Discussion:
Why the iPhone will Slaughter the Linux based phones.
(too old to reply)
Doctor Smith
2009-02-18 03:44:24 UTC
Permalink
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ


It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.

Applications.

Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested
in.

The iPhone now has over 15,000 applications.

So whatever happened to that Linux based OpenMoko?

You know, the phone that couldn't reliably make phone calls.

The iPhone "killer" ?

Where is it?

Bwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!

Linux comes up short once again.
Erik Funkenbusch
2009-02-18 06:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
I don't think it will slaughter anything.

How I see things is that Linux based phones will be just like existing
phones today. Each phone will be it's own "distro" and will have it's own
applications, it won't be a single class of phones called "Linux phones".

Just like today, you buy apps for your specific phone. You don't buy apps
for a class of phones. Phone companies and manufacturers don't want their
phones to be compatible or interoperable. They make their money by selling
the apps, and if you can load an app from anywhere then they lose money.

Apple is largely the same way, which is why they only allow iPhones from
one carrier in any given market. It just has the Apple marketing machine
behind it (and a good product too).

There may be very popular Linux based phones, but you won't see it as a
category that you can say "Linux based phones are popular", because chances
are, the Linux based phone will have it's own methods to lock people into
things.
Ezekiel
2009-02-18 12:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
I don't think it will slaughter anything.
How I see things is that Linux based phones will be just like existing
phones today. Each phone will be it's own "distro" and will have it's own
applications, it won't be a single class of phones called "Linux phones".
So what you're saying is that if there's say a dozen different phones that
run Linux that each of these dozen phones will need it's own special
version of <application> in order to run?
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Apple is largely the same way, which is why they only allow iPhones from
one carrier in any given market.
That's more of a business decision and the exclusive contract with AT&T
will. expire in 2010. By making AT&T the exclusive carrier for the iPhone
in return Apple gets a nice cut of the monthly service bill.
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
It just has the Apple marketing machine
behind it (and a good product too).
It's mindset and the abundance of applications. These 'Linux phones' are
supposed to be open and were supposed to attract all of these developers to
create apps for it. This is nice in theory but in the real world the
'less-open' iPhone has several times as many applications available for it
as all of these 'Linux phones' combined.
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
There may be very popular Linux based phones, but you won't see it as a
category that you can say "Linux based phones are popular", because chances
are, the Linux based phone will have it's own methods to lock people into
things.
For most people they don't know or care what OS runs on their phone. Any
more than they could tell you what OS their microwave oven runs.
Doctor Smith
2009-02-18 15:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
I don't think it will slaughter anything.
How I see things is that Linux based phones will be just like existing
phones today. Each phone will be it's own "distro" and will have it's own
applications, it won't be a single class of phones called "Linux phones".
But people interested in these kinds of gadgets are going to buy the one
that has the most support, or applications.

It's the same with Linux.

IOW "whys doesn't Linux have Quicken, decent games, my SAT tutorial,
Rosetta Stone" etc.
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Just like today, you buy apps for your specific phone. You don't buy apps
for a class of phones. Phone companies and manufacturers don't want their
phones to be compatible or interoperable. They make their money by selling
the apps, and if you can load an app from anywhere then they lose money.
But the class as a whole isn't going to have the support like the iPhone
does and hence will die.

Of course people just interested in making calls, like me, won't care one
way or the other.
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
Apple is largely the same way, which is why they only allow iPhones from
one carrier in any given market. It just has the Apple marketing machine
behind it (and a good product too).
They want to control the market just like they do with their hardware.
This has the advantge of the consumer ultimately having the best possible
experience with the device.

IOW it will work.

Take their computers for example.
You buy a Mac, a Mac drive, ProTools and it works.
Try the same with a Frankenstein PC and you have no guarentee that it will
work.
That's the beauty of Apple.
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
There may be very popular Linux based phones, but you won't see it as a
category that you can say "Linux based phones are popular", because chances
are, the Linux based phone will have it's own methods to lock people into
things.
I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are getting at?

What I am saying is that these Linux based gadgets, like the OpenMoko or
Android are not going to have nearly the support ie:applications etc that
the iPhone has so they are going to be killed in the market place because
people will buy the iPhone instead.
IOW people buying these kinds of devices want applications.
They don't care what OS it is running.
Doug Mentohl
2009-02-18 17:37:24 UTC
Permalink
.. chances are, the Linux based phone will have it's own methods to lock people into things.
What methods would that be, give real world examples ?
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-18 14:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested
in.
...silly me. I thought it was a phone.

[deletia]

What will more likely "doom" a non-MacOS phone are things like
lack of marketing and on dedicated storefronts and no pre-built
"buzz" surrouding any associated brand names.

Apple has been a marketing company for over 20 years.
--
iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. |||
/ | \
Ezekiel
2009-02-18 15:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested
in.
...silly me. I thought it was a phone.
For people who are only seeking a basic phone they won't even look at
devices in this market segment. But more and more people want more out of
their phone than just the ability to call someone.
Post by JEDIDIAH
[deletia]
What will more likely "doom" a non-MacOS phone are things like
lack of marketing and on dedicated storefronts and no pre-built
"buzz" surrouding any associated brand names.
Apple has been a marketing company for over 20 years.
And that marketing is backed up with some impressive products.
ZnU
2009-02-18 16:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested
in.
...silly me. I thought it was a phone.
[deletia]
What will more likely "doom" a non-MacOS phone are things like
lack of marketing and on dedicated storefronts and no pre-built
"buzz" surrouding any associated brand names.
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will insist
only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at all.)
Post by JEDIDIAH
Apple has been a marketing company for over 20 years.
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
‹ that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
chrisv
2009-02-18 17:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will insist
only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at all.)
Fsck off, you lying shit.

No one here claims "no negative implications" to choice. We only
claim that the positives of choice *outweigh* the negatives.

You have already had this explained to you, Mac-troll fsckwit liar.
ZnU
2009-02-18 18:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by ZnU
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will insist
only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at all.)
Fsck off, you lying shit.
No one here claims "no negative implications" to choice. We only
claim that the positives of choice *outweigh* the negatives.
You guys deny the negative implications of "choice" in every specific
instance, as far as I can see, which amounts to the same thing. I've
never seen one of the usual COLA suspects admit something like "Yes,
fragmentation on the Linux desktop does mean giving up X, but it's worth
it because we get Y in return". It's always "X doesn't matter". Or
"Linux has X and you're stupid for not knowing that" (when Linux doesn't
actually have X). Or sometimes "You'd be stupid to even want X".

I mean, come on. I've got people in COLA right now telling me that
seamless live sharing of contact data between apps isn't nearly as good
as manually exporting and importing contact data from apps (possibly
translating it through intermediary apps along the way). This is a
feature that doesn't exist in a useful sense in Linux solely because of
the difficulty of getting Linux developers on the same page, so COLA
advocates refuse to admit the feature has any value.
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
-- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
chrisv
2009-02-18 19:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
Post by ZnU
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will insist
only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at all.)
Fsck off, you lying shit.
No one here claims "no negative implications" to choice. We only
claim that the positives of choice *outweigh* the negatives.
You guys deny the negative implications of "choice" in every specific
instance, as far as I can see, which amounts to the same thing.
You're a fsckwit, so what you claim what we've said "amounts to" means
nothing.

Some things are obvious and don't need stating or "admitting-to". We
all understand that there's "some advantages" to concentrating efforts
the way a company can.

I dare say most of us would even admit that there's "some advantages"
to the Micro$oft monopoly.

Get it, fsckwit? We are smart. You are stupid. We see the world in
shades of gray, pros and cons. You see things like "no", "none",
"every", or "all", which are almost *always* wrong.
Post by ZnU
(snip idiotic, dishonest interpretations of what the advocates have claimed)
Fsck off, troll. We don't need assholes coming in here and saying
"you are so stupid that you don't understand ......" and then *lying*
about what we supposedly do not understand.
ZnU
2009-02-18 19:48:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
Post by ZnU
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will
insist only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at
all.)
Fsck off, you lying shit.
No one here claims "no negative implications" to choice. We only
claim that the positives of choice *outweigh* the negatives.
You guys deny the negative implications of "choice" in every
specific instance, as far as I can see, which amounts to the same
thing.
You're a fsckwit, so what you claim what we've said "amounts to"
means nothing.
Some things are obvious and don't need stating or "admitting-to". We
all understand that there's "some advantages" to concentrating
efforts the way a company can.
Yesterday in the "multiple distributions are a good thing" thread in
COLA, JEDIDIAH seemed to want a specific example of how Linux desktop
fragmentation hurts UI. I gave him one.

