Considering I started this whole discussion I think I'll keep calling it by the term that I meant to: Designer. I'm not talking about "Software Architects." Of course that's a job for programmers; who else could do it?
I am not talking about GUI design either, although that's closer to the truth. I'm talking about *interface* design. Maybe it's a semantic difference, but I don't necessarily think "interface" has to do with the graphical display aspect of an application (clearly not in text-mode, but I'm talking about windowing systems too).
What I meant was that a programmer should code (and design the code as in "Software Architect") but they should not design the *interface* to their own code. That should be done by a separate team. The other team doesn't have to be non-programmers, but they do have to be good designers. And they do have to communicate well with the programmers. They just shouldn't get involved in the writing/planning of the code and vice-versa. Unconscious maybe, but its a clear conflict of interests.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Although in this case you'd even be hard-pressed to get this stuff to come out of your stereo-speakers. Not because of it's copy-protection, but because nobody's stereos will play this retarded format.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
How do the so-called "restrictions" on Qt prevent Linux developers from using it? If your programs are going to be released as open source anyway it's not a big deal. The only other "restriction" is that all modifications to the source be released as patches. That's not really a restriction, it's barely even a nuisance. Get over it already.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I hardly think that makes me wrong. Sure, some programmers a lousy and yes, some of them are truly excellent. But like another response to my last post wrote, this is really a management issue. What if you don't have truly excellent programmers? Or you do, but they're swamped with work (programming hopefully). Most of the time it just makes sense to break your projects into teams, by talent and time.
You get people working on what they're best at, and you get them doing it all the time. I'd much rather have excellent programmers programming and excellent designers designing than have a bunch of excellent people doing two things that maybe aren't their strongest skills.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Yeah, I think at some point or another we have all been guilty of writing code that had no business being written because the application it was being written for had yet to be fully designed. Application development is not a "figure-it-out-as-you-go" process. Decent products require cafeful planning, design and documentation. Unfortunately most products ship without a decent amount of any of those things.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Blah Blah Blah -- you're missing the point. I'm not saying that a programmer can't be a designer. I'm saying that a programmer shouldn't the the designer of a program that he is writing himself. It leads to conflicts discussed above. Yes, it is possible. No, I don't recommend it if you have the manpower to spare.
If I might suggest some reading on this subject. "The Inmates are Running the Asylum" is an excellent book by Alan Cooper. In it he does a truly wonderful job of discussing the concepts behind quality interface design, and task-designation.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
That's such an elitist view of design, but it's hardly uncommon. But let me reiterate. The person who does the design should not be ignorant of programming. They should have experience in the game; enough to know what is and is not possible to implement. But don't for a minute think that non-programmers cannot create decent interfaces. You're kidding yourself it you do.
I know dozens of programmers (who are great coders by the way) who wouldn't know a good interface from a poke in the eye. And I'm not necessarily talking about aesthetics either. I'm talking about serious *interface* issues such as navigation and control. Being a programmer does not make someone a designer. The reverse is true as well, although it helps to intimately know who you are working with.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
If it can't be created, it can't be created. I won't argue with that. But if a design-team is competent, they will create an interface that is best-suited to their target audience, *not* to other programmers and people who are used to dealing with shoddy applications.
A person who writes a 20-line C++ program is a programmer (they have written a program; the very act of doing so defines them as one). It does not, however, make them a *good* programmer. Sure, if you happen to be practically perfect in every way then you don't to split up the work into different teams. If you're perfect, you can write an entire operating system by yourself. You can leap tall buildings in a single bound and stare down charging llamas.
I don't know about you, but I'm not perfect. I don't write all my code in assembly either. I write it in C++ because I find it easier to break my work up into protected objects. Along the same lines, I don't always trust myself to design the very best interface for my software. I'd rather get it right then be right.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Well sometimes it can't be helped. I work for a very small software company that simply can't afford to pay for people just to design software. But any larger software developers (this includes Open Source) should be splitting up the tasks.
Interface design should be handled by a team separate from Programming. In this situation, the design is never built around code-logic, and therefore does not present the user with an interface based on the logic of the code. An interface should have logic of its own.
