f



[News] Sister OS to Linux, OS-X Has Better TCO than Microsoft Windows

Following illustrates why Microsoft Vista Windows is losing to a 
more superior OS:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/660E746C-F388-4AC7-98F5-6CB951501472.html

or http://tinyurl.com/fwnxt

Windows 5x More Expensive than Mac OS X

[quote]
A Mac user since 2000, upgrading to each new version of Mac OS X:

    1. �$300 in operating system updates, or nearly $400 if 
purchased at full retail.
    2. �Three major new releases that significantly improved 
performance of the same hardware and introduced new apps.
    3. �Thirty one regular minor updates with bug fixes and new 
features, in addition to many security updates.
    4. �No antivirus needed
    5. �No spyware cleaning needed
    6. �Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about $50 a 
year, or around $350 since 2000. (Reports of �$750� were a mix of 
Truthiness and bad math.)

A Professional Windows user since 2000, upgrading at the one 
opportunity available:

    1. �$200 upgrade to XP Professional, or $300 for a new retail 
version.
    2. �One major new release that improved reliability but not 
the performance of old hardware.
    3. �Two minor service pack updates focused on bugs and 
security features, and around fifty security patches since SP2.
    4. �Seven years of AntiVirus 2000 $50, plus $30 for six 
annual updates = $230
    5. �Spyware and security cleaning by Geek Squad: a $200 
annual servicing over seven years = $1400
    6. �Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over $250 a 
year, or more than $1800 since 2000.

The much lower cost of Mac OS X and Apple�s far more frequent 
releases of free updates will be a major selling point next year 
for users comparing the purchase of a new Mac with Leopard over a 
new PC with Vista.

Additionally, while Leopard will likely continue to run on the 
same Macs as Tiger (anything modern enough to have built in 
Firewire), Vista will require a new PC to run, likely something 
from the last year and a half.

For home users, Vista won�t even include the new Vista Aero look 
unless they upgrade beyond the Home Basic version to buy Home 
Premium. There are six versions of Vista in all, differentiated 
by artificial product limitations. They ship on the same DVD, and 
users will be able to pay directly from Windows to unlock the 
features of more premium versions.

Will users see the value in paying over three times as much for 
Vista over Leopard? With the average price of consumer PCs 
dropping this year to $744, will users be excited to pay around 
half the cost of a new PC to buy Vista Ultimate Edition software?
[/quote]

-- 
HPT
0
3/5/2008 12:36:58 AM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

178 Replies
1273 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 14

High Plains Thumper wrote:

[Mac]
> 1. •$300 in operating system updates, or nearly $400 if purchased at
>     full retail.
> 2. •Three major new releases that significantly improved performance
>     of the same hardware and introduced new apps.
> 3. •Thirty one regular minor updates with bug fixes and new features,
>     in addition to many security updates.
> 4. •No antivirus needed
> 5. •No spyware cleaning needed
> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about $50 a year, or
>     around $350 since 2000. (Reports of “$750” were a mix of 
>     Truthiness and bad math.)
[Windows]
> 1. •$200 upgrade to XP Professional, or $300 for a new retail 
>     version.
> 2. •One major new release that improved reliability but not the
>     performance of old hardware.
> 3. •Two minor service pack updates focused on bugs and security
>     features, and around fifty security patches since SP2.
> 4. •Seven years of AntiVirus 2000 $50, plus $30 for six annual
>     updates = $230
> 5. •Spyware and security cleaning by Geek Squad: a $200 annual
>     servicing over seven years = $1400
> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over $250 a year, or
>     more than $1800 since 2000.
[Linux]
1.  Installing   Red Hat     5.1  £0.00
2.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.0  £0.00
3.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.1  £0.00
4.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.2  £0.00
5.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.0  £0.00
6.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.1  £0.00
7.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.2  £0.00
8.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.3  £0.00
9.  Upgrading to Fedora Core 1    £0.00
10. Upgrading to Fedora Core 2    £0.00
11. Upgrading to Fedora Core 3    £0.00
12. Upgrading to Fedora Core 4    £0.00
13. Upgrading to Fedora Core 5    £0.00
14. Upgrading to Fedora Core 6    £0.00
15. Upgrading to Fedora      7    £0.00
16. Upgrading to Fedora      8    £0.00
17. Anti-virus (none)             £0.00
18. Anti-spyware (none)           £0.00
19. System repair software (none) £0.00
20. Firewall (iptables: Free)     £0.00
Ten-year Total                    £0.00
Freedom                           Priceless

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
|     ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian.  http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
 10:48:43 up 75 days,  8:24,  4 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
0
spam95 (5695)
3/5/2008 10:49:22 AM
* [H]omer peremptorily fired off this memo:

> [Linux]
> 1.  Installing   Red Hat     5.1  �0.00
> 2.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.0  �0.00
> 3.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.1  �0.00
> 4.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.2  �0.00
> 5.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.0  �0.00
> 6.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.1  �0.00
> 7.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.2  �0.00
> 8.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.3  �0.00
> 9.  Upgrading to Fedora Core 1    �0.00
> 10. Upgrading to Fedora Core 2    �0.00
> 11. Upgrading to Fedora Core 3    �0.00
> 12. Upgrading to Fedora Core 4    �0.00
> 13. Upgrading to Fedora Core 5    �0.00
> 14. Upgrading to Fedora Core 6    �0.00
> 15. Upgrading to Fedora      7    �0.00
> 16. Upgrading to Fedora      8    �0.00
> 17. Anti-virus (none)             �0.00
> 18. Anti-spyware (none)           �0.00
> 19. System repair software (none) �0.00
> 20. Firewall (iptables: Free)     �0.00
> Ten-year Total                    �0.00
> Freedom                           Priceless

You left out your time.  Linux is free only if your time is free.

You see, Microsoft would have you count as money the time you spent
installing Linux, when you could instead have been jacking off.

-- 
I laid out memory so the bottom 640K was general purpose RAM and the upper
384 I reserved for video and ROM, and things like that. That is why they
talk about the 640K limit. It is actually a limit, not of the software, in
any way, shape, or form, it is the limit of the microprocessor. That thing
generates addresses, 20-bits addresses, that only can address a megabyte of
memory. And, therefore, all the applications are tied to that limit. It was
ten times what we had before. But to my surprise, we ran out of that address
base for applications within... oh five or six years people were
complaining.
   -- Bill Gates, Smithsonian Institution interview (1993)
0
linonut (8350)
3/5/2008 2:53:54 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
<linonut@bollsouth.nut>
 wrote
on Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:53:54 -0500
<5uyzj.114546$K27.29691@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
> * [H]omer peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> [Linux]
>> 1.  Installing   Red Hat     5.1  �0.00
>> 2.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.0  �0.00
>> 3.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.1  �0.00
>> 4.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.2  �0.00
>> 5.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.0  �0.00
>> 6.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.1  �0.00
>> 7.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.2  �0.00
>> 8.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.3  �0.00
>> 9.  Upgrading to Fedora Core 1    �0.00
>> 10. Upgrading to Fedora Core 2    �0.00
>> 11. Upgrading to Fedora Core 3    �0.00
>> 12. Upgrading to Fedora Core 4    �0.00
>> 13. Upgrading to Fedora Core 5    �0.00
>> 14. Upgrading to Fedora Core 6    �0.00
>> 15. Upgrading to Fedora      7    �0.00
>> 16. Upgrading to Fedora      8    �0.00
>> 17. Anti-virus (none)             �0.00
>> 18. Anti-spyware (none)           �0.00
>> 19. System repair software (none) �0.00
>> 20. Firewall (iptables: Free)     �0.00
>> Ten-year Total                    �0.00
>> Freedom                           Priceless
>
> You left out your time.  Linux is free only if your time is free.
>
> You see, Microsoft would have you count as money the time you spent
> installing Linux, when you could instead have been jacking off.
>

Indeed.  And since every installation takes an hour, the 16
installations above would cost $3200 total (at $200/hour)
-- which would have been more than enough for a nice copy
of Microsoft Office, plus a number of lattes at the local
coffee shop.

Even if one assumes half that amount, $1600 could still buy
a nice retail copy of Microsoft Office.

Of course turnabout is fair play, if harder to measure;
how does one measure Windows' frustrations and malware
intrusion issues?  Best I can do is use

http://www.computereconomics.com/article.cfm?id=1090

which suggests that his malware costs would be on the
order of $20 in 2005, if one assumes 700M computer units
installed worldwide, which is probably an underestimate.

Admittedly, the possibility exists that malware costs are
absorbed in other costs; the simplest way of dealing with
a massive infection is to buy a new unit, for example.
Nor does this URL take into consideration initial acquisition
costs for detection/disinfection software.

Absent those, $6.67 per user per year isn't all that bad --
but how do I know I'm computing it properly?

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
  - allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
3/5/2008 5:24:22 PM
Linonut wrote:

> You left out your time.  Linux is free only if your time is free.

Well the install process may take between 5 and 40 minutes, depending on
the hardware and package choices, but most of that time is non
-interactive, which means I'm not spending time on the install per se.
I can (and do) go off and do other things.

Also, the "time" argument is equally applicable to Windows, only more so
given it's extraordinarily high unreliability; utter lack of any package
management; and obfuscated workings that require what amounts to hacking
in order to maintain the system when it all inevitably goes wrong. Where
hacking proves too difficult or unsuccessful (e.g. because of Malware),
then third-party tools need to be purchased and installed, further
adding to the wasted time and money.

Of course that isn't to say that Linux is entirely trouble-free, but in
the grand scheme of things, the Windows XPerience is much more time
consuming; expensive; and generally painful:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5MVfOTtD6B0

The choice of Free Software is not only a political one, but obviously
one made for practical reasons too, as the above video demonstrates.

> You see, Microsoft would have you count as money the time you spent 
> installing Linux, when you could instead have been jacking off.

They seem to have grossly underestimated the value of Freedom, not to
mention my free time.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
|     ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian.  http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
 00:12:59 up 75 days, 21:48,  4 users,  load average: 0.03, 0.07, 0.02
0
spam95 (5695)
3/6/2008 12:13:20 AM
On Mar 5, 9:24 am, The Ghost In The Machine
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
> <lino...@bollsouth.nut>
>  wrote
> on Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:53:54 -0500
> <5uyzj.114546$K27.29...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
>
>
>
> > * [H]omer peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
> >> [Linux]
> >> 1.  Installing   Red Hat     5.1  =A30.00
> >> 2.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.0  =A30.00
> >> 3.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.1  =A30.00
> >> 4.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.2  =A30.00
> >> 5.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.0  =A30.00
> >> 6.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.1  =A30.00
> >> 7.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.2  =A30.00
> >> 8.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.3  =A30.00
> >> 9.  Upgrading to Fedora Core 1    =A30.00
> >> 10. Upgrading to Fedora Core 2    =A30.00
> >> 11. Upgrading to Fedora Core 3    =A30.00
> >> 12. Upgrading to Fedora Core 4    =A30.00
> >> 13. Upgrading to Fedora Core 5    =A30.00
> >> 14. Upgrading to Fedora Core 6    =A30.00
> >> 15. Upgrading to Fedora      7    =A30.00
> >> 16. Upgrading to Fedora      8    =A30.00
> >> 17. Anti-virus (none)             =A30.00
> >> 18. Anti-spyware (none)           =A30.00
> >> 19. System repair software (none) =A30.00
> >> 20. Firewall (iptables: Free)     =A30.00
> >> Ten-year Total                    =A30.00
> >> Freedom                           Priceless
>
> > You left out your time.  Linux is free only if your time is free.
>
> > You see, Microsoft would have you count as money the time you spent
> > installing Linux, when you could instead have been jacking off.
>
> Indeed.  And since every installation takes an hour, the 16
> installations above would cost $3200 total (at $200/hour)
> -- which would have been more than enough for a nice copy
> of Microsoft Office, plus a number of lattes at the local
> coffee shop.
>
> Even if one assumes half that amount, $1600 could still buy
> a nice retail copy of Microsoft Office.
>

Well it looks like Homer is going back at least 10 years.  According
to Ray Lopez 0.999, it costs $75/year for antivirus software on
Windows.  There's $750 right there.  Now of course Ray doesn't always
get things right...But my point is that over the last 10 years,
maintaining a typical Windows installation is going to cost you.
Hardware upgrades, for one thing, Linux can keep using that old
hardware longer than Windows can, unless you still run Win 98 that
is.  And we know what the "Vista ready" certification is worth.  Also,
how many times do you have to have your Windows machine dewormed over
10 years?  The average customer has certainly spent some time=3Dmoney on
that.  In fact, a lot of people just throw the old machine out when it
"starts to run sluggishly" or gets an infection so far in the registry
that their local computer guru can't get it out.  Yep, a lot of costs
there, when you start to count a person's time...


0
nessuno (2199)
3/6/2008 1:08:24 AM
[H]omer wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
> 
> [Mac]
>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about $50 a
>> year, or around $350 since 2000. (Reports of “$750” were a
>> mix of Truthiness and bad math.)
> [Windows]
>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over $250 a
>> year, or more than $1800 since 2000.
> [Linux] Ten-year Total £0.00   Freedom Priceless

Are you sure you didn't spend a fiver on the first distro?   :-)

-- 
HPT
0
3/6/2008 12:28:30 PM
High Plains Thumper wrote:
> [H]omer wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:

>> [Mac]
>>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about $50 a 
>>> year, or around $350 since 2000. (Reports of “$750” were a mix of
>>> Truthiness and bad math.)
>> [Windows]
>>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over $250 a year,
>>> or more than $1800 since 2000.
>> [Linux] Ten-year Total £0.00   Freedom Priceless
> 
> Are you sure you didn't spend a fiver on the first distro?   :-)

In call charges, maybe. ;)

Back then, I used to download the bootdisk images, and install over ftp.

However, the unsupported distro was free, irrespective of peripheral
costs. Non-enterprise RHN subs were also free.

I did buy an Amiga port of 5.1 from Schatztruhe (an Amiga software
retailer in Germany), but IIRC it was material costs only. I've still
got that disc, and one machine (A4000T) running Linux.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
|     ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian.  http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
 16:20:28 up 76 days, 13:56,  4 users,  load average: 0.05, 0.03, 0.03
0
spam95 (5695)
3/6/2008 4:20:47 PM
[H]omer wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> [H]omer wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>> 
>>> [Mac]
>>>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about
>>>> $50 a year, or around $350 since 2000. (Reports of
>>>> “$750” were a mix of Truthiness and bad math.)
>>> [Windows]
>>>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over
>>>> $250 a year, or more than $1800 since 2000.
>>> [Linux] Ten-year Total £0.00   Freedom Priceless
>>
>> Are you sure you didn't spend a fiver on the first distro?
>> :-)
> 
> In call charges, maybe. ;)
> 
> Back then, I used to download the bootdisk images, and install
> over ftp.
> 
> However, the unsupported distro was free, irrespective of
> peripheral costs. Non-enterprise RHN subs were also free.
> 
> I did buy an Amiga port of 5.1 from Schatztruhe (an Amiga
> software retailer in Germany), but IIRC it was material costs
> only. I've still got that disc, and one machine (A4000T)
> running Linux.

Amazing, I did not know there was a Linux version for Amiga!  I 
downloaded a Corel Linux 1.0 version CD ISO image some 9 years 
ago.  It took four nights to download on a 34.6 kb modem connection.

Corel did a nice job of implementing Linux.  KDE 1.0 was vastly 
superior to Windows 98, with its multiple desktops, scalable 
icons, screen savers, etc.  If one hovered the mouse over the 
"Start" button, pop-up description said, "Where do you want to go 
tomorrow?"  They also did a nice job of implementing Samba.  It 
was way ahead of its time, IMHO.

-- 
HPT
0
3/7/2008 10:42:14 AM
High Plains Thumper wrote:

> [H]omer wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> [Mac]
>>>>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about
>>>>> $50 a year, or around $350 since 2000. (Reports of
>>>>> “$750” were a mix of Truthiness and bad math.)
>>>> [Windows]
>>>>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over
>>>>> $250 a year, or more than $1800 since 2000.
>>>> [Linux] Ten-year Total £0.00   Freedom Priceless
>>>
>>> Are you sure you didn't spend a fiver on the first distro?
>>> :-)
>> 
>> In call charges, maybe. ;)
>> 
>> Back then, I used to download the bootdisk images, and install
>> over ftp.
>> 
>> However, the unsupported distro was free, irrespective of
>> peripheral costs. Non-enterprise RHN subs were also free.
>> 
>> I did buy an Amiga port of 5.1 from Schatztruhe (an Amiga
>> software retailer in Germany), but IIRC it was material costs
>> only. I've still got that disc, and one machine (A4000T)
>> running Linux.
> 
> Amazing, I did not know there was a Linux version for Amiga!  I
> downloaded a Corel Linux 1.0 version CD ISO image some 9 years
> ago.  It took four nights to download on a 34.6 kb modem connection.
> 
> Corel did a nice job of implementing Linux.  

I don't recall trying Corel Linux, however I did run Caldera OpenLinux for a
short time in '97. IMO that was very good too.It came with WordPerfect &
CorelDRAW as well as StarOffice. It also shipped with PartitionMagic, IIRC. 

> KDE 1.0 was vastly superior to Windows 98, with its multiple desktops,
> scalable icons, screen savers, etc.  

Coming from using Win95 & then Win98SE, KDE 1.0 was quite an eye opener! Very
impressive.

> If one hovered the mouse over the 
> "Start" button, pop-up description said, "Where do you want to go
> tomorrow?"  They also did a nice job of implementing Samba.  It
> was way ahead of its time, IMHO.

IMO compared to Win98SE, it was. Didn't crash either!

-- 
Free-BSD 7.0, PC-BSD 1.4
Linux systems: PCLOS 2007,Fedora 8, Kubuntu 7.10. 
Testing:  Mandrake One 2008.1 RC1
-- On 64bit systems --
0
wp16 (1499)
3/7/2008 11:14:45 AM
High Plains Thumper <highplainsthumper@invalid.invalid> espoused:
> [H]omer wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> [Mac]
>>>>> 6. ?Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about
>>>>> $50 a year, or around $350 since 2000. (Reports of
>>>>> ?$750? were a mix of Truthiness and bad math.)
>>>> [Windows]
>>>>> 6. ?Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over
>>>>> $250 a year, or more than $1800 since 2000.
>>>> [Linux] Ten-year Total �0.00   Freedom Priceless
>>>
>>> Are you sure you didn't spend a fiver on the first distro?
>>> :-)
>> 
>> In call charges, maybe. ;)
>> 
>> Back then, I used to download the bootdisk images, and install
>> over ftp.
>> 
>> However, the unsupported distro was free, irrespective of
>> peripheral costs. Non-enterprise RHN subs were also free.
>> 
>> I did buy an Amiga port of 5.1 from Schatztruhe (an Amiga
>> software retailer in Germany), but IIRC it was material costs
>> only. I've still got that disc, and one machine (A4000T)
>> running Linux.
> 
> Amazing, I did not know there was a Linux version for Amiga!  I 
> downloaded a Corel Linux 1.0 version CD ISO image some 9 years 
> ago.  It took four nights to download on a 34.6 kb modem connection.
> 
> Corel did a nice job of implementing Linux.  KDE 1.0 was vastly 
> superior to Windows 98, with its multiple desktops, scalable 
> icons, screen savers, etc.  If one hovered the mouse over the 
> "Start" button, pop-up description said, "Where do you want to go 
> tomorrow?"  They also did a nice job of implementing Samba.  It 
> was way ahead of its time, IMHO.
> 

I'm pretty sure that there were Debian ports for Amiga.

-- 
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk          |
| Cola faq:  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/   |
| Cola trolls:  http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/                        |
| My (new) blog:  http://www.thereisnomagic.org                        |
0
mark.kent (15323)
3/7/2008 9:51:19 PM
Mark Kent wrote:

> I'm pretty sure that there were Debian ports for Amiga.

There still is:

http://www.debian.org/ports/m68k/

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
|     ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian.  http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
 23:06:36 up 77 days, 20:42,  5 users,  load average: 0.05, 0.13, 0.06
0
spam95 (5695)
3/7/2008 11:07:17 PM
High Plains Thumper wrote:
> [H]omer wrote:

>> I did buy an Amiga port of 5.1 from Schatztruhe (an Amiga software
>> retailer in Germany), but IIRC it was material costs only. I've
>> still got that disc, and one machine (A4000T) running Linux.
> 
> Amazing, I did not know there was a Linux version for Amiga!

Yes indeed, and here it is:

http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-1.png
http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-2.png
http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-3.png
http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-4.png

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
|     ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian.  http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
 23:10:47 up 77 days, 20:46,  5 users,  load average: 0.14, 0.11, 0.06
0
spam95 (5695)
3/7/2008 11:11:07 PM
[H]omer wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> [H]omer wrote:
> 
>>> I did buy an Amiga port of 5.1 from Schatztruhe (an Amiga
>>> software retailer in Germany), but IIRC it was material
>>> costs only. I've still got that disc, and one machine
>>> (A4000T) running Linux.
>> 
>> Amazing, I did not know there was a Linux version for Amiga!
> 
> Yes indeed, and here it is:
> 
> http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-1.png 
> http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-2.png 
> http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-3.png 
> http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-4.png

Very interesting.  I bet it is a good runner, too.  I've got an 
older Pentium Slot-1 333 MHz that I reassembled from parts.  That 
I'm targeting for a Linux home firewall and file server.  Just 
need to get a good sized hard disk for it at a reasonable price.

My son was telling me that his employer installs more Linux 
servers than Microsoft, because their customers want them.

-- 
HPT
0
3/8/2008 10:44:08 AM
William Poaster wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> [H]omer wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> [Mac]
>>>>>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about $50 a year,
>>>>>> or around $350 since 2000. (Reports of “$750” were a mix of
>>>>>> Truthiness and bad math.)
>>>>> [Windows]
>>>>>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over $250 a year,
>>>>>> or more than $1800 since 2000.
>>>>> [Linux] Ten-year Total £0.00   Freedom Priceless
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure you didn't spend a fiver on the first distro?
>>>> :-)
>>> 
>>> In call charges, maybe. ;)
>>> 
>>> Back then, I used to download the bootdisk images, and install over
>>> ftp.
>>> 
>>> However, the unsupported distro was free, irrespective of peripheral
>>> costs. Non-enterprise RHN subs were also free.
>>> 
>>> I did buy an Amiga port of 5.1 from Schatztruhe (an Amiga software
>>> retailer in Germany), but IIRC it was material costs only. I've still
>>> got that disc, and one machine (A4000T) running Linux.
>> 
>> Amazing, I did not know there was a Linux version for Amiga!  I
>> downloaded a Corel Linux 1.0 version CD ISO image some 9 years ago.  It
>> took four nights to download on a 34.6 kb modem connection.
>> 
>> Corel did a nice job of implementing Linux.
> 
> I don't recall trying Corel Linux, however I did run Caldera OpenLinux for
> a short time in '97. IMO that was very good too.It came with WordPerfect &
> CorelDRAW as well as StarOffice. It also shipped with PartitionMagic,
> IIRC.
> 
>> KDE 1.0 was vastly superior to Windows 98, with its multiple desktops,
>> scalable icons, screen savers, etc.
> 
> Coming from using Win95 & then Win98SE, KDE 1.0 was quite an eye opener!
> Very impressive.
> 
>> If one hovered the mouse over the
>> "Start" button, pop-up description said, "Where do you want to go
>> tomorrow?"  They also did a nice job of implementing Samba.  It was way
>> ahead of its time, IMHO.
> 
> IMO compared to Win98SE, it was. Didn't crash either!

I and my son really enjoyed Linux.  We had dual boot as SuSE 6.4 and
Windows 98.  Guess where we spent much of our time?  On SuSE 6.4,
naturally.  Browsing the net using Netscape provided us with a smooth,
crashless experience on the net.  Also, playing Heroes of Might and Magic
III and Myth II provided enervating experiences in Linux.  Because it
didn't crash, one could play it for hours on end, forgetting that there
were other things to do as well (like eating and sleeping   :-).

There was less inherent inertia with Linux on the net, too.  Web pages
served quicker, game tournament play was smoother, everything was better. 
Plus, SuSE (then its own entity) served us security patches regularly
through its YaST.

Life was good with Linux, even back then.

-- 
HPT

-- 
HPT
Riding since 1979. Current stable:
1987 Suzuki LS650 Savage
1971 Honda CB100
0
3/8/2008 3:53:41 PM
High Plains Thumper <highplainsthumper@gREMTHISmail.com> writes:

> William Poaster wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [Mac]
>>>>>>> 6. �Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about $50 a year,
>>>>>>> or around $350 since 2000. (Reports of �$750� were a mix of
>>>>>>> Truthiness and bad math.)
>>>>>> [Windows]
>>>>>>> 6. �Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over $250 a year,
>>>>>>> or more than $1800 since 2000.
>>>>>> [Linux] Ten-year Total �0.00   Freedom Priceless
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you sure you didn't spend a fiver on the first distro?
>>>>> :-)
>>>> 
>>>> In call charges, maybe. ;)
>>>> 
>>>> Back then, I used to download the bootdisk images, and install over
>>>> ftp.
>>>> 
>>>> However, the unsupported distro was free, irrespective of peripheral
>>>> costs. Non-enterprise RHN subs were also free.
>>>> 
>>>> I did buy an Amiga port of 5.1 from Schatztruhe (an Amiga software
>>>> retailer in Germany), but IIRC it was material costs only. I've still
>>>> got that disc, and one machine (A4000T) running Linux.
>>> 
>>> Amazing, I did not know there was a Linux version for Amiga!  I
>>> downloaded a Corel Linux 1.0 version CD ISO image some 9 years ago.  It
>>> took four nights to download on a 34.6 kb modem connection.
>>> 
>>> Corel did a nice job of implementing Linux.
>> 
>> I don't recall trying Corel Linux, however I did run Caldera OpenLinux for
>> a short time in '97. IMO that was very good too.It came with WordPerfect &
>> CorelDRAW as well as StarOffice. It also shipped with PartitionMagic,
>> IIRC.
>> 
>>> KDE 1.0 was vastly superior to Windows 98, with its multiple desktops,
>>> scalable icons, screen savers, etc.
>> 
>> Coming from using Win95 & then Win98SE, KDE 1.0 was quite an eye opener!
>> Very impressive.
>> 
>>> If one hovered the mouse over the
>>> "Start" button, pop-up description said, "Where do you want to go
>>> tomorrow?"  They also did a nice job of implementing Samba.  It was way
>>> ahead of its time, IMHO.
>> 
>> IMO compared to Win98SE, it was. Didn't crash either!
>
> I and my son really enjoyed Linux.  We had dual boot as SuSE 6.4 and

This is not natural.

> Windows 98.  Guess where we spent much of our time?  On SuSE 6.4,
> naturally.  Browsing the net using Netscape provided us with a smooth,
> crashless experience on the net.  Also, playing Heroes of Might and
> Magic

Rubbish.

> III and Myth II provided enervating experiences in Linux.  Because it
> didn't crash, one could play it for hours on end, forgetting that there
> were other things to do as well (like eating and sleeping   :-).

Huh?

>
> There was less inherent inertia with Linux on the net, too.  Web pages
> served quicker, game tournament play was smoother, everything was
> better. 

Not they didnt and no it wasn't.

> Plus, SuSE (then its own entity) served us security patches regularly
> through its YaST.

Security patches? Huh?

>
> Life was good with Linux, even back then.
>
> -- 
> HPT

You're weird.

-- 
Murphy was an optimist.
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/8/2008 6:15:44 PM
High Plains Thumper wrote:
> [H]omer wrote:

>> http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-2.png 
[...]
> Very interesting.  I bet it is a good runner, too.

Not too shabby at all, considering it's running on a 60MHz MC68060.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
|     ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian.  http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
 20:01:03 up 78 days, 17:36,  4 users,  load average: 0.03, 0.03, 0.00
0
spam95 (5695)
3/8/2008 8:01:21 PM
High Plains Thumper wrote:

> William Poaster wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [Mac]
>>>>>>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about $50 a year,
>>>>>>> or around $350 since 2000. (Reports of “$750” were a mix of
>>>>>>> Truthiness and bad math.)
>>>>>> [Windows]
>>>>>>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over $250 a year,
>>>>>>> or more than $1800 since 2000.
>>>>>> [Linux] Ten-year Total £0.00   Freedom Priceless
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you sure you didn't spend a fiver on the first distro?
>>>>> :-)
>>>> 
>>>> In call charges, maybe. ;)
>>>> 
>>>> Back then, I used to download the bootdisk images, and install over
>>>> ftp.
>>>> 
>>>> However, the unsupported distro was free, irrespective of peripheral
>>>> costs. Non-enterprise RHN subs were also free.
>>>> 
>>>> I did buy an Amiga port of 5.1 from Schatztruhe (an Amiga software
>>>> retailer in Germany), but IIRC it was material costs only. I've still
>>>> got that disc, and one machine (A4000T) running Linux.
>>> 
>>> Amazing, I did not know there was a Linux version for Amiga!  I
>>> downloaded a Corel Linux 1.0 version CD ISO image some 9 years ago.  It
>>> took four nights to download on a 34.6 kb modem connection.
>>> 
>>> Corel did a nice job of implementing Linux.
>> 
>> I don't recall trying Corel Linux, however I did run Caldera OpenLinux for
>> a short time in '97. IMO that was very good too.It came with WordPerfect &
>> CorelDRAW as well as StarOffice. It also shipped with PartitionMagic,
>> IIRC.
>> 
>>> KDE 1.0 was vastly superior to Windows 98, with its multiple desktops,
>>> scalable icons, screen savers, etc.
>> 
>> Coming from using Win95 & then Win98SE, KDE 1.0 was quite an eye opener!
>> Very impressive.
>> 
>>> If one hovered the mouse over the
>>> "Start" button, pop-up description said, "Where do you want to go
>>> tomorrow?"  They also did a nice job of implementing Samba.  It was way
>>> ahead of its time, IMHO.
>> 
>> IMO compared to Win98SE, it was. Didn't crash either!
> 
> I and my son really enjoyed Linux.  We had dual boot as SuSE 6.4 and
> Windows 98.  Guess where we spent much of our time?  On SuSE 6.4,
> naturally.  Browsing the net using Netscape provided us with a smooth,
> crashless experience on the net.  Also, playing Heroes of Might and Magic
> III and Myth II provided enervating experiences in Linux.  Because it
> didn't crash, one could play it for hours on end, forgetting that there
> were other things to do as well (like eating and sleeping   :-).
> 
> There was less inherent inertia with Linux on the net, too.  Web pages
> served quicker, game tournament play was smoother, everything was better.
> Plus, SuSE (then its own entity) served us security patches regularly
> through its YaST.

I liked YaST, wasn't too keen on YaST2 but it worked alright. Maybe it was my
imagination, but running YaST in a console (dropping to level 3) seemed faster
than using the YaST2 GUI. However, at some point (I forget just when) they
dropped YaST & you had to use YaST2.

> Life was good with Linux, even back then.
> 
Yes, it was. :-)

-- 
Free-BSD 7.0, PC-BSD 1.4
Linux systems: PCLOS 2007,Fedora 8, Kubuntu 7.10. 
Testing:  Mandrake One 2008.1 RC1 
-- On 64bit systems --
0
wp16 (1499)
3/8/2008 11:29:33 PM
William Poaster wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> I and my son really enjoyed Linux.  We had dual boot as SuSE
>> 6.4 and Windows 98.  Guess where we spent much of our time?
>> On SuSE 6.4, naturally.  Browsing the net using Netscape
>> provided us with a smooth, crashless experience on the net.
>> Also, playing Heroes of Might and Magic III and Myth II
>> provided enervating experiences in Linux.  Because it didn't
>> crash, one could play it for hours on end, forgetting that
>> there were other things to do as well (like eating and
>> sleeping   :-).
>> 
>> There was less inherent inertia with Linux on the net, too.
>> Web pages served quicker, game tournament play was smoother,
>> everything was better. Plus, SuSE (then its own entity)
>> served us security patches regularly through its YaST.
> 
> I liked YaST, wasn't too keen on YaST2 but it worked alright.
> Maybe it was my imagination, but running YaST in a console
> (dropping to level 3) seemed faster than using the YaST2 GUI.
> However, at some point (I forget just when) they dropped YaST
> & you had to use YaST2.

It was in Version 8, that they went to YaST2.  I think they 
should have retained YaST.  I liked it, even though it was text 
base.  It was menu based and still very user friendly.  YaST2 was 
organised strangely and was harder to use, even though GUI based.

I dumped all my Version 8.0 CD's and books.  Kept Version 5.3 and 
6.4.  Now that I am Ubuntu and Debian based, have decided to 
stick with that direction.  It is consistent and easier to stick 
with one version.  One gets used to using those tools and it 
makes life a whole lot easier.  Synaptic is very user friendly, 
so is Applications "Add/Remove" in Ubuntu's Gnome easy to use.

>> Life was good with Linux, even back then.
>> 
> Yes, it was. :-)

-- 
HPT
0
3/9/2008 2:35:37 AM
[H]omer wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> [H]omer wrote:
> 
>>> http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-2.png
> [...]
>> Very interesting.  I bet it is a good runner, too.
> 
> Not too shabby at all, considering it's running on a 60MHz
> MC68060.

The external clock rate is deceiving.  It is the amount of clock 
cycles it takes to execute instructions is more important.

I really liked the Motorola processors.  My first introduction 
was through the RadioShack Colour Computer II, running at 0.9 
MHz.  Although an 8 bit processor, it had a couple 16 bit 
instructions.  It was faster in some respects than the 4 MHz Z80 
processor.  I still have one, might one of these days dust if off.

Motorola had a contiguous address space, not paged like with the 
earlier Intel 16 bit processor.  I was disappointed to see 
Motorola drop off the radar.