In <znu-***@news.individual.net> I pointed out that
when one adds an item to the sidebar in the open/save dialog in a GNOME
app, that item shows up in the sidebar in open/save dialogs in other
GNOME apps, but not in the sidebar in open/save dialogs in KDE apps.
(And vice versa.)

You would think, from what you say above, I'd get responses something
like "Fair point. That's dumb behavior, and the GNOME and KDE guys
should work together to fix it".

But no.

So far, I've gotten a response that paraphrases as "That doesn't matter
and you're a troll and an idiot for mentioning it" (with an added
implication that I'm the same person as Snit), another response which
paraphrases as "Only an idiot would want things to work the way you say
they should" (despite the fact that the way I say this should work
obviously agrees with the intent of the GNOME and KDE developers), and
finally a response which claims this issue doesn't matter because "Most
people don't use apps that way". (Funny, I didn't think this prominent
feature of the GNOME and KDE file browsing UI was all that obscure.)

References: <***@kubuntu-intrepid64.org>,
<499bb72c$0$31880$***@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>,
<***@nomad.mishnet>

This was an almost flawless test case for whether COLA advocates are
willing to admit, in specific instances, to the costs associated with
Linux desktop fragmentation. At present, we've got three failures.
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
-- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
Snit
2009-02-18 19:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
You're a fsckwit, so what you claim what we've said "amounts to"
means nothing.
Some things are obvious and don't need stating or "admitting-to". We
all understand that there's "some advantages" to concentrating
efforts the way a company can.
Yesterday in the "multiple distributions are a good thing" thread in
COLA, JEDIDIAH seemed to want a specific example of how Linux desktop
fragmentation hurts UI. I gave him one.
when one adds an item to the sidebar in the open/save dialog in a GNOME
app, that item shows up in the sidebar in open/save dialogs in other
GNOME apps, but not in the sidebar in open/save dialogs in KDE apps.
(And vice versa.)
You would think, from what you say above, I'd get responses something
like "Fair point. That's dumb behavior, and the GNOME and KDE guys
should work together to fix it".
But no.
So far, I've gotten a response that paraphrases as "That doesn't matter
and you're a troll and an idiot for mentioning it" (with an added
implication that I'm the same person as Snit),
Well, anyone who makes sense is generally claimed to be me by *someone*.
Post by ZnU
another response which paraphrases as "Only an idiot would want things to work
the way you say they should" (despite the fact that the way I say this should
work obviously agrees with the intent of the GNOME and KDE developers), and
finally a response which claims this issue doesn't matter because "Most people
don't use apps that way". (Funny, I didn't think this prominent feature of the
GNOME and KDE file browsing UI was all that obscure.)
I saw that: the claim was, as it often is, that it was your fault because
you did not make a good choice of apps... so it is clear people understand
that using the apps that are not designed to work well together is a poor
choice... and since *no* distro does anything but mix and match, then no
disto does things well.
Post by ZnU
This was an almost flawless test case for whether COLA advocates are
willing to admit, in specific instances, to the costs associated with
Linux desktop fragmentation. At present, we've got three failures.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
2009-02-18 20:02:12 UTC
Permalink
(snipped, unread)
Fsck off, you stupid troll.
ZnU
2009-02-18 20:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
(snipped, unread)
Fsck off, you stupid troll.
You must have read it, or you wouldn't be so pissed off.
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
-- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
chrisv
2009-02-18 20:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
(snipped, unread)
Fsck off, you stupid troll.
You must have read it,
Nope. A quick glimpse identified it as trolling gibberish. Plus, I
have already made my point, and there is no disputing it, so further
"debate" is unnecessary.
Post by ZnU
or you wouldn't be so pissed off.
I get pissed-off when lying idiots, like you, call me an idiot. You
did this here: <znu-***@news.individual.net>
ZnU
2009-02-18 21:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
(snipped, unread)
Fsck off, you stupid troll.
You must have read it,
Nope. A quick glimpse identified it as trolling gibberish. Plus, I
have already made my point, and there is no disputing it, so further
"debate" is unnecessary.
Except your point, such as it was, has been completely undermined.
Post by chrisv
Post by ZnU
or you wouldn't be so pissed off.
I get pissed-off when lying idiots, like you, call me an idiot. You
That post doesn't contain the word "idiot" (or any derivative thereof)
and isn't even a direct reply to you. If you think I'm calling you an
idiot in that post, it can only be because you both identify with the
position I mentioned (that choice has no negative implications) and
consider it idiotic.
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
-- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
chrisv
2009-02-18 21:26:22 UTC
Permalink
(snipped, unread)
Fsck off, you stupid troll.
RonB
2009-02-19 03:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Nope. A quick glimpse identified it as trolling gibberish. Plus, I
have already made my point, and there is no disputing it, so further
"debate" is unnecessary.
The UI "debate" comes down to opinion. I like it better this way, so
that's the way it should be done. And, if you don't agree, it's "obvious"
that you don't understand because how could Znit's opinion be anything but
the Gospel truth. After all he "knows" what everyone *really* needs.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
ZnU
2009-02-19 03:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by RonB
Post by chrisv
Nope. A quick glimpse identified it as trolling gibberish. Plus,
I have already made my point, and there is no disputing it, so
further "debate" is unnecessary.
The UI "debate" comes down to opinion. I like it better this way, so
that's the way it should be done.
UI is much less subjective than is generally supposed, although this
often requires extensive (and expensive) user testing to demonstrate.

With the kind of issues we've mostly talked about in this thread,
however, there are, for the most part, objectively right answers that
can be determined even without the user testing.

For instance, there's nobody who actually "likes it better" that when
you add a folder to the sidebar in a Save dialog in a GNOME app, it
appears there in other GNOME apps but not in KDE apps. That's not a
behavior that exists because someone decided it was a good idea. Even
the most rabid defenders of the Linux status quo only claim that this
broken behavior doesn't matter, not that it's actually a good thing.
Post by RonB
And, if you don't agree, it's "obvious" that you don't understand
because how could Znit's opinion be anything but the Gospel truth.
After all he "knows" what everyone *really* needs.
I have advocated a system which would provide *more* flexibility and
*more* user-level choice than the current arrangement. Please stop
misrepresenting my position.
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
— that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
Tim Smith
2009-02-19 04:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
For instance, there's nobody who actually "likes it better" that when
you add a folder to the sidebar in a Save dialog in a GNOME app, it
appears there in other GNOME apps but not in KDE apps. That's not a
behavior that exists because someone decided it was a good idea. Even
the most rabid defenders of the Linux status quo only claim that this
broken behavior doesn't matter, not that it's actually a good thing.
Actually, you will probably find *someone* who likes it. Say, someone
who uses a computer for both work projects and personal projects, and
happens to use GNOME apps for all his work projects and none of his
personal projects, and uses KDE for all his personal projects and none
of his work projects. He'd then be happy that adding a work folder to
the GNOME sidebar doesn't make it show up in KDE apps.
--
--Tim Smith
Snit
2009-02-19 04:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Tim Smith stated in post
Post by Tim Smith
Post by ZnU
For instance, there's nobody who actually "likes it better" that when
you add a folder to the sidebar in a Save dialog in a GNOME app, it
appears there in other GNOME apps but not in KDE apps. That's not a
behavior that exists because someone decided it was a good idea. Even
the most rabid defenders of the Linux status quo only claim that this
broken behavior doesn't matter, not that it's actually a good thing.
Actually, you will probably find *someone* who likes it. Say, someone
who uses a computer for both work projects and personal projects, and
happens to use GNOME apps for all his work projects and none of his
personal projects, and uses KDE for all his personal projects and none
of his work projects. He'd then be happy that adding a work folder to
the GNOME sidebar doesn't make it show up in KDE apps.
Might be nice to have an advanced feature where you can have such sets, but
to arbitrarily tie them to what DE a program was made for is *not* based on
user productivity.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
2009-02-19 04:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Smith
Post by ZnU
For instance, there's nobody who actually "likes it better" that when
you add a folder to the sidebar in a Save dialog in a GNOME app, it
appears there in other GNOME apps but not in KDE apps. That's not a
behavior that exists because someone decided it was a good idea. Even
the most rabid defenders of the Linux status quo only claim that this
broken behavior doesn't matter, not that it's actually a good thing.
Actually, you will probably find *someone* who likes it. Say, someone
who uses a computer for both work projects and personal projects, and
happens to use GNOME apps for all his work projects and none of his
personal projects, and uses KDE for all his personal projects and none
of his work projects. He'd then be happy that adding a work folder to
the GNOME sidebar doesn't make it show up in KDE apps.
Even in this rather unlikely scenario (hardly a case anyone would
actually choose to design a system around), the guy would probably be
better served by having a unified desktop environment and just creating
separate user accounts for his work and home tasks.
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
‹ that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
Snit
2009-02-19 04:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by RonB
Post by chrisv
Nope. A quick glimpse identified it as trolling gibberish. Plus,
I have already made my point, and there is no disputing it, so
further "debate" is unnecessary.
The UI "debate" comes down to opinion. I like it better this way, so
that's the way it should be done.
UI is much less subjective than is generally supposed, although this
often requires extensive (and expensive) user testing to demonstrate.
For people who doubt this, they should read some good books on UI design.
Even something like GUI Bloopers 2, which is very approachable, should be
fine.
Post by ZnU
With the kind of issues we've mostly talked about in this thread,
however, there are, for the most part, objectively right answers that
can be determined even without the user testing.
For instance, there's nobody who actually "likes it better" that when
you add a folder to the sidebar in a Save dialog in a GNOME app, it
appears there in other GNOME apps but not in KDE apps. That's not a
behavior that exists because someone decided it was a good idea. Even
the most rabid defenders of the Linux status quo only claim that this
broken behavior doesn't matter, not that it's actually a good thing.
It is *clearly* a weakness.
Post by ZnU
Post by RonB
And, if you don't agree, it's "obvious" that you don't understand
because how could Znit's opinion be anything but the Gospel truth.
After all he "knows" what everyone *really* needs.
I have advocated a system which would provide *more* flexibility and
*more* user-level choice than the current arrangement. Please stop
misrepresenting my position.
Why do some people in COLA insist on misrepresenting the views of people who
agree with research, expert opinion, and common sense?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
2009-02-19 04:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Snit <***@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
wetpixel
2009-02-19 10:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by RonB
Post by chrisv
Nope. A quick glimpse identified it as trolling gibberish. Plus, I
have already made my point, and there is no disputing it, so further
"debate" is unnecessary.
The UI "debate" comes down to opinion. I like it better this way, so
that's the way it should be done.
Sorry, no.
There are some things that make sense because of the way the mind works
-- it's not all experiential or stylistic.
I'm not saying it's true of all UI behaviors, but there are definitely
some that are more natural -- not least because real, physical
environments are consistent.
Post by RonB
And, if you don't agree, it's "obvious"
that you don't understand because how could Znit's opinion be anything but
the Gospel truth. After all he "knows" what everyone *really* needs.
Let me illustrate a couple of psychological issues that should be
considered in a UI:

If you cross your hand in front of your body, it obscures some of your
view. This can be protective, it can be defensive, but it is not
intimate -- it isn't an <accept> or <approve> motion.

Your eyes focus on one item at a time, and your brain makes one
decision at a time; therefore, the item you are working with is the one
that should be getting your attention. Conversely, other things should
_not_ be trying to get your attention, so that it is left to work in
the one you intend.

Those may seem pretty obvious, but there are so many places even those
are violated that it makes me wonder if anyone is thinking about them.
Snit
2009-02-19 11:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
Post by RonB
Post by chrisv
Nope. A quick glimpse identified it as trolling gibberish. Plus, I
have already made my point, and there is no disputing it, so further
"debate" is unnecessary.
The UI "debate" comes down to opinion. I like it better this way, so
that's the way it should be done.
Sorry, no.
There are some things that make sense because of the way the mind works
-- it's not all experiential or stylistic.
I'm not saying it's true of all UI behaviors, but there are definitely
some that are more natural -- not least because real, physical
environments are consistent.
There is a large amount of research on this topic. Some principles are very
well established: use "user-focused" terms and not programmer terms, design
for the common case, balance power and complexity, design with color
blindness and other handicaps in mind, consistency, keep the user informed,
etc.
Post by wetpixel
Post by RonB
And, if you don't agree, it's "obvious"
that you don't understand because how could Znit's opinion be anything but
the Gospel truth. After all he "knows" what everyone *really* needs.
Let me illustrate a couple of psychological issues that should be
If you cross your hand in front of your body, it obscures some of your
view. This can be protective, it can be defensive, but it is not
intimate -- it isn't an <accept> or <approve> motion.
Your eyes focus on one item at a time, and your brain makes one
decision at a time; therefore, the item you are working with is the one
that should be getting your attention. Conversely, other things should
_not_ be trying to get your attention, so that it is left to work in
the one you intend.
Those may seem pretty obvious, but there are so many places even those
are violated that it makes me wonder if anyone is thinking about them.
You are right. My focus has generally been consistency, but that is hardly
the only principle that is important. One can have a consistently *bad* UI
for a system and that would not really be an improvement over what exists
today.

It is absurd to say that some ideal of "choice" is being achieved in
promoting bad UI. Sure, a developer should have that choice to make bad
UIs, but there should be an ecosystem that *discourages* choices that are
clearly detrimental. And, of course, to some extent there is - this is not
a black and white issue, it is a matter of degree. Overall application UIs
on Linux *have* improved... they just still have a long way to go.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-18 20:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
Post by ZnU
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will
insist only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at
all.)
Fsck off, you lying shit.
No one here claims "no negative implications" to choice. We only
claim that the positives of choice *outweigh* the negatives.
You guys deny the negative implications of "choice" in every
specific instance, as far as I can see, which amounts to the same
thing.
You're a fsckwit, so what you claim what we've said "amounts to"
means nothing.
Some things are obvious and don't need stating or "admitting-to". We
all understand that there's "some advantages" to concentrating
efforts the way a company can.
Yesterday in the "multiple distributions are a good thing" thread in
COLA, JEDIDIAH seemed to want a specific example of how Linux desktop
fragmentation hurts UI. I gave him one.
You just have a knack for irrelevancy.

[deletia]

Given the system ships with a perfectly suitable GNOME email
client, there is of course the logical problem of how does the
average "MacOS user" running Linux get from point A to point B.

We come back to the same old obvious answer: there is a unified
and standardized desktop. You just have to bother to use it.

Why would the sort of end user that you fancy yourself the
champion of install kmail? They could just as easily install pine.
--
iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. |||
/ | \
ZnU
2009-02-18 21:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
Post by ZnU
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will
insist only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at
all.)
Fsck off, you lying shit.
No one here claims "no negative implications" to choice. We
only claim that the positives of choice *outweigh* the
negatives.
You guys deny the negative implications of "choice" in every
specific instance, as far as I can see, which amounts to the same
thing.
You're a fsckwit, so what you claim what we've said "amounts to"
means nothing.
Some things are obvious and don't need stating or "admitting-to".
We all understand that there's "some advantages" to concentrating
efforts the way a company can.
Yesterday in the "multiple distributions are a good thing" thread
in COLA, JEDIDIAH seemed to want a specific example of how Linux
desktop fragmentation hurts UI. I gave him one.
You just have a knack for irrelevancy.
[deletia]
Given the system ships with a perfectly suitable GNOME email client,
there is of course the logical problem of how does the average "MacOS
user" running Linux get from point A to point B.
We come back to the same old obvious answer: there is a unified and
standardized desktop. You just have to bother to use it.
Why would the sort of end user that you fancy yourself the champion
of install kmail? They could just as easily install pine.
I used KMail because I happened to have it installed. The specific KDE
app is *completely* irrelevant to the point I was making. I have already
pointed this out to you.

It is true that one can substantially reduce the issues the Linux
desktop has with consistency and integration by exclusively using
applications designed for one desktop environment or the other. I have
acknowledged this many, many times. But this substantially restricts
your application choices.
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
‹ that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-18 21:33:14 UTC
Permalink
[deletia]
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Yesterday in the "multiple distributions are a good thing" thread
in COLA, JEDIDIAH seemed to want a specific example of how Linux
desktop fragmentation hurts UI. I gave him one.
You just have a knack for irrelevancy.
[deletia]
Given the system ships with a perfectly suitable GNOME email client,
there is of course the logical problem of how does the average "MacOS
user" running Linux get from point A to point B.
We come back to the same old obvious answer: there is a unified and
standardized desktop. You just have to bother to use it.
Why would the sort of end user that you fancy yourself the champion
of install kmail? They could just as easily install pine.
I used KMail because I happened to have it installed. The specific KDE
No, you went out of your way to install it despite having a mail
client installed already. You went out of your way to "stray off the
reservation" as it were. You could easily do the same on a Mac.

So you're basically arguing that having an alternative available
is bad. If I could run MacOS apps under Linux, you would have to find
that situation objectionable too.

