In a comment on an article at www.newsfactor.com, mmontagne wrote:
Not to belabor a point, but here's a real-world example of Microsoft "security." Here's some ACTUAL source code from a KLEZ virus -- which "technically" is an ActiveX object: --E3524f8Qw3mbOk6Ma4g8333eS45V Content-T ype: audio/x-wav; name=Ymhx.pif Content-Transfer-Enco ding: base64 Content-ID: Engineers will recognize the extension indicates the attachment is a program information file -- which by Microsoft "security" measures is EXECUTED. Even neophytes will note the attachment claims to be an audio/x-wav file. Is there ANY means of determining the file is truly of the claimed type? No. Is there any system structure which will ONLY open the file with an audio player -- so it won't ruin our system? Of course not. This is MICROSOFT "security." There are thousands and thousands of VARIETIES of such exploits which can only attack Windows systems BECAUSE Microsoft "security" is nothing but a facade. In light of this, the concluding statement is particularly offensive. How this Hemmendinger is any kind of expert is beyond me: "You're still not immune," Hemmendinger said, "but you can be reasonably sure that [a vulnerability] that was publicized a year ago won't bite you." NOT SO AT ALL. EVERY KLEZ and every other ActiveX exploit before it CAN STILL get you, and WILL still get you, because there isn't the slightest HINT Microsoft will close the door to ActiveX. To further evaluate the security of Microsoft, consider this: Windows users SHOULD be familiar with the "security" option, "Script ActiveX controls marked safe for scripting." What Microsoft doesn't dare tell you after spending so many millions "training" engineers to write "safe" code is, what DOES mark an ActiveX control "safe" for scripting? The AUTHOR of the code does! Every virus writer in the world can simply indicate his script is "safe", AND THERE IS NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER TO DETERMINE OTHERWISE! Safe? Security? You have to be kidding! What could get us a year ago can't get us now? No way in the world, partner. I'll "finish" with this however: Now, IF you were to trust a company to TRULY write secure software, WOULD you pick the company which for approximately A DECADE hasn't been able to write a "work offline" routine that won't immediately RE-DIAL the modem as soon as you work offline? Hah. "Security." Give us a break. Virus writers are usually NOT expert developers, and the only reason they so readily exploit Windows systems is the door is wide open to the most basic, crude "skills."
>The case in question is not frivalous. MS is >correct. The mod chips are illegal under current >law. They are circumvention devices. They contain >copyrighted code. The names probably even infringe >on trademark.
I have an idea. Let's get Compaq to make a drop in replacement but non-infringing XBox BIOS chip. The user could have complete control over the whole XBox setup and security process.
They, Compaq/HP, would need to make getting into the BIOS easier though... I never can remember the exact keystrokes on a Compaq.
>The recent lawsuit against the tabacco companies, >where the payout was in the millions.
Don't forget... the price of cigarettes has skyrocketted since this so called payout. Those tobacco companies aren't going to lose a dime... in fact, they will greatly profit because prices are sticky when you try to push em back down.
As for the mod chips, who owns the box after it is bought? Microsoft or the buyer? If the buyer mods his box then the warranty should be void - end of story.
>I believe this method of software creation is >good for the Cathedral model, and with >well-funded programmers who program for money, it >can get done. But keep in mind, that since its >not incremental, its not exciting. DFD's on >paper, ERD's, are all boring, when you get down >to them.
The SDLC was originally designed in the cathedral yes. However, that doesn't mean it's not effective. Better to design your house and then build it rather than the other way around.
I don't find DFDs and ERDs boring - rather, I find them useful and time saving tools for designing software. Some of my best programming has been done AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER.
>Unless you finish it all very quickly, you're >going to be stuck in very long design phases. >Unless you're an extremely good designer, you're >likely to hit some problems in the actual >implementation that may require refining the >design.
You can use a hybrid of the RAD method and the SDLC as I suggested. The RAD part is building a UI for the users to toy with while designing and building the core of the app.
>Also, I don't see how multiple contributors can't >fit into this well-framed process.
Let each contributor have a group of related DFD/Pseudocode blocks along with the ERDs to clarify their data relationships.
>I would also like to disagree with the >requirement of pseudo-code, as today's high-level >languages, such as Python, are pretty much as >high-level as pseudo code and correctly described >sometimes as "Running Pseudo Code". This also >means that their code, written correctly, is >_truly_ self-documenting, truly. Rarely is there >a weird piece of code that requires extra >documentation. I'm talking about the what and the >how, and not the general software architecture, >which should be documented separately.
Well, as you say, Python can be a form of runnable pseudocode. I'm not a python user but I'd assume C would run faster under most circumstances? We pick the best language for the job. C will not be the *best* under every circumstance. Anyway, nothing wrong with using Python for a pseudocode RAD tool - so much the better! It would dovetail nicely with the UI RAD idea.
>In summary, I think that your software creation >model is too "formal" in the sense that it will >not excite programmers, and will be very >difficult to get contributors from all around. >Excited programmers are better programmers.
Better is subjective. I don't know about you but... I kinda like knowing what I'm to program before I reqired to program it and find out it's not exactly what the user wanted. An excited programmer, in my myopic view, is one who has the tools before him/her, clear program specs to work from, good pay and benefits and the skills to do the job. In the opensource world, pay and benefits can translate to notoriety and peer recognition as well as goodwill that can open doors.
