NEWS FLASH: People use computers for calculations with more than single-digit binary results.
Absolutely.
No- insisting on excessive precision where an "almost certainly right to within +/- x%" solution would be more than good enough and much simpler to obtain is known as overengineering.
The discussion is about a processer being less accurate. IMHO floating point isn't accurate enough. You still need a fixed point library to do back calculation -- even in this day of 64bit CPUs.
Would you prefer a routing algorithm that gobbled up power and took ages to run for a guaranteed shortest route or one that was far more efficient and 99.9% certain to give a route that was within 3% of the shortest possible distance?
And here is the fallacy of "fuzzy" models. Your statement "was within 3% of the shortest possible distance?" How would you guarantee that? How could you know that unless you verified the algorithm?
It is "engineering" to start at high precision and work toward an acceptable trade-off on a case by case example, but you can't do that if you start off at a low precision.
Back to your example, you can't "know" you are within 3% if you have not accurately calculated the problem first. The implementation of your argument would be do an exhaustive search once (or periodically) for routing, and then just choose the last router node used from the last edge with child nodes in that vicinity.
Seriously, people have been talking about "fuzzy" processing for decades and it always fails for the same reason. It is not repeatable and it can not be verified.
So, of what use is a processor for home or office that does not compute accurately. Music should sound the same each time you play the same "image.". Graphic images should look the same every time you view them. Checkbooks should balance, and don't use this device on turbo tax.
How does one distinquish, during development, from a "bug" in the software being developed and just fuzziness?
So, yes, it is fun to get computers to "guess," but you do need to understand where the guesses come from, and be able to repeat them.
Even at the most expensive prices in the US (20 cents per Kwh), this is roughly two dollars a month.
It may be $0.18 ~ $0.20 for the electrical charge, but on my bill there is delivery and fuel charge. My electricity, in total, comes to a bit over $0.25 a kWh. " I recently used a "Watts Up" and went through my whole house. Wall warts (transformers) are nasty. Some just sit and use 10~15 watts doing nothing. So if you leave it plugged in and turn the device off, it still sucks up power.
All "switchers" are not created equal either. Some laptop and monitor sitching power supplies may draw 60w when on, but draw 10w when "off"
I went through my house and brought my electric bill down from $220 to about $180 a month.
Seriously, guys. Even Craigslist has a flagging mechanism.
Couldn't have it as part of moderation? I know I've been market as troll for stuff that I honestly have not intended as troll of flamebait, but the parent post is different. It is racist, hateful, and offensive.
This isn't merely contrarian or unpopular speech, it is vulgar and hateful and has no social importance. It is profane and disgusting.
it also has its Office suite. Which no one would buy if there were no monopoly.
And if you think Excel and PowerPoint are inferior to their open-source alternatives, you're insane.
Define "inferior." Yes, excel and powerpoint may have some nice features, but most users wouldn't even notice them. Stability and standards mean something too. OpenOffice.org is superior in my view as it is generally IMHO more stable *and* is based on standards.
So, even if everybody were to switch to Mac or Linux overnight, Microsoft would still be able to make money. (at least until OpenOffice finally catches up)
You assume that OpenOffice.org needs to "catch up" and I ask, catch up to what? Add more features that 99.99% of users neither need nor want? Become less stable like MS office? Or switch to a proprietary format like MS office?
No one would buy MS Office if Microsoft did not have its monopoly.
With products like CentOS, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, SuSE, etc. You have to ask the question, what does Microsoft really have?
They have a code base that's big and buggy. Being proprietary, fewer people really know how it works than Linux or BSD. Linux and BSD is better documented, better understood, and better "vetted,"
The *only* thing Microsoft has it's monopoly position.
If there was no monopoly, there would be no compelling reason for Microsoft to even exist. If you didn't *need* too, why would you buy Windows?
Once this fact becomes better know, Microsoft is screwed. They don't have a single product that represents a premium value outside of their proprietary platform.
Jesus, you two are just splitting hairs to the atom.
Not really. Have you used KDE 4?
For the first time ever, I am considering switching to gnome. The idea that the desktop isn't like any other place in the system is just bad UI design.
