I'm quite surprised too by all this stories about command lines beeing evil and confusing.
Almost everyone knows how to use a keyboard, and after all the cli is just another (very very simple) language to learn. Perhaps it's because the software industry managed lately to make people think using a computer is simple as long as you have a mouse?
People who are constantly asking for mouse-driven-only/no cli UI are forgetting we invented icons, drawn communication before the massive improvement that has been the invention of Writing.
Graphical/Mouse driven Interfaces suits well what I could call 'Analog' works like drawing, selections on a plan but don't bring anything to describe an action.
For example, I think it's completly senseless to display an OK and CANCEL button one next to another:
To acknowledge this dialog, which is an action with only 2 possibility, you have to make a pointer travel on an area. So, for finite set of actions, you use an interface that provides lots of ways to achieve the choice.
This design would only have a sense if the gui was able to interpret your moves towards the OK and CANCEL button and act accordingly. (why not ask the question another time, if the person suddently jumped from the OK to the CANCEL button for example?
And please. Forget this Desktop metaphor. Mine's always messy, why would I want the same kind of work-environment on a PC?
For people interested in how linux cope with realtime stuff (here realtime sound synthesis, I found this discussion on the alsa-project mailing list interesting:
I'm a bit picky, but I don't think it's fair to take the fact the mouse is jerky when you're doing CPU intensive tasks as a proof that the linux scheduler releases big time slices (but I do know it isn't specially optimised for a media use). I'd think it's because the Xserver didn't choose to have a different thread for handling the mouse pointer, and I've seen other Xservers handling it better. (like AccelX)
Instead of having lots of different distributions fighting on the market with sometimes no really defined target (ex: Redhat...) Why wouldn't distributions try to provide different personalities to Linux?
I fear it would be costy, as you would perhaps have to modify many parts including drivers, but maybe it would be possible to change the linux kernel to enhance its performance in the audio/video processing area. This is indeed a fact that Linux is targeted on servers. I don't have a need for a server... I mostly use my box for audio stuff and the only answer the linux seems to provide are the Real Time / FIFO task policies.
(and btw I tried BeOS. No need to tell me to use it instead.)
Depends of course if you have some weird hardware, or if you need a dhcp client or ppp for instance. I don't need those, and my initscripts are pretty clean (no maintenance or checking scripts), the kernel too don't have useless things compiled in so no need for scanning hw, my soundboard is initialised by Alsa....
First I really don't see what's with those bootup time contests since a good os like be or linux can configure itself without rebooting. And don't tell me your switching OSes every 2hours.
And my linux too's booting around the 8-10 seconds.
Well many games claimed to boot with their own special os. And mostly, before the hdd games, I think they only accessed the chips directly... for gfx and sound, perhaps even for savegames and such.
I read the amiga.com bbs to have an idea of what the amiga user says of the late news.
I'm a bit confused.
From what I saw, amiga user who are against the linux kernel use basically just repeating again and again that the qnx kernel is technically better, and innovative. (and Realtime...:) )
It seems they'd prefer to have a far technically better kernel, with no support, no apps, performant for the sake of it against a kernel which have been prooved to develop very quickly.
Sounds like they have suicidal tendancies;)
I have another concern. Again and again they say the original AmigaDos was a micro kernel. I thought microkernels are still research cases even if they are implemented yet. I'd think a small start up like amiga wouldn't have been able to develop such a concept back in 89 (was it before)
It seems too those people are seeing microkernels as the best design. I've read Linus didn't quite agree on that.
Was the AmigaDos kernel really a realtime kernel? If I remember well, lots of apps bypassed the kernel. (games, demos) Would they have done that if it really was Realtime?
And what is this Convergence Technology industry they're talking about? vaporindustry?
I bought an amiga1200 last year. I never owned any amiga before. I realised the os back then was really flexible, user friendly. (the only one gui I was astonished to use naturaly) What if Amiga International brought those elements to Linux? (frankly I don't care, I mostly don't use Gui, but I'd think it would be a reason not to flame Amiga Int. for their switch)
What about the way Amiga Int. deal with its partners... was there no communication between qnx and amigados.
This is true for some games. Like stupid shooters and arcade ones that will be warezed anyway. But I'm more interested in simulations and rpg.
In the racing simulation domain, it's the support, the docs, and the engine who counts, but also what the users will do with it. For example, gp2, gplegends are 2 games that have been extensively upgraded by people who reversed engineered them to build new cars, new seasons, new tracks.
Had them been opensourced, this developpement would have been far more efficient, and it could have boosted the sales of a few games. (Especially since a few companies can't do everything an user can... like for example the company that brought us sports car gt and didn't implement extern car damages to not hurt manufacturers' image)
My point is that it is feasable for those kinds of games to exist, and be successful, even if they had been opensourced... as long as the support is sufficient and good.
How come I learned about this thing only on slashdot? No media here's talking about that thing. If nerds are so eager to exercise their nationalists arguments than they take a minor celebration and describe it as a 'revolt' they should start considering to stop using drugs.
Theft or simply software sharing with other people? You can't have people respect the concept of not giving away software they bought or didn't bought. The copy process is costless, and it doesn't hurt the author.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm quite surprised too by all this stories about command lines beeing evil and confusing.
