But OpenGL in Quake III Arena still rocks anything Direct3D puts out. And yes, John "Fucking" Carmack is a god.:)
To make this slightly on-topic: if nothing else, this gaming console will make Linux as a consumer platform seem more viable. There are already binaries for both Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament, in addition to many other games.
Have you ever wondered why AMD added 3DNow! to their chips? It was largely because of the marketing hype Intel used to push more chips that were supoosedly faster because of their multimedia extensions. MMX did absolutely nothing in its first generation; it was added only to give the illusion that Intel was trying to speed up their chips for the multimedia apps that were causing such an uproar.
And have you ever wondered why is the standard when better alternatives exist? It's all because of marketing and money. Intel markets its chips much better than any other manufacturer, and it offers them at a better than competitive price. But I've pondered time and time again what would happen if Intel focused more on chip design than on marketing. Would we start seeing more stable, faster CPUs?
Seriously, Intel is having severe problems with their chips. That's not to say that other chip manufacturers don't have problems--I would bet they do. It just doesn't seem that the problems are as serious when I get my new CPU from AMD.
Not in Windows 2000. They actually made IP configuration a little more robust. I know this sounds like flamebait, but Windows 2000 isn't all that bad. I still prefer Linux, but I'm getting really sick of X not working right with my GeForce 256.
But Darwin has nowhere near the functionality of Mac OS X. Sure, it's the BSD core that forms the basis of Mac OS X.
As for Transmeta chips emulating PPC...like most of the other posters, I think it's a long way off...if it happens. Although it would be cool to switch one's processor from CISC to RISC with a reboot.:)
However, there are third party companies working on bringing better graphics hardware to the Mac. It's still not as open as the x86 world, but it is getting better despite Apple's efforts to keep the platform closed.
And while the PC user has more choices about the functions of his or her computer, there are more games available for consoles than for PCs.
I think the point he is making is that the installation is done in X (is it?), in which case, it may be very slow on older PCs. Haven't downloaded it yet, so I don't know if you can only use X to install. I hope not.
The installation is done in X if you just hit enter at the install menu. However, you can type install text to get the text installation that was used prior to 6.2.
Yeah, I know, you can just get 6.1, or 6.2, or soon 7.0. But when bugs are discovered in 7.0, we will still be downloading the buggy 7.0 until 7.1 comes out.
Good point. I see what the previous author was most likely talking about.
You can choose not to install X. Seriously, just don't install the X packages. However, most newbies want to use X because it provides an environment that is similar to what they are used to.
I don't really use Red Hat's hardware utilities, except Xconfigurator. Thus, I don't really have enough information to discuss this point.
I would argue that Red Hat pushes the rest of the distributions forward. Yes, there were quite a few bugs that were introduced with Red Hat 6.0. However, Red Hat released bug fixes and security updates. For 6.0, there are located here; in fact, their entire support area is pretty well done. And why should a company update old versions of its distro when it has already released a new one? I think that providing RPMs for support is quite sufficient. It's not a "service pack," but RPMs are really easy to use, and gnorpm is improving. It wouldn't surprise me to see a wizard-type interface be built on top of rpmlib through gnorpm.
I'm all for allowing fresh faces to come use Linux. And if they want to use wizards, that's fine, too. I think that most 31337 Linux users feel the same way, as long as their methods of unbreaking things are still available.
That's what pisses me the hell off. Man, I can download entire albums off FTP servers in the time it takes me to download a few songs from users of Napster. If I really wanted to pirate music, I would set up a phat FTP server and start trading leech access with people who had albums I want on their FTP servers.
I use Napster for the singles, and for random singles and b-sides that I wouldn't find anywhere else. This is why Napster has been so successful, and I agree completely that this injunction will severely bruse them.
I know this argument has been rehashed a million times, but if the recording industry wants to charge me $17 or $18 for a CD which includes maybe two songs that I really want, then I'll start finding ways to trade music with people. I guess the RIAA figures that the majority of people don't know enough about the Internet to use FTP or HTTP. Granted, both protocols have "legitimate" uses.
By the way, I don't know where I originally found this poster from the Modern Humorist, but check it out. For those of you too lazy to click on the link, the poster reads "When you pirate MP3s, you're downloading COMMUNISM," and is in the style of a World War era propaganda poster.