>Also, I think its a bit presumptious of you to >think you can know, to detail, the exact best way >for the program to be designed, and thus its >probably best to write it piece by piece, and see >where usability's taking you.
I agree. You will not know the exact best way for a program to be designed... that is precisely WHY I gather information during the design stage. During the design stage, you are dividing the program up into these little logical parts that you write piece by piece.
>An assumption of mine, is that most useful >features of a program are suggested at its usage >stage, and not its design stage - This means you >better minimize the design stage, and get to the >usage stage as soon as possible. Do you disagree >with this assumption?
I agree that ideas happen during the usage stage. Sometimes you get deluged with too many ideas and never actually get a running program. You have to decide what is need and what is want - this requires analysis. You can also get so wrapped up in the UI that you lose your focus on the actual problem. That said, the UI is important! That is what the users will see and interact with. It should be efficient and enjoyable as possible. Minimize keystrokes and mouse clicks to get the job done. Watch the users use it - see what they have to do to use it. Make it easier!
It's the Systems Development Life ->Cycle- which means that it is iterative. RAD is another tool that can fit right into the SDLC. No reason why you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The SDLC is iterative. This means that ideas come in from the users, they get evaluated and prioritized, coders are then selected (or in the case of opensource, they select themselves) and the coding is done. Rolled out to the users for feedback again and again.
Decide first if it is worth your while to write it. Get someone to fund it. Find out what your intended users need. Use IPO or input, process, output charts to help you get an idea of what the main program process must do. Break it down then into logical component parts and do IPOs for them too. When you get down to the simplest level that can be broken down, then you are ready to begin designing your datastructures and relationships - use DFD and ERDs. Use top down hierarchichal DFD to define the scope of your system. Don't try to do too much or you will kill your project. A tight refined scope is better than an ambiguous... It's gonna do everything!
After datastructures are done, then do the pseudocode for manipulating the data. About this time, you want to begin work on defining an easy to use user interface - let the user's mull it over while you pseudocode.
Review, refine, tighten the scope if neccessary. Reevaluate feasibility. Get some help but not too much. Use Ghant, Pert charts to plan phases of implementation. Make sure you have adequate hardware and software to support the system. Don't lock yourself into any proprietary toolkit that may carry license fees or limit your potential userbase.
Chose a platform, coding model, naming convention, and language that best suits the apps purpose. Use a code control system such as CVS. Create a working prototype of the user interface the user's agreed on. Let them play with it and give you feed back.
Review, refine, tighten the scope etc... etc... etc..
Fill out the prototype with some real code and throw it at the users again.
Review, refine... you get the picture.
Somewhere along the line, you will begin to get a working system. Now you must support it or find/train someone to. Remember your documentation. Did you fully comment your code?
BOFH: Ok, let's see...what was your username again? USER: joeuser. BOFH: Ok, let's have a look see if you have any files. clikety click. BOFH: Nope. I don't see any files in your home directory. USER: What?! BOFH: clickety click click. I don't see a user by that name either. BOFH: As for the CD, it's on plain display in the secure room. Visible thru a large 3"x3" viewport.
Here is an outline of the article by page: Page 1: Fonts, graphical sharpness, Antialiasing and Gnome's confusing menus and interface consistence. Note: Gnome is not an OS - it is a kind of launcher/feedback/windowmanager helper. Page 2: Package managers, KDE has been made to look like Gnome (is this a good thing?), lack of installed Java and multimedia applications. Page 3: Lack of mp3 player (or inability to find it), complaints about XMMS, some kudos on GCC and the kernel, complaints about mouse setup, XServer not getting high enough resolutions, and lack of drivers for video cards such as NVidia. Page 4: More NVidia problems, Window focus wierdness, GTK+ 2 Combobox bug, and finally about 9 sentences about keyboard shortcuts.
That about sums it up. Now, the *whole* article wasn't about graphical sharpness or keyboard shortcuts either.
I have to confess, I think I see where you are going now and where you are coming from. You want consistency in the keyboard shortcuts as well as the menuing interface. There are some consistencies but not quite enough, at this point, in the applications and windowmanagers (an app) used in the RedHat 8.0 distribution as well as most other Linux distributions. KDE shows alot more interface consistency than many windowmanagers I've used but more work still has to be done.
That granted, I must contend that the windowmanagers ARE very efficient. They are not Windows or Mac interfaces.
Our previous posts: >>What you, and she, seem to really mean is that >>you want applications to look and act more alike >>- it's not the OS you have problems with. The >>windowmanagers could use more polish also - true. >>But to say they are inefficient at getting a job >>done because they need a more subtle shading and >>to round a few pixels on the edges... then I say >>you need to take off yer windows colored glasses >>and get an eye-exam as well as an >>electroencephalogram to check for brainwave >>activity.
>Read again. Flaming stuff that was never said >gets you nowhere.
