Here we go again:
There were already critizisms about that survey in the heise forum. My major points are that the survey:
- is very focussed on Unix (I write OSS for BeOS)
- has two editors only?
- only asks whicht desktop you're using but not what you're developing for
- assumes you write only for one OS
- doesn't ask that much about your motivation.
- doesn't ask that much about what kind of software you write
- doesn't aks wether you write alone or in a team and if latter, how big the team is.
There were already critizisms about that survey in the heise forum. My major points are that the survey:
- is very focussed on Unix (I write OSS for BeOS)
- has two editors only?
- only asks whicht desktop you're using but not what you're developing for
- assumes you write only for one OS
- doesn't ask that much about your motivation.
- doesn't ask that much about what kind of software you write
- doesn't aks wether you write alone or in a team and if latter, how big the team is.
The MagicWB "XEM" look never was the original classic Amiga Interface, it never became official. (I'm glad about that, I never like the look of MagicWB.) The "official" look of the classic Workbench is based Matt Chaput's "GlowIcons" that are part of the AmigaOS since Release 3.5 (see the Screenshot atAmiga.com.
However, I'm rather interested in the supposed-to-be-coming-soon new Amiga Hardware, I hope we'll see a renaissance of the early 90's system diversity. Remember, we had Macs, Amigas, Ataris, NeXT, Windows, OS/2...now we have Macs, Windows, Unices and a bit of BeOS, the majority running on the same (wrecked) x86 hardware. Damn, I want more choises than intel or AMD!
My back didn't hurt so far from computer works, but sometimes my eyes or my wrist hurt. My tip to avoid wrist pain is to switch the hand you hold your mouse in regularly, say left hand for a week then right hand for a week. It sounds harder than it is, I am a 100% right handed man but I got used to using the mouse with the left hand really quick.
Besides, I'm in the early 20s, so my back pain might come some day.
Are you from the KDE team? I'd love to hear more about KDE's "official" opinion concernig the UI. I found the UI sites on developer.kde.org and I think it's good that they quote from people like Tognazzi, Nielsen and Raskin. But why do they stick that much to Mac and Windows UI when all the above agree that the road UIs took in the last years are a dead end road? Why do they use windows-style menu bars (inside the window frame) by default instead of the (proven by Fitt's law) faster Mac-style menu bars at the top border of the screen? (Yes I am aware of the fact that you can change that, but it took me a while to find that option, and I think 95% of all KDE users don't even know that it exists.)
The KDE and Gnome people have the opportunity to create innovative GUIs and break with all old bad habits and compatibility issues, why do they now make the same mistakes that Microsoft and Apple made again?
Think about that quote:
"We always keep a look out at other environments and grab what we like. We say, 'hey! that looks good, let's put it in.'"
That's maybe a good way for technichal ideas, but it's bad for the interface. By simply stealing here and there you lose consistency, one of the most important points of an interface. You end up with hundred nice features that looked good somewhere else, and with hundred different ways to uses that features.
I can only agree with you. There are good developers doing great work on KDE, but one should give them some books from Neilsen, Tognazzi or Raskin for Christmas, so KDE will not only look better than Windows and MacOS (you can do anything with themes...) but also feel better and be faster to use.
I really wonder how the results are - from what I've seen so far from Gnome and KDE, in terms of usability they are no better than Windows or MacOS are.
How can it happen that both environments stick so close to Windows and MacOS where both mention sites like www.asktog.com or www.useit.com in their usability pages (e.g. http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/references.html) where all of the UI-gurus agree that one could do much better than Mac/Windows. How come KDE/Gnome don't really use Fitt's law? They could use the screen borders much better than just sticking a start-button in the corner and leaving most of the rest as wasted blank space. And what they really lack is consistency - where do you put the "Preferences" menu item? File/Settings? Edit/Preferences? Misc/Options? There's still so much to do in terms of usability...
