Is there any evidence that the actual architecture of the system has changed? I'm very dubious; I suspect all that has happened is that they've removed the options to boot into DOS mode...
(And hence not the "end of Windows over DOS", obviously. That's Just What They Want You To Think:-)
So... you're worrying about your installation script is going to do anything nasty, but you're quite happy to implicitly trust whatever program it's installing?
The only possible courses of action are:
* Carefully check the source of the software
you're installing and the installation
procedures
(More or less picking a post at random to reply to here)
So, what exactly is the difference between:
(a) A library deciding what books to put on its shelves, and
(b) A library deciding what is available in its library in terms of internet access.
I mean, I don't know about US libraries, but last time I went into a library over here, I didn't see a "Hard-core porn" section...
Oh? I'm fairly sure machine code is/also/ "unsafe", and that's what your pretty source code ends up as. How do you prove that your oh-so-wonderful language is still safe when rendered into raw machine code?
>If the UI isn't 100% efficient, it really doesn't matter
If you use computers every so often, yes. But if you use computers all day, efficiency suddenly matters a hell of a lot, and consistency very little. Customisability becomes the most important thing, because people are more than just numbers in a "usability study", and find that different ways of doing things suit them better.
Sorry, but after using GUI a lot (with all its direct manipulation via mouse and left/right clicking, and having to faff around with menus and windows), whenever I go back to a command line I feel like I've suddenly been released.
Having to click umpteen little icons and remember what particular action happens when you a drag an icon from place X to place Y is NOT a good UI.
You'd have to be an IDIOT to think so. Or at least an arrogant boob who's never realised that a little effort now in getting proficient in a CLI increases your efficiency by a factor of many later on.
However, I do think GUIs have their uses. They can definitely COMPLEMENT a CLI very well, as there are things it can do better, while there are things a CLI can do better as well. And frankly, some things a CLI can't do well is just a weakness in the designs of current CLIs, and NOT an 'inherent limitation' of CLIs.
While that's true, graphical design is about as extreme an example as you can use to support GUIs, you have to admit... For most computer tasks, GUIs just dispose of efficiency in the name of so-called "intuitiveness".
> can't seem to imagine a non-WIMP interface method
Huh? You've never used a command-line then...?
As far as I'm concerned, the best possible user interface is a UNIX-style command line combined with a minimalistic windowing system (fvwm is my personal favourite).
GUIs are useful for two things, and two things only, IMO: * A place to put your text windows */Inherently/ graphical applications
So how many people have bought something / been impressed by a company because the website had twiddly javascript or an impressive-looking Shockwave animation?
And how many people have moved on to another site because the site took too long to load or didn't display properly?
I think the answers to those would provide statistics even managers could understand...
Slashdot Mirror
> Languages don't matter. Compilers do.
Well, that's nearly true, if all you're worried about is running speed.
> If you disagree, you're a moron.
Oh noooo! *sigh* You caught me; I suppose you're just too clever for me.
> usually the GUI code made any application level program worth nothing
Modularity? Huh? We don't need no steenking modularity!
Clean design? Wassat den?
Well said! :-)
Dexter's Lab is almost as good though...
Is there any evidence that the actual architecture of the system has changed? I'm very dubious; I suspect all that has happened is that they've removed the options to boot into DOS mode...
:-)
(And hence not the "end of Windows over DOS", obviously. That's Just What They Want You To Think
What you /could/ do though, is put each application in its own directory, and use symlinks to put the right files in the right places...
This also provides a natural way of allowing for chrooting anything that can work effectively when chrooted.
So... you're worrying about your installation script is going to do anything nasty, but you're quite happy to implicitly trust whatever program it's installing?
The only possible courses of action are:
* Carefully check the source of the software
you're installing and the installation
procedures
* Only get trusted software from a trusted
source
* Sod it, and hope for the best
No definitions found for "hypocrit", perhaps you mean:
web1913: Hypocrite
wn: hypocrite
easton: Hypocrite
(More or less picking a post at random to reply to here)
So, what exactly is the difference between:
(a) A library deciding what books to put on its shelves, and
(b) A library deciding what is available in its library in terms of internet access.