From earlier in your post: >They are my editors of choice. What else would I >compare? And I only use the editor part of emacs. >Which means all the shortcuts are different, the >menu is ordered differently and even the mouse >works differently. That takes some getting used >to. That is all.
and: >Yes they have. If you compare with Linux. All the >standard shortcuts are there too. CTRL-V works >the same in virtually every windows app. The File >menu and the Edit menu contains about the same >commands. That is going a long way, only that.
Do we see a pattern developing here? You are concerned largely with SHORTCUTS and MENU ARRANGEMENT. Shortcuts and menus are part of applications which are under the control of the folks who write the apps.
My posts were mainly about my not agreeing with nitpicking graphical details.
Now, as for efficiency, it is an ever improving thing. We need to keep piling on the polish and make the apps ever better. It's happening and fast. At this point, I can get alot more done in Linux's windowmanagers and bash than I can in Windows' interface. YMMV
Anyway, I'll agree with you about the shortcuts and menus because I think you are right. They could be easier - the shortcuts are just so configurable that it may confuse the average user. But, are you an average user? I think not and neither am I. As for agreeing with her about dissing RH8.0 due to some graphical design issues - I can't. The graphical details can always be sharpened but they don't adversely effect productivity.
What was it that was once said? You can please all the people some of the time; some of the people all the time; but you can't please all the people all the time.:|
>I disagree. Seemed to me she wanted usability and >consistency. DWIW and "least surprise", in other >words. How does changing the shading on a non-selected tab on a tab control, while a nice cosmetic addition, add to the consistency or usability of the control?
>Since she seems to be a mainly Mac and BeOS user, >it is also unlikely she wants stuff to work like >windows, but OTOH, if you want to get into >businesses, what are the odds that the machine >you are replacing is a Windows machine? The changes made to the default controls and apps seem to me to reflect a windowsish look
>What would the *USERS* want, you think? I think the users want an easy to use computer that doesn't cost an arm and a leg and that doesn't crash on them all the time. One that they can get good software for and doesn't lock them into an expensive solution.
>Consistency is great for productivity. I only >need to look at the fact that I am switching back >and forth between Emacs on Linux and TextPad on >Windows to see that it costs time and >productivity doing things differently. Even if it >is measured in seconds, tops, it adds up. And >that is just two text editors. How can you compare Emacs and TextPad???
Many Windows apps have a minimum of consistency in the naming of the menu selections and buttons... not a whole lot more than that. Anyway, take any killer app or tool and compare it with any other app or tool - Photoshop and Dreamweaver for instance - they don't have consistent interfaces do they? Didn't think so. I figure I save alot of those seconds, you say I lose with allegedly inconsistent interfaces, by not having to reboot multiple times a day and setup my whole development environment every freakin time.
>I really like both, and don't expect any of them >to change, but on the same OS I want stuff to >follow certain principles, so I can at least >learn a few OS's instead of thousands of apps. It >is fun when you are playing, but not when you try >to get job done. What you, and she, seem to really mean is that you want applications to look and act more alike - it's not the OS you have problems with. The windowmanagers could use more polish also - true. But to say they are inefficient at getting a job done because they need a more subtle shading and to round a few pixels on the edges... then I say you need to take off yer windows colored glasses and get an eye-exam as well as an electroencephalogram to check for brainwave activity.
>And no, no really good way ATM to do all editing >in one of them. Emacs on Windows you say? Well, >then it doesn't behave like the rest of the OS, >which is worse. Emacs is an OS.
>[X] Easy support for video files and DVD - Xine works for me like a charm:)
Never tried Xine but MPlayer does a fine job of playing just about any movie file I throw at it with nary a complaint. I got it set as the default application for playing most movies in KDE.
As for standard installers in Windows... there ain't no such thing. Installshield is the closest thing to a standard in Windows (but that is also quite available in Linux.) I've installed not a few Linux apps using a jar file that had Installshield for the installer - some script installers too. Anyway, there are many different installers in Windows - many operate similarly enough that the user doesn't notice. The main exception is Microsoft - they always have to be different - the odd folks out.
Re:Recycle Bins - don't you just hate them?
on
Undelete In Linux
·
· Score: 2
Yeah, I had a waste basket on my TRS-80 Model 1 but the bag wasn't a Hefty so it leaked all the time. Played hell with the expansion unit...
Re:Importance of Versioning
on
Linux Kernel 3.0?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
>Threading interface has changed significantly, and >signal delivery behaviour has been modified, in >Linux 2.5.x.
If what you're saying is true, quite a few programs will probably break. I assume you mean Linux native or kernel threads and possibly changing the default behaviour for signal handlers?
I didn't get to read the whole article... seems now after page 2 it's slashdotted.
Anyway, I get the impression she is a graphical designer. She nitpicked the Gnome UI apart. Everything is visual for her. Form is more important than function - at least that is my impression of her opinion.
Most of the proposed changes she mentioned seem to make the interface look more like Windows and less like Gnome. While I agree some changes are warranted, does it have to look exactly like windows to please her? Puleez!
Also, a unified desktop where everything is the same old boring thing is just... well... boring. I get mental images of that tennis shoe commercial where everyone is exactly the same... then some offcenter person appears wearing tennis shoes of a different color and is immediately chastised. Oh well. A consistent way of doing things is great but to have everything EXACTLY the same EVERY TIME with no variation at all. Bleah.
