You can't give away a user interface that's under design, because the people it's aimed at pleasing will not be able to use it. That doesn't mean you can't write a good interface in an open source, though. It just means that open source and good interface have little or nothing to do with each other. Just as for every other programming method, follow these steps.
Know the audience.
Know what the audience will want to do in the software.
Know how the audience is going to want to do it in the software.
Lastly, decide how to code it.
People decide whether or not to use something based on it's interface. So design the interface first. That will make them use the software. Then, if you've done that job properly, the way you code the software will determine whether or not people LIKE it, and continue to use it.
I'm not much on the technical side, so I'm hoping someone can answer this for me...
If you wanted to implement a 3D interface on Linux, what kind of task is that (excluding the obvious definition... "huge")? And is that something that would require a replacement for X, or does X have the capability to have a 3D environment on top of it?
I have a strong feeling that peope are going to start emulating the Aqua-style interface in X windows. I think if Linux were to have a real advantage (and not simply be copy-catting at an ever proficient pace), it should focus on the next step that the commercial vendors haven't arrived at yet.
The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly confuse consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not sleep with Microsoft's God.
It's interesting. The original article speaks of a book called Shadow Syndromes. It's more than likely that this book dealt with all sorts of shadow syndromes, and less than likely that konstant has read it.
Yet, as a geek (as most of us here are), konstant took the stance that this analysis of his traits and their relationship to a disease was a personal attack. He was only able to see the word Autistic, and not the larger picture.
My interpretation was not that geeks are abnormal because they are on the thin part of a bell curve. My interpretation was that autistic people are normal, because they are on the bell curve at all.
PHP may have been/.ed earlier, but it looks as though zend.com is now. Can anyone enumerate the language enhancements mentioned, and anyone else give comments on their usefulness?
There seem to be a few people making comments on CA's software products and their reliability. Well, I'll add my voice to that list. My organization is implementing CA's Unicenter Advanced helpdesk application throughout. 2/3rds of the features of this application are primarily useless, and have no function in the real world. A good portion of the features were completely foreighn to the CA employees that installed the software for us. We have yet to be able to CHANGE OUR PASSWORDS! This is after 6 months of up-time. Give yourself 120 man-hours, and most of the people reading this could come up with a more functional database application on their own. My own, small, meandering experience added to the melee of complaint, and CA is no better off.
They think they can accomplish good. I mean they are utterly convinced of it. The average adult wouldn't think for a moment that they have the power to affect any sort of change on the government's part, Franchise or no. Yet, every time one of these kiddies lets it be known that they have obtained access, they are dictating the priorities of some very high level IS professionals.
As an aside, I used to do IS for a high school, so I know how the FBI feels. Of course, I was a co-op student. These guys are highly paid professionals (one would hope). Somehow I imagine it's different for them.
Regardless, my point is imagine what would happen if all these people thought that they were able to affect a good result for all of society. Imagine, for instance, that all of these people believed that they were able to eliminate political problems like campaign financing scandal. They would have to use different tools, and different methods, but if they already had the belief that they could do it, they would have acheived the most important part already.
But that won't happen. Why? Because as is so often the case, the people with the drive and skill, do not have the vision to see what they are really capable of.
They live in fear of being found out by the FBI. So they attack the FBI. It gives them comfort. It's selfish. No one else cares. Society as a whole doesn't give a rat's ass about kiddies living in fear of retribution. Society is what says that the retribution should exist, for christs sake.
So they lose the respect of the people that see what they do, because for all the skill and drive, they are selfish, and they are of no benefit to us.
If only we could bottle that drive, that belief that there is something that can be done against the greatest of foes, regardless of your individual power.
That's the reason I'm intrigued with the Open Source movement. What is different between the Open Source people and script kiddies? Vision. Where did it come from? And how could we bottle it and give it to them?
I'm in my low (very low) twenties, I work in a group of 5 people. The guy in charge used to be a hairstylist. I'm a conservative university dropout. Two of us are women with children, and the other is also in his low twenties. None of us have ponytails. Being as how we live in Canada, we don't get paid anywhere near 60kUS. We're not constantly on call yet, either (that starts in a couple months). Is it just me, or is the computer geek image a little romanticized even in a "real life" article like this one?
First, I apologize for the pseudo-english in the topic. Translation:
"The point is not whether or not code is speech, the point is whether or not the internet is export."
The question of whether or not code == speech is really being debated for no reason. Personally, I think the answer is yes. Here's why:
Anything that communicates something can be considered under free-speech laws. But there are zillions of things that are restricted, that could be considered communication. Why? Because they violate a value held higher than free speech. For example, you can't express yourself in the manner of shooting someone, because we value personal safety more than free speech. So the question is not whether or not code is speech, the question is whether or not "Communication for the purpose of strong-encryption" is against the law in the same way that "communication for the purpose of prosititution" is. And, unfortunately, if the government says that it's against the law, then the government is right (for all intents and purposes).
Whether or not it should be against the law, is a much more interesting question in my mind, and has nothing to do with free speech. It is the fact that by placing this information on a web page, the professor provided outside countries with access to the information. This is what's considered illegal, and what should be debated.
I'm not real knowledgable on the topic of export (I'd sure like to learn more, though), but it seems to me that any country with computer geeks in it is going to come up with strong-encryption on their own eventually. I don't think (from a political point of view) it's worth the trouble of trying to convict sympathetic university professors to extend the exclusivity of the information.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason you were moderated down in my case is because I have no such cookies.
Perhaps what you have is the remnant of last year's April Fools joke. I hear there were some questionable cookies in that.