-- 
HPT
0
3/9/2008 2:41:55 AM
High Plains Thumper wrote:

> William Poaster wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>
>>> I and my son really enjoyed Linux.  We had dual boot as SuSE
>>> 6.4 and Windows 98.  Guess where we spent much of our time?
>>> On SuSE 6.4, naturally.  Browsing the net using Netscape
>>> provided us with a smooth, crashless experience on the net.
>>> Also, playing Heroes of Might and Magic III and Myth II
>>> provided enervating experiences in Linux.  Because it didn't
>>> crash, one could play it for hours on end, forgetting that
>>> there were other things to do as well (like eating and
>>> sleeping   :-).
>>> 
>>> There was less inherent inertia with Linux on the net, too.
>>> Web pages served quicker, game tournament play was smoother,
>>> everything was better. Plus, SuSE (then its own entity)
>>> served us security patches regularly through its YaST.
>> 
>> I liked YaST, wasn't too keen on YaST2 but it worked alright.
>> Maybe it was my imagination, but running YaST in a console
>> (dropping to level 3) seemed faster than using the YaST2 GUI.
>> However, at some point (I forget just when) they dropped YaST
>> & you had to use YaST2.
> 
> It was in Version 8, that they went to YaST2.  I think they
> should have retained YaST.  I liked it, even though it was text
> base.  It was menu based and still very user friendly.  YaST2 was
> organised strangely and was harder to use, even though GUI based.
> 
> I dumped all my Version 8.0 CD's and books.  Kept Version 5.3 and
> 6.4.  Now that I am Ubuntu and Debian based, have decided to
> stick with that direction.  It is consistent and easier to stick
> with one version.  One gets used to using those tools and it
> makes life a whole lot easier.  Synaptic is very user friendly,
> so is Applications "Add/Remove" in Ubuntu's Gnome easy to use.
> 
>>> Life was good with Linux, even back then.
>>> 
>> Yes, it was. :-)

SuSE still installs a text-based YaST in its default setup -- as well as the
YaST2 GUI. I'm not sure if it's the same YaST as in version 8, but a
text-based YaST of some kind still exists. I've been learning about zypper,
however, and I think I'll like it better. It reminds me more of CentOS's
(Red Hat, Fedora's) yum (which I like quite a lot). I've got ubuntu on the
kid's and wife's computers -- thanks to Wubi -- and I think Synaptic is a
bit faster than YaST2 -- but that might have more to do with the respective
repositories than with the software itself. 

Strangely enough it was all pretty intuitive, despite what Snit might claim.

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 2:48:08 AM
RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:

> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> William Poaster wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>
>>>> I and my son really enjoyed Linux.  We had dual boot as SuSE
>>>> 6.4 and Windows 98.  Guess where we spent much of our time?
>>>> On SuSE 6.4, naturally.  Browsing the net using Netscape
>>>> provided us with a smooth, crashless experience on the net.
>>>> Also, playing Heroes of Might and Magic III and Myth II
>>>> provided enervating experiences in Linux.  Because it didn't
>>>> crash, one could play it for hours on end, forgetting that
>>>> there were other things to do as well (like eating and
>>>> sleeping   :-).
>>>> 
>>>> There was less inherent inertia with Linux on the net, too.
>>>> Web pages served quicker, game tournament play was smoother,
>>>> everything was better. Plus, SuSE (then its own entity)
>>>> served us security patches regularly through its YaST.
>>> 
>>> I liked YaST, wasn't too keen on YaST2 but it worked alright.
>>> Maybe it was my imagination, but running YaST in a console
>>> (dropping to level 3) seemed faster than using the YaST2 GUI.
>>> However, at some point (I forget just when) they dropped YaST
>>> & you had to use YaST2.
>> 
>> It was in Version 8, that they went to YaST2.  I think they
>> should have retained YaST.  I liked it, even though it was text
>> base.  It was menu based and still very user friendly.  YaST2 was
>> organised strangely and was harder to use, even though GUI based.
>> 
>> I dumped all my Version 8.0 CD's and books.  Kept Version 5.3 and
>> 6.4.  Now that I am Ubuntu and Debian based, have decided to
>> stick with that direction.  It is consistent and easier to stick
>> with one version.  One gets used to using those tools and it
>> makes life a whole lot easier.  Synaptic is very user friendly,
>> so is Applications "Add/Remove" in Ubuntu's Gnome easy to use.
>> 
>>>> Life was good with Linux, even back then.
>>>> 
>>> Yes, it was. :-)
>
> SuSE still installs a text-based YaST in its default setup -- as well as the
> YaST2 GUI. I'm not sure if it's the same YaST as in version 8, but a
> text-based YaST of some kind still exists. I've been learning about zypper,
> however, and I think I'll like it better. It reminds me more of CentOS's
> (Red Hat, Fedora's) yum (which I like quite a lot). I've got ubuntu on the
> kid's and wife's computers -- thanks to Wubi -- and I think Synaptic is a
> bit faster than YaST2 -- but that might have more to do with the respective
> repositories than with the software itself. 
>
> Strangely enough it was all pretty intuitive, despite what Snit might
> claim.

What are you talking about? Why do you tell lies so much? Or are you
really thicker than HPT?

The issue is whether consistency is good or bad. And all the experts
say its "good": Whereas you and your moron zealots say "but its still
easy to use with out it". You seem incapable of rational thought.
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/9/2008 2:53:03 AM
Hadron wrote:

> What are you talking about? Why do you tell lies so much? Or are you
> really thicker than HPT?
> 
> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad. And all the experts
> say its "good": Whereas you and your moron zealots say "but its still
> easy to use with out it". You seem incapable of rational thought.

If consistency is so important to you, Hadron, consistently use ubuntu, or
Debian, or whatever it is you like.

Non-existent problem solved.

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 2:53:19 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post
EgIAj.295$8H4.104@newsfe07.lga on 3/8/08 7:48 PM:

>>>> Life was good with Linux, even back then.
>>>> 
>>> Yes, it was. :-)
> 
> SuSE still installs a text-based YaST in its default setup -- as well as the
> YaST2 GUI. I'm not sure if it's the same YaST as in version 8, but a
> text-based YaST of some kind still exists. I've been learning about zypper,
> however, and I think I'll like it better. It reminds me more of CentOS's
> (Red Hat, Fedora's) yum (which I like quite a lot). I've got ubuntu on the
> kid's and wife's computers -- thanks to Wubi -- and I think Synaptic is a
> bit faster than YaST2 -- but that might have more to do with the respective
> repositories than with the software itself.
> 
> Strangely enough it was all pretty intuitive, despite what Snit might claim.

You can say what you wish about my claims, but here is yet someone else who
is, at least in general, clearly agreeing with me:

Common Principles: A Usable Interface Design Primer
<http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/upa_publications/upa_voice/volumes/4/
issue_3/common_principles.htm>
    -----
    By Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
    
    The following are some basic guidelines for minimizing user
    cognitive processing and maximizing interface efficiency.

    Consistency of Elements and Style

    Effective UIs are unified by a common style (layout, fonts,
    and design or brand elements). Consistency is one of the most
    important aspects of a repeatable user experience. If users
    know what to expect, it will be easier for them to build a
    conceptual map of what should happen next. If the UI meets
    these expectations, the user becomes comfortable, and the
    more comfortable a user is with the interface, the shorter
    the learning curve of the application.
    ...
    People have a limited amount of attention. Building a
    transparent interface through efficient and usable design is
    the catalyst for focusing this attention on completing the
    designated task.
    -----
    
Another expert who shows general agreement with what I have been saying.  Do
*any* disagree?


-- 
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 3:16:05 AM
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.

Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
0
nope6917 (122)
3/9/2008 3:17:52 AM
"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
fqvjeh$70v$2@registered.motzarella.org on 3/8/08 7:53 PM:

>> SuSE still installs a text-based YaST in its default setup -- as well as the
>> YaST2 GUI. I'm not sure if it's the same YaST as in version 8, but a
>> text-based YaST of some kind still exists. I've been learning about zypper,
>> however, and I think I'll like it better. It reminds me more of CentOS's
>> (Red Hat, Fedora's) yum (which I like quite a lot). I've got ubuntu on the
>> kid's and wife's computers -- thanks to Wubi -- and I think Synaptic is a
>> bit faster than YaST2 -- but that might have more to do with the respective
>> repositories than with the software itself.
>> 
>> Strangely enough it was all pretty intuitive, despite what Snit might
>> claim.
> 
> What are you talking about? Why do you tell lies so much? Or are you
> really thicker than HPT?
> 
> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad. And all the experts
> say its "good": Whereas you and your moron zealots say "but its still
> easy to use with out it". You seem incapable of rational thought.

I am actually enjoying this... the two sides seem pretty clear:

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
    Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
    http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

The argument from those on the right column seems to be that in order to
"understand" Linux and the OSS model you have to disagree with those people
and groups in the left hand column.

-- 
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 3:21:29 AM
Snit wrote:

> Another expert

And by "expert" you mean someone who agrees with you. Sorry, Snit the lying
troll, but you've already proved you don't have a clue and are totally
incapable of judging who is or isn't an expert in the field. But you don't
really care, your goal is FUD and you lie and troll to archive your
objective, lying troll.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 3:29:45 AM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:

> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
> 
>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
> 
> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!

User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not saying
that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a program
is the most important part for a commercial company...


-- 
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 3:35:24 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post
ETIAj.371$EX6.259@newsfe06.lga on 3/8/08 8:29 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Another expert
> 
> And by "expert" you mean someone who agrees with you.

Can you find *anyone* outside of COLA who does not? Anyone?

> Sorry, Snit the lying troll, but you've already proved you don't have a clue
> and are totally incapable of judging who is or isn't an expert in the field.

Ah, so explain why UsabilityProfessional.org published material from Rick
Oppedisano, someone who you do not think is an expert.

> But you don't really care, your goal is FUD and you lie and troll to archive
> your objective, lying troll.

I hope you do not mind that I laugh as you panic at your BS claims failing
to be supported even a little.  :)



-- 
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 3:38:46 AM
Snit wrote:

> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software. I'm not saying
> that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a
> program is the most important part for a commercial company...

And yet, Windows M$ Office is one of the least intuitive piles of shit ever
foisted on mankind -- yet it is by far the best selling. So much for your
theory, Snit the lying troll.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..." 

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 3:38:50 AM
Snit wrote:

> Ah, so explain why UsabilityProfessional.org published material from Rick
> Oppedisano, someone who you do not think is an expert.

Whether whichamacallit is an "expert" or not is beside the point. His
opinion about Linux is *merely* an opinion. He's welcome to it. I don't
give a shit what he, what you or what Hadron thinks. I *know* that Linux is
better for me (as is) than Windows. 

Have I, perhaps been unclear, Snit the lying troll?

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 3:41:56 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post
ulIAj.297$8H4.194@newsfe07.lga on 3/8/08 7:53 PM:

> Hadron wrote:
> 
>> What are you talking about? Why do you tell lies so much? Or are you
>> really thicker than HPT?
>> 
>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad. And all the experts
>> say its "good": Whereas you and your moron zealots say "but its still
>> easy to use with out it". You seem incapable of rational thought.
> 
> If consistency is so important to you, Hadron, consistently use ubuntu, or
> Debian, or whatever it is you like.
> 
> Non-existent problem solved.

Except neither of the distros you list have a consistent UI - both are
fractured (though Ubuntu less so).


-- 
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 3:42:46 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post 90JAj.377$EX6.61@newsfe06.lga
on 3/8/08 8:38 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software. I'm not saying
>> that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a
>> program is the most important part for a commercial company...
> 
> And yet, Windows M$ Office is one of the least intuitive piles of shit ever
> foisted on mankind -- yet it is by far the best selling. So much for your
> theory, Snit the lying troll.

So you think that opinion shows evidence of being an anti-Linux lying troll?



-- 
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 3:43:26 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post 33JAj.379$EX6.65@newsfe06.lga
on 3/8/08 8:41 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Ah, so explain why UsabilityProfessional.org published material from Rick
>> Oppedisano, someone who you do not think is an expert.
> 
> Whether whichamacallit is an "expert" or not is beside the point. His
> opinion about Linux is *merely* an opinion. He's welcome to it. I don't
> give a shit what he, what you or what Hadron thinks. I *know* that Linux is
> better for me (as is) than Windows.

Has anyone said Linux is not better for you - or anyone - than Windows is?

Anyone?

Not I!


-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-  Anatole France 



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 3:50:47 AM
Snit wrote:

> Except neither of the distros you list have a consistent UI - both are
> fractured (though Ubuntu less so).

Talk to Hadron about what Hadron likes. Maybe you can start trying to tell
him what to do, too. Meanwhile, when *IS* Anal Retentive Linux coming out,
anyhow. You can be as consistent as you want with your own distribution.
See, choice *is* good. Even lying trolls can have what they claim they
want.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

Notice how consistent I've now made your little song?

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 3:54:30 AM
Snit wrote:

> So you think that opinion shows evidence of being an anti-Linux lying
> troll?

Could you repeat that, in English, Snit the lying troll?

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 3:55:30 AM
Snit wrote:

> Anyone?

No, not one soul. Absolutely everybody already knows that your a lying
troll. Sorry, Snit the lying troll. Them's just the facts, ma'am.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 3:59:46 AM
Snit wrote:

> The topic is not Hadron nor his preferences.

Yeah, actually it was. But that's alright, you can *chose* to be confused if
you want, Snit the lying troll. Ain't freedom grand?

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 4:03:06 AM
Snit wrote:

> Come on

Sing it one more time?

All-righty then!

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 4:03:59 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post ReJAj.83$tI4.49@newsfe05.lga
on 3/8/08 8:54 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Except neither of the distros you list have a consistent UI - both are
>> fractured (though Ubuntu less so).
> 
> Talk to Hadron about what Hadron likes.

The topic is not Hadron nor his preferences.

> Maybe you can start trying to tell him what to do, too.

I am not telling anyone what to do.

> Meanwhile, when *IS* Anal Retentive Linux coming out, anyhow. You can be as
> consistent as you want with your own distribution. See, choice *is* good. Even
> lying trolls can have what they claim they want.

Sadly with the current state of Linux one cannot make a non-fractured UI
(even a mostly non-fractured one... the closest I have seen is Ubuntu).
This situation will improve over time... and then you and your cohorts will
"get it".  Until then you will not.

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
    Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
    http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

-- 
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 4:04:19 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post NfJAj.85$tI4.12@newsfe05.lga
on 3/8/08 8:55 PM:

>>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software. I'm not saying
>>>> that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a
>>>> program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>>> 
>>> And yet, Windows M$ Office is one of the least intuitive piles of shit ever
>>> foisted on mankind -- yet it is by far the best selling. So much for your
>>> theory, Snit the lying troll.
>> 
>> So you think that opinion shows evidence of being an anti-Linux lying troll?
> 
> Could you repeat that, in English, Snit the lying troll?

Do you think the opinion in question shows evidence of the author being an
ant-Linux lying troll?  The statement, again:

    In the end, user interfaces are usually better in commercial
    software. I'm not saying that this is always true, but in
    many cases the user interface to a program is the most
    important part for a commercial company.

Come on - not even on that can you give a clear opinion!




-- 
"The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 4:06:13 AM
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
> 
>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>> 
>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>> 
>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
> 
> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to
> a program is the most important part for a commercial company...

If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.
0
nope6917 (122)
3/9/2008 4:11:43 AM
El Tux wrote:

> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.

It's better at selling other commercial software. Like anti-virus programs,
anti-spyware programs, disk recovery programs... the list goes on and on.

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 4:13:12 AM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t6orvc7i1r0a4@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 9:11 PM:

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>> 13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>> 
>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>> 
>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to
>> a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
> 
> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.

Nothing in the above says commercial software is better *overall*... it
merely says the *user interfaces are _usually_ better.


-- 
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 4:18:35 AM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t6orvc7i1r0a4@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 9:11 PM:

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>> 13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>> 
>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>> 
>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to
>> a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
> 
> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.

RonB claimed to even think such a thing as is stated above was a travesty
that shows someone is an anti-Linux lying troll.  What do you think?


-- 
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 4:20:31 AM
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:18:35 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13t6orvc7i1r0a4@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 9:11 PM:
> 
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>> 13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>>> 
>>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>>> 
>>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface
>>> to a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>> 
>> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.
> 
> Nothing in the above says commercial software is better *overall*... it
> merely says the *user interfaces are _usually_ better.

The UI's are part of the software so they're covered by my statement,
too.
0
nope6917 (122)
3/9/2008 4:28:39 AM
RonB wrote:
> Hadron wrote:
> 
>> What are you talking about? Why do you tell lies so much? Or
>> are you really thicker than HPT?
>> 
>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad. And all the
>> experts say its "good": Whereas you and your moron zealots
>> say "but its still easy to use with out it". You seem
>> incapable of rational thought.

There we have it folks from Hadron Quark, "Usenet etiquette 
provocateur", "true Linux advocate", "Debian distro governor", 
"kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist", 
"CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger professional", 
"newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time coordinator", 
"email sage" and "OSS culling committee chairman" Hadron Quark, 
aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian O'Leary.

> If consistency is so important to you, Hadron, consistently
> use ubuntu, or Debian, or whatever it is you like.
> 
> Non-existent problem solved.

If consistency were important to Hadron, he would use stable 
versions of Debian, which would make his problems non-existent. 
Totally clueless, he has yet to figure out that Debian Unstable 
should not be used for production work.

-- 
HPT
0
3/9/2008 4:29:15 AM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t6prnbo60kp88@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 9:28 PM:

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:18:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>> 13t6orvc7i1r0a4@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 9:11 PM:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>>> 13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>>>> 
>>>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface
>>>> to a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>>> 
>>> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.
>> 
>> Nothing in the above says commercial software is better *overall*... it
>> merely says the *user interfaces are _usually_ better.
> 
> The UI's are part of the software so they're covered by my statement,
> too.

The UI can be better but the software overall can be worse.

I do wonder how much you agree with RonB... do you think such a statement
indicates an anti-Linux bias ... and trolling and lying?


-- 
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 4:31:35 AM
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:31:35 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13t6prnbo60kp88@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 9:28 PM:
> 
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:18:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>> 13t6orvc7i1r0a4@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 9:11 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>>>> 13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>>>>> 
>>>>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>>>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
>>>>> interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
>>>>> company...
>>>> 
>>>> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.
>>> 
>>> Nothing in the above says commercial software is better *overall*...
>>> it merely says the *user interfaces are _usually_ better.
>> 
>> The UI's are part of the software so they're covered by my statement,
>> too.
> 
> The UI can be better but the software overall can be worse.

IMO closed-source UI's will never be better than open-source UI's, if
for no other reason than that I can't modify them or the attached
programs to suit my needs or preferences.
 
> I do wonder how much you agree with RonB... do you think such a
> statement indicates an anti-Linux bias ... and trolling and lying?

As part of your overall trolling pattern, yes.
0
nope6917 (122)
3/9/2008 5:03:25 AM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t6rst52iihs92@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 10:03 PM:

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:31:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>> 13t6prnbo60kp88@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 9:28 PM:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:18:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>>> 13t6orvc7i1r0a4@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 9:11 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>>>>> 13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>>>>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
>>>>>> interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
>>>>>> company...
>>>>> 
>>>>> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.
>>>> 
>>>> Nothing in the above says commercial software is better *overall*...
>>>> it merely says the *user interfaces are _usually_ better.
>>> 
>>> The UI's are part of the software so they're covered by my statement,
>>> too.
>> 
>> The UI can be better but the software overall can be worse.
> 
> IMO closed-source UI's will never be better than open-source UI's, if
> for no other reason than that I can't modify them or the attached
> programs to suit my needs or preferences.
>  
>> I do wonder how much you agree with RonB... do you think such a
>> statement indicates an anti-Linux bias ... and trolling and lying?
> 
> As part of your overall trolling pattern, yes.

As part of a patter?  What?

I am just curious what you think of that quote... but you cannot give a
clear answer.  OK.

As far as your accusation of trolling, well, you have yet to offer a shred
of evidence against anything I have said.


-- 
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination.  - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 5:42:37 AM
El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> writes:

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>> 13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>> 
>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>> 
>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to
>> a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>
> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.

What OSS do you use that does not have a better closed source solution?

I can name one : emacs. Firefox maybe. I struggle to think of anything
else.
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/9/2008 5:48:05 AM
"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
fqvtmo$n7o$1@registered.motzarella.org on 3/8/08 10:48 PM:

> El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>> 13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>>> 
>>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>>> 
>>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to
>>> a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>> 
>> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.
> 
> What OSS do you use that does not have a better closed source solution?
> 
> I can name one : emacs. Firefox maybe. I struggle to think of anything
> else.

The fact is that Rick, El Tux, RonB, Peter K, and JEDIDIAH - all in basic
agreement it does seem (on at least some issues) - are willing to make a
clear statement about what that comment means... they will just hint that
those comments show some anti-Linux bias and then never defend their views.

All very, very easy to predict.

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
    Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
    http://snipurl.com/oppedisano



-- 
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 5:52:38 AM
Snit wrote:

>> As part of your overall trolling pattern, yes.
> 
> As part of a patter?  What?

"Patter" is actually a better word when applied to you. Congrats.

Patter:

4. The language or oratory of a street peddler, conjurer, or
        the like, hence, glib talk; a voluble harangue; mere talk;
        chatter;

As for "what?" You're a lying troll, that's what.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 5:54:00 AM
Hadron wrote:

> What OSS do you use that does not have a better closed source solution?

SuSE.

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 5:54:36 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post
T_KAj.383$EX6.271@newsfe06.lga on 3/8/08 10:54 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>>> As part of your overall trolling pattern, yes.
>> 
>> As part of a patter? �What?
> 
> "Patter" is actually a better word when applied to you. Congrats.
> 
> Patter:
> 
> 4. The language or oratory of a street peddler, conjurer, or
>         the like, hence, glib talk; a voluble harangue; mere talk;
>         chatter;
> 
> As for "what?" You're a lying troll, that's what.
> 
> "Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
> Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
> Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
> Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
> Bullshit, that is
> Micro$haft tea..."

Your lack of support is noted... as is your running.


-- 
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 6:02:14 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post
r%KAj.384$EX6.152@newsfe06.lga on 3/8/08 10:54 PM:

> Hadron wrote:
> 
>> What OSS do you use that does not have a better closed source solution?
> 
> SuSE.

User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not saying
that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a program
is the most important part for a commercial company...


-- 
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 6:02:40 AM
Snit wrote:

         tolerance for lying trolls
> Your lack of ^ is noted

Thank you.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 6:07:30 AM
Snit wrote:

> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.

Prove it.

Yeah, right, Snit the lying troll.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 6:08:20 AM
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> stated in post
C3F8C936.AD0AD%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com on 3/8/08 10:52 PM:

> "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
> fqvtmo$n7o$1@registered.motzarella.org on 3/8/08 10:48 PM:
> 
>> El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>>> 13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>>>> 
>>>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to
>>>> a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>>> 
>>> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.
>> 
>> What OSS do you use that does not have a better closed source solution?
>> 
>> I can name one : emacs. Firefox maybe. I struggle to think of anything
>> else.
> 
> The fact is that Rick, El Tux, RonB, Peter K, and JEDIDIAH - all in basic

                                                       not
                                                        v
> agreement it does seem (on at least some issues) - are willing to make a
> clear statement about what that comment means... they will just hint that
> those comments show some anti-Linux bias and then never defend their views.
> 
> All very, very easy to predict.
> 
>     Snit                        RonB
>     Hadron                      Rick
>     KDE docs                    Peter K.
>     Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
>     Bloggers                    El Tux
>     Firefox docs        vs.
>     Screen shots 
>     Videos       
>     Tim Berners-Lee
>     UI Experts [1]
>     Common sense
>     
>     [1] 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/>
>     
>     Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
>     http://snipurl.com/oppedisano
> 
> 



-- 
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 6:10:26 AM
Snit wrote:

> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.

Mere opinion. Prove your statement, Snit the lying troll.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 6:11:21 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post jcLAj.390$EX6.38@newsfe06.lga
on 3/8/08 11:08 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
> 
> Prove it.

User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not saying
that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a program
is the most important part for a commercial company...


-- 
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 6:13:00 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post
8fLAj.391$EX6.109@newsfe06.lga on 3/8/08 11:11 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
> 
> Mere opinion. Prove your statement, Snit the lying troll.

User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not saying
that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a program
is the most important part for a commercial company...


-- 
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 6:15:01 AM
Snit wrote:

> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.

Prove it. Again, mere opinion.

In my *opinion* the best UI ever created was the WordStar keystroke set. Was
it intuitive? No. Was it pretty? No. Was it fast and efficient? You bet
your sweet ass. I still use jstar in Linux. Wonderful stuff.

But, I must point out, since you think opinion is automatically elevated to
fact, that this is merely my *opinion.* Like you have an opinion that
commercial software "usually" has a better user interface than OSS
software. To elevate such an opinion to fact you first have to decide by
what criteria you judge what's a better user interface. Is an easily
learned, intuitive user interface better than one that takes some effort to
learn, but is far more efficient in the long run?

So, by what criteria do *you* judge what is a "better user interface?"
You'll find that your opinion will be about as worthless here, as your
opinion stated above. It's all opinion, and an absolute waste of time.

Now, *prove* that commercial user interfaces are "usually" better than OSS
user interfaces.

Uh, huh.  

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 6:24:38 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post BrLAj.457$tQ.139@newsfe02.lga
on 3/8/08 11:24 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
> 
> Prove it. Again, mere opinion.
> 
> In my *opinion* the best UI ever created was the WordStar keystroke set. Was
> it intuitive? No. Was it pretty? No. Was it fast and efficient? You bet
> your sweet ass. I still use jstar in Linux. Wonderful stuff.
> 
> But, I must point out, since you think opinion is automatically elevated to
> fact

I most certainly do not.  You are lying.

> , that this is merely my *opinion.* Like you have an opinion that commercial
> software "usually" has a better user interface than OSS software. To elevate
> such an opinion to fact you first have to decide by what criteria you judge
> what's a better user interface. Is an easily learned, intuitive user interface
> better than one that takes some effort to learn, but is far more efficient in
> the long run?
> 
> So, by what criteria do *you* judge what is a "better user interface?" You'll
> find that your opinion will be about as worthless here, as your opinion stated
> above. It's all opinion, and an absolute waste of time.
> 
> Now, *prove* that commercial user interfaces are "usually" better than OSS
> user interfaces.
> 
> Uh, huh.  

User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not saying
that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a program
is the most important part for a commercial company...



-- 
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.




0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 6:29:47 AM
Snit wrote:

> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.

Prove this statement. Or show evidence for it. Or tell me why, in your
*opinion* it is true. Merely restating your *opinion* does not make it
fact.

Since this is 24/7 obsession, you must have some kind of supporting to back
up your *opinion.* 

You do, don't you? Don't be shy. Show us. 

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 6:29:53 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post wwLAj.458$tQ.395@newsfe02.lga
on 3/8/08 11:29 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
> 
> Prove this statement. Or show evidence for it. Or tell me why, in your
> *opinion* it is true. Merely restating your *opinion* does not make it
> fact.
> 
> Since this is 24/7 obsession, you must have some kind of supporting to back
> up your *opinion.*
> 
> You do, don't you? Don't be shy. Show us.

    User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
    I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases
    the user interface to a program is the most important part
    for a commercial company...

First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or shows
an anti-Linux bias.  Just curious.


-- 
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 6:43:27 AM
Snit wrote:

> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases
> the user interface to a program is the most important part
> for a commercial company...
> 
> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or shows
> an anti-Linux bias.  Just curious.

Quit stalling. By what criteria do you opine which is the "better" UI?

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 6:44:15 AM
Snit wrote:

> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases
> the user interface to a program is the most important part
> for a commercial company...
> 
> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or shows
> an anti-Linux bias.  Just curious.

At this point it has nothing to do with Linux, BTW. Since you mad the above
statement several times, you must have some evidence, some reason for your
*opinion.* Where is that evidence, what is that reason? What criteria are
you using?

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 6:46:32 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post 7MLAj.464$tQ.231@newsfe02.lga
on 3/8/08 11:46 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases
>> the user interface to a program is the most important part
>> for a commercial company...
>> 
>> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or shows
>> an anti-Linux bias. �Just curious.
> 
> At this point it has nothing to do with Linux, BTW. Since you mad the above
> statement several times, you must have some evidence, some reason for your
> *opinion.* Where is that evidence, what is that reason? What criteria are
> you using?

Actually I was just curious how people would respond to the words of Linus.
:)


-- 
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 6:55:22 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post _JLAj.463$tQ.297@newsfe02.lga
on 3/8/08 11:44 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases
>> the user interface to a program is the most important part
>> for a commercial company...
>> 
>> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or shows
>> an anti-Linux bias. �Just curious.
> 
> Quit stalling. By what criteria do you opine which is the "better" UI?

I was actually just looking to see how people would react to the words of
Linus.  


-- 
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 6:55:56 AM
Snit wrote:

> Actually I was just curious how people would respond to the words of
> Linus.

Thanks, troll. Here's the whole quote -- Note, Linus said this 11 years ago,
in 1997. Like that's really relevant to modern Linux.

"For example, user interfaces are usually better in commercial software. I'm
not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface
to a program is the most important part for a commercial company: whether
the programs works correctly or not seems to be secondary (as shown by the
many buggy Microsoft programs -- not that MS is nearly the only offender)."

http://www.ddj.com/architect/184412902

So much for your honesty, lying troll.

Now back to my question. By what criteria do *you* opine which is a better
UI?

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 7:04:40 AM
Snit wrote:

> I was actually just looking to see how people would react to the words of
> Linus.

And you were "actually" half-quoting Linus and failing to mention that he
said this 11 years ago, when Linux GUIs were quite a bit different than
they are now.

Stock and trade of the lying troll.

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 7:06:07 AM
Snit wrote:

> I made it very clear that a better UI did not mean overall better
> software.

I don't care. I'm asking by what criteria do you use to come to your
*opinion* about what makes the better UI? Didn't even mention the
underlying program.

You're not going to answer this, are you?

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 7:12:14 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post 71MAj.467$tQ.366@newsfe02.lga
on 3/9/08 12:04 AM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Actually I was just curious how people would respond to the words of
>> Linus.
> 
> Thanks, ...

You're welcome.

> Here's the whole quote -- Note, Linus said this 11 years ago,
> in 1997. Like that's really relevant to modern Linux.
> 
> "For example, user interfaces are usually better in commercial software. I'm
> not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface
> to a program is the most important part for a commercial company: whether
> the programs works correctly or not seems to be secondary (as shown by the
> many buggy Microsoft programs -- not that MS is nearly the only offender)."
> 
> http://www.ddj.com/architect/184412902
> 
> So much for your honesty...

I made it very clear that a better UI did not mean overall better software.
> 
> Now back to my question. By what criteria do *you* opine which is a better
> UI?

Do you agree to not snip and run and to at least *try* to raise your level
of discourse to an adult level?

If you can do that then I am happy to change the topic and answer your
question.  If not, well, I will just enjoy watching you freak out when I
point out the weakness of a fractured UI in desktop Linux.

-- 
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 7:13:21 AM
Snit wrote:

> Do you agree to not snip and run and to at least try to raise your level
> of discourse to an adult level?

Raise the level? You mean allow myself to be trolled by a word twisting,
half-quoting troll like you?

No I don't think so.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 7:13:24 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post
j9MAj.321$8H4.139@newsfe07.lga on 3/9/08 12:13 AM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Do you agree to not snip and run and to at least try to raise your level
>> of discourse to an adult level?
> 
> Raise the level? 

Yes.  Stop your BS snipping and running and dodging and lying.

> You mean allow myself to be trolled by a word twisting,
> half-quoting troll like you?
> 
> No I don't think so.
> 
> "Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
> Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
> Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
> Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
> Bullshit, that is
> Micro$haft tea..."

Such as your above BS.

Sadly you cannot act like an adult.

-- 
"In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
what's left." - Skip Hansen

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 7:19:39 AM
Snit wrote:

> Sadly you cannot act like an adult.

Sadly you can not stop acting like a lying troll.

So, by what criteria should we use to determine, in our opinion, what is the
better UI? Since you're the "expert" on UIs, you should have put a little
thought into this?

Or are you going to continue to dodge the question?

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 7:19:51 AM
Hadron wrote:

> Closed source generally has a better, more consistent UI

Prove it.

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 7:20:51 AM
RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases
>> the user interface to a program is the most important part
>> for a commercial company...
>> 
>> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or shows
>> an anti-Linux bias. �Just curious.
>
> At this point it has nothing to do with Linux, BTW. Since you mad the above
> statement several times, you must have some evidence, some reason for your
> *opinion.* Where is that evidence, what is that reason? What criteria are
> you using?

You disagree with this assertion?

You are clearly clueless about market forces and system design.

Closed source generally has a better, more consistent UI because if it
doesn't then, as Rick has agreed, it is not as good for the user. If its
not so good for the user then it gets poorly reviewed and no one buys
it.

What appears to the difficulty here? Please note this would apply to
commercial SW available for Linux too.

I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.

Which of course it is, in a way since most OSS does NOT have a good
consistent UI since people are free to ignore the standards if they
wish. And applying standards is not "sexy" for the average home brew SW
developer.

QED
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/9/2008 7:21:56 AM
Hadron wrote:

> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.

Going out on a limb here and assuming you're serious, how would you dictate
the "consistent" UI in Linux? And why should someone do so? And, please
provide some examples of these supposed inconsistencies and how they
supposedly inhibit a Linux user.  

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 7:24:41 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post d8MAj.320$8H4.59@newsfe07.lga
on 3/9/08 12:12 AM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> I made it very clear that a better UI did not mean overall better
>> software.
> 
> I don't care. I'm asking by what criteria do you use to come to your
> *opinion* about what makes the better UI? Didn't even mention the
> underlying program.
> 
> You're not going to answer this, are you?

