This doesn't only relate to usenet, the problem with search engines today is that they don't in any way cater to people who know *exactly* what they're searching for. I think it's about time that someone comes out with a search engine for geeks that forgoes all the fru-fru simple language stuff for oodles of terabytes of pages and way of searching the damn thing with regular expressions. Hell, I'd pay good money (maybe $100 a year) for a service like that.
The problem with GNOME, as I, a mac user/programmer who's gone over the linux side, see it, is that GNOME is duplicating M$'s interface design mistakes in the name of duplicating the company's successes. And frankly, it bothers the hell out of me to see the same exact broken interface in AbiWord, Gnumeric. These applications running on Linux, an OS that's supposed to the pinnacle of meritocracy, where good ideas are kept and bad ideas are thrown out. I am sick and tired of suffering through the last 10 years of Microsoft's bad decisions. I don't want another 10 years of doing the same thing courtesy of GNOME and Helixcode's adoption of them. I do not buy the argument that any crappy interface has to be kept just because people were already familiar with that interface under windows. Going from windows to linux is such a jump for most end users that doing things right way and dumping M$'s UI conventions won't matter that much. Now here's the kicker. I don't have to be whining and bitching about this. I don't feel I need to present this argument so things will change. I can actually do something about this problem. The open source nature of linux allows me to crack open the source for GNOME's office stuff and give it standard mac UI conventions, conventions that were far more well thought out that M$'s. I can change the Menu selection to quit the program from 'Exit' to 'Quit', with alt+q being the keyboard shortcut. The alt keys, which are in the center of the keyboard and provide the greatest equidistant coverage of keys, are best used in keyboard shortcuts, not for access that try to replace the mouse (courtesy of the Redmond idiots). Hitting alt+f to find stuff in a word processor (the way it's done on the mac) requires a lot less effort for the user to hit than ctrl+f. I can change all GNOME applications so that they use alt+f for find (which works really nice when paired with alt+g, for "find again"). Hell, I can even put out all these modified applications in a customized linux distribution if I really want to. Of course people will cry "fragmentation" if I do all these things, but if doing things the way they should be done means fragmentation, so damned be it.
I like my caffeine served
on
Caffeine Vault
·
· Score: 1
I'm glad that Staroffice is becoming GPL'd. Now I can fix all the user interface mistakes sun made. When I'm done with that thing, it's gonna make look difficult
let me say that Mr. Whong is indeed insane enough to come up with such an idea completely of his own volition and free will. It's not his style to engage in some outrageous and shameless act of publicity just because of some programming from higher ups. He already comes pre-programmed to do such things, and is one of the most "differently thinking" individuals I have ever met.
>How is MacOS a good "total" system? The >hardware's generally fair to good, but the OS is >still in the stone age in many areas. It's got a >pretty UI, but coding for it is not as fun as >using it. Also, it's QUITE easy to break. Why? >No process-to-process protection - any process >can scribble all over another process's memory, >even the OS's memory. It uses cooperative >multitasking for apps - one app can take over >the CPU and never let it go, causing CPU >starvation. It still bears traces of its roots, >all the way back to the original System versions.
A good total system (like MacOS) is a system in that any program or piece of code can be added to the system without breaking stuff that's already installed or precluding the installation of something else. A good total system has the philosophy of "For each application, only one executable, only one configuration file, and absolutely no shared code". You delete an application configuration file on a mac, a default configuration file is instantly regenerated the next time the program is run. You drag an entire application to the trash and delete it, nothing else gets messed up and the user doesn't get any "I'm sorry, it can't be done because some other program relies on this" (ala RPM). No "I'm sorry, you can't install the program because it conflicts with another program already installed" messages (again, ala RPM). Cooperative multitasking might be bad for a server OS, but for a consumer OS dynamic linked anything smacks of inferior design. Most end users are more afraid of something not working at all than something crashing. You have to code an OS for your target user and make engineering tradeoffs that will benefit the target user the most. In the case of average joe computer user, by statically linking everything, you make the engineering tradeoff of greater overhead/resource usage for added robustness of installation. Much like in the situation of coding a server OS, where tradeoff of greater overhead for robust memory management is understandable.