I've looked at your user info, you seem well-meaning, merely misinformed. That's why I'm not moderating you down again.
- Know the audience.
- Know what the audience will want to do in the software.
- Know how the audience is going to want to do it in the software.
- Lastly, decide how to code it.
People decide whether or not to use something based on it's interface. So design the interface first. That will make them use the software. Then, if you've done that job properly, the way you code the software will determine whether or not people LIKE it, and continue to use it.10^1000000000000000000000000000000
Now That's a cool number.
If you wanted to implement a 3D interface on Linux, what kind of task is that (excluding the obvious definition... "huge")? And is that something that would require a replacement for X, or does X have the capability to have a 3D environment on top of it?
I have a strong feeling that peope are going to start emulating the Aqua-style interface in X windows. I think if Linux were to have a real advantage (and not simply be copy-catting at an ever proficient pace), it should focus on the next step that the commercial vendors haven't arrived at yet.
>add_date +1
Jan 1 100
This would have been caught before, but there was no source code readily available, and no one thought to check it.
I got my Y2K bug. That's all I expect to see.
The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly confuse consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not sleep with Microsoft's God.
I mean, by really old common-law type standards, first person to put a flag on the territory gets it, yes?
I personally wish more of them were wrong, but...
Yet, as a geek (as most of us here are), konstant took the stance that this analysis of his traits and their relationship to a disease was a personal attack. He was only able to see the word Autistic, and not the larger picture.
My interpretation was not that geeks are abnormal because they are on the thin part of a bell curve. My interpretation was that autistic people are normal, because they are on the bell curve at all.
But then, maybe I'm not a geek.
Tried a number of times... can't get there. Still replies to pings, though.
PHP may have been /.ed earlier, but it looks as though zend.com is now. Can anyone enumerate the language enhancements mentioned, and anyone else give comments on their usefulness?
Thanks,
Gothland
There seem to be a few people making comments on CA's software products and their reliability. Well, I'll add my voice to that list. My organization is implementing CA's Unicenter Advanced helpdesk application throughout. 2/3rds of the features of this application are primarily useless, and have no function in the real world. A good portion of the features were completely foreighn to the CA employees that installed the software for us. We have yet to be able to CHANGE OUR PASSWORDS! This is after 6 months of up-time. Give yourself 120 man-hours, and most of the people reading this could come up with a more functional database application on their own. My own, small, meandering experience added to the melee of complaint, and CA is no better off.
Regards,
Gothland
You know what strikes me?
They think they can accomplish good. I mean they are utterly convinced of it. The average adult wouldn't think for a moment that they have the power to affect any sort of change on the government's part, Franchise or no. Yet, every time one of these kiddies lets it be known that they have obtained access, they are dictating the priorities of some very high level IS professionals.
As an aside, I used to do IS for a high school, so I know how the FBI feels. Of course, I was a co-op student. These guys are highly paid professionals (one would hope). Somehow I imagine it's different for them.
Regardless, my point is imagine what would happen if all these people thought that they were able to affect a good result for all of society. Imagine, for instance, that all of these people believed that they were able to eliminate political problems like campaign financing scandal. They would have to use different tools, and different methods, but if they already had the belief that they could do it, they would have acheived the most important part already.
But that won't happen. Why? Because as is so often the case, the people with the drive and skill, do not have the vision to see what they are really capable of.
They live in fear of being found out by the FBI. So they attack the FBI. It gives them comfort. It's selfish. No one else cares. Society as a whole doesn't give a rat's ass about kiddies living in fear of retribution. Society is what says that the retribution should exist, for christs sake.
So they lose the respect of the people that see what they do, because for all the skill and drive, they are selfish, and they are of no benefit to us.
If only we could bottle that drive, that belief that there is something that can be done against the greatest of foes, regardless of your individual power.
That's the reason I'm intrigued with the Open Source movement. What is different between the Open Source people and script kiddies? Vision. Where did it come from? And how could we bottle it and give it to them?
Just a thought.
Gothland
I'm in my low (very low) twenties, I work in a group of 5 people. The guy in charge used to be a hairstylist. I'm a conservative university dropout. Two of us are women with children, and the other is also in his low twenties. None of us have ponytails. Being as how we live in Canada, we don't get paid anywhere near 60kUS. We're not constantly on call yet, either (that starts in a couple months). Is it just me, or is the computer geek image a little romanticized even in a "real life" article like this one?
First, I apologize for the pseudo-english in the topic. Translation:
"The point is not whether or not code is speech, the point is whether or not the internet is export."
The question of whether or not code == speech is really being debated for no reason. Personally, I think the answer is yes. Here's why:
Anything that communicates something can be considered under free-speech laws. But there are zillions of things that are restricted, that could be considered communication. Why? Because they violate a value held higher than free speech. For example, you can't express yourself in the manner of shooting someone, because we value personal safety more than free speech. So the question is not whether or not code is speech, the question is whether or not "Communication for the purpose of strong-encryption" is against the law in the same way that "communication for the purpose of prosititution" is. And, unfortunately, if the government says that it's against the law, then the government is right (for all intents and purposes).
Whether or not it should be against the law, is a much more interesting question in my mind, and has nothing to do with free speech. It is the fact that by placing this information on a web page, the professor provided outside countries with access to the information. This is what's considered illegal, and what should be debated.
I'm not real knowledgable on the topic of export (I'd sure like to learn more, though), but it seems to me that any country with computer geeks in it is going to come up with strong-encryption on their own eventually. I don't think (from a political point of view) it's worth the trouble of trying to convict sympathetic university professors to extend the exclusivity of the information.