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:
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-19 15:35:40 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.
A computer is not one single tool. It is many tools. Every application
turns the computer into a different sort of tool. So you aren't just trying
to enforce a conformity for a single tool, or single task but you are trying
to enforce conformity over a large number of diverse tasks.

Right now... using the app I am presently using to type this, I am
rather glad that I can easily wander "off the reservation". My habits
are the product of 20 years of Unix and GUI use. Not everyone wants the
same thing out of their UI.
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
...actually. A genuine KDE user chimed in and said that he didn't want
the same bookmarks in all apps of the same DE. Nevermind different DE's.

[deletia]
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
Snit
2009-02-19 17:54:43 UTC
Permalink
JEDIDIAH stated in post ***@nomad.mishnet on 2/19/09 8:35
AM:

...
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by RonB
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.
A computer is not one single tool. It is many tools. Every application
turns the computer into a different sort of tool. So you aren't just trying
to enforce a conformity for a single tool, or single task but you are trying
to enforce conformity over a large number of diverse tasks.
We can argue about what where one tool ends and other begins... but a valid
argument can be made either way: seeing the computer as a tool or a set of
tools. Either way, a given computer is a system and there is clear benefit
in having a well made, consistent, user-focused UI.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Right now... using the app I am presently using to type this, I am
rather glad that I can easily wander "off the reservation". My habits
are the product of 20 years of Unix and GUI use. Not everyone wants the
same thing out of their UI.
Sure: but there is a lot of established research and well thought out expert
opinion which the Linux desktop is largely working against. This is to the
detriment of the user.

I agree that a user should be able to, if they want, to make an inconsistent
UI for themselves... heck, there are even user-based reasons to encourage
this. But to have arbitrarily different UIs in different programs is
clearly and unambiguously detrimental. The evidence to show this is
overwhelming and, by now, if there was counter evidence I am sure it would
have been presented in these UI debates. There is no benefit to arbitrarily
inconsistent UIs. It is a weakness of desktop Linux.

There simply is no argument that anyone in COLA has been able to produce to
counter this. Instead we are "treated" to repeated straw men: claims of
eliminating choice or how consistency only helps those who cannot figure out
how to use inconsistent programs... hogwash such as that.

If there is a *real* counter-aguement, why can't anyone in COLA come up with
it?
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
2009-02-20 15:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
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.
A computer is not one single tool. It is many tools. Every
application turns the computer into a different sort of tool. So you
aren't just trying to enforce a conformity for a single tool, or
single task but you are trying to enforce conformity over a large
number of diverse tasks.
Right now... using the app I am presently using to type this, I am
rather glad that I can easily wander "off the reservation". My habits
are the product of 20 years of Unix and GUI use. Not everyone wants
the same thing out of their UI.
For apps that are used extremely heavily by their users, it does
sometimes make sense to sacrifice consistency if you can adopt some
app-specific UI that makes users substantially more efficient.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with the consistency problems in
most Linux applications.
Post by JEDIDIAH
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
...actually. A genuine KDE user chimed in and said that he didn't
want the same bookmarks in all apps of the same DE. Nevermind
different DE's.
In other words, he also doesn't want the current behavior. *Nobody*
wants the current behavior. It's a negative consequence of desktop
fragmentation, not anything anyone actually chose (or would choose) to
implement.

I keep mentioning this case because it couldn't possibly be more clear
cut. Yet all of you still refuse to acknowledge even that this obviously
broken behavior is, in fact, broken. (Let alone admitting to the obvious
fact that it's broken because of desktop fragmentation.) All of the
obfuscation around this extremely simple issue has, more than anything
else, convinced me that you COLA advocates are a bunch of status quo
apologists with absolutely no interest in (or a ability to participate
in) meaningful discussions on desktop usability.
--
"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
2009-02-20 16:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
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.
A computer is not one single tool. It is many tools. Every
application turns the computer into a different sort of tool. So you
aren't just trying to enforce a conformity for a single tool, or
single task but you are trying to enforce conformity over a large
number of diverse tasks.
Right now... using the app I am presently using to type this, I am
rather glad that I can easily wander "off the reservation". My habits
are the product of 20 years of Unix and GUI use. Not everyone wants
the same thing out of their UI.
For apps that are used extremely heavily by their users, it does
sometimes make sense to sacrifice consistency if you can adopt some
app-specific UI that makes users substantially more efficient.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with the consistency problems in
most Linux applications.
...as if we don't heavily use our applications.

[deletia]
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
...actually. A genuine KDE user chimed in and said that he didn't
want the same bookmarks in all apps of the same DE. Nevermind
different DE's.
In other words, he also doesn't want the current behavior. *Nobody*
wants the current behavior. It's a negative consequence of desktop
Well, at least he's a REAL KDE user.

[deletia]

You are nothing. You aren't even a prospective convert.

...the Mac Fanboys want to force everyone to use vi.
--
Nothing quite gives you an understanding of mysql's |||
popularity as does an attempt to do some simple date / | \
manipulations in postgres.
ZnU
2009-02-20 17:32:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
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.
A computer is not one single tool. It is many tools. Every
application turns the computer into a different sort of tool. So you
aren't just trying to enforce a conformity for a single tool, or
single task but you are trying to enforce conformity over a large
number of diverse tasks.
Right now... using the app I am presently using to type this, I am
rather glad that I can easily wander "off the reservation". My habits
are the product of 20 years of Unix and GUI use. Not everyone wants
the same thing out of their UI.
For apps that are used extremely heavily by their users, it does
sometimes make sense to sacrifice consistency if you can adopt some
app-specific UI that makes users substantially more efficient.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with the consistency problems in
most Linux applications.
...as if we don't heavily use our applications.
When I say "heavily use", I'm talking about apps often used by
professional users for, basically, 8+ hours a day. If you spend your
entire life in Maya, it's more important that the Maya interface be as
efficient as possible than that Maya work like all of your other apps.
Thus, Maya has various sorts of non-standard UI that contribute to the
efficiency of heavy users, like pie menus.

This doesn't really work with general desktop productivity apps. Users
commonly use several such apps during the course of a day, switching
between them often. In that context, lack of consistency impairs
efficiency because users have to constantly orient themselves, which
interferes with them developing real proficiency.

All of this is unrelated to Linux desktop UI issues because most Linux
desktop UI issues aren't the result of developers deliberately choosing
to break with UI consistency for the sake of user efficiency. They're
the result of systemic problems like desktop fragmentation, and lack of
attention or skill by individual developers.
Post by JEDIDIAH
[deletia]
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
...actually. A genuine KDE user chimed in and said that he didn't
want the same bookmarks in all apps of the same DE. Nevermind
different DE's.
In other words, he also doesn't want the current behavior. *Nobody*
wants the current behavior. It's a negative consequence of desktop
Well, at least he's a REAL KDE user.
Who doesn't want the current behavior.
Post by JEDIDIAH
You are nothing. You aren't even a prospective convert.
If the Linux desktop were designed around the principles I have
discussed over the last week (a single but highly configurable and
modular desktop environment), and the applications I needed were
available (Adobe Create Suite and Final Cut Studio -- or equivalent --
is about all I'd need on top of what Linux already has), I would be a
very likely covert.
Post by JEDIDIAH
...the Mac Fanboys want to force everyone to use vi.
You know, you can never actually get the mindless platform partisan
types to admit you're right. But you can, with sufficient patience,
cause them to revert to utter incoherency.

I see we've reached that point with JEDIDIAH.
--
"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
2009-02-20 18:51:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
But this has absolutely nothing to do with the consistency problems in
most Linux applications.
...as if we don't heavily use our applications.
When I say "heavily use", I'm talking about apps often used by
professional users for, basically, 8+ hours a day. If you spend your
entire life in Maya, it's more important that the Maya interface be as
efficient as possible than that Maya work like all of your other apps.
Thus, Maya has various sorts of non-standard UI that contribute to the
efficiency of heavy users, like pie menus.
In other words, if I understand you, you understand that there are times
when *user-based* inconsistencies make sense. And that is fine... I do not
think anyone is against doing things to *help* users. But the problem with
the inconsistencies on desktop Linux are the ones which are completely
arbitrary... they are of *no* value to the user and, clearly, are a
detriment.
Post by ZnU
This doesn't really work with general desktop productivity apps. Users
commonly use several such apps during the course of a day, switching
between them often. In that context, lack of consistency impairs
efficiency because users have to constantly orient themselves, which
interferes with them developing real proficiency.
All of this is unrelated to Linux desktop UI issues because most Linux
desktop UI issues aren't the result of developers deliberately choosing
to break with UI consistency for the sake of user efficiency. They're
the result of systemic problems like desktop fragmentation, and lack of
attention or skill by individual developers.
Exactly... and to excuse poorly done and inconsistent UIs under the umbrella
of "freedom" and "choice" is absurd. Sure, developers should have the right
to make horrid UIs... but if the environment was better such apps would not
do well.

...
Post by ZnU
You know, you can never actually get the mindless platform partisan
types to admit you're right. But you can, with sufficient patience,
cause them to revert to utter incoherency.
I see we've reached that point with JEDIDIAH.
LOL! Well stated.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-20 20:57:27 UTC
Permalink
[deletia]
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
...the Mac Fanboys want to force everyone to use vi.
You know, you can never actually get the mindless platform partisan
types to admit you're right. But you can, with sufficient patience,
cause them to revert to utter incoherency.
You just don't have enough of a clue. You can't quite get your
head around where I am coming from. My mind is simply alien to you
as is the idea that someone might have been using the same app since
before the Macintosh has been in existence.

It's as if the new Mac washed the old one away completely.

You speak of people flitting about from application to application
in some ultra casual manner and then get fixated on minute details about
how applications look or act that isn't necessarily functional.

The novices won't notice because they don't have he motivation.

The geeks will be more interested in getting stuff done and won't
care unless it really is a drain on efficiency.
Post by ZnU
I see we've reached that point with JEDIDIAH.
"The one true way" is only fine as long as you like it.

The history of home computers doesn't support your notion that
users are longing for oppressive conformity. If anything, they just
out to save a buck.

The "cheap" machines have always cleaned Apple's clock.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
ZnU
2009-02-20 21:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
[deletia]
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
...the Mac Fanboys want to force everyone to use vi.
You know, you can never actually get the mindless platform partisan
types to admit you're right. But you can, with sufficient patience,
cause them to revert to utter incoherency.
You just don't have enough of a clue. You can't quite get your
head around where I am coming from. My mind is simply alien to you
as is the idea that someone might have been using the same app since
before the Macintosh has been in existence.
It's as if the new Mac washed the old one away completely.
You've gone off the rails again.
Post by JEDIDIAH
You speak of people flitting about from application to application
in some ultra casual manner and then get fixated on minute details about
how applications look or act that isn't necessarily functional.
The novices won't notice because they don't have he motivation.
The geeks will be more interested in getting stuff done and won't
care unless it really is a drain on efficiency.
What you refuse to even address, though I've pointed it out many times
and in many different ways, is that bad UI and lack of integration hurt
productivity even if users don't consciously notice them.

And I seriously doubt some of the issues I've pointed out would actually
go unnoticed by even casual users.
--
"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
2009-02-20 22:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
[deletia]
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
...the Mac Fanboys want to force everyone to use vi.
You know, you can never actually get the mindless platform partisan
types to admit you're right. But you can, with sufficient patience,
cause them to revert to utter incoherency.
You just don't have enough of a clue. You can't quite get your
head around where I am coming from. My mind is simply alien to you
as is the idea that someone might have been using the same app since
before the Macintosh has been in existence.
It's as if the new Mac washed the old one away completely.
You've gone off the rails again.
Post by JEDIDIAH
You speak of people flitting about from application to application
in some ultra casual manner and then get fixated on minute details about
how applications look or act that isn't necessarily functional.
The novices won't notice because they don't have he motivation.
The geeks will be more interested in getting stuff done and won't
care unless it really is a drain on efficiency.
What you refuse to even address, though I've pointed it out many times
and in many different ways, is that bad UI and lack of integration hurt
productivity even if users don't consciously notice them.
And I seriously doubt some of the issues I've pointed out would actually
go unnoticed by even casual users.
Of course they would notice... but even if they did not it still would
effect them.