I think that unix community has constantly made the mistake of assuming that the only type of robustness that matters is runtime/stability robustness. There are many different types of strength.
Though your post only got a 1, I thought it kicked ass. Most everything you said was on the money, and I too enjoy opening up gnome programs and changing bits of code so the UI sucks less (which for me is making it more mac like).
Since fusion is what unlocks the power of helium 3, and since hydrogen bombs work on the principle of fusion, I wonder if it would be possible to combine an H bomb and helium 3 together to produce a fusion bomb of unspeakable power? Something like this might come in handy if we ever need to shoot down an asteriod hurtling towards earth.
I've got a novel idea. Instead of trying to bring all the open source stuff to the macintosh, what about bringing all the macintosh ideas into the current open source arena. In other words, remake x86 linux in the Mac's image. I think this would be a great idea because the current infrastructure for doing such a project (compilers, hardware, toolkits, etc) is already available on X86 linux. It would be possible to get out all our superior mac interface and design ideas on the machines that most people already have, which means getting those ideas out to the widest audience possible. Mac programmers are hands down the world's best UI designers, and X86 Linux truly needs all the UI help it can get, since most linux programmers are either traditional Unix programmers don't have much experience at making user friendly UI's, or are former windows programmers who, like most all windows programmers, have proven themselves completely inept at doing so. It's time to stop GNOME and others from duplicating M$'s UI mistakes in the name of duplicating their success. Long live Clarux the Penguincow!
To all you companies who have contributed to the DVD standard and all you media companies who have raised absolute hell over DeCSS , please stop using big words you do not understand. Words such as "Global Convergence". Global convergence means I can take a plane flight to japan, legally buy an anime DVD, and return back home and legally play it on my legally bought DVD player. Global convergence is me legally buying over the internet an independent film from Europe that US distributors view as too insignificant to release on DVD. This is what "Global Convergence" is. No amount of flashy adds on TV with former star trek actors and hypothetical IT scenarios with catchy slogans will convince me or anyone else who truly has an interest in new technologies that you are no less stuck in your own corner of the world and are hell bent on relegating everyone else on the planet to the same position. The only thing global you have proven you understand is playing the part of Global Village Idiot.
To put my two cents in, I think it would totally kick ass if transmeta were to come up with a 4 processor board that you could put in a laptop. If the average battery life of a laptop battery is around 1-2 hours, and a transmeta laptop can supposedly run for up to eight hours, could you actually have a four processor transmeta laptop with the same battery life as the single intel/motorola based laptops we have today?
Mac OS is built like a tank in the areas that really count in the area of average user computing. A program can be installed at any time and that won't kill other, existing programs. Similarly, a program that is already installed will never preclude another program from being installed (like RPM does). And if you delete all the mac OS configuration files, programs can still run. How many times has someone installed one windows program and this has totally killed another working program? Or the registry got corrupted in one particular area and dragged other areas down with it? Or how many times has someone has tried installing a linux application, only to find out they have to screw around with environment variables to even get the program to start up. Mac OS doesn't have these problems, and in the Reality That Is The Average Joe Consumer Desktop(tm), crashing is far less of a concern than something not running at all or something screwing up the computer. A crash in this area of computing is an annoyance, something failing to work at all is completely unacceptable.
Let's do a test. On a unix system, do rm -rf/etc, on windows delete the registry, and on MacOS, trash the preferences folder. Reboot and see which computer has the most functionality that an average computer user requires. Guarentee you it won't be the first two. Which is unfortunate since it would be great if linux and windows had the system/application integrity that consumer level usage requires. True, anyone geek enough could fix the first two computers, but keep in mind that most average joe computer users are not like us geeks.
Just wait till PETE (people for the ethical treatment of eightballs) gets a look at this. Of course, after they're done litigating the hell out of PETE.org (People for the Evisceration and Taxedermy of eightballs).
