Author: Allen Lake
Date: 15:41:20 05/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2002 at 15:58:34, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>Just mention a problem and they are going to bury themselves even deeper. Or >>>offer inappropriate solutions (use regular expressions). >> >>Someone who was a bit less doctrinaire about "regular expressions" might have >>offered you advice along the lines of "ls | grep -i wccc" to solve your problem. >>They might have even pointed you to the "alias" command for the bash shell, >>(section 5 of http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2001/0822.bashtips.html -- >>the first link I found by searching for "alias bash linux" on www.google.com),so >>that you could create your own easily remembered shell commands to replace the >>complicated Linux command syntax (add the following line to your .bash_profile >>file alias findmyfile='ls | grep -i ' ), so that you could use your own >>command to find your files ( "findmyfile wccc" ). > > >Either you are joking or you really missed my point. > >What you are doing above is what I call "burying yourself even deeper". > "Burying myself even deeper" by adding one line to a text file that prevents me from having to remember a fairly short, but non-intuitive command line? Would it have been better to name my command "dir" instead of "findmyfile"? What in the world is intuitive about telling a user to type "dir" to locate a file? Or is it more intuitive to tell a user to click through several dialog boxes to locate their file? Not in my experience! >>>You can do the same experience with the guys at Microsoft and see the >>>difference: they will reconsider if they realize many people agree that there is >>>a problem. >> >>In my experience, a hit-or-miss proposition. I still wonder why, 7 years later, >>I still need to press a button labeled "Start" to begin the procedure of >>shutting down my Windows machine. > > >As I said, I really do not like Microsoft. > >But this kind of critisism can only do one thing: make yourself look like a >fool. > >There are plenty of points where Windows sucks. Mention them instead. Get real. If there is anyone here who needs to get real, it would be the person you see in the mirror each morning. I spent a couple of years working tech support for those "average users" you are so fond of citing. You know -- the ones who are too afraid to click on anything new without someone to walk them through it. I can't tell you how many times I heard "That's funny. I gotta click on Start to stop my machine -- ha, ha, ha". I know plenty of ways that *I* think Windows sucks. This one (click Start to get to Shut Down) stares me in the face every time I boot my Windows machine. You don't have to agree with me -- I don't really care whether you do or not -- but I'd suggest you save your flamethrower for somebody else. Some of us have spent a lot more time fighting in the trenches for the "average user" than you have. >> I still wonder why I have to put ".exe" on >>the end of my program file name before Windows will recognize it as an >>executable file. > > >That's user friendly. That's a limitation of the operating system. Try renaming one to have an extension that isn't .exe and see if Windows still knows it's an executable file. >When you see a file name, you know of what type it is. Really? How many of your "average users" know what a .scr file is? How about a .cpl file? .vxd? .sys? .chm? >Or maybe you think that adding ".txt" behind a file name to indicate that it is >a text is stupid? I do it all the time, actually. I've also been known to leave it off, or put .asc or .ascii behind it. The neat thing is: I can do exactly the same thing on Linux or AIX or Solaris. I can also add .exe to my executable files on all of those operating systems as well, but I don't _have_ to do it. I presume you had a point, here, but I appear to have missed it. How about enlightening someone who's not quite as enlightened about user-friendliness in file-naming conventions as you are? >Actually now that you mention it, that is one thing that I did not like about >Linux/Unix: the fact that you cannot tell by the name of a file if it is >executable or not. See above. You can add .exe to the end of your executable file names on those platforms if it makes you happy. >Or maybe I have been spoiled by years of DOS/Windows usage? Spoiled, no. Conditioned, yes. >But frankly, I don't care much about this one. Me either. But it is a _limitation_ that Windows has. You call it user-friendly -- I call it a limitation. It suits your needs and aggravates me. >>>They have done that many times and corrected mistake after mistake. The result >>>is that now they are controlling the world of information. >> >>A subset of the world of information, though a highly visible subset of the >>world of information. I wonder how many banks, insurance companies, brokerage >>houses, etc. (all _very_ large purveyors of information) trust their >>"mission-critical" applications to Windows. Lack of public visibility doesn't >>mean lack of importance. > > >Typical. > >While I do not deny that Linux has apparently got a good acceptance in the >server market, you don't see the problem of wide public visibility of Windows? You presume it is a problem -- I don't. Here's a small analogy for you -- I use my rowboat when I want to