It's okay. I figure the user interface in a year or two will be equal on Linux, BSD, BeOS, Mac and Windows. Then other aspects (stability, ease of upgrade, price point, industry standard) will affect the overall "user experience", of which UI *is* an important part.
I say:
Eh? I hope you're right, but I don't understand why then next year is going to be better than the previous 10. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that very very little good engineering has gone into the user interfaces of publically available software since the introduction of the Macintosh. (with a few notable exceptions.)
I hope I'm wrong, but we seem to be stuck in a rut UI wise. I hope that somebody can get something better going, but I certainly haven't been able to come up with anything. Here's hopin'!
That is an EXCELLENT point, and one that's underappreciated.
From consoles to G4 cubes, developers aim for the least common denominator. If commercial developers (yes, Virginia, it's still OK to sell software, even on UNIX-based systems) can't rely on the user having access to a compiler, they will have to distribute it in a more user-friendly format. And that, folks, is what OSX is all about.
I'm totally puzzled. Why are power and ease of use antithetical? If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, any programming or interfacing with the computer that you do should be in the form of 1's and 0's. Who needs chrome like a user interface anyway?
Dear sweet Jesus, you can't possibly be serious. By that argument, the truckers would be the only people allowed on the Interstate highway system. Your average hurtling-down-the-interstate-at-80mph car is the single most dangerous implement that we (the general public) encounter in our lifetimes. Before you ask, no I don't think the drivers' license test does anything at all to improve safety on the highway. That's an argument for another day.
Neither access to broadband internet nor the highway system are God given inalienable rights. However, that doesn't mean that you should restrict access to the IT professionals (or truck drivers) who use those resources for their livelihoods.
Nope. The 10 hour thing they're talking about is the battery life. I guess you could listen to the same hour of music for 10 hours, but if you wanted to do that, why not just turn on the radio?
Dude, you're using a PocketPC as your main computer, but you carp about the keyboard and monitor of a laptop? You're silly.
Assuming you're not trolling (a faint hope...)
a) why do you hate laptops? It's just a computer...
b) you dog on laptops because they're not expandable or fast, and then you start talking about your PDA...?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Americans do not, contrary to popular opinion, share a common brain (cell). Some of us have impeccable spelling.
As for other English speaking countries, they DO share a common brain, and therefore their attempts at written communication are a) redundant and b) prone to spelling errors. That's why we left Britain in the lurch.
'Scuse me while I pick one nit. Every aircraft cockpit I've ever seen has exactly that...one control that does nothing but move the landing gear up and down. Some have an auxiliary crank for doing the same thing. So there you have it...TWO controls for something you just have to work with TWO TIMES in any (successful) flight.
As far as computer flight simulation goes, I'm much more interested in a very realistic flight sim that accurately models the behavior (if not the actual man/machine interface) of the aircraft. Such a sim will never, ever, ever be seen on a game console. That's not to say game consoles are bad, just that their interface technology (and marketing demographics) don't lend themselves to high-fidelity flight sims. (Note: the kick the tires, light the fires, let's go fly "flight sims" available on consoles now are NOT what I'm talking about. I want padlock views, dammit!)
Complexity can, indeed, get in the way of gameplay. It does NOT get in the way of flight simulation.
Note that the Air Force doesn't operate Apaches. Armed rotary-wing aircraft are the purview of the Army and the Marine Corps. This was due to the fact that when the Air Force separated from the Army (in WW2 it was the Army Air Corps), the new AF brass managed to pass laws forbidding the Army from operating armed, fixed-wing aircraft. The AF then proceeded to totally ignore helicopters, as they weren't fast or shiny enough. The Army, seeing the utility of these aircraft first as transports and then as gun platforms, passed corollary legislation preventing the AF from operating armed rotary-wing aircraft.
Thus endeth the military history lesson. Aren't you glad that our armed forces spend so much time and effort pissing on each other?
Yeah, all those pod-racer pods looked like they just got unloaded from the factory, didn't they?
Let me put the question to you this way. Have you ever seen the Blue Angels or the Thunderbirds aircraft up close? Let me tell you...those fighter jets are immaculate. You could eat off the control surfaces...'cept then you'd have to answer to the chief whose responsibility it is to keep the left horizontal stabilizer shaving-mirror polished.
