I've called tech support and gotten great tech support (friendly and understanding), and I've called tech support and gotten bad (condescending or incompetent) tech support.
I've provided tech support and gotten users who are friendly and understanding, and I've provided tech support and gotten users who are irritated, frustrated, and aren't open to listening to the idea that they've done something wrong.
You could argue which side the problem's at until the cows come home, because it's at BOTH ends. I think it's silly to take the article as a personal affront towards tech support personnel. The CNN article is pointing out that with companies cutting costs in tech support that the industry (as a whole) is becoming so bad that people just aren't calling. They are talking about trends, not saying that all tech support is bad and that all people requesting support are good. I'm personally glad that CNN is bringing the problem to light, because someone needs to tell the companies that tech support *is* an issue that people care about, and anything that could cause tech support overall to be improved is a good thing.
At the same time, people going to friends and neighbors for support isn't a completely bad thing either. They're probably more receptive to the help, and as another poster mentioned it is sometimes more teaching the user how to use their computer than providing 'support' with a problem.
In 10 years, I think this whole issue will not be so bad. A majority of people will know their way around the computer and hopefully the companies will have come to their senses and decided to provide a better support infrastructure for their products. I see this as sort of a 'growing pain' of the tech industry, as a glut of not-so-knowledgable users have started using these tools and we have now started the slow and painful process of teaching these millions upon millions of people computer basics.;-)
It's that simple. You yourself explained the problem - the web is just a click away. I think its obvious why you can't get any work done until 12AM - that's because past 12AM slashdot isn't getting many stories posted, there's no good programs on TV, most of your buddies aren't on IM, and all of a sudden there's not much to do BUT work.
You know when I am surprisingly productive? On plane, train and automobile trips. I can't hook into the Net, watch TV or play games, so I've got three choices: work, read, or talk to someone. If I choose work, I can concentrate for hours without problem, but when I'm 'wired' it becomes much more difficult.
I think it's funny that everyone talks about having ADD and ADHD. For some people its real, for most its simply them trying to cope with the new information age - where info is updated by the minute. It creates what I would call an 'info lust' - the need to know the latest NOW. Inform me. Entertain me. Help me get away from a boring life.
Unhook all your connections for an entire day - see how much you get done. I bet it will be a lot.
BTW, as an aside, I know someone who has ADHD, and trust me, if you had it you couldn't be a programmer. They're moving faster than normal people, and they cannot concentrate EVER for more than a couple minutes. They want to talk just to talk and they will ramble on about nothing and try and goad you into conversation. (It's not to irritate you, like with trolls, its instinctive.) Going to bed? It takes every ounce of energy for them to keep from trying to to get out of bed and find someone to talk to. And the person I know is very nice, not a bad person at all - it is just that they can't help what they are doing.
I know someone else who has been 'diagnosed' with ADHD who doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to this description. Mostly this person has trouble listening to their parents, paying attention in school, and are tempted by lots of distractions like TV/games/computer/etc. In other words, generally behaving like kids/teenagers who are 'wired'. So if you are able to get work done in the wee hours of the night, you're right that you probably don't have any sort of mental problem. =) Just maybe a problem with keeping your hands away from the information superhighway, so to speak.;-)
While this article does a nice job of illustrating some of the problems in today's computing environment, it does a poor job of explaining how to get us to stop being sharecroppers.
It's pretty obvious that it's healthier not to be a sharecropper vendor. But a little thought shows that it's better not to be a customer on a sharecropper's platform. When something good and new comes along, the chances are less that it'll be scooped and monopolized by the landlord, and greater that it'll develop into a healthy ecosystem.
This is a generalization, and I'm not really sure if he's advising shareware developers, custom app/consultant developers, or everyone under the sun that working with a sharecropper's platform is bad for them. In some cases, moving to OSS makes sense and is viable. It is not, however, always good for the customer or the developer. The purpose of writing 'shareware' was always to make money, so moving to a free platform would seem to be more risky than trying to sell an app on a sharecropper's platform. How much money could Watson have made on Linux/OSS? Wouldn't an OSS alternative pop up if people liked it? Plus, people don't want to buy tons of third-party software for their apps unless they have to, and many shareware apps are cool but not necessary, so I imagine most of them do not experience massive sales and profits. The shareware market will always be a tough one, and it's not just (or even primarily) because of the 'landlord'.
As for custom app developers and end users, they just have to decide which helps them be most productive and is cost efficient. Linux/OSS is actually quite a good alternative in the enterprise, but in small business/home the do-it-yourself tech support and higher learning curve make Linux not an OS for the timid.
That's why the phrase quoted above, about flexibility and usability, is so completely 100% wrong. Browsers are more usable because they're less flexible.