cross the river near my house, but I would use an ocean liner if I wanted to cross the seas to visit you at your home. I'd use Windows on a computer system for my wife (a nurse) to use for surfing the WWW here at home, but I hope that the billing office for the hospital where she works uses a mainframe or at least a high-end Unix to keep their accounts. Use the right tool for the job. If Windows is the right tool, use Windows. If Unix or Linux is the right tool, use Unix or Linux. If a mainframe is the right tool, use a mainframe. >Tell me, what's going to happen when the next generation of computer users, who >have been using Windows at home since their childhood, are going to hit the >market? I've got news for you, Christophe -- they are already here. A bunch of them are learning Linux and Unix. A lot of them aren't. >Do you think the first thing they will do is to advice to replace Windows >computers by Linux computers? Realistically, no. But it's starting to happen anyway, slowly. As Linux improves (and Windows prices keep going up), the momentum will probably increase. It took Microsoft 20 years to get where they are today. There's no rush. >Actually I do not care how Linux will gain momentum. It's a war, and it should >achieve victory "by any means necessary". I wouldn't say that. "By any means necessary" is a _very_ broad list, both legal and illegal, ethical and unethical. If the price of Linux victory is another Microsoft, I'm not sure I'll be supporting the Linux side. >I think the way to do it is to disguise Linux as a Windows clone. > >But I know how much it is going to hurt Linux fanatics. Some of them, yes. But I wouldn't say that they make up anywhere close to the majority of Linux users now. As you've noted before, KDE is extremely popular and growing daily. >>>But if I was Microsoft I would not be as frightened by Linux as they are. When >>>they are going to understand what the attitude of the Linux guys is, they will >>>certainly laugh and relax. >> >>If Microsoft is frightened of Linux now, even with the "attitude of the Linux >>guys", why is that? The "Linux guys" that you are talking about have been >>around at least for the seven years that I've been using Linux, so it's not a >>new phenomenon. Paranoia? Irrationality? Misinformation? > >>Your way of seeing things just confirms my doubts, like every time I speak to a >Linux lover. My way of seeing things? My point was that the "Linux guys" have been around for years and Linux has continued to grow and develop over that same time. It's only been in the past couple of years that Microsoft paid any public attention at all to Linux. Let me restate and amplify what I said: If Microsoft is frightened of Linux (an overstatement in my opinion, but it is how _you_ chose to express how _you_ see Microsoft's attitude), they either have reasons to be frightened or they don't. If they are frightened and those reasons are valid, they must be seeing something you aren't seeing. If they are frightened and, as you contend later, they haven't seen "the attitude of the Linux guys" and they'll change their opinion of Linux when they do see this attitude, then their current reasons aren't valid, leading to my questions above. If they are frightened, are they just misinformed about the "Linux threat", as you imply? If they are frightened, are they paranoid about any other computer-related thing that gets some attention from the media? If they are frightened, are they just frightened for no reason at all (irrational)? I don't know the answers to those questions, and I don't necessarily accept your premise that Microsoft is "frightened". Care to enlighten me again? >Tell me, what do you think of the idea to disguise Linux as a Windows clone? Doesn't bother me in the least, and I don't feel any need to go out and push the "Windows clone" on anybody. When I started using Linux, all the GUIs were trying to look like Motif. Now they are trying to look like Windows. As long as I can get my work done, I don't really care what it looks like. If the "Windows clone" look and feel helps more people do what they need and want to do with their computer, then I have no objection to it. The most important thing is that users can do what they want to do in a way that they can understand and repeat when necessary. That's what I care about. >My point was not to destroy Linux, as I said many times. > >I would adopt it even if it was technically inferior. But it needs to be as >useable as Windows. It is not. Two final points. One, if Linux is not as usable for you as Windows, put on your asbestos underwear and ask for help. Sure, there are going to be some "d00dz" out there who are going to flame you, but there are a lot of other good people out there who will give you as much help as they can to get you over the hump. Just like here in CCC, you've got some really good people and some highly annoying jerks in the Linux community -- you just have to learn how to filter the "noise" from the "signal". Two, there are hundreds if not thousands of projects out there that can use informed assistance for coding, testing, documentation, etc. Find one and start contributing -- just like you ask your beta testers to do for you -- even if it is only in a very small way. Maybe that "usability" fix is just an e-mail away.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.