After that I got too many users error... prolly for the better.
>The truth is changing major version numbers would >give the Linux business a major shot in the arm.
True. But, do we really want to have the public think we depend on version numbers for publicity? Such would be disadvantageous.
>Every press establishment would have no choice but >to run a story about Linux and it's capibilities at >a time when MS is chasing it's customers off, and >everybody would have to upgrade their Linux mascot.
Let the Linux Kernel Dev team stay with what they're good at: Making a technically great Linux Kernel. Let the marketing people stay with what they're good at: Hyping a product. And let's not have these twain meet anytime soon ok?
>Several distributions just released new versions in >the last couple of months, or are on the verge of >releasing new versions. Redhat, Mandrake, Debian, >etc. Good stuff. Let the hype play out, and don't >trump it by releasing a Brand New Big Version >Kernel that none of the distros contain.
Indeed. I'm sure there are also a few installation scripts and programs that check for uname -r == 2.* for a kernel version and might break if the major went up. Changing a major number *IS* a major thing and should only be done if there are fundamental design and interface (as in kernel module and datastructure) changes.
Either way, I'm glad for the constant improvements to the Linux kernel and will be very happy with either 2.6 or 3.0.
I'll tell you my proof my Anonymous Coward friend.
For many years, I was unhappy and confused. I wandered about searching for the truth - hence my interest in science from an early age. I found truths but they were isolated and didn't fit any grand design.
I had read about God and Jesus and the Bible; but it seemed that every third word in the Bible condemed me. It offered a hope but every time I grasped at it it would be just out of my reach. In my own eyes, I was hopelessly lost.
I got into things that were not good for me and regretted them - these added to my grief. I kept doing many of them because they offered a kind of kinship with others who shared my sense of self.
I've always believed that there was a God somewhere but not neccessarily that he listened to me.
One day... I got hurt. Badly. In a panic (I thought I was going to bleed to death), I called out for help... made promises... pleaded. For some reason, I calmed down immediately. I stopped most of the bleeding and was taken to the hospital. My arm was a mess. The cut had narrowly missed my nerve and had cut across most of the muscles and tendons in my arm including the radial artery.
The doctors tied me back together and stapled me up. I felt different though. No worries, no pain, nothing of the weight I had felt before.
I went into therapy with a gnarled arm and came out only a month later firmly gripping each proferred hand - much to the amazement of everyone.
The things in the Bible now made sense to me for some reason. It all clicked. It became a unified thing for me.
I've had need to call on God more than once and I've never been dissapointed. So as for me, I've got my positive proof and no cold hard scientific analysis can disprove it for me.
As a matter of fact, many of the things I read in the Bible agree more than disagree with the facts and theories offered by science. Heck, many scientists consider the Bible as a prime source of reference.
So, if you want to deprive yourself of God then that is your choice. It's a choice you'll have to live with.
Call me a heretic but... Who is to say that God didn't create the mechanism of evolution? It goes along with my belief that God wouldn't create a creature that couldn't adapt.
Also, the idea that form follows function fits nicely into the idea of niche.
A definition of niche from AP Dictionary: the unique position occupied by a particular species, conceived both in terms of the actual physical area that it inhabits and the function that it performs within the community.
It is plain to see that life adapts. To suggest otherwise would be to deny the very truth. The finches on Galapagos are one of the first and most pristine examples of both adaptation and niches.
Furthermore, I believe that many, including myself, study science because it is the search for truth and meaning in the physical world. As such, you could consider it a religion of sorts. As for me, such a scientific search for the truth is merely a parallel path to the search for God, like orthodox christianity, because truth is what God is all about.
>>I'm sure that the bombardier beetle's defense >>mechanism had some sort of intermediate form as >>well.
>Yup!
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.htm l
The webpage you quoted doesn't prove there was an intermediate form. It merely states a plausible and logical sequence of events that *could have* happened based on the theory of intermediate forms.
Personally, I don't believe an Omniscient God would create a creature that couldn't adapt to it's surroundings.
I also believe form *does* follow function. Just because many different forms may be valid for the same function does not prove or disprove either creation or evolution theories. The form a creature takes should be compatible with it's function - be it a millipede or a beetle.
All in all, I liked this particular page because it made alot of sense; it wasn't combative but was logical and informative. Thanks for the link.
>What person out there would take a company to court >that is allowing them to distribute and download >music that a lot of the major companies don't want >you to do?
Insightful.
>I'm uneffected by this because i'm a happy WinMX >user. I've never had a problem whatsoever, unlike >AudioGalaxy and Bearshare (this is awhile ago) that >deleted some of my system files, thus making me >have to reformat!
Yeah, isn't that something? It's faster to reformat a Window's partition than it is to deltree c:\windows and c:\progra~1. It takes hours to deltree and mere minutes (usually) to format.
I just boot LOAF (Linux on a Floppy) if I have to rm -fR the windows and the program files dirs on a windows partition... much much faster.
As for the stealing of commissions intended as charitable contributions, I have no first hand information on it but... if it is going on, it diminishes the spirit of charitable giving and probably breaks the law. Flame on!