Not really. Saying the CLI is "mathematically oriented" may not be the best description, but it makes a little bit of sense. Like in algebra, for instance, one issues commands in a very function-based manner:
But the bitmap on the screen isn't really part of the "physical reality." A user interface might be considered as a representation of the reality, or an extension of the reality. The goal of UI studies is to improve the interaction between the user and his or her interface by structuring, simplfying, expanding upon, etc. the perceived reality.
And the car analogy is really weak. I'm tired of seeing it used in discussions like these.
Re:oh yes, because OS X is Manna from heaven!
on
MacOSX and X11
·
· Score: 1
You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. As long as you can use the computer to accomplish your tasks, I don't see any point in arguing. But it would be nice if you would explain your perspective once so that we can understand where you are coming from.
And since I don't want to seem hypocritical, here's an explanation of my opinion:
Mac OS leaves the user alone, and doesn't worry about the interface frills one finds in Windows. It's easier to interact with a Mac.
As for being educated, I know that Mac OS doesn't have protected memory, process accounting, and many of the other parts of an operating system that will run for years at a time. That's why Apple is basing Mac OS X on a kernel that is already tried and true.
And don't give me any of the bullshit about how Mac hardware is nonstandard. Go look at the Apple Store to get an idea of how standard Apple has made their hardware. The prices are somewhat higher than those you will find in the rest of the PC industry, although not from most of the brand-name manufacturers. There are ways to build a PowerPC-based system yourself, check out this Slashdot article. By the way, last time I built an x86 machine myself, I found it was too much of a hassle. I ended up sending back some of the (name-brand) parts I bought because they didn't work.
You may want to use your Power Macs as X terminals in a network environment -- MI/X works fine as an X terminal emulator. You may also want to make your PC a true X Server and run multiple X clients from your desktop.
I'll try it out when I get my Mac attached to my home network -- I've always wanted something like this.
Yes, it was in the February 2000 issue (issue 8.02). It is on their Web site under the 8.02 section, and the article is entitled "Game Over." Overall, a good article...worth a read.
Ugh...it's really a matter of choice. It's great that you like Cold Fusion, and it's peachy that I like Perl. Perl syntax can be, well, fucked up at times...but there are times when it makes things easier. I only have a little experience with Cold Fusion, but it seems nice overall. Your choice is personal...and so is each person's. If you've had a bad experience with Perl, don't take it out by insulting someone.
Where'd you hear that? Mac OS Rumors? (For those who still like Mac OS Rumors: sorry... I grew tired of reading incorrect speculations with little foundation.) Seriously, look at Apple's current market - why would Apple want to port Mac OS X to x86 with the iMac doing as well as it is?
As cool as it would be to have Mac OS X on x86, there's already a better solution - it's called PowerPC. It's a bit more expensive than x86 (the reason you can get "free" PCs is because there are so many of them), but that's because people fail to see the potential. The PowerPC roadmap projects way past Intel's (and if Motorola would get off its ass, we would have gigahertz G4s).
The question of support is a bit more difficult. Apple used to have the best support in the industry, and with billions in the bank, one would think that they could still offer free support. Nevertheless, I think it's good that Apple is focusing on making its hardware and software better (support, hopefully, will come later). Making an OS that runs on x86 - a platform that is already so saturated by Windows - is not in Apple's best interest.
The stats Slashbox, as far as I can tell, isn't running on one of their main Web servers. Notice how it often says that they've only generated 1 page today. Granted, that could be a problem with their Perl code...I dunno. I wouldn't take the stats Slashbox as an accurate representation of their actual stats.
Yes! Consistency is one of the most important aspects of increasing usability in a GUI. Until recently, Mac OS and many of the apps that ran under Mac OS were consistent with each other, largely because of the style guides that Apple wrote and published for Mac OS (see the Human Interface Guidelines). Guidelines seem less stringent for developers these days, and fewer applications meet all of Apple's "rules" these days.
