You didn't have to worry about the sudden unpopularity of your web pages, either?
Mojo Nation is de-centralized and secure, once data is published it cannot be deleted or controlled. Publishers have their identities hidden with pseudonyms and can publish without fear of reprisal. Content consumers can retrieve data with as much anonymity as they desire, privacy is a simple economic decision.
But, from the Salon piece:
Napster, for example, has the problem of not being able to get rid of the files even if it wanted to. They couldn't play fair just because of the way their system was designed. With Mojo Nation, if a content owner comes to us and says, "Hey, someone has published my Britney Spears track and here's the blocks and the map," we'll say, "Well, you're correct, and according to the DMCA, we'll take it off of our servers." We'll remove those blocks and publish them as bad blocks. Everyone who subscribes to that list could say they won't traffic in that.
Is this a contradiction, or is it something to do with the difference between the storage network and the trackers?
Oh, and why's the whole site in an invisible frameset? I hate things like that.
... that when Douglas was asked to do the interview he was heading towards a major screenplay deadline, whereas Metallica have been yelling their heads off and demanding publicity on an Internet-related topic. I think that's a pretty big difference.
Also, bear in mind that Slashdot was lucky to get any answers from him at all, considering that he hadn't actually confirmed that he had time to do the interview when the article requesting questions was posted. (I know Slashdot's got a reputation for being unprofessional, but this is taking things a bit far.)
All the replies here seem to say that not only do all browsers render HTML differently, but that's how it should be. However, that's not the case when CSS accompanies a document - in fact, it's just the opposite. CSS performs all the page-layout and style description that HTML wasn't meant to do. Also, there are specific standards for how HTML+CSS is meant to be graphically rendered; check the various test suites available at http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/te stcases/css/. (Yes, I know that different browsers have different levels of CSS conformance, but that's to do with buggy and incomplete implementations, and nothing to do with lack of clarity or general unsuitability of the standard. There's only one released browser that has full CSS1 apparently, and that's IE for Mac.)
Please bear this in mind when reading the other posts in this thread regarding graphic designers, especially those that suggest that we need a completely new format. We don't. We just need proper implementation of an existing one.
MPs are used to receiving loads of identical letters in lobbying efforts. They all get counted as a single letter and ignored. This is why STAND doesn't give a sample letter.
This pro-forma letter's a good example of what yours should look like - take notes, perhaps even cut and paste bits, rearrange etc., but DON'T make it look identical.
It seems like this model could reward people who produce very little content or content of very poor quality on an equal level as those who produce lots of content or content of an excellent quality. That doesn't seem right.
It's underway in London already - by being a non-profit, loose organisation of volunteers just donating spare bandwidth and putting kit together to blanket as much of the public area as possible with 802.11.
It's interesting, to say the least.
See the consume.net site for more info. If it works, this might be a good model for replicating across other cities.
It's sort of funny. You seem to think Mozilla has something to do with AOL, when I in fact know it is an open source project that will live on irregardless of AOL...
At least 70%-80% of Mozilla's developers are Netscape employees who've been assigned to the project. Suppose AOL suddenly decides to can it; bang, there go nearly all the developers who actually understood the codebase. It's been hard enough to attract external developers already - if Netscape's support was removed, it would kill it off totally. Nobody wants to join a project this big with no other developers. Open Source doesn't mean bubkes without warm bodies.
Oh, and there's no such word as "irregardless".
And why the hell have they "lost any chance they had to match IE on Windows"? Do you offer any sort of rationalization, or just your ignorant opinion?
In the latest stats I've seen, IE has 70% of the browser market. Now, you try and persuade Jo(e) Average Computer User why they should ditch the browser that's been integrated into their OS and has been working just fine for them up until now for a 15MB+ download that, on the face of it, offers nothing new. (No, "standards compliance" and "customisable skins" don't mean anything to Jo(e))
Don't get me wrong; I think Mozilla is going to be a truly revolutionary product in loads of ways and that it's a very worthwhile project. I don't believe that AOL is going to can it, because they've got a ton of the future riding on it in all kinds of ways that we won't see until next year. But the situation is a damn sight more fragile than your faith implies.