Just because he's a Free Software Zealot...
on
Servers with a Smile
·
· Score: 2
that doesn't make him wrong! I'm sure many of those FSZ's out there would contract as an experienced consultant or tech support specialist if the Bigger than Mom and Pop, Corp. made them a decent offer.
So, if you are getting your support for free by all means feel free to bitch somewhere else.
>Why, when you can use gaim [sourceforge.net] >natively? And without all the ads and other >clutter... It supports AOL and (with plugins that >come with it) MSN, Yahoo, Jabber, even ICQ and >IRC...
Hmm... was unaware that gaim worked with all those IM systems; maybe they should change the name to grillian?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree! I want to add my thanks for the ethernet drivers here too.
You ARE the man. May your business prosper.
No questions.
mmontagne wrote:
>The case in question is not frivalous. MS is
:)
>correct. The mod chips are illegal under current
>law. They are circumvention devices. They contain
>copyrighted code. The names probably even infringe
>on trademark.
I have an idea. Let's get Compaq to make a drop in replacement but non-infringing XBox BIOS chip. The user could have complete control over the whole XBox setup and security process.
They, Compaq/HP, would need to make getting into the BIOS easier though... I never can remember the exact keystrokes on a Compaq.
No really!
>The recent lawsuit against the tabacco companies,
>where the payout was in the millions.
Don't forget... the price of cigarettes has skyrocketted since this so called payout. Those tobacco companies aren't going to lose a dime... in fact, they will greatly profit because prices are sticky when you try to push em back down.
As for the mod chips, who owns the box after it is bought? Microsoft or the buyer? If the buyer mods his box then the warranty should be void - end of story.
>I believe this method of software creation is
>good for the Cathedral model, and with
>well-funded programmers who program for money, it
>can get done. But keep in mind, that since its
>not incremental, its not exciting. DFD's on
>paper, ERD's, are all boring, when you get down
>to them.
The SDLC was originally designed in the cathedral yes. However, that doesn't mean it's not effective. Better to design your house and then build it rather than the other way around.
I don't find DFDs and ERDs boring - rather, I find them useful and time saving tools for designing software. Some of my best programming has been done AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER.
>Unless you finish it all very quickly, you're
>going to be stuck in very long design phases.
>Unless you're an extremely good designer, you're
>likely to hit some problems in the actual
>implementation that may require refining the
>design.
You can use a hybrid of the RAD method and the SDLC as I suggested. The RAD part is building a UI for the users to toy with while designing and building the core of the app.
>Also, I don't see how multiple contributors can't
>fit into this well-framed process.
Let each contributor have a group of related DFD/Pseudocode blocks along with the ERDs to clarify their data relationships.
>I would also like to disagree with the
>requirement of pseudo-code, as today's high-level
>languages, such as Python, are pretty much as >high-level as pseudo code and correctly described
>sometimes as "Running Pseudo Code". This also
>means that their code, written correctly, is
>_truly_ self-documenting, truly. Rarely is there
>a weird piece of code that requires extra
>documentation. I'm talking about the what and the >how, and not the general software architecture,
>which should be documented separately.
Well, as you say, Python can be a form of runnable pseudocode. I'm not a python user but I'd assume C would run faster under most circumstances? We pick the best language for the job. C will not be the *best* under every circumstance. Anyway, nothing wrong with using Python for a pseudocode RAD tool - so much the better! It would dovetail nicely with the UI RAD idea.
>In summary, I think that your software creation
>model is too "formal" in the sense that it will
>not excite programmers, and will be very
>difficult to get contributors from all around.
>Excited programmers are better programmers.
Better is subjective. I don't know about you but... I kinda like knowing what I'm to program before I reqired to program it and find out it's not exactly what the user wanted. An excited programmer, in my myopic view, is one who has the tools before him/her, clear program specs to work from, good pay and benefits and the skills to do the job. In the opensource world, pay and benefits can translate to notoriety and peer recognition as well as goodwill that can open doors.
>Also, I think its a bit presumptious of you to
>think you can know, to detail, the exact best way
>for the program to be designed, and thus its
>probably best to write it piece by piece, and see
>where usability's taking you.
I agree. You will not know the exact best way for a program to be designed... that is precisely WHY I gather information during the design stage. During the design stage, you are dividing the program up into these little logical parts that you write piece by piece.
>An assumption of mine, is that most useful
>features of a program are suggested at its usage
>stage, and not its design stage - This means you
>better minimize the design stage, and get to the
>usage stage as soon as possible. Do you disagree
>with this assumption?
I agree that ideas happen during the usage stage. Sometimes you get deluged with too many ideas and never actually get a running program. You have to decide what is need and what is want - this requires analysis. You can also get so wrapped up in the UI that you lose your focus on the actual problem. That said, the UI is important! That is what the users will see and interact with. It should be efficient and enjoyable as possible. Minimize keystrokes and mouse clicks to get the job done. Watch the users use it - see what they have to do to use it. Make it easier!
It's the Systems Development Life ->Cycle- which means that it is iterative. RAD is another tool that can fit right into the SDLC. No reason why you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The SDLC is iterative. This means that ideas come in from the users, they get evaluated and prioritized, coders are then selected (or in the case of opensource, they select themselves) and the coding is done. Rolled out to the users for feedback again and again.