I already have - I have told you I will enter into such an off topic
discussion with you if you agree to raise the level of your posts and agree
to stop snipping, running, spewing unsupported accusations, and otherwise
making a complete fool of yourself.

Will you agree to do that... if so then your question might lead to an
interesting conversation.  If not, well, what is the point in explaining
anything to you?

Ah, what the hell: in brief and off the top of my head - what makes a good
UI for a *system*:

* Consistency: this is a very important aspect
  - menus: those items which are shared between programs
    should be in the same place with the same look and
    have the same short cut keys... and be in the same
    order.  Items other than the "norms" should, of
    course, be included where appropriate.
  - dialogs: similar dialogs (such as Save and Print).
    Again, where there are application specific needs
    there should be a place for them.  Consistency
    should not (generally) limit functionality.
  - windows: windows of a given typle should have the
    same widgets, same scrolling, etc.  Again, there
    are exceptions and there are times it is
    appropriate to have different types of windows.
    One exception is having different colors / shapes
    to indicate different areas.  This can reduce
    errors.

* Avoid having buttons etc. be cut off, etc.  Use good
  contrast, fonts, etc. to aid readability

* Keep plenty of white space / avoid clutter... when
  reasonable.  Sometimes you cannot do this well.

* Users should be kept informed - buttons should not
  perform functions in the background without giving
  any user interaction... otherwise users are likely
  to repeatedly press the same button.  Status info
  should be accurate and up to date.  If there will
  be a pause let a user know with a "wait" pointer
  or, for longer pauses, a progress bar.

* Keep it clear where a user "is" in the system -
  make paths clear... and, when possible, shallow.

* Grouping of similar functions: in menus, toolbars,
  etc.

* Follow Fitts' law - keep buttons close and large...
  and keep important ones on edges and corners of
  the screen.  

* Warn before doing something damaging... this allows
  users to explore.  When possible allow an "undo"
  feature with multiple levels of undo.

* Design with the idea that color blind people, blind
  people, etc. will likely use the system.

* Focus on what the user is doing - not the system.

* Having a learning path when possible - and have
  the learning tools be something that can be turned
  off easily or, better yet, also serve the more
  experienced user.
    
I am sure I am leaving things out... and it is important to understand that
with any UI there should be usability testing.  Even if you are an expert in
UI matters the real test is how users use the system.  I am also all for
having *different* systems (read: distros) having different UIs and giving
the user a choice.  I most certainly do not want to *take* any choice
away... nor prevent a user from using an application that does not fit into
the UI of the system (though programs should be designed so such needs are
rare).



-- 
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 7:47:03 AM
"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
fr036n$1j9$1@registered.motzarella.org on 3/9/08 12:21 AM:

> RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>>> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases
>>> the user interface to a program is the most important part
>>> for a commercial company...
>>> 
>>> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or shows
>>> an anti-Linux bias. �Just curious.
>> 
>> At this point it has nothing to do with Linux, BTW. Since you mad the above
>> statement several times, you must have some evidence, some reason for your
>> *opinion.* Where is that evidence, what is that reason? What criteria are
>> you using?
> 
> You disagree with this assertion?

For the record: the comment is from Linus:

"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>

I wanted to see how Linux folks would react to it.  :)

> You are clearly clueless about market forces and system design.
> 
> Closed source generally has a better, more consistent UI because if it
> doesn't then, as Rick has agreed, it is not as good for the user. If its
> not so good for the user then it gets poorly reviewed and no one buys
> it.

To some extent - sadly many reviewers are ignorant about UI issues.

> What appears to the difficulty here? Please note this would apply to
> commercial SW available for Linux too.
> 
> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
> 
> Which of course it is, in a way since most OSS does NOT have a good
> consistent UI since people are free to ignore the standards if they
> wish. And applying standards is not "sexy" for the average home brew SW
> developer.

And *no* desktop Linux disto is anything but a mish-mash of KDE/Gnome and
others all plopped together to create a very fragmented system.  This is
simply not something which is a benefit to *any* user... and it is a
detriment to darn near everyone who uses a desktop Linux distro.

-- 
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 7:50:55 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post
UjMAj.325$8H4.100@newsfe07.lga on 3/9/08 12:24 AM:

> Hadron wrote:
> 
>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
>> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
>> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
> 
> Going out on a limb here and assuming you're serious, how would you dictate
> the "consistent" UI in Linux?

Dictate?  As Linux/OSS matures it is heading this way already - look at how
many programs conform to KDE or Gnome standards... and look at how distros
such as Ubuntu are trying to build a non-fragmented system (granted, with
limited success right now).  Look at how Firefox is being made to better fit
into the different systems it runs on.

> And why should someone do so? And, please provide some examples of these
> supposed inconsistencies and how they supposedly inhibit a Linux user.

I have provided a *lot* of examples of the inconsistencies - in terms of
menus (item names, order, short cut keys, icons, etc.), dialogs (Save As and
Print), functionality (cut and paste), etc.

How it effects users is, frankly, quite obvious: it increases the risk of
lost work (misusing a Save As dialog, losing copied text, etc.), it reduces
productivity (less use of short cut keys, longer times in menus, etc.), it
reduces the feeling of comfort a user has with a system (as discussed in the
peer-reviewed studies I have provided info on), etc.

-- 
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 7:56:46 AM
RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> I made it very clear that a better UI did not mean overall better
>> software.
>
> I don't care. I'm asking by what criteria do you use to come to your
> *opinion* about what makes the better UI? Didn't even mention the
> underlying program.

There are thousands of articles on this. While some may vary a little I
have NEVER seen an article which seems to support your view that a
fragmented, variable UI is "as good" or is "easy enough to learn".

What is wrong with you?

>
> You're not going to answer this, are you?

I suspect he will, but why you need an answer I'm not sure. It should be
blatantly obvious to the warts on a hippos arse, never mind a sentient
human being who would have us believe that they understand computers.
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/9/2008 7:58:06 AM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
> fr036n$1j9$1@registered.motzarella.org on 3/9/08 12:21 AM:
>
>> RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>>>> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases
>>>> the user interface to a program is the most important part
>>>> for a commercial company...
>>>> 
>>>> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or shows
>>>> an anti-Linux bias. �Just curious.
>>> 
>>> At this point it has nothing to do with Linux, BTW. Since you mad the above
>>> statement several times, you must have some evidence, some reason for your
>>> *opinion.* Where is that evidence, what is that reason? What criteria are
>>> you using?
>> 
>> You disagree with this assertion?
>
> For the record: the comment is from Linus:
>
> "For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
> interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
> company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>
>
> I wanted to see how Linux folks would react to it.  :)

I could have told you. And sure to form, WronG comes blundering in , all
red faced, huffing and puffing and full of indignation. Only Gordon or
HPT seem as clueless about computers, sw and general design standards.

>
>> You are clearly clueless about market forces and system design.
>> 
>> Closed source generally has a better, more consistent UI because if it
>> doesn't then, as Rick has agreed, it is not as good for the user. If its
>> not so good for the user then it gets poorly reviewed and no one buys
>> it.
>
> To some extent - sadly many reviewers are ignorant about UI issues.

Rarely reviewers of commercial business SW IMO.

>
>> What appears to the difficulty here? Please note this would apply to
>> commercial SW available for Linux too.
>> 
>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
>> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
>> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
>> 
>> Which of course it is, in a way since most OSS does NOT have a good
>> consistent UI since people are free to ignore the standards if they
>> wish. And applying standards is not "sexy" for the average home brew SW
>> developer.
>
> And *no* desktop Linux disto is anything but a mish-mash of KDE/Gnome and
> others all plopped together to create a very fragmented system.  This is
> simply not something which is a benefit to *any* user... and it is a
> detriment to darn near everyone who uses a desktop Linux distro.

I agree. And so does Linus. Well, who wouldn't? It is ludicrous to
suggest anything else.
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/9/2008 8:00:48 AM
"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
fr05af$5qp$1@registered.motzarella.org on 3/9/08 12:58 AM:

> RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> I made it very clear that a better UI did not mean overall better
>>> software.
>> 
>> I don't care. I'm asking by what criteria do you use to come to your
>> *opinion* about what makes the better UI? Didn't even mention the
>> underlying program.
> 
> There are thousands of articles on this. While some may vary a little I
> have NEVER seen an article which seems to support your view that a
> fragmented, variable UI is "as good" or is "easy enough to learn".

Exactly.. it is not as though a *lot* of research has not been done on
this... and it is not like the research does not support the view that a
fractured UI has bad consequences for the user.

The fact so many in COLA cannot accept this about the UI of Linux desktops
is a sign of their inability to face reality in terms of Linux.
 
> What is wrong with you?

Do you want the alphabetical or chronological list?  :)
 
>> You're not going to answer this, are you?
> 
> I suspect he will, but why you need an answer I'm not sure. It should be
> blatantly obvious to the warts on a hippos arse, never mind a sentient
> human being who would have us believe that they understand computers.

I gave him a pretty lengthy list from the top of my head as to what makes a
good UI.

I suspect he will show no understanding of it.

-- 
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 8:02:58 AM
RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
>> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
>> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
>
> Going out on a limb here and assuming you're serious, how would you dictate
> the "consistent" UI in Linux?

Dictate? What are you talking about? It is up to the programmers to be
serious enough about their work to adhere to the published
standards. And there ARE published standards. They tend to be a bit
looser in OSS but they are there.

> And why should someone do so?

Err, to provide a better UI that is more consistent with the general
look and feel of the desktop? I thought that should be
obvious. Commercial companies spend a LOT of time and effort doing this
for a reason. People like it. For what should be OBVIOUS reasons.

>  And, please
> provide some examples of these supposed inconsistencies and how they
> supposedly inhibit a Linux user.  

No. You're being a dickhead again.

If you need examples, you clearly do not believe there IS a fragmented
UI. Others disagree. Linus is one of them. And so are most other people
who are not blind fanatical zealots who think that any suggestion to
improve the Linux experience is somehow an attack on Linux and OSS.

You really do Linux no favours with your unabashed love of everything
OSS regardless of quality or usefulness.

0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/9/2008 8:05:30 AM
"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
fr05ob$5qp$3@registered.motzarella.org on 3/9/08 1:05 AM:

> RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Hadron wrote:
>> 
>>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
>>> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
>>> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
>> 
>> Going out on a limb here and assuming you're serious, how would you dictate
>> the "consistent" UI in Linux?
> 
> Dictate? What are you talking about? It is up to the programmers to be
> serious enough about their work to adhere to the published
> standards. And there ARE published standards. They tend to be a bit
> looser in OSS but they are there.

One problem is that there are multiple UI standards - the two biggies being
from the KDE and Gnome teams - so developers have to decide if they will
support one, both, or neither.  Few support both... and many support
neither.

And that is what leads to the fractured experience on desktop Linux.

>> And why should someone do so?
> 
> Err, to provide a better UI that is more consistent with the general
> look and feel of the desktop? I thought that should be
> obvious. Commercial companies spend a LOT of time and effort doing this
> for a reason. People like it. For what should be OBVIOUS reasons.

It is not just a matter of liking it - people *value* their work and do not
want a fractured UI to add to their risk of lost work and reduce their
productivity.

>>  And, please
>> provide some examples of these supposed inconsistencies and how they
>> supposedly inhibit a Linux user.
> 
> No. You're being a dickhead again.

And ignoring my repeatedly posted screen shots and movies... from PCLOS:

    Poorly done menus
    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS-menu.pdf>

    Poorly done dialogs:
    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.pdf>

    Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS2.pdf>

    Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.mov>

Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much better:

    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/ubuntu-menu.pdf>

And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird text
behavior on selection:

    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/copy-paste.mov>

It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious.  How
could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not have such
things be apparent to them - especially someone who considers themselves
knowledgeable about computers?

> If you need examples, you clearly do not believe there IS a fragmented
> UI. Others disagree. Linus is one of them. And so are most other people
> who are not blind fanatical zealots who think that any suggestion to
> improve the Linux experience is somehow an attack on Linux and OSS.
> 
> You really do Linux no favours with your unabashed love of everything
> OSS regardless of quality or usefulness.

Exactly.


-- 
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 8:35:14 AM
Snit wrote:

>> You really do Linux no favours with your unabashed love of everything
>> OSS regardless of quality or usefulness.
> 
> Exactly.

You two lying trolls FUDing together again. Get a room.

"Me too, Snit"
"Oh, me too, Hadron."
"You're so brilliant, Snit."
"So are you, Hadron, so are you."
"We're so reasonable, aren't we Snit."
"Kissy, kissy, Hadron."

Good grief.

So, why is it that I use Linux and find it to be a of high quality and
useful, and you two lovebirds can only FUD about it?

Could it be that you're both lying trolls, perhaps?

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then with Hadron, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 8:39:24 AM
RonB wrote:
> Hadron wrote:
> 
>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to
>> recognise how a more consistent UI can only improve peoples
>> perceptions of a SW product. It's like you see this as an
>> attack on Linux/OSS.
> 
> Going out on a limb here and assuming you're serious, how
> would you dictate the "consistent" UI in Linux? And why should
> someone do so? And, please provide some examples of these
> supposed inconsistencies and how they supposedly inhibit a
> Linux user.

Hadron has an apparent inability to recognise how more consistent 
usage of Debian Stable will only help his usage of the product, 
preferring unstable versions of Debian; if not for the only 
reason as an opportunity to attack Linux/OSS.

Also, he has an apparent preference toward lack of choice, being 
the Windows shill that he is.  Users do not have a problem 
transitioning between different Linux GUI interfaces.  It 
typically takes 10 minutes for a school student to get 
acquainted.  Even my 7 YO daughter had no problems with KDE on 
SuSE 6.4 almost a decade ago.  Thus his so-called consistencies 
are inconsistent.

You are better off just kill filtering the POS.  As you see, he 
is someone who will only chew up your time with his nonsensical 
replies.  Ditto for Snit.

-- 
HPT
0
3/9/2008 8:43:10 AM
High Plains Thumper wrote:

> You are better off just kill filtering the POS.  As you see, he
> is someone who will only chew up your time with his nonsensical
> replies.  Ditto for Snit.

Yep. Good point. I had them killfiled before, but moved from my 15 Gig test
hard drive to a new 160 Gig one when I decided SuSE was the direction I was
going. 

I'll take care of the troll problem this morning. Thanks. 

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/9/2008 8:45:39 AM
"RonB" <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> stated in post XpNAj.112$tI4.43@newsfe05.lga
on 3/9/08 1:39 AM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>>> You really do Linux no favours with your unabashed love of everything
>>> OSS regardless of quality or usefulness.
>> 
>> Exactly.
> 
> You two lying trolls FUDing together again. Get a room.
> 
> "Me too, Snit"
> "Oh, me too, Hadron."
> "You're so brilliant, Snit."
> "So are you, Hadron, so are you."
> "We're so reasonable, aren't we Snit."
> "Kissy, kissy, Hadron."

I do wish you could post in a more mature way.

> Good grief.
> 
> So, why is it that I use Linux and find it to be a of high quality and
> useful, and you two lovebirds can only FUD about it?

Who said Linux was not high quality and useful?  I have noted a pretty big
hole in what it offers the desktop user... but that is certainly not the
same as saying it is not high quality (and let me say - at least some
programs are).

> Could it be that you're both lying trolls, perhaps?

If you think I have lied then quote me doing so and support your accusation.



-- 
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 8:47:35 AM
High Plains Thumper <highplainsthumper@invalid.invalid> writes:

> RonB wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to
>>> recognise how a more consistent UI can only improve peoples
>>> perceptions of a SW product. It's like you see this as an
>>> attack on Linux/OSS.
>>
>> Going out on a limb here and assuming you're serious, how
>> would you dictate the "consistent" UI in Linux? And why should
>> someone do so? And, please provide some examples of these
>> supposed inconsistencies and how they supposedly inhibit a
>> Linux user.
>
> Hadron has an apparent inability to recognise how more consistent
> usage of Debian Stable will only help his usage of the product,
> preferring unstable versions of Debian; if not for the only reason as
> an opportunity to attack Linux/OSS.

Once more for the hard of brain power : I use testing. Not unstable. And
I use it for a reason - Debian Stable is simply too buggy and backward
and I cant be arsed to manage pinning or selectively monitoring
backports. In addition I feed bug reports back into the system. Do you?

>
> Also, he has an apparent preference toward lack of choice, being the

Advocating a common look and feel on ones desktop of choice is not anti
choice. Oh! You STILL do not understand what we are talking about! Silly
me. I forgot what a dumb arse you are.

Or do you think broken, inconsistent UI standards  between different
applications on the same desktop is "choice"? Are you mad?

> Windows shill that he is.  Users do not have a problem transitioning
> between different Linux GUI interfaces.  It typically takes 10 minutes

Yes they do you ignoramous. We are talking real users - not some basement
hacker like you. Real users swap between apps a lot on the same
desktop. If they have a fractured UI then it impedes efficiency. I do
not expect you to understand. My pet parrot is even laughing at you
now. And he squawks less than you.

> for a school student to get acquainted.  Even my 7 YO daughter had no
> problems with KDE on SuSE 6.4 almost a decade ago.  Thus his so-called
> consistencies are inconsistent.

You're an idiot. really. We're not talking solely about "KDE" you
fuckwit. We are talking about the different applications which run on
KDE or Gnome. I am intrigued to discover just what is so hard for your
pea brain to understand?

>
> You are better off just kill filtering the POS.  As you see, he is
> someone who will only chew up your time with his nonsensical replies.
> Ditto for Snit.

You are a fool.
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/9/2008 8:50:07 AM
RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:

> Snit wrote:
>
>>> You really do Linux no favours with your unabashed love of everything
>>> OSS regardless of quality or usefulness.
>> 
>> Exactly.
>
> You two lying trolls FUDing together again. Get a room.
>

Pathetic. Is that all you have got?

> "Me too, Snit"
> "Oh, me too, Hadron."
> "You're so brilliant, Snit."
> "So are you, Hadron, so are you."
> "We're so reasonable, aren't we Snit."
> "Kissy, kissy, Hadron."
>
> Good grief.
>
> So, why is it that I use Linux and find it to be a of high quality and
> useful, and you two lovebirds can only FUD about it?

What has this got to do with undoubted issues with different
applications having non standard UIs which impede efficiency? Surely
you're not so blind as to deny this? Even Rick agreed. As does
Linux. And every expert under the sun.
>
> Could it be that you're both lying trolls, perhaps?

Lying about what? What are you talking about? You ARE HPT aren't you?
Wow. if not you must have been separated at birth but the brain was left
behind.

>
> "Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
> Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
> Then with Hadron, while spewing out some FUD
> Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
> Bullshit, that is
> Micro$haft tea..."

How old are you?
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/9/2008 8:52:39 AM
"High Plains Thumper" <highplainsthumper@invalid.invalid> stated in post
47d3a320$0$580$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org on 3/9/08 1:43 AM:

> Also, he has an apparent preference toward lack of choice, being
> the Windows shill that he is.  Users do not have a problem
> transitioning between different Linux GUI interfaces.  It
> typically takes 10 minutes for a school student to get
> acquainted.  Even my 7 YO daughter had no problems with KDE on
> SuSE 6.4 almost a decade ago.  Thus his so-called consistencies
> are inconsistent.
> 
> You are better off just kill filtering the POS.  As you see, he
> is someone who will only chew up your time with his nonsensical
> replies.  Ditto for Snit.

* I do not have an "apparent preference toward lack of choice".
  You lied about me.

* I am not a "Windows shill"
  You lied about me.

* The topic is not about using just KDE - it is about using
  the fractured UI that is the only "choice" available for
  desktop Linux... leaving the reasonable choice of general
  consistency out of the reasonable possibilities on Linux.
  You showed no understanding of this.




-- 
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 8:54:28 AM
Hadron wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> 
>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
>> fr036n$1j9$1@registered.motzarella.org on 3/9/08 12:21 AM:
>>
>>> RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>>>>> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases
>>>>> the user interface to a program is the most important part
>>>>> for a commercial company...
>>>>> 
>>>>> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or
>>>>> shows an anti-Linux bias.  Just curious.
>>>> 
>>>> At this point it has nothing to do with Linux, BTW. Since you mad the
>>>> above statement several times, you must have some evidence, some reason
>>>> for your *opinion.* Where is that evidence, what is that reason? What
>>>> criteria are you using?
>>> 
>>> You disagree with this assertion?
>>
>> For the record: the comment is from Linus:
>>
>> "For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial
>> software. I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the
>> user interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
>> company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>
>>
>> I wanted to see how Linux folks would react to it.  :)
> 
> I could have told you. And sure to form, WronG comes blundering in , all
> red faced, huffing and puffing and full of indignation. Only Gordon or
> HPT seem as clueless about computers, sw and general design standards.

As usual, Hadron Quark supports the dishonest swine Snot

Did you actually take a look, you cretin, when Linus Torvalds made that
statement? 

"last update: September 30, 1997"

It is 10 1/2 *years* ago.

Snot is in full troll / dishonesty mode again

And Hadron Quark, the "true linux advocate", naturally supports that swine

< snip more pure drivel >
-- 
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice which can be equally well
explained by stupidity

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
3/9/2008 9:41:15 AM
High Plains Thumper wrote:

> RonB wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>> 
>>> What are you talking about? Why do you tell lies so much? Or
>>> are you really thicker than HPT?
>>> 
>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad. And all the
>>> experts say its "good": Whereas you and your moron zealots
>>> say "but its still easy to use with out it". You seem
>>> incapable of rational thought.
> 
> There we have it folks from Hadron Quark, "Usenet etiquette
> provocateur", "true Linux advocate", "Debian distro governor",
> "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist",
> "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger professional",
> "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time coordinator",
> "email sage" and "OSS culling committee chairman" Hadron Quark,
> aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian O'Leary.
> 
>> If consistency is so important to you, Hadron, consistently
>> use ubuntu, or Debian, or whatever it is you like.
>> 
>> Non-existent problem solved.
> 
> If consistency were important to Hadron, he would use stable
> versions of Debian, which would make his problems non-existent.
> Totally clueless, he has yet to figure out that Debian Unstable
> should not be used for production work.

It clearly states, on Debian's website, that:

The "stable" distribution contains the latest officially released distribution
of Debian. This is the production release of Debian, the one which we primarily
recommend using.

Now that's not hard to understand, is it....or perhaps it is to a clueless
idiot. Key words are: "officially released", "production release", &  "the one
which we primarily recommend using."

However Quack said he was using "Testing", & that states (also from Debian's
website):

<quote>
Packages are installed into the `testing' directory after they have undergone
some degree of testing in unstable.
They must be in sync on all architectures where they have been built and mustn't
have dependencies that make them uninstallable; they also have to have fewer
release-critical bugs than the versions currently in testing. This way, we hope
that `testing' is always close to being a release candidate. 

Once that bug count lowers to maximum acceptable values, the frozen "testing"
distribution is declared "stable" and released with a version number.
<unquote>

Again, that's not too hard to understand....except to a clueless idiot, of
course.  


-- 
Free-BSD 7.0, PC-BSD 1.4
Linux systems: PCLOS 2007,Fedora 8, Kubuntu 7.10. 
Testing:  Mandrake One 2008.1 RC1 
-- On 64bit systems --
0
wp16 (1499)
3/9/2008 11:17:08 AM
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:21:56 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software. I'm not
>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface
>>> to a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>>> 
>>> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or
>>> shows an anti-Linux bias.  Just curious.
>>
>> At this point it has nothing to do with Linux, BTW. Since you mad the
>> above statement several times, you must have some evidence, some reason
>> for your *opinion.* Where is that evidence, what is that reason? What
>> criteria are you using?
> 
> You disagree with this assertion?
> 
> You are clearly clueless about market forces and system design.
> 
> Closed source generally has a better, more consistent UI because if it
> doesn't then, as Rick has agreed, it is not as good for the user. If its
> not so good for the user then it gets poorly reviewed and no one buys
> it.

Why are you and Snit continually using me as a reference, saying I have 
agreed to something, and doing it without context. The context was that 
the slight UI inconsistencies with mixing apps from different window 
environments are inconsequential in relation to Linux distro adoption, 
especially when compared to other issues.

> 
> What appears to the difficulty here? Please note this would apply to
> commercial SW available for Linux too.
> 
> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW product.
> It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
> 
> Which of course it is, in a way since most OSS does NOT have a good
> consistent UI since people are free to ignore the standards if they
> wish. And applying standards is not "sexy" for the average home brew SW
> developer.
> 
> QED
Actually, these days, most of the OSS being used in Linux distributions 
DOES have a consistent UI. KDE apps are consistent. Gnome apps are 
consistent. When you mix them, then there a SLIGHT inconsistencies, and 
things like drag and drop -may- not work. However, you can stick to one 
WE, and that WE's apps and all will be consistent.

And if all of that is so important, why you get Snit to help you make a 
distro based entirely on either KDE or Gnome?

-- 
Rick
0
none11 (12193)
3/9/2008 12:46:56 PM
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:05:30 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how
>>> a more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
>>> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
>>
>> Going out on a limb here and assuming you're serious, how would you
>> dictate the "consistent" UI in Linux?
> 
> Dictate? What are you talking about? It is up to the programmers to be
> serious enough about their work to adhere to the published standards.
> And there ARE published standards. They tend to be a bit looser in OSS
> but they are there.
> 
Who gets to dictate which windowing environment is installed?

-- 
Rick
0
none11 (12193)
3/9/2008 12:48:04 PM
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:52:39 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:

>> Could it be that you're both lying trolls, perhaps?
> 
> Lying about what? What are you talking about? You ARE HPT aren't you?
> Wow. if not you must have been separated at birth but the brain was left
> behind.

They are the same person.


-- 
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
0
brick.n.straw (6130)
3/9/2008 1:46:45 PM
"Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post 13t7n2044v98pee@news.supernews.com
on 3/9/08 5:46 AM:

> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:21:56 +0100, Hadron wrote:
> 
>> RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software. I'm not
>>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface
>>>> to a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>>>> 
>>>> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or
>>>> shows an anti-Linux bias. �Just curious.
>>> 
>>> At this point it has nothing to do with Linux, BTW. Since you mad the
>>> above statement several times, you must have some evidence, some reason
>>> for your *opinion.* Where is that evidence, what is that reason? What
>>> criteria are you using?
>> 
>> You disagree with this assertion?
>> 
>> You are clearly clueless about market forces and system design.
>> 
>> Closed source generally has a better, more consistent UI because if it
>> doesn't then, as Rick has agreed, it is not as good for the user. If its
>> not so good for the user then it gets poorly reviewed and no one buys
>> it.
> 
> Why are you and Snit continually using me as a reference, saying I have
> agreed to something, and doing it without context.

Because you *did* agree to something - that it would be better for the user
to have a less fractured UI (to have a more consistent UI).

You do not agree with the full extent of the problem - though you also
cannot name a bigger inherent problem with desktop Linux.

> The context was that the slight UI inconsistencies with mixing apps from
> different window environments are inconsequential in relation to Linux distro
> adoption, especially when compared to other issues.

Nobody denies that you blame everything but the inherent problems with Linux
on why Linux is not well accepted by people.  We get it: you are a Linux
apologist.  
 
>> What appears to the difficulty here? Please note this would apply to
>> commercial SW available for Linux too.
>> 
>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
>> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW product.
>> It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
>> 
>> Which of course it is, in a way since most OSS does NOT have a good
>> consistent UI since people are free to ignore the standards if they
>> wish. And applying standards is not "sexy" for the average home brew SW
>> developer.
>> 
>> QED
>>
> Actually, these days, most of the OSS being used in Linux distributions
> DOES have a consistent UI.

The *systems* do not... which is what matters.  Of course you and I have
gone round and round on this and, to obfuscate the issue (since it is one
that you cannot deal with in an honest way), you run to the idea that KDE
and Gnome have standards that are often followed (though you claim the
software is fully consistent... something that has not been shown to be the
case).

> KDE apps are consistent. Gnome apps are consistent. When you mix them, then
> there a SLIGHT inconsistencies, and things like drag and drop -may- not work.
> However, you can stick to one WE, and that WE's apps and all will be
> consistent.

And now, if you can understand why no distro stuck with one WE you will be
darn close to understanding what the problem in discussion is!  Oh Rick -
you sometimes get so close to actually admitting to understanding how much
the problem in question effects users... but once you do that you freak out
and then just call people names.

> And if all of that is so important, why you get Snit to help you make a
> distro based entirely on either KDE or Gnome?

The Linux landscape does not allow for it.  Yet.  Hence the problem.

See how close you get to admitting the problem.  Don't forget to back pedal
in your reply (you are so predictable!)

-- 
BU__SH__



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 1:59:06 PM
"Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post 13t7n44gsmn7a11@news.supernews.com
on 3/9/08 5:48 AM:

> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:05:30 +0100, Hadron wrote:
> 
>> RonB <ronb02noSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how
>>>> a more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
>>>> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
>>> 
>>> Going out on a limb here and assuming you're serious, how would you
>>> dictate the "consistent" UI in Linux?
>> 
>> Dictate? What are you talking about? It is up to the programmers to be
>> serious enough about their work to adhere to the published standards.
>> And there ARE published standards. They tend to be a bit looser in OSS
>> but they are there.
>> 
> Who gets to dictate which windowing environment is installed?

Whoever puts the distro together decides the default.

Do you understand *anything* about Linux?

-- 
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 2:01:14 PM
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:48:05 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>> 13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>>> 
>>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>>> 
>>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface
>>> to a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>>
>> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.
> 
> What OSS do you use that does not have a better closed source solution?
> 
> I can name one : emacs. Firefox maybe. I struggle to think of anything
> else.

"Better" is in the eye of the beholder. If you like software that
doesn't work as advertised and you can't change it and can't get a
refund, if you love hacker spyware and Homeland Security backdoors and
viruses and DRM and not being able to install your software on all your
computers without paying extra for each one, if you love not being able
to add a few extra features yourself or rearrange menus and icons to
suit the way YOU think and work, if you love paying thousands of dollars
over the years for software and it still isn't yours... then you'll
*love* Windows!

However, it's just not for me.

0
nope6917 (122)
3/9/2008 2:16:22 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t7s9mnha10v74@news.supernews.com on 3/9/08 7:16 AM:

> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:48:05 +0100, Hadron wrote:
> 
>> El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>>> 13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>>>> 
>>>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface
>>>> to a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>>> 
>>> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.
>> 
>> What OSS do you use that does not have a better closed source solution?
>> 
>> I can name one : emacs. Firefox maybe. I struggle to think of anything
>> else.
> 
> "Better" is in the eye of the beholder.

Right... and Rick agreed consistency was better for the user... even after
he had been shown proof that Linux lacked this.

As far as who would think consistency better than what Linux offers was
better - it really comes down to anyone who values their work and their
time.  Not all people do - some just like playing with systems - to them it
might not be "better".

> If you like software that doesn't work as advertised and you can't change it
> and can't get a refund, if you love hacker spyware and Homeland Security
> backdoors and viruses and DRM and not being able to install your software on
> all your computers without paying extra for each one, if you love not being
> able to add a few extra features yourself or rearrange menus and icons to suit
> the way YOU think and work, if you love paying thousands of dollars over the
> years for software and it still isn't yours... then you'll *love* Windows!
> 
> However, it's just not for me.

What an amazing off-topic rant!


-- 
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 2:21:50 PM
* Peter K�hlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Hadron wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>>
>>> I wanted to see how Linux folks would react to it.  :)
>> 
>> I could have told you. And sure to form, WronG comes blundering in , all
>> red faced, huffing and puffing and full of indignation. Only Gordon or
>> HPT seem as clueless about computers, sw and general design standards.
>
> As usual, Hadron Quark supports the dishonest swine Snot
>
> Did you actually take a look, you cretin, when Linus Torvalds made that
> statement? 
>
> "last update: September 30, 1997"
>
> It is 10 1/2 *years* ago.
>
> Snot is in full troll / dishonesty mode again
>
> And Hadron Quark, the "true linux advocate", naturally supports that swine

And you, Peter, are casting swine before pearls.  <laughter>

Have you checked out the "true COLA stats"?  The Three Stooges (Snit,
Moshe, and Hadron) have been dumping their verbal diarrhea in torrents.

-- 
This is a fantastic time to be entering the business world, because business
is going to change more in the next 10 years than it has in the last 50.
   -- Bill Gates
0
linonut (8350)
3/9/2008 2:49:45 PM
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 10:49:45 -0400, Linonut wrote:

> * Peter K�hlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
> 
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to see how Linux folks would react to it.  :)
>>> 
>>> I could have told you. And sure to form, WronG comes blundering in , all
>>> red faced, huffing and puffing and full of indignation. Only Gordon or
>>> HPT seem as clueless about computers, sw and general design standards.
>>
>> As usual, Hadron Quark supports the dishonest swine Snot
>>
>> Did you actually take a look, you cretin, when Linus Torvalds made that
>> statement? 
>>
>> "last update: September 30, 1997"
>>
>> It is 10 1/2 *years* ago.
>>
>> Snot is in full troll / dishonesty mode again
>>
>> And Hadron Quark, the "true linux advocate", naturally supports that swine
> 
> And you, Peter, are casting swine before pearls.  <laughter>
> 
> Have you checked out the "true COLA stats"?  The Three Stooges (Snit,
> Moshe, and Hadron) have been dumping their verbal diarrhea in torrents.

It's a discussion group not an advertising board.
It's called discussion.
What Roy does is called SPAM.