As a former radio shack employee (1 year ago), let me take a moment to comment on just how ridiculous radio shack's priorities are. They spend god knows how much money on this promotional space launch, while all the store computers still don't have something as basic as a CD-ROM. Most of the cellular phone credit checks and activations (at least in the southeast region) still have to be written down manually on a form and called in to the service provider's already overburdened and undermanned customer support. Thus, the time spent on cell phone activation and credit was ususally 15-20 minutes longer than it had to be. Just one more example, Radio shack used to have their POS Terminals at the counter running as terminals of a SCO unix server in the back. Well, Radio shack replaced the dumb terminal system with Windows 95 computers whose POS application that has almost no GUI functionality at all. It has all the ease of use drawbacks of a text based dumb terminal with all the instability of windows 95. Then, there's the server for those computers in the back running (or rather, crawling along with) windows NT at on a machine with (I believe)32MB/120mhz. Radio Shack claims to be the technology superstore, but they don't have the slightest idea about how to use computers effectively in a business environment
I concur. Any OS architecture like windows that has all configuration data for all applications bundled into a single file (a la windows registry) is an inherently weak architecture. It is even more so when the applications for that OS are coded in such a way that the non-existance of their configuration data will not allow the program to even run. While Mac OS 9 might not have the memory management or multi-tasking of windows, it seperates configuration data for each program into seperate files (just like unix). And when you add the fact that if a mac application cannot find its configuration file, not only will it still run, but it will regenerate that configuration file, the mac suddenly becomes far more robust than the windows machine. The windows registry is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever done in the history of OS design.
Slashdot Mirror
Mental incapability and DOS. Kinda go together, dont'cha think?
This doesn't only relate to usenet, the problem with search engines today is that they don't in any way cater to people who know *exactly* what they're searching for. I think it's about time that someone comes out with a search engine for geeks that forgoes all the fru-fru simple language stuff for oodles of terabytes of pages and way of searching the damn thing with regular expressions. Hell, I'd pay good money (maybe $100 a year) for a service like that.
>It was clearer to me that the Revolution has a >long way to go. Even if freedom is practical, >there can't be any little missing feature
I couldn't agree more.
>to convince people to leave MSFT, even the bugs >and bad UI must be the same.
I couldn't disagree more. Me and the penguincow will disprove this.
The problem with GNOME, as I, a mac user/programmer who's gone over the linux side, see it, is that GNOME is duplicating M$'s interface design mistakes in the name of duplicating the company's successes. And frankly, it bothers the hell out of me to see the same exact broken interface in AbiWord, Gnumeric. These applications running on Linux, an OS that's supposed to the pinnacle of meritocracy, where good ideas are kept and bad ideas are thrown out. I am sick and tired of suffering through the last 10 years of Microsoft's bad decisions. I don't want another 10 years of doing the same thing courtesy of GNOME and Helixcode's adoption of them. I do not buy the argument that any crappy interface has to be kept just because people were already familiar with that interface under windows. Going from windows to linux is such a jump for most end users that doing things right way and dumping M$'s UI conventions won't matter that much. Now here's the kicker. I don't have to be whining and bitching about this. I don't feel I need to present this argument so things will change. I can actually do something about this problem. The open source nature of linux allows me to crack open the source for GNOME's office stuff and give it standard mac UI conventions, conventions that were far more well thought out that M$'s. I can change the Menu selection to quit the program from 'Exit' to 'Quit', with alt+q being the keyboard shortcut. The alt keys, which are in the center of the keyboard and provide the greatest equidistant coverage of keys, are best used in keyboard shortcuts, not for access that try to replace the mouse (courtesy of the Redmond idiots). Hitting alt+f to find stuff in a word processor (the way it's done on the mac) requires a lot less effort for the user to hit than ctrl+f. I can change all GNOME applications so that they use alt+f for find (which works really nice when paired with alt+g, for "find again"). Hell, I can even put out all these modified applications in a customized linux distribution if I really want to. Of course people will cry "fragmentation" if I do all these things, but if doing things the way they should be done means fragmentation, so damned be it.
with a java front end.