Just 'cuz it's a fighter, doesn't mean it has to be crusty lookin'. Everything else in the movie, save for the Naboo equipment, looked suitably "lived in". That was a conscious choice on Lucas' part, and it works.
Go read a good book on naval warfare, then argue that a navy is superfluous.
As far as the US military goes, if you MUST (foolishly, IMO) cut spending, the LAST place you should cut is the Navy. Particularly Naval aviation. Aircraft carriers are and will remain for the forseeable future the A-1 best strategic weapons platform in the world.
Fortunately, CVN 75 Harry S Truman goes on patrol in the Med in November, CVN 76 Ronald Reagan is going to be commissioned in 2002, and two more are on the drawing board.
a lot of big name movies have been using linux for rendering...(Lord of the Rings was recently on/. for just this thing, and we all know Titanic did as well,.. others have but i can't remember off-hand..)
Non-sequitur. Nobody ('cept you) was talking about rendering. Photoshop and Gimp are not rendering tools.
You again:
photoshop may run slightly better on macos than windows, , because i don't use either. most people don't use either.
Without getting into the manifold advantages of Photoshop on the Mac vs Windows, why are you trolling Linux's rendering superiority in a discussion that has nothing to do with rendering? Ooops...I think I answered my own question.
Your last questions (which were on-topic and more interesting) I don't have any direct info on, apart from a few generalizations.
Photoshop on OSX will depend heavily on the Quartz display rendering system (designed by Apple and Adobe), which I believe is still part of the proprietary component of MacOS X. Therefore, although a fair bit of the code would probably work fine on BSD, the most important parts (the image display and color matching technologies that constitute The Reason Photoshop Exists) would still need to be re-written to run on top of...well, whatever shell you are running this week, I guess.
Yup. Every aggressor on the planet has been successfully subdued, so we can go ahead and start beating our swords into plowshares.
Would you like to explain to me what's different about THIS time we think that the world is a safe place? Seems like any student of history would realize that that is a deadly bad assumption.
For my intro C++ class, you didn't get any credit if the app didn't compile and run in the specified environment. The specified environment happened to be G++ on the Sun server on campus. Bottom line is, in order to run the class, they (the instructors) MUST be able to grade your work. If for whatever reason you compile and run the application on your platform (whatever it might be) and it doesn't work on THEIR platform (whatever it might be) they don't have neither the time nor the inclination to set up another compiler and test in your environment.
Code in G++. Use Emacs. Do whatever makes you happy. Just make sure it compiles and works in the specified environment. When you get out into the world, the boss isn't going to care what tools you use to write the code, but he's also not going to be very interested in hearing "Well, it worked fine on my machine!"
Think about it. Say you've got 10 pool balls on a 20' by 20' surface, scattered randomly, with random velocity vectors. Collisions aren't going to be infrequent.
Now think about 10 tennis balls, flying in a 20' cube. Collisions will go down by an order of magnitude.
People used to cry about how unsafe cars were, relative to horses and buggies. We as a society have decided the advantages outweigh the dangers. I guarantee that economical personal air transport will do exactly the same thing, only it'll be a lot safer. (Note that Moller's skycar design referenced in this thread has no provision for pilot input...you tell it where you want to go, and it's totally hands-off. I trust computers more than 90% of humans, so this is Good.)
Man, if you want squares and rectangles and 1984 Volvos, more power to you. Just leave me and my Audi TT fetish alone.
Aesthetics is important to some people. If it's not important to you, fine. Nobody's going to take away your ugly beige box. They're going to have options...isn't that good? Don't we like options?
Man, some of us free thinkers around get awfully territorial and change-averse sometimes, eh?
It will also take heavy machinery to get people down out of trees. And to stop dragging things and use wheels instead. And to stop using animals to lug stuff around.
Rest assured. The heavy machinery is coming, and it will make your keyboard an anachronism. Seems to me like it will be an exciting thing...let's wait and see!
There are lots of people who spend all day...8-12 hours...talking constantly. It can be done. It's not even that stressful. Sure, it sucks when you have a sore throat, but there are LOTS of tasks I like to TELL my computer to do rather than walking over to the KB and mouse.
