Sorry, "Grammar Man", but I just couldn't resist pointing out that the above sentence, which uses the subjunctive mood, should have read: "If only there were agreement on the issue."
The fact that you apparently judge a human being's worth by whether or not that person is willing to spend time learning a command-line interface suggests you have some pretty strange ideas yourself. Do you help the farmers who grow the food that you eat? Do you contribute in some way to the process that puts food on your table every day? Then, by your arguments, perhaps you should "get lost by all means" and go grow your own food. (Just an example off the top of my head)
Abstraction can be a good thing, in life and in computer systems. Many, many people in this world have better things to do with their lives than spend hours learning to be "power users". Contrary to your opinions, this doesn't make them "(l)users" or "morons". Try calling your doctor that the next time you go in for a checkup and see how well he or she takes it...
Humans are born as "computer-illiterate newbies"! The point that this author makes is perfectly valid: Open-Source software makes fantastic engine code. It satisfies power users. But it will not attract new users unless the developers start getting regular, quantifiable feedback from "computer-illiterate newbies"--and incorporate that feedback into their interfaces. He didn't say "Open Source sucks". He didn't even say "Open Source geeks can't write good GUIs". What he said was that anybody who *writes* a program is too close to the subject to be able to evaluate the GUI from a *user's* perspective.
If you don't ever want to attract *new* users to Open Source software, then fine. Blow off these points. But don't expect people to adapt the way they use software to fit *your* mode of working. Isn't Open Source supposed to be about flexibility and accomodation? Why not *allow* for the accomodation of *new* users?
IIRC, Shiva is much more than the god of destruction. He is usually depicted holding a flower in one of his (many) hands, and is considered a consummate artist, musician, and lover, as well. In most world religions, gods who bring destruction do so only to prepare for new creation.
(And what's wrong with an author using this name to pull in such a rich cultural reference, anyway?)
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, "Grammar Man", but I just couldn't resist pointing out that the above sentence, which uses the subjunctive mood, should have read: "If only there were agreement on the issue."
But thanks for taking up the cause...
The fact that you apparently judge a human being's worth by whether or not that person is willing to spend time learning a command-line interface suggests you have some pretty strange ideas yourself. Do you help the farmers who grow the food that you eat? Do you contribute in some way to the process that puts food on your table every day? Then, by your arguments, perhaps you should "get lost by all means" and go grow your own food. (Just an example off the top of my head)
Abstraction can be a good thing, in life and in computer systems. Many, many people in this world have better things to do with their lives than spend hours learning to be "power users". Contrary to your opinions, this doesn't make them "(l)users" or "morons". Try calling your doctor that the next time you go in for a checkup and see how well he or she takes it...
Guess what?
Humans are born as "computer-illiterate newbies"! The point that this author makes is perfectly valid: Open-Source software makes fantastic engine code. It satisfies power users. But it will not attract new users unless the developers start getting regular, quantifiable feedback from "computer-illiterate newbies"--and incorporate that feedback into their interfaces. He didn't say "Open Source sucks". He didn't even say "Open Source geeks can't write good GUIs". What he said was that anybody who *writes* a program is too close to the subject to be able to evaluate the GUI from a *user's* perspective.
If you don't ever want to attract *new* users to Open Source software, then fine. Blow off these points. But don't expect people to adapt the way they use software to fit *your* mode of working. Isn't Open Source supposed to be about flexibility and accomodation? Why not *allow* for the accomodation of *new* users?
Sheesh.
IIRC, Shiva is much more than the god of destruction. He is usually depicted holding a flower in one of his (many) hands, and is considered a consummate artist, musician, and lover, as well. In most world religions, gods who bring destruction do so only to prepare for new creation.
(And what's wrong with an author using this name to pull in such a rich cultural reference, anyway?)