I'm glad that Staroffice is becoming GPL'd. Now I can fix all the user interface mistakes sun made. When I'm done with that thing, it's gonna make look difficult
let me say that Mr. Whong is indeed insane enough to come up with such an idea completely of his own volition and free will. It's not his style to engage in some outrageous and shameless act of publicity just because of some programming from higher ups. He already comes pre-programmed to do such things, and is one of the most "differently thinking" individuals I have ever met.
After trying to get JBuilder working under linux, I'd really rather not have inprise's lack of committment to ease of use polluting the mac platform.
>How is MacOS a good "total" system? The >hardware's generally fair to good, but the OS is >still in the stone age in many areas. It's got a >pretty UI, but coding for it is not as fun as >using it. Also, it's QUITE easy to break. Why? >No process-to-process protection - any process >can scribble all over another process's memory, >even the OS's memory. It uses cooperative >multitasking for apps - one app can take over >the CPU and never let it go, causing CPU >starvation. It still bears traces of its roots, >all the way back to the original System versions.
A good total system (like MacOS) is a system in that any program or piece of code can be added to the system without breaking stuff that's already installed or precluding the installation of something else.
A good total system has the philosophy of "For each application, only one executable, only one configuration file, and absolutely no shared code". You delete an application configuration file on a mac, a default configuration file is instantly regenerated the next time the program is run. You drag an entire application to the trash and delete it, nothing else gets messed up and the user doesn't get any "I'm sorry, it can't be done because some other program relies on this" (ala RPM). No "I'm sorry, you can't install the program because it conflicts with another program already installed" messages (again, ala RPM). Cooperative multitasking might be bad for a server OS, but for a consumer OS dynamic linked anything smacks of inferior design. Most end users are more afraid of something not working at all than something crashing. You have to code an OS for your target user and make engineering tradeoffs that will benefit the target user the most. In the case of average joe computer user, by statically linking everything, you make the engineering tradeoff of greater overhead/resource usage for added robustness of installation. Much like in the situation of coding a server OS, where tradeoff of greater overhead for robust memory management is understandable.
I think that unix community has constantly made the mistake of assuming that the only type of robustness that matters is runtime/stability robustness. There are many different types of strength.
Though your post only got a 1, I thought it kicked ass. Most everything you said was on the money, and I too enjoy opening up gnome programs and changing bits of code so the UI sucks less (which for me is making it more mac like).
Since fusion is what unlocks the power of helium 3, and since hydrogen bombs work on the principle of fusion, I wonder if it would be possible to combine an H bomb and helium 3 together to produce a fusion bomb of unspeakable power? Something like this might come in handy if we ever need to shoot down an asteriod hurtling towards earth.
"The problem with using windows as the yardstick for ease of use is that a windows yard is about a good three inches."--Me
I've got a novel idea. Instead of trying to bring all the open source stuff to the macintosh, what about bringing all the macintosh ideas into the current open source arena. In other words, remake x86 linux in the Mac's image. I think this would be a great idea because the current infrastructure for doing such a project (compilers, hardware, toolkits, etc) is already available on X86 linux. It would be possible to get out all our superior mac interface and design ideas on the machines that most people already have, which means getting those ideas out to the widest audience possible. Mac programmers are hands down the world's best UI designers, and X86 Linux truly needs all the UI help it can get, since most linux programmers are either traditional Unix programmers don't have much experience at making user friendly UI's, or are former windows programmers who, like most all windows programmers, have proven themselves completely inept at doing so. It's time to stop GNOME and others from duplicating M$'s UI mistakes in the name of duplicating their success. Long live Clarux the Penguincow!