As it is, all you can come up with is UIS bookmarks.
--
This is a consumer product. |||
World domination simply isn't necessary. / | \
Snit
2009-02-18 22:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Given the system ships with a perfectly suitable GNOME email client,
there is of course the logical problem of how does the average "MacOS
user" running Linux get from point A to point B.
We come back to the same old obvious answer: there is a unified and
standardized desktop. You just have to bother to use it.
Why would the sort of end user that you fancy yourself the champion
of install kmail? They could just as easily install pine.
I used KMail because I happened to have it installed. The specific KDE
No, you went out of your way to install it despite having a mail
client installed already. You went out of your way to "stray off the
reservation" as it were. You could easily do the same on a Mac.
On a Mac, since you bring it up, programs are built to be consistent. Look
at Firefox and OpenOffice, for example. From the OpenOffice site:
-----
Because OpenOffice.org is one piece of software, everything
works consistently between applications.
-----
With Version 3.0, OpenOffice.org is now able to run on Mac OS
X without the need for X11. Thus, OpenOffice.org behaves like
any other Aqua application.
-----

And from the Firefox site:
-----
Platform-Native Look & Feel
The new Firefox looks and feels like home. Think of it as a
Firefox who¹s really good at making friends. Whether you use
Windows Vista, Windows XP, Mac or Linux, the browser
seamlessly integrates into your computer¹s environment. A
native look makes for a flawless interface that never gives
you pause.
-----

The developers of both products get this... what is so complex about it?
Post by JEDIDIAH
So you're basically arguing that having an alternative available
is bad.
No. He is not. It is fine if you disagree, but try to show some
understanding of what you are disagreeing with.
Post by JEDIDIAH
If I could run MacOS apps under Linux, you would have to find
that situation objectionable too.
As it is, all you can come up with is UIS bookmarks.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
2009-02-18 22:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
[deletia]
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Yesterday in the "multiple distributions are a good thing"
thread in COLA, JEDIDIAH seemed to want a specific example of
how Linux desktop fragmentation hurts UI. I gave him one.
You just have a knack for irrelevancy.
[deletia]
Given the system ships with a perfectly suitable GNOME email
client, there is of course the logical problem of how does the
average "MacOS user" running Linux get from point A to point B.
We come back to the same old obvious answer: there is a unified
and standardized desktop. You just have to bother to use it.
Why would the sort of end user that you fancy yourself the
champion of install kmail? They could just as easily install pine.
I used KMail because I happened to have it installed. The specific KDE
No, you went out of your way to install it despite having a mail
client installed already.
I had KMail installed already because of the discussion a few
days back about contact data. Someone mentioned the list of formats
KMail could import and export and I wanted to poke around. I needed a
KDE app for the example I gave in this thread -- any KDE app that could
display an open or save dialog -- so I used that. I noted at the time
that this wasn't specific to KMail and any KDE app could be used.

You can't possibly be having trouble understanding any of this, since
it's all extremely simple, so it's hard to avoid the conclusion you're
just using it to deliberately distract from the actual issue.
Post by JEDIDIAH
You went out of your way to "stray off the reservation" as it were.
You could easily do the same on a Mac.
It's true that I could install a GTK app on OS X and introduce the same
type of consistency problems. The difference is that this is very rarely
done and most Mac users would find it to be a less than ideal situation,
while mixing KDE and GNOME apps on the same desktop is routine in the
Linux world and many COLA advocates seem to think that's a perfectly
acceptable situation and anyone who points out the consistency problems
is a troll and an idiot.

[snip]
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
‹ that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
Snit
2009-02-18 22:28:01 UTC
Permalink
ZnU stated in post znu-***@news.individual.net on 2/18/09
3:13 PM:

...
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
We come back to the same old obvious answer: there is a unified
and standardized desktop. You just have to bother to use it.
Why would the sort of end user that you fancy yourself the
champion of install kmail? They could just as easily install pine.
I used KMail because I happened to have it installed. The specific KDE
No, you went out of your way to install it despite having a mail
client installed already.
I had KMail installed already because of the discussion a few
days back about contact data. Someone mentioned the list of formats
KMail could import and export and I wanted to poke around. I needed a
KDE app for the example I gave in this thread -- any KDE app that could
display an open or save dialog -- so I used that. I noted at the time
that this wasn't specific to KMail and any KDE app could be used.
You can't possibly be having trouble understanding any of this, since
it's all extremely simple, so it's hard to avoid the conclusion you're
just using it to deliberately distract from the actual issue.
The user is blamed if they do not mix apps from different DEs.
The user is blamed if they do mix apps from different DEs.

In either case the user made a choice, and it was clearly the wrong one.

Absurd.
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
You went out of your way to "stray off the reservation" as it were.
You could easily do the same on a Mac.
It's true that I could install a GTK app on OS X and introduce the same
type of consistency problems. The difference is that this is very rarely
done and most Mac users would find it to be a less than ideal situation,
while mixing KDE and GNOME apps on the same desktop is routine in the
Linux world and many COLA advocates seem to think that's a perfectly
acceptable situation and anyone who points out the consistency problems
is a troll and an idiot.
On OS X you can go out of your way and make an inconsistent environment.
And sometimes this is a good thing: heck, I run other OSs in virtualization
- clearly that adds inconsistencies. But most users have no such need...
and never do it.

On Linux, as you note, it is the norm to have mixed and inconsistent
environments... and it is clearly a problem.

JEDIDIAH
-----
No, you went out of your way to install it despite having a
mail client installed already. You went out of your way to
"stray off the reservation" as it were.
-----

Peter Köhlmann:
-----
Why would a user install apps from different DEs if he does
not need to?
-----

They both have shown they know it is detrimental... why else discourage the
practice or chastise those who do it?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2009-02-18 22:15:50 UTC
Permalink
JEDIDIAH stated in post ***@nomad.mishnet on 2/18/09 2:33
PM:

...
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Why would the sort of end user that you fancy yourself the champion
of install kmail? They could just as easily install pine.
I used KMail because I happened to have it installed. The specific KDE
No, you went out of your way to install it despite having a mail
client installed already. You went out of your way to "stray off the
reservation" as it were. You could easily do the same on a Mac.
So you're basically arguing that having an alternative available
is bad. If I could run MacOS apps under Linux, you would have to find
that situation objectionable too.
As it is, all you can come up with is UIS bookmarks.
You keep saying this same thing over and over.

But at least you are making it clear you know mixing programs made for
different DEs is bad.

And every desktop distro does so. So now you understand the problem with
desktop Linux. Excellent!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
William Poaster
2009-02-19 11:15:39 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:33:14 -0600, above the shrieking & whining of the
Post by JEDIDIAH
[deletia]
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Yesterday in the "multiple distributions are a good thing" thread in
COLA, JEDIDIAH seemed to want a specific example of how Linux desktop
fragmentation hurts UI. I gave him one.
You just have a knack for irrelevancy.
So now the troll brings this up again, in another thread? It must be
smarting because no one took any notice of its idiocy.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
[deletia]
Given the system ships with a perfectly suitable GNOME email client,
there is of course the logical problem of how does the average "MacOS
user" running Linux get from point A to point B.
We come back to the same old obvious answer: there is a unified and
standardized desktop. You just have to bother to use it.
Why would the sort of end user that you fancy yourself the champion of
install kmail? They could just as easily install pine.
I used KMail because I happened to have it installed. The specific KDE
No, you went out of your way to install it despite having a mail
client installed already. You went out of your way to "stray off the
reservation" as it were. You could easily do the same on a Mac.
Yes, if he was using Ubuntu he would have had to *deliberately* install a
KDE application.
Post by JEDIDIAH
So you're basically arguing that having an alternative available
is bad. If I could run MacOS apps under Linux, you would have to find that
situation objectionable too.
As it is, all you can come up with is UIS bookmarks.
Snit
2009-02-19 11:32:02 UTC
Permalink
William Poaster stated in post
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
I used KMail because I happened to have it installed. The specific KDE
No, you went out of your way to install it despite having a mail
client installed already. You went out of your way to "stray off the
reservation" as it were. You could easily do the same on a Mac.
Yes, if he was using Ubuntu he would have had to *deliberately* install a
KDE application.
Do you think this is an unwise thing to do? Something that is problematic?
If so, why have so many KDE programs in the standard repository?

And let us *not* pretend that Ubuntu has default programs that are all
consistent now... that is simply not the case. Even with a brief look I can
see the Quit/Exit terminology is not consistent.