I really wish people would stop thinking that somebody was going to come to the door in the night and take away the IBM Clackety Nasty keyboard they've been toting around since the dawn of time. Yeah, I know, I'm supposed to like those 'cuz I know a lot about computers, but DAMN...can you make it a little less noisy? Please?
And anyhow...think about how much of a pain it would be to actually CARRY one of those old IBM keyboards into the black helicopter...they'd need a big old winch or something...
If it's a non-problem, why was it a problem for Piranha (golly that's hard to spell...)? I agree that the issue is minor, but RH got the shaft in the media, and MS gets beer and skittles.
Sounds like Slashdot is calling the major news media on biased reporting. That's, like, sorta what I come here for and stuff...
You've totally done an end run around the point here.
Microsoft makes security gaffe, they get to say "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...look over there at that shiny new SQL 2000! Buy it today for $umpty bajillion dollars!". Media buys it lock stock and barrel. (mostly)
Red Hat makes minor, non-destructive security gaffe, and the media calls into question an entire programming philosophy. (mostly)
The mechanics of the gaffe are not really interesting to the REAL issue here...namely, the self-administered blowjob Microsoft enjoys on the major news organs (one of which has become MS's bitch).
You're right. Anybody who doesn't change the SA password shouldn't be allowed near any devices with buttons on them. However, Microsoft should have been pilloried for this, and they weren't. They successfully pointed the finger at the hapless (clueless, feckless, reckless, and really really dumb) admins whose training they (MS) designed (poorly) and subsidized and advertised.
(Enjoying the parentheticals?)
Re:Yes, but can I embed my GPG key in my sleeve?
on
Techno Jacket
·
· Score: 2
I don't know about you, but I don't want my shoes that close to my nose...
Slashdot Mirror
You said:
It's okay. I figure the user interface in a year or two will be equal on Linux, BSD, BeOS, Mac and Windows. Then other aspects (stability, ease of upgrade, price point, industry standard) will affect the overall "user experience", of which UI *is* an important part.
I say:
Eh? I hope you're right, but I don't understand why then next year is going to be better than the previous 10. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that very very little good engineering has gone into the user interfaces of publically available software since the introduction of the Macintosh. (with a few notable exceptions.)
I hope I'm wrong, but we seem to be stuck in a rut UI wise. I hope that somebody can get something better going, but I certainly haven't been able to come up with anything. Here's hopin'!
That is an EXCELLENT point, and one that's underappreciated.
From consoles to G4 cubes, developers aim for the least common denominator. If commercial developers (yes, Virginia, it's still OK to sell software, even on UNIX-based systems) can't rely on the user having access to a compiler, they will have to distribute it in a more user-friendly format. And that, folks, is what OSX is all about.
I'm totally puzzled. Why are power and ease of use antithetical? If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, any programming or interfacing with the computer that you do should be in the form of 1's and 0's. Who needs chrome like a user interface anyway?
Dear sweet Jesus, you can't possibly be serious. By that argument, the truckers would be the only people allowed on the Interstate highway system. Your average hurtling-down-the-interstate-at-80mph car is the single most dangerous implement that we (the general public) encounter in our lifetimes. Before you ask, no I don't think the drivers' license test does anything at all to improve safety on the highway. That's an argument for another day.
Neither access to broadband internet nor the highway system are God given inalienable rights. However, that doesn't mean that you should restrict access to the IT professionals (or truck drivers) who use those resources for their livelihoods.
Nope. The 10 hour thing they're talking about is the battery life. I guess you could listen to the same hour of music for 10 hours, but if you wanted to do that, why not just turn on the radio?
Dude, you're using a PocketPC as your main computer, but you carp about the keyboard and monitor of a laptop? You're silly.
Assuming you're not trolling (a faint hope...)
a) why do you hate laptops? It's just a computer...
b) you dog on laptops because they're not expandable or fast, and then you start talking about your PDA...?
I give up. There's no logic here.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Americans do not, contrary to popular opinion, share a common brain (cell). Some of us have impeccable spelling.