You are arguing over an opinion and trying to make it sound like a time-tested theory or some fact,
There is a lot of research in user interfaces. There are a lot of hard facts learned since Xerox PARC. IMHO KDE 4 ignores some of the important things we do know fairly well for mere aesthetic purposes.
I remember reading a discussion of removing files and directories from the desktop. The discussion had nothing to do with UI and everything to do with aesthetics. I think the process is and KDE4 is broken, UI and usability first, then make it pretty.
I've used KDE since the early days and if I can get some time this weekend, I'm switching to gnome because KDE4 is unusable.
Ad Hominem - You seek to label me in an attempt to diminish my opinion. FUD Warning FUD warning Danger Will Robinson.
It's only been since about 2003 or 2004 that Linux has been good enough for me to consider using it exclusively.
That may be your opinion, and you have every right too it, but Windows has NEVER been good enough for me.
That's just for software quality,
Nice generalization. Which software would that be? Come on, dig deep make up something.
and completely discounting software configuration,
Yes, because we know that "configuration" was such a problem in 2002.
I don't, in fact, remember configuring anything per se most of the time. Sure, databases and web servers had there setup stuff, they do on every platform, but everything else was just as easy or easier than Windows. Star Office and Open Office just installed and worked. What are you talking about?
which can be a nightmare to do from scratch,
Yes, I know, I've installed many versions of Windows professionally. If you don't have the right driver for your Dell system, you'll spend hours finding the right one.
given the state of documentation for some programs.
Yes, those Microsoft programming manuals and the SDK/DDK docs are a joke.
I wouldn't expect the average computer user to be *capable* of configuring a Linux system from scratch, let alone wanting to, and finding the time to do so. I wouldn't expect the average computer user to install application software without the help of their guru friend, because they don't.
As Linux continues to mature, Well, 50% for a half truth. To say "continues to mature" you are implying that it is not yet mature, and I'd like to have some sort of quantitative metric for that opinion. Linux is very mature, and is keeping up and even out pacing Microsoft technologically.
but there will always be *some* program that keeps *some* segment of the population from being able to use the OS that you have smugly called home these past 14 years.
Yes, as long as people *need* (want actually) a particular vendor's "Windows only" program, they will be stuck with Windows (or at least Wine or VMWare), but that is not a problem with Linux. It is a problem with ISVs.
If you look at systems like Skype you see an ISV and service provider making real money from Linux users. As other ISVs realize that Linux is a real and viable market, there will be fewer and fewer Windows only programs. Right now, Linux software vendors that have a real "value" are making money in this economy. Its a pretty well kept secret.
One of the differences between Windows and Linux is the revenue model. Linux software operates on the *new* revenue model, Windows operates off the *old* revenue model. For instance, The old time Windows revenue model is you buy a box, and you pay for newer boxes to fix bugs. The Linux revenue model is you get the software for free and pay for services.
There is money in the service model, but the problem for Microsoft is that you have to add value to make money. Microsoft's products are all dead. They have no killer application to drive a value based model. Why would anyone pay for Microsoft Office if it weren't for their monopoly? Once the monopoly is broken sufficiently, they will become irrelevant very quickly.
The "Next Big Thing" tm. will be OEMs creating their own versions of Linux on VERY LOW COST systems like sub-notebooks and netbooks. HP is doing it now, and ASUS will be back with a new Linux version of the EeePC, just you see.
For almost 25 years Microsoft has been dictating the OS and hardware for personal computers. Both consumers and producers alike have suffered.
Better systems not supported by Microsoft languished.
Companies with really good ideas run bankrupt when Microsoft copies them and incorporates their knock-off into DOS/Windows.
Before Microsoft, system companies competed on features and support. These days everything is about price and with "windows" being the price point, the HPs and Dells of the world have to play ball with Microsoft.
If, however, the Windows stranglehold can be weakened in that people accept that they don't NEED windows, then that opens opportunity for Linux and other systems.
It is about time the OEMs started flexing their muscle. Once they free themselves, they opportunities will grow!! Economic growth for sure!
Point in fact, they don't. They have different action menus, options, etc. Dragging an icon from konqueror or dolphin creates something "different" and behaves differently than something from within dolphin or konqueror.