I will say, though, that Ubuntu is the *best* distro I have seen in terms of
consistency... Mark Shuttleworth gets usability issues. He will do a lot of
good for desktop Linux in general.
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
So you're basically arguing that having an alternative available
is bad. If I could run MacOS apps under Linux, you would have to find that
situation objectionable too.
As it is, all you can come up with is UIS bookmarks.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Peter Köhlmann
2009-02-18 21:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
Post by ZnU
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will
insist only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at
all.)
Fsck off, you lying shit.
No one here claims "no negative implications" to choice. We
only claim that the positives of choice *outweigh* the
negatives.
You guys deny the negative implications of "choice" in every
specific instance, as far as I can see, which amounts to the same
thing.
You're a fsckwit, so what you claim what we've said "amounts to"
means nothing.
Some things are obvious and don't need stating or "admitting-to".
We all understand that there's "some advantages" to concentrating
efforts the way a company can.
Yesterday in the "multiple distributions are a good thing" thread
in COLA, JEDIDIAH seemed to want a specific example of how Linux
desktop fragmentation hurts UI. I gave him one.
You just have a knack for irrelevancy.
[deletia]
Given the system ships with a perfectly suitable GNOME email client,
there is of course the logical problem of how does the average "MacOS
user" running Linux get from point A to point B.
We come back to the same old obvious answer: there is a unified and
standardized desktop. You just have to bother to use it.
Why would the sort of end user that you fancy yourself the champion
of install kmail? They could just as easily install pine.
I used KMail because I happened to have it installed. The specific KDE
app is *completely* irrelevant to the point I was making. I have already
pointed this out to you.
Actually, you are wrong, as usual
Why would a user install apps from different DEs if he does not need to?
I run a KDE4 system, for example.
It is quite loaded with development tools, multimedia tools etc etc etc

Yet there are only three Gnome apps installed, which additionally are used
very rarely. Face it, even if your local troll Michael Glasser tells you
different: A KDE user usually has no need of Gnome apps. Likewise has a
Gnome user usually no need of KDE apps. The few overlaps are usually out
of user preference, not need

So tell me why I would need such a feature across DEs, when I could just
as well set up those apps separately (which would be needed in all cases
anyway, being the special tools they are).
Even the KDE apps are not set up with additions to the side bar shared
universally. Very few additions are like that. Most apps have their own
setup for the sidebar. There simply is no point in having Mail-folders in
the sidebar of KDevelop. On the other hand, having the develop-directory
structure in emails sidebar is simply sqandering space like Snot Glasser
squandering his wifes hard earned money. For no good reason

Your "example" served only as a reminder how things should *not* be done
--
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-18 20:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested
in.
...silly me. I thought it was a phone.
[deletia]
What will more likely "doom" a non-MacOS phone are things like
lack of marketing and on dedicated storefronts and no pre-built
"buzz" surrouding any associated brand names.
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will insist
only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at all.)
The only thing that causes genuine fragmentation is proprietary
barriers. In this regard, it is Apple that is driving fragmentation.

This forum is proof enough that you don't have to engage in
artificial exclusion in order to enable interoperability. Even
the normal "DOS" PC market allows for more diversity than Apple
will countenance.
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Apple has been a marketing company for over 20 years.
--
It's great to run an OS where you have to search Google |||
to find problems rather than experiencing them yourself. / | \
chrisv
2009-02-18 20:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will insist
only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at all.)
The only thing that causes genuine fragmentation is proprietary
barriers. In this regard, it is Apple that is driving fragmentation.
This forum is proof enough that you don't have to engage in
artificial exclusion in order to enable interoperability.
Good point. Choice in tools does not imply a lack of interoperability
- i.e. *standard* data formats and communications protocols. Quite
the opposite, in fact.
ZnU
2009-02-18 21:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will insist
only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at all.)
The only thing that causes genuine fragmentation is proprietary
barriers. In this regard, it is Apple that is driving fragmentation.
This forum is proof enough that you don't have to engage in
artificial exclusion in order to enable interoperability.
Good point. Choice in tools does not imply a lack of interoperability
- i.e. *standard* data formats and communications protocols. Quite
the opposite, in fact.
If only you understood that "standard desktop GUI toolkits" belonged in
that list, we'd be making progress.
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
-- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-18 21:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will insist
only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at all.)
The only thing that causes genuine fragmentation is proprietary
barriers. In this regard, it is Apple that is driving fragmentation.
This forum is proof enough that you don't have to engage in
artificial exclusion in order to enable interoperability.
Good point. Choice in tools does not imply a lack of interoperability
- i.e. *standard* data formats and communications protocols. Quite
the opposite, in fact.
If only you understood that "standard desktop GUI toolkits" belonged in
that list, we'd be making progress.
They interoperate just fine.

What you are complaining about is the fact that there is more than
one of something. That's not standardization. That's imposing conformity.

It's like complaining that Opera and Firefox don't look the same
despite the fact that the support the same underlying protocols.
--
This is a consumer product. |||
World domination simply isn't necessary. / | \
Snit
2009-02-18 22:01:20 UTC
Permalink
JEDIDIAH stated in post ***@nomad.mishnet on 2/18/09 2:35
PM:

...
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
Good point. Choice in tools does not imply a lack of interoperability
- i.e. *standard* data formats and communications protocols. Quite
the opposite, in fact.
If only you understood that "standard desktop GUI toolkits" belonged in
that list, we'd be making progress.
They interoperate just fine.
Then why do people like Peter Köhlmann say things like:

Why would a user install apps from different DEs if he
does not need to?

Finally, after years of debates, Peter understands that they do not
"interoperate" very well... though he admits that even he has "three Gnome
apps" installed on his KDE system... clearly he feels he needs to.
Post by JEDIDIAH
What you are complaining about is the fact that there is more than
one of something. That's not standardization. That's imposing conformity.
In general:
* stairs are built to be consistent, each step the same rise and run.
* faucets are built to be consistent, cold on the right; hot on the left.
* stop signs are consistent, always an octagon and not a triangle
* phones are consistent, numbers in the same order
* keyboard are consistent, keys in the same places
* books are consistent, each chapter having the same font and margins

On and on. Oh, sure, there are *user* based reasons where these things
differ and even regional differences, but if you look at any given house or
even set of houses you will find amazing consistency.

This has *nothing* to do with suppressing diversity, limiting choices or any
form of "imposing conformity" for any reason *other* than standardization
and the benefits it offers. Heck, if someone *wants* to have half the
faucets in their house have cold on the "wrong" side and then wants to
publish a book where every 7 words the font changes for no reason, by all
means they can. No conformity is "imposed"... but people do not do that,
not by and large anyway. Why? Well, it is *obvious*. They want ease of
use. They want predictability. They want an attractive look.

They want... consistency.

The UI on a computer is in the same class. Sure, with each of the things I
list, above, you can look at different details, but in each case consistency
is *good*. It is the norm. It is *helps* people to be *more* productive or
to get more enjoyment. Do you think people are too stupid to figure out C
is for cold? Of course not... but that cold faucet is *still* on the right.

The straw men of reducing choice (which you use, above) or people not being
able to use inconsistent UIs (another common line of BS in COLA) are
overdone and absurd. Those that push these claims over and over and over
show no sign of even basic understanding. No understanding of what is,
really, easy. And it has *nothing* to do with limiting choice or, as you
say, "imposing conformity". *Nothing* to do with people being unable to use
"more than one of something", such as dialogs that are different.

Now, if Linux does mature to the point where desktop distros can have
internal consistency, you will *increase* efficiency, *boost* comfort
levels, *reduce* errors, etc. Research shows this; expert opinion agrees;
many OSS projects have documentation that support this idea. And, really,
it is common sense.

If you have consistency and flexibility you also give *more* choices. You,
the user, want to have your print dialogs have a small print preview...
excellent... you can. Someone else wants an easy way to convert any printed
document to a PDF and have it emailed - no problem. Select the Print dialog
you want for the *system* and you have made a choice that effects your whole
experience. You, the user, want to be able to have search capabilities in
your File Open dialogs... excellent... just pick one with that feature. You
want your file dialogs to have icon, list, detail, and column views...
excellent, you can do that to. Instead you want a bare-bones Open dialog...
OK, you can have that instead. No problem. And, of course, you should be
able to over-ride the system norms for any program you want... if for some
reason you want that.

More choice than you have on Linux now. Far more choice.

More choice. More flexibility. More control for the user.

Not a thing taken away. Not one thing.