BZZZTTT! Wrong! (To quote the article. =) No, browsers are more usable because programmers are less able to *abuse* the interface and do *poor*, not rich, interface design. Traditional apps are not an inherently poor choice for interface design, it's just that interface design is often not given the time and resources it needs. I'm not saying browser-based doesn't/can't work under some situations (and in fact, it can be ideal in any number of situations), but let's not generalize that browser-based is clearly superior to application interfaces, as a well-designed interface can supercede browser-based in functionality and simplicity. I personally like the idea of having a web-based interface when online, and a traditional app to work with data when offline.
All computer applications fall into one of three baskets: information retrieval, database interaction, and content creation. History shows that the Web browser, or something like it, is the right way to do the first two. Which leaves content creation.
More generalizations here... The web browser is *one way* to do all three, and whether or not to use it depends on what data and needs you are dealing with, not the operation (input/manipulation/output, really) you are performing. That's like saying 'history has shown that cars are the best way to get between two places'. Makes sense until you want to go from New York to London, or to your neighbor's house.
The article should really speak to a more clearly defined audience, and maybe get a little more specific about *how* to implement some of these ideas. As it stands, I don't really see much of interest in this article, except for yet another proclamation of the superiority of OSS.
My two cents is that we will see more web apps exposing APIs (ala amazon and google) and that these APIs will be used from both traditional and web apps. In other words, the border between browser-based and traditional apps will be blurred, not made more distinct! There's more than one way to skin a cat, and that's a good thing. Apps written in different languages will talk to each other, and which technology to use will become more a matter of preference than necessity.
AL: Dude, anime rocks! Long live the anime channel! AH: No it doesn't, it sucks! I don't want that channel, it's got cooties! AL: Rocks! (x10) AH: Sucks! (x10) AL: Oh yeah, prove it! AH: Oh yeah, prove it! AL: Here's some statistics/anecdoatal evidence/articles that tells how cool anime is! AH: Here's some counter statistics/anecdoatal evidence/articles telling how sucky anime is! AL: Liar, anime rocks! AH: Anime sux! It's for kids!.......
What is the big problem with some people liking anime? Seriously. Yes, some people get WAY too carried away about how great anime is, but I don't see what this big debate is about. From what i've read, it's mostly people supposing and assuming various untrue things about Japanese people and anime fans. (Kinda like how the world stereotypes 'hackerz', but anyways...)
In any case, folks, I think a woman is far more likely to be turned off by guys who rabidly debate pointless topics like this than by some guy who watches anime.;-)
Ok anime haters, I'm going to teach you a magical trick. Log into slashdot, select preferences, and select "anime" in the "Exclude Stories" section. Wow. Slashdot no longer posts anime news!
As for me, I already submitted my petition for the anime network. Thanks Taco! =)
ROX is a desktop manager that isn't about mimicking any "desktop style", but focuses on usability issues - for example, it has (IMHO very good) solutions to the first two problems you mentioned.
In fact, I'd argue that it finally creates a Linux desktop that Joe Sixpack could be happy with. It doesn't spew an application's files all over the filesystem - instead it leaves them all inside the application's folder. In fact, double-clicking on the App's folder runs it! To delete a program, just delete that folder. Program preferences are stored in a Choices folder so that you can keep your preferences even if you delete a program.
And since you don't need to "Install" the program, you either move it to the system's "Apps" folder, or the "Apps" folder in the user's Home folder to install local or system apps. (BTW, as some may notice, it actually works very similarly to Mac OS X, which some people think is very easy to use. =) This makes managing the 'start menu' a non-issue. It also gives the user more power to manage their programs folder (i.e. create their own categories).
Check it out at:
http://rox.sourceforge.net
I've tried KDE and GNOME and while they look pretty enough, I never felt they were usable in the Mac or Windows sense. This desktop is definitely headed in the right direction... It may even convince me to put Linux on my PCs. I'm really surprised that most people haven't seen this yet!!
Sure, it requires apps to be modified (and it looks like many have already been), but sooner or later people are going to have to realize that this is far easier to understand for the desktop user. Linux (and Unix) were designed for server and terminal-based environments, not the desktop, so any solution will need to modify the current way of doing things. IMHO, this desktop addresses some of the most important issues and deserves more attention and support!
This is the number one problem I have with most of my programming courses. I think the black box issue is a side-effect of the real problem; trying to over-simplify the programming process into a bunch of simple (and often trivial) examples. I don't actually disagree with this from an educational standpoint, except that it is taken too far.
How many computer science depts have you work on a major project(s) over the course of your degree? How many, instead, have you implement algorithms to walk a chess board without hitting any space twice, or teach you how to draw on a DOS window? =) Do you really expect these students to just walk into a real company and start being productive? Many will be almost totally unprepared.