To all you companies who have contributed to the DVD standard and all you media companies who have raised absolute hell over DeCSS , please stop using big words you do not understand. Words such as "Global Convergence". Global convergence means I can take a plane flight to japan, legally buy an anime DVD, and return back home and legally play it on my legally bought DVD player. Global convergence is me legally buying over the internet an independent film from Europe that US distributors view as too insignificant to release on DVD. This is what "Global Convergence" is. No amount of flashy adds on TV with former star trek actors and hypothetical IT scenarios with catchy slogans will convince me or anyone else who truly has an interest in new technologies that you are no less stuck in your own corner of the world and are hell bent on relegating everyone else on the planet to the same position. The only thing global you have proven you understand is playing the part of Global Village Idiot.
(sun dumped)
"Oregon man gets high off hydrogen peroxide, gets blasted, and joins mile high club."
To put my two cents in, I think it would totally kick ass if transmeta were to come up with a 4 processor board that you could put in a laptop. If the average battery life of a laptop battery is around 1-2 hours, and a transmeta laptop can supposedly run for up to eight hours, could you actually have a four processor transmeta laptop with the same battery life as the single intel/motorola based laptops we have today?
Mac OS is built like a tank in the areas that really count in the area of average user computing. A program can be installed at any time and that won't kill other, existing programs. Similarly, a program that is already installed will never preclude another program from being installed (like RPM does). And if you delete all the mac OS configuration files, programs can still run. How many times has someone installed one windows program and this has totally killed another working program? Or the registry got corrupted in one particular area and dragged other areas down with it? Or how many times has someone has tried installing a linux application, only to find out they have to screw around with environment variables to even get the program to start up. Mac OS doesn't have these problems, and in the Reality That Is The Average Joe Consumer Desktop(tm), crashing is far less of a concern than something not running at all or something screwing up the computer. A crash in this area of computing is an annoyance, something failing to work at all is completely unacceptable.
/etc, on windows delete the registry, and on MacOS, trash the preferences folder. Reboot and see which computer has the most functionality that an average computer user requires. Guarentee you it won't be the first two. Which is unfortunate since it would be great if linux and windows had the system/application integrity that consumer level usage requires. True, anyone geek enough could fix the first two computers, but keep in mind that most average joe computer users are not like us geeks.
Let's do a test. On a unix system, do rm -rf
Who needs a devil, fruit, or penguin when you can have the state of the art genetically engineered mascot
Just wait till PETE (people for the ethical treatment of eightballs) gets a look at this. Of course, after they're done litigating the hell out of PETE.org (People for the Evisceration and Taxedermy of eightballs).
As a former radio shack employee (1 year ago), let me take a moment to comment on just how ridiculous radio shack's priorities are. They spend god knows how much money on this promotional space launch, while all the store computers still don't have something as basic as a CD-ROM. Most of the cellular phone credit checks and activations (at least in the southeast region) still have to be written down manually on a form and called in to the service provider's already overburdened and undermanned customer support. Thus, the time spent on cell phone activation and credit was ususally 15-20 minutes longer than it had to be. Just one more example, Radio shack used to have their POS Terminals at the counter running as terminals of a SCO unix server in the back. Well, Radio shack replaced the dumb terminal system with Windows 95 computers whose POS application that has almost no GUI functionality at all. It has all the ease of use drawbacks of a text based dumb terminal with all the instability of windows 95. Then, there's the server for those computers in the back running (or rather, crawling along with) windows NT at on a machine with (I believe)32MB/120mhz. Radio Shack claims to be the technology superstore, but they don't have the slightest idea about how to use computers effectively in a business environment
damn you cgi
I wanted first post and you
only gave me third
But would she scream "xyzzy" in the heat of passion
300 miles above earth. I'm all Phfor it.
I concur. Any OS architecture like windows that has all configuration data for all applications bundled into a single file (a la windows registry) is an inherently weak architecture. It is even more so when the applications for that OS are coded in such a way that the non-existance of their configuration data will not allow the program to even run. While Mac OS 9 might not have the memory management or multi-tasking of windows, it seperates configuration data for each program into seperate files (just like unix). And when you add the fact that if a mac application cannot find its configuration file, not only will it still run, but it will regenerate that configuration file, the mac suddenly becomes far more robust than the windows machine. The windows registry is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever done in the history of OS design.