Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 22:58:33 05/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2002 at 18:41:20, Allen Lake wrote:
>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.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge your Majesty.
I realize how futile it is to discuss this topic with you.
Christophe
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.