SDLC or Systems Development Life Cycle.
Decide first if it is worth your while to write it.
Get someone to fund it.
Find out what your intended users need.
Use IPO or input, process, output charts to help you get an idea of what the main program process must do. Break it down then into logical component parts and do IPOs for them too. When you get down to the simplest level that can be broken down, then you are ready to begin designing your datastructures and relationships - use DFD and ERDs. Use top down hierarchichal DFD to define the scope of your system. Don't try to do too much or you will kill your project. A tight refined scope is better than an ambiguous... It's gonna do everything!
After datastructures are done, then do the pseudocode for manipulating the data. About this time, you want to begin work on defining an easy to use user interface - let the user's mull it over while you pseudocode.
Review, refine, tighten the scope if neccessary. Reevaluate feasibility. Get some help but not too much. Use Ghant, Pert charts to plan phases of implementation. Make sure you have adequate hardware and software to support the system. Don't lock yourself into any proprietary toolkit that may carry license fees or limit your potential userbase.
Chose a platform, coding model, naming convention, and language that best suits the apps purpose. Use a code control system such as CVS. Create a working prototype of the user interface the user's agreed on. Let them play with it and give you feed back.
Review, refine, tighten the scope etc... etc... etc..
Fill out the prototype with some real code and throw it at the users again.
Review, refine... you get the picture.
Somewhere along the line, you will begin to get a working system. Now you must support it or find/train someone to. Remember your documentation. Did you fully comment your code?
Was it all worth it?
Maybe this story will finally get the laws regarding lawsuits fixed?
i.e. Loser pays the bill... etc...
This guy obviously needs to be modded up.
MSI is a standard now? Who said?
BOFH: Ok, let's see...what was your username again?
USER: joeuser.
BOFH: Ok, let's have a look see if you have any files. clikety click.
BOFH: Nope. I don't see any files in your home directory.
USER: What?!
BOFH: clickety click click. I don't see a user by that name either.
BOFH: As for the CD, it's on plain display in the secure room. Visible thru a large 3"x3" viewport.
>Now go re-read.
:|
Ok, I reread.
Here is an outline of the article by page:
Page 1: Fonts, graphical sharpness, Antialiasing and Gnome's confusing menus and interface consistence. Note: Gnome is not an OS - it is a kind of launcher/feedback/windowmanager helper.
Page 2: Package managers, KDE has been made to look like Gnome (is this a good thing?), lack of installed Java and multimedia applications.
Page 3: Lack of mp3 player (or inability to find it), complaints about XMMS, some kudos on GCC and the kernel, complaints about mouse setup, XServer not getting high enough resolutions, and lack of drivers for video cards such as NVidia.
Page 4: More NVidia problems, Window focus wierdness, GTK+ 2 Combobox bug, and finally about 9 sentences about keyboard shortcuts.
That about sums it up.
Now, the *whole* article wasn't about graphical sharpness or keyboard shortcuts either.
I have to confess, I think I see where you are going now and where you are coming from. You want consistency in the keyboard shortcuts as well as the menuing interface. There are some consistencies but not quite enough, at this point, in the applications and windowmanagers (an app) used in the RedHat 8.0 distribution as well as most other Linux distributions. KDE shows alot more interface consistency than many windowmanagers I've used but more work still has to be done.
That granted, I must contend that the windowmanagers ARE very efficient. They are not Windows or Mac interfaces.
Our previous posts:
>>What you, and she, seem to really mean is that
>>you want applications to look and act more alike
>>- it's not the OS you have problems with. The
>>windowmanagers could use more polish also - true.
>>But to say they are inefficient at getting a job
>>done because they need a more subtle shading and
>>to round a few pixels on the edges... then I say
>>you need to take off yer windows colored glasses
>>and get an eye-exam as well as an
>>electroencephalogram to check for brainwave
>>activity.
>Read again. Flaming stuff that was never said
>gets you nowhere.
From earlier in your post:
>They are my editors of choice. What else would I
>compare? And I only use the editor part of emacs.
>Which means all the shortcuts are different, the
>menu is ordered differently and even the mouse
>works differently. That takes some getting used
>to. That is all.
and:
>Yes they have. If you compare with Linux. All the
>standard shortcuts are there too. CTRL-V works
>the same in virtually every windows app. The File
>menu and the Edit menu contains about the same
>commands. That is going a long way, only that.
Do we see a pattern developing here? You are concerned largely with SHORTCUTS and MENU ARRANGEMENT. Shortcuts and menus are part of applications which are under the control of the folks who write the apps.
My posts were mainly about my not agreeing with nitpicking graphical details.
Now, as for efficiency, it is an ever improving thing. We need to keep piling on the polish and make the apps ever better. It's happening and fast. At this point, I can get alot more done in Linux's windowmanagers and bash than I can in Windows' interface. YMMV
Anyway, I'll agree with you about the shortcuts and menus because I think you are right. They could be easier - the shortcuts are just so configurable that it may confuse the average user. But, are you an average user? I think not and neither am I. As for agreeing with her about dissing RH8.0 due to some graphical design issues - I can't. The graphical details can always be sharpened but they don't adversely effect productivity.
What was it that was once said?
You can please all the people some of the time; some of the people all the time; but you can't please all the people all the time.