Above all, behavior of interface elements must be consistent in order to maintain intuitiveness. GNOME and KDE are actually doing quite well in implementing consistent interfaces while allowing for themability (one thing that is lacking in Mac OS because Apple has refused to release the Appearance Manager theme specs). My only gripe about GNOME and KDE is that both desktop environments are setting things up a lot like Windows, which often fails to maintain consistency and "sensible" behavior. For instance, why is shut down under the Start menu? Why does Windows hide important options that should be grouped throughout different control panels--hardware management (under Windows 98, you have the System control panel the Add New Hardware control panel, and the Modems control panel (which controls COM port assignments, speaker settings, etc.)), for example. Also, the design metaphor used in Windows sometimes confuses new users. Thus, the fact that GNOME and KDE are being used to attract new users to Linux is a cause for concern.
People often don't understand that the little details in Mac OS make it a stronger interface than many of the others. (Another strong interface is the one in BeOS, for various reasons.) The close box for windows is on the opposite side as the grow and window shade boxes to denote the strong difference in behavior (which is one thing that might change in Mac OS X--bah). Windows that have the focus have textured title bars, while windows in the background do not. Granted, there are some weird aspects of Mac OS--like dragging removable disks to the Trash and restart and shut down being under "Special."
Anyway, consistency and well-planned behavior are highly important. Flexibility (and themability) are also significant to strong user interfaces. GNOME and KDE are showing great potential, and I think that with time they will develop into strong desktop environments.
At the risk of posting flamebait, I would say that there are some consumers that won't know the difference between a FishPC (what were they thinking?) and the iMac. Some consumers are, in terms of computers, complete morons. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to learn computers. Apple is worried that potential customers who have seen the iMac will see this FishPC and decide to buy one thinking it is the iMac. (There is a much lower chance than with the clones, I agree.) Apple has had a tough time getting customers as it is, so they naturally want to protect what they see as their means for gaining popularity. Whether you agree or disagree with that is more of a personal decision than anything else.
Also check out this link. Briefly, Darwin is the open source part of the Mac OS X code base, which is based on BSD. The Projects page at the link above tells more about it. Apple has also released the code for their streaming server (not exactly the same as their commercial streaming server, which comes with Mac OS X Server), with binaries for Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris.
Also, in case you haven't been following Darwin, there is some question as to why Apple is doing this. Many are skeptical of Apple's Public Source License, because it requires developers to submit modifications to Apple.
Great, but let's say the parents have had a hard day at work, and they're already asleep. Given that the parents have not put a BIOS password on their computer, and assuming that they aren't smart enough to tell Windows not to save their PPP password, avoiding parents and getting to porn is not as difficult as it may seem. (Even on AOL, which doesn't save passwords from what I can remember, porn is easy to find according to some of my less fortunate friends.) Watching one's kids is a possible solution, and the parents who find censorware objectionable and who worry about their children's "innocent" minds probably do watch their children while they are online.
In an ideal world, the parents that are worried about their children browsing "inappropriate" material would be watching their children and keeping tabs on them. That's not to say that censorware and Bess proxy filtering and the like are good. Any type of censorship is bad to me, although I see no reason why the Web and the Internet in general are any worse than MTV, a channel that coerces (through the videos, the really pointless shows, and the commercials) kids into buying products that they might normally avoid like the plague. Thus, children are going to become corrupt, so to speak, even if filtering mechanisms are installed. I don't think there is any perfect solution to this; censorware doesn't necessarily filter content correctly (although the original poster's idea is an improvement), and kids will find a way to access "inappropriate" material. Censorware is pointless, and it gives a false sense of security. It should either be improved in a drastic way, or it should be scrapped altogether.
At the risk of being marked "Offtopic," there is already a window manager that allows for such graphical configuration, WindowMaker. It takes a little getting used to, I would argue, but almost all of the configuration options can be set graphically. WindowMaker looks and behaves similarly to AfterStep, although closer in behavior to the NeXTStep interface than AfterStep (AfterStep is based upon NeXTStep's interface, but has some changes in behavior). Best of all, it uses GTK to draw its widgets, so it looks pretty, especially if you download some cool gtk-engines.