Why would it not?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Ezekiel
2009-02-20 21:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
I see we've reached that point with JEDIDIAH.
"The one true way" is only fine as long as you like it.
This seems to an accurate description of your position.
Post by JEDIDIAH
The history of home computers doesn't support your notion that
users are longing for oppressive conformity.
This explains the non-existant marketshare of Windows and Mac machines and
why most of the world is using 'anything goes in the name of freedom' Linux.
Except that they're not.
Post by JEDIDIAH
If anything, they just out to save a buck.
And Linux has been free for how many years now? Yet people readily pay for
Windows and Mac software. Don't let that little bit of reality tilt your
view.
Post by JEDIDIAH
The "cheap" machines have always cleaned Apple's clock.
Perhaps in some imaginary world a vague statement like this might have some
merit.
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-20 23:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ezekiel
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
I see we've reached that point with JEDIDIAH.
"The one true way" is only fine as long as you like it.
This seems to an accurate description of your position.
Post by JEDIDIAH
The history of home computers doesn't support your notion that
users are longing for oppressive conformity.
This explains the non-existant marketshare of Windows and Mac machines and
...except Windows by no means some wannna be Macintosh.

It never has been. If you think so then your are much more diluted
than any of you have ever claused accused of any of us Linux users
being.
Post by Ezekiel
why most of the world is using 'anything goes in the name of freedom' Linux.
Except that they're not.
Post by JEDIDIAH
If anything, they just out to save a buck.
And Linux has been free for how many years now? Yet people readily pay for
How long has the "more consistent" option? It's FAR older. If the
better GUI was all there was to it, then Microsoft would have been a
historical foot note years ago.
Post by Ezekiel
Windows and Mac software. Don't let that little bit of reality tilt your
view.
Post by JEDIDIAH
The "cheap" machines have always cleaned Apple's clock.
Perhaps in some imaginary world a vague statement like this might have some
merit.
I am sure the board of Walmart will certainly welcome your input.
--
Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.
Snit
2009-02-20 22:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
[deletia]
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
...the Mac Fanboys want to force everyone to use vi.
You know, you can never actually get the mindless platform partisan
types to admit you're right. But you can, with sufficient patience,
cause them to revert to utter incoherency.
You just don't have enough of a clue. You can't quite get your
head around where I am coming from. My mind is simply alien to you
as is the idea that someone might have been using the same app since
before the Macintosh has been in existence.
It's as if the new Mac washed the old one away completely.
You speak of people flitting about from application to application
in some ultra casual manner and then get fixated on minute details about
how applications look or act that isn't necessarily functional.
Who said people "fixate' on the minute details? People who study and
understand UIs, perhaps... but general users, no. This does not mean the
details do not effect them... the undoubtedly do!
Post by JEDIDIAH
The novices won't notice because they don't have he motivation.
Who said a novice would notice?
Post by JEDIDIAH
The geeks will be more interested in getting stuff done and won't
care unless it really is a drain on efficiency.
And it *really* is. All the relevant research shows this.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
I see we've reached that point with JEDIDIAH.
"The one true way" is only fine as long as you like it.
You made that up... you lied.
Post by JEDIDIAH
The history of home computers doesn't support your notion that
users are longing for oppressive conformity. If anything, they just
out to save a buck.
Nobody is suggesting "oppressive conformity". Again, you are lying.

The problem with desktop Linux is obvious.

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 or limiting choices. 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 go for it.

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 or people not being able to use
inconsistent UIs are overdone and absurd. Those that push these claims over
and over and over show they have no understanding. No understanding of what
is, really, easy. And it has *nothing* to do with limiting choice.
*Nothing* to do with people being unable to use 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
The "cheap" machines have always cleaned Apple's clock.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2009-02-20 19:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
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.
A computer is not one single tool. It is many tools. Every
application turns the computer into a different sort of tool. So you
aren't just trying to enforce a conformity for a single tool, or
single task but you are trying to enforce conformity over a large
number of diverse tasks.
Right now... using the app I am presently using to type this, I am
rather glad that I can easily wander "off the reservation". My habits
are the product of 20 years of Unix and GUI use. Not everyone wants
the same thing out of their UI.
For apps that are used extremely heavily by their users, it does
sometimes make sense to sacrifice consistency if you can adopt some
app-specific UI that makes users substantially more efficient.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with the consistency problems in
most Linux applications.
...as if we don't heavily use our applications.
[deletia]
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
...actually. A genuine KDE user chimed in and said that he didn't
want the same bookmarks in all apps of the same DE. Nevermind
different DE's.
In other words, he also doesn't want the current behavior. *Nobody*
wants the current behavior. It's a negative consequence of desktop
Well, at least he's a REAL KDE user.
[deletia]
You are nothing. You aren't even a prospective convert.
...the Mac Fanboys want to force everyone to use vi.
Please stop misrepresenting others' views.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
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]
Chris Ahlstrom
2009-02-19 12:46:14 UTC
Permalink
After takin' a swig o' grog, wetpixel belched out
Post by wetpixel
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.
My current favorite is the dialog box in the web interface for Outlook that
shrinks as you use it to add attachments.

My boss showed me that laffer yesterday.

Luckily the shrinkage does stop.
--
Oh, wow! Look at the moon!
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-19 15:38:58 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
...yes, because everyone's mind is identical.

This is a bad idea that's currently en vogue due to a certain brand of
political correctness. It is very much untrue. People are inherently
diverse. This diversity is more than many people can handle.
Post by wetpixel
-- 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
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
...sounds like an argument for virtual workspaces.
Post by wetpixel
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.
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
ZnU
2009-02-20 17:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
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
...yes, because everyone's mind is identical.
In certain respects, yes. Essentially all GUIs are based off of "object"
metaphors, for instance. There are many objects -- icons, windows,
controls, etc. that the user manipulates, often by directly "touching"
them with a cursor, which is essentially a virtual hand.

Understanding of this sort of metaphor is basically universal, because
this is how all humans (except perhaps a few with very strange cognitive
disorders) think of the physical world. Either it's hardwired into the
brain, or our common experience causes it, or (most likely) some
combination of the two.

There are also some UI issues that are dictated by mechanical factors.
For instance, it's faster to hit a top-level menu if it's backstopped
against the top of the screen, because you don't have to acquire a
narrow vertical target, you can just throw the cursor at high speed at
the top of the screen. There isn't a person on earth who has the
mechanical skills to be able to move a cursor at high speed and stop it
on a ~20px tall target area. (Not with any traditional input device,
anyway. Controlling the cursor with eye movement tracking might allow
for it.)

[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
Hadron
2009-02-20 18:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
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
...yes, because everyone's mind is identical.
In certain respects, yes. Essentially all GUIs are based off of "object"
metaphors, for instance. There are many objects -- icons, windows,
controls, etc. that the user manipulates, often by directly "touching"
them with a cursor, which is essentially a virtual hand.
Understanding of this sort of metaphor is basically universal, because
this is how all humans (except perhaps a few with very strange cognitive
disorders) think of the physical world.
I bet these few are sent to COLA to keep them out of the places where
their lunacy might create real damage.
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]
ZnU
2009-02-20 15:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Poaster
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:33:14 -0600, above the shrieking & whining of the
Post by 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. 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.
There are tons of them sitting in the official Ubuntu repository. The
Add/Remove Applications interface shows KMail has having official
Canonical support *and* a four star popularity rating.

You're right, what's wrong with me, anyway? Only a troll would ever do
something as outrageous as *deliberately* installing a popular
application distributed and supported by the operating system vendor,
and then expecting it to actually integrate with the system in basic
ways.

Now, maybe KMail is just in the repository because Kubuntu and Ubuntu
both share the same repository. But that doesn't help your newly
discovered "of course users shouldn't expect to be able to mix and match
KDE and GNOME apps" argument either, because the lack of separate
repositories (or at least a feature to filter based on desktop
environment in the Add/Remove Apps interface) tells us that Canonical
apparently considers mixing GNOME and KDE apps to be normal and accepted
on the Linux desktop as well.
--
"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
Ezekiel
2009-02-20 16:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by William Poaster
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:33:14 -0600, above the shrieking & whining of the
Post by 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. 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.
There are tons of them sitting in the official Ubuntu repository. The
Add/Remove Applications interface shows KMail has having official
Canonical support *and* a four star popularity rating.
You're right, what's wrong with me, anyway? Only a troll would ever do
something as outrageous as *deliberately* installing a popular
application distributed and supported by the operating system vendor,
and then expecting it to actually integrate with the system in basic
ways.
One side of an "advocates" mouth - Look at all the great apps you can
download right from the repository.

Other side of an "advocates" mouth - Nobody would deliberately download or
install application XYZ. That's not a realistic test.
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-20 17:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ezekiel
Post by ZnU
Post by William Poaster
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:33:14 -0600, above the shrieking & whining of the
Post by 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. 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.
There are tons of them sitting in the official Ubuntu repository. The
Add/Remove Applications interface shows KMail has having official
Canonical support *and* a four star popularity rating.
You're right, what's wrong with me, anyway? Only a troll would ever do
something as outrageous as *deliberately* installing a popular
application distributed and supported by the operating system vendor,
and then expecting it to actually integrate with the system in basic
ways.
One side of an "advocates" mouth - Look at all the great apps you can
download right from the repository.
Yup, I can do what on a Mac would be equivalent to install a Win32
binary. What would a MacOS user say to being able to install the official
version of msoffice and not have to worry about the quirks associated with
some stupid "port"?
Post by Ezekiel
Other side of an "advocates" mouth - Nobody would deliberately download or
install application XYZ. That's not a realistic test.
Well, he was dumb enough to pick the one app for which there about
50 good replacements for. I man, it's Unix. Try something a little less
standard. You're talking about an OS that had a built in email system
before it was born.

It's not that there aren't prime examples of "alien apps". If you
are using the system in a manner other than random-monkey-breakage,
they become apparent.
--
Nothing quite gives you an understanding of mysql's |||
popularity as does an attempt to do some simple date / | \
manipulations in postgres.
chrisv
2009-02-20 17:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ezekiel
Post by ZnU
You're right, what's wrong with me, anyway? Only a troll would ever do
something as outrageous as *deliberately* installing a popular
application distributed and supported by the operating system vendor,
and then expecting it to actually integrate with the system in basic
ways.
One side of an "advocates" mouth - Look at all the great apps you can
download right from the repository.
Yes, there are many great apps, fsckwit.

That doesn't mean that every one of them is the best choice for every
person, fsckwit.

That would be a logical impossibility, fsckwit.

That's why choice *exists* fsckwit.

Choice means that there's nothing stopping you from intentionally
seeking-out and using what, for you, is a poor choice, fsckwit.

The fact that choice and freedom allow you to do stupid things is a
pretty poor excuse for your whining, fsckwit.
Post by Ezekiel
Other side of an "advocates" mouth - Nobody would deliberately download or
install application XYZ. That's not a realistic test.
No one said "nobody", liar fsckwit.

There is nothing contradictory at all in our stance. There's lots of
great apps, but many of them are not going to be right for you.