Anyway, Peace.
>I disagree. Seemed to me she wanted usability and
>consistency. DWIW and "least surprise", in other
>words.
How does changing the shading on a non-selected tab on a tab control, while a nice cosmetic addition, add to the consistency or usability of the control?
>Since she seems to be a mainly Mac and BeOS user,
>it is also unlikely she wants stuff to work like
>windows, but OTOH, if you want to get into
>businesses, what are the odds that the machine
>you are replacing is a Windows machine?
The changes made to the default controls and apps seem to me to reflect a windowsish look
>What would the *USERS* want, you think?
I think the users want an easy to use computer that doesn't cost an arm and a leg and that doesn't crash on them all the time. One that they can get good software for and doesn't lock them into an expensive solution.
>Consistency is great for productivity. I only
>need to look at the fact that I am switching back
>and forth between Emacs on Linux and TextPad on
>Windows to see that it costs time and
>productivity doing things differently. Even if it
>is measured in seconds, tops, it adds up. And
>that is just two text editors.
How can you compare Emacs and TextPad???
Many Windows apps have a minimum of consistency in the naming of the menu selections and buttons... not a whole lot more than that. Anyway, take any killer app or tool and compare it with any other app or tool - Photoshop and Dreamweaver for instance - they don't have consistent interfaces do they? Didn't think so. I figure I save alot of those seconds, you say I lose with allegedly inconsistent interfaces, by not having to reboot multiple times a day and setup my whole development environment every freakin time.
>I really like both, and don't expect any of them
>to change, but on the same OS I want stuff to
>follow certain principles, so I can at least
>learn a few OS's instead of thousands of apps. It
>is fun when you are playing, but not when you try
>to get job done.
What you, and she, seem to really mean is that you want applications to look and act more alike - it's not the OS you have problems with. The windowmanagers could use more polish also - true. But to say they are inefficient at getting a job done because they need a more subtle shading and to round a few pixels on the edges... then I say you need to take off yer windows colored glasses and get an eye-exam as well as an electroencephalogram to check for brainwave activity.
>And no, no really good way ATM to do all editing
>in one of them. Emacs on Windows you say? Well,
>then it doesn't behave like the rest of the OS,
>which is worse.
Emacs is an OS.
>[X] Easy support for video files and DVD - Xine works for me like a charm :)
Never tried Xine but MPlayer does a fine job of playing just about any movie file I throw at it with nary a complaint. I got it set as the default application for playing most movies in KDE.
As for standard installers in Windows... there ain't no such thing. Installshield is the closest thing to a standard in Windows (but that is also quite available in Linux.) I've installed not a few Linux apps using a jar file that had Installshield for the installer - some script installers too. Anyway, there are many different installers in Windows - many operate similarly enough that the user doesn't notice. The main exception is Microsoft - they always have to be different - the odd folks out.
Yeah, I had a waste basket on my TRS-80 Model 1 but the bag wasn't a Hefty so it leaked all the time. Played hell with the expansion unit...
>Threading interface has changed significantly, and
:)
>signal delivery behaviour has been modified, in
>Linux 2.5.x.
If what you're saying is true, quite a few programs will probably break. I assume you mean Linux native or kernel threads and possibly changing the default behaviour for signal handlers?
A link or two would be helpful.
I didn't get to read the whole article... seems now after page 2 it's slashdotted.
Anyway, I get the impression she is a graphical designer. She nitpicked the Gnome UI apart. Everything is visual for her. Form is more important than function - at least that is my impression of her opinion.
Most of the proposed changes she mentioned seem to make the interface look more like Windows and less like Gnome. While I agree some changes are warranted, does it have to look exactly like windows to please her? Puleez!
Also, a unified desktop where everything is the same old boring thing is just... well... boring. I get mental images of that tennis shoe commercial where everyone is exactly the same... then some offcenter person appears wearing tennis shoes of a different color and is immediately chastised. Oh well. A consistent way of doing things is great but to have everything EXACTLY the same EVERY TIME with no variation at all. Bleah.
After that I got too many users error... prolly for the better.
>The truth is changing major version numbers would
>give the Linux business a major shot in the arm.
True. But, do we really want to have the public think we depend on version numbers for publicity? Such would be disadvantageous.
>Every press establishment would have no choice but
>to run a story about Linux and it's capibilities at
>a time when MS is chasing it's customers off, and
>everybody would have to upgrade their Linux mascot.
Let the Linux Kernel Dev team stay with what they're good at: Making a technically great Linux Kernel. Let the marketing people stay with what they're good at: Hyping a product. And let's not have these twain meet anytime soon ok?
>Several distributions just released new versions in
>the last couple of months, or are on the verge of
>releasing new versions. Redhat, Mandrake, Debian,
>etc. Good stuff. Let the hype play out, and don't
>trump it by releasing a Brand New Big Version
>Kernel that none of the distros contain.
Indeed. I'm sure there are also a few installation scripts and programs that check for uname -r == 2.* for a kernel version and might break if the major went up. Changing a major number *IS* a major thing and should only be done if there are fundamental design and interface (as in kernel module and datastructure) changes.