This is not to say that a programmer can't handle design as well as coding (certainly it's been handled gracefully before), but just that as a good guideline they should not. Moreover, I'll stick to my original statement: The worst problem I see today with software is design.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:What was it Gandhi said?
on
Free Solaris 8
·
· Score: 1
It's not a contest for us, and it's a not a contest for Sun either. In a contest you have winners and losers. Sun and Microsoft (and anyone else you care to pit yourself against) do not have to "lose" in order for Linux to "win". Multiple products do, will, and *should* exist in a single market to allow for diversity and (I hate to use it, but it fits) innovation.
Why is it that you think Linux / Open Source can only get better? Why couldn't Linux get worse? It easily could. Any product, no matter how "open" it is, can fall to the wayside. It's a matter of care and interest. There's no reason to think that Sun can't put the same care and interest into their products (and perhaps they have). I don't know if you've used it, but Solaris really is a great OS, and I'm glad they'll be giving it out.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Good review. The worst problem I see today with the software-creation process is design. Programmers design software (I design software, and I am a programmer). However, the people who are writing code for software should not be allowed to design that same software. It a conflict in being objective about the interface to your own code.
As for the "Gold Rush" - I don't see why anything is changing (maybe I should read the book). It's not like software is no longer a competitive industry. Hardly - it seems more competitive now than ever, and the "Firstest" is still sometimes the preffered, if not "Bestest"
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Thanks for the concern;) but really, It is me. Of course if my account really was cracked, this post could be from the cracker, just trying to convince people otherwise. Maybe I'm really trying to steal Foogle's identity, piece-by-piece.
Soon my plan will be complete: I'll have his Slashdot account, his somewhat-mediocre job, and all of his Billy Joel CDs... or maybe not.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Hey, maybe it really is a holy war... I don't know, it just bothers me to see people wasting so much energy on an operating system. There are so many other important things in life. Don't get me wrong, I think technology and programming are important, and if you want to devote your life/work/hobby-time to it, that's fine. But to a single OS? To the point where you say nasty things about it's competitors and spread propaganda about them?
It just seems like a waste. In the end, you know, this is not a competition. I mean, isn't that what open source is about? Community? Sharing of ideas and code? Why dirty a good idea by making it a contest?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
And after all that I'm still curious as to where you got your first statement from. Why is it that the "continued success of Linux is invetitable"? Surely you're not going charge LBJ with this too.
How much do you really know about Vietnam? If you honestly think that the US left because they were completely unable to defeat the VC, then you need to go talk to some people who were actually there. I'm not going to get into a history lesson here but does "limited war" mean anything to you?
Regardless of your colorful analogy to a completely unrelated issue in American History, the success of Linux is not "i-n-e-v-i-t-a-b-l-e". Linux's success, just like the success of every other piece of software out there, depends largely on it's own merits. Merits which, unless continuously improved and kept up-to-date, will fall to the wayside -- brushed back by some comptetition.
And that's what this is all about: competition and the market. I don't give a rat's ass about Linux as an icon. I run it almost exclusively here at home, and I run it as a file-server where I work. If Solaris 8 (or Windows 2000) turns out to be a product that I find useful -- if their merits are more attractive to my purposes than Linux's -- I'll fdisk Linux without thinking twice. I wish people would stop saying how successful Linux will be just because it's Linux. This isn't a holy war, it's an operating system; stop taking it so damned seriously.
And for the love of God: If you're going to make a analogy, make it a good one. For some reason, people love to make historical analogies to contemporary icons. Occasionally they are good, but for the most part they're just drivel.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
It's not that I *totally* disagree, but your argument doesn't make much sense:
Yeah, a number of vendors are choosing Linux as their second OS. But why would that make it likely for them to make it their first OS? Ham is my 2nd favorite deli meat, right after Turkey. That doesn't mean I'm about to switch to packing Ham sandwiches in all my lunches. SGI might be moving towards packing Ham in their lunches, but that's just because they weren't successful in packing their own deli-meats (in this case, Bologna).