While these skills (and the practice) are certainly not without value, these projects do not teach skills like integrating software components, teamwork, or how to validate incoming/outgoing data. I personally do these things much more often than having to figure out 'tricky algorithms'. In fact, I've found that those trivial examples tend to get students worked up on some small aspect of the algorithm, totally losing sight of what they need to be learning.
Some people think that computer science programs need to focus on abstraction (and I used to think this at first), but I in fact feel that they already focus too much on abstraction. Yes, abstraction of a problem is an ESSENTIAL skill for programmers, but let's not forget that one learns to abstract by noticing patterns in various examples over time. In other words, by performing a concrete task over and over, you notice patterns in how you performed the task and are able to generalize it to other problems. So, if you have someone program over and over and over, they will (in most cases) begin to realize patterns without a book or teacher to help them out. It's how I learned, and I bet since others are asking for abstraction to be taught more, it's how they learned too. =)
I really think the best way to teach programming is by mentoring, and an open source project is a great way to do that. Have them first take basic computer courses, and view (but not contribute to) the project and its code. Maybe even explain to them portions of the code in-class, focusing on why certain decisions were made. Then, ask them to make a few simple modifications, and submit them to project maintainers (which could be professors). The maintainers explain what is good/bad (i.e. security issues, compatibility issues, etc.) and the sample is sent back for revision. Then just step up the complexity of the modifications little by little.
This model just doesn't really fit with our current education system, unfortunately. =) In any case, I think the computer science programs in effect do need some major updating. Some of them have learned to be more modern, but I find I do more reading than programming, and when I do program oft times I'm not sure what the point of the example is.
Most importantly, ignore the posts about how the "feel" isn't quite right on some platforms. If you really want a slightly different menu layout or some such thing for each of the several platforms, it's pretty damned easy to add a few lines of conditional compilation (for a C++ program at least) to switch a few things around - and since the joy of Unix is that X apps have no fucking standards anyway, that app you wrote that looks good on Windows will probably look just as good in X - just make sure you test the OS X version out if that's a target platform, since I imagine you need some extra work to make things truly meet the Macintosh platform guidelines. Still a ton easier to maintain one wxWindows source base than to maintain a Gtk, MFC and Carbon/Cocoa GUI separately.
Just a quick note: I've used wxPython to develop an application and I can say that it does very well in the "look and feel" department. It sometimes even goes "above and beyond" the call of duty - wxMacPython, for example, will rename your "Exit" menu item to "Quit" automatically. There are also notes on how to make a wxApp more "Mac-friendly". As a developer working on Mac but developing primarily for Windows users, I can say wxWindows/wxPython really works well for me. And while the documentation isn't the greatest, it is pretty decent considering the constraints of an open source project, and the folks on the mailing lists are more than helpful when you have a question, or even find a bug. =) Just my $0.02!
While there is no "one" reason why open source isn't the software of choice for Joe SixPack, I'd have to say that the lack of a marketing budget is a bigger one than people might think.
I recently gave a training seminar with a group of about 50 people who had very little computer experience. For licensing reasons, and because these people were to be sent overseas to teach computers to others, we decided to go with OpenOffice.org as the office suite to teach to people. (We also gave them a CD with that and some other free software with them that they could give to people overseas.)
The end result? Several were surprised at how easy it was, and amazed that such a thing was free. It has some quirks still, but overall it is a pretty good replacement for Microsoft Office. But the key was that *no one knew about it* before the training. Geeks seek this stuff out, but the average user doesn't know about the alternatives until they are told about them.
In the end, magazines and popular computer information sources are where these programs have the potential to get a wider user base, but they tend to be funded by commercial software vendors. To heavily promote OpenOffice.org may be to alienate Microsoft, and it's big advertising dollars. Word is slowly spreading, and I think over the next few years, you will see increasing awareness and adoption of open source, but right now it doesn't have the marketing muscle behind it to cause a rapid increase in adoption.
wxWindows is a cross-platform GUI toolkit which emulates the native look n feel of the platform it is running on. It's written in C/C++ and runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux. The url is http://www.wxwindows.org. It gives you the cross-platform benefits of Java, as well as access to the underlying BSD layer.
I have started using wxPython (Python bindings for wxWindows) as my primary development platform, and am quite happy with it. It enables me to develop my application on OS X, even though my primary target audience is using Windows. =)
Microsoft was doing more than building their own browser. They were using their monopoly to force computer vendors to include IE, and make it default. (Or lose the ability to sell Windows.) In other words, they were using their monopoly position to exterminate Netscape, which they actually saw as a competitor to their OS.
