the Firefox people have done a better job of making Firefox look native on various operating systems
I think this point is understated. If you have two things that work equally well, but one of them blends in with your meticulously selected theme, and one of them doesn't....well, which one would you pick?
I'm not sure I agree that they should have to change the mural. I think there should be exceptions for things that have become cultural icons or have come to be considered works of art, like the numerous murals in Atlanta advertising Coke for a nickel. I mean, I highly doubt anyone thinks those are current price advertisements, but at one time, they were. The key is using common sense. If your sub shop upped the price to $3, they should clearly advertise the new price, but that doesn't mean they should have to get rid of a mural that's been on the wall for 50 years.
I'm not sure which "file list in dialog boxes" you're referring to since there are several, so I can't answer you on that.
I can address your real point, however, and that requires the discussion of two distinct issues. The first is the issue of demonstrating that a particular GUI is illogical. Since a GUI's purpose is usability, illogical in this context equates with usability by everyone. Finding a flaw in the GUI, such as a scrollbar that scrolls in the wrong direction would be a perfect demonstration of the illogical quality of the GUI, as in your example. However, demonstrating that the GUI was logical, i.e. universally usable by everyone, is a task that would at least require extensive scientific research (of the type being conducted at numerous universities as we speak).
The second issue is how the author of the article was using the word (and how I discounted that usage). She made the claim that the Mac GUI was logical, something she clearly could not support (and that isn't true, besides), and this is what I took issue with. I have no problem with your use of the word, saying that particular GUI is illogical because of a flaw, but these are obviously different usages.
First off, the main problem she cites with GNU/Linux is her constant urge to upgrade, and how upgrading in the particular distribution she chose breaks things. By the time we reach the OS X-fawning section of the article, her urge to constantly upgrade seems to have completely vanished. If she's ok with sitting still on a single version of her desktop manager, the problems she mentioned with KDE simply vanish.
Second, the majority of the issues she complains about with Windows are settings. That means, if you don't like the way it's set up, you can just change it. Since many people obviously don't share her (somewhat bizarre) preferences, this can only be a good thing.
Lastly, I think I'll simply mention the fact that she refers to GUI design choices (which happen to align with her own ideas) as "logical." What a joke.
It so happens that the very features she's so gleeful about annoy me to no end. I wouldn't give up GNU/Linux running XFCE 4 for anything, but I certainly wouldn't spew a load of crap onto the internet about how "logical" the design choices in XFCE are, because that is, in itself, illogical.
I really like your letter, so here it is without typos (not trying to flame you, but people who copy your letter will be taken more seriously if it is free from typos):
Dear Congressman Pearce;
I came across the article at http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/02/23/ gator/index.html?source=RSS on how D. Reed Freeman, the "Chief Privacy Officer" of Claria Networks (formerly Gator), the creators of the pervasive spyware package GAIN, has been appointed to the Department of Homeland Security's "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee".
I find this of extreme concern for the security of the citizens of our country. It is also a concern that the 'privacy officer' for the DHS is a former minion of Doubleclick which is also a spyware company. This is like appointing David Duke to a committee on minority rights, Mike Tyson appointed to a committee on women's rights, Michael Jackson appointed to a committee on children's rights, or the proverbial fox being in charge of the henhouse. Can we now expect DHS to craft software that installs itself on our machines without our knowledge? Can we expect our data privacy to be safe from unlawful government search? This is a real and present concern. The last thing the citizenry needs is for people with a known track record of being involved in privacy violations to be in such positions. The very fact that these people are where they are now, within the DHS, points to the process being broken; and perhaps it can also be said that the DHS has been infiltrated by persons without the citizens' best interests in mind. In advance, your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
No. The real problem with iSearch is that it's extortion (or "protection," if you like euphemisms). They alter the functioning of your computer and make it almost unusable, without your consent, then offer to fix it for "only 29.95," through several proxy websites (uninstaller.com, virushunter.com, etc).
So if you browse to "Classical" and click on Handel, it tells you it has no information. If you browse to "Modern" and click on Strauss, it brings up a page on Handel.
Considering these were the first two I clicked on, I'm not impressed.
Anybody know how to contact them to report an error?
Using a nice news aggregator will also take care of that problem. I use Sage (firefox plugin). It bolds articles you haven't yet read, and refreshes the list each time you click on the site name. You can also use it to render the RSS list directly into a browser page, which is handy for sites with long article summaries.
This is just more evidence of the irrationality of copyright law, and particularly the DMCA. Copyright law is, at its roots, defined to create an artificial scarcity so people will continue producing creative works. I know this has been said to death, but no one seems to be listening: if copyright law is no longer serving its purpose (it isn't) then it should be done away with.
Nobody suggested you sugarcoat anything. But the fact is that you dropped those adjectives without anything to back them up. Now you're coming back with comments with some substance, which is what you should have done in the first place (to avoid being a troll).
You being an asshole or not has no bearing whatsoever on X or how it was maintained, you're right. But you being an asshole or not has direct bearing on whether or not your posts are insightful comments that are worth reading, or just flamebait.
I didn't call you a troll for stating your opinion, I called you a troll for using adjectives like "horrid" and "disgusting" to describe other people's work.
Your statement about xwindows is also a troll, not because you think xwindows is bad, nor because you state that it's bad, but because you specifically use the phrase "disgusting hackjob." Obviously, a lot of people put a lot of work into that code, and calling it that just makes you look like an asshole. Pointing out technical flaws is one thing, making sweeping, emotionally inciteful comments is a troll.
As to that last bit about being branded by your user name and "tossing a label on you"...you gave that user name to yourself, and I'm quite sure you knew the associations with it, so I can only assume that you intended those associations to be given to you.
The man pages are just that - manual pages. Not "learn by example" pages. And mods, PP was not informative, it was a troll. (Did you look at the guy's user name?)
"Have" has been corrected to "has" in the above sentence.
There was nothing wrong with the post author using "have" in that sentence. The word "Microsoft" refers to a company and is classified as a collective, or group noun. In American english, collective nouns may be treated either as singular or plural, depending on whether the statement refers to the body as a unit, or the individual members of the unit. Thus, saying "Microsoft have cornered the PC market," implies that the individual employees at Microsoft are responsible for said cornering, and is grammatically correct. On the other hand, in British english, the collective noun may be treated as singular or plural, solely at the author's discretion. Thus, the poster was correct regardless of context.
Slashdot Mirror
the Firefox people have done a better job of making Firefox look native on various operating systems
I think this point is understated. If you have two things that work equally well, but one of them blends in with your meticulously selected theme, and one of them doesn't....well, which one would you pick?
I'm not sure I agree that they should have to change the mural. I think there should be exceptions for things that have become cultural icons or have come to be considered works of art, like the numerous murals in Atlanta advertising Coke for a nickel. I mean, I highly doubt anyone thinks those are current price advertisements, but at one time, they were. The key is using common sense. If your sub shop upped the price to $3, they should clearly advertise the new price, but that doesn't mean they should have to get rid of a mural that's been on the wall for 50 years.
Attention Masses:
The word you're looking for is "complement," not "compliment."
Thank you.
Clearly, they meant angiostrophy. See, you can use the wires to tie off whatever's bleeding...
Aw, forget it.
I'm not sure which "file list in dialog boxes" you're referring to since there are several, so I can't answer you on that.
I can address your real point, however, and that requires the discussion of two distinct issues. The first is the issue of demonstrating that a particular GUI is illogical. Since a GUI's purpose is usability, illogical in this context equates with usability by everyone. Finding a flaw in the GUI, such as a scrollbar that scrolls in the wrong direction would be a perfect demonstration of the illogical quality of the GUI, as in your example. However, demonstrating that the GUI was logical, i.e. universally usable by everyone, is a task that would at least require extensive scientific research (of the type being conducted at numerous universities as we speak).
The second issue is how the author of the article was using the word (and how I discounted that usage). She made the claim that the Mac GUI was logical, something she clearly could not support (and that isn't true, besides), and this is what I took issue with. I have no problem with your use of the word, saying that particular GUI is illogical because of a flaw, but these are obviously different usages.
First off, the main problem she cites with GNU/Linux is her constant urge to upgrade, and how upgrading in the particular distribution she chose breaks things. By the time we reach the OS X-fawning section of the article, her urge to constantly upgrade seems to have completely vanished. If she's ok with sitting still on a single version of her desktop manager, the problems she mentioned with KDE simply vanish.
Second, the majority of the issues she complains about with Windows are settings. That means, if you don't like the way it's set up, you can just change it. Since many people obviously don't share her (somewhat bizarre) preferences, this can only be a good thing.
Lastly, I think I'll simply mention the fact that she refers to GUI design choices (which happen to align with her own ideas) as "logical." What a joke.
It so happens that the very features she's so gleeful about annoy me to no end. I wouldn't give up GNU/Linux running XFCE 4 for anything, but I certainly wouldn't spew a load of crap onto the internet about how "logical" the design choices in XFCE are, because that is, in itself, illogical.
hoping they replace 'Pearce' with their own Congressmans name
Hehe, yeah.
Otherwise it would look like a letter writing campaign
It'd be nice if it were a letter writing campaign.
I really like your letter, so here it is without typos (not trying to flame you, but people who copy your letter will be taken more seriously if it is free from typos):
/ gator/index.html?source=RSS on how D. Reed Freeman, the "Chief Privacy Officer" of Claria Networks (formerly Gator), the creators of the pervasive spyware package GAIN, has been appointed to the Department of Homeland Security's "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee".
Dear Congressman Pearce;
I came across the article at http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/02/23
I find this of extreme concern for the security of the citizens of our country. It is also a concern that the 'privacy officer' for the DHS is a former minion of Doubleclick which is also a spyware company. This is like appointing David Duke to a committee on minority rights, Mike Tyson appointed to a committee on women's rights, Michael Jackson appointed to a committee on children's rights, or the proverbial fox being in charge of the henhouse. Can we now expect DHS to craft software that installs itself on our machines without our knowledge? Can we expect our data privacy to be safe from unlawful government search? This is a real and present concern. The last thing the citizenry needs is for people with a known track record of being involved in privacy violations to be in such positions. The very fact that these people are where they are now, within the DHS, points to the process being broken; and perhaps it can also be said that the DHS has been infiltrated by persons without the citizens' best interests in mind. In advance, your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
No. The real problem with iSearch is that it's extortion (or "protection," if you like euphemisms). They alter the functioning of your computer and make it almost unusable, without your consent, then offer to fix it for "only 29.95," through several proxy websites (uninstaller.com, virushunter.com, etc).
So if you browse to "Classical" and click on Handel, it tells you it has no information. If you browse to "Modern" and click on Strauss, it brings up a page on Handel.
Considering these were the first two I clicked on, I'm not impressed.
Anybody know how to contact them to report an error?
That's a nice little straw man you've got there. Last I checked, spyware doesn't kill people.
Well, in this article they are actually not just talking about internet sharing. They are also talking about bootlegging and the like.
The article is about DVD copying, not movie downloading.
It's called "exercising a monopoly."
I'll know which browser to use to reload Slashdot over and over to get first post.
who finds it funny that the Google ads for the article show an advert for MSN Messenger?
The first time hair conditioner causes my hair to reach out, clasp some food, and bring it back to my mouth for me to eat, I'll see your point.
Using a nice news aggregator will also take care of that problem. I use Sage (firefox plugin). It bolds articles you haven't yet read, and refreshes the list each time you click on the site name. You can also use it to render the RSS list directly into a browser page, which is handy for sites with long article summaries.
This is just more evidence of the irrationality of copyright law, and particularly the DMCA. Copyright law is, at its roots, defined to create an artificial scarcity so people will continue producing creative works. I know this has been said to death, but no one seems to be listening: if copyright law is no longer serving its purpose (it isn't) then it should be done away with.
Nobody suggested you sugarcoat anything. But the fact is that you dropped those adjectives without anything to back them up. Now you're coming back with comments with some substance, which is what you should have done in the first place (to avoid being a troll).
You being an asshole or not has no bearing whatsoever on X or how it was maintained, you're right. But you being an asshole or not has direct bearing on whether or not your posts are insightful comments that are worth reading, or just flamebait.
As to the last comment, thanks for the chuckle.
I didn't call you a troll for stating your opinion, I called you a troll for using adjectives like "horrid" and "disgusting" to describe other people's work.
Your statement about xwindows is also a troll, not because you think xwindows is bad, nor because you state that it's bad, but because you specifically use the phrase "disgusting hackjob." Obviously, a lot of people put a lot of work into that code, and calling it that just makes you look like an asshole. Pointing out technical flaws is one thing, making sweeping, emotionally inciteful comments is a troll.
As to that last bit about being branded by your user name and "tossing a label on you"...you gave that user name to yourself, and I'm quite sure you knew the associations with it, so I can only assume that you intended those associations to be given to you.
I agree with your sentiment, but who did you say the dedication was directed at, again? His dead grandmother?
The man pages are just that - manual pages. Not "learn by example" pages. And mods, PP was not informative, it was a troll. (Did you look at the guy's user name?)
"Have" has been corrected to "has" in the above sentence.
There was nothing wrong with the post author using "have" in that sentence. The word "Microsoft" refers to a company and is classified as a collective, or group noun. In American english, collective nouns may be treated either as singular or plural, depending on whether the statement refers to the body as a unit, or the individual members of the unit. Thus, saying "Microsoft have cornered the PC market," implies that the individual employees at Microsoft are responsible for said cornering, and is grammatically correct. On the other hand, in British english, the collective noun may be treated as singular or plural, solely at the author's discretion. Thus, the poster was correct regardless of context.
"Navigation in a 3D relm (sic) with a 2D input and display is cumbersome"
Seems to me the existence and widespread popularity of 3D video games pretty much disproves your point out of hand.