-- 
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
0
brick.n.straw (6130)
3/9/2008 2:56:52 PM
"Linonut" <linonut@bollsouth.nut> stated in post
9OSAj.4702$by3.606@bignews5.bellsouth.net on 3/9/08 7:49 AM:

> * Peter K�hlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
> 
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>> I wanted to see how Linux folks would react to it.  :)
>>> 
>>> I could have told you. And sure to form, WronG comes blundering in , all
>>> red faced, huffing and puffing and full of indignation. Only Gordon or
>>> HPT seem as clueless about computers, sw and general design standards.
>> 
>> As usual, Hadron Quark supports the dishonest swine Snot
>> 
>> Did you actually take a look, you cretin, when Linus Torvalds made that
>> statement? 
>> 
>> "last update: September 30, 1997"
>> 
>> It is 10 1/2 *years* ago.
>> 
>> Snot is in full troll / dishonesty mode again
>> 
>> And Hadron Quark, the "true linux advocate", naturally supports that swine
> 
> And you, Peter, are casting swine before pearls.  <laughter>
> 
> Have you checked out the "true COLA stats"?  The Three Stooges (Snit,
> Moshe, and Hadron) have been dumping their verbal diarrhea in torrents.

Torrents and Usenet are not the same thing.  Just thought you should know.
:)


-- 
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 3:17:54 PM
El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> writes:

> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:48:05 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>
>> El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>>> 13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>>>> 
>>>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface
>>>> to a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>>>
>>> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.
>> 
>> What OSS do you use that does not have a better closed source solution?
>> 
>> I can name one : emacs. Firefox maybe. I struggle to think of anything
>> else.
>
> "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. If you like software that
> doesn't work as advertised and you can't change it and can't get a
> refund, if you love hacker spyware and Homeland Security backdoors and
> viruses and DRM and not being able to install your software on all your
> computers without paying extra for each one, if you love not being able
> to add a few extra features yourself or rearrange menus and icons to
> suit the way YOU think and work, if you love paying thousands of
> dollars

LOL.

> over the years for software and it still isn't yours... then you'll
> *love* Windows!
>
> However, it's just not for me.
>

I bet you're the most unproductive guy in the office.

Hey, Spike1, have you finished that report yet? 

"No! I'm still moving menus about to suite the way I work".

What a load of garbage.
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/9/2008 3:30:14 PM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13t7s9mnha10v74@news.supernews.com on 3/9/08 7:16 AM:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:48:05 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>> 
>>> El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>>>> 13t6ln04njc2cec@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>>>>> 
>>>>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>>>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface
>>>>> to a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>>>> 
>>>> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.
>>> 
>>> What OSS do you use that does not have a better closed source solution?
>>> 
>>> I can name one : emacs. Firefox maybe. I struggle to think of anything
>>> else.
>> 
>> "Better" is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Right... and Rick agreed consistency was better for the user... even after
> he had been shown proof that Linux lacked this.
>
> As far as who would think consistency better than what Linux offers was
> better - it really comes down to anyone who values their work and their
> time.  Not all people do - some just like playing with systems - to them it
> might not be "better".
>
>> If you like software that doesn't work as advertised and you can't change it
>> and can't get a refund, if you love hacker spyware and Homeland Security
>> backdoors and viruses and DRM and not being able to install your software on
>> all your computers without paying extra for each one, if you love not being
>> able to add a few extra features yourself or rearrange menus and icons to suit
>> the way YOU think and work, if you love paying thousands of dollars over the
>> years for software and it still isn't yours... then you'll *love* Windows!
>> 
>> However, it's just not for me.
>
> What an amazing off-topic rant!

I thought so too. One could almost see the bile dripping from his
animated pie hole.
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/9/2008 3:30:54 PM
Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> writes:

> * Peter K�hlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to see how Linux folks would react to it.  :)
>>> 
>>> I could have told you. And sure to form, WronG comes blundering in , all
>>> red faced, huffing and puffing and full of indignation. Only Gordon or
>>> HPT seem as clueless about computers, sw and general design standards.
>>
>> As usual, Hadron Quark supports the dishonest swine Snot
>>
>> Did you actually take a look, you cretin, when Linus Torvalds made that
>> statement? 
>>
>> "last update: September 30, 1997"
>>
>> It is 10 1/2 *years* ago.

And thanks to morons like WronG, little has changed to improve things.

Hang on.

You're surely not going to say that Linux features a fully consistent
UI?

>>
>> Snot is in full troll / dishonesty mode again
>>
>> And Hadron Quark, the "true linux advocate", naturally supports that
>> swine

I support the issue. Not the person.

> And you, Peter, are casting swine before pearls.  <laughter>

*blink*, err, yes. Good one.

>
> Have you checked out the "true COLA stats"?  The Three Stooges (Snit,
> Moshe, and Hadron) have been dumping their verbal diarrhea in
> torrents.

You mean engaged in discussion about issues? You should try it.
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/9/2008 3:33:16 PM
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:24:38 -0600, RonB wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
> 
> Prove it. Again, mere opinion.
> 
> In my *opinion* the best UI ever created was the WordStar keystroke set.
> Was it intuitive? No. Was it pretty? No. Was it fast and efficient? You
> bet your sweet ass. I still use jstar in Linux. Wonderful stuff.

My customized XEmacs uses the WordStar diamond and a small selection of
other WordStar keys. One of the things I like about the Joe editor is
its WordStar-like keybindings. However, I also use XEmacs with unaltered
keybindings for more programming-related editing tasks, sometimes vi/Vim
for a change of pace, and sometimes joemacs instead of joe for quick
system edits. According to Snit, this plenitude of different UI's means
I'm not able to work efficiently and productively. And yet, the very
reason I use different editors is because it allows me to work more
efficiently.

He's such a silly guy, that Snit.

> But, I must point out, since you think opinion is automatically elevated
> to fact, that this is merely my *opinion.* 

Snit misinterprets a lot of things. He "misinterprets" plain-English
statements to try to change their point. He's fond of making a complex
compound statement and then "misinterpreting" as agreement any part that
you don't address. He slips words into your mouth in hopes you won't
notice so he can claim you agreed to them even if they really weren't
yours. And if all that fails, he just "misinterprets" part of what you
said as not being relevant and snips it out so the remainder appears to
show that you were actually in agreement with him.

In other words, he's just another troll. But we all knew that. 

> Like you have an opinion that commercial software "usually" has a
> better user interface than OSS software. To elevate such an opinion to
> fact you first have to decide by what criteria you judge what's a
> better user interface. Is an easily learned, intuitive user interface
> better than one that takes some effort to learn, but is far more
> efficient in the long run?

Although it's sadly becoming less the case with the heavy emphasis now
on so-called "consumer" distro's, the older open-source UI's were strong
on "muscle memory". Rather than memorizing keystrokes in an intellectual
manner, you train your lower-level nervous system to handle the details
so your brain is free to concentrate on the task at hand. The initial
learning process is a bit slower than using menus and icons, but it pays
off later in the form of more focus on your work and the improved
efficiencies of a keyboard over a mouse.

However, muscle memory has to be constantly refreshed. It works well on
things you do a lot, not so well on things you use infrequently. That's
one of the reasons I use a mix of command-line and GUI programs. It's
slso why I like XEmacs for more complex editing tasks - it has both
command-line style keybindings, and a menu system for the things I use
infrequently. For simpler tasks where I know I won't need any esoteric
editing functions I often prefer joe or joemacs which, as command-line
programs, are lightning quick on even the slowest machines.

> So, by what criteria do *you* judge what is a "better user interface?"
> You'll find that your opinion will be about as worthless here, as your
> opinion stated above. It's all opinion, and an absolute waste of time.

Snit appears to be using the common wintroll tactic of deliberately
turning any challenge into a useless time-wasting exercise with his
deliberate misinterpretations, etc., so that everybody gets exasperated
and quits challenging him. Then he can run around citing the same FUD
over and over, and the lack of responses from those who know you can't
discuss anything with Snit creates the false impression among any
newcomers that we're all in agreement with him.

> Now, *prove* that commercial user interfaces are "usually" better than
> OSS user interfaces.
> 
> Uh, huh.

FUD, by its nature, cannot be proven.
0
nope6917 (122)
3/9/2008 4:07:00 PM
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:04:40 -0600, RonB wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Actually I was just curious how people would respond to the words of
>> Linus.
> 
> Thanks, troll. Here's the whole quote -- Note, Linus said this 11 years
> ago, in 1997. Like that's really relevant to modern Linux.
> 
> "For example, user interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
> interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
> company: whether the programs works correctly or not seems to be
> secondary (as shown by the many buggy Microsoft programs -- not that MS
> is nearly the only offender)."
> 
> http://www.ddj.com/architect/184412902
> 
> So much for your honesty, lying troll.
> 
> Now back to my question. By what criteria do *you* opine which is a
> better UI?

Oh, my. Another case of Snit's strategic snipping and misquoting for my
"Snit FAQ".

Thanks, RonB. 

0
nope6917 (122)
3/9/2008 4:09:55 PM
El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> writes:

> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:24:38 -0600, RonB wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>> 
>> Prove it. Again, mere opinion.
>> 
>> In my *opinion* the best UI ever created was the WordStar keystroke set.
>> Was it intuitive? No. Was it pretty? No. Was it fast and efficient? You
>> bet your sweet ass. I still use jstar in Linux. Wonderful stuff.
>
> My customized XEmacs uses the WordStar diamond and a small selection of
> other WordStar keys. One of the things I like about the Joe editor is
> its WordStar-like keybindings. However, I also use XEmacs with unaltered
> keybindings for more programming-related editing tasks, sometimes vi/Vim
> for a change of pace, and sometimes joemacs instead of joe for quick
> system edits. According to Snit, this plenitude of different UI's means
> I'm not able to work efficiently and productively. And yet, the very
> reason I use different editors is because it allows me to work more
> efficiently.
>
> He's such a silly guy, that Snit.

You're talking rubbish. If you actively swap between emacs modes and vi
like modes then you're one in a million. And even if you did then there
are still a huge core of common UI interface points. I use about 20
different modes in emacs and they all share certain common user
interface like cut and paste, interfacing to org-mode, bring up
mail etc. All these common UI definitions do NOT change between modes.

>
>> But, I must point out, since you think opinion is automatically elevated
>> to fact, that this is merely my *opinion.* 
>
> Snit misinterprets a lot of things. He "misinterprets" plain-English
> statements to try to change their point. He's fond of making a complex
> compound statement and then "misinterpreting" as agreement any part that
> you don't address. He slips words into your mouth in hopes you won't
> notice so he can claim you agreed to them even if they really weren't
> yours. And if all that fails, he just "misinterprets" part of what you
> said as not being relevant and snips it out so the remainder appears to
> show that you were actually in agreement with him.
>

I dont think I ever read a paragraph that said so little in so many
words. Basically you're floundering.

I challenge you to find lies in what he has posted and to reply to this
post with them. All you're doing is talking garbage at the moment where
you attack the man and not the issue.
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/9/2008 4:12:38 PM
Hadron wrote:

> Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> writes:
> 
>> * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to see how Linux folks would react to it.  :)
>>>> 
>>>> I could have told you. And sure to form, WronG comes blundering in ,
>>>> all red faced, huffing and puffing and full of indignation. Only Gordon
>>>> or HPT seem as clueless about computers, sw and general design
>>>> standards.
>>>
>>> As usual, Hadron Quark supports the dishonest swine Snot
>>>
>>> Did you actually take a look, you cretin, when Linus Torvalds made that
>>> statement?
>>>
>>> "last update: September 30, 1997"
>>>
>>> It is 10 1/2 *years* ago.
> 
> And thanks to morons like WronG, little has changed to improve things.
> 
> Hang on.
> 
> You're surely not going to say that Linux features a fully consistent
> UI?

Your "fully consistent UI" is your strawman, feed him yourself.
There is no such thing. Not even on OSX, which is claimed to be
rather "consistent". I don't care for "consistency" half a cents worth if I
have to buy that with apples garbage. Even windows is better than OSX, in
nearly every aspect

> 
>>>
>>> Snot is in full troll / dishonesty mode again
>>>
>>> And Hadron Quark, the "true linux advocate", naturally supports that
>>> swine
> 
> I support the issue. Not the person.

No, you support Snot as he is a hideous troll

He was as dishonest as you can get by posting a reference over ten years
old. And you support that cretin. Naturally, as you yourself are a
dishonest prick
-- 
Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
3/9/2008 4:21:12 PM
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:45:39 -0500, RonB wrote:

> High Plains Thumper wrote:

>> You are better off just kill filtering the POS.  As you see, he
>> is someone who will only chew up your time with his nonsensical
>> replies.  Ditto for Snit.

> Yep. Good point. I had them killfiled before, but moved from my 15 Gig test
> hard drive to a new 160 Gig one when I decided SuSE was the direction I was
> going. 

I don't normally play with trolls, but I'm on some pain meds that don't
leave me much good for anything else. I'm stuck at home, there's nothing
good on TV and I've already learned not to play around with technical
things while this stuff has me so fuzzy-headed. 

Does it say anything that someone has to have their IQ medically lowered
before they'll even try to carry on a conversation with Snit?
0
nope6917 (122)
3/9/2008 4:28:27 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t82p41lk3je7@news.supernews.com on 3/9/08 9:07 AM:

> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:24:38 -0600, RonB wrote:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>> 
>> Prove it. Again, mere opinion.
>> 
>> In my *opinion* the best UI ever created was the WordStar keystroke set.
>> Was it intuitive? No. Was it pretty? No. Was it fast and efficient? You
>> bet your sweet ass. I still use jstar in Linux. Wonderful stuff.
> 
> My customized XEmacs uses the WordStar diamond and a small selection of
> other WordStar keys. One of the things I like about the Joe editor is
> its WordStar-like keybindings. However, I also use XEmacs with unaltered
> keybindings for more programming-related editing tasks, sometimes vi/Vim
> for a change of pace, and sometimes joemacs instead of joe for quick
> system edits. According to Snit, this plenitude of different UI's means
> I'm not able to work efficiently and productively. And yet, the very
> reason I use different editors is because it allows me to work more
> efficiently.

Is there a *user based* reason for having the different UIs?  If so then
please point to any comment where I have said that is bad.

> He's such a silly guy, that Snit.

Well, when you make up arguments for me and refuse to actually comment on my
actual words you can come to all sorts of conclusions!
 
>> But, I must point out, since you think opinion is automatically elevated
>> to fact, that this is merely my *opinion.*
> 
> Snit misinterprets a lot of things. He "misinterprets" plain-English
> statements to try to change their point. He's fond of making a complex
> compound statement and then "misinterpreting" as agreement any part that
> you don't address. He slips words into your mouth in hopes you won't
> notice so he can claim you agreed to them even if they really weren't
> yours. And if all that fails, he just "misinterprets" part of what you
> said as not being relevant and snips it out so the remainder appears to
> show that you were actually in agreement with him.
> 
> In other words, he's just another troll. But we all knew that.

And here is going to be the part that really sucks for me - you are about to
provide some examples and really prove your point.

Oh.

Wait.

No, you will do no such thing.  You can't because you are lying.

The one time you tried you blew it - you claimed that because I did not
quote Rick openly lying about my views and quote him saying what he thinks
are bigger issues that this somehow discounted his comments where he agreed
consistency would be "better for the user".  You were wrong.  Oh well.

>> Like you have an opinion that commercial software "usually" has a
>> better user interface than OSS software. To elevate such an opinion to
>> fact you first have to decide by what criteria you judge what's a
>> better user interface. Is an easily learned, intuitive user interface
>> better than one that takes some effort to learn, but is far more
>> efficient in the long run?
> 
> Although it's sadly becoming less the case with the heavy emphasis now
> on so-called "consumer" distro's, the older open-source UI's were strong
> on "muscle memory". Rather than memorizing keystrokes in an intellectual
> manner, you train your lower-level nervous system to handle the details
> so your brain is free to concentrate on the task at hand. The initial
> learning process is a bit slower than using menus and icons, but it pays
> off later in the form of more focus on your work and the improved
> efficiencies of a keyboard over a mouse.

Hence the reason that consistency is beneficial in short cut keys as well.

> However, muscle memory has to be constantly refreshed. It works well on
> things you do a lot, not so well on things you use infrequently. That's
> one of the reasons I use a mix of command-line and GUI programs. It's
> slso why I like XEmacs for more complex editing tasks - it has both
> command-line style keybindings, and a menu system for the things I use
> infrequently. For simpler tasks where I know I won't need any esoteric
> editing functions I often prefer joe or joemacs which, as command-line
> programs, are lightning quick on even the slowest machines.
> 
>> So, by what criteria do *you* judge what is a "better user interface?"
>> You'll find that your opinion will be about as worthless here, as your
>> opinion stated above. It's all opinion, and an absolute waste of time.
> 
> Snit appears to be using the common wintroll tactic of deliberately
> turning any challenge into a useless time-wasting exercise with his
> deliberate misinterpretations, etc., so that everybody gets exasperated
> and quits challenging him.

Well, other than the fact that I answered the question, have supported my
point well, and you cannot find a single example of what you accuse me of -
sure!

> Then he can run around citing the same FUD over and over, and the lack of
> responses from those who know you can't discuss anything with Snit creates the
> false impression among any newcomers that we're all in agreement with him.

Not only do I not claim you are in agreement with me, I make it clear who is
on each "side":

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
        Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
        http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

        Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency

Your claims to the contrary are clearly dishonest.

>> Now, *prove* that commercial user interfaces are "usually" better than
>> OSS user interfaces.
>> 
>> Uh, huh.
> 
> FUD, by its nature, cannot be proven.

I was merely quoting the "FUD" of Linus.  LOL!

"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>




-- 
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 4:31:00 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t82uj923egk33@news.supernews.com on 3/9/08 9:09 AM:

> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:04:40 -0600, RonB wrote:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Actually I was just curious how people would respond to the words of
>>> Linus.
>> 
>> Thanks, troll. Here's the whole quote -- Note, Linus said this 11 years
>> ago, in 1997. Like that's really relevant to modern Linux.
>> 
>> "For example, user interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
>> interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
>> company: whether the programs works correctly or not seems to be
>> secondary (as shown by the many buggy Microsoft programs -- not that MS
>> is nearly the only offender)."
>> 
>> http://www.ddj.com/architect/184412902
>> 
>> So much for your honesty, lying troll.
>> 
>> Now back to my question. By what criteria do *you* opine which is a
>> better UI?
> 
> Oh, my. Another case of Snit's strategic snipping and misquoting for my
> "Snit FAQ".
> 
> Thanks, RonB. 
> 

Again: my comments were in no way dishonest or snipped in a way to deceive.
You are simply lying.


-- 
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 4:31:38 PM
"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
fr129n$iqb$16@registered.motzarella.org on 3/9/08 9:12 AM:

> El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:24:38 -0600, RonB wrote:
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>>> 
>>> Prove it. Again, mere opinion.
>>> 
>>> In my *opinion* the best UI ever created was the WordStar keystroke set.
>>> Was it intuitive? No. Was it pretty? No. Was it fast and efficient? You
>>> bet your sweet ass. I still use jstar in Linux. Wonderful stuff.
>> 
>> My customized XEmacs uses the WordStar diamond and a small selection of
>> other WordStar keys. One of the things I like about the Joe editor is
>> its WordStar-like keybindings. However, I also use XEmacs with unaltered
>> keybindings for more programming-related editing tasks, sometimes vi/Vim
>> for a change of pace, and sometimes joemacs instead of joe for quick
>> system edits. According to Snit, this plenitude of different UI's means
>> I'm not able to work efficiently and productively. And yet, the very
>> reason I use different editors is because it allows me to work more
>> efficiently.
>> 
>> He's such a silly guy, that Snit.
> 
> You're talking rubbish. If you actively swap between emacs modes and vi
> like modes then you're one in a million. And even if you did then there
> are still a huge core of common UI interface points. I use about 20
> different modes in emacs and they all share certain common user
> interface like cut and paste, interfacing to org-mode, bring up
> mail etc. All these common UI definitions do NOT change between modes.

It really comes down to this: if he can point to a user-based reason why
this is a benefit for him then I have no problem with it...

If he cannot then he would be better off if things were more consistent.

>>> But, I must point out, since you think opinion is automatically elevated
>>> to fact, that this is merely my *opinion.*
>> 
>> Snit misinterprets a lot of things. He "misinterprets" plain-English
>> statements to try to change their point. He's fond of making a complex
>> compound statement and then "misinterpreting" as agreement any part that
>> you don't address. He slips words into your mouth in hopes you won't
>> notice so he can claim you agreed to them even if they really weren't
>> yours. And if all that fails, he just "misinterprets" part of what you
>> said as not being relevant and snips it out so the remainder appears to
>> show that you were actually in agreement with him.
>> 
> 
> I dont think I ever read a paragraph that said so little in so many
> words. Basically you're floundering.
> 
> I challenge you to find lies in what he has posted and to reply to this
> post with them. All you're doing is talking garbage at the moment where
> you attack the man and not the issue.

He whines that I "misinterpret" things and try to change people's points:
and yet he does not show a single example of this... and does not even try
to quote me doing so.

I wonder if they irony will go over his head.  :)


-- 
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features."  -- Steve Jobs



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 4:38:54 PM
"Peter K�hlmann" <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> stated in post
fr12po$v18$01$1@news.t-online.com on 3/9/08 9:21 AM:

> Hadron wrote:
> 
>> Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>> 
>>> * Peter K�hlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>> 
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I wanted to see how Linux folks would react to it.  :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I could have told you. And sure to form, WronG comes blundering in ,
>>>>> all red faced, huffing and puffing and full of indignation. Only Gordon
>>>>> or HPT seem as clueless about computers, sw and general design
>>>>> standards.
>>>> 
>>>> As usual, Hadron Quark supports the dishonest swine Snot
>>>> 
>>>> Did you actually take a look, you cretin, when Linus Torvalds made that
>>>> statement?
>>>> 
>>>> "last update: September 30, 1997"
>>>> 
>>>> It is 10 1/2 *years* ago.
>> 
>> And thanks to morons like WronG, little has changed to improve things.
>> 
>> Hang on.
>> 
>> You're surely not going to say that Linux features a fully consistent
>> UI?
> 
> Your "fully consistent UI" is your strawman, feed him yourself.
> There is no such thing. Not even on OSX, which is claimed to be
> rather "consistent". I don't care for "consistency" half a cents worth if I
> have to buy that with apples garbage. Even windows is better than OSX, in
> nearly every aspect
> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Snot is in full troll / dishonesty mode again
>>>> 
>>>> And Hadron Quark, the "true linux advocate", naturally supports that
>>>> swine
>> 
>> I support the issue. Not the person.
> 
> No, you support Snot as he is a hideous troll
> 
> He was as dishonest as you can get by posting a reference over ten years
> old. And you support that cretin. Naturally, as you yourself are a
> dishonest prick

I quoted Linus saying something you did not like.  Wah!


-- 
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 4:40:38 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t841bqjmsig23@news.supernews.com on 3/9/08 9:28 AM:

> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:45:39 -0500, RonB wrote:
> 
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
> 
>>> You are better off just kill filtering the POS. �As you see, he
>>> is someone who will only chew up your time with his nonsensical
>>> replies. �Ditto for Snit.
> 
>> Yep. Good point. I had them killfiled before, but moved from my 15 Gig test
>> hard drive to a new 160 Gig one when I decided SuSE was the direction I was
>> going. 
> 
> I don't normally play with trolls,

Ah, you start with name calling...

> but I'm on some pain meds that don't
> leave me much good for anything else.

And then try to excuse your behavior...

> I'm stuck at home, there's nothing
> good on TV and I've already learned not to play around with technical
> things while this stuff has me so fuzzy-headed.
> 
> Does it say anything that someone has to have their IQ medically lowered
> before they'll even try to carry on a conversation with Snit?

Gee, more insults... and yet you cannot find a thing actually wrong with my
comments... and *certainly* not my overall point.


-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-  Anatole France 



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 4:41:44 PM
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:12:38 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:24:38 -0600, RonB wrote:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>>> 
>>> Prove it. Again, mere opinion.
>>> 
>>> In my *opinion* the best UI ever created was the WordStar keystroke
>>> set. Was it intuitive? No. Was it pretty? No. Was it fast and
>>> efficient? You bet your sweet ass. I still use jstar in Linux.
>>> Wonderful stuff.
>>
>> My customized XEmacs uses the WordStar diamond and a small selection of
>> other WordStar keys. One of the things I like about the Joe editor is
>> its WordStar-like keybindings. However, I also use XEmacs with
>> unaltered keybindings for more programming-related editing tasks,
>> sometimes vi/Vim for a change of pace, and sometimes joemacs instead of
>> joe for quick system edits. According to Snit, this plenitude of
>> different UI's means I'm not able to work efficiently and productively.
>> And yet, the very reason I use different editors is because it allows
>> me to work more efficiently.
>>
>> He's such a silly guy, that Snit.
> 
> You're talking rubbish. If you actively swap between emacs modes and vi
> like modes then you're one in a million.

Just because you don't, doesn't mean no one else does. I got comfortable
with both because I kept switching back-and-forth for years trying to
decide which to make my "main" editor. By the time I settled on XEmacs,
I was also familiar with Vim. That doesn't mean I'm in totally love with
modal editing, but I can handle it.

Also, as I said, muscle memory has to be trained or you lose it. I use
Vim now and then to "stay in shape" because so many distro's come with
vi as the default editor and (X)Emacs isn't always available. Also, I
believe that changing things around now and then reduces the chances of
repetitive stress injuries.

> And even if you did then there are still a huge core of common UI
> interface points. I use about 20 different modes in emacs and they all
> share certain common user interface like cut and paste, interfacing to
> org-mode, bring up mail etc. All these common UI definitions do NOT
> change between modes.

They do when I use my custom version. Some of the modes replace my
personal key assignments with their own emacs-like functions. For
example, I've got the Delete key rigged to work more like Brief, but
some modes restore it to Emacs-like functionality. I could alter their
source easily enough, but as much as possible I like to keep my
customizations in init.el. When you start modifying packages, they
become one more thing you have to back up and remember to install on new
systems. Also, merging your changes with updates can be a bit of a
nuisance.

>>> But, I must point out, since you think opinion is automatically
>>> elevated to fact, that this is merely my *opinion.*
>>
>> Snit misinterprets a lot of things. He "misinterprets" plain-English
>> statements to try to change their point. He's fond of making a complex
>> compound statement and then "misinterpreting" as agreement any part
>> that you don't address. He slips words into your mouth in hopes you
>> won't notice so he can claim you agreed to them even if they really
>> weren't yours. And if all that fails, he just "misinterprets" part of
>> what you said as not being relevant and snips it out so the remainder
>> appears to show that you were actually in agreement with him.
>>
>>
> I dont think I ever read a paragraph that said so little in so many
> words. Basically you're floundering.

One would expect such an interpretation from one of Snit's fellow trolls.

> I challenge you to find lies in what he has posted and to reply to this
> post with them. All you're doing is talking garbage at the moment where
> you attack the man and not the issue.

s/man/troll/g

And I've already posted specifics elsewhere where Snit was able to see
and reply to them. Being such a nice guy, I even let the loser have the
last word.
0
nope6917 (122)
3/9/2008 6:19:06 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t8agqass7p50c@news.supernews.com on 3/9/08 11:19 AM:

> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:12:38 +0100, Hadron wrote:
> 
>> El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:24:38 -0600, RonB wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>>>> 
>>>> Prove it. Again, mere opinion.
>>>> 
>>>> In my *opinion* the best UI ever created was the WordStar keystroke
>>>> set. Was it intuitive? No. Was it pretty? No. Was it fast and
>>>> efficient? You bet your sweet ass. I still use jstar in Linux.
>>>> Wonderful stuff.
>>> 
>>> My customized XEmacs uses the WordStar diamond and a small selection of
>>> other WordStar keys. One of the things I like about the Joe editor is
>>> its WordStar-like keybindings. However, I also use XEmacs with
>>> unaltered keybindings for more programming-related editing tasks,
>>> sometimes vi/Vim for a change of pace, and sometimes joemacs instead of
>>> joe for quick system edits. According to Snit, this plenitude of
>>> different UI's means I'm not able to work efficiently and productively.
>>> And yet, the very reason I use different editors is because it allows
>>> me to work more efficiently.
>>> 
>>> He's such a silly guy, that Snit.
>> 
>> You're talking rubbish. If you actively swap between emacs modes and vi
>> like modes then you're one in a million.
> 
> Just because you don't, doesn't mean no one else does.

Nor did he say no one else does.  Funny that, eh?

> I got comfortable with both because I kept switching back-and-forth for years
> trying to decide which to make my "main" editor. By the time I settled on
> XEmacs, I was also familiar with Vim. That doesn't mean I'm in totally love
> with modal editing, but I can handle it.
> 
> Also, as I said, muscle memory has to be trained or you lose it. I use Vim now
> and then to "stay in shape" because so many distro's come with vi as the
> default editor and (X)Emacs isn't always available. Also, I believe that
> changing things around now and then reduces the chances of repetitive stress
> injuries.

LOL!  So you have to keep training yourself to use the tools you need to get
your work done... taking time from actually getting work done... and having
to use the inconsistent UIs reduces your chance of RSI.  Alrighty!

>> And even if you did then there are still a huge core of common UI
>> interface points. I use about 20 different modes in emacs and they all
>> share certain common user interface like cut and paste, interfacing to
>> org-mode, bring up mail etc. All these common UI definitions do NOT
>> change between modes.
> 
> They do when I use my custom version. Some of the modes replace my
> personal key assignments with their own emacs-like functions. For
> example, I've got the Delete key rigged to work more like Brief, but
> some modes restore it to Emacs-like functionality. I could alter their
> source easily enough, but as much as possible I like to keep my
> customizations in init.el. When you start modifying packages, they
> become one more thing you have to back up and remember to install on new
> systems. Also, merging your changes with updates can be a bit of a
> nuisance.

So you do what you reasonably can to better the UI but cannot, reasonably,
do it consistently or as well as you like.  Great advocacy!

>>>> But, I must point out, since you think opinion is automatically
>>>> elevated to fact, that this is merely my *opinion.*
>>> 
>>> Snit misinterprets a lot of things. He "misinterprets" plain-English
>>> statements to try to change their point. He's fond of making a complex
>>> compound statement and then "misinterpreting" as agreement any part
>>> that you don't address. He slips words into your mouth in hopes you
>>> won't notice so he can claim you agreed to them even if they really
>>> weren't yours. And if all that fails, he just "misinterprets" part of
>>> what you said as not being relevant and snips it out so the remainder
>>> appears to show that you were actually in agreement with him.
>>> 
>>> 
>> I dont think I ever read a paragraph that said so little in so many
>> words. Basically you're floundering.
> 
> One would expect such an interpretation from one of Snit's fellow trolls.

You spew all sorts of accusations and make no attempt to support them... in
other words you say *nothing* of value.  Not a word.

>> I challenge you to find lies in what he has posted and to reply to this
>> post with them. All you're doing is talking garbage at the moment where
>> you attack the man and not the issue.
> 
> s/man/troll/g
> 
> And I've already posted specifics elsewhere where Snit was able to see
> and reply to them. Being such a nice guy, I even let the loser have the
> last word.

You made an accusation... I ripped it apart and you were not able to offer a
defense of your BS claims.

But you keep repeating the claims - you just refuse to be specific now
because the specifics were refuted.

Funny that, eh?

-- 
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 6:38:00 PM
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:38:00 -0700, Snit wrote:

>> Also, as I said, muscle memory has to be trained or you lose it. I use
>> Vim now and then to "stay in shape" because so many distro's come with
>> vi as the default editor and (X)Emacs isn't always available. Also, I
>> believe that changing things around now and then reduces the chances of
>> repetitive stress injuries.
> 
> LOL!  So you have to keep training yourself to use the tools you need to
> get your work done... taking time from actually getting work done..

I mean to say muscle memory has to be used or you lose it", not
"trained". Pretty pitiful that you'd turn such an obvious typo into a
troll, though it's not as pitiful as the way you strategically clipped
statements from Rick and Linus to change the thrust of their words.

>. and having to use the inconsistent UIs reduces your chance of RSI.
> Alrighty!

Once again we see how little you really know. People who spend a lot of
time on computers are often advised by doctors and safety experts to
switch their right and left mouse buttons, perodically alternate the
mouse from left-to-right, and change keyboards now and then to avoid the
most common RSI's. Despite all that, RSI injuries can still happen
wherever there is repeated motion on the same tendons and joints. If you
hit the same key the same way 500 times a day year after year, odds are
that you will eventually develop an RSI. That is a very real problem
among people who use the same program all day, every day, and spend most
of that time doing the same small task over and over. And speaking of
(X)Emacs, there's an RSI that's so common among (X)Emacs users that it's
been dubbed "Emacs Pinkie".
0
nope6917 (122)
3/9/2008 8:28:24 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t8i385dpbi269@news.supernews.com on 3/9/08 1:28 PM:

> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:38:00 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>>> Also, as I said, muscle memory has to be trained or you lose it. I use
>>> Vim now and then to "stay in shape" because so many distro's come with
>>> vi as the default editor and (X)Emacs isn't always available. Also, I
>>> believe that changing things around now and then reduces the chances of
>>> repetitive stress injuries.
>> 
>> LOL!  So you have to keep training yourself to use the tools you need to
>> get your work done... taking time from actually getting work done..
> 
> I mean to say muscle memory has to be used or you lose it", not
> "trained". 

So you have to keep using it... right... if the UI was done well you would
not have to make sure you use each program a lot just to remember the basic
keystroke shortcuts and UI conventions - they would be the same as in other
programs.

> Pretty pitiful that you'd turn such an obvious typo into a
> troll, though it's not as pitiful as the way you strategically clipped
> statements from Rick and Linus to change the thrust of their words.

1) Your comment was not a typo
2) Funny how you try to obfuscate your admission by spewing lies against me.

You have now admitted that because of the inconsistent UI you find that you,
someone who is surely more knowledgeable and tech savvy than most, *still*
have to use multiple similar programs just to keep your muscle memory of
their basic UI fresh.

Not to say there are not times that might not be appropriate - but what is
the user-based reason for the inconsistency?

