JEDIDIAH stated in post ***@nomad.mishnet on 2/18/09 2:35
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.
* 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]