Either way, I'm glad for the constant improvements to the Linux kernel and will be very happy with either 2.6 or 3.0.
I'll tell you my proof my Anonymous Coward friend.
For many years, I was unhappy and confused. I wandered about searching for the truth - hence my interest in science from an early age. I found truths but they were isolated and didn't fit any grand design.
I had read about God and Jesus and the Bible; but it seemed that every third word in the Bible condemed me. It offered a hope but every time I grasped at it it would be just out of my reach. In my own eyes, I was hopelessly lost.
I got into things that were not good for me and regretted them - these added to my grief. I kept doing many of them because they offered a kind of kinship with others who shared my sense of self.
I've always believed that there was a God somewhere but not neccessarily that he listened to me.
One day... I got hurt. Badly. In a panic (I thought I was going to bleed to death), I called out for help... made promises... pleaded. For some reason, I calmed down immediately. I stopped most of the bleeding and was taken to the hospital. My arm was a mess. The cut had narrowly missed my nerve and had cut across most of the muscles and tendons in my arm including the radial artery.
The doctors tied me back together and stapled me up. I felt different though. No worries, no pain, nothing of the weight I had felt before.
I went into therapy with a gnarled arm and came out only a month later firmly gripping each proferred hand - much to the amazement of everyone.
The things in the Bible now made sense to me for some reason. It all clicked. It became a unified thing for me.
I've had need to call on God more than once and I've never been dissapointed. So as for me, I've got my positive proof and no cold hard scientific analysis can disprove it for me.
As a matter of fact, many of the things I read in the Bible agree more than disagree with the facts and theories offered by science. Heck, many scientists consider the Bible as a prime source of reference.
So, if you want to deprive yourself of God then that is your choice. It's a choice you'll have to live with.
Call me a heretic but...
Who is to say that God didn't create the mechanism of evolution? It goes along with my belief that God wouldn't create a creature that couldn't adapt.
Also, the idea that form follows function fits nicely into the idea of niche.
A definition of niche from AP Dictionary:
the unique position occupied by a particular species, conceived both in terms of the actual physical area that it inhabits and the function that it performs within the community.
It is plain to see that life adapts. To suggest otherwise would be to deny the very truth. The finches on Galapagos are one of the first and most pristine examples of both adaptation and niches.
Furthermore, I believe that many, including myself, study science because it is the search for truth and meaning in the physical world. As such, you could consider it a religion of sorts. As for me, such a scientific search for the truth is merely a parallel path to the search for God, like orthodox christianity, because truth is what God is all about.
>>I'm sure that the bombardier beetle's defense
>>mechanism had some sort of intermediate form as
>>well.
>Yup!
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.htm l
The webpage you quoted doesn't prove there was an intermediate form. It merely states a plausible and logical sequence of events that *could have* happened based on the theory of intermediate forms.
Personally, I don't believe an Omniscient God would create a creature that couldn't adapt to it's surroundings.
I also believe form *does* follow function. Just because many different forms may be valid for the same function does not prove or disprove either creation or evolution theories. The form a creature takes should be compatible with it's function - be it a millipede or a beetle.
All in all, I liked this particular page because it made alot of sense; it wasn't combative but was logical and informative.
Thanks for the link.
>What person out there would take a company to court
>that is allowing them to distribute and download
>music that a lot of the major companies don't want
>you to do?
Insightful.
>I'm uneffected by this because i'm a happy WinMX
>user. I've never had a problem whatsoever, unlike
>AudioGalaxy and Bearshare (this is awhile ago) that
>deleted some of my system files, thus making me
>have to reformat!
Yeah, isn't that something? It's faster to reformat a Window's partition than it is to deltree c:\windows and c:\progra~1. It takes hours to deltree and mere minutes (usually) to format.
I just boot LOAF (Linux on a Floppy) if I have to rm -fR the windows and the program files dirs on a windows partition... much much faster.
As for the stealing of commissions intended as charitable contributions, I have no first hand information on it but... if it is going on, it diminishes the spirit of charitable giving and probably breaks the law. Flame on!
that doesn't make him wrong! I'm sure many of those FSZ's out there would contract as an experienced consultant or tech support specialist if the Bigger than Mom and Pop, Corp. made them a decent offer.
So, if you are getting your support for free by all means feel free to bitch somewhere else.
>I've heard it said that there are three
>adjectives to choose from in software
>development:
>Good, cheap, fast. Pick *two*.
>There's always terrific pressure from Marketing
>to make the product RIGHT NOW, if not sooner!
Yep. After all, they make money on the bugfixes disguised as upgrades.
>Someone always insists that it has to actually
>*work*, too.
It has to have Just Enough(tm) functionality to pass muster.
>Okay, that's fast and good. It isn't going to be
>cheap.
Only, much Open Source Software, Linux is a good example, tend to break this assumption; much to the disgult of Big Bill.
Only things MS has going for them are uneducated users and market momentum; but, times are a changing.
>Why, when you can use gaim [sourceforge.net]
>natively? And without all the ads and other
>clutter... It supports AOL and (with plugins that
>come with it) MSN, Yahoo, Jabber, even ICQ and
>IRC...
Hmm... was unaware that gaim worked with all those IM systems; maybe they should change the name to grillian?
Works fine for me.