It's not the FOSS developers' contemptuous attitude towards end-users that bothers me.
What really bothers me is that they are as contemptuous as they are of end users while *simultaneously* yelling "world domination", proclaiming "Linux is perfectly ready for the desktop", and lobbying governments to force their software on the very end users who they treat so miserably.
The problem is, that there are many cases where a seemingly minor UI change to the program would downright destroy the backend.
And that's precisely why we usability folks advocate designing the UI at the *start* of the development process, so usability is there from the get go and programmers won't have to re-write zillions of lines of code.
Unfortunately, designing UI before writing code is seen as heresy by the Unix Culture that dominates Open Source, often being referred to as a "proprietary" development methodology. And this is one of the big reasons why Open Source usability sucks.
Being chastized for lack of proof by someone who can't even post with an identity. LOL. I put my real name on everything I say here and I stand by it.
I've personally had in conversation Eric Raymond tell me that we usability folks are wrong for suggesting designing UI before writing code, despite decades of evidence showing that user interaction has been included at the beginning of the design process.
Similarly, I've had Bruce Perens tell me on Slashdot that people like me shouldn't bug all important linux hackers about their hostility towards end users in the holy and sacred place they work in, but deal with it in a layer sprayed on top of that.
If I had a dime for every single time I've seen a prominant GNOME or KDE developer say to me or others who point out the usability flaws of their software "how dare you criticize the work of volunteers" or "quit whining about what you get for free" and then see those very same people try to lobby for their stuff to be forced on school systems and governments, I'd probably have enough dimes to buy the latest box version of Red Hat or Suse.
I've seen the supposedly "best" people in your community do and say the worst things. And that's what I'm judging by.
I agree with you totally. I was actually being sarcastic in my original post. My apologies if it came off completely different. I guess it's true that sarcasm doesn't work on the net.
The part of my post in italics was a quote from the person who had originally posted the story. I've seen zillions upon zillions of people like that in the FOSS community who accuse users with legitimate grievances with linux usability who've had problems doing stuff of anti-linux bias *while* simultaneously calling those very same users idiots, questioning their intelligence, and trying to force arcane unix dogma upon them. Often, these people (who I call Kernigheze, because there's no pre-existing word to describe people like that) thinly vail this opinion because, well, it just doesn't make them look very good to claim Linux is just as easy to use as Windows/OS X and then call Joe six-pack a moron. However, there are certain catch phrases you can pick up on that alert you to the presence of a Kernigheze. "Doesn't like Linux" is a euphemism for "Is biased and spreads M$ FUD about linux being hard to use". "Doesn't know any thing about linux" is a euphemism for "is an idiot who doesn't want to learn anything about unix and wants everything spoon to him in a condescending, dumbed-down GUI". Not everyone on Slashdot has had enough experience with the FOSS community to be able to read between the lines and look behind the veil, so I took it upon myself to perform a public service for the community and do this.
My rant is not one of a Linux zealot. My rant is of someone who despises Linux zealots and who thinks the disciples of Thompson and Ritchie just are as evil, corrupt, and abusive towards end users as Microsoft; they just screw end-users for fun and the principle of it, whereas Microsoft screws end-users for money. IMHO, Open Souce would be a lot better and successful for non-technical users if the Kernigheze left. Whether they are going to leave voluntarily or whether they will have to be forced to leave, that's really up to them.
In regards to the CLI, I'm actually for getting rid of the CLI totally, because CLI's are like silicone breast implants: their proponents keep telling us the nasty stuff is hidden inside many layers of protection and no one will ever have to see it or deal with it, yet despite what they say, it inevitably leaks through and people get hurt. I believe that the work of the artist carries with it the imprint of the tool--if you make a piece of GUI software using a CLI-genre tool (bash, vi, emacs, etc), somehow or other that CLI will leak through into the UI. That's why we need public licenses stipulating that anyone who wants to ship or modify the software can't ship a terminal program with it. Force 'em to use GUI's; the ones who get upset and leave are the ones who never had good intentions and are the ones we need to be getting rid of--it's about time we took out the Text-Trash!
I can only hope that people working on Linux development have more sense than the average slashdot poster.
Sadly, the developers typically have even less sense than the posters on Slashdot.
From someone that seems to dislike Linux and don't know a enough about it.
Translation: "From somebody who is obviously biased against linux and spreading M$ FUD about linux being hard to use, and who is a stupid 1u53r who doesn't want to learn anything how his computer works, who wants everything all pretty GUI and clickity-click-like, who has been brainwashed into proprietary-style thinking that the command line is evil, and whose so-called 'usability problems' are nothing more than him being used to Windows."
I don't think the Washington Post article said very much about the state of desktop linux, but I think that the reaction to it speaks volumes.
I wouldn't modify the parent post as a troll, myself.
I would merely take note of that fact that the traditional OSS belief of UI/User experience work being "a mere tweak" expressed above is the fundamental reason why OSS has continuously gotten its ass kicked on the desktop despite the 10 years of work and millions of programmer hours dumped into linux.
OSS people have the power to make whatever interface they touch turn to shit. Apple has the power to make whatever shit they touch turn into fertilizer.
and choosing a program with a consistent UI that allows the user get their work done with a minimum of fuss was considered a valid choice, linux developers would be considered tyrants and the OS itself would have no choices at all.
End users have different ideas of freedom and choice than the traditionalist unix Text-Trash who dominate linux. The GPL is a programmer's idea of freedom, not an end-user's.
I disagree with the parent post that freedom as seen from an ordinary PC user's perspective implies cost and risk. I think the real PC user's definition of freedom is something so radically different that Stallman an Co. cant't even begin to understand it.
I'm all for Open Source succeeding, I just feel before that can happen we end users have to stand for our freedoms and "take out the Text-Trash".
Perhaps the mac folks value the usability of the macintosh and the ability to get work done easily more than they value linux costing nothing, and they see a Linux Zealot asshole who would try to force on their children a non user-friendly piece of technology and who will instantly dismiss any legitimate concern or grievance about the software being to hard to use with phrases like "quit spreading M$ FUD about linux being hard to use", "the problem is that people don't want to learn", and "we need to teach kids the shell when they're young."
Microsoft has their myths that Open Source is less secure, sends jobs to India, and supports every form of -ism from terrorism to communism to dada-ism
Linux has their myths that Linux is perfectly user friendly and just as easy as Windows and has been ever since the first edition of Slackware rolled out, and that Linux has absolutely no usability problems whatsoever and the only thing holding linux back from taking over the mainstream are evil proprietary companies who don't share their stuff.
It's hard decision on who to back when both sides are completely full of it.
There's a big difference between picking up a wifi network and acutally maintaining a usable link. IMHO a lot of this "Warflying" and "Warsailing" crap serves no real purpose.
Sure it does. It provides an excuse to board a watercraft, drink your ass off, and look at bikinis.
I've often felt that the Unix people making cryptic stuff should take a few weeks off from destroying desktop linux and go read some fine manual titled "Dummies For Idiots".
Right now, I'm developing a Java app in Cocoa. I vastly prefer it to Swing because every Swing UI builder I've ever used is clunky while Interface Builder is simply elegant. And the nice thing about Java is that is has a large number of classes for stuff like X509 certificates and regular expressions don't really have counterparts in Objective-C (or if they do, crappy third-party counterparts).
In regards to the dynamic sizing issue (if I understand the complaint correctly), you can have dynamically changing sizes. Open up an inspector for a control and select "Size" from the pop-up menu at the top. You should see a box within a box. Clicking on different areas of the box draws little springs--those springs represent in what ways the control is allowed to grow/shrink.
The biggest advantage of the MVC for a GUI, IMHO, is portability. While the UI/View for my Cocoa app will be mac-specific, the logic/model for the app is completely cross-platform. I could probably also make the controller code cross-platform by wrapping it for the system I'm porting to, especially if that system supports the MVC paradigm.
Among the things he adds in the 2nd edition is a piece on NSController, a neat feature that saves you a ton of time you'd otherwise spend creating GUI glue code between your view and controller layers. He also includes some info on creating frameworks, which is kind of hard to come by in most mac programming books.
A good designer knows that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Patents are necessary because, barring any political or economic issues, they keep the bad designers (or unix geeks) who don't understand this essential concept and who only think in terms of parts from hurting the general public.
This sort of task is perfect for those 8 track carts machines that radio stations used to use for commercials. The tapes run in a loop, they automatically cue themselves back to the beginning, and when they're done cuing, the brightly colored play button flashes. You could put one under a cabinet completely all covered up (save for the play button) and it should work marvelously.
As a lot (if not all) of radio stations have phased out their cart systems in favor of digital stuff, I'd think there'd be a lot of these machines lying around. Where you'd find them, though, it beyond me.
Or perhaps some slashdotters are pro-end user. They really don't like the way M$ has been treating non-technical folks, but they've seen the linux community treating them just as badly. Being against the way that linux is currently doing things does not make one pro-Microsoft.
I've seen a lot of Slashdotters (and Free Software developers in general) yell "Desktop world domination" or "Our software is just as easy to use as Windows" or "Lobby your government to replace Windows with Linux" one second and then the next start beating up someone for daring to criticize (often justifiably) the usability of Linux, telling them "quit whining about what you get for free" or "go code it youself" or "you're engaging in the mental destruction of Free Software developers."
Evil is evil, and I don't give a damn whether its outfit du jour is a Windows logo or a cute penguin.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the FOSS developers' contemptuous attitude towards end-users that bothers me.
What really bothers me is that they are as contemptuous as they are of end users while *simultaneously* yelling "world domination", proclaiming "Linux is perfectly ready for the desktop", and lobbying governments to force their software on the very end users who they treat so miserably.
That's what really bothers me.
The problem is, that there are many cases where a seemingly minor UI change to the program would downright destroy the backend.
And that's precisely why we usability folks advocate designing the UI at the *start* of the development process, so usability is there from the get go and programmers won't have to re-write zillions of lines of code.
Unfortunately, designing UI before writing code is seen as heresy by the Unix Culture that dominates Open Source, often being referred to as a "proprietary" development methodology. And this is one of the big reasons why Open Source usability sucks.
Is that anything like a 12-step program?
Being chastized for lack of proof by someone who can't even post with an identity. LOL. I put my real name on everything I say here and I stand by it.
I've personally had in conversation Eric Raymond tell me that we usability folks are wrong for suggesting designing UI before writing code, despite decades of evidence showing that user interaction has been included at the beginning of the design process.
Similarly, I've had Bruce Perens tell me on Slashdot that people like me shouldn't bug all important linux hackers about their hostility towards end users in the holy and sacred place they work in, but deal with it in a layer sprayed on top of that.
If I had a dime for every single time I've seen a prominant GNOME or KDE developer say to me or others who point out the usability flaws of their software "how dare you criticize the work of volunteers" or "quit whining about what you get for free" and then see those very same people try to lobby for their stuff to be forced on school systems and governments, I'd probably have enough dimes to buy the latest box version of Red Hat or Suse.
I've seen the supposedly "best" people in your community do and say the worst things. And that's what I'm judging by.
I agree with you totally. I was actually being sarcastic in my original post. My apologies if it came off completely different. I guess it's true that sarcasm doesn't work on the net.
The part of my post in italics was a quote from the person who had originally posted the story. I've seen zillions upon zillions of people like that in the FOSS community who accuse users with legitimate grievances with linux usability who've had problems doing stuff of anti-linux bias *while* simultaneously calling those very same users idiots, questioning their intelligence, and trying to force arcane unix dogma upon them. Often, these people (who I call Kernigheze, because there's no pre-existing word to describe people like that) thinly vail this opinion because, well, it just doesn't make them look very good to claim Linux is just as easy to use as Windows/OS X and then call Joe six-pack a moron. However, there are certain catch phrases you can pick up on that alert you to the presence of a Kernigheze. "Doesn't like Linux" is a euphemism for "Is biased and spreads M$ FUD about linux being hard to use". "Doesn't know any thing about linux" is a euphemism for "is an idiot who doesn't want to learn anything about unix and wants everything spoon to him in a condescending, dumbed-down GUI". Not everyone on Slashdot has had enough experience with the FOSS community to be able to read between the lines and look behind the veil, so I took it upon myself to perform a public service for the community and do this.
My rant is not one of a Linux zealot. My rant is of someone who despises Linux zealots and who thinks the disciples of Thompson and Ritchie just are as evil, corrupt, and abusive towards end users as Microsoft; they just screw end-users for fun and the principle of it, whereas Microsoft screws end-users for money. IMHO, Open Souce would be a lot better and successful for non-technical users if the Kernigheze left. Whether they are going to leave voluntarily or whether they will have to be forced to leave, that's really up to them.
In regards to the CLI, I'm actually for getting rid of the CLI totally, because CLI's are like silicone breast implants: their proponents keep telling us the nasty stuff is hidden inside many layers of protection and no one will ever have to see it or deal with it, yet despite what they say, it inevitably leaks through and people get hurt. I believe that the work of the artist carries with it the imprint of the tool--if you make a piece of GUI software using a CLI-genre tool (bash, vi, emacs, etc), somehow or other that CLI will leak through into the UI. That's why we need public licenses stipulating that anyone who wants to ship or modify the software can't ship a terminal program with it. Force 'em to use GUI's; the ones who get upset and leave are the ones who never had good intentions and are the ones we need to be getting rid of--it's about time we took out the Text-Trash!
I can only hope that people working on Linux development have more sense than the average slashdot poster.
Sadly, the developers typically have even less sense than the posters on Slashdot.
From someone that seems to dislike Linux and don't know a enough about it.
Translation: "From somebody who is obviously biased against linux and spreading M$ FUD about linux being hard to use, and who is a stupid 1u53r who doesn't want to learn anything how his computer works, who wants everything all pretty GUI and clickity-click-like, who has been brainwashed into proprietary-style thinking that the command line is evil, and whose so-called 'usability problems' are nothing more than him being used to Windows."
I don't think the Washington Post article said very much about the state of desktop linux, but I think that the reaction to it speaks volumes.
>WWDC -- What Would Dogbert Chew?
Or how about:
WWDC -- What Would DogCow Code?
I wouldn't modify the parent post as a troll, myself.
I would merely take note of that fact that the traditional OSS belief of UI/User experience work being "a mere tweak" expressed above is the fundamental reason why OSS has continuously gotten its ass kicked on the desktop despite the 10 years of work and millions of programmer hours dumped into linux.
OSS people have the power to make whatever interface they touch turn to shit. Apple has the power to make whatever shit they touch turn into fertilizer.
and choosing a program with a consistent UI that allows the user get their work done with a minimum of fuss was considered a valid choice, linux developers would be considered tyrants and the OS itself would have no choices at all.
End users have different ideas of freedom and choice than the traditionalist unix Text-Trash who dominate linux. The GPL is a programmer's idea of freedom, not an end-user's.
I disagree with the parent post that freedom as seen from an ordinary PC user's perspective implies cost and risk. I think the real PC user's definition of freedom is something so radically different that Stallman an Co. cant't even begin to understand it.
I'm all for Open Source succeeding, I just feel before that can happen we end users have to stand for our freedoms and "take out the Text-Trash".
Looking at the perspective from the other side...
Perhaps the mac folks value the usability of the macintosh and the ability to get work done easily more than they value linux costing nothing, and they see a Linux Zealot asshole who would try to force on their children a non user-friendly piece of technology and who will instantly dismiss any legitimate concern or grievance about the software being to hard to use with phrases like "quit spreading M$ FUD about linux being hard to use", "the problem is that people don't want to learn", and "we need to teach kids the shell when they're young."
A theoretical conversation between John Carmack the astronaut and ambassador Zarvox of Omicron Persei 8
Zarvox: Greetings earthling. We come in peace. What is it that you do on your planet?
Carmack: I make computer games where you run around and kill aliens.
I'm less concerned about privacy than I am that invisible walls will make irritating street performers socially acceptable in the workplace.
Microsoft has their myths that Open Source is less secure, sends jobs to India, and supports every form of -ism from terrorism to communism to dada-ism
Linux has their myths that Linux is perfectly user friendly and just as easy as Windows and has been ever since the first edition of Slackware rolled out, and that Linux has absolutely no usability problems whatsoever and the only thing holding linux back from taking over the mainstream are evil proprietary companies who don't share their stuff.
It's hard decision on who to back when both sides are completely full of it.
There's a big difference between picking up a wifi network and acutally maintaining a usable link. IMHO a lot of this "Warflying" and "Warsailing" crap serves no real purpose.
Sure it does. It provides an excuse to board a watercraft, drink your ass off, and look at bikinis.
Kind of like fishing, actually.
I've often felt that the Unix people making cryptic stuff should take a few weeks off from destroying desktop linux and go read some fine manual titled "Dummies For Idiots".
Linux is an OS for guys with testicles far bigger than the lowly pair I was given.
O'Reilly already publishes "Linux In A Nutshell". Perhaps one day they'll get around to publishing "Nuts In A Linux Shell".
Klingons do not release (see parent post).
Your signature has a [ObjC retain] without having a matching [ObjC release].
Therefore, you are technically Klingon.
Strange. I had always been told that real men speak with a LISP.
Right now, I'm developing a Java app in Cocoa. I vastly prefer it to Swing because every Swing UI builder I've ever used is clunky while Interface Builder is simply elegant. And the nice thing about Java is that is has a large number of classes for stuff like X509 certificates and regular expressions don't really have counterparts in Objective-C (or if they do, crappy third-party counterparts).
In regards to the dynamic sizing issue (if I understand the complaint correctly), you can have dynamically changing sizes. Open up an inspector for a control and select "Size" from the pop-up menu at the top. You should see a box within a box. Clicking on different areas of the box draws little springs--those springs represent in what ways the control is allowed to grow/shrink.
The biggest advantage of the MVC for a GUI, IMHO, is portability. While the UI/View for my Cocoa app will be mac-specific, the logic/model for the app is completely cross-platform. I could probably also make the controller code cross-platform by wrapping it for the system I'm porting to, especially if that system supports the MVC paradigm.
Among the things he adds in the 2nd edition is a piece on NSController, a neat feature that saves you a ton of time you'd otherwise spend creating GUI glue code between your view and controller layers. He also includes some info on creating frameworks, which is kind of hard to come by in most mac programming books.
Since it has lesser parts in it
A good designer knows that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Patents are necessary because, barring any political or economic issues, they keep the bad designers (or unix geeks) who don't understand this essential concept and who only think in terms of parts from hurting the general public.
This sort of task is perfect for those 8 track carts machines that radio stations used to use for commercials. The tapes run in a loop, they automatically cue themselves back to the beginning, and when they're done cuing, the brightly colored play button flashes. You could put one under a cabinet completely all covered up (save for the play button) and it should work marvelously.
As a lot (if not all) of radio stations have phased out their cart systems in favor of digital stuff, I'd think there'd be a lot of these machines lying around. Where you'd find them, though, it beyond me.
Or perhaps some slashdotters are pro-end user. They really don't like the way M$ has been treating non-technical folks, but they've seen the linux community treating them just as badly. Being against the way that linux is currently doing things does not make one pro-Microsoft.
I've seen a lot of Slashdotters (and Free Software developers in general) yell "Desktop world domination" or "Our software is just as easy to use as Windows" or "Lobby your government to replace Windows with Linux" one second and then the next start beating up someone for daring to criticize (often justifiably) the usability of Linux, telling them "quit whining about what you get for free" or "go code it youself" or "you're engaging in the mental destruction of Free Software developers."
Evil is evil, and I don't give a damn whether its outfit du jour is a Windows logo or a cute penguin.
But if we did that, the polar icecaps wouldn't melt, and then we'd never be able to visit the Lost City of Atlanta.
If your server's uptime shows hundreds of sessions in the past two days with an impressive load average, to hell with medical attention.
Seek the nearest sorority house.