I don't think that if Microsoft had simply provided an excellent browser and stopped there, that Netscape would really have had a case. The fact is that companies will always bundle software with the OS to add value. If not, how do you suggest they make a new OS version more appealing to end users? Most users, and rightfully so, believe they should not have to pay simply for bug fixes or OS 'tweaks'.
It's interesting to note that software like Photoshop Elements, instead of being 'threatened' by iPhoto, simply integrates with it. And unlike IE, iMovie,iDVD and iPhoto are not, and will never be, suitable for commercial level use. The target market for these applications are home users who would probably not pay much, if anything, for these software packages anyways.
Maybe it actually doesn't do anything. I think the execs at Microsoft started reading "The Emporer's New Clothes" and thought the idea of selling nothing was actually pretty smart. Just make the customer think they're getting the "next big thing" and they'll be happy. =)
Seriously, though, I think it's simply Microsoft's way of taking Java and XML-RPC/SOAP, changing the technology and nomenclature a little bit, C# and calling them Microsoft's new, innovative, next generation platform for building web services!
I already know how to build web services with PHP/Perl/Python, XML and an Internet connection. =) I can also build a cross-platform GUI with wxWindows/wxPython so I seriously wonder: what does Microsoft's platform offer that I don't already have?
Same with me! The tabbed browsing features, the skinnability of it (I use Orbiit which is a really nice skin) and the ability to bookmark a set of tabs are all little, but important, usability features that got me to make the switch!
I used to defend IE, but I think it has gone the way of Netscape. Each release seems to have no compelling reason to upgrade and more quirks (not to mention security holes) than the last.
There won't be any more browser wars, though. My prediction is that OpenOffice and Mozilla will quietly find their way into more and more people's homes and businesses, and by the time Windows decides to get off their butt and make IE back into a stellar browser, it won't matter. People will no longer be stuck to Windows because all their day-to-day software will work on any major platform.
Microsoft's current strategy is based on customer lock in. Get them to use Windows, then they buy (and create) Windows-only products. The more committed to Windows products they become, the harder it is to migrate to Linux or any other OS. They may play the standards game, but they always try to hook non-standard "killer" features into their systems.
If Microsoft were to start using open-source applications, then the content and programs that people create become more portable. That is, an Apache web app will work on Windows or Linux (possibly with some minor modifications). By supporting open-source within their products they make it easier to move to a completely open-source platform. They do not want to do this, unfortunately.
At some point, I think Microsoft will have to come to the conclusion that it is going to be a player, no longer THE player, in the OS market. But until that happens, they're going to try and protect their monopoly - because even if it is not in the consumer's best interests, it is in Microsoft's best interests.
Apple has already released a beta of their new developer tools, which includes gcc3.1. Maybe it's time to try compiling again, against the 1.0 branch? =)
One of the reasons almost all Flash you see is advertising or a waste of bandwidth is that most of the people who'd like to use it for educational work are scared off by the amount of work & skill it would take to do it well.
I personally am not 'scared off' by Flash and I work quite a bit in educational CBT design. I've found most of the people who don't use it do so for another reason - it's not the right tool for the job. Here's an example to illustrate the kinds of problems that arise from using the wrong technology. I once took a telecourse where the professor videotaped 13 hour-long video sessions where he answered specific homework questions from the text. Well, the semester I took the course, the book had just changed - and so had most of the homework questions. Sure, it was more interactive, but it was also high-maintenance - kinda like Flash. In the end, the prof was doing the students a dis-service by using the technology. And yes, he did have a web forum but there wasn't much on it.
I admit I don't know your project's background, but from your message I get the impression you're making a common IT design mistake - choosing 'the right job for the tool'. That is to say, you first pick the technology you will use, and then design your solution in terms of the technology. Flash is highly interactive, but it is precisely because of that it has a high learning curve. There aren't going to be many interesting tools (open source or not) which can lower this learning curve - because they would have to cut out important functionality.
As far as the problems with open source, I think it's not about lack of money or resources - it's about the nature of open source. Open Source developers don't want to write documentation, or design simple interfaces. Why? Because they don't need them! It is as simple as that. That is why there is not yet success on the desktop, and why there won't be for a long time. Hiring a bunch of part-timers to write documentation and simplify interfaces won't really work - you need experts. The Apple kind, people who have done scores of usability testing and can intuitively understand their target audience's needs and wants in an interface. Of course, those type of experts generally don't work pro-bono, or cheap. Open source doesn't have many (if any) of them, and that is why many open source interfaces borrow heavily from MS app designs.