Under WindowMaker, options can be set, depending on context, by right clicking on a docked applet (like the Wharf) or by loading wmakerconf. Want a docked applet to automatically load on startup? Right click on it and check a box. Want to change your backround? Wish to use a different font in your root menu? Load up wmakerconf. With AfterStep, all these options are easy to set if you which file contains each option. On Freshmeat, there's something called AS TOOL that sounds promising (from the brief description) as a graphical configuration tool, although the linked Web site doesn't talk about it. Damn.
With the recent developments in AfterStep's theme configuration, it seems that AfterStep is moving closer to an "end-user" GUI. Once a graphical configuration utility is implemented, all that is left to do is implement some type of desktop metaphor (not necessarily whored from Mac OS, mind you). A graphical tool such as this wouldn't be too hard to design, I would think.
As for open source and the design of GUIs, it seems that we all want something different. Granted, most of us want configurability, but some want to use graphical tools, while others prefer text files. To make Linux a more viable "mom" desktop environment, designing some type of forum would be a great idea. I have a feeling, though, that it would run into many of the problems that are currently plauging Slashdot: trolls, karma whores, etc. (I don't see how the 31337 first posters would fit in, though.) Solutions to these problems would have to be worked out so that usable GUI standards would be set. And who's to say that every programmer would follow the guidlines? It doesn't happen under Mac OS, an OS that has relatively stringent (but friendly) guidelines for GUIs (see http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/mac/HIGuidel ines/HIGuidelines-2.html). And it certainly doesn't happen under Windows.
Clearly, something needs to be done. User feedback is a start. I don't think there are really any surefire solutions out there. Linux desktop environments will evolve just like the more traditional user interfaces have.
I'll agree with you that, in the context in which you speak, OpenFirmware isn't a shell. I said in my original post that the closest thing to a CLI on a Mac is OpenFirmware (if I said shell, I didn't mean to), to which I should have added that OF is the closest to a CLI that is built-in.
And don't forget about Mac06 (I think that's what it's called)...it aims to make a POSIX compliant layer for Mac programmers to aid in the transition to Mac OS X Consumer.
Anyway, sorry I wasn't clearer in my original post.
Seeing as the article was originally about Lisa, I thought it might be fitting to add to this that Macs don't really have CLIs in the same respect that DOS incorporates a CLI and bash (one of the more common shells in Linux) is a CLI. I can't say for certain about Lisa, as I've never used one myself, but Macs boot straight to "graphics mode." The closest thing to a CLI on Macs is hardware-based, called OpenFirmware (which was developed by Apple, Sun, and Motorola, I believe). Holding Command-Option-O-F at boot time on a newer Power Mac will drop you to OpenFirmware. The OpenFirmware website says that:
OpenFirmware is essentially a specification for a largely machine-independent BIOS based on ANS Forth that is capable of probing and initializing plug-in cards that have on-board IEEE-1275 compliant Fcode in their ROMs.
Cool, huh? And you wonder why hardware is a non-issue on Macs in comparison with Windows et al.:)
Anyway, back to my original point. Macs don't really have a CLI, and while not explicitly stated, the original post implied that GUIs are wholly dependent on a CLI.
Try Google's cache. I was getting the same error, so I went to Google, and searched using this term:
cache:self.sunlabs.com
You can browse most of the site (minus images, which is sort of a problem in this case), though the interface is a little awkward. For one, Google doesn't modify the links so that you stay within the cache (like Babelfish does), so you have to modify the query every time you want to see another page.
Slashdot Mirror
But OpenGL in Quake III Arena still rocks anything Direct3D puts out. And yes, John "Fucking" Carmack is a god. :)
To make this slightly on-topic: if nothing else, this gaming console will make Linux as a consumer platform seem more viable. There are already binaries for both Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament, in addition to many other games.
Have you ever wondered why AMD added 3DNow! to their chips? It was largely because of the marketing hype Intel used to push more chips that were supoosedly faster because of their multimedia extensions. MMX did absolutely nothing in its first generation; it was added only to give the illusion that Intel was trying to speed up their chips for the multimedia apps that were causing such an uproar.
And have you ever wondered why is the standard when better alternatives exist? It's all because of marketing and money. Intel markets its chips much better than any other manufacturer, and it offers them at a better than competitive price. But I've pondered time and time again what would happen if Intel focused more on chip design than on marketing. Would we start seeing more stable, faster CPUs?
Seriously, Intel is having severe problems with their chips. That's not to say that other chip manufacturers don't have problems--I would bet they do. It just doesn't seem that the problems are as serious when I get my new CPU from AMD.
Not in Windows 2000. They actually made IP configuration a little more robust. I know this sounds like flamebait, but Windows 2000 isn't all that bad. I still prefer Linux, but I'm getting really sick of X not working right with my GeForce 256.
But Darwin has nowhere near the functionality of Mac OS X. Sure, it's the BSD core that forms the basis of Mac OS X.
:)
As for Transmeta chips emulating PPC...like most of the other posters, I think it's a long way off...if it happens. Although it would be cool to switch one's processor from CISC to RISC with a reboot.
Not exactly. Craig McCracken created the Powerpuff Girls, and does extensive art stuff for Dexter's Laboratory. They're both hillarious shows.
However, there are third party companies working on bringing better graphics hardware to the Mac. It's still not as open as the x86 world, but it is getting better despite Apple's efforts to keep the platform closed.
And while the PC user has more choices about the functions of his or her computer, there are more games available for consoles than for PCs.
Good point. I see what the previous author was most likely talking about.
I'm all for allowing fresh faces to come use Linux. And if they want to use wizards, that's fine, too. I think that most 31337 Linux users feel the same way, as long as their methods of unbreaking things are still available.
That's what pisses me the hell off. Man, I can download entire albums off FTP servers in the time it takes me to download a few songs from users of Napster. If I really wanted to pirate music, I would set up a phat FTP server and start trading leech access with people who had albums I want on their FTP servers.
I use Napster for the singles, and for random singles and b-sides that I wouldn't find anywhere else. This is why Napster has been so successful, and I agree completely that this injunction will severely bruse them.
I know this argument has been rehashed a million times, but if the recording industry wants to charge me $17 or $18 for a CD which includes maybe two songs that I really want, then I'll start finding ways to trade music with people. I guess the RIAA figures that the majority of people don't know enough about the Internet to use FTP or HTTP. Granted, both protocols have "legitimate" uses.
By the way, I don't know where I originally found this poster from the Modern Humorist, but check it out. For those of you too lazy to click on the link, the poster reads "When you pirate MP3s, you're downloading COMMUNISM," and is in the style of a World War era propaganda poster.
Not really. Saying the CLI is "mathematically oriented" may not be the best description, but it makes a little bit of sense. Like in algebra, for instance, one issues commands in a very function-based manner:
./file.txt
$ cat
But the bitmap on the screen isn't really part of the "physical reality." A user interface might be considered as a representation of the reality, or an extension of the reality. The goal of UI studies is to improve the interaction between the user and his or her interface by structuring, simplfying, expanding upon, etc. the perceived reality.
And the car analogy is really weak. I'm tired of seeing it used in discussions like these.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. As long as you can use the computer to accomplish your tasks, I don't see any point in arguing. But it would be nice if you would explain your perspective once so that we can understand where you are coming from.
And since I don't want to seem hypocritical, here's an explanation of my opinion:
Mac OS leaves the user alone, and doesn't worry about the interface frills one finds in Windows. It's easier to interact with a Mac.
As for being educated, I know that Mac OS doesn't have protected memory, process accounting, and many of the other parts of an operating system that will run for years at a time. That's why Apple is basing Mac OS X on a kernel that is already tried and true.
And don't give me any of the bullshit about how Mac hardware is nonstandard. Go look at the Apple Store to get an idea of how standard Apple has made their hardware. The prices are somewhat higher than those you will find in the rest of the PC industry, although not from most of the brand-name manufacturers. There are ways to build a PowerPC-based system yourself, check out this Slashdot article. By the way, last time I built an x86 machine myself, I found it was too much of a hassle. I ended up sending back some of the (name-brand) parts I bought because they didn't work.
I'll try it out when I get my Mac attached to my home network -- I've always wanted something like this.
Yes, it was in the February 2000 issue (issue 8.02). It is on their Web site under the 8.02 section, and the article is entitled "Game Over." Overall, a good article...worth a read.