>> . and having to use the inconsistent UIs reduces your chance of RSI.
>> Alrighty!
> 
> Once again we see how little you really know. People who spend a lot of
> time on computers are often advised by doctors and safety experts to
> switch their right and left mouse buttons, perodically alternate the
> mouse from left-to-right, and change keyboards now and then to avoid the
> most common RSI's. Despite all that, RSI injuries can still happen
> wherever there is repeated motion on the same tendons and joints. If you
> hit the same key the same way 500 times a day year after year, odds are
> that you will eventually develop an RSI. That is a very real problem
> among people who use the same program all day, every day, and spend most
> of that time doing the same small task over and over. And speaking of
> (X)Emacs, there's an RSI that's so common among (X)Emacs users that it's
> been dubbed "Emacs Pinkie".

Poorly designed UIs can add to RSI problems - one of the reasons the Command
Key (or Windows key or Start Key or whatever you want to call it) is a
better choice for basic functions than the Control key.

But if you can show that an inconsistent UI that makes people have to do
*more* futzing around with the mouse and keyboard somehow reduces RSI
problems I would love to see the evidence.
El Tux run in 3... 2... 1...


-- 
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 8:51:48 PM
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 13:51:48 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13t8i385dpbi269@news.supernews.com on 3/9/08 1:28 PM:
> 
>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:38:00 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>>> Also, as I said, muscle memory has to be trained or you lose it. I
>>>> use Vim now and then to "stay in shape" because so many distro's come
>>>> with vi as the default editor and (X)Emacs isn't always available.
>>>> Also, I believe that changing things around now and then reduces the
>>>> chances of repetitive stress injuries.
>>> 
>>> LOL!  So you have to keep training yourself to use the tools you need
>>> to get your work done... taking time from actually getting work done..
>> 
>> I mean to say muscle memory has to be used or you lose it", not
>> "trained".
> 
> So you have to keep using it... right... if the UI was done well you
> would not have to make sure you use each program a lot just to remember
> the basic keystroke shortcuts and UI conventions - they would be the
> same as in other programs.

"Muscle memory" has to be constantly used no matter how the UI is
designed. I use a plethora of editors because using the right editor for
the job allows me to work more efficiently. Keeping my fingers
"programmed" for each is accomplished simply by using that editor to get
things done, I don't lose any time over it.

If I *wanted* a "standard" UI, I could just settle for vi which is the
defacto "standard" editor shipped with all linuces and the BSD's and
probably every other Unix workalike in the world. But, like I said, I'm
not totally in love with modal editing. If UI standards for each of my
distro's were frozen the way you want, I wouldn't have the option of
switching to the editor UI that *I* prefer or being able to alter its UI
to suit my own tastes.

> 
>> Pretty pitiful that you'd turn such an obvious typo into a troll,
>> though it's not as pitiful as the way you strategically clipped
>> statements from Rick and Linus to change the thrust of their words.
> 
> 1) Your comment was not a typo

Of course it was. The sentence as originally written doesn't even make
sense, nor does it jibe with my earlier words on muscle memory.

> 2) Funny how you try to obfuscate your admission by spewing lies against
> me.
> 
> You have now admitted that because of the inconsistent UI you find that
> you, someone who is surely more knowledgeable and tech savvy than most,
> *still* have to use multiple similar programs just to keep your muscle
> memory of their basic UI fresh.

I can see why RonB calls you "Snit the liar".

> Not to say there are not times that might not be appropriate - but what
> is the user-based reason for the inconsistency?

Efficiency and productivity. Some people are more productive with Vi(m)
because modal editing and the way Vi(m) uses its keys suits their
psychology. Others are more productive with the (X)emacs paradigm for a
similar reason. Many aren't comfortable with either, but each editor
provides a good starting point for further customizations and of course
there are other editors out there. 

There are other differences between the two. Vi is small, lean, and
fast. Xemacs is big, ponderous, and slow to start, but that's because
it's so powerful that it's often jokingly referred to as an operating
system in its own right. And of course these are programmers' editors
and that's reflected in their keybindings. Then there's office-oriented
editors like OpenOffice.

You're the one proposing a "consistent" UI so it's time to show us what
you mean. Let's see the full set of keybindings you have in mind that
will provide a single unified UI for a modal programmer's editor similar
in power to vi, a non-modal programmer's editor similar in power to
emacs, and an office-style editor similar in power to OpenOffice. I'll
make it easy and ignore the really complicated multi-sequence
stuff. Let's just see how you'd assign the control-shifted and
alt-shifted keys to represent the same UI for all three programs.

(Will he run, will he dodge, or will he "misinterpret" my request? Stay
tuned, folks!)

>>> . and having to use the inconsistent UIs reduces your chance of RSI.
>>> Alrighty!
>> 
>> Once again we see how little you really know. People who spend a lot of
>> time on computers are often advised by doctors and safety experts to
>> switch their right and left mouse buttons, perodically alternate the
>> mouse from left-to-right, and change keyboards now and then to avoid
>> the most common RSI's. Despite all that, RSI injuries can still happen
>> wherever there is repeated motion on the same tendons and joints. If
>> you hit the same key the same way 500 times a day year after year, odds
>> are that you will eventually develop an RSI. That is a very real
>> problem among people who use the same program all day, every day, and
>> spend most of that time doing the same small task over and over. And
>> speaking of (X)Emacs, there's an RSI that's so common among (X)Emacs
>> users that it's been dubbed "Emacs Pinkie".
> 
> Poorly designed UIs can add to RSI problems - one of the reasons the
> Command Key (or Windows key or Start Key or whatever you want to call
> it) is a better choice for basic functions than the Control key.

The control-key and function keys were moved by (many claim) MS and
possibly IBM, too, to make a mess of WordPerfect's otherwise wonderful
keyboard layout. WordPerfect was the market leader in word processors at
the time but this move effectively destroyed the program's useability.
Back then it was virtually impossible to put the control-key back where
it belonged, but now it's pretty easy to swap capslock and control. This
is another of the changes safety types often recommend for those who use
the control key a lot.

I never found much use for the Windows keys except as a source of
replacement parts for other keys that get high wear. Linux lets you
reassign them any way you want, but I'd rather have a wider spacebar and
slightly wider Meta keys.

> But if you can show that an inconsistent UI that makes people have to do
> *more* futzing around with the mouse and keyboard somehow reduces RSI
> problems I would love to see the evidence. El Tux run in 3... 2... 1...

I've already shown it. 

Snit lies in 3... 2... 1...

0
nope6917 (122)
3/9/2008 10:09:49 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t8o1dr15dcs99@news.supernews.com on 3/9/08 3:09 PM:

....
>> So you have to keep using it... right... if the UI was done well you would
>> not have to make sure you use each program a lot just to remember the basic
>> keystroke shortcuts and UI conventions - they would be the same as in other
>> programs.
>> 
> "Muscle memory" has to be constantly used no matter how the UI is designed.
> 
Even if we grant that - which is hardly a given -  you claim to use programs
that require different muscle memory.

> I use a plethora of editors because using the right editor for the job allows
> me to work more efficiently. Keeping my fingers "programmed" for each is
> accomplished simply by using that editor to get things done, I don't lose any
> time over it. If I *wanted* a "standard" UI, I could just settle for vi which
> is the defacto "standard" editor shipped with all linuces and the BSD's and
> probably every other Unix workalike in the world. But, like I said, I'm not
> totally in love with modal editing. If UI standards for each of my distro's
> were frozen the way you want, I wouldn't have the option of switching to the
> editor UI that *I* prefer or being able to alter its UI to suit my own tastes.
> 
If there is a user-based reason to have the different UIs then what is the
problem? 

>>> Pretty pitiful that you'd turn such an obvious typo into a troll, though
>>> it's not as pitiful as the way you strategically clipped statements from
>>> Rick and Linus to change the thrust of their words.
>> 
>> 1) Your comment was not a typo
> 
> Of course it was. The sentence as originally written doesn't even make
> sense, nor does it jibe with my earlier words on muscle memory.

I am not going to get into a semantic battle over your mistake.  You picked
a word you later realized did not support your case well. OK.  I am open to
you re-wording your comments to try to put your best case forward.

>> 2) Funny how you try to obfuscate your admission by spewing lies against
>> me.

No comment.  You do not even try to defend your lies - which is what they
are.

>> You have now admitted that because of the inconsistent UI you find that
>> you, someone who is surely more knowledgeable and tech savvy than most,
>> *still* have to use multiple similar programs just to keep your muscle
>> memory of their basic UI fresh.
> 
> I can see why RonB calls you "Snit the liar".

Because he gets pissed when I prove his BS to be, well, BS.

Do you deny you talked about having to keep using multiple programs because,
with their different UIs, if you did not use them each you would forget how
to use them (lose the "muscle memory").  If that is not accurate then by all
means explain where it is incorrect.

>> Not to say there are not times that might not be appropriate - but what is
>> the user-based reason for the inconsistency?
>> 
> Efficiency and productivity. Some people are more productive with Vi(m)
> because modal editing and the way Vi(m) uses its keys suits their psychology.
> Others are more productive with the (X)emacs paradigm for a similar reason.
> Many aren't comfortable with either, but each editor provides a good starting
> point for further customizations and of course there are other editors out
> there.
> 
> There are other differences between the two. Vi is small, lean, and fast.
> Xemacs is big, ponderous, and slow to start, but that's because it's so
> powerful that it's often jokingly referred to as an operating system in its
> own right. And of course these are programmers' editors and that's reflected
> in their keybindings. Then there's office-oriented editors like OpenOffice.
> 
So you are saying there is a user-based reason to have the different UIs.
Personally I have not used any variation of vi or emacs in long enough that
I shan't try to comment.

> You're the one proposing a "consistent" UI
> 
Well, not quite: I am the one saying that consistency should be broken for
*user* based reasons and not because of being based on KDE or Gnome or
other.  Please do not try to twist my words!

Isn't it funny how you accuse me of trying to twist your words even though I
openly ask you to offer corrections if I misunderstand (or you make a
"typo"... snicker... that says the wrong thing) but you want to define what
my claims are.

> so it's time to show us what you mean.
> 
I repeatedly have: there is no value in having 4 (or more) different Save As
dialog styles when one would serve all the needs just as well (and, being
consistent, better).  Same thing with menu styles, Print dialog styles,
button styles, sets of font styles, etc.

I have given specific examples where going against consistency may very well
be better - using different styles of some sort to denote different
contexts.  You are now talking about two different styles of editing - both
with their own benefits... and noting that, as I have said, there maybe a
benefit to having different UI elements in each.

I am not saying I agree with the details you are talking about - frankly I
am not that concerned about the details of non-GUI programs... that is just
a personal taste (and I tend to focus more on what the general user will
work with).

You act like your example is far out of bounds with my claims.  How so?

> Let's see the full set of keybindings you have in mind that will provide a
> single unified UI for a modal programmer's editor similar in power to vi, a
> non-modal programmer's editor similar in power to emacs, and an office-style
> editor similar in power to OpenOffice. I'll make it easy and ignore the really
> complicated multi-sequence stuff. Let's just see how you'd assign the
> control-shifted and alt-shifted keys to represent the same UI for all three
> programs.
> 
> (Will he run, will he dodge, or will he "misinterpret" my request? Stay
> tuned, folks!)

I will note your request shows a deep misunderstanding and misstating of my
comments.  Ironic, eh?  LOL!  Here you are whining about me
"misinterpreting" things and it is, clearly, you who is doing so.

So how will you respond: dodge, run, or push more misinterpretaions?  Stay
tuned folks!

.... 
>> Poorly designed UIs can add to RSI problems - one of the reasons the Command
>> Key (or Windows key or Start Key or whatever you want to call it) is a better
>> choice for basic functions than the Control key.
>> 
> The control-key and function keys were moved by (many claim) MS and possibly
> IBM, too, to make a mess of WordPerfect's otherwise wonderful keyboard layout.
> WordPerfect was the market leader in word processors at the time but this move
> effectively destroyed the program's useability. Back then it was virtually
> impossible to put the control-key back where it belonged, but now it's pretty
> easy to swap capslock and control. This is another of the changes safety types
> often recommend for those who use the control key a lot.
 
Even caps lock is not as easy as Command... especially for cut, copy, and
paste... but really for most keys.  Try it - use your thumb on the key next
to the keyboard (either side - the caps lock sticks you with one) and then
press the other key.

> I never found much use for the Windows keys except as a source of replacement
> parts for other keys that get high wear. Linux lets you reassign them any way
> you want, but I'd rather have a wider spacebar and slightly wider Meta keys.
> 
Windows makes poor use of the "Start" key... and I have not seen anything
that makes me think Linux uses it much better.  It is an area where OS X has
the better, less RIO-risking keyboard combos.

It is also noteworthy that they virtualization programs on Macs map the
command+_ to many of the control+_ key combos - the people who make those
programs get that consistency is a good thing.  They cannot control the
guest OS and make it work more consistently, but they can do intelligent
things such as that.

>> But if you can show that an inconsistent UI that makes people have to do
>> *more* futzing around with the mouse and keyboard somehow reduces RSI
>> problems I would love to see the evidence. El Tux run in 3... 2... 1...
>> 
> I've already shown it.
> 
So quote it if you have to.  I would love to see you try!

> Snit lies in 3... 2... 1...

Nope.  You are, again, wrong.



-- 
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/9/2008 11:25:13 PM
El Tux wrote:
> RonB wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
> 
>>> You are better off just kill filtering the POS.  As you
>>> see, he is someone who will only chew up your time with
>>> his nonsensical replies.  Ditto for Snit.
> 
>> Yep. Good point. I had them killfiled before, but moved from
>> my 15 Gig test hard drive to a new 160 Gig one when I
>> decided SuSE was the direction I was going.
> 
> I don't normally play with trolls, but I'm on some pain meds
> that don't leave me much good for anything else. I'm stuck at
> home, there's nothing good on TV and I've already learned not
> to play around with technical things while this stuff has me
> so fuzzy-headed.
> 
> Does it say anything that someone has to have their IQ
> medically lowered before they'll even try to carry on a
> conversation with Snit?

Well, you could play around with Debian Unstable like Hadron 
does, then complain about how bad Linux is.  Or post like Timmy 
and Moshe that a charter posted by a 16 year old in 1994 that was 
never followed up on nor voted upon is the official COLA charter. 
  Or post like DFS that nothing he touches which is Linux works 
properly, although high school students have successfully 
installed it and used it.  Troll lunacy is rampant around here, 
which tells me that they are grasping for straws.  Perhaps they 
could use some of your meds for stability.

-- 
HPT
0
3/9/2008 11:38:30 PM
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:25:13 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13t8o1dr15dcs99@news.supernews.com on 3/9/08 3:09 PM:
> 
> ...
>>> So you have to keep using it... right... if the UI was done well you
>>> would not have to make sure you use each program a lot just to
>>> remember the basic keystroke shortcuts and UI conventions - they would
>>> be the same as in other programs.
>>> 
>> "Muscle memory" has to be constantly used no matter how the UI is
>> designed.
>> 
> Even if we grant that - which is hardly a given -  you claim to use
> programs that require different muscle memory.

Why do you think that would be a problem? Are you not able, without
thinking about it, to modify your hand's responses according to whether
you're trying to catch a wadded-up piece of paper, a baseball, a
football, a snowball, or a mosquito?

> 
>> I use a plethora of editors because using the right editor for the job
>> allows me to work more efficiently. Keeping my fingers "programmed" for
>> each is accomplished simply by using that editor to get things done, I
>> don't lose any time over it. If I *wanted* a "standard" UI, I could
>> just settle for vi which is the defacto "standard" editor shipped with
>> all linuces and the BSD's and probably every other Unix workalike in
>> the world. But, like I said, I'm not totally in love with modal
>> editing. If UI standards for each of my distro's were frozen the way
>> you want, I wouldn't have the option of switching to the editor UI that
>> *I* prefer or being able to alter its UI to suit my own tastes.
>> 
> If there is a user-based reason to have the different UIs then what is
> the problem?

As far as I'm concerned there is no problem. You, however, keep
insisting that UI inconsistency costs productivity, and here we see an
example where it has just the opposite effect.

> 
>>>> Pretty pitiful that you'd turn such an obvious typo into a troll,
>>>> though it's not as pitiful as the way you strategically clipped
>>>> statements from Rick and Linus to change the thrust of their words.
>>> 
>>> 1) Your comment was not a typo
>> 
>> Of course it was. The sentence as originally written doesn't even make
>> sense, nor does it jibe with my earlier words on muscle memory.
> 
> I am not going to get into a semantic battle over your mistake.  You
> picked a word you later realized did not support your case well. OK.  I
> am open to you re-wording your comments to try to put your best case
> forward.

You're just making yourself look even more stupid (if such is possible).
 
>>> 2) Funny how you try to obfuscate your admission by spewing lies
>>> against me.
> 
> No comment.  You do not even try to defend your lies - which is what
> they are.

Every Linux user here knows what a liar you are so I feel no need to
defend myself against every false accusation you make.
 
>>> You have now admitted that because of the inconsistent UI you find
>>> that you, someone who is surely more knowledgeable and tech savvy than
>>> most, *still* have to use multiple similar programs just to keep your
>>> muscle memory of their basic UI fresh.
>> 
>> I can see why RonB calls you "Snit the liar".
> 
> Because he gets pissed when I prove his BS to be, well, BS.

He uses the term even when he's got YOU on the run.

> 
> Do you deny you talked about having to keep using multiple programs
> because, with their different UIs, if you did not use them each you
> would forget how to use them (lose the "muscle memory").  If that is not
> accurate then by all means explain where it is incorrect.

I also noted that occasionally refreshing your "muscle memory" doesn't
take any extra time; you just use the program for normal activities, so
you're still getting work done. It's not much different from many
complex programs that people forget how to use if they don't keep using
them on some periodic basis.

>>> Not to say there are not times that might not be appropriate - but
>>> what is the user-based reason for the inconsistency?
>>> 
>> Efficiency and productivity. Some people are more productive with Vi(m)
>> because modal editing and the way Vi(m) uses its keys suits their
>> psychology. Others are more productive with the (X)emacs paradigm for a
>> similar reason. Many aren't comfortable with either, but each editor
>> provides a good starting point for further customizations and of course
>> there are other editors out there.
>> 
>> There are other differences between the two. Vi is small, lean, and
>> fast. Xemacs is big, ponderous, and slow to start, but that's because
>> it's so powerful that it's often jokingly referred to as an operating
>> system in its own right. And of course these are programmers' editors
>> and that's reflected in their keybindings. Then there's office-oriented
>> editors like OpenOffice.
>> 
> So you are saying there is a user-based reason to have the different
> UIs. Personally I have not used any variation of vi or emacs in long
> enough that I shan't try to comment.

Oh, but you've *insisted* over and over that inconsistencies damage
productivity so I'm sure you would want to "fix" these editors to make
their keybindings more consistent...

> 
>> You're the one proposing a "consistent" UI
>> 
> Well, not quite: I am the one saying that consistency should be broken
> for *user* based reasons and not because of being based on KDE or Gnome
> or other.  Please do not try to twist my words!
> 
> Isn't it funny how you accuse me of trying to twist your words even
> though I openly ask you to offer corrections if I misunderstand (or you
> make a "typo"... snicker... that says the wrong thing) but you want to
> define what my claims are.
> 
>> so it's time to show us what you mean.
>> 
> I repeatedly have: there is no value in having 4 (or more) different
> Save As dialog styles when one would serve all the needs just as well
> (and, being consistent, better).  Same thing with menu styles, Print
> dialog styles, button styles, sets of font styles, etc.

But how much harm is there in having 4 (or more) different Save As
dialogs? You haven't quantified that with anything but opinion, and
meanwhile those of us who use linux ourselves and have introduced others
to it keep telling you it's not the big problem you claim it to be. And
then there's that annoying lack of complaints on the suggestion and
support forums and a whole bunch of other things I've already cited. Now
why should let mere opinions from a troll and known liar override all
that?
 
> I have given specific examples where going against consistency may very
> well be better - using different styles of some sort to denote different
> contexts.  You are now talking about two different styles of editing -
> both with their own benefits... and noting that, as I have said, there
> maybe a benefit to having different UI elements in each.

Are you saying then that your "standard" UI would allow VI, Emacs, and
OpenOffice to be included in the new-user distro just as they are? You
wouldn't for example, insist that Control-X on Emacs be used for "Cut"
(C-X is a well-used prefix for other Emacs keys)?
 
> I am not saying I agree with the details you are talking about - frankly
> I am not that concerned about the details of non-GUI programs... that is
> just a personal taste (and I tend to focus more on what the general user
> will work with).

XEmacs and Vim both come in GUI flavors with GUI menus and icon toolbars.

> You act like your example is far out of bounds with my claims.  How so?
> 
>> Let's see the full set of keybindings you have in mind that will
>> provide a single unified UI for a modal programmer's editor similar in
>> power to vi, a non-modal programmer's editor similar in power to emacs,
>> and an office-style editor similar in power to OpenOffice. I'll make it
>> easy and ignore the really complicated multi-sequence stuff. Let's just
>> see how you'd assign the control-shifted and alt-shifted keys to
>> represent the same UI for all three programs.
>> 
>> (Will he run, will he dodge, or will he "misinterpret" my request? Stay
>> tuned, folks!)
> 
> I will note your request shows a deep misunderstanding and misstating of
> my comments.  Ironic, eh?  LOL!  Here you are whining about me
> "misinterpreting" things and it is, clearly, you who is doing so.
>
> So how will you respond: dodge, run, or push more misinterpretaions? 
> Stay tuned folks!

I'll take "Dodge" for fifty dollars...

> 
> ...
>>> Poorly designed UIs can add to RSI problems - one of the reasons the
>>> Command Key (or Windows key or Start Key or whatever you want to call
>>> it) is a better choice for basic functions than the Control key.
>>> 
>> The control-key and function keys were moved by (many claim) MS and
>> possibly IBM, too, to make a mess of WordPerfect's otherwise wonderful
>> keyboard layout. WordPerfect was the market leader in word processors
>> at the time but this move effectively destroyed the program's
>> useability. Back then it was virtually impossible to put the
>> control-key back where it belonged, but now it's pretty easy to swap
>> capslock and control. This is another of the changes safety types often
>> recommend for those who use the control key a lot.
>  
> Even caps lock is not as easy as Command... especially for cut, copy,
> and paste... but really for most keys.  Try it - use your thumb on the
> key next to the keyboard (either side - the caps lock sticks you with
> one) and then press the other key.

Capslock works fine for me as a Control key and I have no trouble using
it for C-X/C-C/C-V.

> 
>> I never found much use for the Windows keys except as a source of
>> replacement parts for other keys that get high wear. Linux lets you
>> reassign them any way you want, but I'd rather have a wider spacebar
>> and slightly wider Meta keys.
>> 
> Windows makes poor use of the "Start" key... and I have not seen
> anything that makes me think Linux uses it much better.  It is an area
> where OS X has the better, less RIO-risking keyboard combos.

Most Linux distro's ignore the winkeys because Linux is a multiplatform
OS and they're very platform-specific. However, it's easy enough to
assign them to do whatever you want.

> 
> It is also noteworthy that they virtualization programs on Macs map the
> command+_ to many of the control+_ key combos - the people who make
> those programs get that consistency is a good thing.  They cannot
> control the guest OS and make it work more consistently, but they can do
> intelligent things such as that.


>>> But if you can show that an inconsistent UI that makes people have to
>>> do *more* futzing around with the mouse and keyboard somehow reduces
>>> RSI problems I would love to see the evidence. El Tux run in 3... 2...
>>> 1...
>>> 
>> I've already shown it.
>> 
> So quote it if you have to.  I would love to see you try!

It was right there in the post and, once again, your lack of reading
comprehension isn't my problem.

> 
>> Snit lies in 3... 2... 1...
> 
> Nope.  You are, again, wrong.

Oh, I was right on the money. But you're so predictable, it's hardly any
kind of accomplishment.

0
nope6917 (122)
3/10/2008 1:38:35 AM
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:38:30 -0600, High Plains Thumper wrote:

> El Tux wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> 
>>>> You are better off just kill filtering the POS.  As you see, he is
>>>> someone who will only chew up your time with his nonsensical replies.
>>>>  Ditto for Snit.
>> 
>>> Yep. Good point. I had them killfiled before, but moved from my 15 Gig
>>> test hard drive to a new 160 Gig one when I decided SuSE was the
>>> direction I was going.
>> 
>> I don't normally play with trolls, but I'm on some pain meds that don't
>> leave me much good for anything else. I'm stuck at home, there's
>> nothing good on TV and I've already learned not to play around with
>> technical things while this stuff has me so fuzzy-headed.
>> 
>> Does it say anything that someone has to have their IQ medically
>> lowered before they'll even try to carry on a conversation with Snit?
> 
> Well, you could play around with Debian Unstable like Hadron does, then
> complain about how bad Linux is.  Or post like Timmy and Moshe that a
> charter posted by a 16 year old in 1994 that was never followed up on
> nor voted upon is the official COLA charter.
>   Or post like DFS that nothing he touches which is Linux works
> properly, although high school students have successfully installed it
> and used it.  Troll lunacy is rampant around here, which tells me that
> they are grasping for straws.  Perhaps they could use some of your meds
> for stability.

Are they on painkillers, too, or are they just naturally stupid? :-)
0
nope6917 (122)
3/10/2008 1:57:12 AM
El Tux wrote:

> Every Linux user here knows what a liar you are so I feel no need to
> defend myself against every false accusation you make.


then Why must you keep replying to this stupid trolls post?
you are not going to be able to change this jerks mind. all you are doing is
feeding him & wasting your time. your best bet is just to killfile him & be
done with it.  
0
3/10/2008 2:57:33 AM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t948rt9enid73@news.supernews.com on 3/9/08 6:38 PM:

....
>> Even if we grant that - which is hardly a given -  you claim to use
>> programs that require different muscle memory.
> 
> Why do you think that would be a problem? Are you not able, without
> thinking about it, to modify your hand's responses according to whether
> you're trying to catch a wadded-up piece of paper, a baseball, a
> football, a snowball, or a mosquito?

Do you use different keyboards with each program?  If so the maybe your
attempt to equate the abstract world of computers to the physical world of
catching things has a shred of validity.

.... 
>> If there is a user-based reason to have the different UIs then what is
>> the problem?
> 
> As far as I'm concerned there is no problem. You, however, keep
> insisting that UI inconsistency costs productivity, and here we see an
> example where it has just the opposite effect.

Where do you think I have spoken out against having different UIs when it is
from a user-based need?

You whine that I "twist" your words but you repeatedly try to do so with me.

Please try to stop yourself from doing so in the future.

.... 
>> I am not going to get into a semantic battle over your mistake.  You
>> picked a word you later realized did not support your case well. OK.  I
>> am open to you re-wording your comments to try to put your best case
>> forward.
> 
> You're just making yourself look even more stupid (if such is possible).

I am telling you that your mistake is not something we should be focused on
if you are offering a correction... and you spew insults in response.

Not very reasonable of you.
 
>>>> 2) Funny how you try to obfuscate your admission by spewing lies
>>>> against me.
>> 
>> No comment.  You do not even try to defend your lies - which is what
>> they are.
> 
> Every Linux user here knows what a liar you are so I feel no need to
> defend myself against every false accusation you make.

I am a Linux user... and I can assure you I do not agree with your position.
And, yes, if you are going to spew accusations you should at least have the
decency to *try* to support them.

The fact is you cannot.  You merely do not like that I have pointed out a
hole in what Linux offers the desktop and, clearly even more offensive to
you - I have supported my position very, very well.  This goes against what
you can handle.  So be it.
  
>>>> You have now admitted that because of the inconsistent UI you find
>>>> that you, someone who is surely more knowledgeable and tech savvy than
>>>> most, *still* have to use multiple similar programs just to keep your
>>>> muscle memory of their basic UI fresh.
>>> 
>>> I can see why RonB calls you "Snit the liar".
>> 
>> Because he gets pissed when I prove his BS to be, well, BS.
> 
> He uses the term even when he's got YOU on the run.

Can you point to an example?  Of course not!  Just another of your
accusations.

>> Do you deny you talked about having to keep using multiple programs
>> because, with their different UIs, if you did not use them each you
>> would forget how to use them (lose the "muscle memory").  If that is not
>> accurate then by all means explain where it is incorrect.
> 
> I also noted that occasionally refreshing your "muscle memory" doesn't
> take any extra time; you just use the program for normal activities, so
> you're still getting work done.

Ah, so as long as your normal work requires you to use these different UIs
then keeping yourself "in shape" does not take extra time.  But, of course,
if you end up not needing one of these tools for a while you have to either
use it for what it is not optimally used for or lose your muscle memory.

Fair enough?

> It's not much different from many complex programs that people forget how to
> use if they don't keep using them on some periodic basis.

Which is why, to the extent that they reasonably can be, they should follow
standard UI principles.  This does not mean they should not go against such
things *when there is a user-based need*.

Is this beginning to sink in for you yet?

....
>> So you are saying there is a user-based reason to have the different
>> UIs. Personally I have not used any variation of vi or emacs in long
>> enough that I shan't try to comment.
> 
> Oh, but you've *insisted* over and over that inconsistencies damage
> productivity so I'm sure you would want to "fix" these editors to make
> their keybindings more consistent...

Quote me doing as you say... and, remember, I will be looking to see how
much of a hypocrite you are as you selectively snip to try to support your
silly rendition of my view.

....
>> I repeatedly have: there is no value in having 4 (or more) different
>> Save As dialog styles when one would serve all the needs just as well
>> (and, being consistent, better).  Same thing with menu styles, Print
>> dialog styles, button styles, sets of font styles, etc.
> 
> But how much harm is there in having 4 (or more) different Save As
> dialogs? You haven't quantified that with anything but opinion, and
> meanwhile those of us who use linux ourselves and have introduced others
> to it keep telling you it's not the big problem you claim it to be. And
> then there's that annoying lack of complaints on the suggestion and
> support forums and a whole bunch of other things I've already cited. Now
> why should let mere opinions from a troll and known liar override all
> that?

What measurement of "harm" do you want?   The arbitrarily different dialogs
are there for *no* good user-based reason and they *clearly* are not best
for the user... as even Rick has acknowledged.
  
>> I have given specific examples where going against consistency may very
>> well be better - using different styles of some sort to denote different
>> contexts.  You are now talking about two different styles of editing -
>> both with their own benefits... and noting that, as I have said, there
>> maybe a benefit to having different UI elements in each.
> 
> Are you saying then that your "standard" UI would allow VI, Emacs, and
> OpenOffice to be included in the new-user distro just as they are?

Depends on the rest of the distro... and the needs of the user.  For a
general desktop user VI and Emacs are a complete waste of space... though I
suppose having a relatively complete set of CLI tools for those who care
does not really hurt.

> You wouldn't for example, insist that Control-X on Emacs be used for "Cut"
> (C-X is a well-used prefix for other Emacs keys)?

Insist?  I have repeatedly stated that the controls I am talking about are
the ones that a general user would use - clearly emacs and VI do not fit
that.  Still, it might be worth weighing the cost/benefit of having more
consistency with having those programs be so different than they
historically have.

Keep in mind I have also been very clear that the more subtle differences
are the ones that cause the most harm... though, of course, you can take
that to an extreme as well (a button being a very subtle one pixel off is
not likely to do as much harm as the less-subtle swapping of Save and Cancel
buttons that really does exist on PCLOS).

>> I am not saying I agree with the details you are talking about - frankly
>> I am not that concerned about the details of non-GUI programs... that is
>> just a personal taste (and I tend to focus more on what the general user
>> will work with).
> 
> XEmacs and Vim both come in GUI flavors with GUI menus and icon toolbars.

I have been assuming the CLI ones... the GUI ones likely should have more
consistency... though based on their history having a "legacy" mode would
make sense. 

>> You act like your example is far out of bounds with my claims.  How so?
>> 
>>> Let's see the full set of keybindings you have in mind that will
>>> provide a single unified UI for a modal programmer's editor similar in
>>> power to vi, a non-modal programmer's editor similar in power to emacs,
>>> and an office-style editor similar in power to OpenOffice. I'll make it
>>> easy and ignore the really complicated multi-sequence stuff. Let's just
>>> see how you'd assign the control-shifted and alt-shifted keys to
>>> represent the same UI for all three programs.
>>> 
>>> (Will he run, will he dodge, or will he "misinterpret" my request? Stay
>>> tuned, folks!)
>> 
>> I will note your request shows a deep misunderstanding and misstating of
>> my comments.  Ironic, eh?  LOL!  Here you are whining about me
>> "misinterpreting" things and it is, clearly, you who is doing so.
>> 
>> So how will you respond: dodge, run, or push more misinterpretaions?
>> Stay tuned folks!
> 
> I'll take "Dodge" for fifty dollars...

Yes, you dodged.  Let me ask you again (though I suspect you will just dodge
again):

    Your comments show a deep misunderstanding of what I have
    been saying.  You are doing what you accuse me of -
    misinterpreting the words of others.

Can you give a non-dodging response?  Please.

....
>> Even caps lock is not as easy as Command... especially for cut, copy,
>> and paste... but really for most keys.  Try it - use your thumb on the
>> key next to the keyboard (either side - the caps lock sticks you with
>> one) and then press the other key.
> 
> Capslock works fine for me as a Control key and I have no trouble using
> it for C-X/C-C/C-V.

It is not as well designed for the general human hand.  If you wish to say
it does not apply to you - fine... I am sure there is some small subset of
people where there is variation.
>> 
>>> I never found much use for the Windows keys except as a source of
>>> replacement parts for other keys that get high wear. Linux lets you
>>> reassign them any way you want, but I'd rather have a wider spacebar
>>> and slightly wider Meta keys.
>>> 
>> Windows makes poor use of the "Start" key... and I have not seen
>> anything that makes me think Linux uses it much better.  It is an area
>> where OS X has the better, less RIO-risking keyboard combos.
> 
> Most Linux distro's ignore the winkeys because Linux is a multiplatform
> OS and they're very platform-specific. However, it's easy enough to
> assign them to do whatever you want.

