I haven't seen that conspiracy theory yet (which just shows I'm not as good searching for things as I'd like to know) but it'd be a funny thing if google suddenly turned out to be a government ruse to have people willingly provide the information they can't get from them directly.
Especially since people assume Mail and/or IM is private or, at least, ephimerous (sp?).
And what, pray, does the Call Center use to transcribe the words of the customer into the corporate data systems? Chisel and hammer over the disk platters?
If I recall correctly a lot of these call centers do exactly what is being proposed here. Server-side applications for input and control of data.
It's irrelevant if what you're saying makes sense or not anyway (it doesn't to me, for example, and I work in a Fortune 5 company that probably wouldn't be able to find anything else to outsource or convert to a call center even if it tried) because you're talking about *who* inputs the data and not about the tools used to input that data, which is what is actually being talked about here.
*sigh*
And you were doing so well... You're right in that thin clients were NOT the way computing went and that as much as thin clients have tried to make a comeback it just hasn't happened. We're not talking 80s or 90s here either. We're talking the 70s as the decade when computing shifted from thin clients to more powerful desktops and shared workload (between the server and the client), and that movement has kept on progressing to the point where, now, a lot of people have the servers right in their client machines.
Also, the real money is, and always will be, in whatever the current trend for boosting stock is. Right now it's outsourcing (both locally and abroad) and headcount. Not long ago it was in having as much assets as possible and before that it was having as many employees as possible. It will shift again in the future (I have no idea what it'll shift to, though) and will keep shifting, as corporations find new ways to boost stock, governments find new ways to prevent these boosts (taxes, incentives, etc.) and cheaper-labour countries find their income boosted and, thus, stop being cost-effective (come on, do you think India or China will be cheap forever? Already is there a huge shift in numbers from India where so many Indians have been trained and have a resume that they are able to find better-paying jobs for Indian companies or abroad and are making the ANI rise, same as happened in Mexico, therefore becoming less and less cheap. And with China it's just a case of the goverment one day deciding they want something else -especially if everyone depends on them and has lost local knowledge and experience, which is when you can safely raise the demands- ).
Not that is has *ANYTHING* to do with Ajax, web-browsers or having a new way of doing applications that may or may not be used correctly (god knows Java wasn't and is now paying the price and also that Flash wasn't capable and it may now be too late).
That is what Ajax is. A new way to do things in an existing medium. New options. It isn't really that different from suddenly having Javascript or having PHP. It's adding tools to an existing platform and somebody creating something in that platform (the webbrowser) may choose or not to use them. Depending on if the application can take advantage of what the new tools have to offer the application will be better.
Now again, I might just have fallen prey to a troll and have just wasted a few hundred words on it.
It's all Netscape's Fault. Back in the betas the script was supposed to be called LiveScript (oh, how appropiate it would've been these days) but they were swept by the Java hype and couldn't control themselves.
Javascript has always looked to me like a poor attempt to cash in somebody else's marketing investment. It's not like they needed it.
Well. I must admit It's been almost a year I haven't opened the calculator. Every single calculation I've needed to do I've done in Google using the Google search fields in Safari and Firefox.
It becomes second nature after a while. I've found myself doing "Ctrl-L,Tab,write calculation,enter" without realising I might be using IE in somebody else's computer.
I don't think it was judgmental. I think it was very accurate.
Ajax doesn't break anything that other things hadn't "Broken" before (as mentioned, Java Apps, Applets, Flash and at some time even Frames and live JPEG updating -FishCam!-, sessions and cookies, etc.).
As you mentioned it can "fool" the user into thinking it can use the "Back" or "Reload" buttons. This is a specific case of the fault being on the programmer's side (or, in case of corporations, of training or configuration).
As has probably been mentioned in the thread (haven't seen it, but haven't read it whole either) useability issues in ANY kind of application are mainly the fault of the programmers or UI Designers.
Not many people expect using the back button in webmail, banking applications or google maps, and you could hardly refresh more of the window than changing it whole. Users learn to not use the back button when they shouldn't. When I go to amazon and do a search and manage to break the "Back" button I don't think it's Amazon's fault. Nowhere does it say I should be able to use that button everywhere. In the same way I have anti-fog lights in my car but I have learnt I can't use them everywhere.