Quick intro - I work at TDV and I'm one of the people behind h2g2.com and douglasadams.com. (My h2g2 homepage is here) I've just spent most of the evening frantically running around with one of my colleagues trying to optimise bits of the site in the face of the Slashdot onslaught (and it's not just Slashdot... PR put out a press release earlier and we weren't adequately prepared for the results... several lessons learnt there...)
Anyway, time for some response to many of the points raised:
Most of you seem to really like Douglas's stuff and h2g2 too. We're very glad - the Slashdot crowd are legendarily hard to please!
Whilst there are lots of similarities between h2g2 and Everything, they're very different in many ways too. I like Everything a lot (I've got quite a few entries in there myself) and I like the way it's based on a single neat idea that's just expanded over a whole database. Everything is designed to be *without* editorial control - it's based entirely on user voting, so it looks and feels pretty random and organic, which is not a criticism - that's how it's meant to be. h2g2 has an editorial direction - to move it in that direction, it has a dedicated editorial team (most of whom are, like Slashdot's moderators, unpaid users). Another difference is that h2g2 has a whole load of community functionality much more akin to Slashdot than to Everything, along with quite unique features such as the user journals. (They're similar to the current fashion of "weblogs" like scripting.com and robotwisdom.com) And we're adding new features all the time - new ways of creating documents, new ways of using forums, and other entirely new sections.
Some of you are complaining that most h2g2 entries aren't very funny - a valid complaint, but we have good reason for it. Firstly, as most of you are saying, the Guide should primarily be useful and secondarily entertaining. Secondly, we've had to go out of our way to tell people not to try and be funny, simply because so many users were trying to write like Douglas and failing miserably. Writing like Douglas Adams is hard. (That's why it takes him so bloody long to get a book out.) Also, humour is a much more subjective quality than usefulness, and we want the Guide to be as universal as possible. We're not saying that we don't want entries that are funny, just that it shouldn't be a researcher's primary focus. (It should be noted, though, that there's nothing stopping you sticking up loads of random, funny nonsense up on h2g2 - it'll be visible to everyone, just won't be part of the core Guide)
As for the usefulness of the Guide's current content, we're working on that. The first problem we're tackling is streamlining the editorial process to get more of the huge submissions backlog into the Guide. Then there's a much bigger problem to tackle, which is how to classify all the information in such a way that it can be searched, linked and delivered intelligently. This is such a massive doozy of a problem that I'm not going to say much more, save to say that I can see information scientists featuring much more prominently in the web's future once the major sites have the simple problems of content management sorted out. But anyway: no, we don't have much content yet, but h2g2 is a young and rapidly expanding project with a universal subject domain. It'll take time and effort.
As for the gadget itself, we can't say that much because a) of lots of secret behind-the-scenes stuff with potential hardware partners and b) we're concentrating much more on the design of the information services (i.e. h2g2.com) than the platform it's delivered to. Ideally, we shouldn't have to do much platform design at all, as it'll be open, existing standards most of the way, which is (as I'm sure you'd agree) the most sensible way of doing it. But, yeah, we like shiny toys and want one with our name on it soon as poss.
h2g2 needs you. After all, don't say you never dreamed about being a Field Researcher for The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy. Now you can. Cool, huh?
... what you've just described is, effectively, h2g2. Users contribute content, submit it to an editor who looks over it before approving/rejecting it.
When was the last time your secretary was doing C++ programming? Create your GUI toward the target audience. The GUI of a programming IDE may be different from a spreadsheet application because the average user is a different type of person.
Er, that's mostly what I said, wasn't it? Of course the GUI of an IDE should be different from a spreadsheet. But it should still be usable.
You can add all the GUI setup utilities you want, but the guy that's configuring "whatever" device need's to know that it's an ATI Xpert@play 8MB. A lot of people have NO clue what they bought when they went shopping for their computer.
A lot of users have no clue what hardware is in their computer. They're right, they shouldn't have to know. Why do they have to know? Why should I have to know what graphics card I have in order to get my work done? It's stupid and irrelevant. Linux should be taking care of all that with autodetection. That's what usability's all about. (And yes, if you really want to get in there and configure it all manually, you should be able to do that too. But 99% of people have mroe important things to do.)