In fact, in closing, let me say that I think that the software and educational fields both have a strong need for "information architecture", that is, structuring information and options in such a way that the user always intuitively knows where to go and what to do next. The relevant options are always right in front of them. If you master this, then your project will succeed whether you use HTML OR Flash, but if you do not master this, then your project will fail, no matter what tool you use. In short, it's not the tool you used to build the content that matters - its the content itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I've called tech support and gotten great tech support (friendly and understanding), and I've called tech support and gotten bad (condescending or incompetent) tech support.
;-)
I've provided tech support and gotten users who are friendly and understanding, and I've provided tech support and gotten users who are irritated, frustrated, and aren't open to listening to the idea that they've done something wrong.
You could argue which side the problem's at until the cows come home, because it's at BOTH ends. I think it's silly to take the article as a personal affront towards tech support personnel. The CNN article is pointing out that with companies cutting costs in tech support that the industry (as a whole) is becoming so bad that people just aren't calling. They are talking about trends, not saying that all tech support is bad and that all people requesting support are good. I'm personally glad that CNN is bringing the problem to light, because someone needs to tell the companies that tech support *is* an issue that people care about, and anything that could cause tech support overall to be improved is a good thing.
At the same time, people going to friends and neighbors for support isn't a completely bad thing either. They're probably more receptive to the help, and as another poster mentioned it is sometimes more teaching the user how to use their computer than providing 'support' with a problem.
In 10 years, I think this whole issue will not be so bad. A majority of people will know their way around the computer and hopefully the companies will have come to their senses and decided to provide a better support infrastructure for their products. I see this as sort of a 'growing pain' of the tech industry, as a glut of not-so-knowledgable users have started using these tools and we have now started the slow and painful process of teaching these millions upon millions of people computer basics.
It's that simple. You yourself explained the problem - the web is just a click away. I think its obvious why you can't get any work done until 12AM - that's because past 12AM slashdot isn't getting many stories posted, there's no good programs on TV, most of your buddies aren't on IM, and all of a sudden there's not much to do BUT work.
;-)
You know when I am surprisingly productive? On plane, train and automobile trips. I can't hook into the Net, watch TV or play games, so I've got three choices: work, read, or talk to someone. If I choose work, I can concentrate for hours without problem, but when I'm 'wired' it becomes much more difficult.
I think it's funny that everyone talks about having ADD and ADHD. For some people its real, for most its simply them trying to cope with the new information age - where info is updated by the minute. It creates what I would call an 'info lust' - the need to know the latest NOW. Inform me. Entertain me. Help me get away from a boring life.
Unhook all your connections for an entire day - see how much you get done. I bet it will be a lot.
BTW, as an aside, I know someone who has ADHD, and trust me, if you had it you couldn't be a programmer. They're moving faster than normal people, and they cannot concentrate EVER for more than a couple minutes. They want to talk just to talk and they will ramble on about nothing and try and goad you into conversation. (It's not to irritate you, like with trolls, its instinctive.) Going to bed? It takes every ounce of energy for them to keep from trying to to get out of bed and find someone to talk to. And the person I know is very nice, not a bad person at all - it is just that they can't help what they are doing.
I know someone else who has been 'diagnosed' with ADHD who doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to this description. Mostly this person has trouble listening to their parents, paying attention in school, and are tempted by lots of distractions like TV/games/computer/etc. In other words, generally behaving like kids/teenagers who are 'wired'. So if you are able to get work done in the wee hours of the night, you're right that you probably don't have any sort of mental problem. =) Just maybe a problem with keeping your hands away from the information superhighway, so to speak.
While this article does a nice job of illustrating some of the problems in today's computing environment, it does a poor job of explaining how to get us to stop being sharecroppers.
It's pretty obvious that it's healthier not to be a sharecropper vendor. But a little thought shows that it's better not to be a customer on a sharecropper's platform. When something good and new comes along, the chances are less that it'll be scooped and monopolized by the landlord, and greater that it'll develop into a healthy ecosystem.This is a generalization, and I'm not really sure if he's advising shareware developers, custom app/consultant developers, or everyone under the sun that working with a sharecropper's platform is bad for them. In some cases, moving to OSS makes sense and is viable. It is not, however, always good for the customer or the developer. The purpose of writing 'shareware' was always to make money, so moving to a free platform would seem to be more risky than trying to sell an app on a sharecropper's platform. How much money could Watson have made on Linux/OSS? Wouldn't an OSS alternative pop up if people liked it? Plus, people don't want to buy tons of third-party software for their apps unless they have to, and many shareware apps are cool but not necessary, so I imagine most of them do not experience massive sales and profits. The shareware market will always be a tough one, and it's not just (or even primarily) because of the 'landlord'.
As for custom app developers and end users, they just have to decide which helps them be most productive and is cost efficient. Linux/OSS is actually quite a good alternative in the enterprise, but in small business/home the do-it-yourself tech support and higher learning curve make Linux not an OS for the timid.
That's why the phrase quoted above, about flexibility and usability, is so completely 100% wrong. Browsers are more usable because they're less flexible.BZZZTTT! Wrong! (To quote the article. =) No, browsers are more usable because programmers are less able to *abuse* the interface and do *poor*, not rich, interface design. Traditional apps are not an inherently poor choice for interface design, it's just that interface design is often not given the time and resources it needs. I'm not saying browser-based doesn't/can't work under some situations (and in fact, it can be ideal in any number of situations), but let's not generalize that browser-based is clearly superior to application interfaces, as a well-designed interface can supercede browser-based in functionality and simplicity. I personally like the idea of having a web-based interface when online, and a traditional app to work with data when offline.
All computer applications fall into one of three baskets: information retrieval, database interaction, and content creation. History shows that the Web browser, or something like it, is the right way to do the first two. Which leaves content creation.More generalizations here... The web browser is *one way* to do all three, and whether or not to use it depends on what data and needs you are dealing with, not the operation (input/manipulation/output, really) you are performing. That's like saying 'history has shown that cars are the best way to get between two places'. Makes sense until you want to go from New York to London, or to your neighbor's house.
The article should really speak to a more clearly defined audience, and maybe get a little more specific about *how* to implement some of these ideas. As it stands, I don't really see much of interest in this article, except for yet another proclamation of the superiority of OSS.
My two cents is that we will see more web apps exposing APIs (ala amazon and google) and that these APIs will be used from both traditional and web apps. In other words, the border between browser-based and traditional apps will be blurred, not made more distinct! There's more than one way to skin a cat, and that's a good thing. Apps written in different languages will talk to each other, and which technology to use will become more a matter of preference than necessity.
What language is this? I can't find it on Babelfish...
(AL = anime lovers, AH = anime haters)
.......
;-)
AL: Dude, anime rocks! Long live the anime channel!
AH: No it doesn't, it sucks! I don't want that channel, it's got cooties!
AL: Rocks! (x10)
AH: Sucks! (x10)
AL: Oh yeah, prove it!
AH: Oh yeah, prove it!
AL: Here's some statistics/anecdoatal evidence/articles that tells how cool anime is!
AH: Here's some counter statistics/anecdoatal evidence/articles telling how sucky anime is!
AL: Liar, anime rocks!
AH: Anime sux! It's for kids!
What is the big problem with some people liking anime? Seriously. Yes, some people get WAY too carried away about how great anime is, but I don't see what this big debate is about. From what i've read, it's mostly people supposing and assuming various untrue things about Japanese people and anime fans. (Kinda like how the world stereotypes 'hackerz', but anyways...)
In any case, folks, I think a woman is far more likely to be turned off by guys who rabidly debate pointless topics like this than by some guy who watches anime.
Ok anime haters, I'm going to teach you a magical trick. Log into slashdot, select preferences, and select "anime" in the "Exclude Stories" section. Wow. Slashdot no longer posts anime news!
As for me, I already submitted my petition for the anime network. Thanks Taco! =)
ROX is a desktop manager that isn't about mimicking any "desktop style", but focuses on usability issues - for example, it has (IMHO very good) solutions to the first two problems you mentioned.
In fact, I'd argue that it finally creates a Linux desktop that Joe Sixpack could be happy with. It doesn't spew an application's files all over the filesystem - instead it leaves them all inside the application's folder. In fact, double-clicking on the App's folder runs it! To delete a program, just delete that folder. Program preferences are stored in a Choices folder so that you can keep your preferences even if you delete a program.
And since you don't need to "Install" the program, you either move it to the system's "Apps" folder, or the "Apps" folder in the user's Home folder to install local or system apps. (BTW, as some may notice, it actually works very similarly to Mac OS X, which some people think is very easy to use. =) This makes managing the 'start menu' a non-issue. It also gives the user more power to manage their programs folder (i.e. create their own categories).
Check it out at:
http://rox.sourceforge.net
I've tried KDE and GNOME and while they look pretty enough, I never felt they were usable in the Mac or Windows sense. This desktop is definitely headed in the right direction... It may even convince me to put Linux on my PCs. I'm really surprised that most people haven't seen this yet!!
Sure, it requires apps to be modified (and it looks like many have already been), but sooner or later people are going to have to realize that this is far easier to understand for the desktop user. Linux (and Unix) were designed for server and terminal-based environments, not the desktop, so any solution will need to modify the current way of doing things. IMHO, this desktop addresses some of the most important issues and deserves more attention and support!
This is the number one problem I have with most of my programming courses. I think the black box issue is a side-effect of the real problem; trying to over-simplify the programming process into a bunch of simple (and often trivial) examples. I don't actually disagree with this from an educational standpoint, except that it is taken too far.
How many computer science depts have you work on a major project(s) over the course of your degree? How many, instead, have you implement algorithms to walk a chess board without hitting any space twice, or teach you how to draw on a DOS window? =) Do you really expect these students to just walk into a real company and start being productive? Many will be almost totally unprepared.
While these skills (and the practice) are certainly not without value, these projects do not teach skills like integrating software components, teamwork, or how to validate incoming/outgoing data. I personally do these things much more often than having to figure out 'tricky algorithms'. In fact, I've found that those trivial examples tend to get students worked up on some small aspect of the algorithm, totally losing sight of what they need to be learning.
Some people think that computer science programs need to focus on abstraction (and I used to think this at first), but I in fact feel that they already focus too much on abstraction. Yes, abstraction of a problem is an ESSENTIAL skill for programmers, but let's not forget that one learns to abstract by noticing patterns in various examples over time. In other words, by performing a concrete task over and over, you notice patterns in how you performed the task and are able to generalize it to other problems. So, if you have someone program over and over and over, they will (in most cases) begin to realize patterns without a book or teacher to help them out. It's how I learned, and I bet since others are asking for abstraction to be taught more, it's how they learned too. =)
I really think the best way to teach programming is by mentoring, and an open source project is a great way to do that. Have them first take basic computer courses, and view (but not contribute to) the project and its code. Maybe even explain to them portions of the code in-class, focusing on why certain decisions were made. Then, ask them to make a few simple modifications, and submit them to project maintainers (which could be professors). The maintainers explain what is good/bad (i.e. security issues, compatibility issues, etc.) and the sample is sent back for revision. Then just step up the complexity of the modifications little by little.
This model just doesn't really fit with our current education system, unfortunately. =) In any case, I think the computer science programs in effect do need some major updating. Some of them have learned to be more modern, but I find I do more reading than programming, and when I do program oft times I'm not sure what the point of the example is.
Well, after reading the article, I think it stands for "LinuxWorld Corporate Edition". =)
Just a quick note: I've used wxPython to develop an application and I can say that it does very well in the "look and feel" department. It sometimes even goes "above and beyond" the call of duty - wxMacPython, for example, will rename your "Exit" menu item to "Quit" automatically. There are also notes on how to make a wxApp more "Mac-friendly". As a developer working on Mac but developing primarily for Windows users, I can say wxWindows/wxPython really works well for me. And while the documentation isn't the greatest, it is pretty decent considering the constraints of an open source project, and the folks on the mailing lists are more than helpful when you have a question, or even find a bug. =) Just my $0.02!
While there is no "one" reason why open source isn't the software of choice for Joe SixPack, I'd have to say that the lack of a marketing budget is a bigger one than people might think.
I recently gave a training seminar with a group of about 50 people who had very little computer experience. For licensing reasons, and because these people were to be sent overseas to teach computers to others, we decided to go with OpenOffice.org as the office suite to teach to people. (We also gave them a CD with that and some other free software with them that they could give to people overseas.)
The end result? Several were surprised at how easy it was, and amazed that such a thing was free. It has some quirks still, but overall it is a pretty good replacement for Microsoft Office. But the key was that *no one knew about it* before the training. Geeks seek this stuff out, but the average user doesn't know about the alternatives until they are told about them.
In the end, magazines and popular computer information sources are where these programs have the potential to get a wider user base, but they tend to be funded by commercial software vendors. To heavily promote OpenOffice.org may be to alienate Microsoft, and it's big advertising dollars. Word is slowly spreading, and I think over the next few years, you will see increasing awareness and adoption of open source, but right now it doesn't have the marketing muscle behind it to cause a rapid increase in adoption.
wxWindows is a cross-platform GUI toolkit which emulates the native look n feel of the platform it is running on. It's written in C/C++ and runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux. The url is http://www.wxwindows.org. It gives you the cross-platform benefits of Java, as well as access to the underlying BSD layer.
I have started using wxPython (Python bindings for wxWindows) as my primary development platform, and am quite happy with it. It enables me to develop my application on OS X, even though my primary target audience is using Windows. =)
Microsoft was doing more than building their own browser. They were using their monopoly to force computer vendors to include IE, and make it default. (Or lose the ability to sell Windows.) In other words, they were using their monopoly position to exterminate Netscape, which they actually saw as a competitor to their OS.
I don't think that if Microsoft had simply provided an excellent browser and stopped there, that Netscape would really have had a case. The fact is that companies will always bundle software with the OS to add value. If not, how do you suggest they make a new OS version more appealing to end users? Most users, and rightfully so, believe they should not have to pay simply for bug fixes or OS 'tweaks'.
It's interesting to note that software like Photoshop Elements, instead of being 'threatened' by iPhoto, simply integrates with it. And unlike IE, iMovie,iDVD and iPhoto are not, and will never be, suitable for commercial level use. The target market for these applications are home users who would probably not pay much, if anything, for these software packages anyways.
Maybe it actually doesn't do anything. I think the execs at Microsoft started reading "The Emporer's New Clothes" and thought the idea of selling nothing was actually pretty smart. Just make the customer think they're getting the "next big thing" and they'll be happy. =)
Seriously, though, I think it's simply Microsoft's way of taking Java and XML-RPC/SOAP, changing the technology and nomenclature a little bit, C# and calling them Microsoft's new, innovative, next generation platform for building web services!
I already know how to build web services with PHP/Perl/Python, XML and an Internet connection. =) I can also build a cross-platform GUI with wxWindows/wxPython so I seriously wonder: what does Microsoft's platform offer that I don't already have?
Same with me! The tabbed browsing features, the skinnability of it (I use Orbiit which is a really nice skin) and the ability to bookmark a set of tabs are all little, but important, usability features that got me to make the switch!
I used to defend IE, but I think it has gone the way of Netscape. Each release seems to have no compelling reason to upgrade and more quirks (not to mention security holes) than the last.
There won't be any more browser wars, though. My prediction is that OpenOffice and Mozilla will quietly find their way into more and more people's homes and businesses, and by the time Windows decides to get off their butt and make IE back into a stellar browser, it won't matter. People will no longer be stuck to Windows because all their day-to-day software will work on any major platform.
Have you considered a job with Microsoft's advertising department?
Microsoft's current strategy is based on customer lock in. Get them to use Windows, then they buy (and create) Windows-only products. The more committed to Windows products they become, the harder it is to migrate to Linux or any other OS. They may play the standards game, but they always try to hook non-standard "killer" features into their systems.
If Microsoft were to start using open-source applications, then the content and programs that people create become more portable. That is, an Apache web app will work on Windows or Linux (possibly with some minor modifications). By supporting open-source within their products they make it easier to move to a completely open-source platform. They do not want to do this, unfortunately.
At some point, I think Microsoft will have to come to the conclusion that it is going to be a player, no longer THE player, in the OS market. But until that happens, they're going to try and protect their monopoly - because even if it is not in the consumer's best interests, it is in Microsoft's best interests.
Apple has already released a beta of their new developer tools, which includes gcc3.1. Maybe it's time to try compiling again, against the 1.0 branch? =)
I personally am not 'scared off' by Flash and I work quite a bit in educational CBT design. I've found most of the people who don't use it do so for another reason - it's not the right tool for the job. Here's an example to illustrate the kinds of problems that arise from using the wrong technology. I once took a telecourse where the professor videotaped 13 hour-long video sessions where he answered specific homework questions from the text. Well, the semester I took the course, the book had just changed - and so had most of the homework questions. Sure, it was more interactive, but it was also high-maintenance - kinda like Flash. In the end, the prof was doing the students a dis-service by using the technology. And yes, he did have a web forum but there wasn't much on it.
I admit I don't know your project's background, but from your message I get the impression you're making a common IT design mistake - choosing 'the right job for the tool'. That is to say, you first pick the technology you will use, and then design your solution in terms of the technology. Flash is highly interactive, but it is precisely because of that it has a high learning curve. There aren't going to be many interesting tools (open source or not) which can lower this learning curve - because they would have to cut out important functionality.
As far as the problems with open source, I think it's not about lack of money or resources - it's about the nature of open source. Open Source developers don't want to write documentation, or design simple interfaces. Why? Because they don't need them! It is as simple as that. That is why there is not yet success on the desktop, and why there won't be for a long time. Hiring a bunch of part-timers to write documentation and simplify interfaces won't really work - you need experts. The Apple kind, people who have done scores of usability testing and can intuitively understand their target audience's needs and wants in an interface. Of course, those type of experts generally don't work pro-bono, or cheap. Open source doesn't have many (if any) of them, and that is why many open source interfaces borrow heavily from MS app designs.
In fact, in closing, let me say that I think that the software and educational fields both have a strong need for "information architecture", that is, structuring information and options in such a way that the user always intuitively knows where to go and what to do next. The relevant options are always right in front of them. If you master this, then your project will succeed whether you use HTML OR Flash, but if you do not master this, then your project will fail, no matter what tool you use. In short, it's not the tool you used to build the content that matters - its the content itself.