"Breaking the interface" is not that the "Back button doesn't work anymore". That's been happening for years (next year I might be able to say "Decades"). Breaking the interface is putting a scrollbar that doesn't scroll but looks like it would. Breaking the interface is that a button labeled "Exit" saves your data instead. Breaking the interface is that clicking on an empty area to select text is interpreted as a click and an action is taken on that click.
What you might be breaking with the "Back" button being useless is that the first time a user tries to use it he'll learn he's not supposed to. If you provide alternatives for disabled features (like gmaps does with "Link to this page" or providing alternative URLs for specific Ajax 'Views' (through interpreted anchors, usually) then the user will re-learn how to use the site.
This happens all the time. This is not new to Ajax. This has happened in Desktop Applications, mainframe applications, web applications since the beginning and, while at it, has happened everywhere else (car radios, TV remotes, spots clothes, mobile phones,you name it).
I wonder if this same nonsensical argument came up with the first mobile phones. When designers started arguing that "The user *expects* a dialing tone! And the user should be able to just lower the handset to end the call!".
I don't know how we humans manage to change at all, considering the impression we have of our own selves. I'd be amused if someone two centuries back tried to convince early car makers that the "speed control" shouldn't be a pedal, it should be two reins that when shaken should make the car advance and when pulled should make it stop. And when pulled to one side or the other should steer the vehicle.
(now that I mention it, it would've been a good idea, I'd make more exercise for sure).
You know? The really funny part is that Ajax exists because the OWA teams in MS needed some way to fetch information through Javascript without reloading and without using hidden frames.
XMLHttprequest was created as a way for IE to communicate with the Outlook/Exchange Web Server (OWA) without having to reload things up. It was later duplicated in Mozilla and was pretty much a "hidden feature" until Google (with Suggest, Maps, Groups and gmail), A9 and Apple (with Dashboard) started using it heavily. Then all it needed was someone to come up with a better (and less geeky) buzzword than XMLHttprequest and along came Adaptive Path in their infamous proposal.
I for one, think complaining about the name "Ajax" is stupid and is only done by people who suddenly don't feel so special any more. I used xmlhttprequest before "Ajax" was coined and prefer the smaller, catchier word.
Also, The fact that "Ajax" doesn't work as an acronym (the most vital part is the "j" and the "x" isn't even necessary) doesn't preclude the fact that it's a better term than the acronymic XMLHTTP-Request (it's 8 consonants in a row, for god's sake).
In the end, believing that Ajax will replace ANY OS's desktop is deluded. It's "NC's will replace desktop machines in 5 years" argument all over again. Ajax complements current web technologies and expands the possibilities of Web Applications (while also raising a lot off issues at the same time, which still need to be addressed). Applications that depended on a binary to work over a network may work better as Ajax ones but, then again, others might not; even thinking an Ajax version of Photoshop or iTunes (the former for obvious reasons, and the latter for storage or network, depending on the approach, reasons) could exist makes me cringe in preemptive pain.
You're missing the point. Mod points are not used to "award karma". That's a side effect.
Mod points are there to moderate. So people can read at a level they can ignore the trolls and flamebaits and such.
So, modding ACs is a good thing. I'd first vote for taking out registered users than taking out AC modding. AC modding makes slashdot somewhat readable, as ACs are the ones that troll and flame the most.
There are some of us who aren't here for the karma.
Control-F4 will usually send you to the menubar. Check in System Preferences -> Keyboard and mouse -> Mouse navigation. There you'll find most of the keyboard shortcuts you want.
If you know Unix you'll be right at home in two aspects:
1.-The terminal (obvious one), which is in the utilities folder inside the applications folder.
2.-In understanding the concept of having "an account", a "homedir" and maybe even a "user domain" (even if you're the sole user of the computer).
Everything else is as different from unix as it is from windows (and as unix is from windows, as well). There are enough similar things to get around in your first steps and there are enough similar things to mislead you into thinking you already know more about the OS than you do..:)
All in all, there is little chance you'll screw up as long as you don't obsess with deleting stuff (I know people that still obsess about kilobyte files and prune and roam the directories deleting stuff and they end up breaking stuff).
And as was said before. You uninstall by trashing the application...;)
Use your admin account and don't give anyone the password. Create a new user if anyone wants to use your computer and set a password to the user if he'll be a regular.