And sure, VA Linux is packaging Linux with their systems, but what does that say? VA is a good company, and their getting on their feet, but they're not even close to being in the same class as vendors like Dell and Compaq (who choose Ham-lunches as 2nd, and 3rd-choice, respectively). Don't confuse stock-value with anything other than stock-value.
Also: Sun doesn't need a 3rd-party manufacturer; they make their own systems. They can *give* their software away all they want and it won't matter as long as their selling hardware. And believe me, the hardware business is still looking a lot better than the "support" business.
To you're final point -- You're right, Open Source has it's own reasons for success that have nothing to do with Sun. Keep that in mind. Just because Sun is giving their software away now, doesn't mean they're throwing in the towel. Not hardly. Remember when Microsoft *gave* their browser away? They're just trying to regain market-share here, and I for one say "More power to them". It makes the consumer happy (they don't have to pay hefty fees for their favorite OS) and it gives Sun the ability to compete with Linux's infamous "price".
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:He can be amazed all he wants
on
Free Solaris 8
·
· Score: 1
Or maybe Linux has some things going for it that AIX doesn't have... yet. Why do people see Linux as ever-changing and improving, yet think that other operating systems (read: Windows 2000 and Solaris) are just getting worse and more bloated.
It's not like the guys working on Linux are th most absolutely brilliant software engineers in the world. They're good, but they're only human, and Linux does have limitations, just like every other OS out there.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:What was it Gandhi said?
on
Free Solaris 8
·
· Score: 1
Or maybe the Linux community is.
Bear in mind that statements like that don't get remembered by losers. And, by the way, this isn't a contest, remember?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I'd just like to say that, while I am certainly not in favor of *any* of the proposals here, the old "Breasts vs Breast Cancer" argument is getting old. To the best of my knowledge there are no existing filter-systems that will black-list a site based on the presence of simple words. Not good filters anyway. The good ones (And I use that term loosely) are fairly intelligent about their dynamic decisions and otherwise use preexisting lists that people have gone over.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Slashdot Mirror
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I am not talking about GUI design either, although that's closer to the truth. I'm talking about *interface* design. Maybe it's a semantic difference, but I don't necessarily think "interface" has to do with the graphical display aspect of an application (clearly not in text-mode, but I'm talking about windowing systems too).
What I meant was that a programmer should code (and design the code as in "Software Architect") but they should not design the *interface* to their own code. That should be done by a separate team. The other team doesn't have to be non-programmers, but they do have to be good designers. And they do have to communicate well with the programmers. They just shouldn't get involved in the writing/planning of the code and vice-versa. Unconscious maybe, but its a clear conflict of interests.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I'm sorry, I had to; the irony was just too thick. You should make that your sig and see how many people jump on it :)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I'm sorry, I had to; the irony was just too thick.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
You get people working on what they're best at, and you get them doing it all the time. I'd much rather have excellent programmers programming and excellent designers designing than have a bunch of excellent people doing two things that maybe aren't their strongest skills.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
And sure, I think I will check out out Eiffel.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
If I might suggest some reading on this subject. "The Inmates are Running the Asylum" is an excellent book by Alan Cooper. In it he does a truly wonderful job of discussing the concepts behind quality interface design, and task-designation.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I know dozens of programmers (who are great coders by the way) who wouldn't know a good interface from a poke in the eye. And I'm not necessarily talking about aesthetics either. I'm talking about serious *interface* issues such as navigation and control. Being a programmer does not make someone a designer. The reverse is true as well, although it helps to intimately know who you are working with.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
A person who writes a 20-line C++ program is a programmer (they have written a program; the very act of doing so defines them as one). It does not, however, make them a *good* programmer. Sure, if you happen to be practically perfect in every way then you don't to split up the work into different teams. If you're perfect, you can write an entire operating system by yourself. You can leap tall buildings in a single bound and stare down charging llamas.
I don't know about you, but I'm not perfect. I don't write all my code in assembly either. I write it in C++ because I find it easier to break my work up into protected objects. Along the same lines, I don't always trust myself to design the very best interface for my software. I'd rather get it right then be right.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Interface design should be handled by a team separate from Programming. In this situation, the design is never built around code-logic, and therefore does not present the user with an interface based on the logic of the code. An interface should have logic of its own.