You've got it backwards. Obviously I don't.
the Desktop as a folder AND as an interface is where you get things acting differently in different contexts.
"contexts" are bad things to users. Coming to a system it is difficult to grasp multiple contexts. Even as a regular user, "contexts" are a pain in the ass.
Would you like to write a document in a contextual editor like vim or OpenOffice.org?
The KDE4 desktop makes interface separate from data.
Yes, you've said basically that same thing previously and my response is the same, it is a bad idea.
You have to have a plasmoid to display a folder's contents if you want data on your desktop, which is completely in keeping with the concept.
The "plasmoid" is a cop-out for a well typed system. Why do you need plasmoids for the desktop but not in dolphin or konqueror? The desktop, conceptually, represents a physical space as does file cabinets. Just like your real 3D desk, why would a piece of paper be something different on your desk than in a file cabinet?
This is the foundation of UI design. Our lizard brains want things to be consistent.
They also always act the same... you never see a folder on the desktop in KDE4
And that is something I dislike as well. I *like* and would prefer to use folders on my desktop, because in the real 3d world, I keep things on my desk. Up until Kubuntu 8.10, I used my desktop they way I wanted to use my desktop.
you never see a program icon.
Why not? I keep things like my ipod on my desk, a couple USB drives, etc. By making the desktop artificially restricted -- "different" -- from the rest of the system you make it less easy to use.
It's in a plasmoid or in the file browser
A "file browser" corresponds to a real world entity. A file cabinet. What does a "plasmoid" represent?
What is the perpose of introducing a new concept? What does it answer? How does it make the system more usable? I've read a lot of the KDE discussions about plasmoids and they are all about an aesthetic preference from a few people, but not one discussion about how they are better or easier for end users.
It's doing exactly what you say is good, but you keep claiming that it's bad.
The paradigm change is that the desktop is no longer a folder, like I said before. In that context, "file types" and "icons" no longer have near the same meaning.
That's an antithesis to good UI design. Things that "look" alike should "act" alike.
That's why Plasmoids are desktop things. Plasmoid/desktop=interface, folder=data.
This is a step backward in UI design.
It's a clear delineation between the concepts rather than the "desktop is a folder" idea that we've had until now.
Pictures that represent objects should act the same in throughout same system. Creating a separate context in which you get to say,"no no, they work differently here" is rarely ever NOT a mistake.
I still contend that it's a "it's not what I'm used to!" issue because it seems like you still don't understand that,
To assume that because I don't like something and think it is a bad idea that I don't understand it is pure ignorance on your part. I get the idea, I understand the motivation, but it is a mistake and it does nothing more than confuse users. It creates multiple action types in the system that look similar, but work differently. Ask ANY UI designer who has been through "usability testing" and they'll tell you its a dumb idea.
It is amazing how "dumb" people are, they won't understand why they can do something in one place and not in another. The finer points of "data" vs "UI" will be lost on them. They don't care.
you explicitly stated that "The desktop in KDE 3.x and prior, as well as Mac and Windows" all work that way, the way you like and the way you're used to.
There is nothing wrong with keeping a good system. I'm open to change, but no credible argument can be put forth that makes the change and special case reasonable.
your second point falls squarely under the "it's not what I'm used to!"
I disagree. Here's why:
The desktop in KDE 3.x and prior, as well as Mac and Windows, uses the same file types and mechanisms to view icons and launch programs. Plasmoids *only* work on the desktop.
Now, if you want to argue for multiple desktop folders, I'm all for that, but having a new icon system just for the desktop that is different from everything else in the system is a mistake. The objective could have easily been done programmaticly by having Desktop.0, Desktop.1, etc as necessary.
I would say that fancy eye candy leads to less usability.
I sort of agree with you. It is a case of diminishing returns. A little goes a long way of presenting visual clues but after a certain point, it becomes distracting and counter productive.
Well, for one thing, the KDE remote desktop sharing does not work when you enable OpenGL for desktop effects, and XRender is a joke. So, if you use desktop effects you can't use remote desktopo sharing.
Secondly, the "Desktop" metaphor with "Plasma" and plasmoids is just stupid. I *like* the $HOME/Desktop directory being in the file system.
IMHO, removing the notion of desktop icon files is just broken. It should at least be an option.
now all you have to do is reliably and legally run all software that runs on windows
I can tell you right now that I have been using Linux exclusively since 1995. I have not missed *any* Windows software.
I have always had a good office suite. Applix, then Star Office, now OpenOffice. I have always had netscape. I have always had modern tools of the time.
So, why would I want to run Windows software that is inherently more buggy, not designed for my platform of choice, and does not give me the freedom to inspect what it does?
Answer: I don't want Windows software on my Linux box and I miss nothing.
Anyone staging a demo can find a number of people to say oooh ahhhh.
Seriously. This is the problems with computers today. The perception of "usability" is not actual "usability."
We all know, at the end of the day, "usability" is how easy it is to accomplish one or more tasks, to a certain degree the ease at which you learn how to do these tasks, and lastly the predictability and reliability of accomplishing your tasks.
So, if something is easy to do, easy to learn, and rewards careful execution with consistent outcome, the thing is easy to use.
Now, where does flashy eye candy come in to that picture? It doesn't. That's why military vehicles are all drab colors. The criteria is utility not beauty.
Sure, I do *like* the way KDE 4 looks, but it is less usable than KDE 3.
New research is showing that behavioral changes in video and on-line games do carry over to the real world. It is not a far jump to assume that violence learned in a video game affects a person's thinking.
Don't mark me as a troll, but he does have a point.
The guy, however, is whacked!! His crusade is insane.
This is a serious subject and requires serious research and serious proof.
If it is a real problem we should find out and not just assume it is or isn't.
How do you test a lie detector? For it to work you have to have someone ACTUALLY LYING, not saying something contrary to the truth, but actually trying to be secretly untruthful. It is an impossible situation because you have to know 100% that they are lying and they have to be 100% concealing a secret. Otherwise, its all just guess work.
There is NO WAY to test a lie detector without the existence of a 100% accurate working lie detector. Short of that, there is no way to objectively or theoretically test any such device.
If this mode of operation were to come to the U.S.A. we should hope the ACLU and EFF challenge it. Here is why:
More and more, the internet is being used as an access gateway to the government in order to participate as citizens. Removing this access without due process would certainly be actionable.
Corporations MUST NOT be allowed to be judge/jury/executioner for citizens. There must be due process and a jury of peers for any such action.
Correction; Kurt Russel's performance was amazing, elevating to memorable an otherwise appallingly bad and disposable Road Warrior rip-off.
The movie itself was pretty good sci-fi. The romance was useless, but the "super soldier" training, and progression to actual breeding, was a very good theme.
From your list I would agree with 2001, Blade Runner, and Alien. 2010 not so much. But the rest are just further examples of what Hollywood calls sci-fi. Don't get me wrong they're entertaining, but my response to the OP about what he was looking for still pretty much stands.
Actually, I was very careful creating that list.
I'll accept Predator was borderline, but it was a very good social commentary on violence and technology.
The original "Terminator" was quintessential sci-fi. Unfortunately they cut the scene where the building in which they kill the terminator was shown to be cyberdyne.
I defy anyone to point out where the rest of the list is lacking. Each stand on their own as science fiction -- where the potential impact of science or scientific discovery is explored in literature.
6th day, cloning. 2001, artificial intelligence Blade Runner, artificial humans Soldier, the dehumanizing effects of battlefield conditioning as originated in worled war II, and brought to its logical extremes. Alien, the exploitation of alien life forms and the corporate disregard of people. Predator, it was sci-fi like, and fun, so its on my list. Total Recall, the ability to implant memories and the potential misuse.
Slashdot Mirror
NEWS FLASH: People use computers for calculations with more than single-digit binary results.
Absolutely.
No- insisting on excessive precision where an "almost certainly right to within +/- x%" solution would be more than good enough and much simpler to obtain is known as overengineering.
The discussion is about a processer being less accurate. IMHO floating point isn't accurate enough. You still need a fixed point library to do back calculation -- even in this day of 64bit CPUs.
Would you prefer a routing algorithm that gobbled up power and took ages to run for a guaranteed shortest route or one that was far more efficient and 99.9% certain to give a route that was within 3% of the shortest possible distance?