Great, another OS! I just can't get enough of 'em, I love all OS'! Go on!
To all those who say "no, you're stupid, instead of writing your own OS you should improve Linux" - Sorry guys, not everyone thinks Linux is the best OS ever. Some people want a modern OS (unix is 20 yrs old, you call that modern?), and if they don't have one, they'll write one. Period.
The worst thing about these beauties is that they run only with macs. I'd definately love to get me one of those for my BeOS-PC!
IMHO LCDs are much better than CRTs, that's why I'm willing to spend more money on them. In '97, I spent ~$600 for a good 17" CRT, why shouldn't I be spending the same price for a good 15" TFT (same viewing size FIY)? When it comes to text work, I often find myself using my old Notebook with a 10.4" 800x600 TFT display, just because the picture is much sharper and by far more stable than on my 17" 1152x864@90Hz CRT.
The SGI SW1600 looks like a great thing too, but unfortunately the german resellers add ~80% to its price:-(
>. However, it is MUCH harder today then it was a year ago,
> and even then it was five years ago.
But it still is easy to get funding when you have an excellent idea and a good business plan. But creating a new file manager and then selling online services - this idea is neither new nor exciting.
I don't think it's good that the FSF insists on having the ultimate definition of free software. IMHO, the BSD license is more "free" than the GPL: The BSD license leaves you more freedom in what to do with the source, ie you may combine it with code that underlies a different license and release it without the source. The GPL doesn't allow you to do that, and therefore is IMHO less free.
German/. readers might be interested in the fact that the c't magazine featured some good articles about extreme programming in one of the last issues.
nVidia is not overpriced.
The GForce cards come very close to professional cards that cost several $1000. For example, a TNT2Ultra or a GForceMX beats a Visualize fx6 in many benchmarks.
In general, I think people should use less games for benchmarks. Yes I know, a lot of people love games, but it'd be better to use e.g. viewperf, so you can compare the GForce to *real* graphics cards.
Now that Linux comes closer to professional 3D solutins, we need more software that makes use of it.
No, not Quake. Real software.
Maya is coming soon, but there are still a few other things that you need to have a complete 3D solution, like proper NLE and PostPro software.
Plus, a bit of competition wouldn't be bad: How about Cinema4D or Imagine? It'd also be cool to see Elias or Eclipse on Linux.
Yes, Kurt really did amazing work here.
Linux itself is, as you know, not an OS but just a kernel, the rest of the software is the GNU OS, a GPLed Unix clone. AtheOS is more than just a kernel, it's a (almost complete) OS, written from the scratch. So, can you really compare Linux and AtheOS at all?
Once again, this is not an original Microsoft idea: There are quite a few high-end software tools around that require regular payments.
I think this is not bad by default: Imagine you're admin in a company that needs, by some reasons, to be up-to-date on Microsoft software. Right now, you'd have to buy an update whenever it appeared, making your cost highly unpredictable. The new model makes it a lot easier to take software licences into your financial plans, it's just like a subscription to a magazine.
OK, OS/2 is not Linux, is not Win2k and it's not MacOS X. And it's FreeBSD neither. It doesn't have all that much of a hardware support and maybe it doesn't have as many features as Win2k.
But still, it has a right to exist! Are we to abandon any software that's not a number one candidate? How should anything evolve then?
I know there are lotsa/.ers using Windows, including me. I admit it is of course worth a news entry, when an internal paper from AOL with this content appears. However, I think it is narrow-minded that people in most forums focus only (better mainly) on two points of it:
*AOL wants to spread FUD about XP
*AOL considers its own OS
where both are really doubtful. Many people just use this for another cause of a LinuxWindows flamewar. It bores me.
Slashdot Mirror
Here we go again:
There were already critizisms about that survey in the heise forum. My major points are that the survey: - is very focussed on Unix (I write OSS for BeOS)
- has two editors only?