This is not to say that a programmer can't handle design as well as coding (certainly it's been handled gracefully before), but just that as a good guideline they should not. Moreover, I'll stick to my original statement: The worst problem I see today with software is design.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Why is it that you think Linux / Open Source can only get better? Why couldn't Linux get worse? It easily could. Any product, no matter how "open" it is, can fall to the wayside. It's a matter of care and interest. There's no reason to think that Sun can't put the same care and interest into their products (and perhaps they have). I don't know if you've used it, but Solaris really is a great OS, and I'm glad they'll be giving it out.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
As for the "Gold Rush" - I don't see why anything is changing (maybe I should read the book). It's not like software is no longer a competitive industry. Hardly - it seems more competitive now than ever, and the "Firstest" is still sometimes the preffered, if not "Bestest"
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Soon my plan will be complete: I'll have his Slashdot account, his somewhat-mediocre job, and all of his Billy Joel CDs... or maybe not.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
It just seems like a waste. In the end, you know, this is not a competition. I mean, isn't that what open source is about? Community? Sharing of ideas and code? Why dirty a good idea by making it a contest?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
How much do you really know about Vietnam? If you honestly think that the US left because they were completely unable to defeat the VC, then you need to go talk to some people who were actually there. I'm not going to get into a history lesson here but does "limited war" mean anything to you?
Regardless of your colorful analogy to a completely unrelated issue in American History, the success of Linux is not "i-n-e-v-i-t-a-b-l-e". Linux's success, just like the success of every other piece of software out there, depends largely on it's own merits. Merits which, unless continuously improved and kept up-to-date, will fall to the wayside -- brushed back by some comptetition.
And that's what this is all about: competition and the market. I don't give a rat's ass about Linux as an icon. I run it almost exclusively here at home, and I run it as a file-server where I work. If Solaris 8 (or Windows 2000) turns out to be a product that I find useful -- if their merits are more attractive to my purposes than Linux's -- I'll fdisk Linux without thinking twice. I wish people would stop saying how successful Linux will be just because it's Linux. This isn't a holy war, it's an operating system; stop taking it so damned seriously.
And for the love of God: If you're going to make a analogy, make it a good one. For some reason, people love to make historical analogies to contemporary icons. Occasionally they are good, but for the most part they're just drivel.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Yeah, a number of vendors are choosing Linux as their second OS. But why would that make it likely for them to make it their first OS? Ham is my 2nd favorite deli meat, right after Turkey. That doesn't mean I'm about to switch to packing Ham sandwiches in all my lunches. SGI might be moving towards packing Ham in their lunches, but that's just because they weren't successful in packing their own deli-meats (in this case, Bologna).
And sure, VA Linux is packaging Linux with their systems, but what does that say? VA is a good company, and their getting on their feet, but they're not even close to being in the same class as vendors like Dell and Compaq (who choose Ham-lunches as 2nd, and 3rd-choice, respectively). Don't confuse stock-value with anything other than stock-value.
Also: Sun doesn't need a 3rd-party manufacturer; they make their own systems. They can *give* their software away all they want and it won't matter as long as their selling hardware. And believe me, the hardware business is still looking a lot better than the "support" business.
To you're final point -- You're right, Open Source has it's own reasons for success that have nothing to do with Sun. Keep that in mind. Just because Sun is giving their software away now, doesn't mean they're throwing in the towel. Not hardly. Remember when Microsoft *gave* their browser away? They're just trying to regain market-share here, and I for one say "More power to them". It makes the consumer happy (they don't have to pay hefty fees for their favorite OS) and it gives Sun the ability to compete with Linux's infamous "price".
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
It's not like the guys working on Linux are th most absolutely brilliant software engineers in the world. They're good, but they're only human, and Linux does have limitations, just like every other OS out there.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Bear in mind that statements like that don't get remembered by losers. And, by the way, this isn't a contest, remember?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."