And here is the fallacy of "fuzzy" models. Your statement "was within 3% of the shortest possible distance?" How would you guarantee that? How could you know that unless you verified the algorithm?
It is "engineering" to start at high precision and work toward an acceptable trade-off on a case by case example, but you can't do that if you start off at a low precision.
Back to your example, you can't "know" you are within 3% if you have not accurately calculated the problem first. The implementation of your argument would be do an exhaustive search once (or periodically) for routing, and then just choose the last router node used from the last edge with child nodes in that vicinity.
Seriously, people have been talking about "fuzzy" processing for decades and it always fails for the same reason. It is not repeatable and it can not be verified.
So, of what use is a processor for home or office that does not compute accurately. Music should sound the same each time you play the same "image.". Graphic images should look the same every time you view them. Checkbooks should balance, and don't use this device on turbo tax.
How does one distinquish, during development, from a "bug" in the software being developed and just fuzziness?
So, yes, it is fun to get computers to "guess," but you do need to understand where the guesses come from, and be able to repeat them.
That entirely depends on your point of view.
Really? Can you find any defensible argument for top post?
To you it seems profane and disgusting, to others who go along with either the humour or the satire of the post, it seems either humourous or astute.
How can a degrading racist rant like that be, in any way, "humorous" or "astute?"
Not everyone thinks being racist is bad.
Yea, and not everyone thinks murder is bad.
I think Slashdot allows people of all points of view to post.
This is not a debate between Linux and Windows, this is an issue of hatred against a race of people for nothing more than the color of their skin.
Even at the most expensive prices in the US (20 cents per Kwh), this is roughly two dollars a month.
It may be $0.18 ~ $0.20 for the electrical charge, but on my bill there is delivery and fuel charge. My electricity, in total, comes to a bit over $0.25 a kWh.
"
I recently used a "Watts Up" and went through my whole house. Wall warts (transformers) are nasty. Some just sit and use 10~15 watts doing nothing. So if you leave it plugged in and turn the device off, it still sucks up power.
All "switchers" are not created equal either. Some laptop and monitor sitching power supplies may draw 60w when on, but draw 10w when
"off"
I went through my house and brought my electric bill down from $220 to about $180 a month.
Seriously, guys. Even Craigslist has a flagging mechanism.
Couldn't have it as part of moderation? I know I've been market as troll for stuff that I honestly have not intended as troll of flamebait, but the parent post is different. It is racist, hateful, and offensive.
This isn't merely contrarian or unpopular speech, it is vulgar and hateful and has no social importance. It is profane and disgusting.
it also has its Office suite.
Which no one would buy if there were no monopoly.
And if you think Excel and PowerPoint are inferior to their open-source alternatives, you're insane.
Define "inferior." Yes, excel and powerpoint may have some nice features, but most users wouldn't even notice them. Stability and standards mean something too. OpenOffice.org is superior in my view as it is generally IMHO more stable *and* is based on standards.
So, even if everybody were to switch to Mac or Linux overnight, Microsoft would still be able to make money.
(at least until OpenOffice finally catches up)
You assume that OpenOffice.org needs to "catch up" and I ask, catch up to what? Add more features that 99.99% of users neither need nor want? Become less stable like MS office? Or switch to a proprietary format like MS office?
No one would buy MS Office if Microsoft did not have its monopoly.
With products like CentOS, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, SuSE, etc. You have to ask the question, what does Microsoft really have?
They have a code base that's big and buggy. Being proprietary, fewer people really know how it works than Linux or BSD. Linux and BSD is better documented, better understood, and better "vetted,"
The *only* thing Microsoft has it's monopoly position.
If there was no monopoly, there would be no compelling reason for Microsoft to even exist. If you didn't *need* too, why would you buy Windows?
Once this fact becomes better know, Microsoft is screwed. They don't have a single product that represents a premium value outside of their proprietary platform.
Plasmoids on the Desktop" notion is optional.
Sadly, Kubuntu 8.10 is 4.1x
Jesus, you two are just splitting hairs to the atom.
Not really. Have you used KDE 4?