I mean, I don't know about US libraries, but last time I went into a library over here, I didn't see a "Hard-core porn" section...
Tut, tut. Go back to Troll School and do the Subtlety module this time :-)
> this is a great question :-p
Why, thankyou
I wasn't trying to "win", I was interested in what the answer was... I'll go off and have a read of that sometime.
> The compiler doesn't produce random machine code
Neither do most programmers. (I know a few that do, but that's besides the point)
The point is, saying it's "impossible" to show that a program written in C is blatantly not true.
> This can NEVER be done in an unsafe language C
/also/ "unsafe", and that's what your pretty source code ends up as. How do you prove that your oh-so-wonderful language is still safe when rendered into raw machine code?
Oh? I'm fairly sure machine code is
> That's against all user interface and usability guidelines
/sure/ they're correct and definitive?
Were these guidelines written on tablets of stone, or something? What makes you so
>You wouldn't need to take down the entire US for that.
Yeah, but can we? Please, please, *please*? Awwwwwwww, g'wan, g'wan, g'wan....
>NEEDS an upgrade procedure
Hmm? cvsup you mean?
ROTFL.
:-)
*ahem* Sorry. Um, how can I say this? You're wrong.
(Incidentally, I would expect your device not configured message to be caused by not having Berkeley Packet Filter compiled into your kernel)
Unless you're just a troll, in which case you might want to aim for a little more subtlety next time, maybe.
Have a nice day now...
Sorry if it seemed a bit troll-like, but my point was intended seriously, and it seemed the best way to get it across.
;-)
>YEAR AND A HALF AGO
*shrug* I don't usually read the comments much, it's usually a waste of time. I'm just particularly bored today
>If the UI isn't 100% efficient, it really doesn't matter
If you use computers every so often, yes. But if you use computers all day, efficiency suddenly matters a hell of a lot, and consistency very little. Customisability becomes the most important thing, because people are more than just numbers in a "usability study", and find that different ways of doing things suit them better.
Sorry, but after using GUI a lot (with all its direct manipulation via mouse and left/right clicking, and having to faff around with menus and windows), whenever I go back to a command line I feel like I've suddenly been released.
Having to click umpteen little icons and remember what particular action happens when you a drag an icon from place X to place Y is NOT a good UI.
You'd have to be an IDIOT to think so. Or at least an arrogant boob who's never realised that a little effort now in getting proficient in a CLI increases your efficiency by a factor of many later on.
However, I do think GUIs have their uses. They can definitely COMPLEMENT a CLI very well, as there are things it can do better, while there are things a CLI can do better as well. And frankly, some things a CLI can't do well is just a weakness in the designs of current CLIs, and NOT an 'inherent limitation' of CLIs.
While that's true, graphical design is about as extreme an example as you can use to support GUIs, you have to admit... For most computer tasks, GUIs just dispose of efficiency in the name of so-called "intuitiveness".
FreeBSD? :-p
> can't seem to imagine a non-WIMP interface method
/Inherently/ graphical applications
Huh? You've never used a command-line then...?
As far as I'm concerned, the best possible user interface is a UNIX-style command line combined with a minimalistic windowing system (fvwm is my personal favourite).
GUIs are useful for two things, and two things only, IMO:
* A place to put your text windows
*
So how many people have bought something / been impressed by a company because the website had twiddly javascript or an impressive-looking Shockwave animation?
And how many people have moved on to another site because the site took too long to load or didn't display properly?
I think the answers to those would provide statistics even managers could understand...
> Won't be so great for the US, since it already has one
;-)
Yeah, but see, it might actually get one that works
"I don't like that law! Therefore, it must be unconstitutional. Good ol' red blooded American logic"
> Like you're really going to get customers by
> insulting them
The sales of the "...for dummies" and similar
books would disagree with you, I feel...