ON NOES! That one guy TheHawke who calls our company "aoHell" has stopped using his reverse-engineered unofficial AIM client! THE SKY IS FALLING! Quick, redesign AIM to make TheHawke happy!
Do you really think AOL gives a crap? Hell, I'm not a big company and I don't really give a crap...
Yeah, and make sure your tinfoil hat is on tight. That way the mind-control chemicals they spray into the air behind jetliners won't seep into your neurons and cause you to relive past-life experiences in Atlantis using stolen UFO technology.
You have to realize that there's about 2 million messages a minute going through AIM's network, and the vast majority of them are things like "asl?," "what time for lunch?," "yes," "ok," etc. Nobody cares what people say on AIM. There's no reason for AOL to listen-in, because they couldn't possibly get anything useful from it. If they want to listen-in and find out when I'm meeting my buddy at Southcenter Mall, good for them-- I don't give a rat's ass.
When people complain about the user interface in GIMP, or missing features in Firefox, or what-not, the standard Slashdot reply is: "It's free, you have no right to complain. If you don't like it, use something else."
So my reply to this situation is, "AIM's free, you have no right to complain. If you don't like it, use something else."
Maybe I'm growing older or something, but doesn't it seem like almost every Slashdot story now is "whine whine whine" over some stupid inconsequential detail? Especially the "your rights online" stories... OH NOES! PEOPLE LOOKING AT TRAFFIC CAMERAS CAN SEE IF YOU'RE PICKING YOUR NOSE! Christ.
Look, it's just simple (as with about 80% of Slashdot's stories): If you don't like it, don't buy it
If you don't want to play a game that uses Tray&Play, don't buy any. It's not like game installers and downloadable games will suddenly cease to exist the instant this technology becomes available.
Criminy, get a grip. Close Combat? Those games were, what, 1998?
Hah! If you think that the Windows 95/NT 4 navigation was "spatial," you really don't know what you're talking about. Try using any version of MacOS from 1-9.2.2 to see an actually spatial navigation system in action. Microsoft's was, at best, a VERY poor clone... of course it sucked!
TweakUI helps, but doesn't eliminate the problem. Basically, poorly-written applications can bypass TweakUI's fix for this issue and still steal focus. And one of the problems with Windows is that it has TONS of poorly-written applications.
XCode is designed for Objective-C and Java MacOS X programming. It *does* C++ CLI programs, and it *does* some other stuff, but that's not the focus.
The concensus seems to be that for Objective-C and Java OS X programming, XCode is pretty damn sweet. For anything else, it's a little clunky. XCode is a good example of Apple employees eating their own dogfood-- it's developed by people who make OS X GUI software, and so it's really good at making OS X GUI software, and not-so-good at other things.
The fact that it's even SLIGHTLY discoverable makes it much easier than the Unix method, which could only be read about in a manual.
You know, the makers of MacOS did a *lot* of usability research during the course of developing their software. How much usability research did the designers of X11 do?
Sure, maybe your 17 MB file is 13.5 with.zip and 13.24 with.7z or whatever, but what it all comes down to is that every current operating system supports.zip files out-of-the-box. Do you think that extra 3 seconds of download is worth making your customer hunt down and install an entirely different program just to see your file? It's not. Why make things harder?.zip is the standard, use it.
And I hate this shit. "It's ok if it doesn't work in Linux because it also doesn't work in Windows."
Do Linux users want Linux to be *better* than Windows, or are you just lowering the bar to Windows' level? Holy crap, every time you point out something wrong with Linux (installs are complicated), some Slashdotter has to come by and point out that the same problem exists in Windows (well Windows installs are complicated too!) Big whoop! I don't give a shit what problems Windows has, the point is that it IS a problem and it need to be fixed.
My request is not unrealistic. My request is a call for software to STOP SUCKING ASS. Right now, almost ALL software for ALL platforms sucks ass. That's a fact. Small details, like implementing copy and paste correctly in all cases, will improve software in general regardless of the platform.
Everyone already knows that right-clicking isn't discoverable. That's why OS X and Windows both have rules in the GUI guidelines that say you should *never* put an option *only* in a contextual menu-- there should always be a way to access the same option without using the right mouse button. Do some GUI research and you'll see.
And not every GUI has used it. For instance, MacOS (which invented it) has a Command key instead of a Control key.;) But seriously, it's about as established as the concept of "icon" and "window." I think that old versions of Windows, like 1.0 and 2.0 used shortcuts like Control-Insert, but I haven't used them so I can't be sure.
The problem is that that method is technically inferior to the Control-C, Control-V method. I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread that it's not discoverable, which makes for bad GUI design. It also doesn't allow you to select text and then over-write it with the contents of the clipboard. It requires you to have both windows open at the same time (correct me if I'm wrong here) so you can't open an application, copy text, close that application, paste text in another application.
Plus, we're only talking about text. Here's something that works in Windows and MacOS since the early 90s: Copy some cells in a spreadsheet and paste them into a bitmap editing program. (Photoshop, GIMP, whatever.) What happens? On Linux you might get nothing, or you might get a 'beep' sound, then nothing, or you might get a crude text-version of the cells you copied pasted into the document. In MacOS and Windows, you'll get a bitmap of the cells you copied that look *identical* to how they looked when you copied them.
When Linux can do that, consistantly, across all applications no matter the toolkit, give me a call. Until then, I'm with the grandparent here: Copy and paste in Linux DOES NOT WORK.
It's also not discoverable. Copy and Paste are in the Edit menu (at least in standard apps.) "Hightlight and middle-click or if you don't have a 3-button mouse click both buttons at the same time" is not in the Edit menu.
Command-C, Command-V (as shortcuts to the menu items they represent) is just a plain *better* way of solving the problem, and it's been the accepted solution in every GUI (except X11) since it was brand-new.
And it always makes me wonder how Microsoft was "informed." Did you call on the phone and escalate the issue until you reached somebody who definately could contact whatever developer was responsible for security in Windows XP SP2? Or did you just send it to feedback@microsoft.com and hope for the best?
I always get the impression that these "white hate script kiddies" do the latter, and not the former, then they say "well I contacted them!"
In any case, yes, what he did was entirely wrong. If, big *if*, he had contacted Microsoft in such a way that they *could* respond to the news, the next step should have been to contact an internet security firm and/or the Department of Homeland Security (who is responsible for disseminating such information in the US, where Microsoft is located.)
I'll take you a step further: I think Linux not only need a single unified API for GUI applications, but I think that Linux needs to create an entirely new windowing system from scratch. I've never seen an X11 application that didn't look, or work, clunky. You'll never get rid of all those applications that don't support (say) copy&paste correctly unless you 1) FORCE them to port the programs to a new API, 2) Make is easier in the new API to create correct copy&paste than incorrect copy&paste.
Look at Apple's development tools. They rewrote the window manager from scratch, put in every great feature they could think of, then they specifically designed the API (Cocoa) to make it really easy to develop GOOD applications, and really hard to develop bad ones.
How many OS X applications do you see with bad GUIs? Maybe 5% of them? And half of those are ports from other OSes.
Yes, but only if there is a small ticket stuck in the hatband with "PRESS" written in capital letters. I think we've ALL seen enough 50's movies to know what makes a reporter.
I'm not saying that OS X (the system) is worse, of course not. But the interface in general and Finder in particular are much worse than they were before, and Apple doesn't seem to be interested in improving them. (For instance, they supposedly re-write the Finder for version 10.3, but it still won't run in Spatial Mode, it still won't allow tabbed folders, and it still doesn't have a customizable Apple Menu.)
Although the OS X is technologically superior to OS 9, the usability suffered a LOT.
OS 9 had two ways of quickly launching applications. You could put your applications in the Apple Menu (which was 100% customizable) and make the Apple Menu somewhat like the Windows Start Menu, or you could put aliases to your applications in a folder and then create a tabbed folder with them in it.
OS X removed *both* of those handy features. And, although there are third-party utilities that emulate them, they're not as good as Apple's original OS 9 implementation.
The Finder in OS 9 was also leaps and bounds ahead of the one in OS X. For one thing, if you saved a file to the desktop, the icon appeared right away. In OS X, you have to click the desktop to get it to refresh the icons. The OS 9 Finder was completely spatial and, although I know a lot of people hated it, I absolutely loved it. The OS X Finder is not only not spatial, but preferences don't seem to 'stick' at all. The OS 9 Finder also contained Tabbed Folders, it allowed you to automatically connect to a network drive on login, etc... it did a LOT more than the OS X Finder does, and better.
I personally think that MacOS usability went WAY down with the introduction of OS X, even while the technological underpinnings became more sophisticated. If I could run the Darwin kernel with the OS 9 Finder, I'd be there in a flash.
(BTW, I also think that people rag on MacOS Classic too much. Yes, it did cooperative multitasking, yes it didn't have automatic memory management, but I had no problem running 20 applications at a time quickly and efficiently.)
The only bluescreens I've gotten were hardware-related. You can't blame Microsoft for that. I've literally never seen XP bluescreen because of a software issue, so I agree with the original poster.
Slashdot Mirror
ON NOES! That one guy TheHawke who calls our company "aoHell" has stopped using his reverse-engineered unofficial AIM client! THE SKY IS FALLING! Quick, redesign AIM to make TheHawke happy!
Do you really think AOL gives a crap? Hell, I'm not a big company and I don't really give a crap...
Yeah, and make sure your tinfoil hat is on tight. That way the mind-control chemicals they spray into the air behind jetliners won't seep into your neurons and cause you to relive past-life experiences in Atlantis using stolen UFO technology.
You have to realize that there's about 2 million messages a minute going through AIM's network, and the vast majority of them are things like "asl?," "what time for lunch?," "yes," "ok," etc. Nobody cares what people say on AIM. There's no reason for AOL to listen-in, because they couldn't possibly get anything useful from it. If they want to listen-in and find out when I'm meeting my buddy at Southcenter Mall, good for them-- I don't give a rat's ass.
When people complain about the user interface in GIMP, or missing features in Firefox, or what-not, the standard Slashdot reply is: "It's free, you have no right to complain. If you don't like it, use something else."
So my reply to this situation is, "AIM's free, you have no right to complain. If you don't like it, use something else."
Maybe I'm growing older or something, but doesn't it seem like almost every Slashdot story now is "whine whine whine" over some stupid inconsequential detail? Especially the "your rights online" stories... OH NOES! PEOPLE LOOKING AT TRAFFIC CAMERAS CAN SEE IF YOU'RE PICKING YOUR NOSE! Christ.
I love how everyone is totally bashing this idea.
Look, it's just simple (as with about 80% of Slashdot's stories): If you don't like it, don't buy it
If you don't want to play a game that uses Tray&Play, don't buy any. It's not like game installers and downloadable games will suddenly cease to exist the instant this technology becomes available.
Criminy, get a grip. Close Combat? Those games were, what, 1998?
Who gives a shit? I just want to play Halo 2.
Hah! If you think that the Windows 95/NT 4 navigation was "spatial," you really don't know what you're talking about. Try using any version of MacOS from 1-9.2.2 to see an actually spatial navigation system in action. Microsoft's was, at best, a VERY poor clone... of course it sucked!
TweakUI helps, but doesn't eliminate the problem. Basically, poorly-written applications can bypass TweakUI's fix for this issue and still steal focus. And one of the problems with Windows is that it has TONS of poorly-written applications.
Read the article summary. The goal *is* to get data to a customer.
XCode is designed for Objective-C and Java MacOS X programming. It *does* C++ CLI programs, and it *does* some other stuff, but that's not the focus.
The concensus seems to be that for Objective-C and Java OS X programming, XCode is pretty damn sweet. For anything else, it's a little clunky. XCode is a good example of Apple employees eating their own dogfood-- it's developed by people who make OS X GUI software, and so it's really good at making OS X GUI software, and not-so-good at other things.
You're grasping at straws, bud.
The fact that it's even SLIGHTLY discoverable makes it much easier than the Unix method, which could only be read about in a manual.
You know, the makers of MacOS did a *lot* of usability research during the course of developing their software. How much usability research did the designers of X11 do?
Sure, maybe your 17 MB file is 13.5 with .zip and 13.24 with .7z or whatever, but what it all comes down to is that every current operating system supports .zip files out-of-the-box. Do you think that extra 3 seconds of download is worth making your customer hunt down and install an entirely different program just to see your file? It's not. Why make things harder? .zip is the standard, use it.
They are discoverable. The shortcuts appear in the Edit menu in the menu bar. The Unix method doesn't
And I hate this shit. "It's ok if it doesn't work in Linux because it also doesn't work in Windows."
Do Linux users want Linux to be *better* than Windows, or are you just lowering the bar to Windows' level? Holy crap, every time you point out something wrong with Linux (installs are complicated), some Slashdotter has to come by and point out that the same problem exists in Windows (well Windows installs are complicated too!) Big whoop! I don't give a shit what problems Windows has, the point is that it IS a problem and it need to be fixed.
My request is not unrealistic. My request is a call for software to STOP SUCKING ASS. Right now, almost ALL software for ALL platforms sucks ass. That's a fact. Small details, like implementing copy and paste correctly in all cases, will improve software in general regardless of the platform.
Everyone already knows that right-clicking isn't discoverable. That's why OS X and Windows both have rules in the GUI guidelines that say you should *never* put an option *only* in a contextual menu-- there should always be a way to access the same option without using the right mouse button. Do some GUI research and you'll see.
;) But seriously, it's about as established as the concept of "icon" and "window." I think that old versions of Windows, like 1.0 and 2.0 used shortcuts like Control-Insert, but I haven't used them so I can't be sure.
And not every GUI has used it. For instance, MacOS (which invented it) has a Command key instead of a Control key.
Now try pasting spreadsheet cells into a graphics editing program and see how well your Linux applications do.
MacOS and Windows both handle that situation fine... does Linux?
The problem is that that method is technically inferior to the Control-C, Control-V method. I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread that it's not discoverable, which makes for bad GUI design. It also doesn't allow you to select text and then over-write it with the contents of the clipboard. It requires you to have both windows open at the same time (correct me if I'm wrong here) so you can't open an application, copy text, close that application, paste text in another application.
Plus, we're only talking about text. Here's something that works in Windows and MacOS since the early 90s: Copy some cells in a spreadsheet and paste them into a bitmap editing program. (Photoshop, GIMP, whatever.) What happens? On Linux you might get nothing, or you might get a 'beep' sound, then nothing, or you might get a crude text-version of the cells you copied pasted into the document. In MacOS and Windows, you'll get a bitmap of the cells you copied that look *identical* to how they looked when you copied them.
When Linux can do that, consistantly, across all applications no matter the toolkit, give me a call. Until then, I'm with the grandparent here: Copy and paste in Linux DOES NOT WORK.
It's also not discoverable. Copy and Paste are in the Edit menu (at least in standard apps.) "Hightlight and middle-click or if you don't have a 3-button mouse click both buttons at the same time" is not in the Edit menu.
Command-C, Command-V (as shortcuts to the menu items they represent) is just a plain *better* way of solving the problem, and it's been the accepted solution in every GUI (except X11) since it was brand-new.
That was supposed to be "white HAT script kiddies." I'm not a racist, really...
And it always makes me wonder how Microsoft was "informed." Did you call on the phone and escalate the issue until you reached somebody who definately could contact whatever developer was responsible for security in Windows XP SP2? Or did you just send it to feedback@microsoft.com and hope for the best?
I always get the impression that these "white hate script kiddies" do the latter, and not the former, then they say "well I contacted them!"
In any case, yes, what he did was entirely wrong. If, big *if*, he had contacted Microsoft in such a way that they *could* respond to the news, the next step should have been to contact an internet security firm and/or the Department of Homeland Security (who is responsible for disseminating such information in the US, where Microsoft is located.)
I'll take you a step further: I think Linux not only need a single unified API for GUI applications, but I think that Linux needs to create an entirely new windowing system from scratch. I've never seen an X11 application that didn't look, or work, clunky. You'll never get rid of all those applications that don't support (say) copy&paste correctly unless you 1) FORCE them to port the programs to a new API, 2) Make is easier in the new API to create correct copy&paste than incorrect copy&paste.
Look at Apple's development tools. They rewrote the window manager from scratch, put in every great feature they could think of, then they specifically designed the API (Cocoa) to make it really easy to develop GOOD applications, and really hard to develop bad ones.
How many OS X applications do you see with bad GUIs? Maybe 5% of them? And half of those are ports from other OSes.
Try RealBasic.
There *are* BASIC implementations there that are much, much better than Visual Basic.
Is it a crumpled fedora?
Yes, but only if there is a small ticket stuck in the hatband with "PRESS" written in capital letters. I think we've ALL seen enough 50's movies to know what makes a reporter.
I'm not saying that OS X (the system) is worse, of course not. But the interface in general and Finder in particular are much worse than they were before, and Apple doesn't seem to be interested in improving them. (For instance, they supposedly re-write the Finder for version 10.3, but it still won't run in Spatial Mode, it still won't allow tabbed folders, and it still doesn't have a customizable Apple Menu.)
Although the OS X is technologically superior to OS 9, the usability suffered a LOT.
OS 9 had two ways of quickly launching applications. You could put your applications in the Apple Menu (which was 100% customizable) and make the Apple Menu somewhat like the Windows Start Menu, or you could put aliases to your applications in a folder and then create a tabbed folder with them in it.
OS X removed *both* of those handy features. And, although there are third-party utilities that emulate them, they're not as good as Apple's original OS 9 implementation.
The Finder in OS 9 was also leaps and bounds ahead of the one in OS X. For one thing, if you saved a file to the desktop, the icon appeared right away. In OS X, you have to click the desktop to get it to refresh the icons. The OS 9 Finder was completely spatial and, although I know a lot of people hated it, I absolutely loved it. The OS X Finder is not only not spatial, but preferences don't seem to 'stick' at all. The OS 9 Finder also contained Tabbed Folders, it allowed you to automatically connect to a network drive on login, etc... it did a LOT more than the OS X Finder does, and better.
I personally think that MacOS usability went WAY down with the introduction of OS X, even while the technological underpinnings became more sophisticated. If I could run the Darwin kernel with the OS 9 Finder, I'd be there in a flash.
(BTW, I also think that people rag on MacOS Classic too much. Yes, it did cooperative multitasking, yes it didn't have automatic memory management, but I had no problem running 20 applications at a time quickly and efficiently.)
The only bluescreens I've gotten were hardware-related. You can't blame Microsoft for that. I've literally never seen XP bluescreen because of a software issue, so I agree with the original poster.