A common "guest" account might be advisable if thhe machine will be used by anonymous people (dorm-rooms, busy homes, etc.)
The admin account is not really necessary and creating the account when needed takes only a minute or so.
Maybe you should remind your gf that when learning all of AutoCADs GUI intrincacies she also learnt to use a CAD program profoundly and that means that using a new program, if it means she'll be able to put that CAD knowledge into use without wasting time fighting with a CAD program's GUI should mean saved time in the future.
There are quite a few CAD programs for the Mac, a lot of them considered great, others considered just good and at least one shareware product which I have no idea what to think of, but as it comes from the maker of Graphic Converter I'd praise without even using..:)
Tell her to try one of the leading CAD programs in the mac (and if possible to combine that with Sketchup, which is great) and dabble a bit. She might find out not having to know all of AutoCADs quirks is actually a good thing. And unlearning how to use AutoCAD may actually expand her horizons.
90% of what she does should be similar enough, except programming.
Actually this has been beefed up. Control+the function keys will send you to different parts of the GUI (the menus, the dock, the toolbars).
Actually, OSX has currently more places accessible to the keyboard than windows (if you include toolbars and palettes, which in OSX are accessible with a single keystroke).
I realized the other day I had been working for four hours without reaching for the mouse even once.
You can switch betwen apps, between windows in apps, betweeen tabs in a window.
You can switch between buttons, checkmarks, textboxes and radios in dialogs.
You can move to the menu bar, the dock, the toolbar of any app or a palette of any app.
The ONLY thing missing, if you will, is OSX *showing* you those shortcuts. You have to learn them. They're all accesible in the Mouse&Keyboard system preference and some websites have listings of them.
The only thing there isn't a shortcut for that I can think of is window moving/resizing (not zooming, tho, that's there) and window stacking (which doesn't exist in OSX and good riddance).
Incidentally, control-F4 (control-fn-F4 in powerbooks) will cycle every available window in the order they're stacked.
Windows users might find this similar to how they work in Windows (sans the visual feedback) but you'll end up using the shortcut for apps and the shortcut for documents as it makes so much more sense.
If you're a power user you might want to consider running GeekTool as well, combined with expose and DesktopSweeper (the former moves all windows away to let you see the desktop, the latter allows you to enable/disable viewing of desktop icons) you could have a very functional desktop that works as a monitoring dashboard for the system.
See this URL for reference, it's the way my desktop is currently configured with TinkerTool (and, I should add, QuickCalendar..:).
The two items listings in the middle are Backdrop folders. I was testing the application and it works, allowing you to do a lot of finder-like manipulations while in Expose's "show desktop mode", which natively only allows you one operation before springing back.
The previous screenshot shows the same desktop without backdrop folders. And in the same album there may be oter screenshots of me testing stuff out (screenshots act, acr and acq were tests of Path Finder)
Tinkering, using badly programmed programs and tweaking the system can indeed crash the system. No OS in the world is immune to this. Especially if you compile stuff yourself..:)
I'm not sure about what you mention on the software power switch. Holding the power button for a few seconds will restart any mac (forcefully) and control-starbutton will do so while resetting the power management unit and usually zapping th emachine's settings (which are re-configured upon startup, the date is usually misconfigured, tho')
You should try a few things and see if they work for you:
1.-Try using list view and opening and closing the triangles for expanding/collapsing 2.-Try column view
If this doesn't work and what you want is a view that lists only folders on one side and everything on the other I guess there might be one, but I can't think of it (search for "explorer" in macupdate. I seem to recall someone wanting to do an equivalent of this ini Cocoa).
You sould also try Path Finder. It's a Finder replacement that has almost everything a power user would ever want (including a terminal drawer in every item window)
The story goes that actually this was the reason behind some early imitative works by Miguel (if that's you, Miguel, then maybe you can clear things up).
Midnight Commander, for example, was part of these works made initially as community service more than ten years ago. This is what I heard a LONG time ago.
I also know about the mailing list and know people that were booted from it because of Steve-Jobs-esque histrionics and reactions. Sadly I didn't keep any of the actual posts but I'm sure I could dig some of them up.
Miguel: You surely have done a lot for the linux movement and for this I, of course, praise you. No human is without fault, tho' and it would be perfectly understandable if you had done these things and wouldn't tarnish your current image.
I'd like to enquire as well on what's been mentioned ad nauseaum in this article's comments and something I've mentioned often. Why have most (all?) of your works been imitative? Granted, most projects end up being a lot more than they started but initially they are born as copies of other products (Midnight Commander being not only an early example, but also a BLATANT rip-off of Norton Commander).
Is it justifiable to rip commercial applications off with the excuse of wanting it to be free or enhancing it? Couldn't this be a reaosn why companies now patent their programs and interfaces? This is a problem in a lot of Linux (not so Unix, tho', this is more of a Linux thing that then drips onto other unices afterwards) projects. There is very little initial innovation in projects (whether those projects afterwards evolve on their own and surpass the original copied ones).
Lately Linspire's (formerly Lindows) newsletter make me feel ashamed. Most of the featured programs are blatant rip-offs (down to the interface and features) of other programs. There are clones of iTunes and iPhoto that don't even try to add to the copied originals. Not to mention the whole idea behind Linspire is to copy Windows as much as possible.
This is not a troll, by the way. It's the way I feel and not intended to incense anyone.
I found those pictures in the website written in the pictures. Go nag them. I found them funny and put them there because some friends couldn't see the original site.
There was Xtunes once, which mimicked iTunes in most of the features (sans the Music Store).
It was in http://xtunes.sf.net/ but it seems to have entered some closed testing program or other. I might be wrong and the program might be named similarly somewhere else, but it was almost identical (a little less round around the edges)
Slashdot Mirror
And how do you know this isn't the case already?
I haven't seen that conspiracy theory yet (which just shows I'm not as good searching for things as I'd like to know) but it'd be a funny thing if google suddenly turned out to be a government ruse to have people willingly provide the information they can't get from them directly.
Especially since people assume Mail and/or IM is private or, at least, ephimerous (sp?).
Eduo
And what, pray, does the Call Center use to transcribe the words of the customer into the corporate data systems? Chisel and hammer over the disk platters?
If I recall correctly a lot of these call centers do exactly what is being proposed here. Server-side applications for input and control of data.
It's irrelevant if what you're saying makes sense or not anyway (it doesn't to me, for example, and I work in a Fortune 5 company that probably wouldn't be able to find anything else to outsource or convert to a call center even if it tried) because you're talking about *who* inputs the data and not about the tools used to input that data, which is what is actually being talked about here.
*sigh*
And you were doing so well... You're right in that thin clients were NOT the way computing went and that as much as thin clients have tried to make a comeback it just hasn't happened. We're not talking 80s or 90s here either. We're talking the 70s as the decade when computing shifted from thin clients to more powerful desktops and shared workload (between the server and the client), and that movement has kept on progressing to the point where, now, a lot of people have the servers right in their client machines.
Also, the real money is, and always will be, in whatever the current trend for boosting stock is. Right now it's outsourcing (both locally and abroad) and headcount. Not long ago it was in having as much assets as possible and before that it was having as many employees as possible. It will shift again in the future (I have no idea what it'll shift to, though) and will keep shifting, as corporations find new ways to boost stock, governments find new ways to prevent these boosts (taxes, incentives, etc.) and cheaper-labour countries find their income boosted and, thus, stop being cost-effective (come on, do you think India or China will be cheap forever? Already is there a huge shift in numbers from India where so many Indians have been trained and have a resume that they are able to find better-paying jobs for Indian companies or abroad and are making the ANI rise, same as happened in Mexico, therefore becoming less and less cheap. And with China it's just a case of the goverment one day deciding they want something else -especially if everyone depends on them and has lost local knowledge and experience, which is when you can safely raise the demands- ).
Not that is has *ANYTHING* to do with Ajax, web-browsers or having a new way of doing applications that may or may not be used correctly (god knows Java wasn't and is now paying the price and also that Flash wasn't capable and it may now be too late).
That is what Ajax is. A new way to do things in an existing medium. New options. It isn't really that different from suddenly having Javascript or having PHP. It's adding tools to an existing platform and somebody creating something in that platform (the webbrowser) may choose or not to use them. Depending on if the application can take advantage of what the new tools have to offer the application will be better.
Now again, I might just have fallen prey to a troll and have just wasted a few hundred words on it.
Eduo
Erm. I obviously meant "the term 'JavaScript'", not JavaScript itself, which I think is great.
Eduo
It's all Netscape's Fault. Back in the betas the script was supposed to be called LiveScript (oh, how appropiate it would've been these days) but they were swept by the Java hype and couldn't control themselves.
Javascript has always looked to me like a poor attempt to cash in somebody else's marketing investment. It's not like they needed it.
Eduo
Well. I must admit It's been almost a year I haven't opened the calculator. Every single calculation I've needed to do I've done in Google using the Google search fields in Safari and Firefox.
It becomes second nature after a while. I've found myself doing "Ctrl-L,Tab,write calculation,enter" without realising I might be using IE in somebody else's computer.
Eduo
I don't think it was judgmental. I think it was very accurate.
Ajax doesn't break anything that other things hadn't "Broken" before (as mentioned, Java Apps, Applets, Flash and at some time even Frames and live JPEG updating -FishCam!-, sessions and cookies, etc.).
As you mentioned it can "fool" the user into thinking it can use the "Back" or "Reload" buttons. This is a specific case of the fault being on the programmer's side (or, in case of corporations, of training or configuration).
As has probably been mentioned in the thread (haven't seen it, but haven't read it whole either) useability issues in ANY kind of application are mainly the fault of the programmers or UI Designers.
Not many people expect using the back button in webmail, banking applications or google maps, and you could hardly refresh more of the window than changing it whole. Users learn to not use the back button when they shouldn't. When I go to amazon and do a search and manage to break the "Back" button I don't think it's Amazon's fault. Nowhere does it say I should be able to use that button everywhere. In the same way I have anti-fog lights in my car but I have learnt I can't use them everywhere.
"Breaking the interface" is not that the "Back button doesn't work anymore". That's been happening for years (next year I might be able to say "Decades"). Breaking the interface is putting a scrollbar that doesn't scroll but looks like it would. Breaking the interface is that a button labeled "Exit" saves your data instead. Breaking the interface is that clicking on an empty area to select text is interpreted as a click and an action is taken on that click.
What you might be breaking with the "Back" button being useless is that the first time a user tries to use it he'll learn he's not supposed to. If you provide alternatives for disabled features (like gmaps does with "Link to this page" or providing alternative URLs for specific Ajax 'Views' (through interpreted anchors, usually) then the user will re-learn how to use the site.
This happens all the time. This is not new to Ajax. This has happened in Desktop Applications, mainframe applications, web applications since the beginning and, while at it, has happened everywhere else (car radios, TV remotes, spots clothes, mobile phones,you name it).
I wonder if this same nonsensical argument came up with the first mobile phones. When designers started arguing that "The user *expects* a dialing tone! And the user should be able to just lower the handset to end the call!".
I don't know how we humans manage to change at all, considering the impression we have of our own selves. I'd be amused if someone two centuries back tried to convince early car makers that the "speed control" shouldn't be a pedal, it should be two reins that when shaken should make the car advance and when pulled should make it stop. And when pulled to one side or the other should steer the vehicle.
(now that I mention it, it would've been a good idea, I'd make more exercise for sure).
Eduo
You know? The really funny part is that Ajax exists because the OWA teams in MS needed some way to fetch information through Javascript without reloading and without using hidden frames.
XMLHttprequest was created as a way for IE to communicate with the Outlook/Exchange Web Server (OWA) without having to reload things up. It was later duplicated in Mozilla and was pretty much a "hidden feature" until Google (with Suggest, Maps, Groups and gmail), A9 and Apple (with Dashboard) started using it heavily. Then all it needed was someone to come up with a better (and less geeky) buzzword than XMLHttprequest and along came Adaptive Path in their infamous proposal.
I for one, think complaining about the name "Ajax" is stupid and is only done by people who suddenly don't feel so special any more. I used xmlhttprequest before "Ajax" was coined and prefer the smaller, catchier word.
Also, The fact that "Ajax" doesn't work as an acronym (the most vital part is the "j" and the "x" isn't even necessary) doesn't preclude the fact that it's a better term than the acronymic XMLHTTP-Request (it's 8 consonants in a row, for god's sake).
In the end, believing that Ajax will replace ANY OS's desktop is deluded. It's "NC's will replace desktop machines in 5 years" argument all over again. Ajax complements current web technologies and expands the possibilities of Web Applications (while also raising a lot off issues at the same time, which still need to be addressed). Applications that depended on a binary to work over a network may work better as Ajax ones but, then again, others might not; even thinking an Ajax version of Photoshop or iTunes (the former for obvious reasons, and the latter for storage or network, depending on the approach, reasons) could exist makes me cringe in preemptive pain.
Eduo
Actually Miguel is from Mexico, not Spain.
As a spaniard I need to make that clear.
Actually no. Heavy is a different thing, fat isn't. Fat as an adjective is a visual connotation, heavy isn't.
You could be fat and not be heavy, you probably couldn't be fat and light, tho'
Eduo
You're missing the point. Mod points are not used to "award karma". That's a side effect.
Mod points are there to moderate. So people can read at a level they can ignore the trolls and flamebaits and such.
So, modding ACs is a good thing. I'd first vote for taking out registered users than taking out AC modding. AC modding makes slashdot somewhat readable, as ACs are the ones that troll and flame the most.
There are some of us who aren't here for the karma.
Eduo
Control-F4 will usually send you to the menubar. Check in System Preferences -> Keyboard and mouse -> Mouse navigation. There you'll find most of the keyboard shortcuts you want.
NOTE: There's no "windowshade" in MacOSX. You can add it through a third party, just like in Windows.
OS9 and earlier had windowshade.
This is not exactly true.
If you know Unix you'll be right at home in two aspects:
1.-The terminal (obvious one), which is in the utilities folder inside the applications folder.
2.-In understanding the concept of having "an account", a "homedir" and maybe even a "user domain" (even if you're the sole user of the computer).
Everything else is as different from unix as it is from windows (and as unix is from windows, as well). There are enough similar things to get around in your first steps and there are enough similar things to mislead you into thinking you already know more about the OS than you do..:)
All in all, there is little chance you'll screw up as long as you don't obsess with deleting stuff (I know people that still obsess about kilobyte files and prune and roam the directories deleting stuff and they end up breaking stuff).
And as was said before. You uninstall by trashing the application...;)
You can really simplify this to:
Use your admin account and don't give anyone the password. Create a new user if anyone wants to use your computer and set a password to the user if he'll be a regular.
A common "guest" account might be advisable if thhe machine will be used by anonymous people (dorm-rooms, busy homes, etc.)
The admin account is not really necessary and creating the account when needed takes only a minute or so.
Maybe you should remind your gf that when learning all of AutoCADs GUI intrincacies she also learnt to use a CAD program profoundly and that means that using a new program, if it means she'll be able to put that CAD knowledge into use without wasting time fighting with a CAD program's GUI should mean saved time in the future.
There are quite a few CAD programs for the Mac, a lot of them considered great, others considered just good and at least one shareware product which I have no idea what to think of, but as it comes from the maker of Graphic Converter I'd praise without even using..:)
Tell her to try one of the leading CAD programs in the mac (and if possible to combine that with Sketchup, which is great) and dabble a bit. She might find out not having to know all of AutoCADs quirks is actually a good thing. And unlearning how to use AutoCAD may actually expand her horizons.
90% of what she does should be similar enough, except programming.
Actually this has been beefed up. Control+the function keys will send you to different parts of the GUI (the menus, the dock, the toolbars).
Actually, OSX has currently more places accessible to the keyboard than windows (if you include toolbars and palettes, which in OSX are accessible with a single keystroke).
I realized the other day I had been working for four hours without reaching for the mouse even once.
You can switch betwen apps, between windows in apps, betweeen tabs in a window.
You can switch between buttons, checkmarks, textboxes and radios in dialogs.
You can move to the menu bar, the dock, the toolbar of any app or a palette of any app.
The ONLY thing missing, if you will, is OSX *showing* you those shortcuts. You have to learn them. They're all accesible in the Mouse&Keyboard system preference and some websites have listings of them.
The only thing there isn't a shortcut for that I can think of is window moving/resizing (not zooming, tho, that's there) and window stacking (which doesn't exist in OSX and good riddance).
Eduo
Incidentally, control-F4 (control-fn-F4 in powerbooks) will cycle every available window in the order they're stacked.
Windows users might find this similar to how they work in Windows (sans the visual feedback) but you'll end up using the shortcut for apps and the shortcut for documents as it makes so much more sense.
Great post.
If you're a power user you might want to consider running GeekTool as well, combined with expose and DesktopSweeper (the former moves all windows away to let you see the desktop, the latter allows you to enable/disable viewing of desktop icons) you could have a very functional desktop that works as a monitoring dashboard for the system.
See this URL for reference, it's the way my desktop is currently configured with TinkerTool (and, I should add, QuickCalendar..:).
The two items listings in the middle are Backdrop folders. I was testing the application and it works, allowing you to do a lot of finder-like manipulations while in Expose's "show desktop mode", which natively only allows you one operation before springing back.
http://www.ciateq.net.mx/~eduo/gallery/view_photo. php?set_albumName=Public&id=acv
The previous screenshot shows the same desktop without backdrop folders. And in the same album there may be oter screenshots of me testing stuff out (screenshots act, acr and acq were tests of Path Finder)
Normal use doesn't lock up the machine.
Tinkering, using badly programmed programs and tweaking the system can indeed crash the system. No OS in the world is immune to this. Especially if you compile stuff yourself..:)
I'm not sure about what you mention on the software power switch. Holding the power button for a few seconds will restart any mac (forcefully) and control-starbutton will do so while resetting the power management unit and usually zapping th emachine's settings (which are re-configured upon startup, the date is usually misconfigured, tho')
You should try a few things and see if they work for you:
1.-Try using list view and opening and closing the triangles for expanding/collapsing
2.-Try column view
If this doesn't work and what you want is a view that lists only folders on one side and everything on the other I guess there might be one, but I can't think of it (search for "explorer" in macupdate. I seem to recall someone wanting to do an equivalent of this ini Cocoa).
You sould also try Path Finder. It's a Finder replacement that has almost everything a power user would ever want (including a terminal drawer in every item window)
Eduo
You should really read the book again.
Really.
Lilliput and Laputa have nothing to do with each other.
Lilliputian is a common word in english to mean "small". The Laputa island was the flying/floating one.
Damn.
The story goes that actually this was the reason behind some early imitative works by Miguel (if that's you, Miguel, then maybe you can clear things up).
Midnight Commander, for example, was part of these works made initially as community service more than ten years ago. This is what I heard a LONG time ago.
I also know about the mailing list and know people that were booted from it because of Steve-Jobs-esque histrionics and reactions. Sadly I didn't keep any of the actual posts but I'm sure I could dig some of them up.
Miguel: You surely have done a lot for the linux movement and for this I, of course, praise you. No human is without fault, tho' and it would be perfectly understandable if you had done these things and wouldn't tarnish your current image.
I'd like to enquire as well on what's been mentioned ad nauseaum in this article's comments and something I've mentioned often. Why have most (all?) of your works been imitative? Granted, most projects end up being a lot more than they started but initially they are born as copies of other products (Midnight Commander being not only an early example, but also a BLATANT rip-off of Norton Commander).
Is it justifiable to rip commercial applications off with the excuse of wanting it to be free or enhancing it? Couldn't this be a reaosn why companies now patent their programs and interfaces? This is a problem in a lot of Linux (not so Unix, tho', this is more of a Linux thing that then drips onto other unices afterwards) projects. There is very little initial innovation in projects (whether those projects afterwards evolve on their own and surpass the original copied ones).
Lately Linspire's (formerly Lindows) newsletter make me feel ashamed. Most of the featured programs are blatant rip-offs (down to the interface and features) of other programs. There are clones of iTunes and iPhoto that don't even try to add to the copied originals. Not to mention the whole idea behind Linspire is to copy Windows as much as possible.
This is not a troll, by the way. It's the way I feel and not intended to incense anyone.
Eduo
Yup, and not only that, but people had to scroll over the hot chick (named Juliet) to get to the screenshots.
Also, those that did look other than the screenshots only saw the cat, which kind of worries me.
I found those pictures in the website written in the pictures. Go nag them. I found them funny and put them there because some friends couldn't see the original site.
There was Xtunes once, which mimicked iTunes in most of the features (sans the Music Store).
It was in http://xtunes.sf.net/ but it seems to have entered some closed testing program or other. I might be wrong and the program might be named similarly somewhere else, but it was almost identical (a little less round around the edges)