- only asks whicht desktop you're using but not what you're developing for
- assumes you write only for one OS
- doesn't ask that much about your motivation.
- doesn't ask that much about what kind of software you write
- doesn't aks wether you write alone or in a team and if latter, how big the team is.
--
There were already critizisms about that survey in the heise forum. My major points are that the survey: - is very focussed on Unix (I write OSS for BeOS) - has two editors only? - only asks whicht desktop you're using but not what you're developing for - assumes you write only for one OS - doesn't ask that much about your motivation. - doesn't ask that much about what kind of software you write - doesn't aks wether you write alone or in a team and if latter, how big the team is.
--
The MagicWB "XEM" look never was the original classic Amiga Interface, it never became official. (I'm glad about that, I never like the look of MagicWB.) The "official" look of the classic Workbench is based Matt Chaput's "GlowIcons" that are part of the AmigaOS since Release 3.5 (see the Screenshot atAmiga.com. However, I'm rather interested in the supposed-to-be-coming-soon new Amiga Hardware, I hope we'll see a renaissance of the early 90's system diversity. Remember, we had Macs, Amigas, Ataris, NeXT, Windows, OS/2...now we have Macs, Windows, Unices and a bit of BeOS, the majority running on the same (wrecked) x86 hardware. Damn, I want more choises than intel or AMD!
--
My back didn't hurt so far from computer works, but sometimes my eyes or my wrist hurt. My tip to avoid wrist pain is to switch the hand you hold your mouse in regularly, say left hand for a week then right hand for a week. It sounds harder than it is, I am a 100% right handed man but I got used to using the mouse with the left hand really quick.
Besides, I'm in the early 20s, so my back pain might come some day.
--
Are you from the KDE team? I'd love to hear more about KDE's "official" opinion concernig the UI. I found the UI sites on developer.kde.org and I think it's good that they quote from people like Tognazzi, Nielsen and Raskin. But why do they stick that much to Mac and Windows UI when all the above agree that the road UIs took in the last years are a dead end road? Why do they use windows-style menu bars (inside the window frame) by default instead of the (proven by Fitt's law) faster Mac-style menu bars at the top border of the screen? (Yes I am aware of the fact that you can change that, but it took me a while to find that option, and I think 95% of all KDE users don't even know that it exists.)
The KDE and Gnome people have the opportunity to create innovative GUIs and break with all old bad habits and compatibility issues, why do they now make the same mistakes that Microsoft and Apple made again?
--
Think about that quote: "We always keep a look out at other environments and grab what we like. We say, 'hey! that looks good, let's put it in.'" That's maybe a good way for technichal ideas, but it's bad for the interface. By simply stealing here and there you lose consistency, one of the most important points of an interface. You end up with hundred nice features that looked good somewhere else, and with hundred different ways to uses that features.
--
* draw a circle rotate the current selection
* draw a line to translate the current selection
* draw a v-shape to scale the current selection
--
I can only agree with you. There are good developers doing great work on KDE, but one should give them some books from Neilsen, Tognazzi or Raskin for Christmas, so KDE will not only look better than Windows and MacOS (you can do anything with themes...) but also feel better and be faster to use.
--
I really wonder how the results are - from what I've seen so far from Gnome and KDE, in terms of usability they are no better than Windows or MacOS are.s .html) where all of the UI-gurus agree that one could do much better than Mac/Windows. How come KDE/Gnome don't really use Fitt's law? They could use the screen borders much better than just sticking a start-button in the corner and leaving most of the rest as wasted blank space. And what they really lack is consistency - where do you put the "Preferences" menu item? File/Settings? Edit/Preferences? Misc/Options? There's still so much to do in terms of usability...
How can it happen that both environments stick so close to Windows and MacOS where both mention sites like www.asktog.com or www.useit.com in their usability pages (e.g. http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/reference
--
Great, another OS! I just can't get enough of 'em, I love all OS'! Go on!
To all those who say "no, you're stupid, instead of writing your own OS you should improve Linux" - Sorry guys, not everyone thinks Linux is the best OS ever. Some people want a modern OS (unix is 20 yrs old, you call that modern?), and if they don't have one, they'll write one. Period.
--
The worst thing about these beauties is that they run only with macs. I'd definately love to get me one of those for my BeOS-PC! IMHO LCDs are much better than CRTs, that's why I'm willing to spend more money on them. In '97, I spent ~$600 for a good 17" CRT, why shouldn't I be spending the same price for a good 15" TFT (same viewing size FIY)? When it comes to text work, I often find myself using my old Notebook with a 10.4" 800x600 TFT display, just because the picture is much sharper and by far more stable than on my 17" 1152x864@90Hz CRT. The SGI SW1600 looks like a great thing too, but unfortunately the german resellers add ~80% to its price :-(
--
>. However, it is MUCH harder today then it was a year ago,
> and even then it was five years ago.
But it still is easy to get funding when you have an excellent idea and a good business plan. But creating a new file manager and then selling online services - this idea is neither new nor exciting.
--
I don't think it's good that the FSF insists on having the ultimate definition of free software. IMHO, the BSD license is more "free" than the GPL: The BSD license leaves you more freedom in what to do with the source, ie you may combine it with code that underlies a different license and release it without the source. The GPL doesn't allow you to do that, and therefore is IMHO less free.
--
German /. readers might be interested in the fact that the c't magazine featured some good articles about extreme programming in one of the last issues.
nVidia is not overpriced. The GForce cards come very close to professional cards that cost several $1000. For example, a TNT2Ultra or a GForceMX beats a Visualize fx6 in many benchmarks.
In general, I think people should use less games for benchmarks. Yes I know, a lot of people love games, but it'd be better to use e.g. viewperf, so you can compare the GForce to *real* graphics cards.
Now that Linux comes closer to professional 3D solutins, we need more software that makes use of it.
No, not Quake. Real software.
Maya is coming soon, but there are still a few other things that you need to have a complete 3D solution, like proper NLE and PostPro software. Plus, a bit of competition wouldn't be bad: How about Cinema4D or Imagine? It'd also be cool to see Elias or Eclipse on Linux.
What use is a new OS if you run the old apps? If I want X, I use Unix.
Yes, Kurt really did amazing work here. Linux itself is, as you know, not an OS but just a kernel, the rest of the software is the GNU OS, a GPLed Unix clone. AtheOS is more than just a kernel, it's a (almost complete) OS, written from the scratch. So, can you really compare Linux and AtheOS at all?
Once again, this is not an original Microsoft idea: There are quite a few high-end software tools around that require regular payments.
I think this is not bad by default: Imagine you're admin in a company that needs, by some reasons, to be up-to-date on Microsoft software. Right now, you'd have to buy an update whenever it appeared, making your cost highly unpredictable. The new model makes it a lot easier to take software licences into your financial plans, it's just like a subscription to a magazine.
OK, OS/2 is not Linux, is not Win2k and it's not MacOS X. And it's FreeBSD neither. It doesn't have all that much of a hardware support and maybe it doesn't have as many features as Win2k. But still, it has a right to exist! Are we to abandon any software that's not a number one candidate? How should anything evolve then?
Why so? I do use BeOS and I do love it. Period.
I know there are lotsa /.ers using Windows, including me. I admit it is of course worth a news entry, when an internal paper from AOL with this content appears. However, I think it is narrow-minded that people in most forums focus only (better mainly) on two points of it:
*AOL wants to spread FUD about XP
*AOL considers its own OS
where both are really doubtful. Many people just use this for another cause of a LinuxWindows flamewar. It bores me.
So what? Who of the Slashdot readers' using AOL anyway?
I'm sorry, I thought I posted it here, but it was in another forum. Here you are: www.asktog.com He has some interesting articles bout UIs.