Almost everyone knows how to use a keyboard, and after all the cli is just another (very very simple) language to learn. Perhaps it's because the software industry managed lately to make people think using a computer is simple as long as you have a mouse?
People who are constantly asking for mouse-driven-only/no cli UI are forgetting we invented icons, drawn communication before the massive improvement that has been the invention of Writing.
Graphical/Mouse driven Interfaces suits well what I could call 'Analog' works like drawing, selections on a plan but don't bring anything to describe an action.
For example, I think it's completly senseless to display an OK and CANCEL button one next to another:
And please. Forget this Desktop metaphor. Mine's always messy, why would I want the same kind of work-environment on a PC?
For people interested in how linux cope with realtime stuff (here realtime sound synthesis, I found this discussion on the alsa-project mailing list interesting:
alsa-devel @alsa-project.org mailing liste archive
measurement copyright Paul Barton-Davis (used without permission ;)
First thanks for your informative answer :)
I'm a bit picky, but I don't think it's fair to take the fact the mouse is jerky when you're doing CPU intensive tasks as a proof that the linux scheduler releases big time slices (but I do know it isn't specially optimised for a media use). I'd think it's because the Xserver didn't choose to have a different thread for handling the mouse pointer, and I've seen other Xservers handling it better. (like AccelX)
Instead of having lots of different distributions fighting on the market with sometimes no really defined target (ex: Redhat...) Why wouldn't distributions try to provide different personalities to Linux?
I fear it would be costy, as you would perhaps have to modify many parts including drivers, but maybe it would be possible to change the linux kernel to enhance its performance in the audio/video processing area. This is indeed a fact that Linux is targeted on servers. I don't have a need for a server... I mostly use my box for audio stuff and the only answer the linux seems to provide are the Real Time / FIFO task policies.
(and btw I tried BeOS. No need to tell me to use it instead.)
Depends of course if you have some weird hardware, or if you need a dhcp client or ppp for instance. I don't need those, and my initscripts are pretty clean (no maintenance or checking scripts), the kernel too don't have useless things compiled in so no need for scanning hw, my soundboard is initialised by Alsa....
First I really don't see what's with those bootup time contests since a good os like be or linux can configure itself without rebooting. And don't tell me your switching OSes every 2hours.
And my linux too's booting around the 8-10 seconds.
in which groups jmagic was? I suppose in the amiga section of complex, but was he in other groups?
(if the amiga complex is related at all with the pc complex)
and I think there's the in-dev hurd os which uses a gnumach kernel...
:)
My real concern in fact was if this is a succesful approach, and if at the time the amigaos was created, it was a already implemented
Well many games claimed to boot with their own special os. And mostly, before the hdd games, I think they only accessed the chips directly... for gfx and sound, perhaps even for savegames and such.
I read the amiga.com bbs to have an idea of what the amiga user says of the late news.
I'm a bit confused.
From what I saw, amiga user who are against the linux kernel use basically just repeating again and again that the qnx kernel is technically better, and innovative. (and Realtime... :) )
It seems they'd prefer to have a far technically better kernel, with no support, no apps, performant for the sake of it against a kernel which have been prooved to develop very quickly.
Sounds like they have suicidal tendancies ;)
I have another concern. Again and again they say the original AmigaDos was a micro kernel. I thought microkernels are still research cases even if they are implemented yet. I'd think a small start up like amiga wouldn't have been able to develop such a concept back in 89 (was it before)
It seems too those people are seeing microkernels as the best design. I've read Linus didn't quite agree on that.
Was the AmigaDos kernel really a realtime kernel? If I remember well, lots of apps bypassed the kernel. (games, demos) Would they have done that if it really was Realtime?
And what is this Convergence Technology industry they're talking about? vaporindustry?
I bought an amiga1200 last year. I never owned any amiga before. I realised the os back then was really flexible, user friendly. (the only one gui I was astonished to use naturaly) What if Amiga International brought those elements to Linux? (frankly I don't care, I mostly don't use Gui, but I'd think it would be a reason not to flame Amiga Int. for their switch)
What about the way Amiga Int. deal with its partners... was there no communication between qnx and amigados.
This is true for some games. Like stupid shooters and arcade ones that will be warezed anyway. But I'm more interested in simulations and rpg.
In the racing simulation domain, it's the support, the docs, and the engine who counts, but also what the users will do with it. For example, gp2, gplegends are 2 games that have been extensively upgraded by people who reversed engineered them to build new cars, new seasons, new tracks.
Had them been opensourced, this developpement would have been far more efficient, and it could have boosted the sales of a few games. (Especially since a few companies can't do everything an user can... like for example the company that brought us sports car gt and didn't implement extern car damages to not hurt manufacturers' image)
My point is that it is feasable for those kinds of games to exist, and be successful, even if they had been opensourced... as long as the support is sufficient and good.
How come I learned about this thing only on slashdot?
No media here's talking about that thing. If nerds are so eager to exercise their nationalists arguments than they take a minor celebration and describe it as a 'revolt' they should start considering to stop using drugs.
Not to mention the fact Bob Metcalfe and his parents are just the results of a 8billion years technology.
Theft or simply software sharing with other people? You can't have people respect the concept of not giving away software they bought or didn't bought. The copy process is costless, and it doesn't hurt the author.