Whew... now can we put the contrary myths to rest. Finally? Please?
Post by JEDIDIAH
It's like complaining that Opera and Firefox don't look the same
despite the fact that the support the same underlying protocols.
Nope. Not at all. Seriously, where did you come up with that?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
2009-02-18 22:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will
insist only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at
all.)
The only thing that causes genuine fragmentation is
proprietary
barriers. In this regard, it is Apple that is driving
fragmentation.
This forum is proof enough that you don't have to engage in
artificial exclusion in order to enable interoperability.
Good point. Choice in tools does not imply a lack of
interoperability - i.e. *standard* data formats and communications
protocols. Quite the opposite, in fact.
If only you understood that "standard desktop GUI toolkits"
belonged in that list, we'd be making progress.
They interoperate just fine.
Except for the example I've been discussing with the open/save dialog
sidebars. Which is far from being an isolated case.

Or that fact that after installing a KDE app in Ubuntu, I have two
unrelated control panels for configuring UI options, one included with
the system (for GNOME/GTK) and the other for Qt.
Post by JEDIDIAH
What you are complaining about is the fact that there is more than
one of something. That's not standardization. That's imposing
conformity.
What I'm complaining about is the fact that there's more than one of
something when standardizing a single choice would increase
interoperability and have virtually no costs.
Post by JEDIDIAH
It's like complaining that Opera and Firefox don't look the same
despite the fact that the support the same underlying protocols.
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
‹ that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
Snit
2009-02-18 22:09:00 UTC
Permalink
ZnU stated in post znu-***@news.individual.net on 2/18/09
3:01 PM:

...
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
Good point. Choice in tools does not imply a lack of
interoperability - i.e. *standard* data formats and communications
protocols. Quite the opposite, in fact.
If only you understood that "standard desktop GUI toolkits"
belonged in that list, we'd be making progress.
They interoperate just fine.
Except for the example I've been discussing with the open/save dialog
sidebars. Which is far from being an isolated case.
Or that fact that after installing a KDE app in Ubuntu, I have two
unrelated control panels for configuring UI options, one included with
the system (for GNOME/GTK) and the other for Qt.
In other words: you have a system that does not work well as a whole.
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
What you are complaining about is the fact that there is more than
one of something. That's not standardization. That's imposing
conformity.
What I'm complaining about is the fact that there's more than one of
something when standardizing a single choice would increase
interoperability and have virtually no costs.
He is trying to twist your words. Fine if he disagrees... but he is simply
making stuff up.
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
It's like complaining that Opera and Firefox don't look the same
despite the fact that the support the same underlying protocols.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
wetpixel
2009-02-19 05:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by chrisv
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will insist
only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at all.)
The only thing that causes genuine fragmentation is proprietary
barriers. In this regard, it is Apple that is driving fragmentation.
This forum is proof enough that you don't have to engage in
artificial exclusion in order to enable interoperability.
Good point. Choice in tools does not imply a lack of interoperability
- i.e. *standard* data formats and communications protocols. Quite
the opposite, in fact.
If only you understood that "standard desktop GUI toolkits" belonged in
that list, we'd be making progress.
They interoperate just fine.
What you are complaining about is the fact that there is more than
one of something. That's not standardization. That's imposing conformity.
It's like complaining that Opera and Firefox don't look the same
despite the fact that the support the same underlying protocols.
Okay, let's try this:

Do you understand that there _is_ a fundamental set of HI principles?
Do you understand that those can be used in a standard set of tools?
(That's not to say all behaviors are considered and included, just that
there is a set which is most easy to use, obvious, and natural.)

If you accept both of those, then mere variation is not a benefit --
it's a hindrance that the other publishers aren't yet understanding.

That's why Microsoft keeps making UI changes -- they don't understand
that there is psychology and a real HI issue behind every function. If
you ignore that, menus can fit anywhere, buttons and toggles can go
anyplace -- but they will never be natural or seem obvious.
ZnU
2009-02-18 20:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?m
co=MTE2N TQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter
Linux desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are
interested in.
...silly me. I thought it was a phone.
[deletia]
What will more likely "doom" a non-MacOS phone are things like
lack of marketing and on dedicated storefronts and no pre-built
"buzz" surrouding any associated brand names.
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will
insist only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at
all.)
The only thing that causes genuine fragmentation is proprietary
barriers. In this regard, it is Apple that is driving fragmentation.
As things stand now, the Linux smart phone market doesn't appear to be
coalescing around anything that could be identified as a common
platform. Rather, Linux is simply being used as a starting point for
platforms that aren't mutually compatible with each other. For instance,
palm webOS and Android aren't the same platform in any useful sense as
far as users are concerned. They're barely even the same platform in any
useful sense as far as developers are concerned.
Post by JEDIDIAH
This forum is proof enough that you don't have to engage in
artificial exclusion in order to enable interoperability. Even the
normal "DOS" PC market allows for more diversity than Apple will
countenance.
I have no idea what this means.
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
‹ that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
ZnU
2009-02-19 04:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?m
co=MTE2N TQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter
Linux desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are
interested in.
...silly me. I thought it was a phone.
[deletia]
What will more likely "doom" a non-MacOS phone are things like
lack of marketing and on dedicated storefronts and no pre-built
"buzz" surrouding any associated brand names.
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will
insist only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at
all.)
The only thing that causes genuine fragmentation is proprietary
barriers. In this regard, it is Apple that is driving fragmentation.
As things stand now, the Linux smart phone market doesn't appear to be
coalescing around anything that could be identified as a common
platform. Rather, Linux is simply being used as a starting point for
platforms that aren't mutually compatible with each other. For instance,
palm webOS and Android aren't the same platform in any useful sense as
far as users are concerned. They're barely even the same platform in any
useful sense as far as developers are concerned.
And I should add that to the extent that they are similar from a
developer perspective, it's mostly a result of the fact that they both
adopt web standards, not a result of the fact that they're both
Linux-based.

[snip]
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
‹ that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
wetpixel
2009-02-19 05:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
And a highly fragmented market. (Which of course you guys will insist
only offer "choice" and has no negative implications at all.)
The only thing that causes genuine fragmentation is proprietary
barriers. In this regard, it is Apple that is driving fragmentation.
Not really; you have to have coherency before you can apply that
concept.
Linux doesn't have any coherency. There is no primary Linux product,
appearance, configuration, or package. Until there is, Linux isn't even
playing in the sandbox that you would apply the above maxim to.

Yes, Apple drives fragmentation -- of the mainstream market, which is
divided into two major portions (Windows and Mac OS). Microsoft also
drives fragmentation, but pretends it doesn't exist, in making their
Windows packages so different every release.

Linux isn't mainstream, so it can't contribute to fragmentation at all.
It's just noise on the playing field.
Post by JEDIDIAH
This forum is proof enough that you don't have to engage in
artificial exclusion in order to enable interoperability.
That assumes you had to 'enable interoperability' -- that it wasn't
something every engineer already had considered and worked toward
through the industry.
Engineers know there have to be standards, and I would suggest everyone
knows why they are important. Let's not pretend something is being
added, let alone that it's being added by Linux users.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Even
the normal "DOS" PC market allows for more diversity than Apple
will countenance.
That doesn't make any sense, so I'll figure you're just trying to be
contrary again. Apple isn't against diversity, but they do have a
philosophy about their products.
Maybe you're having trouble with the idea of a corporation actually
having principles?
William Poaster
2009-02-18 18:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested
in.
...silly me. I thought it was a phone.
I find it ironic that the troll says "Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE,
not geeks and freaks, are interested in." whilst advocating an all-singing
all-dancing, what-button-shall-I-press-next-to-see-what-it-does gizmo.

Personally, for a phone all *I* want is something to call someone on, &
*not* an "Internet in your pocket with widescreen balh, blah, blah"
gadget. I'm singularly unimpressed.
Post by JEDIDIAH
[deletia]
What will more likely "doom" a non-MacOS phone are things like lack of
marketing and on dedicated storefronts and no pre-built "buzz" surrouding
any associated brand names.
Apple has been a marketing company for over 20 years.
ZnU
2009-02-18 20:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested
in.
...silly me. I thought it was a phone.
I find it ironic that the troll says "Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE,
not geeks and freaks, are interested in." whilst advocating an all-singing
all-dancing, what-button-shall-I-press-next-to-see-what-it-does gizmo.
Personally, for a phone all *I* want is something to call someone on, &
*not* an "Internet in your pocket with widescreen balh, blah, blah"
gadget. I'm singularly unimpressed.
Yeah, I guess we'll just see how plausible the notion that regular
people don't want smart phones looks in five or ten years.

Personally, I'm betting it's a "640K ought to be enough for anyone" sort
of statement.

[snip]
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
‹ that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-18 20:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested
in.
...silly me. I thought it was a phone.
I find it ironic that the troll says "Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE,
not geeks and freaks, are interested in." whilst advocating an all-singing
all-dancing, what-button-shall-I-press-next-to-see-what-it-does gizmo.
Personally, for a phone all *I* want is something to call someone on, &
*not* an "Internet in your pocket with widescreen balh, blah, blah"
gadget. I'm singularly unimpressed.
Yeah, I guess we'll just see how plausible the notion that regular
people don't want smart phones looks in five or ten years.
In 5 or 10 years the technology will be remarkably better. Internet
access might be of reasonable cost to the point where you don't have to
fret about HTML vs non-HTML messages in mail and newsgroups.

Although the puny form factor will always likely pose somewhat of a
problem. They already have aftermarket products to deal with the usability
aspect of a bare iphone for certain applications.

[deletia]
--
iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. |||
/ | \
ZnU
2009-02-18 21:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?
mco=MTE2 NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter
Linux desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are
interested in.
...silly me. I thought it was a phone.
I find it ironic that the troll says "Applications people, NORMAL
PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested in." whilst
advocating an all-singing all-dancing,
what-button-shall-I-press-next-to-see-what-it-does gizmo.
Personally, for a phone all *I* want is something to call someone
on, & *not* an "Internet in your pocket with widescreen balh,
blah, blah" gadget. I'm singularly unimpressed.
Yeah, I guess we'll just see how plausible the notion that regular
people don't want smart phones looks in five or ten years.
In 5 or 10 years the technology will be remarkably better. Internet
access might be of reasonable cost to the point where you don't have
to fret about HTML vs non-HTML messages in mail and newsgroups.
Um... do you live somewhere where this isn't already true today?
Post by JEDIDIAH
Although the puny form factor will always likely pose somewhat of a
problem. They already have aftermarket products to deal with the
usability aspect of a bare iphone for certain applications.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see smart phones that can dock to full
sized screens and input devices (and possibly out-board processing
resources) eventually emerge as most people's primary personal computing
devices.
--
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
‹ that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]" -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-18 20:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested
in.
...silly me. I thought it was a phone.
I find it ironic that the troll says "Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE,
not geeks and freaks, are interested in." whilst advocating an all-singing
all-dancing, what-button-shall-I-press-next-to-see-what-it-does gizmo.
Personally, for a phone all *I* want is something to call someone on, &
*not* an "Internet in your pocket with widescreen balh, blah, blah"
gadget. I'm singularly unimpressed.
Phone companies need to get back to basics: make a good phone.

Then get to the "all singing, all dancing, crap of the world".

[deletia]

This is a prime example of pushing flimflam first and real features
and robustness only as an afterthought.
--
It's great to run an OS where you have to search Google |||
to find problems rather than experiencing them yourself. / | \
William Poaster
2009-02-18 23:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are
interested in.
...silly me. I thought it was a phone.
I find it ironic that the troll says "Applications people, NORMAL
PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested in." whilst advocating an
all-singing all-dancing,
what-button-shall-I-press-next-to-see-what-it-does gizmo.
Personally, for a phone all *I* want is something to call someone on, &
*not* an "Internet in your pocket with widescreen balh, blah, blah"
gadget. I'm singularly unimpressed.
Phone companies need to get back to basics: make a good phone.
Then get to the "all singing, all dancing, crap of the world".
[deletia]
This is a prime example of pushing flimflam first and real features
and robustness only as an afterthought.
Absolutely.
wetpixel
2009-02-19 05:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Poaster
I find it ironic that the troll says "Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE,
not geeks and freaks, are interested in." whilst advocating an all-singing
all-dancing, what-button-shall-I-press-next-to-see-what-it-does gizmo.
Personally, for a phone all *I* want is something to call someone on, &
*not* an "Internet in your pocket with widescreen balh, blah, blah"
gadget. I'm singularly unimpressed.
You're not alone, but you seriously miscategorize iPhone.
It isn't about being that kind of does-it-all gadget (in fact, that's
one of the things those buyers whined about the most -- it doesn't do
it all, and many assumed it had to).

But consider what it does do, primarily -- pictures, music, phone,
internet. Those are pretty high-demand areas for a personal device.
Even if you leave out internet access, pictures and music are pretty
desirable.
wetpixel
2009-02-19 05:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested
in.
...silly me. I thought it was a phone.
[deletia]
What will more likely "doom" a non-MacOS phone are things like
lack of marketing and on dedicated storefronts and no pre-built
"buzz" surrouding any associated brand names.
Apple has been a marketing company for over 20 years.
If you're suggesting most of their efforts have been about marketing
weak products, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

(A marketing company is a company that makes products more visible to
the public, for other companies. Since Apple is in no way any of that,
I'm already giving your statement more consideration than it deserves.)

Now, intelligent people know that marketing alone doesn't sustain a
product -- it has to actually have something significant going for it.
For instance, Windows Vista has much too little going for it -- despite
huge marketing efforts and a lot of pretty but unimportant changes,
people are not satisfied nor impressed enough to keep it alive alone.
That's amazing, because the general assumption was that the market
share issue was enough to keep even bad products viable, and bring in
huge loads of cash (which Vista did just fine).
William R. Cousert
2009-02-18 21:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested
in.
The iPhone now has over 15,000 applications.
So whatever happened to that Linux based OpenMoko?
You know, the phone that couldn't reliably make phone calls.
The iPhone "killer" ?
Where is it?
Bwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
Linux comes up short once again.
One reason why it won't - for now.

It's only available for AT&T.

Verizon has a better network.
wetpixel
2009-02-19 05:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by William R. Cousert
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
Applications.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested
in.
The iPhone now has over 15,000 applications.
So whatever happened to that Linux based OpenMoko?
You know, the phone that couldn't reliably make phone calls.
The iPhone "killer" ?
Where is it?
Linux comes up short once again.
One reason why it won't - for now.
It's only available for AT&T.
Verizon has a better network.
Quantify that:
For whom? Where?
How much better? So much that being on AT&T (no slouches, there!) can
never be good enough to succeed?

Keep in mind that no one upsets the cart for a few percentage points of
improvement -- if you're claiming anything less than maybe 20-40%
'better' in some way, it's moot.
If you're talking about less than 5%, I can't guess why you wrote it at
all. Do you remember lots of people making big changes in an industry
for so small a difference?
(Ignoring the Kyoto Accords for now on that last point.)
Rex Ballard
2009-02-19 00:18:06 UTC
Permalink
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=M...
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
Applications.
Almost, but not quite.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested
in.
It's really about SERVICE.

If you and your family and all the people you call during peak hours
are on Verizon or Sprint, then the iPhone, which is only available on
AT&T, is probably not a viable option.

Especially if you just renewed a 2 year contract and have to pay $150
to get out.
The iPhone now has over 15,000 applications.
That's a big plus. How many of those are Java applications that run
on any phone?

I'll have to admit, I scuttled my WinCE smart-phone, which I really
didn't like that much anyway, for an LG Env because it had VZ
Navigator. Not only did I get a cell phone, I also got GPS, best
routing, good shortcuts, and fast service.

I was also fed up with WinCE being useless as a Cellular modem. I
eventually got a separate USB Cellular modem, which works on Windows,
Linux, Mac, and subNotebooks - and gives me 200 Kb/second - which I
can get while traveling on a train for 90 minutes each way every day.
I can also get it at a restaurant that doesn't have WiFi, or charges
$9/hour for it.

Keep in mind that the Cellular Modem is a little cell phone, with a
USB interface, that looks like a modem to the computer, and sets up a
PPP interface to the service.

The big problem with a PDA has been that it isn't quite big enough for
real useful applications, but it's too expensive to just use as a
simple device. The HP iPAQ was very nice, because it supported CF,
SD, played music, and ran some nice applications, but it didn't have
GPS. GPS devices are nice, but their applications are limited.

I need a cell phone for getting incoming calls quickly. Outgoing
calls I can make using Skype and WiFi or a Cellular modem. This keeps
my minutes down on the metered service, making the "all you can eat"
service more valuable.
So whatever happened to that Linux based OpenMoko?
There have been several Linux PDAs and Cell phones over the years,
many of which are very nice, very useful, and in many ways very
practical. They interface nicely with Windows, and many give you the
option of cell phone mode or WiFi mode. Which means they can be
"always on" for incoming calls, but use "best service" for outgoing
calls.

This is one of the reasons that Cell Phone stores is a good market for
Linux powered NetBooks. Having the combination of services in a
small netbook available simply by lifting the lid and plugging in a
"dongle" in less than 30 seconds is good enough for most people. At
the same time, the core function unique to a cell phone - incoming
calls, is available using a family plan with a more predictable bucket
of minutes.
You know, the phone that couldn't reliably make phone calls.
That was one of the reasons Apple went with AT&T. The only problem is
that there are still lots of places where you can't really make
calls. The main reason I left AT&T was because there were so many
"dead spots" because towers weren't close enough together. Even
talking on the phone while riding home on a train was too much for
AT&T. For that matter, so was making calls from within Manhattan.

With Verizon, the only time I miss AT&T is when I'm overseas. I use a
cheap unlocked phone and buy a SIM card for that country, which is
MUCH cheaper than even one 30 minute call using AT&T service, but
people have to know my local country phone number.

Unfortunately, Verizon is VERY conservative when it comes to
equipment. I couldn't even get the non-windows Treo. It was almost
enough to make me switch to something else, except that my Daughter,
Step-Daughter, Wife, Son, and Father are all on Verizon now. In-
Network calls are free (don't count against minutes).
The iPhone "killer" ?
I remember when Mac came out. The "Killer App" was MacProject. It
was a great tool for planning projects and estimating work, and
getting things scheduled. Of course, even on an SE with SCSI hard
drive, it was slow, and printing a wall sized PERT chart was painful,
but it was a nice tool.

Then Microsoft bought some third-rate project tool from a former share-
ware company, tried to add leveling (which never seems to understand
the concept of burn rates), and ends up having do do everything by
hand. Even then, you end up with key resources working 80 hours a
DAY, and the majority of the staff playing video games for weeks at a
time - according to the "plan". Even after manually balancing
everything, the wrong combination of chances will completely unravel
everything.

Has anybody used task juggler yet?
Where is it?
Bwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
Linux comes up short once again.
If Microsoft had to depend only on the applications that Microsoft
provided, they would be out of business in a year. Fortunately, most
applications are written to run on multiple platforms these days,
including Windows, Linux, and Mac. In fact, there are very few
"killer apps" left on Windows-only. Applications that are not only
unavailable on any other platform, but don't have superior competitors
(for a price) that run on the other two platforms even better than the
Windows version.

WinTrolls like to look ONLY at the GPL applications and claim that
this is the ONLY software that is available for Linux. That's just
the software that comes with the Debian distributions. Many of the
commercial distributions come with very nice commercial software.
Many corporate Linux installs even have some very nice high-end
applications like Lotus Notes 8, SameTime (secure corporate IM), and
are very tightly integrated with the corporate servers.

The main problem is the same problem we used to have with MVS in the
1980s and 1990s. You didn't like paying for the maintenance and
upgrades, but you didn't want to fall too far behind either. You
couldn't get rid of it, because all of the legally binding compliance
logic was coded in CICS/COBOL and running on MVS, and the legacy
archives were on IMS.

IBM eventually hid the ugly "green screen" interfaces by putting
WebSphere on Linux on Z-Series and connecting it to the MVS Back-end
applications using WMQ and Connectors. Even when you are interacting
with mainframes, you wouldn't know it, because you're typically doing
it from a Web Browser.

Eventually, Windows will probably start going the same way. More and
more companies are using banks of Windows servers for certain key
applications because it's easier to configure a few "cloud" machines
and get to them via remote access than it is to try and deploy
infrequently used applications to tens of thousands of desktops.

Many corporations are beginning to adopt the model of putting a user's
corporate "image" on a server, and then letting him "refresh" a
virtualized system running on his laptop. He might not even know that
Linux is running the show underneath the Windows veneer.

I suspect it won't be long before you start seeing laptops and
desktops in corporations running Linux and Windows concurrently,
without the ability to distinguish which applications are really Linux
and which are really Windows.

A copy of "Maximum PC" was very interesting. The promotional
software, for Windows, included GIMP, WinDirStat (the map from
Konquoror), VirtualBox, OpenArena, Pingus, FileZilla, OpenOffice.
Most of which were windows versions of Linux software - probably even
including a cygwin.dll

About the only Windows-only software:
Alienware Advisor
PC Pitstop Erase
PC PitStop Optimize
CCLEANER

It speaks VOLUMES. The BIG MARKET for "Windows Only" software is
cleaning up the messes Microsoft's "back doors" have drug in.

The real INNOVATION is happening on Linux and/or Java and is
MultiPlatform.

Think about it. There are something like 300 million Mac users, who
paid premium prices for their PCs, and are willing to pay a bit more
for applications.

If I write Windows-only software, I might get some small percentage of
the 1 billion Windows users, who would possibly register it as
shareware.

With Linux, it's possible to provide functional versions in "personal"
format, but provide the SERVICES that integrate the ENTERPRISE
version, giving better high-performance real-time capabilities, and
market them for Mac, Linux, AND Windows.

With Java, I don't even have to specify the version. The same JDK 1.5
based application runs fine on Windows, Linux, and Mac, and I don't
have to recompile anything.
Doctor Smith
2009-02-19 01:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rex Ballard
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=M...
It's for the same reason that Windows and Apple Mac slaughter Linux
desktop.
Applications.
Almost, but not quite.
Applications people, NORMAL PEOPLE, not geeks and freaks, are interested
in.
It's really about SERVICE.
That too.
Post by Rex Ballard
If you and your family and all the people you call during peak hours
are on Verizon or Sprint, then the iPhone, which is only available on
AT&T, is probably not a viable option.
Especially if you just renewed a 2 year contract and have to pay $150
to get out.
Big problem, but they all do it.
Post by Rex Ballard
The iPhone now has over 15,000 applications.
That's a big plus. How many of those are Java applications that run
on any phone?
That's the point.
They don't.

And if you look at the applications there is everything from health
monitors, to stock trackers to MRI reading programs.

It is a HUGE range and thus a HUGE selling point for the iPhone which is
why the Linux phones are DEAD MEAT.
Post by Rex Ballard
The big problem with a PDA has been that it isn't quite big enough for
real useful applications, but it's too expensive to just use as a
simple device.
True.
Post by Rex Ballard
I need a cell phone for getting incoming calls quickly. Outgoing
calls I can make using Skype and WiFi or a Cellular modem. This keeps
my minutes down on the metered service, making the "all you can eat"
service more valuable.
You need a better plan.

Your company has a 22 percent discount with Verizon you know :)
Post by Rex Ballard
So whatever happened to that Linux based OpenMoko?
There have been several Linux PDAs and Cell phones over the years,
many of which are very nice, very useful, and in many ways very
practical. They interface nicely with Windows, and many give you the
option of cell phone mode or WiFi mode. Which means they can be
"always on" for incoming calls, but use "best service" for outgoing
calls.
I buy my phones based upon performance, IOW clarity of sound, signal
holding ability etc.

www.howardforums.com is a great place to find this stuff out.

Personally, I use a phone as a phone and a camera not much else.
Unfortunately, the phones with the best call quality are usually the phones
with all the toys.

Pisses me off.
Post by Rex Ballard
This is one of the reasons that Cell Phone stores is a good market for
Linux powered NetBooks. Having the combination of services in a
small netbook available simply by lifting the lid and plugging in a
"dongle" in less than 30 seconds is good enough for most people. At
the same time, the core function unique to a cell phone - incoming
calls, is available using a family plan with a more predictable bucket
of minutes.
The netbook is a great idea and I support Linux on it however from what I
hear the return rate for Linux based systems is huge.

People just don't want Linux.
Post by Rex Ballard
You know, the phone that couldn't reliably make phone calls.
That was one of the reasons Apple went with AT&T. The only problem is
that there are still lots of places where you can't really make
calls. The main reason I left AT&T was because there were so many
"dead spots" because towers weren't close enough together. Even
talking on the phone while riding home on a train was too much for
AT&T. For that matter, so was making calls from within Manhattan.
It's a tossup where I live.

I know during 9-11 and the blackout a few years ago, Verizon was the only
company whose cell towers kept running, at least until the batteries or
whatever wore down.

The others went down instantly when the lights went off.
Post by Rex Ballard
With Verizon, the only time I miss AT&T is when I'm overseas. I use a
cheap unlocked phone and buy a SIM card for that country, which is
MUCH cheaper than even one 30 minute call using AT&T service, but
people have to know my local country phone number.
Unfortunately, Verizon is VERY conservative when it comes to
equipment. I couldn't even get the non-windows Treo. It was almost
enough to make me switch to something else, except that my Daughter,
Step-Daughter, Wife, Son, and Father are all on Verizon now. In-
Network calls are free (don't count against minutes).
Their phone selection sucks.
So does their data plans.

The coverage is best though followed by ATT and then Sprint, at least where
I live.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...