For the first time ever, I am considering switching to gnome. The idea that the desktop isn't like any other place in the system is just bad UI design.
You are arguing over an opinion and trying to make it sound like a time-tested theory or some fact,
There is a lot of research in user interfaces. There are a lot of hard facts learned since Xerox PARC. IMHO KDE 4 ignores some of the important things we do know fairly well for mere aesthetic purposes.
I remember reading a discussion of removing files and directories from the desktop. The discussion had nothing to do with UI and everything to do with aesthetics. I think the process is and KDE4 is broken, UI and usability first, then make it pretty.
I've used KDE since the early days and if I can get some time this weekend, I'm switching to gnome because KDE4 is unusable.
You're an outlier.
Ad Hominem - You seek to label me in an attempt to diminish my opinion. FUD Warning FUD warning Danger Will Robinson.
It's only been since about 2003 or 2004 that Linux has been good enough for me to consider using it exclusively.
That may be your opinion, and you have every right too it, but Windows has NEVER been good enough for me.
That's just for software quality,
Nice generalization. Which software would that be? Come on, dig deep make up something.
and completely discounting software configuration,
Yes, because we know that "configuration" was such a problem in 2002.
I don't, in fact, remember configuring anything per se most of the time. Sure, databases and web servers had there setup stuff, they do on every platform, but everything else was just as easy or easier than Windows. Star Office and Open Office just installed and worked. What are you talking about?
which can be a nightmare to do from scratch,
Yes, I know, I've installed many versions of Windows professionally. If you don't have the right driver for your Dell system, you'll spend hours finding the right one.
given the state of documentation for some programs.
Yes, those Microsoft programming manuals and the SDK/DDK docs are a joke.
I wouldn't expect the average computer user to be *capable* of configuring a Linux system from scratch, let alone wanting to, and finding the time to do so.
I wouldn't expect the average computer user to install application software without the help of their guru friend, because they don't.
As Linux continues to mature,
Well, 50% for a half truth. To say "continues to mature" you are implying that it is not yet mature, and I'd like to have some sort of quantitative metric for that opinion. Linux is very mature, and is keeping up and even out pacing Microsoft technologically.
but there will always be *some* program that keeps *some* segment of the population from being able to use the OS that you have smugly called home these past 14 years.
Yes, as long as people *need* (want actually) a particular vendor's "Windows only" program, they will be stuck with Windows (or at least Wine or VMWare), but that is not a problem with Linux. It is a problem with ISVs.
If you look at systems like Skype you see an ISV and service provider making real money from Linux users. As other ISVs realize that Linux is a real and viable market, there will be fewer and fewer Windows only programs. Right now, Linux software vendors that have a real "value" are making money in this economy. Its a pretty well kept secret.
One of the differences between Windows and Linux is the revenue model. Linux software operates on the *new* revenue model, Windows operates off the *old* revenue model. For instance, The old time Windows revenue model is you buy a box, and you pay for newer boxes to fix bugs. The Linux revenue model is you get the software for free and pay for services.
There is money in the service model, but the problem for Microsoft is that you have to add value to make money. Microsoft's products are all dead. They have no killer application to drive a value based model. Why would anyone pay for Microsoft Office if it weren't for their monopoly? Once the monopoly is broken sufficiently, they will become irrelevant very quickly.
The "Next Big Thing" tm. will be OEMs creating their own versions of Linux on VERY LOW COST systems like sub-notebooks and netbooks. HP is doing it now, and ASUS will be back with a new Linux version of the EeePC, just you see.
For almost 25 years Microsoft has been dictating the OS and hardware for personal computers. Both consumers and producers alike have suffered.
Better systems not supported by Microsoft languished.
Companies with really good ideas run bankrupt when Microsoft copies them and incorporates their knock-off into DOS/Windows.
Before Microsoft, system companies competed on features and support. These days everything is about price and with "windows" being the price point, the HPs and Dells of the world have to play ball with Microsoft.
If, however, the Windows stranglehold can be weakened in that people accept that they don't NEED windows, then that opens opportunity for Linux and other systems.
It is about time the OEMs started flexing their muscle. Once they free themselves, they opportunities will grow!! Economic growth for sure!