You can re-assign keys on OS X and Windows as well... but by default I will
say one thing I like about OS X is the better specially placed
cut/copy/paste/save/print... other shortcut keys combos.
 
>> It is also noteworthy that they virtualization programs on Macs map the
>> command+_ to many of the control+_ key combos - the people who make
>> those programs get that consistency is a good thing.  They cannot
>> control the guest OS and make it work more consistently, but they can do
>> intelligent things such as that.

>>>> But if you can show that an inconsistent UI that makes people have to
>>>> do *more* futzing around with the mouse and keyboard somehow reduces
>>>> RSI problems I would love to see the evidence. El Tux run in 3... 2...
>>>> 1...
>>>> 
>>> I've already shown it.
>>> 
>> So quote it if you have to.  I would love to see you try!
> 
> It was right there in the post and, once again, your lack of reading
> comprehension isn't my problem.

Your dodge is noted.




-- 
I know how a jam jar feels...
.... full of jam!

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/10/2008 3:14:21 AM
High Plains Thumper <highplainsthumper@invalid.invalid> writes:

> El Tux wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>
>>>> You are better off just kill filtering the POS.  As you
>>>> see, he is someone who will only chew up your time with
>>>> his nonsensical replies.  Ditto for Snit.
>>
>>> Yep. Good point. I had them killfiled before, but moved from
>>> my 15 Gig test hard drive to a new 160 Gig one when I
>>> decided SuSE was the direction I was going.
>>
>> I don't normally play with trolls, but I'm on some pain meds
>> that don't leave me much good for anything else. I'm stuck at
>> home, there's nothing good on TV and I've already learned not
>> to play around with technical things while this stuff has me
>> so fuzzy-headed.
>>
>> Does it say anything that someone has to have their IQ
>> medically lowered before they'll even try to carry on a
>> conversation with Snit?
>
> Well, you could play around with Debian Unstable like Hadron does,

Could someone PLEASE shill this post so that moron HPT see it.

HPT : for the UMPTEENTH time, I use Debian Testing/Lenny. At one point I
had to get the Unstable kernel as it supported SATA whereas Etch and
Lenny didn't. There is a HUGE difference. Now, it's abundantly clear
that you know little if anything about SW or HW, but please do try to
learn from the grown ups.
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/10/2008 2:59:13 PM
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:14:21 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13t948rt9enid73@news.supernews.com on 3/9/08 6:38 PM:
> 
> ...
>>> Even if we grant that - which is hardly a given -  you claim to use
>>> programs that require different muscle memory.
>> 
>> Why do you think that would be a problem? Are you not able, without
>> thinking about it, to modify your hand's responses according to whether
>> you're trying to catch a wadded-up piece of paper, a baseball, a
>> football, a snowball, or a mosquito?
> 
> Do you use different keyboards with each program?  If so the maybe your
> attempt to equate the abstract world of computers to the physical world
> of catching things has a shred of validity.

Playing dumb to avoid the point just concedes the issue.

> ...
>>> If there is a user-based reason to have the different UIs then what is
>>> the problem?
>> 
>> As far as I'm concerned there is no problem. You, however, keep
>> insisting that UI inconsistency costs productivity, and here we see an
>> example where it has just the opposite effect.
> 
> Where do you think I have spoken out against having different UIs when
> it is from a user-based need?
> 
> You whine that I "twist" your words but you repeatedly try to do so with
> me.
> 
> Please try to stop yourself from doing so in the future.

Inconsistency is inconsistency no matter where, how, or why it
originates. Also, one man's "user driven" inconsistency is another man's
"arbitrary" inconsistency. If people can handle "user-driven" exceptions
to some standard, then they can also handle "arbitrary" exceptions.

I chose XEmacs for my example earlier because its keybindings appear
wholly arbitrary with only a few isolated places to hang some logic or
easy-to-remember mneumonics on. The inconsistencies are about as
arbitrary as you can get, both within the program and between XEmacs and
system keys (eg, Control-X is "Cut" in other GUI programs but a heavily
used command prefix in XEmacs, and XEmacs uses many Alt-key combinations
that are normally assigned to GUI functions). Thus, it does not fall
under your "user-driven" escape clause in my earlier arguments.

> ...
>>> I am not going to get into a semantic battle over your mistake.  You
>>> picked a word you later realized did not support your case well. OK. I
>>> am open to you re-wording your comments to try to put your best case
>>> forward.
>> 
>> You're just making yourself look even more stupid (if such is
>> possible).
> 
> I am telling you that your mistake is not something we should be focused
> on if you are offering a correction... and you spew insults in response.
> 
> Not very reasonable of you.

It's a sign of your desperation that you're trying to make such a big
deal out of a simple typo that resulted in a nonsensical sentence that,
under the closest one could come to meaningful interpretation, just
repeats something I'd said earlier.

>>>>> 2) Funny how you try to obfuscate your admission by spewing lies
>>>>> against me.
>>> 
>>> No comment.  You do not even try to defend your lies - which is what
>>> they are.
>> 
>> Every Linux user here knows what a liar you are so I feel no need to
>> defend myself against every false accusation you make.
> 
> I am a Linux user...

You've made too many blunders to get away with that one. You might have
dabbled in Linux but you aren't a user in the sense of having embraced it
for serious use. Chalk up another lie for Snit.

> I do not agree with your position. And, yes, if you are going to spew
> accusations you should at least have the decency to *try* to support
> them.

You should talk about decency after the way you selectively snipped and
miscast Rick's and Linus' statements to alter their meanings.

> The fact is you cannot.  You merely do not like that I have pointed out
> a hole in what Linux offers the desktop and, clearly even more offensive
> to you - I have supported my position very, very well.  This goes
> against what you can handle.  So be it.

Many people have pointed to various problems with Linux. I agree with them
on some points, disagree on others, and have some pet peeves all my own.
However, I don't agree with you on this one and you have yet to prove to
my satisfaction that a problem exists.

>>>>> You have now admitted that because of the inconsistent UI you find
>>>>> that you, someone who is surely more knowledgeable and tech savvy
>>>>> than most, *still* have to use multiple similar programs just to
>>>>> keep your muscle memory of their basic UI fresh.
>>>> 
>>>> I can see why RonB calls you "Snit the liar".
>>> 
>>> Because he gets pissed when I prove his BS to be, well, BS.
>> 
>> He uses the term even when he's got YOU on the run.
> 
> Can you point to an example?  Of course not!  Just another of your
> accusations.

Why should I bother when you'll just deny what's already plain for all
to see?

>>> Do you deny you talked about having to keep using multiple programs
>>> because, with their different UIs, if you did not use them each you
>>> would forget how to use them (lose the "muscle memory").  If that is
>>> not accurate then by all means explain where it is incorrect.
>> 
>> I also noted that occasionally refreshing your "muscle memory" doesn't
>> take any extra time; you just use the program for normal activities, so
>> you're still getting work done.
> 
> Ah, so as long as your normal work requires you to use these different
> UIs then keeping yourself "in shape" does not take extra time.  But, of
> course, if you end up not needing one of these tools for a while you
> have to either use it for what it is not optimally used for or lose your
> muscle memory.

My earlier words in this very thread:

"However, muscle memory has to be constantly refreshed. It works well on
things you do a lot, not so well on things you use infrequently..."

And it's not like you're crippled without it because you can always
pause to THINK about what you need to press, which is how less-efficent
users operate anyway. It's just more efficient if you can delegate to
the lower-order nervous system so less of your real brainpower is
distracted from the task at-hand. The difference is akin to having to
mentally translate each sentence from your native language to another
before you speak, and speaking the other language fluently.

"Muscle memory", by whatever name you care to use, has played such a big
role in UNIX and its workalikes for so many decades that I'd expect any
true UI expert to be familiar with the concept even if he disagrees with
its usefulness.

>> It's not much different from many complex programs that people forget
>> how to use if they don't keep using them on some periodic basis.
> 
> Which is why, to the extent that they reasonably can be, they should
> follow standard UI principles.  This does not mean they should not go
> against such things *when there is a user-based need*.

A UI can only standardize a relatively small handful of operations
without becoming top-heavy and defeating its own purpose, while
applications can do an almost infinite number of tasks. Also, standards
tend to channel the way users think, which in turn shapes how they use
software, which then limits how developers think. Look at all the
different - and much more efficient - (X)Emacs cut-copy-paste variations
I listed earlier, as opposed to the pitiful selection common to Windows
editors.

> Is this beginning to sink in for you yet?
> 
> ...
>>> So you are saying there is a user-based reason to have the different
>>> UIs. Personally I have not used any variation of vi or emacs in long
>>> enough that I shan't try to comment.
>> 
>> Oh, but you've *insisted* over and over that inconsistencies damage
>> productivity so I'm sure you would want to "fix" these editors to make
>> their keybindings more consistent...
> 
> Quote me doing as you say... and, remember, I will be looking to see how
> much of a hypocrite you are as you selectively snip to try to support
> your silly rendition of my view.

So now you admit that UI inconsistencies DON'T damage productivity?

Good. Nice to know you finally get it.

> ...
>>> I repeatedly have: there is no value in having 4 (or more) different
>>> Save As dialog styles when one would serve all the needs just as well
>>> (and, being consistent, better).  Same thing with menu styles, Print
>>> dialog styles, button styles, sets of font styles, etc.
>> 
>> But how much harm is there in having 4 (or more) different Save As
>> dialogs? You haven't quantified that with anything but opinion, and
>> meanwhile those of us who use linux ourselves and have introduced
>> others to it keep telling you it's not the big problem you claim it to
>> be. And then there's that annoying lack of complaints on the suggestion
>> and support forums and a whole bunch of other things I've already
>> cited. Now why should let mere opinions from a troll and known liar
>> override all that?
> 
> What measurement of "harm" do you want?   The arbitrarily different
> dialogs are there for *no* good user-based reason and they *clearly* are
> not best for the user... as even Rick has acknowledged.

I don't care if they're there for no good reason if any "harm" they do
is nonexistent or at worst insignificant. And in the adjacent sentence
that you conveniently ignore, Rick stated, as I and so many other REAL
Linux users have also said, that the variety of UI's under Linux is not
the problem you're making them out to be. I, personally, rate it as only
an eye-candy issue.

>>> I have given specific examples where going against consistency may
>>> very well be better - using different styles of some sort to denote
>>> different contexts.  You are now talking about two different styles of
>>> editing - both with their own benefits... and noting that, as I have
>>> said, there maybe a benefit to having different UI elements in each.
>> 
>> Are you saying then that your "standard" UI would allow VI, Emacs, and
>> OpenOffice to be included in the new-user distro just as they are?
> 
> Depends on the rest of the distro... and the needs of the user.  For a
> general desktop user VI and Emacs are a complete waste of space...
> though I suppose having a relatively complete set of CLI tools for those
> who care does not really hurt.

Shows how little you really know about Linux and its users. Though both
editors were really meant for more technical uses, many nontechnical
people use them for text editing around the office. They're quite
popular in combination with latex to produce fully typeset books,
flyers, papers, and office documents. For many kinds of documents a text
editor and latex is a more efficient way to work than a WYSIWYG word
processor. Don't take my word for it, ask in comp.editors or lurk on
ubuntuforums.org for awhile.

>> You wouldn't for example, insist that Control-X on Emacs be used for
>> "Cut" (C-X is a well-used prefix for other Emacs keys)?
> 
> Insist?  I have repeatedly stated that the controls I am talking about
> are the ones that a general user would use - clearly emacs and VI do not
> fit that.

See above.

> Still, it might be worth weighing the cost/benefit of having more
> consistency with having those programs be so different than they
> historically have.

I'll add that to my list of unbiased scientific studies that you need to
come up with to prove your case.

> Keep in mind I have also been very clear that the more subtle
> differences are the ones that cause the most harm... though, of course,
> you can take that to an extreme as well (a button being a very subtle
> one pixel off is not likely to do as much harm as the less-subtle
> swapping of Save and Cancel buttons that really does exist on PCLOS).

Long as the buttons are clearly captioned, I don't see why it matters
what order they're in. I rather suspect you're looking at this as a Mac
user for whom they've always been in the same relative position so
you've developed the habit of going by position rather than just reading
what's right under your mouse cursor.

>>> I am not saying I agree with the details you are talking about -
>>> frankly I am not that concerned about the details of non-GUI
>>> programs... that is just a personal taste (and I tend to focus more on
>>> what the general user will work with).
>> 
>> XEmacs and Vim both come in GUI flavors with GUI menus and icon
>> toolbars.
> 
> I have been assuming the CLI ones... the GUI ones likely should have
> more consistency... though based on their history having a "legacy" mode
> would make sense.

The GUI versions use the same keybindings as the CLI versions. Both are
heavily keyboard-based because they're designed to be highly efficient
editors. I prefer the GUI versons myself because they give me a little
more flexibility on fonts, but I mostly use them from xterms as if
they're the command line versions.

>>> You act like your example is far out of bounds with my claims.  How
>>> so?
>>> 
>>>> Let's see the full set of keybindings you have in mind that will
>>>> provide a single unified UI for a modal programmer's editor similar
>>>> in power to vi, a non-modal programmer's editor similar in power to
>>>> emacs, and an office-style editor similar in power to OpenOffice.
>>>> I'll make it easy and ignore the really complicated multi-sequence
>>>> stuff. Let's just see how you'd assign the control-shifted and
>>>> alt-shifted keys to represent the same UI for all three programs.
>>>> 
>>>> (Will he run, will he dodge, or will he "misinterpret" my request?
>>>> Stay tuned, folks!)
>>> 
>>> I will note your request shows a deep misunderstanding and misstating
>>> of my comments.  Ironic, eh?  LOL!  Here you are whining about me
>>> "misinterpreting" things and it is, clearly, you who is doing so.
>>> 
>>> So how will you respond: dodge, run, or push more misinterpretaions?
>>> Stay tuned folks!
>> 
>> I'll take "Dodge" for fifty dollars...
> 
> Yes, you dodged.  Let me ask you again (though I suspect you will just
> dodge again):
> 
>     Your comments show a deep misunderstanding of what I have been
>     saying.  You are doing what you accuse me of - misinterpreting the
>     words of others.
> 
> Can you give a non-dodging response?  Please.

I wanted to show that you have no answers for some of the implications
of your suggestions. Your dodge was all I needed to make that point. I
need do nothing more.

> ...
>>> Even caps lock is not as easy as Command... especially for cut, copy,
>>> and paste... but really for most keys.  Try it - use your thumb on the
>>> key next to the keyboard (either side - the caps lock sticks you with
>>> one) and then press the other key.
>> 
>> Capslock works fine for me as a Control key and I have no trouble using
>> it for C-X/C-C/C-V.
> 
> It is not as well designed for the general human hand.  If you wish to
> say it does not apply to you - fine... I am sure there is some small
> subset of people where there is variation.

My hand is pretty much average, and enough users demanded the capslock
mod that Ubuntu and many other consumer distros include it as a checkbox
option in their configuration menus.

>>>> I never found much use for the Windows keys except as a source of
>>>> replacement parts for other keys that get high wear. Linux lets you
>>>> reassign them any way you want, but I'd rather have a wider spacebar
>>>> and slightly wider Meta keys.
>>>> 
>>> Windows makes poor use of the "Start" key... and I have not seen
>>> anything that makes me think Linux uses it much better.  It is an area
>>> where OS X has the better, less RIO-risking keyboard combos.
>> 
>> Most Linux distro's ignore the winkeys because Linux is a multiplatform
>> OS and they're very platform-specific. However, it's easy enough to
>> assign them to do whatever you want.
> 
> You can re-assign keys on OS X and Windows as well... but by default I
> will say one thing I like about OS X is the better specially placed
> cut/copy/paste/save/print... other shortcut keys combos.

People often forget that unused media and Internet keys are good for that
kind of thing. Personally, though, I prefer to keep my hands closer to the
home row and just use whatever keybindings the application offers.

>>> It is also noteworthy that they virtualization programs on Macs map
>>> the command+_ to many of the control+_ key combos - the people who
>>> make those programs get that consistency is a good thing.  They cannot
>>> control the guest OS and make it work more consistently, but they can
>>> do intelligent things such as that.
> 
>>>>> But if you can show that an inconsistent UI that makes people have
>>>>> to do *more* futzing around with the mouse and keyboard somehow
>>>>> reduces RSI problems I would love to see the evidence. El Tux run in
>>>>> 3... 2... 1...
>>>>> 
>>>> I've already shown it.
>>>> 
>>> So quote it if you have to.  I would love to see you try!
>> 
>> It was right there in the post and, once again, your lack of reading
>> comprehension isn't my problem.
> 
> Your dodge is noted.

Just a few of Snit's favorite tactics:

 - When an argument is countered, pretends not to understand the answer
   even if it's at a sixth-grade level. If possible, uses this
   convenient "misunderstanding" to drag the discussion safely away from
   the issue.

 - Wastes as much of his opponent's time as possible demanding that
   quotes from earlier posts be provided as "proof" of what both know
   was said.

 - Often denies that there's any point at all and accuses his opponent
   of dodging. Does this even when the answer is plainly clear right
   above his denial.

 - Leaves some ambiguities as an escape route. The point he's making
   tends to morph as counterarguments are presented.

 - Refuses to delve into the implications or self-contradictions of his
   arguments. Any attempts to address those implications result either
   in "selective misunderstanding" or complaints that that's not what
   he's advocating.

 - "Selectively snips" statements from others to make it sound like
   they support his argument when they were in fact in disagreement.

 - Any time his opponent refuses to be controlled by these tactics, he
   accuses them of dodging.

 - Quibbles at every possible opportunity, blows typo's all out of
   proportion, etc.

 - Pretends to be a "Linux user".

The ultimate goal of these tactics doesn't appear to me to be merely to
troll. I get the impression that Snit's ultimate goal is to cause the
group to give up any hopes of resolving disputes with him through
discussion and honest debate. He can then run around creating FUD about
Linux without challenge, making it appear to newcomers that the regulars
are "unable" to refute his points.

Sound about right?
0
nope6917 (122)
3/11/2008 6:35:18 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13tdk76onmtotfb@news.supernews.com on 3/11/08 11:35 AM:

....
> Inconsistency is inconsistency no matter where, how, or why it
> originates. 

I accept that is your view.  OK.  It is not mine.  Can you support your
view?

> Also, one man's "user driven" inconsistency is another man's
> "arbitrary" inconsistency.

Not at all... while there might be some gray area for the most part the two
are pretty easy to tell apart!

> If people can handle "user-driven" exceptions to some standard, then they can
> also handle "arbitrary" exceptions.

Can you support this?  As far as I know there is *no* research that supports
your view and, as I have shown, the consensus of the experts on the issue
*and* the research support my view (at least in general principle).

> I chose XEmacs for my example earlier because its keybindings appear
> wholly arbitrary with only a few isolated places to hang some logic or
> easy-to-remember mneumonics on. The inconsistencies are about as
> arbitrary as you can get, both within the program and between XEmacs and
> system keys (eg, Control-X is "Cut" in other GUI programs but a heavily
> used command prefix in XEmacs, and XEmacs uses many Alt-key combinations
> that are normally assigned to GUI functions). Thus, it does not fall
> under your "user-driven" escape clause in my earlier arguments.

Did you not claim there were direct benefits to the user... hence user
driven.  If not then I stand corrected... please clarify your view.

....
>> I am a Linux user...
> 
> You've made too many blunders to get away with that one. You might have
> dabbled in Linux but you aren't a user in the sense of having embraced it
> for serious use. Chalk up another lie for Snit.

Quote these "too many blunders"... as if you could!  Face it, when you start
making personal attacks such as that you are showing you have no leg to
stand on... something that has been clear since the start, frankly.

....
>> The fact is you cannot.  You merely do not like that I have pointed out
>> a hole in what Linux offers the desktop and, clearly even more offensive
>> to you - I have supported my position very, very well.  This goes
>> against what you can handle.  So be it.
> 
> Many people have pointed to various problems with Linux. I agree with them
> on some points, disagree on others, and have some pet peeves all my own.

I would love to hear what weaknesses you think Linux has on the desktop.

> However, I don't agree with you on this one and you have yet to prove to
> my satisfaction that a problem exists.

You have been completely unable to state any reasonable basis for
disagreement but I defend your right to disagree with the group on the left:

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
        Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
        http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

        Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency

....
>>> [Rick] uses the term even when he's got YOU on the run.
>> 
>> Can you point to an example?  Of course not!  Just another of your
>> accusations.
> 
> Why should I bother when you'll just deny what's already plain for all
> to see?

Your dodge is noted.  I snipped much of the rest of your silly insults -
this one is a good enough example.  Unlike you I try to get conversations to
focus on the topic and not on personal attacks.

....
>>>> Do you deny you talked about having to keep using multiple programs
>>>> because, with their different UIs, if you did not use them each you
>>>> would forget how to use them (lose the "muscle memory").  If that is
>>>> not accurate then by all means explain where it is incorrect.
>>> 
>>> I also noted that occasionally refreshing your "muscle memory" doesn't
>>> take any extra time; you just use the program for normal activities, so
>>> you're still getting work done.
>> 
>> Ah, so as long as your normal work requires you to use these different
>> UIs then keeping yourself "in shape" does not take extra time.  But, of
>> course, if you end up not needing one of these tools for a while you
>> have to either use it for what it is not optimally used for or lose your
>> muscle memory.
> 
> My earlier words in this very thread:
> 
> "However, muscle memory has to be constantly refreshed. It works well on
> things you do a lot, not so well on things you use infrequently..."

Ok, this supports my view that emacs is not designed for the general user -
it is something you have to practice on repeatedly and for years.

> And it's not like you're crippled without it because you can always
> pause to THINK about what you need to press, which is how less-efficent
> users operate anyway. It's just more efficient if you can delegate to
> the lower-order nervous system so less of your real brainpower is
> distracted from the task at-hand. The difference is akin to having to
> mentally translate each sentence from your native language to another
> before you speak, and speaking the other language fluently.

You have now made it clear that you realize a consistent UI allows for
greater consistency and more focus on the task at hand, though, like me, you
accept that there are times when a lack of consistency makes sense for
user-based reasons.

We might disagree on specifics of when to break the consistency, but in
principle your above statement supports my views.
 
> "Muscle memory", by whatever name you care to use, has played such a big
> role in UNIX and its workalikes for so many decades that I'd expect any
> true UI expert to be familiar with the concept even if he disagrees with
> its usefulness.

Muscle memory is one of the reasons why a consistent UI is so important.
Sure... and it seems you find it odd how some people in COLA do not get it.

>>> It's not much different from many complex programs that people forget
>>> how to use if they don't keep using them on some periodic basis.
>> 
>> Which is why, to the extent that they reasonably can be, they should
>> follow standard UI principles.  This does not mean they should not go
>> against such things *when there is a user-based need*.
> 
> A UI can only standardize a relatively small handful of operations
> without becoming top-heavy and defeating its own purpose, while
> applications can do an almost infinite number of tasks.

The idea, of course, can be pushed too far - you do not want to stifle
innovation.   But the examples I have shown are pretty solid: looking at GUI
programs in PCLOS they have different menus, short cut keys, names for the
same *basic* options (quitting a program even!), different Print and Save As
dialogs... on and on.  Completely against the idea of helping to build
muscle memory.

> Also, standards tend to channel the way users think, which in turn shapes how
> they use software, which then limits how developers think. Look at all the
> different - and much more efficient - (X)Emacs cut-copy-paste variations I
> listed earlier, as opposed to the pitiful selection common to Windows editors.

Nothing to do with the examples I have listed of arbitrary inconsistency.

....
>>>> So you are saying there is a user-based reason to have the different
>>>> UIs. Personally I have not used any variation of vi or emacs in long
>>>> enough that I shan't try to comment.
>>> 
>>> Oh, but you've *insisted* over and over that inconsistencies damage
>>> productivity so I'm sure you would want to "fix" these editors to make
>>> their keybindings more consistent...
>> 
>> Quote me doing as you say... and, remember, I will be looking to see how
>> much of a hypocrite you are as you selectively snip to try to support
>> your silly rendition of my view.
> 
> So now you admit that UI inconsistencies DON'T damage productivity?
> 
> Good. Nice to know you finally get it.

Se how you misrepresent my views.  Being that you accuse of doing so (but
your one example turned out to be completely incorrect) you would think you
would try to avoid such hypocritical behavior.

....
>> What measurement of "harm" do you want?   The arbitrarily different
>> dialogs are there for *no* good user-based reason and they *clearly* are
>> not best for the user... as even Rick has acknowledged.
> 
> I don't care if they're there for no good reason if any "harm" they do
> is nonexistent or at worst insignificant. And in the adjacent sentence
> that you conveniently ignore, Rick stated, as I and so many other REAL
> Linux users have also said, that the variety of UI's under Linux is not
> the problem you're making them out to be. I, personally, rate it as only
> an eye-candy issue.

"REAL Linux users"?  In any case the fact that a few Linux apologists refuse
to recognize an obvious problem does not make the problem go away.

Oh, and you did not answer my question: you dodged again.

....
>>> Are you saying then that your "standard" UI would allow VI, Emacs, and
>>> OpenOffice to be included in the new-user distro just as they are?
>> 
>> Depends on the rest of the distro... and the needs of the user.  For a
>> general desktop user VI and Emacs are a complete waste of space...
>> though I suppose having a relatively complete set of CLI tools for those
>> who care does not really hurt.
> 
> Shows how little you really know about Linux and its users. Though both
> editors were really meant for more technical uses, many nontechnical
> people use them for text editing around the office. They're quite
> popular in combination with latex to produce fully typeset books,
> flyers, papers, and office documents. For many kinds of documents a text
> editor and latex is a more efficient way to work than a WYSIWYG word
> processor. Don't take my word for it, ask in comp.editors or lurk on
> ubuntuforums.org for awhile.

Sad you sink to insults instead of using reason in your comments.  The
general desktop user has no need for emacs or VI... though people in
specialized fields do.
 
....
>> Keep in mind I have also been very clear that the more subtle
>> differences are the ones that cause the most harm... though, of course,
>> you can take that to an extreme as well (a button being a very subtle
>> one pixel off is not likely to do as much harm as the less-subtle
>> swapping of Save and Cancel buttons that really does exist on PCLOS).
> 
> Long as the buttons are clearly captioned, I don't see why it matters
> what order they're in. I rather suspect you're looking at this as a Mac
> user for whom they've always been in the same relative position so
> you've developed the habit of going by position rather than just reading
> what's right under your mouse cursor.

Suddenly you forget about the value of "muscle memory".  Odd.
> 
>>>> I am not saying I agree with the details you are talking about -
>>>> frankly I am not that concerned about the details of non-GUI
>>>> programs... that is just a personal taste (and I tend to focus more on
>>>> what the general user will work with).
>>> 
>>> XEmacs and Vim both come in GUI flavors with GUI menus and icon
>>> toolbars.
>> 
>> I have been assuming the CLI ones... the GUI ones likely should have
>> more consistency... though based on their history having a "legacy" mode
>> would make sense.
> 
> The GUI versions use the same keybindings as the CLI versions. Both are
> heavily keyboard-based because they're designed to be highly efficient
> editors. 

And not general users.  Right.

....
>> Yes, you dodged.  Let me ask you again (though I suspect you will just
>> dodge again):
>> 
>>     Your comments show a deep misunderstanding of what I have been
>>     saying.  You are doing what you accuse me of - misinterpreting the
>>     words of others.
>> 
>> Can you give a non-dodging response?  Please.
> 
> I wanted to show that you have no answers for some of the implications
> of your suggestions. Your dodge was all I needed to make that point. I
> need do nothing more.

You dodged again... and spewed more of your unsupported accusations.  Sad.

....
>>> Capslock works fine for me as a Control key and I have no trouble using
>>> it for C-X/C-C/C-V.
>> 
>> It is not as well designed for the general human hand.  If you wish to
>> say it does not apply to you - fine... I am sure there is some small
>> subset of people where there is variation.
> 
> My hand is pretty much average, and enough users demanded the capslock
> mod that Ubuntu and many other consumer distros include it as a checkbox
> option in their configuration menus.

Irrelevant to my point... but OK.

....
>> You can re-assign keys on OS X and Windows as well... but by default I
>> will say one thing I like about OS X is the better specially placed
>> cut/copy/paste/save/print... other shortcut keys combos.
> 
> People often forget that unused media and Internet keys are good for that
> kind of thing. Personally, though, I prefer to keep my hands closer to the
> home row and just use whatever keybindings the application offers.

Most people like to keep their hands there - hence the reason why the Apple
method works so well.

....

I snipped most of your absurd and unsupported personal attacks.  I prefer to
talk about Linux.

-- 
"The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/11/2008 9:28:01 PM
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:28:01 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13tdk76onmtotfb@news.supernews.com on 3/11/08 11:35 AM:
> 
> ...
>> Inconsistency is inconsistency no matter where, how, or why it
>> originates.
> 
> I accept that is your view.  OK.  It is not mine.  Can you support your
> view?

Next you'll want to know if I can support my view that hot is hot and cold
is cold...

>> Also, one man's "user driven" inconsistency is another man's
>> "arbitrary" inconsistency.
> 
> Not at all... while there might be some gray area for the most part the
> two are pretty easy to tell apart!

Wrong. Some people take to Gimp's menu system and some don't. The former
would say it's user-driven while the latter would say it isn't.
 
>> If people can handle "user-driven" exceptions to some standard, then
>> they can also handle "arbitrary" exceptions.
> 
> Can you support this?  As far as I know there is *no* research that
> supports your view and, as I have shown, the consensus of the experts on
> the issue *and* the research support my view (at least in general
> principle).

Inconsistencies are still inconsistencies. And all you've shown are
opinions. You have yet to produce an independent, scientific study to back
your claim that UI variety is driving users from Linux.

>> I chose XEmacs for my example earlier because its keybindings appear
>> wholly arbitrary with only a few isolated places to hang some logic or
>> easy-to-remember mneumonics on. The inconsistencies are about as
>> arbitrary as you can get, both within the program and between XEmacs
>> and system keys (eg, Control-X is "Cut" in other GUI programs but a
>> heavily used command prefix in XEmacs, and XEmacs uses many Alt-key
>> combinations that are normally assigned to GUI functions). Thus, it
>> does not fall under your "user-driven" escape clause in my earlier
>> arguments.
> 
> Did you not claim there were direct benefits to the user... hence user
> driven.  If not then I stand corrected... please clarify your view.

 "The problem with Linux is the inconsistency is not *user* based... it
 is, from the user perspective, completely arbitrary." -- Snit

> ...
>>> I am a Linux user...
>> 
>> You've made too many blunders to get away with that one. You might have
>> dabbled in Linux but you aren't a user in the sense of having embraced
>> it for serious use. Chalk up another lie for Snit.
> 
> Quote these "too many blunders"... as if you could! 

I have no intention of helping you refine your pretense.

> Face it, when you start making personal attacks such as that you are
> showing you have no leg to stand on... something that has been clear
> since the start, frankly.

I don't *have* to have a leg to stand on. You're the one advocating a
manpower-intensive change without being able to prove that there's even
a problem. 

> ...
>>> The fact is you cannot.  You merely do not like that I have pointed
>>> out a hole in what Linux offers the desktop and, clearly even more
>>> offensive to you - I have supported my position very, very well.  This
>>> goes against what you can handle.  So be it.
>> 
>> Many people have pointed to various problems with Linux. I agree with
>> them on some points, disagree on others, and have some pet peeves all
>> my own.
> 
> I would love to hear what weaknesses you think Linux has on the desktop.

Lack of good online documentation is, IMHO, a very serious problem for
new users.

>> However, I don't agree with you on this one and you have yet to prove
>> to my satisfaction that a problem exists.
> 
> You have been completely unable to state any reasonable basis for
> disagreement but I defend your right to disagree with the group on the
> left:
> 
>     Snit

Snit has failed to prove his case with facts.

>     Hadron

Hadron's opinions don't substitute for fact.

>     KDE docs
>     Gnome docs

KDE and Gnome are just two projects out of tens of thousands. Like may
other projects all going in disparate directions, they have their own
opinions, theories, and philosophies, which are not to be confused with
fact.

>     Bloggers

Bloggers' opinions don't count as fact.

>     Firefox docs

Firefox is, again, just one project among many with disparate philosophies
and opinions. One of the reasons for its popularity is its hundreds of
plugins available, many of which create an inconsistent UI.

>     Screen shots
>     Videos

Already refuted multiple times. These only show that the variety of UI's
that Linux users brag about exist, and do not prove your assertion that
this UI variety is driving users from Linux.

>     Tim Berners-Lee
>     UI Experts [1]

Once again, those are only opinions you've culled from a variety of
opinions on the Internet.

>     Common sense

Almost as pitiful as "bloggers".

Wheres a reference to an independent, scientific study as specified
earlier?

> ...
>>>> [Rick] uses the term even when he's got YOU on the run.
>>> 
>>> Can you point to an example?  Of course not!  Just another of your
>>> accusations.
>> 
>> Why should I bother when you'll just deny what's already plain for all
>> to see?
> 
> Your dodge is noted.  I snipped much of the rest of your silly insults -

Refusing to let you waste my time isn't dodging.

> this one is a good enough example.  Unlike you I try to get
> conversations to focus on the topic and not on personal attacks.

You've "attacked" me every time you falsely accused me of dodging and
every time you've put words in my mouth to create another of your straw
men. OTOH I just call them as I genuinely see them.

> ...
>>>>> Do you deny you talked about having to keep using multiple programs
>>>>> because, with their different UIs, if you did not use them each you
>>>>> would forget how to use them (lose the "muscle memory").  If that is
>>>>> not accurate then by all means explain where it is incorrect.
>>>> 
>>>> I also noted that occasionally refreshing your "muscle memory"
>>>> doesn't take any extra time; you just use the program for normal
>>>> activities, so you're still getting work done.
>>> 
>>> Ah, so as long as your normal work requires you to use these different
>>> UIs then keeping yourself "in shape" does not take extra time.  But,
>>> of course, if you end up not needing one of these tools for a while
>>> you have to either use it for what it is not optimally used for or
>>> lose your muscle memory.
>> 
>> My earlier words in this very thread:
>> 
>> "However, muscle memory has to be constantly refreshed. It works well
>> on things you do a lot, not so well on things you use infrequently..."
> 
> Ok, this supports my view that emacs is not designed for the general
> user - it is something you have to practice on repeatedly and for years.

