I am one of the relatively few (it sometimes seems) humanities graduates who see the benefits of working in Unix/Linux rather than windows. The reason for this is simple: I have found that Linux gives me an environment where I can work more quickly.
I don't need my computer to look "fun" to use, I don't need it to treat me as a child. None of the other tools I use in my work do. My computer is not "fun" when my icons jump up and down. My computer is useful when it just does what I want it to do, and no more and no less.
My actual working environment looks spartan, but is actually far more powerful than the environment offered by Mr Gates. This is not because I am using the latest version of KDE2 or nautilus, although like most people here I have gone and played with them from time to time.
In my view, "traditional" unix apps, by which I mean those which assume that, yes, there is a keyboard attached to the computer and that, yes, it does make a good input device, get two things right:
First, they have the power to let you specify exactly what you mean. For example, I find it more intuitive to type:
2,4s/this/that
than I do to find the mouse and go through a menu and a dialogue box in word (and I don't know how I would limit the search to only a few lines of the text --- not off-hand, anyway).
Once one learns a very few unix paradigms (and I'll admit there is a learning curve), one rapidly learns that applications where one can actually type in exactly what is required of the computer have far more power.
Mutt is another classic example; I can tag all messages matching certain criteria and delete them, move them or print them, without having to go through (as I would in OE) and select them manually.
I know I'm preaching to the converted on some of these points, but I think that too many of us sometimes like things that are cool (and nautilus IS cool), and forget that the price often paid is power. And sometimes it seems that CS types think that they are they only people who realise this.
2. The second thing that Linux gives me is access to the exact information I am interested in, and no more. For example, I do not always need a WYSIWYG world. Sometimes, yes. I wouldn't want to edit a jpeg in vim. But often (for a paper) I only need a subset of all the information about the final document. It is helpful to concentrate on just the text -- I find I write better.
Or to take another example. If I want to open a set of files, the Windows paradigm means that I would open each one, edit it and close it, then select the next, or else clutter my screen with windows. Either way, I am often not sure I have 'got' them all. Vim on the other hand, can take a list of files, let me edit each one (but only show me the one I'm actually working on) and then let me move on to the next. I know I won't miss one out, but nor is my screen cluttered with all those waiting their turn.
As for loosing files, grep and find have never let me down, and are far more powerful than any GUI tools I can find.
I think that this article, and most gui projects at the moment, have the wrong idea. The problem computers present is that they give us too much information. But I do not want it hidden from me, I want to only see that subset which is important to me at any given time (and there is a big difference). In the same way, I don't need menu-bars and paperclips to tell me what I CAN do; I don't want a dialog box to limit me. I want to tell an application EXACTLY what I want it to do, and I want it to do it, and I want 'EXACTLY' to be as general or specific as I want. I don't want some GUI to say
"here is where you were yesterday, and here is where you are going today; would you like to see your work as a swimming pool or a starship?"
I want to say, "give me the file I was working on just before lunch yesterday" or "show me any documents I've written about computers in during 1999-2000".
Don't give me visual clutter, give me more flexibility. And if you want to make me work faster, give me quick keyboard shortcuts, the most use of screenspace possible, everything set up how *I* want it.
Give me applications that are small, fast, do the specific task I am interested in, and do it well. Then make it REALLY QUICK AND EASY for me to find the documentation; and no, I don't want to know about which C function you used, thank you very much.
Don't reinvent the wheel for me either. I have a text editor; I like it. It works for me. I want to use it every time I edit a body of text; let me.
And PLease: most of the time I want my computer to Just Do the Right Thing(TM), but for goodness sake, let me tell it what that is, and please believe me when I do.
And to those designing the UI for a new application: show me the MINIMUM information I need for any task, then give me the OPTION to see more. I'll probably use your app more if it stays out of my goddam way.
Just before my Finals I got a Palm m100 and a folding keyboard. The total cost was c. 170 UKP. I also got myself a copy of the Pedit editor for the palm.
I now had a full sized keyboard and word processor (although without a spell check, which would have been better) which I could take in a couple of pockets or a rucksack to lectures, libraries, the park, etc. and which added many, many times to my ability to study, cross reference and take notes. Not to mention other PDA functions I used.
But I would not have attempted to enter notes with the pen, any more than I would write this post using the mouse. Nor would I have written my thesis on my PDA, any more than I would write emails in LaTeX.
Slashdot Mirror
Key question must be how well such programs work in the light of ext3 et al. Does anyone know?