They DO act the same.
Point in fact, they don't. They have different action menus, options, etc. Dragging an icon from konqueror or dolphin creates something "different" and behaves differently than something from within dolphin or konqueror.
You've got it backwards.
Obviously I don't.
the Desktop as a folder AND as an interface is where you get things acting differently in different contexts.
"contexts" are bad things to users. Coming to a system it is difficult to grasp multiple contexts. Even as a regular user, "contexts" are a pain in the ass.
Would you like to write a document in a contextual editor like vim or OpenOffice.org?
The KDE4 desktop makes interface separate from data.
Yes, you've said basically that same thing previously and my response is the same, it is a bad idea.
You have to have a plasmoid to display a folder's contents if you want data on your desktop, which is completely in keeping with the concept.
The "plasmoid" is a cop-out for a well typed system. Why do you need plasmoids for the desktop but not in dolphin or konqueror? The desktop, conceptually, represents a physical space as does file cabinets. Just like your real 3D desk, why would a piece of paper be something different on your desk than in a file cabinet?
This is the foundation of UI design. Our lizard brains want things to be consistent.
They also always act the same... you never see a folder on the desktop in KDE4
And that is something I dislike as well. I *like* and would prefer to use folders on my desktop, because in the real 3d world, I keep things on my desk. Up until Kubuntu 8.10, I used my desktop they way I wanted to use my desktop.
you never see a program icon.
Why not? I keep things like my ipod on my desk, a couple USB drives, etc. By making the desktop artificially restricted -- "different" -- from the rest of the system you make it less easy to use.
It's in a plasmoid or in the file browser
A "file browser" corresponds to a real world entity. A file cabinet. What does a "plasmoid" represent?
What is the perpose of introducing a new concept? What does it answer? How does it make the system more usable? I've read a lot of the KDE discussions about plasmoids and they are all about an aesthetic preference from a few people, but not one discussion about how they are better or easier for end users.
It's doing exactly what you say is good, but you keep claiming that it's bad.
Then you are confused about what I have said.
The paradigm change is that the desktop is no longer a folder, like I said before. In that context, "file types" and "icons" no longer have near the same meaning.
That's an antithesis to good UI design. Things that "look" alike should "act" alike.
That's why Plasmoids are desktop things. Plasmoid/desktop=interface, folder=data.
This is a step backward in UI design.
It's a clear delineation between the concepts rather than the "desktop is a folder" idea that we've had until now.
Pictures that represent objects should act the same in throughout same system. Creating a separate context in which you get to say,"no no, they work differently here" is rarely ever NOT a mistake.
I still contend that it's a "it's not what I'm used to!" issue because it seems like you still don't understand that,
To assume that because I don't like something and think it is a bad idea that I don't understand it is pure ignorance on your part. I get the idea, I understand the motivation, but it is a mistake and it does nothing more than confuse users. It creates multiple action types in the system that look similar, but work differently. Ask ANY UI designer who has been through "usability testing" and they'll tell you its a dumb idea.
It is amazing how "dumb" people are, they won't understand why they can do something in one place and not in another. The finer points of "data" vs "UI" will be lost on them. They don't care.
you explicitly stated that "The desktop in KDE 3.x and prior, as well as Mac and Windows" all work that way, the way you like and the way you're used to.
There is nothing wrong with keeping a good system. I'm open to change, but no credible argument can be put forth that makes the change and special case reasonable.
your second point falls squarely under the "it's not what I'm used to!"
I disagree. Here's why:
The desktop in KDE 3.x and prior, as well as Mac and Windows, uses the same file types and mechanisms to view icons and launch programs. Plasmoids *only* work on the desktop.
Now, if you want to argue for multiple desktop folders, I'm all for that, but having a new icon system just for the desktop that is different from everything else in the system is a mistake. The objective could have easily been done programmaticly by having Desktop.0, Desktop.1, etc as necessary.
I would say that fancy eye candy leads to less usability.
I sort of agree with you. It is a case of diminishing returns. A little goes a long way of presenting visual clues but after a certain point, it becomes distracting and counter productive.
How is it less usable?