You must enjoy embarrassing yourself in public, fsckwit. You try to
make us look bad, but only succeed in making yourself look bad.
Hadron
2009-02-20 18:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Ezekiel
Post by ZnU
You're right, what's wrong with me, anyway? Only a troll would ever do
something as outrageous as *deliberately* installing a popular
application distributed and supported by the operating system vendor,
and then expecting it to actually integrate with the system in basic
ways.
One side of an "advocates" mouth - Look at all the great apps you can
download right from the repository.
Yes, there are many great apps, fsckwit.
That doesn't mean that every one of them is the best choice for every
person, fsckwit.
That would be a logical impossibility, fsckwit.
That's why choice *exists* fsckwit.
Choice means that there's nothing stopping you from intentionally
seeking-out and using what, for you, is a poor choice, fsckwit.
The fact that choice and freedom allow you to do stupid things is a
pretty poor excuse for your whining, fsckwit.
Post by Ezekiel
Other side of an "advocates" mouth - Nobody would deliberately download or
install application XYZ. That's not a realistic test.
No one said "nobody", liar fsckwit.
There is nothing contradictory at all in our stance. There's lots of
great apps, but many of them are not going to be right for you.
You must enjoy embarrassing yourself in public, fsckwit. You try to
make us look bad, but only succeed in making yourself look bad.
Hey. Potty mouth. Your Mommy is calling you in to change your undies
after that accidental leakage. Off you go "real Chrisv".
ZnU
2009-02-20 18:33:47 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ezekiel
Other side of an "advocates" mouth - Nobody would deliberately download or
install application XYZ. That's not a realistic test.
Well, he was dumb enough to pick the one app for which there about
50 good replacements for. I man, it's Unix. Try something a little less
standard. You're talking about an OS that had a built in email system
before it was born.
It's not that there aren't prime examples of "alien apps". If you
are using the system in a manner other than random-monkey-breakage,
they become apparent.
OK, so you admit that there "alien apps" users might need to run. And in
my instructions to reproducing one specific problem this causes, the
first was to install "KMail (or other random KDE app)". So I clearly
knew this problem applied to all KDE apps generally.

So what's your point here? Why have you felt it necessary to repeatedly
make the point that most people wouldn't install KMail on Ubuntu? Your
point can't be that most people will never install *any* "alien apps",
since you acknowledge there are "prime examples" of such apps above. It
can't be that I accidentally demonstrated some sort of ignorance, since
I made it clear up front that this would work in any KDE app and KMail
was just a random example.

Is your point simply that I don't use Linux as my primary operating
system, and that to the extent I do use desktop Linux it's primarily to
explore its usability issues? I haven't made any attempt to deny or
conceal that.

I just can't figure out why you're so hung up on this.
--
"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
2009-02-20 21:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
[snip]
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ezekiel
Other side of an "advocates" mouth - Nobody would deliberately download or
install application XYZ. That's not a realistic test.
Well, he was dumb enough to pick the one app for which there about
50 good replacements for. I man, it's Unix. Try something a little less
standard. You're talking about an OS that had a built in email system
before it was born.
It's not that there aren't prime examples of "alien apps". If you
are using the system in a manner other than random-monkey-breakage,
they become apparent.
OK, so you admit that there "alien apps" users might need to run. And in
my instructions to reproducing one specific problem this causes, the
first was to install "KMail (or other random KDE app)". So I clearly
knew this problem applied to all KDE apps generally.
I dunno.

I don't see a lot of the KDE "finder" really. I haven't seen the
need. Using a UIS for certain things more crude than just using the
desktop.
Post by ZnU
So what's your point here? Why have you felt it necessary to repeatedly
Others have said it. The DE developers have striven for creating
internal standards much as Apple has and Microsoft is alleged to have.

[deletia]
Post by ZnU
I just can't figure out why you're so hung up on this.
We don't get why you quibble over minutia.

If I were running MacOS apps I would be trying to DO THINGS.

It's like that old saw that Lemmings used to use on us: We see
the machine as a tool rather than an end unto itself. I won't be
fixating on the tiny imperfections in K3B. I will be trying to get
productive use out of it. If the app actually gets in my way somehow,
THEN I will see it as a barrier.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
ZnU
2009-02-20 21:25:47 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
So what's your point here? Why have you felt it necessary to repeatedly
Others have said it. The DE developers have striven for creating
internal standards much as Apple has and Microsoft is alleged to have.
Yes. And most desktop apps are now written for one environment or the
other. And this does represent huge progress vs. the situation that
existed when I first started playing with Linux ~10 years ago.

But there are still two desktop environments. And they still don't
integrate all that well in some important respects. And neither yet has
such a large selection of native apps that users won't suffer a bit for
refusing to install "alien" apps.

I really don't understand why this is so hard for you guys to admit.
Post by JEDIDIAH
[deletia]
Post by ZnU
I just can't figure out why you're so hung up on this.
We don't get why you quibble over minutia.
You mean minutia like what specific app someone used to demonstrate a
point, when it could have been demonstrated just as easily in many other
apps and all the involved parties know this?

That wasn't me. The feature being discussed here is not obscure. The
behavior being discussed here is not wrong in a subtle way.
Post by JEDIDIAH
If I were running MacOS apps I would be trying to DO THINGS.
And you'd probably notice if, while you were doing things, there was
some UI element you could manipulate that was (sort of) common to all
apps, but there were two distinct set of apps, and in each app that UI
element only reflected changes made to it in other apps in the same set.

Except that if you were a typical casual desktop user, you wouldn't even
be able to figure out what was going on in that much detail, in all
likelihood. You'd just be really confused about the rules governing that
UI element, which would discourage you from using it.

And that's precisely how inconsistent UI hurts productivity: by
preventing users from building a coherent understanding of how the
system works.

[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
2009-02-20 22:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
[snip]
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
So what's your point here? Why have you felt it necessary to repeatedly
Others have said it. The DE developers have striven for creating
internal standards much as Apple has and Microsoft is alleged to have.
Yes. And most desktop apps are now written for one environment or the
other. And this does represent huge progress vs. the situation that
existed when I first started playing with Linux ~10 years ago.
But there are still two desktop environments. And they still don't
integrate all that well in some important respects. And neither yet has
such a large selection of native apps that users won't suffer a bit for
refusing to install "alien" apps.
I really don't understand why this is so hard for you guys to admit.
It is taken as a personal attack to note weaknesses in desktop Linux.

...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-21 00:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
[snip]
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
So what's your point here? Why have you felt it necessary to repeatedly
Others have said it. The DE developers have striven for creating
internal standards much as Apple has and Microsoft is alleged to have.
Yes. And most desktop apps are now written for one environment or the
other. And this does represent huge progress vs. the situation that
existed when I first started playing with Linux ~10 years ago.
But there are still two desktop environments. And they still don't
integrate all that well in some important respects. And neither yet has
such a large selection of native apps that users won't suffer a bit for
That's funny considering you picked such a piss-poor example
to base this whole nonsense.

[deletia]
--
It's great to run an OS where you have to search Google |||
to find problems rather than experiencing them yourself. / | \
ZnU
2009-02-21 01:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
[snip]
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
So what's your point here? Why have you felt it necessary to repeatedly
Others have said it. The DE developers have striven for creating
internal standards much as Apple has and Microsoft is alleged to have.
Yes. And most desktop apps are now written for one environment or the
other. And this does represent huge progress vs. the situation that
existed when I first started playing with Linux ~10 years ago.
But there are still two desktop environments. And they still don't
integrate all that well in some important respects. And neither yet has
such a large selection of native apps that users won't suffer a bit for
That's funny considering you picked such a piss-poor example
to base this whole nonsense.
Would someone *please* explain to me why the issues with adding items to
the sidebar in open/save dialogs is such a horrible example of Linux
desktop integration problems? The feature is not obscure, the fact that
it's broken is not debatable, and the way in which it is broken is not
subtle.

Despite this, I have had people imply that this is actually a desirable
behavior, people attack me for installing a KDE app under GNOME (when
usually I get attacked for the mere suggestion that there might be some
negative consequences to doing so), people call me an idiot and a troll.
And the more articulately I make my case, the more likely I am to get
content-free responses like the one above.

You people are nuts.
--
"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
2009-02-21 01:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
[snip]
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
So what's your point here? Why have you felt it necessary to repeatedly
Others have said it. The DE developers have striven for creating
internal standards much as Apple has and Microsoft is alleged to have.
Yes. And most desktop apps are now written for one environment or the
other. And this does represent huge progress vs. the situation that
existed when I first started playing with Linux ~10 years ago.
But there are still two desktop environments. And they still don't
integrate all that well in some important respects. And neither yet has
such a large selection of native apps that users won't suffer a bit for
That's funny considering you picked such a piss-poor example
to base this whole nonsense.
Would someone *please* explain to me why the issues with adding items to
the sidebar in open/save dialogs is such a horrible example of Linux
desktop integration problems? The feature is not obscure, the fact that
it's broken is not debatable, and the way in which it is broken is not
subtle.
Despite this, I have had people imply that this is actually a desirable
behavior, people attack me for installing a KDE app under GNOME (when
usually I get attacked for the mere suggestion that there might be some
negative consequences to doing so), people call me an idiot and a troll.
And the more articulately I make my case, the more likely I am to get
content-free responses like the one above.
You people are nuts.
You said something not flattering about Linux... and it was taken as a
personal insult. The response was to lie about you, insult you, make up
positions and attribute them to you, etc.

Absurd.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Kelsey Bjarnason
2009-02-23 15:04:05 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Post by ZnU
Would someone *please* explain to me why the issues with adding items to
the sidebar in open/save dialogs is such a horrible example of Linux
desktop integration problems?
Because the things I want on my image viewing app's open/save dialog are
not the same as what I want on my word processor open/save dialog which
are not the same as what I want on my development app open/save dialog
which are not the same as what I want on my various games' open/save
dialog.

Unless, of course, you can make a compelling argument for including the
shortcut to "Hot babes in bikinis" in the file dialogs for the word
processor, or the shortcut to "Tunes - Classic Rock" in the image editor
file dialogs.

Feel free to explain how that sort of idiotic nonsense makes for a better
computing environment.
ZnU
2009-02-24 14:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by ZnU
Would someone *please* explain to me why the issues with adding items to
the sidebar in open/save dialogs is such a horrible example of Linux
desktop integration problems?
Because the things I want on my image viewing app's open/save dialog are
not the same as what I want on my word processor open/save dialog which
are not the same as what I want on my development app open/save dialog
which are not the same as what I want on my various games' open/save
dialog.
Unless, of course, you can make a compelling argument for including the
shortcut to "Hot babes in bikinis" in the file dialogs for the word
processor, or the shortcut to "Tunes - Classic Rock" in the image editor
file dialogs.
Feel free to explain how that sort of idiotic nonsense makes for a better
computing environment.
OK, for the sixth time (or whatever), what you describe above ISN'T THE
CURRENT BEHAVIOR.

The current behavior is that the sidebar in GNOME apps is shared among
all GNOME apps, and the sidebar in KDE apps is shared among KDE apps,
but apps written for the two environments don't share sidebar items
between each other.

The behavior you describe above is a plausible behavior that can have a
case made for it. Indeed, you just made the case. And having sidebar
items shared between all apps is a plausible behavior that can have a
case made for it; I have made it elsewhere in this thread.

But the current behavior as I describe it above is *not* a behavior that
anyone wants, or, in point of fact, a behavior that anyone chose to
implement. It's a behavior that isn't useful to anyone and that exists
*solely* because of a lack of integration between GNOME and KDE.
--
"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
2009-02-21 01:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
[snip]
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
So what's your point here? Why have you felt it necessary to repeatedly
Others have said it. The DE developers have striven for creating
internal standards much as Apple has and Microsoft is alleged to have.
Yes. And most desktop apps are now written for one environment or the
other. And this does represent huge progress vs. the situation that
existed when I first started playing with Linux ~10 years ago.
But there are still two desktop environments. And they still don't
integrate all that well in some important respects. And neither yet has
such a large selection of native apps that users won't suffer a bit for
That's funny considering you picked such a piss-poor example
to base this whole nonsense.
You met the tree... not see if you can figure out where the forest is.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
William Poaster
2009-02-21 13:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
[snip]
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by ZnU
So what's your point here? Why have you felt it necessary to repeatedly
Others have said it. The DE developers have striven for creating
internal standards much as Apple has and Microsoft is alleged to have.
Yes. And most desktop apps are now written for one environment or the
other. And this does represent huge progress vs. the situation that
existed when I first started playing with Linux ~10 years ago.
But there are still two desktop environments. And they still don't
integrate all that well in some important respects. And neither yet has
such a large selection of native apps that users won't suffer a bit for
That's funny considering you picked such a piss-poor example
to base this whole nonsense.
[deletia]
And considering that the troll *claims* it "started playing with Linux ~10
years ago", it's learnt re markedly little IMO.
Snit
2009-02-20 19:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ezekiel
Post by ZnU
Post by William Poaster
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:33:14 -0600, above the shrieking & whining of the
Post by 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. 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.
There are tons of them sitting in the official Ubuntu repository. The
Add/Remove Applications interface shows KMail has having official
Canonical support *and* a four star popularity rating.
You're right, what's wrong with me, anyway? Only a troll would ever do
something as outrageous as *deliberately* installing a popular
application distributed and supported by the operating system vendor,
and then expecting it to actually integrate with the system in basic
ways.
One side of an "advocates" mouth - Look at all the great apps you can
download right from the repository.
Yup, I can do what on a Mac would be equivalent to install a Win32
binary. What would a MacOS user say to being able to install the official
version of msoffice and not have to worry about the quirks associated with
some stupid "port"?
Post by Ezekiel
Other side of an "advocates" mouth - Nobody would deliberately download or
install application XYZ. That's not a realistic test.
Well, he was dumb enough to pick the one app for which there about
50 good replacements for. I man, it's Unix. Try something a little less
standard. You're talking about an OS that had a built in email system
before it was born.
It's not that there aren't prime examples of "alien apps". If you
are using the system in a manner other than random-monkey-breakage,
they become apparent.
You missed the point: it does not matter what KDE app he picked... *all*
would do much the same.

All.
--
[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]
Kelsey Bjarnason
2009-02-23 19:42:37 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Post by ZnU
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.
Except for the little detail that we've pointed out the costs. The loss
of flexibility, the loss of customizability, the increased risks of mis-
fires and so on and so forth.

Thus far, you've failed to deal with a single one of those issues, and
the few things you have brought up are apparently only of concern to you
- in which case, fine, please enjoy your Mac.

Basically, it comes to this: you haven't made a case. You keep telling
us how this non-conformity makes things worse, but every time you come up
with an example, it ends up being something which is *actively* not
wanted, *distinctly* non-beneficial, and in the few cases it might
remotely be even possibly useful, can be accomplished by extant tools
thanks to their focus on flexibility over conformity.

How about you try making an actual case for a change? Pick some feature
of the Linux UI you think is "non-integrated" and present how an
integrated approach would work... but bearing in mind that your proposed
solution has to in fact be superior.

This rules out your current nonsense about common address books, about
consistent file dialogs, etc, etc, etc, but we're willing to listen if
you can come up with an example which actually works.
Snit
2009-02-23 20:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by ZnU
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.
Except for the little detail that we've pointed out the costs. The loss
of flexibility, the loss of customizability, the increased risks of mis-
fires and so on and so forth.
What loss of flexibility? I do not want to speak for ZnU, but I believe he
agrees with me that if someone *wants* to have an inefficient and poorly
designed UI, one that is fractured into multiple styles and even then the
programs follow those standards poorly - well, one *can* do that.

Not sure why one would *want* to, but there may be times when one needs
software where the developer has not had time / desire to make the UI better
for the user. Or the user just might enjoy, for some odd reason, having
such a UI.

Let them. No restrictions.

But, of course, most people would not make that choice. They would choose
better - something that allows them to be more efficient, reduces errors,
and helps them to be more comfortable with new software (and old). And the
user would not have to design this - distro managers would. Most added
software would be able to read the defaults for the system and fit in.

Of course, the user can opt to not have the software fit the standards -
maybe a piece of software has a better built-in color selector, for example,
at least for the purpose of that software. The system color selector should
not be forced on the user / software!
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Thus far, you've failed to deal with a single one of those issues, and
the few things you have brought up are apparently only of concern to you
- in which case, fine, please enjoy your Mac.
I bet that efficiency, ease of use, comfort, and the other benefits of a
well designed and consistent UI are of value to many people. Most. Heck,
who would not want that?
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Basically, it comes to this: you haven't made a case. You keep telling
us how this non-conformity makes things worse, but every time you come up
with an example, it ends up being something which is *actively* not
wanted, *distinctly* non-beneficial, and in the few cases it might
remotely be even possibly useful, can be accomplished by extant tools
thanks to their focus on flexibility over conformity.
You say this without a shred of support.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
How about you try making an actual case for a change? Pick some feature
of the Linux UI you think is "non-integrated" and present how an
integrated approach would work... but bearing in mind that your proposed
solution has to in fact be superior.
Well, look at KDE and its move toward an integrated contact manager!

Look at both KDE and Gnome and their provision for integrated save and print
dialogs.

On and on: Linux is growing in the direction of having a more integrated,
more uniform, more consistent experience... one that does not limit the user
but which gives the user *more* choice.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
This rules out your current nonsense about common address books, about
consistent file dialogs, etc, etc, etc, but we're willing to listen if
you can come up with an example which actually works.
Where is an example where arbitrary inconsistency is a benefit? Seriously:
look at GUI guidelines... *any*. Find *one* that does not stress the
importance of consistency.

Try.

I have looked: I am not saying none exist, but they sure are hard to find.

It is not like this is a controversial or odd claim: frankly it is common
sense. Now there can be different ideas on exactly what consistency means
and when and how it is best for the user to go against such consistency (and
there are times!), but it is you who is going against established research,
the mass of expert opinion, and essentially all GUI guidelines. As such,
really, it is you who should be trying to make a case as to why the
overwhelming mass of knowledge on the subject is wrong.

Frankly I cannot imagine how you can plan on doing that... and I bet you do
not even try. So far nobody in COLA has been willing to support this
un-intuitive idea that chaotic / fractures UIs somehow are a benefit to the
user above a well though out, flexible, and internally consistent UI.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
2009-02-23 21:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by ZnU
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.
Except for the little detail that we've pointed out the costs. The loss
of flexibility, the loss of customizability, the increased risks of mis-
fires and so on and so forth.
As I wrote some time back, Znit does NOT consider the drawbacks of
trying to "consolidate" OSS.

"Virtually no costs" says the mental midget, but his "costs" are only
measured in dollars or in hours worked, and it's true that
"consolidation" would not add to THOSE costs.

He *never* considers the *real* costs, the *real* drawbacks of loss of
freedom and choice.

I don't think he's able to understand - he's an idiot.
Snit
2009-02-23 21:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by ZnU
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.
Except for the little detail that we've pointed out the costs. The loss
of flexibility, the loss of customizability, the increased risks of mis-
fires and so on and so forth.
As I wrote some time back, Znit does NOT consider the drawbacks of
trying to "consolidate" OSS.
What drawbacks do you think I have not considered? Be specific.
Post by chrisv
"Virtually no costs" says the mental midget, but his "costs" are only
measured in dollars or in hours worked, and it's true that
"consolidation" would not add to THOSE costs.
He *never* considers the *real* costs, the *real* drawbacks of loss of
freedom and choice.
I advocate for *increased* freedom and choice for the user. Not less. Your
claim is simply inaccurate.
Post by chrisv
I don't think he's able to understand - he's an idiot.
--
[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.
Chris Ahlstrom
2009-02-19 12:48:39 UTC
Permalink
After takin' a swig o' grog, wetpixel belched out
Post by wetpixel
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.
You ought to check out Fluxbox (it's in the Blackbox family of window
managers) then ;->
--
One can never consent to creep when one feels an impulse to soar.
-- Helen Keller
chrisv
2009-02-19 13:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
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.
If a variation is not desirable, by anyone, it will fade into
oblivion. "Problem" solved.
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-19 15:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by wetpixel
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.
If a variation is not desirable, by anyone, it will fade into
oblivion. "Problem" solved.
In a free market of ideas, things live or die by their own merits.

What people like ZNU are ultimately arguing against is freedom.

Either the GNOME developers shouldn't have the right to deviate or
the KDE developers shouldn't have the right to deviate. Nevermind stuff
like OpenStep or anything else that might be far stranger.
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
Snit
2009-02-19 17:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by chrisv
Post by wetpixel
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.
If a variation is not desirable, by anyone, it will fade into
oblivion. "Problem" solved.
In a free market of ideas, things live or die by their own merits.
What people like ZNU are ultimately arguing against is freedom.
Straw man. He is doing no such thing. If you want to argue against him
then please actually argue against *his* ideas, not ideas you falsely
attribute to him.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Either the GNOME developers shouldn't have the right to deviate or
the KDE developers shouldn't have the right to deviate. Nevermind stuff
like OpenStep or anything else that might be far stranger.
Who said they should not have the *right* to deviate? Quote it!

Frankly I think developers, by and large, *want* to do right by users. If
Linux grows to the point where they can do better work for users I think
most will *want* to.

No be forced to.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Walter Bushell
2009-02-20 17:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
In a free market of ideas, things live or die by their own merits.
What people like ZNU are ultimately arguing against is freedom.
Show me anyplace where the market is free, in the classical economic
sense. That require rational consumers, which exist only in the mind of
the classical economist, and no entity (or group of entities) with
overwhelming market power.
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-20 21:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Bushell
Post by JEDIDIAH
In a free market of ideas, things live or die by their own merits.
What people like ZNU are ultimately arguing against is freedom.
Show me anyplace where the market is free, in the classical economic
sense. That require rational consumers, which exist only in the mind of
Just about anywhere. While there are certainly dominant vendors in
many areas, most are true commodities that allow for any garage operation
to get a foothold. Only where there are artificial entry barriers such as
the technological based compatability problem do you see signficant break-
down in the market.

There are also physical/geographical monopolies as well.

That's why I can safely ignore Detroit.
Post by Walter Bushell
the classical economist, and no entity (or group of entities) with
overwhelming market power.
--
Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.
ZnU
2009-02-20 18:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by chrisv
Post by wetpixel
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.
If a variation is not desirable, by anyone, it will fade into
oblivion. "Problem" solved.
In a free market of ideas, things live or die by their own merits.
The Linux desktop isn't a "market of ideas". It's an actual real live
market. GNOME and KDE aren't concepts, they're software.

And sometimes in real markets, situations arise in which individuals
acting to optimize their short-term individual outcomes within the
context of the existing choices, don't produce the most desirable
outcome. This is a pretty well understood phenomenon.
Post by JEDIDIAH
What people like ZNU are ultimately arguing against is freedom.
What I'm arguing against is chaos.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Either the GNOME developers shouldn't have the right to deviate or
the KDE developers shouldn't have the right to deviate. Nevermind stuff
like OpenStep or anything else that might be far stranger.
I think it's interesting that when we really get right down to it, you
guys *do* understand that what you're defending is developer freedom
rather than user freedom.
--
"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
2009-02-20 18:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by chrisv
Post by wetpixel
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.
If a variation is not desirable, by anyone, it will fade into
oblivion. "Problem" solved.
In a free market of ideas, things live or die by their own merits.
The Linux desktop isn't a "market of ideas". It's an actual real live
market. GNOME and KDE aren't concepts, they're software.
And sometimes in real markets, situations arise in which individuals
acting to optimize their short-term individual outcomes within the
context of the existing choices, don't produce the most desirable
outcome. This is a pretty well understood phenomenon.
Post by JEDIDIAH
What people like ZNU are ultimately arguing against is freedom.
What I'm arguing against is chaos.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Either the GNOME developers shouldn't have the right to deviate or
the KDE developers shouldn't have the right to deviate. Nevermind stuff
like OpenStep or anything else that might be far stranger.
I think it's interesting that when we really get right down to it, you
guys *do* understand that what you're defending is developer freedom
rather than user freedom.
Linux is growing in the direction of giving *users* choice, though it still
and a way to go to get to where it should be... the type of choices you, I,
Shuttleworth and others have talked about.

One thing you can be certain of: when desktop Linux gets to the point where
it can offer a flexible yet consistent UI where the *user* is in control,
then the Linux advocates will speak very highly of it and speak of what a
great benefit it is.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Peter Köhlmann
2009-02-20 19:13:05 UTC
Permalink
ZnU wrote:

< snip >
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Either the GNOME developers shouldn't have the right to deviate or
the KDE developers shouldn't have the right to deviate. Nevermind stuff
like OpenStep or anything else that might be far stranger.
I think it's interesting that when we really get right down to it, you
guys *do* understand that what you're defending is developer freedom
rather than user freedom.
Right. Who are you to put a gun to the developers heads and tell them to
do as you like or else?

Hadron Snot Quark and Snot Michael Glasser argued along the same lines.
You guys are simply scum. Filthy pond slime. MAK users

Apart from the fact that in on fell swoop you also want to eliminate most
choices for the users. Forcing your idiotic "one size fits all" garbage
you so dearly like unto all linux users

Get lost
--
You're genuinely bogus.
Snit
2009-02-20 19:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Peter Köhlmann stated in post
Post by Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Either the GNOME developers shouldn't have the right to deviate or
the KDE developers shouldn't have the right to deviate. Nevermind stuff
like OpenStep or anything else that might be far stranger.
I think it's interesting that when we really get right down to it, you
guys *do* understand that what you're defending is developer freedom
rather than user freedom.
Right. Who are you to put a gun to the developers heads and tell them to
do as you like or else?
Who has said anyone should? You see, Peter, you are just making things up -
out and out lying.

Why do you do that?
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Hadron Snot Quark and Snot Michael Glasser argued along the same lines.
Nope. Not me. You simply are lying about my views.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
You guys are simply scum. Filthy pond slime. MAK users
You openly lie about our views and then have the audacity to think we are
somehow below you. How pathetic.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Apart from the fact that in on fell swoop you also want to eliminate most
choices for the users. Forcing your idiotic "one size fits all" garbage
you so dearly like unto all linux users
Get lost
The problem with desktop Linux is obvious.

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 or limiting choices. 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 go for it.

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 or people not being able to use
inconsistent UIs are overdone and absurd. Those that push these claims over
and over and over show they have no understanding. No understanding of what
is, really, easy. And it has *nothing* to do with limiting choice.
*Nothing* to do with people being unable to use 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?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
2009-02-20 19:48:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Either the GNOME developers shouldn't have the right to deviate or
the KDE developers shouldn't have the right to deviate. Nevermind stuff
like OpenStep or anything else that might be far stranger.
I think it's interesting that when we really get right down to it, you
guys *do* understand that what you're defending is developer freedom
rather than user freedom.
Right. Who are you to put a gun to the developers heads and tell them to
do as you like or else?
Right, because saying "Linux world probably be more successful in market
X if it worked like Y" is precisely equivalent to threatening people
with deadly weapons.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Hadron Snot Quark and Snot Michael Glasser argued along the same lines.
You guys are simply scum. Filthy pond slime. MAK users
Apart from the fact that in on fell swoop you also want to eliminate most
choices for the users. Forcing your idiotic "one size fits all" garbage
you so dearly like unto all linux users
Nobody has yet been able to offer a coherent explanation for how a
single highly modular and configurable UI would offer users less choice
in any meaningful way.
--
"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
2009-02-20 19:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
Either the GNOME developers shouldn't have the right to deviate or
the KDE developers shouldn't have the right to deviate. Nevermind stuff
like OpenStep or anything else that might be far stranger.
I think it's interesting that when we really get right down to it, you
guys *do* understand that what you're defending is developer freedom
rather than user freedom.
Right. Who are you to put a gun to the developers heads and tell them to
do as you like or else?
Right, because saying "Linux world probably be more successful in market
X if it worked like Y" is precisely equivalent to threatening people
with deadly weapons.
Well, Shuttleworth is the biggest villain in history... putting so many
resources toward making Linux better.
Post by ZnU
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Hadron Snot Quark and Snot Michael Glasser argued along the same lines.
You guys are simply scum. Filthy pond slime. MAK users
Apart from the fact that in on fell swoop you also want to eliminate most
choices for the users. Forcing your idiotic "one size fits all" garbage
you so dearly like unto all linux users
Nobody has yet been able to offer a coherent explanation for how a
single highly modular and configurable UI would offer users less choice
in any meaningful way.
And he never will.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-19 15:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
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.
Do you understand that there _is_ a fundamental set of HI principles?
Yeah, treat all users the same and treat all tasks the same.

That works poorly in practice and as a matter of basic industrial
engineering.

[deletia]

Nevermind "academic ideas". Try demonstrating things empirically.

Also, people have been getting by quite well before anyone decided
to impose artificial order on interfaces. Fixating on those new ideas
to the exclusion of all else will interfere with the way that people
already work. This is why openness at the protocol and data level is
useful. You don't have to destroy consistency over time for users that
are already quite effective.
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
Snit
2009-02-19 17:59:16 UTC
Permalink
JEDIDIAH stated in post ***@nomad.mishnet on 2/19/09 8:27
AM:

...
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by wetpixel
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.
Do you understand that there _is_ a fundamental set of HI principles?
Yeah, treat all users the same and treat all tasks the same.
Nope. Not at all.
Post by JEDIDIAH
That works poorly in practice and as a matter of basic industrial
engineering.
Well, your straw man is a poor idea. Hip hip hooray! You came up with a
bad idea for UI design. Lovely.
Post by JEDIDIAH
[deletia]
Nevermind "academic ideas". Try demonstrating things empirically.
Has been done repeatedly. Some sources for you if you are really interested
in that:

Peer Reviewed Studies [1]
UI Experts [2]

[1] Including, but not limited to the ones referenced here:
Carole A George, "Usability testing and design of a
library website: an iterative approach" 2005
Cheul Rhee,  et. al., "Web interface consistency in
e-learning. Online Information Review" Social
Science Module database" 2006
John W Satzinger,  Lorne Olfman "User Interface Consistency
Across End-User Applications: The Effects on Mental
Models" 1998
R. Chimera, ³The Carm Group: Designing GUIs for
Usability² 1996.
R. Chimera and B. Shneiderman, ³User Interface Consistency:
An Evaluation of Original and Revised Versions for a
Videodisk Library² 1993
C. Marlin Brown in "Human-Computer Interface Design
Guidelines"
Kellogg, W. A. in "Coordinating User Interfaces for
Consistency"
Nelson, J in "Designing and Using Human-Computer
Interaction and Knowledge Based Systems"
Rubenstein and Hirsh in "The Human Factor"
Smith, SL, and Mosier in "Guidelines for Designing
User Interface Software"

[2] Including, but not limited to:
Richard Chimera of the Human-Computer Interaction
Laboratory at the University of Maryland and ASU,
etc.
<http://sci.asu.edu/directory/page.php?profile=575>
Jakob Nielsen: <http://www.useit.com/> and in
"Coordinating User Interfaces for Consistency"
Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals
Association <http://snipurl.com/oppedisano>
Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface
Consistency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access
Jeff Johnson in "GUI Bloopers 2.0"
Marshall C. Yovits in "Advances in Computers"
Post by JEDIDIAH
Also, people have been getting by quite well before anyone decided to impose
artificial order on interfaces. Fixating on those new ideas to the exclusion
of all else will interfere with the way that people already work. This is why
openness at the protocol and data level is useful. You don't have to destroy
consistency over time for users that are already quite effective.
The problem with desktop Linux is obvious.

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 or limiting choices. 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 go for it.

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 or people not being able to use
inconsistent UIs are overdone and absurd. Those that push these claims over
and over and over show they have no understanding. No understanding of what
is, really, easy. And it has *nothing* to do with limiting choice.
*Nothing* to do with people being unable to use 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?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Walter Bushell
2009-02-20 17:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Also, people have been getting by quite well before anyone decided
to impose artificial order on interfaces. Fixating on those new ideas
to the exclusion of all else will interfere with the way that people
already work. This is why openness at the protocol and data level is
useful. You don't have to destroy consistency over time for users that
are already quite effective.
--
Actually the GUI was researched by Apple from basically the beginning.
Perhaps what they came up with is not an artificial order on the
interface but a natural one.
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-20 21:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Bushell
Post by JEDIDIAH
Also, people have been getting by quite well before anyone decided
to impose artificial order on interfaces. Fixating on those new ideas
to the exclusion of all else will interfere with the way that people
already work. This is why openness at the protocol and data level is
useful. You don't have to destroy consistency over time for users that
are already quite effective.
--
Actually the GUI was researched by Apple from basically the beginning.
Perhaps what they came up with is not an artificial order on the
interface but a natural one.
You are confusing Apple with Xerox.

...and the original research that led to the GUI still hasn't yet
yielded the sort of computer interaction that it's inventor intended.
Even Apple doesn't quite cut it in that department.
--
Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.
ZnU
2009-02-20 22:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Walter Bushell
Post by JEDIDIAH
Also, people have been getting by quite well before anyone decided
to impose artificial order on interfaces. Fixating on those new
ideas to the exclusion of all else will interfere with the way
that people already work. This is why openness at the protocol and
data level is useful. You don't have to destroy consistency over
time for users that are already quite effective.
--
Actually the GUI was researched by Apple from basically the
beginning. Perhaps what they came up with is not an artificial
order on the interface but a natural one.
You are confusing Apple with Xerox.
Apple did substantial in-house research as well, and hired people who
had done important research in the academic world.

As I've said before, Apple didn't invent the GUI. But they did invent
*a* GUI. And it happens to be the one that, with a few tweaks here and
there, became the word's standard GUI; basically everything out there
today has a lot more resemblance to the early Mac than to Xerox's
systems. In fact, it has a lot more resemblance to the early Mac than
the early Mac does to Xerox's UI. (Particularly if you look at the state
Xerox's UI was in when Apple actually saw it, e.g. no overlapping
windows, rather than what it achieved later.)
Post by JEDIDIAH
...and the original research that led to the GUI still hasn't yet
yielded the sort of computer interaction that it's inventor intended.
Even Apple doesn't quite cut it in that department.
The general stagnation of mainstream UI over the last 20 years has more
to do with market considerations than a lack of either technical ability
on the part of implementors or good ideas on the part of researchers.
Basically, it's hard as a practical matter to radically change your UI
around without pissing off your existing users and forcing your
developers to do major retooling. This latter point is basically why
document-based computing never went anywhere; eliminating discrete
applications didn't sound like a very appealing idea to developers who
had built businesses around selling such applications.
--
"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
Walter Bushell
2009-02-21 00:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Walter Bushell
Post by JEDIDIAH
Also, people have been getting by quite well before anyone decided
to impose artificial order on interfaces. Fixating on those new ideas
to the exclusion of all else will interfere with the way that people
already work. This is why openness at the protocol and data level is
useful. You don't have to destroy consistency over time for users that
are already quite effective.
--
Actually the GUI was researched by Apple from basically the beginning.
Perhaps what they came up with is not an artificial order on the
interface but a natural one.
You are confusing Apple with Xerox.
...and the original research that led to the GUI still hasn't yet
yielded the sort of computer interaction that it's inventor intended.
Even Apple doesn't quite cut it in that department.
There was a *lot* of work done on the Xerox interface before the
appearance of the Macintosh.
Walter Bushell
2009-02-20 17:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
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.
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.
Too many boy geniuses, too many indians and not enough chiefs or rather
too many indians who think they are chiefs.
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-20 21:12:26 UTC
Permalink
[deletia]
Post by Walter Bushell
Too many boy geniuses, too many indians and not enough chiefs or rather
too many indians who think they are chiefs.
Nope. Too many mountain men in charge of their own destiny not
beholden to someone that would lord over them.

Apple: Because the world doesn't have enough peasants.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
Snit
2009-02-20 22:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
[deletia]
Post by Walter Bushell
Too many boy geniuses, too many indians and not enough chiefs or rather
too many indians who think they are chiefs.
Nope. Too many mountain men in charge of their own destiny not
beholden to someone that would lord over them.
Apple: Because the world doesn't have enough peasants.
See: ZnU was right about you falling to incoherence.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Walter Bushell
2009-02-20 17:11:05 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.
If Linux could all agree on a standard GUI toolkit.
Doctor Smith
2009-02-20 17:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Bushell
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.
If Linux could all agree on a standard GUI toolkit.
Or:
A standard package manager.
A standard kernel
A standard audio system.
A standard "control panel to adjust things"
A standard file system.
etc.....

Linux users like to call it choice.

Most people call it confusion.
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-20 21:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doctor Smith
Post by Walter Bushell
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.
If Linux could all agree on a standard GUI toolkit.
A standard package manager.
Skype and Sun don't seem bothered.
Post by Doctor Smith
A standard kernel
Got that.
Post by Doctor Smith
A standard audio system.
A standard "control panel to adjust things"
That would be nice between different versions of Windows too.
Post by Doctor Smith
A standard file system.
Why would any OS need this? Windows doesn't even have this.

At least Unix filesystems have compatable features.

FAT doesn't even have a volume label. That makes it hard to
give a memory stick a unique identity.
Post by Doctor Smith
etc.....
Linux users like to call it choice.
Most people call it confusion.
What's to confuse? You ask someone "do you got what I can use?".

It's pretty simple really. Even a Windows user can handle it. It
might make a developer's life a little harder but they are supposed tob
be able to take that.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
Snit
2009-02-20 22:36:00 UTC
Permalink
JEDIDIAH stated in post ***@nomad.mishnet on 2/20/09 2:10
PM:

...
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
Post by Walter Bushell
If Linux could all agree on a standard GUI toolkit.
A standard package manager.
Skype and Sun don't seem bothered.
Post by Doctor Smith
A standard kernel
Got that.
Post by Doctor Smith
A standard audio system.
A standard "control panel to adjust things"
That would be nice between different versions of Windows too.
What version of Windows has multiple system control panels?

Answer: None.

...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
2009-02-23 13:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
Most people call it confusion.
What's to confuse? You ask someone "do you got what I can use?".
The troll is lying.
wetpixel
2009-02-22 07:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doctor Smith
Post by Walter Bushell
If Linux could all agree on a standard GUI toolkit.
A standard package manager.
A standard kernel
A standard audio system.
A standard "control panel to adjust things"
A standard file system.
etc.....
Linux users like to call it choice.
Most people call it confusion.
And it really is both, isn't it?

It really is a situation about choice and flexibility, but because
there is no common starting point or unifying package, there is no
central identity.

So here's my suggestion, particularly for Linux fans:

Someone get everybody to align on a basic Linux installer.
After that, everyone else make a rewrite installer for their own
components -- which changes whatever.

That will give a unifying package to be judged against others (and
which hardware builders can build upon). Hardware can supply discs of
optional installers that the buyer may choose to reconfigure within.
It won't affect the flexibility, it will help basic distribution, and
there will be some foundation upon which media can compare performance
and talk about it as a standardized platform.
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-20 21:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Bushell
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.
If Linux could all agree on a standard GUI toolkit.
The barn door is already open there. Even if there were "one true
Linux toolkit", there would still be the previous iterations of the
"one true Unix toolkit".
--
Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.
ZnU
2009-02-20 22:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Walter Bushell
If Linux could all agree on a standard GUI toolkit.
The barn door is already open there. Even if there were "one true
Linux toolkit", there would still be the previous iterations of the
"one true Unix toolkit".
I don't think anyone is going to be too bothered by legacy apps
continuing to look and/or behave like legacy apps. Version turnover
tends to be fairly high in the desktop market, particularly the consumer
desktop market.

And if there were a single obvious choice of GUI toolkit in the Unix
market going forward, there would probably be a fair bit of interest in
porting even some previously stagnant old apps in cases where source was
available.
--
"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
2009-02-18 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?
Hadron
2009-02-19 13:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
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.
Well said. Multi distros x, y and z cause the perception of
fragmentation. One thats well earned in many cases.

Initiatives like web based media stores, The Flock browser etc are
removing the barrier to the COLA loons perception of fragmentation
though. A pity it wont run on Linux ....
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-19 15:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
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.
That is not true. Linux is maintstream enough for it's applications
to be ported to Windows and then to be featured in PC magazines. Although
Linux is not something that would drive fragmentation. It would destroy it
by allowing users to use the same applications across various platforms.
Unix in general also does this.

Also, Linux isn't an island unto itself. It too is part of something
bigger that shares enough commonality that it can be treated as the same
platform in practice (Unix).
Post by wetpixel
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.
...except "every engineer" doesn't.

If it were up to Apple, they would still be using AppleTalk only.
Post by wetpixel
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
Sure it does. Any Apple Cheerleader trying to prop up the Mac by
tearing down Windows will gladly go into the gory details. It just so
happens that the whipping boy today is Linux.
Post by wetpixel
contrary again. Apple isn't against diversity, but they do have a
Sure it is. The "Thou shalt not violate the design guidelines"
is a pretty clear demonstration of that. Hell, Apple users BRAG about
this mentality. They BRAG about this mentality being pervasive from
Apple, to 3rd party developers to the user community.
Post by wetpixel
philosophy about their products.
Maybe you're having trouble with the idea of a corporation actually
having principles?
Most thoughtful people do.
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
Snit
2009-02-19 17:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by wetpixel
Linux isn't mainstream, so it can't contribute to fragmentation at all.
It's just noise on the playing field.
That is not true. Linux is maintstream enough for it's applications
to be ported to Windows and then to be featured in PC magazines. Although
Linux is not something that would drive fragmentation. It would destroy it
by allowing users to use the same applications across various platforms.
Unix in general also does this.
Also, Linux isn't an island unto itself. It too is part of something
bigger that shares enough commonality that it can be treated as the same
platform in practice (Unix).
Such as OS X?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
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
Kelsey Bjarnason
2009-02-23 20:17:07 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Post by ZnU
Post by JEDIDIAH
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?
Damn rights.

Where I get my normal feed, I don't care much what the content is - snarf
a gig and go, big deal.

When I'm on the road, using my mobile wireless... different story.
*Monthly* bandwidth allotment is like 500MB before it starts costing
dearly, so yeah, suddenly I damn well do care what sort of asinine crap
is in emails, news posts, even stupid crud on web sites.
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.
Kelsey Bjarnason
2009-02-23 20:10:21 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
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
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.
http://amnesiablog.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/iphone-versus-rock/

<snicker>
The Lost Packet
2009-02-23 20:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doctor Smith
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?
mco=MTE2NTQ
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
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.
http://amnesiablog.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/iphone-versus-rock/
<snicker>
I would rather have the rock, I'm not fussed about a touchscreen and I
save myself £400 into the bargain.
--
Are more people violently opposed to wearing fur than leather because
it's easier to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs?
Kelsey Bjarnason
2009-02-23 22:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Lost Packet
Post by Doctor Smith
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?
mco=MTE2NTQ
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
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.
http://amnesiablog.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/iphone-versus-rock/
<snicker>
I would rather have the rock, I'm not fussed about a touchscreen and I
save myself £400 into the bargain.
Indeed. And there are other benefits, too. People are wholly unlikely
to steal your rock, and if they do, you can get yourself another one
pretty much anywhere, free of charge.

Charge? The rock never needs to be recharged, never runs out of power,
never leaves you in the lurch.

How about utility? You can draw on the rock, or use it to scrape
drawings in other rocks. You can use it to create music after a
fashion. You can *share* that music and those drawings without worry
someone is going to try to make your rock stop you sharing.

You can communicate with it, even over long distances, you can use it to
pound your clothes clean, fend off enemies, drive fence posts in.

You can sit on it when the ground is wet, you can play catch with your
kids with it (carefully, one hopes), you can use it to capture your
dinner - and use it again as a surface to prep and cook your dinner on.

It is ecologically sound, not producing any sort of toxic byproducts from
its power source or other components.

If it gets scratched, you just don't care.

Indeed, the only actual function of the iPhone which is not covered by
the rock is... using it as a flashlight. Feel free to pay up to $300 (or
more) for a flashlight; I'll take my rock, a conventional flashlight and
put the $300 (minus about six bucks) into my pocket.

Woot. Apple: wanna buy a rock?
Ezekiel
2009-02-23 22:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by The Lost Packet
Post by Doctor Smith
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?
mco=MTE2NTQ
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
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.
http://amnesiablog.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/iphone-versus-rock/
<snicker>
I would rather have the rock, I'm not fussed about a touchscreen and I
save myself £400 into the bargain.
Indeed. And there are other benefits, too. People are wholly unlikely
to steal your rock, and if they do, you can get yourself another one
pretty much anywhere, free of charge.
Charge? The rock never needs to be recharged, never runs out of power,
never leaves you in the lurch.
How about utility? You can draw on the rock, or use it to scrape
drawings in other rocks. You can use it to create music after a
fashion. You can *share* that music and those drawings without worry
someone is going to try to make your rock stop you sharing.
You can communicate with it, even over long distances, you can use it to
pound your clothes clean, fend off enemies, drive fence posts in.
You can sit on it when the ground is wet, you can play catch with your
kids with it (carefully, one hopes), you can use it to capture your
dinner - and use it again as a surface to prep and cook your dinner on.
It is ecologically sound, not producing any sort of toxic byproducts from
its power source or other components.
If it gets scratched, you just don't care.
Indeed, the only actual function of the iPhone which is not covered by
the rock is... using it as a flashlight. Feel free to pay up to $300 (or
more) for a flashlight; I'll take my rock, a conventional flashlight and
put the $300 (minus about six bucks) into my pocket.
--- "The only actual function of the iPhone which is not covered by the rock
is using it as a flashlight"

I've always suspected the COLA freetards of being as stupid as a rock but
now I have proof.
Hadron
2009-02-23 22:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ezekiel
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by The Lost Packet
Post by Doctor Smith
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?
mco=MTE2NTQ
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
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.
http://amnesiablog.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/iphone-versus-rock/
<snicker>
I would rather have the rock, I'm not fussed about a touchscreen and I
save myself £400 into the bargain.
Indeed. And there are other benefits, too. People are wholly unlikely
to steal your rock, and if they do, you can get yourself another one
pretty much anywhere, free of charge.
Charge? The rock never needs to be recharged, never runs out of power,
never leaves you in the lurch.
How about utility? You can draw on the rock, or use it to scrape
drawings in other rocks. You can use it to create music after a
fashion. You can *share* that music and those drawings without worry
someone is going to try to make your rock stop you sharing.
You can communicate with it, even over long distances, you can use it to
pound your clothes clean, fend off enemies, drive fence posts in.
You can sit on it when the ground is wet, you can play catch with your
kids with it (carefully, one hopes), you can use it to capture your
dinner - and use it again as a surface to prep and cook your dinner on.
It is ecologically sound, not producing any sort of toxic byproducts from
its power source or other components.
If it gets scratched, you just don't care.
Indeed, the only actual function of the iPhone which is not covered by
the rock is... using it as a flashlight. Feel free to pay up to $300 (or
more) for a flashlight; I'll take my rock, a conventional flashlight and
put the $300 (minus about six bucks) into my pocket.
--- "The only actual function of the iPhone which is not covered by the rock
is using it as a flashlight"
I've always suspected the COLA freetards of being as stupid as a rock but
now I have proof.
Are they (the "advocates") getting dumber by the second? It certainly
would appear so.
Peter Köhlmann
2009-02-23 23:02:44 UTC
Permalink
< snip >
Post by Ezekiel
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
It is ecologically sound, not producing any sort of toxic byproducts
from its power source or other components.
If it gets scratched, you just don't care.
Indeed, the only actual function of the iPhone which is not covered by
the rock is... using it as a flashlight. Feel free to pay up to $300
(or more) for a flashlight; I'll take my rock, a conventional
flashlight and put the $300 (minus about six bucks) into my pocket.
--- "The only actual function of the iPhone which is not covered by the
rock is using it as a flashlight"
I've always suspected the COLA freetards of being as stupid as a rock
but now I have proof.
Your sarcasm detector is seriously broken
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...
William Poaster
2009-02-23 23:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
Post by Ezekiel
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
It is ecologically sound, not producing any sort of toxic byproducts
from its power source or other components.
If it gets scratched, you just don't care.
Indeed, the only actual function of the iPhone which is not covered by
the rock is... using it as a flashlight. Feel free to pay up to $300
(or more) for a flashlight; I'll take my rock, a conventional
flashlight and put the $300 (minus about six bucks) into my pocket.
--- "The only actual function of the iPhone which is not covered by the
rock is using it as a flashlight"
I've always suspected the COLA freetards of being as stupid as a rock
but now I have proof.
Your sarcasm detector is seriously broken
That's 'sarchasm' - The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit & the
twit who doesn't get it.
chrisv
2009-02-24 13:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Ezekiel
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Indeed, the only actual function of the iPhone which is not covered by
the rock is... using it as a flashlight. Feel free to pay up to $300
(or more) for a flashlight; I'll take my rock, a conventional
flashlight and put the $300 (minus about six bucks) into my pocket.
--- "The only actual function of the iPhone which is not covered by the
rock is using it as a flashlight"
I've always suspected the COLA freetards of being as stupid as a rock
but now I have proof.
Irony meter says: (..../)
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Your sarcasm detector is seriously broken
The trolls just never tire of making jackasses of themselves, of
playing the clown. Amazing.
Doctor Smith
2009-02-24 02:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ezekiel
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by The Lost Packet
Post by Doctor Smith
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?
mco=MTE2NTQ
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
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.
http://amnesiablog.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/iphone-versus-rock/
<snicker>
I would rather have the rock, I'm not fussed about a touchscreen and I
save myself £400 into the bargain.
Indeed. And there are other benefits, too. People are wholly unlikely
to steal your rock, and if they do, you can get yourself another one
pretty much anywhere, free of charge.
Charge? The rock never needs to be recharged, never runs out of power,
never leaves you in the lurch.
How about utility? You can draw on the rock, or use it to scrape
drawings in other rocks. You can use it to create music after a
fashion. You can *share* that music and those drawings without worry
someone is going to try to make your rock stop you sharing.
You can communicate with it, even over long distances, you can use it to
pound your clothes clean, fend off enemies, drive fence posts in.
You can sit on it when the ground is wet, you can play catch with your
kids with it (carefully, one hopes), you can use it to capture your
dinner - and use it again as a surface to prep and cook your dinner on.
It is ecologically sound, not producing any sort of toxic byproducts from
its power source or other components.
If it gets scratched, you just don't care.
Indeed, the only actual function of the iPhone which is not covered by
the rock is... using it as a flashlight. Feel free to pay up to $300 (or
more) for a flashlight; I'll take my rock, a conventional flashlight and
put the $300 (minus about six bucks) into my pocket.
--- "The only actual function of the iPhone which is not covered by the rock
is using it as a flashlight"
I've always suspected the COLA freetards of being as stupid as a rock but
now I have proof.
Isn't Kelsey the one who couldn't figure out why people need 800mb for an
address book?
The Lost Packet
2009-02-23 22:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by The Lost Packet
Post by Doctor Smith
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?
mco=MTE2NTQ
Post by William Poaster
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Doctor Smith
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.
http://amnesiablog.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/iphone-versus-rock/
<snicker>
I would rather have the rock, I'm not fussed about a touchscreen and I
save myself £400 into the bargain.
Indeed. And there are other benefits, too. People are wholly unlikely
to steal your rock, and if they do, you can get yourself another one
pretty much anywhere, free of charge.
Charge? The rock never needs to be recharged, never runs out of power,
never leaves you in the lurch.
How about utility? You can draw on the rock, or use it to scrape
drawings in other rocks. You can use it to create music after a
fashion. You can *share* that music and those drawings without worry
someone is going to try to make your rock stop you sharing.
You can communicate with it, even over long distances, you can use it to
pound your clothes clean, fend off enemies, drive fence posts in.
You can sit on it when the ground is wet, you can play catch with your
kids with it (carefully, one hopes), you can use it to capture your
dinner - and use it again as a surface to prep and cook your dinner on.
It is ecologically sound, not producing any sort of toxic byproducts from
its power source or other components.
If it gets scratched, you just don't care.
Indeed, the only actual function of the iPhone which is not covered by
the rock is... using it as a flashlight. Feel free to pay up to $300 (or
more) for a flashlight; I'll take my rock, a conventional flashlight and
put the $300 (minus about six bucks) into my pocket.
Woot. Apple: wanna buy a rock?
that's brilliant! LOL! I'll go one further, however, and question the
utility of the iphone as a flashlight when if you use the right kind of
rock you make your own fire... and even share that!
--
Are more people violently opposed to wearing fur than leather because
it's easier to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs?
Hadron
2009-02-23 22:01:45 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.
Yes, but you're a total idiot and would not figure out how to use
one. Your comments are reminiscent of that ridiculous statement from the
guy who keeps showing about his degree where he said he prefers to have
all the features of something like a N96 on seperate devices in case he
, and wait for it, gets mugged .............

Honestly. You could not make it up.

Willy, you're an idiot. No one cares what YOU want a pocket device
for. Others like the ability to text, get email, take a video or picture
or check on their stocks and shares. Your inability to see what others
might want makes you a useless "advocate" of any type.

Now run along and suck a rock or whatever you do.
Post by William Poaster
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.
Snit
2009-02-23 22:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
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.
Yes, but you're a total idiot and would not figure out how to use
one. Your comments are reminiscent of that ridiculous statement from the
guy who keeps showing about his degree where he said he prefers to have
all the features of something like a N96 on seperate devices in case he
, and wait for it, gets mugged .............
Honestly. You could not make it up.
Willy, you're an idiot. No one cares what YOU want a pocket device
for. Others like the ability to text, get email, take a video or picture
or check on their stocks and shares. Your inability to see what others
might want makes you a useless "advocate" of any type.
Now run along and suck a rock or whatever you do.
Is he arguing against the *choice* of users to use pocket devices to do such
things?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
2009-02-23 22:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Hadron
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.
Yes, but you're a total idiot and would not figure out how to use
one. Your comments are reminiscent of that ridiculous statement from the
guy who keeps showing about his degree where he said he prefers to have
all the features of something like a N96 on seperate devices in case he
, and wait for it, gets mugged .............
Honestly. You could not make it up.
Willy, you're an idiot. No one cares what YOU want a pocket device
for. Others like the ability to text, get email, take a video or picture
or check on their stocks and shares. Your inability to see what others
might want makes you a useless "advocate" of any type.
Now run along and suck a rock or whatever you do.
Is he arguing against the *choice* of users to use pocket devices to do such
things?
Whether he does or not is not the crux of the point I made. The point I
made is that him dissing these devices is of no interest since he is an
idiot. he is projecting his idiocy and cluelessness onto others and
suggesting that most people do not in fact want multi function devices
when we know full well they do.
Snit
2009-02-23 22:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Snit
Post by Hadron
Yes, but you're a total idiot and would not figure out how to use
one. Your comments are reminiscent of that ridiculous statement from the
guy who keeps showing about his degree where he said he prefers to have
all the features of something like a N96 on seperate devices in case he
, and wait for it, gets mugged .............
Honestly. You could not make it up.
Willy, you're an idiot. No one cares what YOU want a pocket device
for. Others like the ability to text, get email, take a video or picture
or check on their stocks and shares. Your inability to see what others
might want makes you a useless "advocate" of any type.
Now run along and suck a rock or whatever you do.
Is he arguing against the *choice* of users to use pocket devices to do such
things?
Whether he does or not is not the crux of the point I made. The point I
made is that him dissing these devices is of no interest since he is an
idiot. he is projecting his idiocy and cluelessness onto others and
suggesting that most people do not in fact want multi function devices
when we know full well they do.
Well, many *clearly* do. Is it most? I do not know... but I bet it is...
*if* the device has a good UI. Look at the popularity of the iPhone,
*clearly* a multi-function device. Its "magic" is that it has a well
thought out, consistent UI.

Gee, I am shocked he does not get the value of that. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Doctor Smith
2009-02-24 02:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Snit
Post by Hadron
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.
Yes, but you're a total idiot and would not figure out how to use
one. Your comments are reminiscent of that ridiculous statement from the
guy who keeps showing about his degree where he said he prefers to have
all the features of something like a N96 on seperate devices in case he
, and wait for it, gets mugged .............
Honestly. You could not make it up.
Willy, you're an idiot. No one cares what YOU want a pocket device
for. Others like the ability to text, get email, take a video or picture
or check on their stocks and shares. Your inability to see what others
might want makes you a useless "advocate" of any type.
Now run along and suck a rock or whatever you do.
Is he arguing against the *choice* of users to use pocket devices to do such
things?
Whether he does or not is not the crux of the point I made. The point I
made is that him dissing these devices is of no interest since he is an
idiot. he is projecting his idiocy and cluelessness onto others and
suggesting that most people do not in fact want multi function devices
when we know full well they do.
Evidently people *do* want these devices because they are standing in line
waiting for them.

Just like people want Windows or Mac and would rather pay for it than use
free Linux.
Ezekiel
2009-02-23 22:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
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.
Yes, but you're a total idiot and would not figure out how to use
one. Your comments are reminiscent of that ridiculous statement from the
guy who keeps showing about his degree where he said he prefers to have
all the features of something like a N96 on seperate devices in case he
, and wait for it, gets mugged .............
Honestly. You could not make it up.
Willy, you're an idiot. No one cares what YOU want a pocket device
for. Others like the ability to text, get email, take a video or picture
or check on their stocks and shares. Your inability to see what others
might want makes you a useless "advocate" of any type.
"Me too" Willy has no use for a multi-function device in the same way that a
chimp has no use for a calculator. Other than looking at the pretty buttons,
neither has the mental capacity to understand what's in front of them.
Doctor Smith
2009-02-24 02:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
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.
Yes, but you're a total idiot and would not figure out how to use
one. Your comments are reminiscent of that ridiculous statement from the
guy who keeps showing about his degree where he said he prefers to have
all the features of something like a N96 on seperate devices in case he
, and wait for it, gets mugged .............
Honestly. You could not make it up.
You can bet that if a Linux based phone had all the features that the
iPhone has the Freetards would be singing in the shower about it.

It's just sour grapes from a couple of idiots.
William Poaster and Jeb.
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).
Ezekiel
2009-02-19 13:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
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).
You probably already realized this but you're wasting your time trying to
explain foreign concepts like usability, consistency and
man-machine-interface to the Linux users in COLA. You would have more
progress teaching HTML tags to a chimpanzee.
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-19 15:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ezekiel
Post by wetpixel
Post by Doctor Smith
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
[deletia]
Post by Ezekiel
Post by wetpixel
(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.
Nope. This is just something that people tell themselves to keep themselves
from feeling stupid for being taken advantage of.

My Mac is really like a BMW. My BMW is really all the extra money
I paid for it. It's not really about hype. It's about "quality"
that other products of it's kind (that cost half as much) don't
possess.

[deletia]
Post by Ezekiel
You probably already realized this but you're wasting your time trying to
explain foreign concepts like usability, consistency and
Usability is one thing.

Redefining usability so that it is just a weak appeal to authority
is another matter. It's also very prone to fall apart as you choose the
WRONG authority to cite. Some of the relevant parties are more of a
rogue's gallery of bad apps.
Post by Ezekiel
man-machine-interface to the Linux users in COLA. You would have more
progress teaching HTML tags to a chimpanzee.
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
Ezekiel
2009-02-19 18:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by wetpixel
Now, intelligent people know that marketing alone doesn't sustain a
product -- it has to actually have something significant going for it.
Nope. This is just something that people tell themselves to keep themselves
from feeling stupid for being taken advantage of.
My Mac is really like a BMW. My BMW is really all the extra money
I paid for it. It's not really about hype. It's about "quality"
that other products of it's kind (that cost half as much) don't
possess.
But it is about value and quality. If you're going to get into a head-on
collision with some drunk at 100 km/h what would you rather be in... a
Chevette or a BMW? After you get into a serious accident (as detected by the
onboard sensors) a BMW will automatically unlock the doors, turn on the
emergency flashers and interior lights, dial 911 and then disconnect
electrical from all non-essential circuits (fuel pump, engine, etc) to
prevent fires. Will your piece of crap Chevette do this? If my wife and
kids rammed into your wife and kids at high speeds they might be a little
late for dinner whereas you family would be eating through a straw for the
next few months.

Financially good luck finding a car that holds it's value as well. In 3-5
years someone can trade in their BMW and get back most of what they paid for
it. In 3-5 years your cheapo car is essentially worthless.

But yeah... it's all about hype and not feeling stupid for being taken
advantage of. That's what idiots keep telling themselves.
JEDIDIAH
2009-02-19 15:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by wetpixel
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.
With sufficient marketing, it doesn't matter if the product is
weak or not. There are a great many examples of this to draw from.
Post by wetpixel
(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.
That's simple post factum argumentation.

Success = good.

That's a rationalization people use to avoid feeling stupid. They
would rather maintain old habits rather than acknowledge that they
have been taken advantage of.
Post by wetpixel
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.
The success of a Microsoft OS product has never depended on it's
inherent qualities beyond "being compatable". It's an extension of
what people already run. It is and will be forced on people by the
same means as the previous version.

It's not really a distinct product. It's just a new version of the
old one. Dell sells a PC. It has whatever the current incarnation of
DOS is.
Post by wetpixel
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).
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
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.)
Chris Ahlstrom
2009-02-19 12:49:43 UTC
Permalink
After takin' a swig o' grog, wetpixel belched out
Post by wetpixel
Post by William R. Cousert
One reason why it won't - for now.
It's only available for AT&T.
Verizon has a better network.
For whom? Where?
My daughter's apartment is a recurring dead zone for AT&T.
--
Philogyny recapitulates erogeny; erogeny recapitulates philogyny.
William R. Cousert
2009-02-19 13:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
After takin' a swig o' grog, wetpixel belched out
Post by wetpixel
Post by William R. Cousert
One reason why it won't - for now.
It's only available for AT&T.
Verizon has a better network.
For whom? Where?
My daughter's apartment is a recurring dead zone for AT&T.
I had AT&T back when it was still known as Cingular.

I couldn't use my phone in downtown Long Beach, California. I lived in
Huntington Beach and couldn't use my phone inside my apartment. When I
visited someone in the city of Carson, I had to walk nearly two blocks to
get a signal.

I switched to Verizon a few years ago. Now I can use my phone anywhere I
want to.

I should have done some research before buying that first phone. Most of the
reviewers agree that Verizon is better.
ZnU
2009-02-21 02:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by William R. Cousert
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
After takin' a swig o' grog, wetpixel belched out
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?
My daughter's apartment is a recurring dead zone for AT&T.
I had AT&T back when it was still known as Cingular.
I couldn't use my phone in downtown Long Beach, California. I lived
in Huntington Beach and couldn't use my phone inside my apartment.
When I visited someone in the city of Carson, I had to walk nearly
two blocks to get a signal.
I switched to Verizon a few years ago. Now I can use my phone
anywhere I want to.
I should have done some research before buying that first phone. Most
of the reviewers agree that Verizon is better.
Verizon does have the best coverage in the US. AT&T is second, though.
And it's basically a wash between the two of them in major cities, so to
a lot of people the difference doesn't matter much.

Well... at least all these new "femtocell" devices (or whatever they're
calling them this week) should eliminate the "I can't use my phone in my
own house!" problems. Hopefully they'll scale the technology up a bit,
so venues that have poor cellular coverage and want to improve it can
just buy off-the-shelf devices to do so. That's the only way we'll ever
really get coverage everywhere people want it.
--
"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
Doctor Smith
2009-02-21 14:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by William R. Cousert
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
After takin' a swig o' grog, wetpixel belched out
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?
My daughter's apartment is a recurring dead zone for AT&T.
I had AT&T back when it was still known as Cingular.
I couldn't use my phone in downtown Long Beach, California. I lived
in Huntington Beach and couldn't use my phone inside my apartment.
When I visited someone in the city of Carson, I had to walk nearly
two blocks to get a signal.
I switched to Verizon a few years ago. Now I can use my phone
anywhere I want to.
I should have done some research before buying that first phone. Most
of the reviewers agree that Verizon is better.
Verizon does have the best coverage in the US. AT&T is second, though.
And it's basically a wash between the two of them in major cities, so to
a lot of people the difference doesn't matter much.
Verizon = Best coverage.

However they have a terrible phone selection, extremely confusing plans and
a convoluted bill.
The customer service is very good though.
Walter Bushell
2009-02-21 15:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doctor Smith
Verizon = Best coverage.
However they have a terrible phone selection, extremely confusing plans and
a convoluted bill.
The customer service is very good though.
Which is the bottom line, if you've ever had trouble with a utility.
Doctor Smith
2009-02-21 15:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Bushell
Post by Doctor Smith
Verizon = Best coverage.
However they have a terrible phone selection, extremely confusing plans and
a convoluted bill.
The customer service is very good though.
Which is the bottom line, if you've ever had trouble with a utility.
Very true!
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.
Rex Ballard
2009-02-20 14:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doctor Smith
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.
Actually that FIRST.

One of the problems Linux has had for years is that it had LOTS of
applications, but the critical applications, that provided critical
SERVICE such as project management, connecting and getting your bank
information, scheduling payments through your bank, and filling out
your tax forms at the end of the year, were not available on Linux.

That's changed over the years, and the day will come with *nix systems
have applications that Windows doesn't, and provides SERVICES that
Windows doesn't, at which point, Windows will become Obsolete -
possibly a "Legacy System" that continues to exist as a virtualized
appliance on the *nix system.
Post by Doctor Smith
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.
That's one of the problems. iPhone had a big problem when it first
came out because people were getting 300 page bills for hundreds of
dollars. But AT&T was the only game in town. For what I would have
spent on a monthly bill for AT&T and an iPhone I got an ASUS EEE and a
USB broadband modem with unlimited usage.

I can use the USB Broadband device with my EEE, my Windows Thinkpad or
my Linux Thinkpad. Which makes applications a bit moot.
Post by Doctor Smith
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.
What makes you so sure? Did you WRITE all those applications?
Did Apple's tech development team write 15,000 applications in just
over a year?
That would be about 60,000 staff-years worth of effort! Roughly $60
billion dollars worth.

OR

Did Apple just take advantage of the fact that it was BSD and Linux
compatible, and encourage about 15,000 companies who had already
published applications for UNIX and Linux to publish those
applications for iPhone.

Apple isn't trying to make the iPhone the only computer you will ever
need, they are simply providing a UNIX system with a cell phone and a
screen with enough resolution to eliminate the need to write special
"phone" software for the low resolution screens on most PDAs and Cell
phones.

The best feature of the iPhone isn't those applications, it that they
DIDN'T try to settle for 400x300 resolution. What is the resolution
on an iPhone? 1024x768? Like 90% of the full sized laptops on the
market. With a good pair of glasses or good eyesight, you can easily
read the high resolution display.

Google needs to do the same thing with their Android. They need to
make sure that they have at LEAST 1024x768 resolution. Even if it's
only on a 7 inch display.

The great thing about the new notebooks is that they have HDMI output,
which means that you can plug it directly into a 720p, 1080i, or 1080p
displays - as well as the family HDTV. Even the netbooks are starting
to offer HDMI interfaces.
Post by Doctor Smith
And if you look at the applications there is everything from health
monitors, to stock trackers to MRI reading programs.
The MRI was probably generated by a UNIX machine and could be viewed
by either a Windows machine (2D interface of slides) or a *nix machine
(3D viewable pan/tilt/zoom interface).
Post by Doctor Smith
It is a HUGE range and thus a HUGE selling
point for the iPhone which is
why the Linux phones are DEAD MEAT.
Did Apple get EXCLUSIVE agreements with all those publishers?

The Blackberry isn't a great phone, and it doesn't have a lot of great
features, but it does have the ability to deal with full content e-
mails rather than the typical short content sms messages. It's
frustrating to know that I've got an e-mail (because it was forwarded
to both my e-mail account and my vztext account, but I can only see
the first 256 bytes of the message. That was the one thing I hated
about BOTH WinCE and EnV
Post by Doctor Smith
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.
If AT&T offers me unlimited Voice AND Data for $60/month, AND lets me
interface directly to my computer - then I'll switch.

BTW, can you use your iPhone as a cellular modem for your computer?
With or without taking the phone out of your pocket?

I've had 3 phones that had that capability. I could connect to the
cell phone via bluetooth, then connect to the internet via the cell
phone - usually at around 200 kbits/second.

Verizon says they have 3G network service, but I haven't seen anything
that offers faster than their current 200 Kb/sec service. Anyone want
to give me a clue on this?

How fast is AT&T's service when accessed through an iPhone?
Post by Doctor Smith
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 should probably point out that most of the Linux phones were "locked
out" due to the carriers' pre-existing agreements with Microsoft as
part of carrying the Windows based smart-phones.

In Asia, where phones are sold separately and you buy SIM cards for
the carrier's service, Linux phones have been very popular.
Post by Doctor Smith
I buy my phones based upon performance,
IOW clarity of sound, signal holding ability etc.
Which is the main reason why I have stayed with Verizon.
I used to have AT&T and I couldn't keep a call for more than
10 minutes most of the time because I lost the bars. I couldn't even
make a reliable cell phone call from my own home office.

I haven't tried them since the Cingular merger, so maybe it's better
now.
Post by Doctor Smith
www.howardforums.comis a great place to find this stuff out.
Looks like you have to really follow the blogs to pull anything useful
together. I thought maybe you were going to give me a site that
showed the superior connectivity of AT&T vs Verizon.
Post by Doctor Smith
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.
That's the point I was trying to make. If I need a phone, I just need
a cheap and simple phone. If I need a computer, a USB cellular modem
is a much more practical way to have "all the best toys".
Post by Doctor Smith
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.
ASUS has been doing very well with Linux, but MSI skimped on
resolution and drive space on the Linux version.

Even the EEE 4G is a bit too low resolution to be really good,
ESPECIALLY FOR WINDOWS!

Remember that the Windows netbooks with XP home edition running on it
also come with twice as much memory and a 120 gig hard drive. This
is enough to run the lobotomized version of Office (Works) a minimally
functional version of IE (due to low resolution - which IE gobbles
up), and can run just a few applications at a time.

The Linux version uses less memory, has less storage (usually 4-8 gig
plus 2 8 gig flash card slots (where you can put executable programs),
and lets you run 6-8 applications at the same time, including a fully
functional OpenOffice suite, FireFox (which can be much more efficient
with the pixel "real estate", Skype, which gives you calls to any
phone over WiFi for 2 cents/minute, and Pidgin, which lets you connect
to MSN, AIM, GoogleTalk, and several others, AT THE SAME TIME!

The e-mail suite is Thunderbird, which is really great for sifting
through mountains of junk-mail really quickly, and keeps your inbox
clear. The Linux kernel means the viruses just sort of "bounce off",
usually not even getting displayed.
Ezekiel
2009-02-20 15:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rex Ballard
Post by Doctor Smith
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.
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.
What makes you so sure? Did you WRITE all those applications?
Did Apple's tech development team write 15,000 applications in just
over a year?
No. Independent developers and companies like Bloomberg News, USA Today,
ESPN, etc wrote the applications.
Post by Rex Ballard
That would be about 60,000 staff-years worth of effort! Roughly $60
billion dollars worth.
Another wild ass guess with nothing to back it up.
Post by Rex Ballard
OR
Did Apple just take advantage of the fact that it was BSD and Linux
compatible, and encourage about 15,000 companies who had already
published applications for UNIX and Linux to publish those
applications for iPhone.
No. These are not existing Linux/Unix apps. Why don't you take a look at
some of these apps before speculating about them. There may be a few (very
few) that have roots to Unix but most are native iPhone apps.
Post by Rex Ballard
The great thing about the new notebooks is that they have HDMI output,
Great. All you need now is to carry a flat-panel LCD screen around with
you.
Post by Rex Ballard
Did Apple get EXCLUSIVE agreements with all those publishers?
These are independent publishers. There is no exclusive agreement.
Post by Rex Ballard
I should probably point out that most of the Linux phones were "locked
out" due to the carriers' pre-existing agreements with Microsoft as
part of carrying the Windows based smart-phones.
Any specific examples of this?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...