I am one of the relatively few (it sometimes seems) humanities graduates who see the benefits of working in Unix/Linux rather than windows. The reason for this is simple: I have found that Linux gives me an environment where I can work more quickly.
I don't need my computer to look "fun" to use, I don't need it to treat me as a child. None of the other tools I use in my work do. My computer is not "fun" when my icons jump up and down. My computer is useful when it just does what I want it to do, and no more and no less.
My actual working environment looks spartan, but is actually far more powerful than the environment offered by Mr Gates. This is not because I am using the latest version of KDE2 or nautilus, although like most people here I have gone and played with them from time to time.
In my view, "traditional" unix apps, by which I mean those which assume that, yes, there is a keyboard attached to the computer and that, yes, it does make a good input device, get two things right:
First, they have the power to let you specify exactly what you mean. For example, I find it more intuitive to type:
2,4s/this/that
than I do to find the mouse and go through a menu and a dialogue box in word (and I don't know how I would limit the search to only a few lines of the text --- not off-hand, anyway).
Once one learns a very few unix paradigms (and I'll admit there is a learning curve), one rapidly learns that applications where one can actually type in exactly what is required of the computer have far more power.
Mutt is another classic example; I can tag all messages matching certain criteria and delete them, move them or print them, without having to go through (as I would in OE) and select them manually.
I know I'm preaching to the converted on some of these points, but I think that too many of us sometimes like things that are cool (and nautilus IS cool), and forget that the price often paid is power. And sometimes it seems that CS types think that they are they only people who realise this.
2. The second thing that Linux gives me is access to the exact information I am interested in, and no more. For example, I do not always need a WYSIWYG world. Sometimes, yes. I wouldn't want to edit a jpeg in vim. But often (for a paper) I only need a subset of all the information about the final document. It is helpful to concentrate on just the text -- I find I write better.
Or to take another example. If I want to open a set of files, the Windows paradigm means that I would open each one, edit it and close it, then select the next, or else clutter my screen with windows. Either way, I am often not sure I have 'got' them all. Vim on the other hand, can take a list of files, let me edit each one (but only show me the one I'm actually working on) and then let me move on to the next. I know I won't miss one out, but nor is my screen cluttered with all those waiting their turn.
As for loosing files, grep and find have never let me down, and are far more powerful than any GUI tools I can find.
I think that this article, and most gui projects at the moment, have the wrong idea. The problem computers present is that they give us too much information. But I do not want it hidden from me, I want to only see that subset which is important to me at any given time (and there is a big difference). In the same way, I don't need menu-bars and paperclips to tell me what I CAN do; I don't want a dialog box to limit me. I want to tell an application EXACTLY what I want it to do, and I want it to do it, and I want 'EXACTLY' to be as general or specific as I want. I don't want some GUI to say
"here is where you were yesterday, and here is where you are going today; would you like to see your work as a swimming pool or a starship?"
I want to say, "give me the file I was working on just before lunch yesterday" or "show me any documents I've written about computers in during 1999-2000".
Don't give me visual clutter, give me more flexibility. And if you want to make me work faster, give me quick keyboard shortcuts, the most use of screenspace possible, everything set up how *I* want it.
Give me applications that are small, fast, do the specific task I am interested in, and do it well. Then make it REALLY QUICK AND EASY for me to find the documentation; and no, I don't want to know about which C function you used, thank you very much.
Don't reinvent the wheel for me either. I have a text editor; I like it. It works for me. I want to use it every time I edit a body of text; let me.
And PLease: most of the time I want my computer to Just Do the Right Thing(TM), but for goodness sake, let me tell it what that is, and please believe me when I do.
And to those designing the UI for a new application: show me the MINIMUM information I need for any task, then give me the OPTION to see more. I'll probably use your app more if it stays out of my goddam way.
Just before my Finals I got a Palm m100 and a folding keyboard. The total cost was c. 170 UKP. I also got myself a copy of the Pedit editor for the palm.
I now had a full sized keyboard and word processor (although without a spell check, which would have been better) which I could take in a couple of pockets or a rucksack to lectures, libraries, the park, etc. and which added many, many times to my ability to study, cross reference and take notes. Not to mention other PDA functions I used.
But I would not have attempted to enter notes with the pen, any more than I would write this post using the mouse. Nor would I have written my thesis on my PDA, any more than I would write emails in LaTeX.
Of course, in Europe that IS the price of a CD: usually 18-25 UKP at HMV
Why not pipe the output of a find command to a file, and then use find to get a list of modified/new files after the install?