"General user" is an abstraction. It's an average of a range of users.
Emacs and vi suit some of those and not others.

>> And it's not like you're crippled without it because you can always
>> pause to THINK about what you need to press, which is how less-efficent
>> users operate anyway. It's just more efficient if you can delegate to
>> the lower-order nervous system so less of your real brainpower is
>> distracted from the task at-hand. The difference is akin to having to
>> mentally translate each sentence from your native language to another
>> before you speak, and speaking the other language fluently.
> 
> You have now made it clear that you realize a consistent UI allows for
> greater consistency and more focus on the task at hand, though, like me,
> you accept that there are times when a lack of consistency makes sense
> for user-based reasons.
> 
> We might disagree on specifics of when to break the consistency, but in
> principle your above statement supports my views.

On the contrary, I've shown that consistency is overrated. Emacs
keybindings are chaotic, yet people use it because it's so
efficient.
  
>> "Muscle memory", by whatever name you care to use, has played such a
>> big role in UNIX and its workalikes for so many decades that I'd expect
>> any true UI expert to be familiar with the concept even if he disagrees
>> with its usefulness.
> 
> Muscle memory is one of the reasons why a consistent UI is so important.
> Sure... and it seems you find it odd how some people in COLA do not get
> it.

Organize a UI around the principle and you *might* have a point (for that
specific UI). However, I know of no UI's where this has been done,
probably because UI keystrokes are a small percentage of the daily total.
The gain would be insignificant compared to keystroke-intensive
applications.

>>>> It's not much different from many complex programs that people forget
>>>> how to use if they don't keep using them on some periodic basis.
>>> 
>>> Which is why, to the extent that they reasonably can be, they should
>>> follow standard UI principles.  This does not mean they should not go
>>> against such things *when there is a user-based need*.
>> 
>> A UI can only standardize a relatively small handful of operations
>> without becoming top-heavy and defeating its own purpose, while
>> applications can do an almost infinite number of tasks.
> 
> The idea, of course, can be pushed too far - you do not want to stifle
> innovation.   But the examples I have shown are pretty solid: looking at
> GUI programs in PCLOS they have different menus, short cut keys, names
> for the same *basic* options (quitting a program even!), different Print
> and Save As dialogs... on and on.

But you have yet to submit any facts that prove this is driving users
away from Linux.

> Completely against the idea of helping to build muscle memory.

Muscle memory only works with simple low-level tasks, hence its name.
Using a mouse involves higher-level functions like image processing and
hand-eye coordination.

 >> Also, standards tend to channel the way users think, which in turn
>> shapes how they use software, which then limits how developers think.
>> Look at all the different - and much more efficient - (X)Emacs
>> cut-copy-paste variations I listed earlier, as opposed to the pitiful
>> selection common to Windows editors.
> 
> Nothing to do with the examples I have listed of arbitrary
> inconsistency.

My point there is that there are many less-than-obvious ways in which UI
consistency can work against users. I would of course expect any
scientific study to consider these.

> ...
>>>>> So you are saying there is a user-based reason to have the different
>>>>> UIs. Personally I have not used any variation of vi or emacs in long
>>>>> enough that I shan't try to comment.
>>>> 
>>>> Oh, but you've *insisted* over and over that inconsistencies damage
>>>> productivity so I'm sure you would want to "fix" these editors to
>>>> make their keybindings more consistent...
>>> 
>>> Quote me doing as you say... and, remember, I will be looking to see
>>> how much of a hypocrite you are as you selectively snip to try to
>>> support your silly rendition of my view.
>> 
>> So now you admit that UI inconsistencies DON'T damage productivity?
>> 
>> Good. Nice to know you finally get it.
> 
> Se how you misrepresent my views. Being that you accuse of doing so (but
> your one example turned out to be completely incorrect) you would think
> you would try to avoid such hypocritical behavior.

Why are you doing all that dodging when it would be so much simpler just
to state outright that UI inconsistencies either do or don't damage
productivity?

> ...
>>> What measurement of "harm" do you want?   The arbitrarily different
>>> dialogs are there for *no* good user-based reason and they *clearly*
>>> are not best for the user... as even Rick has acknowledged.
>> 
>> I don't care if they're there for no good reason if any "harm" they do
>> is nonexistent or at worst insignificant. And in the adjacent sentence
>> that you conveniently ignore, Rick stated, as I and so many other REAL
>> Linux users have also said, that the variety of UI's under Linux is not
>> the problem you're making them out to be. I, personally, rate it as
>> only an eye-candy issue.
> 
> "REAL Linux users"?  In any case the fact that a few Linux apologists
> refuse to recognize an obvious problem does not make the problem go
> away.

Nor do your personal assurances and culled quotes make it real.

> Oh, and you did not answer my question: you dodged again.

I dodged nothing. You are yet again pretending not to understand my
response and then preemptively accusing me of dodging. You wouldn't have
to keep resorting to these ridiculous tactics if you could prove your
case with actual facts.

> ...
>>>> Are you saying then that your "standard" UI would allow VI, Emacs,
>>>> and OpenOffice to be included in the new-user distro just as they
>>>> are?
>>> 
>>> Depends on the rest of the distro... and the needs of the user.  For a
>>> general desktop user VI and Emacs are a complete waste of space...
>>> though I suppose having a relatively complete set of CLI tools for
>>> those who care does not really hurt.
>> 
>> Shows how little you really know about Linux and its users. Though both
>> editors were really meant for more technical uses, many nontechnical
>> people use them for text editing around the office. They're quite
>> popular in combination with latex to produce fully typeset books,
>> flyers, papers, and office documents. For many kinds of documents a
>> text editor and latex is a more efficient way to work than a WYSIWYG
>> word processor. Don't take my word for it, ask in comp.editors or lurk
>> on ubuntuforums.org for awhile.
> 
> Sad you sink to insults instead of using reason in your comments.

Still in denial?

> The general desktop user has no need for emacs or VI... though people in
> specialized fields do.

"General desktop user" is an average. Are you advocating tying the hands
of the entire range of skills that represents so as to accomodate those on
the lowermost rung?

> ...
>>> Keep in mind I have also been very clear that the more subtle
>>> differences are the ones that cause the most harm... though, of
>>> course, you can take that to an extreme as well (a button being a very
>>> subtle one pixel off is not likely to do as much harm as the
>>> less-subtle swapping of Save and Cancel buttons that really does exist
>>> on PCLOS).
>> 
>> Long as the buttons are clearly captioned, I don't see why it matters
>> what order they're in. I rather suspect you're looking at this as a Mac
>> user for whom they've always been in the same relative position so
>> you've developed the habit of going by position rather than just
>> reading what's right under your mouse cursor.
> 
> Suddenly you forget about the value of "muscle memory".  Odd.

I am, once again, surprised that you, who think you know so much about
UI's that you're advising us to embark on a major software rewrite that
would tie up OSS developers for years, know so little about this
principle.

>>>>> I am not saying I agree with the details you are talking about -
>>>>> frankly I am not that concerned about the details of non-GUI
>>>>> programs... that is just a personal taste (and I tend to focus more
>>>>> on what the general user will work with).
>>>> 
>>>> XEmacs and Vim both come in GUI flavors with GUI menus and icon
>>>> toolbars.
>>> 
>>> I have been assuming the CLI ones... the GUI ones likely should have
>>> more consistency... though based on their history having a "legacy"
>>> mode would make sense.
>> 
>> The GUI versions use the same keybindings as the CLI versions. Both are
>> heavily keyboard-based because they're designed to be highly efficient
>> editors.
> 
> And not general users.  Right.

Say what?

> ...
>>> Yes, you dodged.  Let me ask you again (though I suspect you will just
>>> dodge again):
>>> 
>>>     Your comments show a deep misunderstanding of what I have been
>>>     saying.  You are doing what you accuse me of - misinterpreting the
>>>     words of others.
>>> 
>>> Can you give a non-dodging response?  Please.
>> 
>> I wanted to show that you have no answers for some of the implications
>> of your suggestions. Your dodge was all I needed to make that point. I
>> need do nothing more.
> 
> You dodged again... and spewed more of your unsupported accusations.
> Sad.

No, you're pulling your usual game of "misunderstanding" a response as a
means of dodging it, and then accusing your opponent of being the one to
dodge. And now you've even snipped my response. Not that that's any
surprise after the way you creatively snipped Rick's and Linus' posts to
make it look like they were in agreement with you.

> ...
>>> You can re-assign keys on OS X and Windows as well... but by default I
>>> will say one thing I like about OS X is the better specially placed
>>> cut/copy/paste/save/print... other shortcut keys combos.
>> 
>> People often forget that unused media and Internet keys are good for
>> that kind of thing. Personally, though, I prefer to keep my hands
>> closer to the home row and just use whatever keybindings the
>> application offers.
> 
> Most people like to keep their hands there - hence the reason why the
> Apple method works so well.

And here I thought most Apple users liked to keep their hands on the
mouse...

> ...
> 
> I snipped most of your absurd and unsupported personal attacks.  I
> prefer to talk about Linux.

No you don't, you prefer to troll against Linux. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a few of Snit's favorite tactics:

 - When an argument is countered, pretends not to understand the answer
   even if it's at a sixth-grade level. If possible, uses this convenient
   "misunderstanding" to drag the discussion safely away from the issue.

 - Wastes as much of his opponent's time as possible demanding that
   quotes from earlier posts be provided as "proof" of what both know was
   said.

 - Combines multiple points in a sentence and then if his opponent
   addresses any point without addressing the rest, takes that as
   agreement to the rest.

 - Leaves some ambiguities as an escape route. The "point" he's making
   tends to morph as counterarguments are presented.

 - Refuses to delve into the implications or self-contradictions of his
   arguments. Any attempts to address those implications result either in
   "selective misunderstanding" or complaints that that's not what he's
   advocating.

 - "Selectively snips" statements from others to make it sound like
   they support his argument when they were in fact in disagreement.

 - Any time his opponent refuses to be controlled by these tactics, he
   accuses them of dodging.

 - Quibbles at every possible opportunity, blows typo's all out of
   proportion, etc.

 - Pretends to be a "Linux user".

The ultimate goal of these tactics doesn't appear to me to be merely to
troll. I get the impression that Snit's ultimate goal is to cause the
group to give up any hopes of resolving disputes with him through
discussion and honest debate. He can then run around creating FUD about
Linux without challenge, making it appear to newcomers that the regulars
are "unable" to refute his points.

Sound about right?

0
nope6917 (122)
3/14/2008 4:19:07 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13tl9brpnb1bafd@news.supernews.com on 3/14/08 9:19 AM:

> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:28:01 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>> 13tdk76onmtotfb@news.supernews.com on 3/11/08 11:35 AM:
>> 
>> ...
>>> Inconsistency is inconsistency no matter where, how, or why it
>>> originates.
>> 
>> I accept that is your view.  OK.  It is not mine.  Can you support your
>> view?
> 
> Next you'll want to know if I can support my view that hot is hot and cold
> is cold...
> 
>>> Also, one man's "user driven" inconsistency is another man's
>>> "arbitrary" inconsistency.
>> 
>> Not at all... while there might be some gray area for the most part the
>> two are pretty easy to tell apart!
> 
> Wrong. Some people take to Gimp's menu system and some don't. The former
> would say it's user-driven while the latter would say it isn't.
>  
>>> If people can handle "user-driven" exceptions to some standard, then
>>> they can also handle "arbitrary" exceptions.
>> 
>> Can you support this?  As far as I know there is *no* research that
>> supports your view and, as I have shown, the consensus of the experts on
>> the issue *and* the research support my view (at least in general
>> principle).
> 
> Inconsistencies are still inconsistencies. And all you've shown are
> opinions. You have yet to produce an independent, scientific study to back
> your claim that UI variety is driving users from Linux.
> 
>>> I chose XEmacs for my example earlier because its keybindings appear
>>> wholly arbitrary with only a few isolated places to hang some logic or
>>> easy-to-remember mneumonics on. The inconsistencies are about as
>>> arbitrary as you can get, both within the program and between XEmacs
>>> and system keys (eg, Control-X is "Cut" in other GUI programs but a
>>> heavily used command prefix in XEmacs, and XEmacs uses many Alt-key
>>> combinations that are normally assigned to GUI functions). Thus, it
>>> does not fall under your "user-driven" escape clause in my earlier
>>> arguments.
>> 
>> Did you not claim there were direct benefits to the user... hence user
>> driven.  If not then I stand corrected... please clarify your view.
> 
>  "The problem with Linux is the inconsistency is not *user* based... it
>  is, from the user perspective, completely arbitrary." -- Snit
> 
>> ...
>>>> I am a Linux user...
>>> 
>>> You've made too many blunders to get away with that one. You might have
>>> dabbled in Linux but you aren't a user in the sense of having embraced
>>> it for serious use. Chalk up another lie for Snit.
>> 
>> Quote these "too many blunders"... as if you could!
> 
> I have no intention of helping you refine your pretense.
> 
>> Face it, when you start making personal attacks such as that you are
>> showing you have no leg to stand on... something that has been clear
>> since the start, frankly.
> 
> I don't *have* to have a leg to stand on. You're the one advocating a
> manpower-intensive change without being able to prove that there's even
> a problem. 
> 
>> ...
>>>> The fact is you cannot.  You merely do not like that I have pointed
>>>> out a hole in what Linux offers the desktop and, clearly even more
>>>> offensive to you - I have supported my position very, very well.  This
>>>> goes against what you can handle.  So be it.
>>> 
>>> Many people have pointed to various problems with Linux. I agree with
>>> them on some points, disagree on others, and have some pet peeves all
>>> my own.
>> 
>> I would love to hear what weaknesses you think Linux has on the desktop.
> 
> Lack of good online documentation is, IMHO, a very serious problem for
> new users.
> 
>>> However, I don't agree with you on this one and you have yet to prove
>>> to my satisfaction that a problem exists.
>> 
>> You have been completely unable to state any reasonable basis for
>> disagreement but I defend your right to disagree with the group on the
>> left:
>> 
>>     Snit
> 
> Snit has failed to prove his case with facts.
> 
>>     Hadron
> 
> Hadron's opinions don't substitute for fact.
> 
>>     KDE docs
>>     Gnome docs
> 
> KDE and Gnome are just two projects out of tens of thousands. Like may
> other projects all going in disparate directions, they have their own
> opinions, theories, and philosophies, which are not to be confused with
> fact.
> 
>>     Bloggers
> 
> Bloggers' opinions don't count as fact.
> 
>>     Firefox docs
> 
> Firefox is, again, just one project among many with disparate philosophies
> and opinions. One of the reasons for its popularity is its hundreds of
> plugins available, many of which create an inconsistent UI.
> 
>>     Screen shots
>>     Videos
> 
> Already refuted multiple times. These only show that the variety of UI's
> that Linux users brag about exist, and do not prove your assertion that
> this UI variety is driving users from Linux.
> 
>>     Tim Berners-Lee
>>     UI Experts [1]
> 
> Once again, those are only opinions you've culled from a variety of
> opinions on the Internet.
> 
>>     Common sense
> 
> Almost as pitiful as "bloggers".
> 
> Wheres a reference to an independent, scientific study as specified
> earlier?
> 
>> ...
>>>>> [Rick] uses the term even when he's got YOU on the run.
>>>> 
>>>> Can you point to an example?  Of course not!  Just another of your
>>>> accusations.
>>> 
>>> Why should I bother when you'll just deny what's already plain for all
>>> to see?
>> 
>> Your dodge is noted.  I snipped much of the rest of your silly insults -
> 
> Refusing to let you waste my time isn't dodging.
> 
>> this one is a good enough example.  Unlike you I try to get
>> conversations to focus on the topic and not on personal attacks.
> 
> You've "attacked" me every time you falsely accused me of dodging and
> every time you've put words in my mouth to create another of your straw
> men. OTOH I just call them as I genuinely see them.
> 
>> ...
>>>>>> Do you deny you talked about having to keep using multiple programs
>>>>>> because, with their different UIs, if you did not use them each you
>>>>>> would forget how to use them (lose the "muscle memory").  If that is
>>>>>> not accurate then by all means explain where it is incorrect.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I also noted that occasionally refreshing your "muscle memory"
>>>>> doesn't take any extra time; you just use the program for normal
>>>>> activities, so you're still getting work done.
>>>> 
>>>> Ah, so as long as your normal work requires you to use these different
>>>> UIs then keeping yourself "in shape" does not take extra time.  But,
>>>> of course, if you end up not needing one of these tools for a while
>>>> you have to either use it for what it is not optimally used for or
>>>> lose your muscle memory.
>>> 
>>> My earlier words in this very thread:
>>> 
>>> "However, muscle memory has to be constantly refreshed. It works well
>>> on things you do a lot, not so well on things you use infrequently..."
>> 
>> Ok, this supports my view that emacs is not designed for the general
>> user - it is something you have to practice on repeatedly and for years.
> 
> "General user" is an abstraction. It's an average of a range of users.
> Emacs and vi suit some of those and not others.
> 
>>> And it's not like you're crippled without it because you can always
>>> pause to THINK about what you need to press, which is how less-efficent
>>> users operate anyway. It's just more efficient if you can delegate to
>>> the lower-order nervous system so less of your real brainpower is
>>> distracted from the task at-hand. The difference is akin to having to
>>> mentally translate each sentence from your native language to another
>>> before you speak, and speaking the other language fluently.
>> 
>> You have now made it clear that you realize a consistent UI allows for
>> greater consistency and more focus on the task at hand, though, like me,
>> you accept that there are times when a lack of consistency makes sense
>> for user-based reasons.
>> 
>> We might disagree on specifics of when to break the consistency, but in
>> principle your above statement supports my views.
> 
> On the contrary, I've shown that consistency is overrated. Emacs
> keybindings are chaotic, yet people use it because it's so
> efficient.
>   
>>> "Muscle memory", by whatever name you care to use, has played such a
>>> big role in UNIX and its workalikes for so many decades that I'd expect
>>> any true UI expert to be familiar with the concept even if he disagrees
>>> with its usefulness.
>> 
>> Muscle memory is one of the reasons why a consistent UI is so important.
>> Sure... and it seems you find it odd how some people in COLA do not get
>> it.
> 
> Organize a UI around the principle and you *might* have a point (for that
> specific UI). However, I know of no UI's where this has been done,
> probably because UI keystrokes are a small percentage of the daily total.
> The gain would be insignificant compared to keystroke-intensive
> applications.
> 
>>>>> It's not much different from many complex programs that people forget
>>>>> how to use if they don't keep using them on some periodic basis.
>>>> 
>>>> Which is why, to the extent that they reasonably can be, they should
>>>> follow standard UI principles.  This does not mean they should not go
>>>> against such things *when there is a user-based need*.
>>> 
>>> A UI can only standardize a relatively small handful of operations
>>> without becoming top-heavy and defeating its own purpose, while
>>> applications can do an almost infinite number of tasks.
>> 
>> The idea, of course, can be pushed too far - you do not want to stifle
>> innovation.   But the examples I have shown are pretty solid: looking at
>> GUI programs in PCLOS they have different menus, short cut keys, names
>> for the same *basic* options (quitting a program even!), different Print
>> and Save As dialogs... on and on.
> 
> But you have yet to submit any facts that prove this is driving users
> away from Linux.
> 
>> Completely against the idea of helping to build muscle memory.
> 
> Muscle memory only works with simple low-level tasks, hence its name.
> Using a mouse involves higher-level functions like image processing and
> hand-eye coordination.
> 
>>> Also, standards tend to channel the way users think, which in turn
>>> shapes how they use software, which then limits how developers think.
>>> Look at all the different - and much more efficient - (X)Emacs
>>> cut-copy-paste variations I listed earlier, as opposed to the pitiful
>>> selection common to Windows editors.
>> 
>> Nothing to do with the examples I have listed of arbitrary
>> inconsistency.
> 
> My point there is that there are many less-than-obvious ways in which UI
> consistency can work against users. I would of course expect any
> scientific study to consider these.
> 
>> ...
>>>>>> So you are saying there is a user-based reason to have the different
>>>>>> UIs. Personally I have not used any variation of vi or emacs in long
>>>>>> enough that I shan't try to comment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Oh, but you've *insisted* over and over that inconsistencies damage
>>>>> productivity so I'm sure you would want to "fix" these editors to
>>>>> make their keybindings more consistent...
>>>> 
>>>> Quote me doing as you say... and, remember, I will be looking to see
>>>> how much of a hypocrite you are as you selectively snip to try to
>>>> support your silly rendition of my view.
>>> 
>>> So now you admit that UI inconsistencies DON'T damage productivity?
>>> 
>>> Good. Nice to know you finally get it.
>> 
>> Se how you misrepresent my views. Being that you accuse of doing so (but
>> your one example turned out to be completely incorrect) you would think
>> you would try to avoid such hypocritical behavior.
> 
> Why are you doing all that dodging when it would be so much simpler just
> to state outright that UI inconsistencies either do or don't damage
> productivity?
> 
>> ...
>>>> What measurement of "harm" do you want?   The arbitrarily different
>>>> dialogs are there for *no* good user-based reason and they *clearly*
>>>> are not best for the user... as even Rick has acknowledged.
>>> 
>>> I don't care if they're there for no good reason if any "harm" they do
>>> is nonexistent or at worst insignificant. And in the adjacent sentence
>>> that you conveniently ignore, Rick stated, as I and so many other REAL
>>> Linux users have also said, that the variety of UI's under Linux is not
>>> the problem you're making them out to be. I, personally, rate it as
>>> only an eye-candy issue.
>> 
>> "REAL Linux users"?  In any case the fact that a few Linux apologists
>> refuse to recognize an obvious problem does not make the problem go
>> away.
> 
> Nor do your personal assurances and culled quotes make it real.
> 
>> Oh, and you did not answer my question: you dodged again.
> 
> I dodged nothing. You are yet again pretending not to understand my
> response and then preemptively accusing me of dodging. You wouldn't have
> to keep resorting to these ridiculous tactics if you could prove your
> case with actual facts.
> 
>> ...
>>>>> Are you saying then that your "standard" UI would allow VI, Emacs,
>>>>> and OpenOffice to be included in the new-user distro just as they
>>>>> are?
>>>> 
>>>> Depends on the rest of the distro... and the needs of the user.  For a
>>>> general desktop user VI and Emacs are a complete waste of space...
>>>> though I suppose having a relatively complete set of CLI tools for
>>>> those who care does not really hurt.
>>> 
>>> Shows how little you really know about Linux and its users. Though both
>>> editors were really meant for more technical uses, many nontechnical
>>> people use them for text editing around the office. They're quite
>>> popular in combination with latex to produce fully typeset books,
>>> flyers, papers, and office documents. For many kinds of documents a
>>> text editor and latex is a more efficient way to work than a WYSIWYG
>>> word processor. Don't take my word for it, ask in comp.editors or lurk
>>> on ubuntuforums.org for awhile.
>> 
>> Sad you sink to insults instead of using reason in your comments.
> 
> Still in denial?
> 
>> The general desktop user has no need for emacs or VI... though people in
>> specialized fields do.
> 
> "General desktop user" is an average. Are you advocating tying the hands
> of the entire range of skills that represents so as to accomodate those on
> the lowermost rung?
> 
>> ...
>>>> Keep in mind I have also been very clear that the more subtle
>>>> differences are the ones that cause the most harm... though, of
>>>> course, you can take that to an extreme as well (a button being a very
>>>> subtle one pixel off is not likely to do as much harm as the
>>>> less-subtle swapping of Save and Cancel buttons that really does exist
>>>> on PCLOS).
>>> 
>>> Long as the buttons are clearly captioned, I don't see why it matters
>>> what order they're in. I rather suspect you're looking at this as a Mac
>>> user for whom they've always been in the same relative position so
>>> you've developed the habit of going by position rather than just
>>> reading what's right under your mouse cursor.
>> 
>> Suddenly you forget about the value of "muscle memory".  Odd.
> 
> I am, once again, surprised that you, who think you know so much about
> UI's that you're advising us to embark on a major software rewrite that
> would tie up OSS developers for years, know so little about this
> principle.
> 
>>>>>> I am not saying I agree with the details you are talking about -
>>>>>> frankly I am not that concerned about the details of non-GUI
>>>>>> programs... that is just a personal taste (and I tend to focus more
>>>>>> on what the general user will work with).
>>>>> 
>>>>> XEmacs and Vim both come in GUI flavors with GUI menus and icon
>>>>> toolbars.
>>>> 
>>>> I have been assuming the CLI ones... the GUI ones likely should have
>>>> more consistency... though based on their history having a "legacy"
>>>> mode would make sense.
>>> 
>>> The GUI versions use the same keybindings as the CLI versions. Both are
>>> heavily keyboard-based because they're designed to be highly efficient
>>> editors.
>> 
>> And not general users.  Right.
> 
> Say what?
> 
>> ...
>>>> Yes, you dodged.  Let me ask you again (though I suspect you will just
>>>> dodge again):
>>>> 
>>>>     Your comments show a deep misunderstanding of what I have been
>>>>     saying.  You are doing what you accuse me of - misinterpreting the
>>>>     words of others.
>>>> 
>>>> Can you give a non-dodging response?  Please.
>>> 
>>> I wanted to show that you have no answers for some of the implications
>>> of your suggestions. Your dodge was all I needed to make that point. I
>>> need do nothing more.
>> 
>> You dodged again... and spewed more of your unsupported accusations.
>> Sad.
> 
> No, you're pulling your usual game of "misunderstanding" a response as a
> means of dodging it, and then accusing your opponent of being the one to
> dodge. And now you've even snipped my response. Not that that's any
> surprise after the way you creatively snipped Rick's and Linus' posts to
> make it look like they were in agreement with you.
> 
>> ...
>>>> You can re-assign keys on OS X and Windows as well... but by default I
>>>> will say one thing I like about OS X is the better specially placed
>>>> cut/copy/paste/save/print... other shortcut keys combos.
>>> 
>>> People often forget that unused media and Internet keys are good for
>>> that kind of thing. Personally, though, I prefer to keep my hands
>>> closer to the home row and just use whatever keybindings the
>>> application offers.
>> 
>> Most people like to keep their hands there - hence the reason why the
>> Apple method works so well.
> 
> And here I thought most Apple users liked to keep their hands on the
> mouse...
> 
>> ...
>> 
>> I snipped most of your absurd and unsupported personal attacks.  I
>> prefer to talk about Linux.
> 
> No you don't, you prefer to troll against Linux.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Just a few of Snit's favorite tactics:
> 
>  - When an argument is countered, pretends not to understand the answer
>    even if it's at a sixth-grade level. If possible, uses this convenient
>    "misunderstanding" to drag the discussion safely away from the issue.
> 
>  - Wastes as much of his opponent's time as possible demanding that
>    quotes from earlier posts be provided as "proof" of what both know was
>    said.
> 
>  - Combines multiple points in a sentence and then if his opponent
>    addresses any point without addressing the rest, takes that as
>    agreement to the rest.
> 
>  - Leaves some ambiguities as an escape route. The "point" he's making
>    tends to morph as counterarguments are presented.
> 
>  - Refuses to delve into the implications or self-contradictions of his
>    arguments. Any attempts to address those implications result either in
>    "selective misunderstanding" or complaints that that's not what he's
>    advocating.
> 
>  - "Selectively snips" statements from others to make it sound like
>    they support his argument when they were in fact in disagreement.
> 
>  - Any time his opponent refuses to be controlled by these tactics, he
>    accuses them of dodging.
> 
>  - Quibbles at every possible opportunity, blows typo's all out of
>    proportion, etc.
> 
>  - Pretends to be a "Linux user".
> 
> The ultimate goal of these tactics doesn't appear to me to be merely to
> troll. I get the impression that Snit's ultimate goal is to cause the
> group to give up any hopes of resolving disputes with him through
> discussion and honest debate. He can then run around creating FUD about
> Linux without challenge, making it appear to newcomers that the regulars
> are "unable" to refute his points.
> 
> Sound about right?
> 
I have claimed - and supported - that non-user based inconsistencies are
often detrimental to the user... though user-based ones can be beneficial

You have denied this and refused to acknowledge the support.

You have claimed that users will react the same to user-based
inconsistencies as they do to arbitrary ones, a claim that is contrary to
evidence and common sense - and when asked to support your claim you cannot.

You also create straw men to shoot down, such as implying that all
user-based decisions would effect all users the same ... this is silly and
didshonest of you.

You then make all sorts of accusations against me - none of which you can
find a single example to support your claims.  You also dodge relevant
questions and comments on a repeated basis... this shows you understand your
lack of understanding - you simply are not willing to admit to it directly.

You also denied that muscle memory is applied to using a mouse, showing you
understand little of the topic you brought to the conversation.

To your credit you were able to talk about a weakness of Linux that you
believe is larger than the inconsistencies I have been discussing (something
Rick has been unable to do): "Lack of good online documentation is, IMHO, a
very serious problem for new users."  Fair enough: and I would agree that is
also a problem.  Since most users do not look at any documentation, online
or not, I do not see it as being as large of a problem.




-- 
"In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
what's left." - Skip Hansen

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/14/2008 4:39:31 PM
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:39:31 -0700, Snit wrote:

> I have claimed - and supported - that non-user based inconsistencies are
> often detrimental to the user... though user-based ones can be
> beneficial
> 
> You have denied this and refused to acknowledge the support.

What this big long thread boils down to is that you have repeatedly been
asked to provide proof - not peoples' opinions, but an independent
scientific study - of your assertion that the variety of UI's used by
Linux is driving new users away, and you have consistently failed to do
so.





0
nope6917 (122)
3/14/2008 6:40:07 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13tlhk79ql9l34b@news.supernews.com on 3/14/08 11:40 AM:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:39:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> I have claimed - and supported - that non-user based inconsistencies are
>> often detrimental to the user... though user-based ones can be
>> beneficial
>> 
>> You have denied this and refused to acknowledge the support.
> 
> What this big long thread boils down to is that you have repeatedly been
> asked to provide proof - not peoples' opinions, but an independent
> scientific study - of your assertion that the variety of UI's used by
> Linux is driving new users away, and you have consistently failed to do
> so.

I have linked to a lot of evidence, including studies.  Here is the summary:

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
        Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
        http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

        Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency


Note the "expert opinions" - in each case they had studies to back up their
opinions.  So, yes, what I say is "just" an opinion, but one that is not
only common sense to anyone without a huge blind spot who has used computers
or other complex tools, but *also* is well held up by research.

Your contrary views are supported by - nothing.  And when you *try* to
suppose your views or, really, discount mine, you not only show a poor
understanding of the topic you outright lie.

-- 
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/14/2008 9:44:38 PM
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:44:38 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13tlhk79ql9l34b@news.supernews.com on 3/14/08 11:40 AM:
> 
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:39:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> I have claimed - and supported - that non-user based inconsistencies
>>> are often detrimental to the user... though user-based ones can be
>>> beneficial
>>> 
>>> You have denied this and refused to acknowledge the support.
>> 
>> What this big long thread boils down to is that you have repeatedly
>> been asked to provide proof - not peoples' opinions, but an independent
>> scientific study - of your assertion that the variety of UI's used by
>> Linux is driving new users away, and you have consistently failed to do
>> so.
> 
> I have linked to a lot of evidence, including studies.  Here is the
> summary:

<snip list of mere opinions>
 
> Note the "expert opinions" - in each case they had studies to back up
> their opinions.  So, yes, what I say is "just" an opinion, but one that
> is not only common sense to anyone without a huge blind spot who has
> used computers or other complex tools, but *also* is well held up by
> research.

Are these studies published, independent, and scientifically conducted
by someone with their head in the real world? Do any of those studies
back up your claim that the variety of UI's under Linux is driving new
users away?  Don't expect me to go digging for the details, you're the
one making the claim so YOU do the legwork.

> Your contrary views are supported by - nothing.  

You're the one making the claim. I am merely demanding independent,
scientific proof that you are correct.

> And when you *try* to suppose your views or, really, discount mine,
> you not only show a poor understanding of the topic you outright lie.

It's no lie that you have so far failed to provide facts to back up your
claim that the variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.
0
nope6917 (122)
3/16/2008 1:47:33 AM
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:44:38 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13tlhk79ql9l34b@news.supernews.com on 3/14/08 11:40 AM:
> 
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:39:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> I have claimed - and supported - that non-user based inconsistencies
>>> are often detrimental to the user... though user-based ones can be
>>> beneficial
>>> 
>>> You have denied this and refused to acknowledge the support.
>> 
>> What this big long thread boils down to is that you have repeatedly
>> been asked to provide proof - not peoples' opinions, but an independent
>> scientific study - of your assertion that the variety of UI's used by
>> Linux is driving new users away, and you have consistently failed to do
>> so.
> 
> I have linked to a lot of evidence, including studies.  Here is the
> summary:

<snip long, irrelevant list of opinions>

> 
> Note the "expert opinions" - in each case they had studies to back up
> their opinions.  So, yes, what I say is "just" an opinion, but one that
> is not only common sense to anyone without a huge blind spot who has
> used computers or other complex tools, but *also* is well held up by
> research.
> 
> Your contrary views are supported by - nothing.  And when you *try* to
> suppose your views or, really, discount mine, you not only show a poor
> understanding of the topic you outright lie.

Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't provided
any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving users from Linux.