As for other English speaking countries, they DO share a common brain, and therefore their attempts at written communication are a) redundant and b) prone to spelling errors. That's why we left Britain in the lurch.
(it's a joke, people. Take a deep breath.)
'Scuse me while I pick one nit. Every aircraft cockpit I've ever seen has exactly that...one control that does nothing but move the landing gear up and down. Some have an auxiliary crank for doing the same thing. So there you have it...TWO controls for something you just have to work with TWO TIMES in any (successful) flight.
As far as computer flight simulation goes, I'm much more interested in a very realistic flight sim that accurately models the behavior (if not the actual man/machine interface) of the aircraft. Such a sim will never, ever, ever be seen on a game console. That's not to say game consoles are bad, just that their interface technology (and marketing demographics) don't lend themselves to high-fidelity flight sims. (Note: the kick the tires, light the fires, let's go fly "flight sims" available on consoles now are NOT what I'm talking about. I want padlock views, dammit!)
Complexity can, indeed, get in the way of gameplay. It does NOT get in the way of flight simulation.
Note that the Air Force doesn't operate Apaches. Armed rotary-wing aircraft are the purview of the Army and the Marine Corps. This was due to the fact that when the Air Force separated from the Army (in WW2 it was the Army Air Corps), the new AF brass managed to pass laws forbidding the Army from operating armed, fixed-wing aircraft. The AF then proceeded to totally ignore helicopters, as they weren't fast or shiny enough. The Army, seeing the utility of these aircraft first as transports and then as gun platforms, passed corollary legislation preventing the AF from operating armed rotary-wing aircraft.
Thus endeth the military history lesson. Aren't you glad that our armed forces spend so much time and effort pissing on each other?
Yeah, all those pod-racer pods looked like they just got unloaded from the factory, didn't they?
Let me put the question to you this way. Have you ever seen the Blue Angels or the Thunderbirds aircraft up close? Let me tell you...those fighter jets are immaculate. You could eat off the control surfaces...'cept then you'd have to answer to the chief whose responsibility it is to keep the left horizontal stabilizer shaving-mirror polished.
Just 'cuz it's a fighter, doesn't mean it has to be crusty lookin'. Everything else in the movie, save for the Naboo equipment, looked suitably "lived in". That was a conscious choice on Lucas' part, and it works.
Go read a good book on naval warfare, then argue that a navy is superfluous.
h tm
As far as the US military goes, if you MUST (foolishly, IMO) cut spending, the LAST place you should cut is the Navy. Particularly Naval aviation. Aircraft carriers are and will remain for the forseeable future the A-1 best strategic weapons platform in the world.
Fortunately, CVN 75 Harry S Truman goes on patrol in the Med in November, CVN 76 Ronald Reagan is going to be commissioned in 2002, and two more are on the drawing board.
Nuclear carriers good.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/3702/canset.
Reading more carefully? Kay. Point by point.
/. for just this thing, and we all know Titanic did as well, .. others have but i can't remember off-hand..)
You:
a lot of big name movies have been using linux for rendering...(Lord of the Rings was recently on
Non-sequitur. Nobody ('cept you) was talking about rendering. Photoshop and Gimp are not rendering tools.
You again:
photoshop may run slightly better on macos than windows, , because i don't use either. most people don't use either.
Without getting into the manifold advantages of Photoshop on the Mac vs Windows, why are you trolling Linux's rendering superiority in a discussion that has nothing to do with rendering? Ooops...I think I answered my own question.
Your last questions (which were on-topic and more interesting) I don't have any direct info on, apart from a few generalizations.
Photoshop on OSX will depend heavily on the Quartz display rendering system (designed by Apple and Adobe), which I believe is still part of the proprietary component of MacOS X. Therefore, although a fair bit of the code would probably work fine on BSD, the most important parts (the image display and color matching technologies that constitute The Reason Photoshop Exists) would still need to be re-written to run on top of...well, whatever shell you are running this week, I guess.
inflammable is synonymous with flammable, and is fairly common particularly in British english.
Yup. Every aggressor on the planet has been successfully subdued, so we can go ahead and start beating our swords into plowshares.
Would you like to explain to me what's different about THIS time we think that the world is a safe place? Seems like any student of history would realize that that is a deadly bad assumption.