Ugh...it's really a matter of choice. It's great that you like Cold Fusion, and it's peachy that I like Perl. Perl syntax can be, well, fucked up at times...but there are times when it makes things easier. I only have a little experience with Cold Fusion, but it seems nice overall. Your choice is personal...and so is each person's. If you've had a bad experience with Perl, don't take it out by insulting someone.
Where'd you hear that? Mac OS Rumors? (For those who still like Mac OS Rumors: sorry ... I grew tired of reading incorrect speculations with little foundation.) Seriously, look at Apple's current market - why would Apple want to port Mac OS X to x86 with the iMac doing as well as it is?
As cool as it would be to have Mac OS X on x86, there's already a better solution - it's called PowerPC. It's a bit more expensive than x86 (the reason you can get "free" PCs is because there are so many of them), but that's because people fail to see the potential. The PowerPC roadmap projects way past Intel's (and if Motorola would get off its ass, we would have gigahertz G4s).
The question of support is a bit more difficult. Apple used to have the best support in the industry, and with billions in the bank, one would think that they could still offer free support. Nevertheless, I think it's good that Apple is focusing on making its hardware and software better (support, hopefully, will come later). Making an OS that runs on x86 - a platform that is already so saturated by Windows - is not in Apple's best interest.
The stats Slashbox, as far as I can tell, isn't running on one of their main Web servers. Notice how it often says that they've only generated 1 page today. Granted, that could be a problem with their Perl code...I dunno. I wouldn't take the stats Slashbox as an accurate representation of their actual stats.
Yes! Consistency is one of the most important aspects of increasing usability in a GUI. Until recently, Mac OS and many of the apps that ran under Mac OS were consistent with each other, largely because of the style guides that Apple wrote and published for Mac OS (see the Human Interface Guidelines). Guidelines seem less stringent for developers these days, and fewer applications meet all of Apple's "rules" these days.
Above all, behavior of interface elements must be consistent in order to maintain intuitiveness. GNOME and KDE are actually doing quite well in implementing consistent interfaces while allowing for themability (one thing that is lacking in Mac OS because Apple has refused to release the Appearance Manager theme specs). My only gripe about GNOME and KDE is that both desktop environments are setting things up a lot like Windows, which often fails to maintain consistency and "sensible" behavior. For instance, why is shut down under the Start menu? Why does Windows hide important options that should be grouped throughout different control panels--hardware management (under Windows 98, you have the System control panel the Add New Hardware control panel, and the Modems control panel (which controls COM port assignments, speaker settings, etc.)), for example. Also, the design metaphor used in Windows sometimes confuses new users. Thus, the fact that GNOME and KDE are being used to attract new users to Linux is a cause for concern.
People often don't understand that the little details in Mac OS make it a stronger interface than many of the others. (Another strong interface is the one in BeOS, for various reasons.) The close box for windows is on the opposite side as the grow and window shade boxes to denote the strong difference in behavior (which is one thing that might change in Mac OS X--bah). Windows that have the focus have textured title bars, while windows in the background do not. Granted, there are some weird aspects of Mac OS--like dragging removable disks to the Trash and restart and shut down being under "Special."
Anyway, consistency and well-planned behavior are highly important. Flexibility (and themability) are also significant to strong user interfaces. GNOME and KDE are showing great potential, and I think that with time they will develop into strong desktop environments.
At the risk of posting flamebait, I would say that there are some consumers that won't know the difference between a FishPC (what were they thinking?) and the iMac. Some consumers are, in terms of computers, complete morons. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to learn computers. Apple is worried that potential customers who have seen the iMac will see this FishPC and decide to buy one thinking it is the iMac. (There is a much lower chance than with the clones, I agree.) Apple has had a tough time getting customers as it is, so they naturally want to protect what they see as their means for gaining popularity. Whether you agree or disagree with that is more of a personal decision than anything else.
Also check out this link. Briefly, Darwin is the open source part of the Mac OS X code base, which is based on BSD. The Projects page at the link above tells more about it. Apple has also released the code for their streaming server (not exactly the same as their commercial streaming server, which comes with Mac OS X Server), with binaries for Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris.
Also, in case you haven't been following Darwin, there is some question as to why Apple is doing this. Many are skeptical of Apple's Public Source License, because it requires developers to submit modifications to Apple.
Great, but let's say the parents have had a hard day at work, and they're already asleep. Given that the parents have not put a BIOS password on their computer, and assuming that they aren't smart enough to tell Windows not to save their PPP password, avoiding parents and getting to porn is not as difficult as it may seem. (Even on AOL, which doesn't save passwords from what I can remember, porn is easy to find according to some of my less fortunate friends.) Watching one's kids is a possible solution, and the parents who find censorware objectionable and who worry about their children's "innocent" minds probably do watch their children while they are online.
In an ideal world, the parents that are worried about their children browsing "inappropriate" material would be watching their children and keeping tabs on them. That's not to say that censorware and Bess proxy filtering and the like are good. Any type of censorship is bad to me, although I see no reason why the Web and the Internet in general are any worse than MTV, a channel that coerces (through the videos, the really pointless shows, and the commercials) kids into buying products that they might normally avoid like the plague. Thus, children are going to become corrupt, so to speak, even if filtering mechanisms are installed. I don't think there is any perfect solution to this; censorware doesn't necessarily filter content correctly (although the original poster's idea is an improvement), and kids will find a way to access "inappropriate" material. Censorware is pointless, and it gives a false sense of security. It should either be improved in a drastic way, or it should be scrapped altogether.
At the risk of being marked "Offtopic," there is already a window manager that allows for such graphical configuration, WindowMaker. It takes a little getting used to, I would argue, but almost all of the configuration options can be set graphically. WindowMaker looks and behaves similarly to AfterStep, although closer in behavior to the NeXTStep interface than AfterStep (AfterStep is based upon NeXTStep's interface, but has some changes in behavior). Best of all, it uses GTK to draw its widgets, so it looks pretty, especially if you download some cool gtk-engines.
l ines/HIGuidelines-2.html). And it certainly doesn't happen under Windows.
Under WindowMaker, options can be set, depending on context, by right clicking on a docked applet (like the Wharf) or by loading wmakerconf. Want a docked applet to automatically load on startup? Right click on it and check a box. Want to change your backround? Wish to use a different font in your root menu? Load up wmakerconf. With AfterStep, all these options are easy to set if you which file contains each option. On Freshmeat, there's something called AS TOOL that sounds promising (from the brief description) as a graphical configuration tool, although the linked Web site doesn't talk about it. Damn.
With the recent developments in AfterStep's theme configuration, it seems that AfterStep is moving closer to an "end-user" GUI. Once a graphical configuration utility is implemented, all that is left to do is implement some type of desktop metaphor (not necessarily whored from Mac OS, mind you). A graphical tool such as this wouldn't be too hard to design, I would think.
As for open source and the design of GUIs, it seems that we all want something different. Granted, most of us want configurability, but some want to use graphical tools, while others prefer text files. To make Linux a more viable "mom" desktop environment, designing some type of forum would be a great idea. I have a feeling, though, that it would run into many of the problems that are currently plauging Slashdot: trolls, karma whores, etc. (I don't see how the 31337 first posters would fit in, though.) Solutions to these problems would have to be worked out so that usable GUI standards would be set. And who's to say that every programmer would follow the guidlines? It doesn't happen under Mac OS, an OS that has relatively stringent (but friendly) guidelines for GUIs (see
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/mac/HIGuide
Clearly, something needs to be done. User feedback is a start. I don't think there are really any surefire solutions out there. Linux desktop environments will evolve just like the more traditional user interfaces have.
I'll agree with you that, in the context in which you speak, OpenFirmware isn't a shell. I said in my original post that the closest thing to a CLI on a Mac is OpenFirmware (if I said shell, I didn't mean to), to which I should have added that OF is the closest to a CLI that is built-in.
And don't forget about Mac06 (I think that's what it's called)...it aims to make a POSIX compliant layer for Mac programmers to aid in the transition to Mac OS X Consumer.
Anyway, sorry I wasn't clearer in my original post.
Anyway, back to my original point. Macs don't really have a CLI, and while not explicitly stated, the original post implied that GUIs are wholly dependent on a CLI.
You can browse most of the site (minus images, which is sort of a problem in this case), though the interface is a little awkward. For one, Google doesn't modify the links so that you stay within the cache (like Babelfish does), so you have to modify the query every time you want to see another page.