the difference in function between brain tissue and other types of tissue?
There's nothing particularly special about neurons that might make them a likely candidate for an "interface" between soul and body. They're just cells like any other kind - they follow the laws of physics and chemistry.
> An "ism" is an ideology. Real scientists don't operate under *isms*, they work under hypotheses and working models.
Exactly! Like "magnetism" and "heliocentrism" - these ideologies need to be exposed for the pseudoscience they are!
> Talking Tot Heists? That sounds bad.
No it's okay. It's actually "talk in GTO theists" - they won't discuss religion with you unless they're sitting in a Pontiac GTO.
Of course it's speculation, but the obvious answer is that you have no evidence that you were conscious before your birth, and that as your brain developed you became more conscious of the world around you.
There are also plentiful examples of brain damage victims who show no sign of consciousness, and people experiencing episodes of seizures and anaesthesia who report no conscious experience while their brains were not functioning normally.
Add all that up, and it supports the hypothesis that conscious awareness depends on normal brain function. It only stands to reason that once your brain has stopped functioning and has chemically deteriorated, you will not experience any kind of conscious state.
> Trains don't need drivers. Trains are functionally equivalent to horizontal elevators.
Now you're talking. I want a crosstown elevator system!
> There's a reason why it was on page TWO, not the top.
Yep. Because it's a conclusion.
> But our eager-beaver reporter reported the big news on page two as if it was the headline on page one.
Okay. What headline would you have used?
The aqueduct?