You misspelled 3733t. : )
Hey, anti-spelling nazi moderators...it's a joke. Laugh.
Rendering!=image manipulation.
Why did you bother replying to a post if you admit you know nothing about the post?
For my intro C++ class, you didn't get any credit if the app didn't compile and run in the specified environment. The specified environment happened to be G++ on the Sun server on campus. Bottom line is, in order to run the class, they (the instructors) MUST be able to grade your work. If for whatever reason you compile and run the application on your platform (whatever it might be) and it doesn't work on THEIR platform (whatever it might be) they don't have neither the time nor the inclination to set up another compiler and test in your environment.
Code in G++. Use Emacs. Do whatever makes you happy. Just make sure it compiles and works in the specified environment. When you get out into the world, the boss isn't going to care what tools you use to write the code, but he's also not going to be very interested in hearing "Well, it worked fine on my machine!"
Think about it. Say you've got 10 pool balls on a 20' by 20' surface, scattered randomly, with random velocity vectors. Collisions aren't going to be infrequent.
Now think about 10 tennis balls, flying in a 20' cube. Collisions will go down by an order of magnitude.
People used to cry about how unsafe cars were, relative to horses and buggies. We as a society have decided the advantages outweigh the dangers. I guarantee that economical personal air transport will do exactly the same thing, only it'll be a lot safer. (Note that Moller's skycar design referenced in this thread has no provision for pilot input...you tell it where you want to go, and it's totally hands-off. I trust computers more than 90% of humans, so this is Good.)
Man, if you want squares and rectangles and 1984 Volvos, more power to you. Just leave me and my Audi TT fetish alone.
Aesthetics is important to some people. If it's not important to you, fine. Nobody's going to take away your ugly beige box. They're going to have options...isn't that good? Don't we like options?
Man, some of us free thinkers around get awfully territorial and change-averse sometimes, eh?
It's written for Forbes. What sort of intellect does your average CEO wannabe have, anyway? That of a candy-starved child. All fits together, huh?
It will also take heavy machinery to get people down out of trees. And to stop dragging things and use wheels instead. And to stop using animals to lug stuff around.
Rest assured. The heavy machinery is coming, and it will make your keyboard an anachronism. Seems to me like it will be an exciting thing...let's wait and see!
There are lots of people who spend all day...8-12 hours...talking constantly. It can be done. It's not even that stressful. Sure, it sucks when you have a sore throat, but there are LOTS of tasks I like to TELL my computer to do rather than walking over to the KB and mouse.
I really wish people would stop thinking that somebody was going to come to the door in the night and take away the IBM Clackety Nasty keyboard they've been toting around since the dawn of time. Yeah, I know, I'm supposed to like those 'cuz I know a lot about computers, but DAMN...can you make it a little less noisy? Please?
And anyhow...think about how much of a pain it would be to actually CARRY one of those old IBM keyboards into the black helicopter...they'd need a big old winch or something...
If it's a non-problem, why was it a problem for Piranha (golly that's hard to spell...)? I agree that the issue is minor, but RH got the shaft in the media, and MS gets beer and skittles.
Sounds like Slashdot is calling the major news media on biased reporting. That's, like, sorta what I come here for and stuff...
You've totally done an end run around the point here.
Microsoft makes security gaffe, they get to say "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...look over there at that shiny new SQL 2000! Buy it today for $umpty bajillion dollars!". Media buys it lock stock and barrel. (mostly)
Red Hat makes minor, non-destructive security gaffe, and the media calls into question an entire programming philosophy. (mostly)
The mechanics of the gaffe are not really interesting to the REAL issue here...namely, the self-administered blowjob Microsoft enjoys on the major news organs (one of which has become MS's bitch).
You're right. Anybody who doesn't change the SA password shouldn't be allowed near any devices with buttons on them. However, Microsoft should have been pilloried for this, and they weren't. They successfully pointed the finger at the hapless (clueless, feckless, reckless, and really really dumb) admins whose training they (MS) designed (poorly) and subsidized and advertised.
(Enjoying the parentheticals?)
I don't know about you, but I don't want my shoes that close to my nose...