Well, for one thing, the KDE remote desktop sharing does not work when you enable OpenGL for desktop effects, and XRender is a joke. So, if you use desktop effects you can't use remote desktopo sharing.
Secondly, the "Desktop" metaphor with "Plasma" and plasmoids is just stupid. I *like* the $HOME/Desktop directory being in the file system.
IMHO, removing the notion of desktop icon files is just broken. It should at least be an option.
now all you have to do is reliably and legally run all software that runs on windows
I can tell you right now that I have been using Linux exclusively since 1995. I have not missed *any* Windows software.
I have always had a good office suite. Applix, then Star Office, now OpenOffice. I have always had netscape. I have always had modern tools of the time.
So, why would I want to run Windows software that is inherently more buggy, not designed for my platform of choice, and does not give me the freedom to inspect what it does?
Answer: I don't want Windows software on my Linux box and I miss nothing.
Anyone staging a demo can find a number of people to say oooh ahhhh.
Seriously. This is the problems with computers today. The perception of "usability" is not actual "usability."
We all know, at the end of the day, "usability" is how easy it is to accomplish one or more tasks, to a certain degree the ease at which you learn how to do these tasks, and lastly the predictability and reliability of accomplishing your tasks.
So, if something is easy to do, easy to learn, and rewards careful execution with consistent outcome, the thing is easy to use.
Now, where does flashy eye candy come in to that picture? It doesn't. That's why military vehicles are all drab colors. The criteria is utility not beauty.
Sure, I do *like* the way KDE 4 looks, but it is less usable than KDE 3.
New research is showing that behavioral changes in video and on-line games do carry over to the real world. It is not a far jump to assume that violence learned in a video game affects a person's thinking.
Don't mark me as a troll, but he does have a point.
The guy, however, is whacked!! His crusade is insane.
This is a serious subject and requires serious research and serious proof.
If it is a real problem we should find out and not just assume it is or isn't.
Members of team B are asked to lie about certain things to members of team A and will get an additional reward if team A believe them.
That is *theater* in a safe environment. It isn't actual lie, it is a game and the emotional stakes are entirely different.
How do you test a lie detector? For it to work you have to have someone ACTUALLY LYING, not saying something contrary to the truth, but actually trying to be secretly untruthful. It is an impossible situation because you have to know 100% that they are lying and they have to be 100% concealing a secret. Otherwise, its all just guess work.
There is NO WAY to test a lie detector without the existence of a 100% accurate working lie detector. Short of that, there is no way to objectively or theoretically test any such device.
If this mode of operation were to come to the U.S.A. we should hope the ACLU and EFF challenge it. Here is why:
More and more, the internet is being used as an access gateway to the government in order to participate as citizens. Removing this access without due process would certainly be actionable.
Corporations MUST NOT be allowed to be judge/jury/executioner for citizens. There must be due process and a jury of peers for any such action.
Correction; Kurt Russel's performance was amazing, elevating to memorable an otherwise appallingly bad and disposable Road Warrior rip-off.
The movie itself was pretty good sci-fi. The romance was useless, but the "super soldier" training, and progression to actual breeding, was a very good theme.
From your list I would agree with 2001, Blade Runner, and Alien. 2010 not so much. But the rest are just further examples of what Hollywood calls sci-fi. Don't get me wrong they're entertaining, but my response to the OP about what he was looking for still pretty much stands.
Actually, I was very careful creating that list.
I'll accept Predator was borderline, but it was a very good social commentary on violence and technology.
The original "Terminator" was quintessential sci-fi. Unfortunately they cut the scene where the building in which they kill the terminator was shown to be cyberdyne.
I defy anyone to point out where the rest of the list is lacking. Each stand on their own as science fiction -- where the potential impact of science or scientific discovery is explored in literature.
6th day, cloning.
2001, artificial intelligence
Blade Runner, artificial humans
Soldier, the dehumanizing effects of battlefield conditioning as originated in worled war II, and brought to its logical extremes.
Alien, the exploitation of alien life forms and the corporate disregard of people.
Predator, it was sci-fi like, and fun, so its on my list.
Total Recall, the ability to implant memories and the potential misuse.
Corporate america is creating a legal regime and prosecution system outside the law.
This has to be stopped.