0
nope6917 (122)
3/16/2008 1:48:46 AM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13tov3ui8fu2220@news.supernews.com on 3/15/08 6:48 PM:

>> Note the "expert opinions" - in each case they had studies to back up
>> their opinions.  So, yes, what I say is "just" an opinion, but one that
>> is not only common sense to anyone without a huge blind spot who has
>> used computers or other complex tools, but *also* is well held up by
>> research.
>> 
>> Your contrary views are supported by - nothing.  And when you *try* to
>> suppose your views or, really, discount mine, you not only show a poor
>> understanding of the topic you outright lie.
> 
> Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't provided
> any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving users from Linux.

You show *no* understanding of the text you respond to.  Re-read it and see
if you can understand.

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
        Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
        http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

        Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency



-- 
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/16/2008 2:31:15 AM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13tov1lbrvtu708@news.supernews.com on 3/15/08 6:47 PM:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:44:38 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>> 13tlhk79ql9l34b@news.supernews.com on 3/14/08 11:40 AM:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:39:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I have claimed - and supported - that non-user based inconsistencies
>>>> are often detrimental to the user... though user-based ones can be
>>>> beneficial
>>>> 
>>>> You have denied this and refused to acknowledge the support.
>>> 
>>> What this big long thread boils down to is that you have repeatedly
>>> been asked to provide proof - not peoples' opinions, but an independent
>>> scientific study - of your assertion that the variety of UI's used by
>>> Linux is driving new users away, and you have consistently failed to do
>>> so.
>> 
>> I have linked to a lot of evidence, including studies.  Here is the
>> summary:
> 
> <snip list of mere opinions>
>  
>> Note the "expert opinions" - in each case they had studies to back up
>> their opinions.  So, yes, what I say is "just" an opinion, but one that
>> is not only common sense to anyone without a huge blind spot who has
>> used computers or other complex tools, but *also* is well held up by
>> research.
> 
> Are these studies published, independent, and scientifically conducted
> by someone with their head in the real world? Do any of those studies
> back up your claim that the variety of UI's under Linux is driving new
> users away?  Don't expect me to go digging for the details, you're the
> one making the claim so YOU do the legwork.
> 
>> Your contrary views are supported by - nothing.
> 
> You're the one making the claim. I am merely demanding independent,
> scientific proof that you are correct.
> 
>> And when you *try* to suppose your views or, really, discount mine,
>> you not only show a poor understanding of the topic you outright lie.
> 
> It's no lie that you have so far failed to provide facts to back up your
> claim that the variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.

Your ignorance is amusing.  Really.

It is mind boggling how insistent you are to run from obvious and well
supported points.  Oh well.


-- 
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolutionary had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/16/2008 2:32:10 AM
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:32:10 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13tov1lbrvtu708@news.supernews.com on 3/15/08 6:47 PM:
> 
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:44:38 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>> 13tlhk79ql9l34b@news.supernews.com on 3/14/08 11:40 AM:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:39:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I have claimed - and supported - that non-user based inconsistencies
>>>>> are often detrimental to the user... though user-based ones can be
>>>>> beneficial
>>>>> 
>>>>> You have denied this and refused to acknowledge the support.
>>>> 
>>>> What this big long thread boils down to is that you have repeatedly
>>>> been asked to provide proof - not peoples' opinions, but an
>>>> independent scientific study - of your assertion that the variety of
>>>> UI's used by Linux is driving new users away, and you have
>>>> consistently failed to do so.
>>> 
>>> I have linked to a lot of evidence, including studies.  Here is the
>>> summary:
>> 
>> <snip list of mere opinions>
>>  
>>> Note the "expert opinions" - in each case they had studies to back up
>>> their opinions.  So, yes, what I say is "just" an opinion, but one
>>> that is not only common sense to anyone without a huge blind spot who
>>> has used computers or other complex tools, but *also* is well held up
>>> by research.
>> 
>> Are these studies published, independent, and scientifically conducted
>> by someone with their head in the real world? Do any of those studies
>> back up your claim that the variety of UI's under Linux is driving new
>> users away?  Don't expect me to go digging for the details, you're the
>> one making the claim so YOU do the legwork.
>> 
>>> Your contrary views are supported by - nothing.
>> 
>> You're the one making the claim. I am merely demanding independent,
>> scientific proof that you are correct.
>> 
>>> And when you *try* to suppose your views or, really, discount mine,
>>> you not only show a poor understanding of the topic you outright lie.
>> 
>> It's no lie that you have so far failed to provide facts to back up
>> your claim that the variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.
> 
> Your ignorance is amusing.  Really.
> 
> It is mind boggling how insistent you are to run from obvious and well
> supported points.  Oh well.

You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.

0
nope6917 (122)
3/16/2008 11:42:46 PM
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:31:15 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13tov3ui8fu2220@news.supernews.com on 3/15/08 6:48 PM:
> 
>>> Note the "expert opinions" - in each case they had studies to back up
>>> their opinions.  So, yes, what I say is "just" an opinion, but one
>>> that is not only common sense to anyone without a huge blind spot who
>>> has used computers or other complex tools, but *also* is well held up
>>> by research.
>>> 
>>> Your contrary views are supported by - nothing.  And when you *try* to
>>> suppose your views or, really, discount mine, you not only show a poor
>>> understanding of the topic you outright lie.
>> 
>> Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't
>> provided any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving users
>> from Linux.
> 
> You show *no* understanding of the text you respond to.  Re-read it and
> see if you can understand.

Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't provided
any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving users from Linux.

0
nope6917 (122)
3/16/2008 11:43:35 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13trc3m2q1iq8d6@news.supernews.com on 3/16/08 4:42 PM:

>> Your ignorance is amusing.  Really.
>> 
>> It is mind boggling how insistent you are to run from obvious and well
>> supported points.  Oh well.
> 
> You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
> variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.
> 
I accept your lack of understanding of the fact and studies I have
presented.  Your lack of understanding and acceptance, however, does not
reflect on what I have or have not done.

-- 
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolutionary had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/16/2008 11:50:40 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13trc573ctv9if8@news.supernews.com on 3/16/08 4:43 PM:

> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:31:15 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>> 13tov3ui8fu2220@news.supernews.com on 3/15/08 6:48 PM:
>> 
>>>> Note the "expert opinions" - in each case they had studies to back up
>>>> their opinions.  So, yes, what I say is "just" an opinion, but one
>>>> that is not only common sense to anyone without a huge blind spot who
>>>> has used computers or other complex tools, but *also* is well held up
>>>> by research.
>>>> 
>>>> Your contrary views are supported by - nothing.  And when you *try* to
>>>> suppose your views or, really, discount mine, you not only show a poor
>>>> understanding of the topic you outright lie.
>>> 
>>> Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't
>>> provided any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving users
>>> from Linux.
>> 
>> You show *no* understanding of the text you respond to.  Re-read it and
>> see if you can understand.
> 
> Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't provided
> any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving users from Linux.

I accept your lack of understanding... but do not pretend your weakness is
in any way a result of what I have said or not said: it is solely tied to
your own inability to read, understand, and see past your Linux apologist
ways.


-- 
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/16/2008 11:51:42 PM
El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> espoused:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:39:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> I have claimed - and supported - that non-user based inconsistencies are
>> often detrimental to the user... though user-based ones can be
>> beneficial
>> 
>> You have denied this and refused to acknowledge the support.
> 
> What this big long thread boils down to is that you have repeatedly been
> asked to provide proof - not peoples' opinions, but an independent
> scientific study - of your assertion that the variety of UI's used by
> Linux is driving new users away, and you have consistently failed to do
> so.
> 
> 

Please mark snit-feeding as [TF] or similar, please?

-- 
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk          |
| Cola faq:  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/   |
| Cola trolls:  http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/                        |
| My (new) blog:  http://www.thereisnomagic.org                        |
0
mark.kent (15323)
3/17/2008 2:29:37 PM
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:50:40 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13trc3m2q1iq8d6@news.supernews.com on 3/16/08 4:42 PM:
> 
>>> Your ignorance is amusing.  Really.
>>> 
>>> It is mind boggling how insistent you are to run from obvious and well
>>> supported points.  Oh well.
>> 
>> You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
>> variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.
>> 
> I accept your lack of understanding of the fact and studies I have
> presented.  Your lack of understanding and acceptance, however, does not
> reflect on what I have or have not done.

You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.
0
nope6917 (122)
3/17/2008 11:57:29 PM
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:51:42 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13trc573ctv9if8@news.supernews.com on 3/16/08 4:43 PM:
> 
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:31:15 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>> 13tov3ui8fu2220@news.supernews.com on 3/15/08 6:48 PM:
>>> 
>>>>> Note the "expert opinions" - in each case they had studies to back
>>>>> up their opinions.  So, yes, what I say is "just" an opinion, but
>>>>> one that is not only common sense to anyone without a huge blind
>>>>> spot who has used computers or other complex tools, but *also* is
>>>>> well held up by research.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Your contrary views are supported by - nothing.  And when you *try*
>>>>> to suppose your views or, really, discount mine, you not only show a
>>>>> poor understanding of the topic you outright lie.
>>>> 
>>>> Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't
>>>> provided any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving
>>>> users from Linux.
>>> 
>>> You show *no* understanding of the text you respond to.  Re-read it
>>> and see if you can understand.
>> 
>> Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't
>> provided any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving users
>> from Linux.
> 
> I accept your lack of understanding... but do not pretend your weakness
> is in any way a result of what I have said or not said: it is solely
> tied to your own inability to read, understand, and see past your Linux
> apologist ways.

Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't provided
any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving users from
Linux.
0
nope6917 (122)
3/17/2008 11:59:16 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13tu1ekbbjhbc35@news.supernews.com on 3/17/08 4:59 PM:

> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:51:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>> 13trc573ctv9if8@news.supernews.com on 3/16/08 4:43 PM:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:31:15 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>>> 13tov3ui8fu2220@news.supernews.com on 3/15/08 6:48 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Note the "expert opinions" - in each case they had studies to back
>>>>>> up their opinions.  So, yes, what I say is "just" an opinion, but
>>>>>> one that is not only common sense to anyone without a huge blind
>>>>>> spot who has used computers or other complex tools, but *also* is
>>>>>> well held up by research.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Your contrary views are supported by - nothing.  And when you *try*
>>>>>> to suppose your views or, really, discount mine, you not only show a
>>>>>> poor understanding of the topic you outright lie.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't
>>>>> provided any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving
>>>>> users from Linux.
>>>> 
>>>> You show *no* understanding of the text you respond to.  Re-read it
>>>> and see if you can understand.
>>> 
>>> Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't
>>> provided any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving users
>>> from Linux.
>> 
>> I accept your lack of understanding... but do not pretend your weakness
>> is in any way a result of what I have said or not said: it is solely
>> tied to your own inability to read, understand, and see past your Linux
>> apologist ways.
> 
> Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't provided
> any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving users from
> Linux.

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
        Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
        http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

        Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency

You can keep insisting that you are right and ignore all the contrary
evidence.  No skin off my teeth!


-- 
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/18/2008 12:48:32 AM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13tu1b9c788av02@news.supernews.com on 3/17/08 4:57 PM:

> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:50:40 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>> 13trc3m2q1iq8d6@news.supernews.com on 3/16/08 4:42 PM:
>> 
>>>> Your ignorance is amusing.  Really.
>>>> 
>>>> It is mind boggling how insistent you are to run from obvious and well
>>>> supported points.  Oh well.
>>> 
>>> You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
>>> variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.
>>> 
>> I accept your lack of understanding of the fact and studies I have
>> presented.  Your lack of understanding and acceptance, however, does not
>> reflect on what I have or have not done.
> 
> You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
> variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.

I accept you have not been willing or able to understand what many others
easily understand:

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
        Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
        http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

        Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency


-- 
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/18/2008 12:49:01 AM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, El Tux
<nope@spamsucks.invalid>
 wrote
on Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:57:29 -0000
<13tu1b9c788av02@news.supernews.com>:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:50:40 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>> 13trc3m2q1iq8d6@news.supernews.com on 3/16/08 4:42 PM:
>> 
>>>> Your ignorance is amusing.  Really.
>>>> 
>>>> It is mind boggling how insistent you are to run from obvious and well
>>>> supported points.  Oh well.
>>> 
>>> You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
>>> variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.
>>> 
>> I accept your lack of understanding of the fact and studies I have
>> presented.  Your lack of understanding and acceptance, however, does not
>> reflect on what I have or have not done.
>
> You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
> variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.

A Google on "Linux marketing issues" coughed up

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=47

Apparently TV ads are the most influential.  Bleah.

One of the more interesting questions: which sexy
spokesmodel would be a good one for Linux?  Personally,
I think that's about as useful as posing pretty girls next
to cars (but then, that's been going on a very long time
as well, so....)

The mind reels as to the foibles of my fellow men and women.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Linux.  Because it's there and it works.
Windows.  It's there, but does it work?

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
3/18/2008 1:04:19 AM
El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> espoused:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:50:40 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>> 13trc3m2q1iq8d6@news.supernews.com on 3/16/08 4:42 PM:
>> 
>>>> Your ignorance is amusing.  Really.
>>>> 
>>>> It is mind boggling how insistent you are to run from obvious and well
>>>> supported points.  Oh well.
>>> 
>>> You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
>>> variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.
>>> 
>> I accept your lack of understanding of the fact and studies I have
>> presented.  Your lack of understanding and acceptance, however, does not
>> reflect on what I have or have not done.
> 
> You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
> variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.

Please... Snit doesn't use facts.  Please don't encourage him...

-- 
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk          |
| Cola faq:  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/   |
| Cola trolls:  http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/                        |
| My (new) blog:  http://www.thereisnomagic.org                        |
0
mark.kent (15323)
3/18/2008 8:05:34 AM
"Mark Kent" <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> stated in post
en94b5-ouk.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk on 3/18/08 1:05 AM:

> El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> espoused:
>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:50:40 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>> 13trc3m2q1iq8d6@news.supernews.com on 3/16/08 4:42 PM:
>>> 
>>>>> Your ignorance is amusing.  Really.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is mind boggling how insistent you are to run from obvious and well
>>>>> supported points.  Oh well.
>>>> 
>>>> You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
>>>> variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.
>>>> 
>>> I accept your lack of understanding of the fact and studies I have
>>> presented.  Your lack of understanding and acceptance, however, does not
>>> reflect on what I have or have not done.
>> 
>> You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
>> variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.
> 
> Please... Snit doesn't use facts.  Please don't encourage him...

Well, other than the fact that I have pointed to both expert opinion *and*
specific studies and peer reviewed papers (all to support a point that is
common sense to anyone with even basic knowledge of computers)... and El Tux
has responded by putting his head in the sand:

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
        Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
        http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

        Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency


-- 
I know how a jam jar feels...
.... full of jam!

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/18/2008 2:24:04 PM
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:48:32 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13tu1ekbbjhbc35@news.supernews.com on 3/17/08 4:59 PM:
> 
>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:51:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>> 13trc573ctv9if8@news.supernews.com on 3/16/08 4:43 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:31:15 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>>>> 13tov3ui8fu2220@news.supernews.com on 3/15/08 6:48 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Note the "expert opinions" - in each case they had studies to back
>>>>>>> up their opinions.  So, yes, what I say is "just" an opinion, but
>>>>>>> one that is not only common sense to anyone without a huge blind
>>>>>>> spot who has used computers or other complex tools, but *also* is
>>>>>>> well held up by research.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Your contrary views are supported by - nothing.  And when you
>>>>>>> *try* to suppose your views or, really, discount mine, you not
>>>>>>> only show a poor understanding of the topic you outright lie.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't
>>>>>> provided any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving
>>>>>> users from Linux.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You show *no* understanding of the text you respond to.  Re-read it
>>>>> and see if you can understand.
>>>> 
>>>> Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't
>>>> provided any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving
>>>> users from Linux.
>>> 
>>> I accept your lack of understanding... but do not pretend your
>>> weakness is in any way a result of what I have said or not said: it is
>>> solely tied to your own inability to read, understand, and see past
>>> your Linux apologist ways.
>> 
>> Opinions aren't proof. For all your twisting, you still haven't
>> provided any scientific proof that a diversity of UI's is driving users
>> from Linux.

<snip the usual list of mere opinions>

> You can keep insisting that you are right and ignore all the contrary
> evidence.  

In other words, you're still unable to provid scientific proof of your
claim that a diversity of UI's is driving users from Linux.

> No skin off my teeth!

s/teeth/nose

0
nope6917 (122)
3/18/2008 11:03:23 PM
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:24:04 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "Mark Kent" <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> stated in post
> en94b5-ouk.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk on 3/18/08 1:05 AM:
> 
>> El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> espoused:
>>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:50:40 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>>> 13trc3m2q1iq8d6@news.supernews.com on 3/16/08 4:42 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Your ignorance is amusing.  Really.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is mind boggling how insistent you are to run from obvious and
>>>>>> well supported points.  Oh well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
>>>>> variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.
>>>>> 
>>>> I accept your lack of understanding of the fact and studies I have
>>>> presented.  Your lack of understanding and acceptance, however, does
>>>> not reflect on what I have or have not done.
>>> 
>>> You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
>>> variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.
>> 
>> Please... Snit doesn't use facts.  Please don't encourage him...
> 
> Well, other than the fact that I have pointed to both expert opinion
> *and* specific studies and peer reviewed papers (all to support a point
> that is common sense to anyone with even basic knowledge of
> computers)... and El Tux has responded by putting his head in the
> sand:

In other words, you're still unable to provide scientific proof of your
claim that a diversity of UI's is driving users from Linux.
0
nope6917 (122)
3/18/2008 11:06:50 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13u0ioatfgct933@news.supernews.com on 3/18/08 4:06 PM:

>>> Please... Snit doesn't use facts.  Please don't encourage him...
>> 
>> Well, other than the fact that I have pointed to both expert opinion
>> *and* specific studies and peer reviewed papers (all to support a point
>> that is common sense to anyone with even basic knowledge of
>> computers)... and El Tux has responded by putting his head in the
>> sand:
> 
> In other words, you're still unable to provide scientific proof of your
> claim that a diversity of UI's is driving users from Linux.

You keep repeating that as though it makes the peer reviewed papers and
studies go away.

Frankly you need to better your trolling or risk being ignored... your
repetition of simple facts is grossly boring.


    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
        Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
        http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

        Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency

Deny away, El Tux, but if you do so without your normal lack of any value to
your comments then you shall be ignored.

-- 
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/18/2008 11:18:35 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13u0ihr4t5p01d7@news.supernews.com on 3/18/08 4:03 PM:

> In other words, you're still unable to provid scientific proof of your
> claim that a diversity of UI's is driving users from Linux.

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
        Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
        http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

        Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency

Deny away all you want!

-- 
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/18/2008 11:19:10 PM
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:04:19 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, El Tux
> <nope@spamsucks.invalid>
>  wrote
> on Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:57:29 -0000
> <13tu1b9c788av02@news.supernews.com>:
>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:50:40 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>> 13trc3m2q1iq8d6@news.supernews.com on 3/16/08 4:42 PM:
>>> 
>>>>> Your ignorance is amusing.  Really.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is mind boggling how insistent you are to run from obvious and
>>>>> well supported points.  Oh well.
>>>> 
>>>> You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
>>>> variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.
>>>> 
>>> I accept your lack of understanding of the fact and studies I have
>>> presented.  Your lack of understanding and acceptance, however, does
>>> not reflect on what I have or have not done.
>>
>> You still haven't produced any facts to back up your claim that the
>> variety of UI's under Linux is driving users away.
> 
> A Google on "Linux marketing issues" coughed up
> 
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=47
> 
> Apparently TV ads are the most influential.  Bleah.

Or so someone says. Personally, I tend to boycott companies and products
that interrupt my favorite shows with ads.

> One of the more interesting questions: which sexy spokesmodel would be a
> good one for Linux?  Personally, I think that's about as useful as
> posing pretty girls next to cars (but then, that's been going on a very
> long time as well, so....)

Well, if it gets 'em a date, why not?  ;-)

> The mind reels as to the foibles of my fellow men and women.

IMO, advertising reflects the delusions of marketing types more than the
actual desires of consumers. 



0
nope6917 (122)
3/18/2008 11:41:06 PM
On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
don't have to prove it thousand times.


-- 
A. Talsta
0
atalsta (11)
3/19/2008 6:58:01 AM
A. Talsta wrote:

> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
> don't have to prove it thousand times.

That's what cranks do. That's why they're cranks.

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/19/2008 7:49:49 AM
"A. Talsta" <atalsta@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
> don't have to prove it thousand times.

He does when the other guy keeps asking.
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/19/2008 9:26:50 AM
A. Talsta wrote:

> On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
> don't have to prove it thousand times.
> 

Snot makes that idiocy every time he has been proven wrong.
And he is proven wrong *often*
-- 
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
        If it starts working, we'll fix it.  Pronto.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
3/19/2008 9:52:02 AM
Hadron wrote:

> "A. Talsta" <atalsta@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
>> don't have to prove it thousand times.
> 
> He does when the other guy keeps asking.

No, he does not. He is been asked to provide proof. He does not. Instead, in
true Snot fashion, he keeps reposting the same bullshit over and over, as
can be seen in all those quotes.

That is not proof. It is Snot bullshit. Entirely different things
-- 
You're not my type.  For that matter, you're not even my species

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
3/19/2008 9:56:42 AM
"Peter K�hlmann" <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> stated in post
frqno2$c2a$03$2@news.t-online.com on 3/19/08 2:52 AM:

> A. Talsta wrote:
> 
>> On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
>> don't have to prove it thousand times.
>> 
> 
> Snot makes that idiocy every time he has been proven wrong.
> And he is proven wrong *often*

I mace my case and, clearly, am right.


-- 
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/19/2008 3:12:20 PM
"Peter K�hlmann" <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> stated in post
frqo0q$c2a$03$3@news.t-online.com on 3/19/08 2:56 AM:

> Hadron wrote:
> 
>> "A. Talsta" <atalsta@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
>>> don't have to prove it thousand times.
>> 
>> He does when the other guy keeps asking.
> 
> No, he does not. He is been asked to provide proof. He does not. Instead, in
> true Snot fashion, he keeps reposting the same bullshit over and over, as
> can be seen in all those quotes.
> 
> That is not proof. It is Snot bullshit. Entirely different things

I am enjoying pointing out the ignorance of others.  Call it a weakness.  :)

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
        Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
        http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

        Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency


-- 
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features."  -- Steve Jobs



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/19/2008 3:13:17 PM
"A. Talsta" <atalsta@gmail.com> stated in post
mmp6b5-c1f.ln1@kone.dnsalias.org on 3/18/08 11:58 PM:

> On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
> don't have to prove it thousand times.
> 
Sure - but it amuses me.   I admit - it is a weakness, I like to play with
the trolls and repeatedly show them to be wrong.


-- 
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/19/2008 3:15:04 PM
"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
frqm8q$i2$3@registered.motzarella.org on 3/19/08 2:26 AM:

> "A. Talsta" <atalsta@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
>> don't have to prove it thousand times.
> 
> He does when the other guy keeps asking.

Well, I do not need to but it does amuse me.  :)

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
        Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
        http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

        Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency

-- 
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/19/2008 3:17:24 PM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> stated in post
> frqo0q$c2a$03$3@news.t-online.com on 3/19/08 2:56 AM:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>> 
>>> "A. Talsta" <atalsta@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
>>>> don't have to prove it thousand times.
>>> 
>>> He does when the other guy keeps asking.
>> 
>> No, he does not. He is been asked to provide proof. He does not. Instead, in
>> true Snot fashion, he keeps reposting the same bullshit over and over, as
>> can be seen in all those quotes.
>> 
>> That is not proof. It is Snot bullshit. Entirely different things


Please define "proof" Peter. you are really, as a professional Windows
SW developer, arguing that a consistent, confirming UI is not more
efficient for the end user? Are you really claiming that?

Be specific - it's a yes or no answer.

If you say "yes", please explain how its not more efficient and why so
many people insist on programs conforming to various UI standards
(whether their own or in house) during acceptance phases?
0
hadronquark2 (7213)
3/19/2008 3:32:42 PM
"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
frrbms$4ha$2@registered.motzarella.org on 3/19/08 8:32 AM:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> 
>> "Peter K�hlmann" <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> stated in post
>> frqo0q$c2a$03$3@news.t-online.com on 3/19/08 2:56 AM:
>> 
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "A. Talsta" <atalsta@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
>>>>> don't have to prove it thousand times.
>>>> 
>>>> He does when the other guy keeps asking.
>>> 
>>> No, he does not. He is been asked to provide proof. He does not. Instead, in
>>> true Snot fashion, he keeps reposting the same bullshit over and over, as
>>> can be seen in all those quotes.
>>> 
>>> That is not proof. It is Snot bullshit. Entirely different things
> 
> 
> Please define "proof" Peter. you are really, as a professional Windows
> SW developer, arguing that a consistent, confirming UI is not more
> efficient for the end user? Are you really claiming that?
> 
> Be specific - it's a yes or no answer.
> 
> If you say "yes", please explain how its not more efficient and why so
> many people insist on programs conforming to various UI standards
> (whether their own or in house) during acceptance phases?

Peter puts on his running shoes in 3... 2... 1...


-- 
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.




0
usenet2 (47889)
3/19/2008 3:57:39 PM
Hadron wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> 
>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> stated in post
>> frqo0q$c2a$03$3@news.t-online.com on 3/19/08 2:56 AM:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "A. Talsta" <atalsta@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
>>>>> don't have to prove it thousand times.
>>>> 
>>>> He does when the other guy keeps asking.
>>> 
>>> No, he does not. He is been asked to provide proof. He does not.
>>> Instead, in true Snot fashion, he keeps reposting the same bullshit over
>>> and over, as can be seen in all those quotes.
>>> 
>>> That is not proof. It is Snot bullshit. Entirely different things
> 
> 
> Please define "proof" Peter. you are really, as a professional Windows
> SW developer, arguing that a consistent, confirming UI is not more
> efficient for the end user? Are you really claiming that?
> 
> Be specific - it's a yes or no answer.
> 
> If you say "yes", please explain how its not more efficient and why so
> many people insist on programs conforming to various UI standards
> (whether their own or in house) during acceptance phases?

No
-- 
Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
3/19/2008 4:25:59 PM
"Peter K�hlmann" <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> stated in post
frreqn$88h$02$4@news.t-online.com on 3/19/08 9:25 AM:

> Hadron wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>> 
>>> "Peter K�hlmann" <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> stated in post
>>> frqo0q$c2a$03$3@news.t-online.com on 3/19/08 2:56 AM:
>>> 
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "A. Talsta" <atalsta@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
>>>>>> don't have to prove it thousand times.
>>>>> 
>>>>> He does when the other guy keeps asking.
>>>> 
>>>> No, he does not. He is been asked to provide proof. He does not.
>>>> Instead, in true Snot fashion, he keeps reposting the same bullshit over
>>>> and over, as can be seen in all those quotes.
>>>> 
>>>> That is not proof. It is Snot bullshit. Entirely different things
>> 
>> 
>> Please define "proof" Peter. you are really, as a professional Windows
>> SW developer, arguing that a consistent, confirming UI is not more
>> efficient for the end user? Are you really claiming that?
>> 
>> Be specific - it's a yes or no answer.
>> 
>> If you say "yes", please explain how its not more efficient and why so
>> many people insist on programs conforming to various UI standards
>> (whether their own or in house) during acceptance phases?
> 
> No

So you agree that consistency in a UI is a good thing - unless, of course,
there is a direct user-based reason to go against consistency?

If so then what is your problem with my view?


-- 
"Uh... ask me after we ship the next version of Windows [laughs] then I'll
be more open to give you a blunt answer." - Bill Gates
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/gates/>

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/19/2008 4:42:23 PM
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:19:10 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13u0ihr4t5p01d7@news.supernews.com on 3/18/08 4:03 PM:
> 
>> In other words, you're still unable to provid scientific proof of your
>> claim that a diversity of UI's is driving users from Linux.
> 

<snip already-discredited list of mere opinions>
 
> Deny away all you want!

Still waiting for that proof...


0
nope6917 (122)
3/20/2008 2:50:03 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13u4ucrp0fauk02@news.supernews.com on 3/20/08 7:50 AM:

> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:19:10 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>> 13u0ihr4t5p01d7@news.supernews.com on 3/18/08 4:03 PM:
>> 
>>> In other words, you're still unable to provid scientific proof of your
>>> claim that a diversity of UI's is driving users from Linux.
>> 
> 
> <snip already-discredited list of mere opinions>
>  
>> Deny away all you want!
> 
> Still waiting for that proof...
> 
> 
You mean still waiting for your feeble brain to understand what has been
repeatedly shown:

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
        Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
        http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

        Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency


-- 
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination.  - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/20/2008 3:04:25 PM
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:56:42 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Hadron wrote:
> 
>> "A. Talsta" <atalsta@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
>>> don't have to prove it thousand times.
>> 
>> He does when the other guy keeps asking.

Wow, you don't see that often - all the trolls and sockpuppets in
agreement with each other. 

> No, he does not. He is been asked to provide proof. He does not.
> Instead, in true Snot fashion, he keeps reposting the same bullshit over
> and over, as can be seen in all those quotes.

Some trolls run when they lose an argument. Snit, like a six-year-old,
sticks his fingers in his ears and yells the same nonsense over and over
until his opponent gets bored and leaves. Which, I'll admit, I'm about
to do now that I've made it painfully clear that he can't prove his
claim.

> That is not proof. It is Snot bullshit. Entirely different things

Bullsnot - same as bullshit, just comes out the other end.




0
nope6917 (122)
3/20/2008 3:30:58 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13u50pi2jl6gi8c@news.supernews.com on 3/20/08 8:30 AM:

> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:56:42 +0100, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> 
>> Hadron wrote:
>> 
>>> "A. Talsta" <atalsta@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
>>>> don't have to prove it thousand times.
>>> 
>>> He does when the other guy keeps asking.
> 
> Wow, you don't see that often - all the trolls and sockpuppets in
> agreement with each other.

You imply sockpuppetry... but where is your evidence?  Hint: you have none.
While I am often blamed, by liars, of using sock puppets please note there
is *no* evidence of my doing so.  None.

>> No, he does not. He is been asked to provide proof. He does not.
>> Instead, in true Snot fashion, he keeps reposting the same bullshit over
>> and over, as can be seen in all those quotes.
> 
> Some trolls run when they lose an argument. Snit, like a six-year-old,
> sticks his fingers in his ears and yells the same nonsense over and over
> until his opponent gets bored and leaves. Which, I'll admit, I'm about
> to do now that I've made it painfully clear that he can't prove his
> claim.

You just described yourself.  I have provided expert opinion, peer reviewed
articles, and studies that all support a common sense view that you bury
your head in the sand and deny.

If you had a basis for your denial you would have shared it by now - but the
fact is you are just a Linux apologist.

>> That is not proof. It is Snot bullshit. Entirely different things
> 
> Bullsnot - same as bullshit, just comes out the other end.

    Snit                        RonB
    Hadron                      Rick
    KDE docs                    Peter K.
    Gnome docs                  JEDIDIAH
    Bloggers                    El Tux
    Firefox docs        vs.
    Screen shots   
    Videos         
    Tim Berners-Lee
    UI Experts [1] 
    Common sense
    
    [1] 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/>
    
        Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
        http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

        Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency



-- 
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.



0
usenet2 (47889)
3/20/2008 3:36:50 PM
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:18:35 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13u0ioatfgct933@news.supernews.com on 3/18/08 4:06 PM:
> 
>>>> Please... Snit doesn't use facts.  Please don't encourage him...
>>> 
>>> Well, other than the fact that I have pointed to both expert opinion
>>> *and* specific studies and peer reviewed papers (all to support a
>>> point that is common sense to anyone with even basic knowledge of
>>> computers)... and El Tux has responded by putting his head in the
>>> sand:
>> 
>> In other words, you're still unable to provide scientific proof of your
>> claim that a diversity of UI's is driving users from Linux.
> 
> You keep repeating that as though it makes the peer reviewed papers and
> studies go away.

You keep referring to general UI studies as if they provide scientific
proof of your specific claim that a diversity of UI's is driving new
users from Linux.
0
nope6917 (122)
3/20/2008 3:42:54 PM
"El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13u51fue77k4v0e@news.supernews.com on 3/20/08 8:42 AM:

> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:18:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> "El Tux" <nope@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>> 13u0ioatfgct933@news.supernews.com on 3/18/08 4:06 PM:
>> 
>>>>> Please... Snit doesn't use facts.  Please don't encourage him...
>>>> 
>>>> Well, other than the fact that I have pointed to both expert opinion
>>>> *and* specific studies and peer reviewed papers (all to support a
>>>> point that is common sense to anyone with even basic knowledge of
>>>> computers)... and El Tux has responded by putting his head in the
>>>> sand:
>>> 
>>> In other words, you're still unable to provide scientific proof of your
>>> claim that a diversity of UI's is driving users from Linux.
>> 
>> You keep repeating that as though it makes the peer reviewed papers and
>> studies go away.
> 
> You keep referring to general UI studies as if they provide scientific
> proof of your specific claim that a diversity of UI's is driving new
> users from Linux.

I have pointed to UI studies and professional opinions to show an obvious
point - that arbitrary UI inconsistency is something that is detrimental to
users.

You, being a Linux apologist, repeatedly run from this.

Oh well... frankly it is still amusing me.  When it stops amusing me I shall
stop responding to you.


-- 
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/20/2008 4:58:58 PM
"Peter K�hlmann" <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> stated in post
frqno2$c2a$03$2@news.t-online.com on 3/19/08 2:52 AM:

> A. Talsta wrote:
> 
>> On 2008-03-18, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Jesus man. Why do you play this me/you game. You made your case, you
>> don't have to prove it thousand times.
>> 
> 
> Snot makes that idiocy every time he has been proven wrong.
> And he is proven wrong *often*

Peter makes this claim without a shred of support.

He is lying.  Again.


-- 
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley

0
usenet2 (47889)
3/20/2008 5:51:22 PM
Reply: