[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fwd: [Contributors] Microsoft Windows Is Offically Broken

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Les Mikesell wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 12:12, Michael Hennebry wrote:
> > > > And that is a main problem if the goal is to get the masses to seriously
> > > > consider Linux.  If not, then it is a 'geek OS' for 'geeks Only' who
> > > > are not motivated to make the OS user friendly beyond a centain point.
> > >
> > > User-friendly often means hiding the details. There are some Linux
> >
> > Of course it doesn't have to.
> Examples would be helpful - perhaps something that makes simple things
> simple without making difficult things impossible (the normal GUI
> curse).
> > It can mean that seeing them is usually unnecessary.
> "Usually" doesn't count if you sometimes need them and they have been
> hidden or removed.

I should have been more clear.
"noticing them" instead of "seeing them" is clearer.

The gcc code-generation option that I directly use
are -O, -O1, -O2, and -O3.

gcc has a lot of other code generation options
that I see, but mostly don't notice.

Other people notice them and use them.

I share your unfondness for a lot of GUI's.
A CLI is inherently easier to document with text. (duh)
Also a GUI tends to be a moving target, thereby making
what documentation there is out of date.

> > > > I have seen this type of environment before at two different (now defunct)
> > > > Mini-Computer Vendors (remember the 80s?). The Developers tend to think
> > > > that thier world viewpoint is good enough for everyone.  It was always
> > > > a battle for Tech. Support to get them to see it the customer's way.
> > > > After all, they were buying the hardware and software.
> > >
> > > That doesn't apply the same way to free software.  The developers are
> > > the ones who understand the way software should work.  Why should they
> >
> > There is no way but the one true way and developers are its prophets.
> Not quite the point - users may sometimes know what they want done
> today, but seldom know all the possibilities or permutations of how
> it should be done or what other users of the same program want.  A
> user would be happy with an ornate piece of precast concrete that
> just fits the spot he has for it and nowhere else.  The developer wants
> to make bricks that can be laid without having to know all of the
> possible building shapes ahead of time.
> > It should have been easy for me to get rid of
> > vim's awful colors and its automatic indentation.
> If you don't like embellishments, use vi instead of vim.

Not nice.
It tells me that you don't want
me to ever get good colors.
Though I'm not one of them, there are probably people
who like the idea of colored text, but would rather
not have vim's garish default combination.

> > That said, too much automation can be a security hazard.
> Defaults don't fit everyone.  That's why the fine tuning is complicated
> because the many options are necessary.
> > > hide options for the people who don't understand if they aren't forced
> > > to?  On the other hand, good defaults make sense for everyone.
> >
> > Yup.  That is how one makes seeing the the details usually unnecessary.
> > Of course what's good for a power developer
> > is not necessarily good for a novice.
> > Having flags like --novice and --power-developer
> > that affect multiple other flags can help with this.
> > To assist in the transistion from novice,
> > it shouldn't be too hard to discover what flags
> > are affected by --novice and better yet, why.
> Personally, I think there should be somewhere between 20 and a hundred
> different distributions that differ only in which programs are
> installed and their default configurations. Unix historically was
> developed as a multiuser system with the premise that a skilled
> administrator would do the local installation and configuration
> for a set of users.  This doesn't mesh well with personal computers
> and users that install things themselves.  ...


> ...                                        One size doesn't quite
> fit all, but on the other hand every user can't hire a personal
> system administrator and probably doesn't want to read thousands
> of pages of manuals to get the background color and fonts he likes.
> We need a middle ground where a few people configure machines tuned
> for different uses and preferences and a way for anyone who needs
> that configuration to copy it.  That way, you never really need to
> know the details of how to do the setup, just where to find one
> like it.  And if you want something that no one else has done - well
> that's a hint that it's probably a bad idea, but if you make it work

Or it's just a combination no distributor
thought enough people would want.
Who new someone would want Citizen Kane and Debbie Does Dallas
or would want whipped cream on his pickle?

On the other hand displaying MPEG-2 in software on
a bitty-box is probably a non-starter for anyone.

It might be good to have a place for common
software that didn't have to be owned by root.
Major mistakes could be "fixed" by
wiping out the area and starting over.
Not being in root mode would bound the possible damage.
If he has been good about backups he
wouldn't have to do too much reinstalling.

> you could help everyone else out by sharing it.

Mike   hennebry web cs ndsu NoDak edu

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]