I'm glad that articles like this are being written; the issue of usability is one that Linux geeks have ignored for too long and are still mostly ignorant about.
An operating system is good if it helps you get a job done with as few problems as possible. Stability and efficiency count, and Linux shines at this. However, usability is just as important, that's why KDE and GNOME have been created, and they both still have a long way to go. There's little point in stability and efficiency if the user can't get to it because they're first required to learn 100 different arcane interfaces and commands.
The author is right with his assertion that interface design shouldn't be left to the programmers of applications, as they tend to design from the inside looking out as opposed to the user's point of view, from the outside looking in. Not only that, but interfaces need to be tested, and this is done by exposure to users unfamiliar with the program. If the users have trouble understanding the interface and can't use the program properly, 99% of the time it's the fault of the interface, not the users.
There's a horrible attitude that's quite pervasive in the threads above and it's one of pointless elitism: that Linux should be for geeks only, if you make it easier to use then you get more and stupider users and you lose configurability and the ability to do the complex things you can do now. And it's all utter crap:
a) If you really want to use an OS that hardly anyone else is using, there are loads out there: Plan 9, RiscOS, OS/2 etc. They all have lots of good points. Just don't expect much of an application or support base and don't expect much progress. If you want to be part of a minority, you pay the price.
b) Everyone reading this had to learn Linux at some point. Would you rather spend more or less time learning how to do something? (Personally, I'd rather spend less time learning and more time doing)
c) Unix has already progressed in terms of usability from when it started; there are applications in common use that greatly simplify necessary Unix tasks, and they purely exist because of usability needs. If you don't think usability is a major issue, try replacing your favourite text editor with ed or pico. It's just as powerful, but it's a hell of a lot less usable. The fact is that most of the "we don't need usability" idiots depend far more on usability improvements than they think.
d) Decent computing power should be available to everyone. We believe that Linux has that power. If it's held back by bad usability, there's no point railing against Microsoft, because we're not providing a usable alternative. (And do you want the less tech-able of your family using Microsoft forever? I bet you get pretty sick of the support calls...)
I disagree with the author's assertion that all feedback from programmers should be rejected; programmers are users too, and you're not going to get feedback on a C++ IDE's usability from your average secretary. All feedback should be counted and considered.
However, the author makes a very good point about hardware - why the hell does the average need to know what hardware is in the machine? Why do I need to mount drives manually or know which graphics card I have? This is all stuff that the computer should be detecting and taking care of for me. It just gets in the way.
Usability is vital if Linux is to prosper. Fortunately, there are more and more projects happening that will contribute to Linux's usability and friendliness. Let's all assist where we can and ditch the childish elitism.
Having experienced many online communities that are both open and closed, I'd say they're both valid. Some communities are just about sharing open information and opinions, others rely deeply on trust and confidentiality, or want a certain relatively-guaranteed level of quality in content, which you can't get in a well-known open list. The trouble is that often closed communities can be accused of being cliquey and elitist... that can be true, but it's for a purpose.
These days I get most of my web reading from links on weblogs of one kind or another - I'd personally count Slashdot as a weblog. I read Ars Technica, Scripting News, Robot Wisdom and Tomalak's Realm, and I'm on Haddock which has several great links every day.
NTK is often listed as a weblog, innaccurately - it's a weekly mag. But it's completely brilliant. Subscribe.
Also, h2g2.com (The HitchHiker's Guide To The Galaxy, online) has, amongst its many fab features, the ability for users to create their own weblogs on their homepages, with forums hanging off each entry. Worth a look, and I'm not just saying that 'cos I work there.
Maybe this is a good reason: so the community won't go through crippling emotional spasms if Linus has to give up control over the kernel for some reason.
Similarly, so the rest of the world doesn't think that Linux is going to take a major downturn once Linus is out of it. Confidence in Linux could drop massively - people aren't inclined to go with a computing solution that doesn't seem to have a future.
In practically every major press report about Linux it's described as "the operating system created by Linus Torvalds" - I think this is bad not just for the reasons above, but because it's horribly inaccurate and unfair on the hundreds of others who have contributed. Remember that Linux has one of the largest kernel dev teams in the world and this is one of its strengths. I think the idea that it was developed by one guy in his spare time does more harm than good. (Though it's also good that Linus gets the credit he deserves for starting and managing the whole thing.)
We've found a few unfortunate bugs with the way Netscape handles cookies and we're trying to fix them. We've got no intention of letting IE be the only browser that you can use with h2g2, so don't worry about that. In the meantime, the best thing to do is make sure you're using "www.h2g2.com" rather than plain old "h2g2.com" with everything.
We have no intention of excluding anyone - we tested the site using several different browsers. If your browser doesn't work with the site, let us know and we'll fix it.
Dammit dammit dammit. We really didn't need our pipe/.ed right now.
Okay, here's the deal. There we were, four of us Digital Village techies, standing in the British Library with Douglas sitting between us and the cameras, and we're quite happily browsing the site no problem.
7:30pm: The programme starts.
7:31pm: 3 gazillion British net users click from the BBC site straight through to h2g2.com all at once. PerlEx and IIS go mental. Boom.
(Fortunately we managed to turn that to our advantage: Douglas got to say that the site was so popular that it couldn't take the strain.)
Now, several hours later, the site is unusable from the outside. However, it's not NT's fault, as the server's fine; it's the pipe. We're only on a T1. We're frantically moving various images off to mirror sites now, hopefully that should help all you guys actually get in and see the thing.
We're really proud of it, as it goes, and some other people seem to quite like it too. Everything didn't inspire the site but we did look at it several times while we were designing. (Everything is similar in some ways, but not many - however, I still have a lot of admiration for Everything's features, and we'll be trying to send h2g2 in that direction as time goes on, as well as many other directions too... we've got a lot of big plans, and we're not going to sit still)
So, yeah, it runs on NT, but there are reasons for that. (even though that may be unthinkable to some/.ers, who obviously have never had to do a professional site on a tight budget and deadline) And a good chunk of the blame for any site instability goes to Perl and PerlEx (which manages to throw away 50MB every time it restarts an interpreter... can someone please show ActiveState how to check for memory leaks?)
But I would hope that the server system comes second in you guys minds to the fact that it's the Hitchhiker's Guide! The real thing! Online! And you can contribute!
Come on... hands up everyone who doesn't want to be a Guide Researcher. Thought so.
So, traffic permitting, we hope everyone can log on, join in and fulfil at least one childhood dream.
Choice of $40 2xCD for experts or $80 3xCD for new users
"Kickstart" installation scripts
Comes with a set of precompiled kernels, installer chooses the best one for your processor (perhaps it'll detect if you're installing off a SCSI CDROM this time?)
I think the Melissa virus proves that you could get slammed for using a Microsoft proprietary system.
The Melissa virus proves that security holes can exist in pieces of software. It's just a newer version of the Internet Worm, and I don't remember any MS ware being involved in that.
I think ultimately the real solution will be for some enterprising young matematicians to work out a GPLed equation for compressing audio and video. I think when that happens not only will the market be totally broke, but free software might win a huge battle.
Yes, it'd be nice. It's also very unlikely to happen, considering that most new codecs that appear are incredibly complex things, requiring masses of brainpower and development time and money. I keep seeing Slashdot comments about proprietary codecs that say "Well, let's just do a better one and GPL it," like it's a matter of getting 3 or 4 good coders on a mailing list and hashing it out in a month or so, in the style of most open-source projects. It's just not going to happen that way. The best chances of a world-beating free codec come from academia, but with all the commercial funding and brain-draining that goes on I wouldn't be surprised if we never see one.
Slashdot Mirror
From http://www.mojonation.net/about.shtml:
You didn't have to worry about the sudden unpopularity of your web pages, either?
Mojo Nation is de-centralized and secure, once data is published it cannot be deleted or controlled. Publishers have their identities hidden with pseudonyms and can publish without fear of reprisal. Content consumers can retrieve data with as much anonymity as they desire, privacy is a simple economic decision.
But, from the Salon piece:
Napster, for example, has the problem of not being able to get rid of the files even if it wanted to. They couldn't play fair just because of the way their system was designed. With Mojo Nation, if a content owner comes to us and says, "Hey, someone has published my Britney Spears track and here's the blocks and the map," we'll say, "Well, you're correct, and according to the DMCA, we'll take it off of our servers." We'll remove those blocks and publish them as bad blocks. Everyone who subscribes to that list could say they won't traffic in that.
Is this a contradiction, or is it something to do with the difference between the storage network and the trackers?
Oh, and why's the whole site in an invisible frameset? I hate things like that.
-- Yoz
... that when Douglas was asked to do the interview he was heading towards a major screenplay deadline, whereas Metallica have been yelling their heads off and demanding publicity on an Internet-related topic. I think that's a pretty big difference.
Also, bear in mind that Slashdot was lucky to get any answers from him at all, considering that he hadn't actually confirmed that he had time to do the interview when the article requesting questions was posted. (I know Slashdot's got a reputation for being unprofessional, but this is taking things a bit far.)
-- Yoz
... if you combine it with CSS.
All the replies here seem to say that not only do all browsers render HTML differently, but that's how it should be. However, that's not the case when CSS accompanies a document - in fact, it's just the opposite. CSS performs all the page-layout and style description that HTML wasn't meant to do. Also, there are specific standards for how HTML+CSS is meant to be graphically rendered; check the various test suites available at http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/te stcases/css/. (Yes, I know that different browsers have different levels of CSS conformance, but that's to do with buggy and incomplete implementations, and nothing to do with lack of clarity or general unsuitability of the standard. There's only one released browser that has full CSS1 apparently, and that's IE for Mac.)
Please bear this in mind when reading the other posts in this thread regarding graphic designers, especially those that suggest that we need a completely new format. We don't. We just need proper implementation of an existing one.
Sometimes I go out on Friday nights and get into cell-phone-smashing contests with drunk people.
Have you ever thought of, I dunno, seeing a movie? Or going dancing? I hear bingo's quite fun.
But if you're determined to get into phone-bashing: www.phonebashing.com
--Yoz
MPs are used to receiving loads of identical letters in lobbying efforts. They all get counted as a single letter and ignored. This is why STAND doesn't give a sample letter.
This pro-forma letter's a good example of what yours should look like - take notes, perhaps even cut and paste bits, rearrange etc., but DON'T make it look identical.
(Sorry, shockwaverider... thanks for the effort!)
-- Yoz
I don't know who SkeptiNews are, but it sounds like they've joined the long list of news sites/print magazines to rip stuff from Need To Know:
http://www.ntk.net/
Subscribe to the email list, it's fab.
-- Yoz
It seems like this model could reward people who produce very little content or content of very poor quality on an equal level as those who produce lots of content or content of an excellent quality. That doesn't seem right.
Welcome to the music business!
-- Yoz
It's underway in London already - by being a non-profit, loose organisation of volunteers just donating spare bandwidth and putting kit together to blanket as much of the public area as possible with 802.11.
It's interesting, to say the least.
See the consume.net site for more info. If it works, this might be a good model for replicating across other cities.
-- Yoz
I'll get this one...
It's sort of funny. You seem to think Mozilla has something to do with AOL, when I in fact know it is an open source project that will live on irregardless of AOL...
At least 70%-80% of Mozilla's developers are Netscape employees who've been assigned to the project. Suppose AOL suddenly decides to can it; bang, there go nearly all the developers who actually understood the codebase. It's been hard enough to attract external developers already - if Netscape's support was removed, it would kill it off totally. Nobody wants to join a project this big with no other developers. Open Source doesn't mean bubkes without warm bodies.
Oh, and there's no such word as "irregardless".
And why the hell have they "lost any chance they had to match IE on Windows"? Do you offer any sort of rationalization, or just your ignorant opinion?
In the latest stats I've seen, IE has 70% of the browser market. Now, you try and persuade Jo(e) Average Computer User why they should ditch the browser that's been integrated into their OS and has been working just fine for them up until now for a 15MB+ download that, on the face of it, offers nothing new. (No, "standards compliance" and "customisable skins" don't mean anything to Jo(e))
Don't get me wrong; I think Mozilla is going to be a truly revolutionary product in loads of ways and that it's a very worthwhile project. I don't believe that AOL is going to can it, because they've got a ton of the future riding on it in all kinds of ways that we won't see until next year. But the situation is a damn sight more fragile than your faith implies.
-- Yoz
Quick intro - I work at TDV and I'm one of the people behind h2g2.com and douglasadams.com. (My h2g2 homepage is here) I've just spent most of the evening frantically running around with one of my colleagues trying to optimise bits of the site in the face of the Slashdot onslaught (and it's not just Slashdot... PR put out a press release earlier and we weren't adequately prepared for the results... several lessons learnt there...)
Anyway, time for some response to many of the points raised:
- Most of you seem to really like Douglas's stuff and h2g2 too. We're very glad - the Slashdot crowd are legendarily hard to please!
- Whilst there are lots of similarities between h2g2 and Everything, they're very different in many ways too. I like Everything a lot (I've got quite a few entries in there myself) and I like the way it's based on a single neat idea that's just expanded over a whole database. Everything is designed to be *without* editorial control - it's based entirely on user voting, so it looks and feels pretty random and organic, which is not a criticism - that's how it's meant to be. h2g2 has an editorial direction - to move it in that direction, it has a dedicated editorial team (most of whom are, like Slashdot's moderators, unpaid users). Another difference is that h2g2 has a whole load of community functionality much more akin to Slashdot than to Everything, along with quite unique features such as the user journals. (They're similar to the current fashion of "weblogs" like scripting.com and robotwisdom.com) And we're adding new features all the time - new ways of creating documents, new ways of using forums, and other entirely new sections.
- Some of you are complaining that most h2g2 entries aren't very funny - a valid complaint, but we have good reason for it. Firstly, as most of you are saying, the Guide should primarily be useful and secondarily entertaining. Secondly, we've had to go out of our way to tell people not to try and be funny, simply because so many users were trying to write like Douglas and failing miserably. Writing like Douglas Adams is hard. (That's why it takes him so bloody long to get a book out.) Also, humour is a much more subjective quality than usefulness, and we want the Guide to be as universal as possible. We're not saying that we don't want entries that are funny, just that it shouldn't be a researcher's primary focus. (It should be noted, though, that there's nothing stopping you sticking up loads of random, funny nonsense up on h2g2 - it'll be visible to everyone, just won't be part of the core Guide)
- As for the usefulness of the Guide's current content, we're working on that. The first problem we're tackling is streamlining the editorial process to get more of the huge submissions backlog into the Guide. Then there's a much bigger problem to tackle, which is how to classify all the information in such a way that it can be searched, linked and delivered intelligently. This is such a massive doozy of a problem that I'm not going to say much more, save to say that I can see information scientists featuring much more prominently in the web's future once the major sites have the simple problems of content management sorted out. But anyway: no, we don't have much content yet, but h2g2 is a young and rapidly expanding project with a universal subject domain. It'll take time and effort.
- As for the gadget itself, we can't say that much because a) of lots of secret behind-the-scenes stuff with potential hardware partners and b) we're concentrating much more on the design of the information services (i.e. h2g2.com) than the platform it's delivered to. Ideally, we shouldn't have to do much platform design at all, as it'll be open, existing standards most of the way, which is (as I'm sure you'd agree) the most sensible way of doing it. But, yeah, we like shiny toys and want one with our name on it soon as poss.
- h2g2 needs you. After all, don't say you never dreamed about being a Field Researcher for The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy. Now you can. Cool, huh?
-- Yoz... what you've just described is, effectively, h2g2. Users contribute content, submit it to an editor who looks over it before approving/rejecting it.
-- Yoz
When was the last time your secretary was doing C++ programming? Create your GUI toward the target audience. The GUI of a programming IDE may be different from a spreadsheet application because the average user is a different type of person.
Er, that's mostly what I said, wasn't it?
Of course the GUI of an IDE should be different from a spreadsheet. But it should still be usable.
You can add all the GUI setup utilities you want, but the guy that's configuring "whatever" device need's to know that it's an ATI Xpert@play 8MB. A lot of people have NO clue what they bought when they went shopping for their computer.
A lot of users have no clue what hardware is in their computer. They're right, they shouldn't have to know. Why do they have to know?
Why should I have to know what graphics card I have in order to get my work done? It's stupid and irrelevant. Linux should be taking care of all that with autodetection. That's what usability's all about.
(And yes, if you really want to get in there and configure it all manually, you should be able to do that too. But 99% of people have mroe important things to do.)
I'm glad that articles like this are being written; the issue of usability is one that Linux geeks have ignored for too long and are still mostly ignorant about.
An operating system is good if it helps you get a job done with as few problems as possible. Stability and efficiency count, and Linux shines at this. However, usability is just as important, that's why KDE and GNOME have been created, and they both still have a long way to go. There's little point in stability and efficiency if the user can't get to it because they're first required to learn 100 different arcane interfaces and commands.
The author is right with his assertion that interface design shouldn't be left to the programmers of applications, as they tend to design from the inside looking out as opposed to the user's point of view, from the outside looking in. Not only that, but interfaces need to be tested, and this is done by exposure to users unfamiliar with the program. If the users have trouble understanding the interface and can't use the program properly, 99% of the time it's the fault of the interface, not the users.
There's a horrible attitude that's quite pervasive in the threads above and it's one of pointless elitism: that Linux should be for geeks only, if you make it easier to use then you get more and stupider users and you lose configurability and the ability to do the complex things you can do now. And it's all utter crap:
a) If you really want to use an OS that hardly anyone else is using, there are loads out there: Plan 9, RiscOS, OS/2 etc. They all have lots of good points. Just don't expect much of an application or support base and don't expect much progress. If you want to be part of a minority, you pay the price.
b) Everyone reading this had to learn Linux at some point. Would you rather spend more or less time learning how to do something? (Personally, I'd rather spend less time learning and more time doing)
c) Unix has already progressed in terms of usability from when it started; there are applications in common use that greatly simplify necessary Unix tasks, and they purely exist because of usability needs. If you don't think usability is a major issue, try replacing your favourite text editor with ed or pico. It's just as powerful, but it's a hell of a lot less usable. The fact is that most of the "we don't need usability" idiots depend far more on usability improvements than they think.
d) Decent computing power should be available to everyone. We believe that Linux has that power. If it's held back by bad usability, there's no point railing against Microsoft, because we're not providing a usable alternative. (And do you want the less tech-able of your family using Microsoft forever? I bet you get pretty sick of the support calls...)
I disagree with the author's assertion that all feedback from programmers should be rejected; programmers are users too, and you're not going to get feedback on a C++ IDE's usability from your average secretary. All feedback should be counted and considered.
However, the author makes a very good point about hardware - why the hell does the average need to know what hardware is in the machine? Why do I need to mount drives manually or know which graphics card I have? This is all stuff that the computer should be detecting and taking care of for me. It just gets in the way.
Usability is vital if Linux is to prosper. Fortunately, there are more and more projects happening that will contribute to Linux's usability and friendliness. Let's all assist where we can and ditch the childish elitism.
Having experienced many online communities that are both open and closed, I'd say they're both valid. Some communities are just about sharing open information and opinions, others rely deeply on trust and confidentiality, or want a certain relatively-guaranteed level of quality in content, which you can't get in a well-known open list. The trouble is that often closed communities can be accused of being cliquey and elitist... that can be true, but it's for a purpose.
These days I get most of my web reading from links on weblogs of one kind or another - I'd personally count Slashdot as a weblog. I read Ars Technica, Scripting News, Robot Wisdom and Tomalak's Realm, and I'm on Haddock which has several great links every day.
NTK is often listed as a weblog, innaccurately - it's a weekly mag. But it's completely brilliant. Subscribe.
Also, h2g2.com (The HitchHiker's Guide To The Galaxy, online) has, amongst its many fab features, the ability for users to create their own weblogs on their homepages, with forums hanging off each entry. Worth a look, and I'm not just saying that 'cos I work there.
Maybe this is a good reason: so the community won't go through crippling emotional spasms if Linus has to give up control over the kernel for some reason.
Similarly, so the rest of the world doesn't think that Linux is going to take a major downturn once Linus is out of it. Confidence in Linux could drop massively - people aren't inclined to go with a computing solution that doesn't seem to have a future.
In practically every major press report about Linux it's described as "the operating system created by Linus Torvalds" - I think this is bad not just for the reasons above, but because it's horribly inaccurate and unfair on the hundreds of others who have contributed. Remember that Linux has one of the largest kernel dev teams in the world and this is one of its strengths. I think the idea that it was developed by one guy in his spare time does more harm than good. (Though it's also good that Linus gets the credit he deserves for starting and managing the whole thing.)
They came up with the concept, they just didn't get the implementation right.
Ooops, you're probably right... it's a 2Mb, anyway.
We've found a few unfortunate bugs with the way Netscape handles cookies and we're trying to fix them. We've got no intention of letting IE be the only browser that you can use with h2g2, so don't worry about that. In the meantime, the best thing to do is make sure you're using "www.h2g2.com" rather than plain old "h2g2.com" with everything.
T1's aren't only available in the US, you know...
We have no intention of excluding anyone - we tested the site using several different browsers. If your browser doesn't work with the site, let us know and we'll fix it.
Dammit dammit dammit. We really didn't need our pipe /.ed right now.
Okay, here's the deal. There we were, four of us Digital Village techies, standing in the British Library with Douglas sitting between us and the cameras, and we're quite happily browsing the site no problem.
7:30pm: The programme starts.
7:31pm: 3 gazillion British net users click from the BBC site straight through to h2g2.com all at once. PerlEx and IIS go mental. Boom.
(Fortunately we managed to turn that to our advantage: Douglas got to say that the site was so popular that it couldn't take the strain.)
Now, several hours later, the site is unusable from the outside. However, it's not NT's fault, as the server's fine; it's the pipe. We're only on a T1. We're frantically moving various images off to mirror sites now, hopefully that should help all you guys actually get in and see the thing.
We're really proud of it, as it goes, and some other people seem to quite like it too. Everything didn't inspire the site but we did look at it several times while we were designing. (Everything is similar in some ways, but not many - however, I still have a lot of admiration for Everything's features, and we'll be trying to send h2g2 in that direction as time goes on, as well as many other directions too... we've got a lot of big plans, and we're not going to sit still)
So, yeah, it runs on NT, but there are reasons for that. (even though that may be unthinkable to some /.ers, who obviously have never had to do a professional site on a tight budget and deadline) And a good chunk of the blame for any site instability goes to Perl and PerlEx (which manages to throw away 50MB every time it restarts an interpreter... can someone please show ActiveState how to check for memory leaks?)
But I would hope that the server system comes second in you guys minds to the fact that it's the Hitchhiker's Guide! The real thing! Online! And you can contribute!
Come on... hands up everyone who doesn't want to be a Guide Researcher. Thought so.
So, traffic permitting, we hope everyone can log on, join in and fulfil at least one childhood dream.
-- Yoz
http://www.news.com/ News/Item/0,4,0-35646,00.html?st.ne.lh..ni
Main new features:
I think the Melissa virus proves that you could get slammed for using a Microsoft proprietary system.
The Melissa virus proves that security holes can exist in pieces of software. It's just a newer version of the Internet Worm, and I don't remember any MS ware being involved in that.
I think ultimately the real solution will be for some enterprising young matematicians to work out a GPLed equation for compressing audio and video. I think when that happens not only will the market be totally broke, but free software might win a huge battle.
Yes, it'd be nice. It's also very unlikely to happen, considering that most new codecs that appear are incredibly complex things, requiring masses of brainpower and development time and money. I keep seeing Slashdot comments about proprietary codecs that say "Well, let's just do a better one and GPL it," like it's a matter of getting 3 or 4 good coders on a mailing list and hashing it out in a month or so, in the style of most open-source projects. It's just not going to happen that way. The best chances of a world-beating free codec come from academia, but with all the commercial funding and brain-draining that goes on I wouldn't be surprised if we never see one.