My laptop has a 133 dpi resolution TFT. Yes, that's 1600x1200 on a 15" screen. Those fonts are all 9pt. Arial is the sans-serif, and Vera is the serif.
The widget style looks nothing like OS X. Neither do the Crystal icons. The menubar and panel *look* superficially like OS X, but they don't behave the same.
The buttons seem pretty obvious to me. And you're in no position to complain that the icons in JuK are "glaring at you" if you don't use it on a regular basis. If anything, they're unobtrusive, simply because they're in the same place in all apps.
I have never understood this argument. Why would a user expect their MP3 player to look and behave like a word processor or web browser? >>>>>>>>> Because of consistency. Its less asthetically egregious when the various apps on your desktop "match," and its also easier to use when everything works the same way. And I'm not going to mention the fact that OS X's web browser (Safari) looks nothing like its word processor...
To put it in more abstract terms, where is the expectation that a program designed for audio playback look and work like an app designed for text manipulation and display? >>>>>>>>>>> Stuff that can be the same, should be the same. For example, many users understand cut/paste. However, they often don't realize that there are ways to do that besides the icons on the toolbar. So when they want to copy something, they go to the toolbar to do it. If the familiar copy icon is not there, they get stuck.
Why would I want or need a save button in an app that deals with read-only data 99% of the time? >>>>>>>>> Actually, there is lots of data to save in a jukebox. JuK handles playlists and ID3 tags, so it makes sense to have a save function that saves those.
Don't critique a GUI you haven't used. Things make a lot more sense when you actually use the UI. For example, when a song is playing, its obvious that the slider that is moving is the time control, and the one that isn't is the volume. Also, in the bottom right, the number that is changing is the current song time, and the number that isn't is the total length. JuK needs some work (cut/copy/paste are probably extraneous, some elements need better labels) but remember, its a beta version of a new app.
Also, as for the "changing depending on context" thing: a lot of classic MacOS users find that one of the most annoying things about OS X is its tendency to move things around when you're not paying attention. Thus, you've got the constantly shifting dock, changing button uses, etc.
But I can play that game too. Let's critique iTunes's GUI
1) What the hell is that diamond shaped thing in the LCD view? If I didn't have an iPod, I wouldn't guess that its the time control. It doesn't even look like something you can manipulate!
2) What the hell are those buttons along the bottom? The icon images tell very little about their purpose. Also, they certainly are not consistent with the images used in the rest of Aqua.
3) Why is "Burn CD" all the way in the right-hand corner? Toolbar items are supposed to start on the left and work their way right.
4) What is the little arrow with the triangle in the LCD view?
5) Why are the play controls so far away from the selection pane?
It really depends on what machine you're on. I find GNOME 2.4 to be very slow, and KDE 3.2 (and even 3.1 to a lesser extent) to be very fast. On my machine (2GHz P4) its as fast as WinXP, anyway.
That's really funny. Vi (Or Emacs:) is still an order of magnitude more productive than Visual Studio. There are some tools that are lacking (UML crap for when you have to interface with the OO monkies) but other than that, its all there, just in a different form.
JuK is cluttered? Unlike iTunes, JuK actually looks and behaves like all the other apps on its desktop. Besides, the correct button count is 10 for iTunes (you didn't count the ones at the bottom) and 14 for JuK. The extra buttons on the juk toolbar are there in the interest of consistency with other KDE apps. Almost all KDE apps have those buttons in the same place. The screenshot you posted is terrible, take a look at the JuK screenshot here. Looks much nicer doesn it?
The real equillibrium is probably going to fall somewhere in the middle. Just like you have unlimited internet today for $10-$20 a month, you'll be able to pay for unlimited music for $10-$20 a month. That'd generate a lot of revenue (though not enough to maintain the huge excess the music industry does today), but the price-point is something that consumers (used to paying $40 a month for cable) will buy into.
Honestly, pure GPL is really annoying a lot of times, witness the readline libraries. Want decent text-input handling? Boom, whole application is now GPL. >>>>>>>>>>> That's the whole point. The FSF wants more code to be free software. By creating a set of libraries that only free software can take advantage of, you encourage more programs to become free.
How much have you used KDE or GNOME? I've used KDE for years (after being a Windows user since 3.1) and I can say that they are not at all similar. Superficially, maybe, but it doesn't work the same.
no such thing. Java isn't CODE, it's not a programming language. It's a business-logic language. Fancy way to tally sales. wooo. Don't delude yourself into thinking yer a "coder" if you know Java. As such, trying to make yourself feel better by saying "I code pure Java in vi!" is ridiculous - face it, yer not a coder, you might as well use a calculator that make it easier.
The most widely held theory today is that the Aryan civilization originated in the steppes of Russia (near Centra Asia). From there, they migrated west to Europe and South to Iran and India. The Nazi version of the theory states that the Aryans originated in ancient Germany or Scandanavia. The distinction between various Europeans comes from the fact that they believed that the Aryan race became less pure as it spread, and it had been preserved more or less pure near where it originated.
Of course, this idea has a long tradition in the academic world, where not only code is shared openly, but ideas and research. Can you imagine how slowly civilization would move if the current ideas about patents and intellectual property had been applied to the knowledge of people like Newton?
Networking capabilities sound complex, but they're really not. In any client/server model there is going to be some protocol between the client and the server. Adding network capabilities just means that you implement that protocol on a network connection in addition to some fast local-IPC mechanism.
As for the client/server model, it has lots of benifets besides just enabling networking. And because graphics are buffer-able by nature (even OpenGL direct rendering works in terms of buffered command lists) the overhead of the client/server model is extremely low. In fact, some of the fastest GUIs out there (BeOS, QNX Photon) are client/server. In QNX, even the graphics driver is a server that exports its functionality to the window server.
I'm not talking about that. I'm saying what if Microsoft DRM protects all documents when you save them? It could still attach permissions saying that anyone could decrypt the document, so users would never notice, but if you don't have the decryption mechanism (ie. you don't have Office), you won't be able to read the file. If you try to break the encryption, for purposes of interoperability, they can get you under the DMCA for bypassing a content protection mechanism.
I predicted this the first time I heard about Microsoft's content "protection" feature. People complain that Palladium-style DRM will prevent people from booting Linux, but that would be far too blatent. Instead, "protections" like these are going to turn Microsoft file formats, which are hard enough to reverse engineer already, into proprietory files protected from reverse-engineering by the DMCA. How long will it be before some sort of content-protection functionality is needed to open *all* Office documents, not just ones that specify certain protections? After all, Windows users would never know --- Office will dutifully open encrypted letters from grandma, but a Linux user will be shut out, even if he should be able to read the document.
Does it even slightly bother anyone that we live in a country where it is perfectly legal to call our president a dumbass oil-whore, but we can have action taken against us if we say anything that might prevent shitty companies from making ill-gotten profit?
TT being bought out by somebody greedy wouldn't do anything. If the price is too high, people simply won't use Qt and they wouldn't make any money. Capitalism is nice like that. The only thing that could happen is that a company would buy out Trolltech in order to kill commercial development on KDE, at which point the FreeQt foundation would probably intervene.
Slashdot Mirror
My laptop has a 133 dpi resolution TFT. Yes, that's 1600x1200 on a 15" screen. Those fonts are all 9pt. Arial is the sans-serif, and Vera is the serif.
The widget style looks nothing like OS X. Neither do the Crystal icons. The menubar and panel *look* superficially like OS X, but they don't behave the same.
The buttons seem pretty obvious to me. And you're in no position to complain that the icons in JuK are "glaring at you" if you don't use it on a regular basis. If anything, they're unobtrusive, simply because they're in the same place in all apps.
I have never understood this argument. Why would a user expect their MP3 player to look and behave like a word processor or web browser?
>>>>>>>>>
Because of consistency. Its less asthetically egregious when the various apps on your desktop "match," and its also easier to use when everything works the same way. And I'm not going to mention the fact that OS X's web browser (Safari) looks nothing like its word processor...
To put it in more abstract terms, where is the expectation that a program designed for audio playback look and work like an app designed for text manipulation and display?
>>>>>>>>>>>
Stuff that can be the same, should be the same. For example, many users understand cut/paste. However, they often don't realize that there are ways to do that besides the icons on the toolbar. So when they want to copy something, they go to the toolbar to do it. If the familiar copy icon is not there, they get stuck.
Why would I want or need a save button in an app that deals with read-only data 99% of the time?
>>>>>>>>>
Actually, there is lots of data to save in a jukebox. JuK handles playlists and ID3 tags, so it makes sense to have a save function that saves those.
Don't critique a GUI you haven't used. Things make a lot more sense when you actually use the UI. For example, when a song is playing, its obvious that the slider that is moving is the time control, and the one that isn't is the volume. Also, in the bottom right, the number that is changing is the current song time, and the number that isn't is the total length. JuK needs some work (cut/copy/paste are probably extraneous, some elements need better labels) but remember, its a beta version of a new app.
Also, as for the "changing depending on context" thing: a lot of classic MacOS users find that one of the most annoying things about OS X is its tendency to move things around when you're not paying attention. Thus, you've got the constantly shifting dock, changing button uses, etc.
But I can play that game too. Let's critique iTunes's GUI
1) What the hell is that diamond shaped thing in the LCD view? If I didn't have an iPod, I wouldn't guess that its the time control. It doesn't even look like something you can manipulate!
2) What the hell are those buttons along the bottom? The icon images tell very little about their purpose. Also, they certainly are not consistent with the images used in the rest of Aqua.
3) Why is "Burn CD" all the way in the right-hand corner? Toolbar items are supposed to start on the left and work their way right.
4) What is the little arrow with the triangle in the LCD view?
5) Why are the play controls so far away from the selection pane?
The "feature" is that commercial entities cannot use the hard work of open source developers for their own profit, without giving something back.
It really depends on what machine you're on. I find GNOME 2.4 to be very slow, and KDE 3.2 (and even 3.1 to a lesser extent) to be very fast. On my machine (2GHz P4) its as fast as WinXP, anyway.
That's really funny. Vi (Or Emacs :) is still an order of magnitude more productive than Visual Studio. There are some tools that are lacking (UML crap for when you have to interface with the OO monkies) but other than that, its all there, just in a different form.
JuK is cluttered? Unlike iTunes, JuK actually looks and behaves like all the other apps on its desktop. Besides, the correct button count is 10 for iTunes (you didn't count the ones at the bottom) and 14 for JuK. The extra buttons on the juk toolbar are there in the interest of consistency with other KDE apps. Almost all KDE apps have those buttons in the same place. The screenshot you posted is terrible, take a look at the JuK screenshot here. Looks much nicer doesn it?
The real equillibrium is probably going to fall somewhere in the middle. Just like you have unlimited internet today for $10-$20 a month, you'll be able to pay for unlimited music for $10-$20 a month. That'd generate a lot of revenue (though not enough to maintain the huge excess the music industry does today), but the price-point is something that consumers (used to paying $40 a month for cable) will buy into.
Honestly, pure GPL is really annoying a lot of times, witness the readline libraries. Want decent text-input handling? Boom, whole application is now GPL.
>>>>>>>>>>>
That's the whole point. The FSF wants more code to be free software. By creating a set of libraries that only free software can take advantage of, you encourage more programs to become free.
Actually, OS X is more like a Jag XK8. Sexy on the outside, but obsolete technology under the hood.
How much have you used KDE or GNOME? I've used KDE for years (after being a Windows user since 3.1) and I can say that they are not at all similar. Superficially, maybe, but it doesn't work the same.
There is an Office certification?!!
Not anymore. Sid has 0.32 and 1.1 right now.
Java coder?
no such thing. Java isn't CODE, it's not a programming language. It's a business-logic language. Fancy way to tally sales. wooo. Don't delude yourself into thinking yer a "coder" if you know Java. As such, trying to make yourself feel better by saying "I code pure Java in vi!" is ridiculous - face it, yer not a coder, you might as well use a calculator that make it easier.
The most widely held theory today is that the Aryan civilization originated in the steppes of Russia (near Centra Asia). From there, they migrated west to Europe and South to Iran and India. The Nazi version of the theory states that the Aryans originated in ancient Germany or Scandanavia. The distinction between various Europeans comes from the fact that they believed that the Aryan race became less pure as it spread, and it had been preserved more or less pure near where it originated.
Of course, this idea has a long tradition in the academic world, where not only code is shared openly, but ideas and research. Can you imagine how slowly civilization would move if the current ideas about patents and intellectual property had been applied to the knowledge of people like Newton?
Networking capabilities sound complex, but they're really not. In any client/server model there is going to be some protocol between the client and the server. Adding network capabilities just means that you implement that protocol on a network connection in addition to some fast local-IPC mechanism.
As for the client/server model, it has lots of benifets besides just enabling networking. And because graphics are buffer-able by nature (even OpenGL direct rendering works in terms of buffered command lists) the overhead of the client/server model is extremely low. In fact, some of the fastest GUIs out there (BeOS, QNX Photon) are client/server. In QNX, even the graphics driver is a server that exports its functionality to the window server.
I'm not talking about that. I'm saying what if Microsoft DRM protects all documents when you save them? It could still attach permissions saying that anyone could decrypt the document, so users would never notice, but if you don't have the decryption mechanism (ie. you don't have Office), you won't be able to read the file. If you try to break the encryption, for purposes of interoperability, they can get you under the DMCA for bypassing a content protection mechanism.
Dude. Employment among native americans is much higher than 8%. It is closer to 15%.
I predicted this the first time I heard about Microsoft's content "protection" feature. People complain that Palladium-style DRM will prevent people from booting Linux, but that would be far too blatent. Instead, "protections" like these are going to turn Microsoft file formats, which are hard enough to reverse engineer already, into proprietory files protected from reverse-engineering by the DMCA. How long will it be before some sort of content-protection functionality is needed to open *all* Office documents, not just ones that specify certain protections? After all, Windows users would never know --- Office will dutifully open encrypted letters from grandma, but a Linux user will be shut out, even if he should be able to read the document.
Does it even slightly bother anyone that we live in a country where it is perfectly legal to call our president a dumbass oil-whore, but we can have action taken against us if we say anything that might prevent shitty companies from making ill-gotten profit?
That makes no sense. There are only 1100 nodes. That means that each node takes as much electricity as 3 mid-range homes?
TT being bought out by somebody greedy wouldn't do anything. If the price is too high, people simply won't use Qt and they wouldn't make any money. Capitalism is nice like that. The only thing that could happen is that a company would buy out Trolltech in order to kill commercial development on KDE, at which point the FreeQt foundation would probably intervene.