Discussion:
cli V gui
(too old to reply)
Bob
2008-07-15 09:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Someone elsewhere once said,

"The CLI is more intuitive and natural to human beings. When you go
into a shop which would you prefer : to say "I would like x please" or
to struggle with a GUI of list boxes, entry boxes, radio buttons, check
buttons etc etc?"

Balderdash, unless that someone happens to be a savant, in which case
it's merely highly improbable

When I know exactly what I want I'm happy to simply walk into a store
and ask for it; without needing to know the stock number.

However

If I knew what outcome I wanted, but didn't have a clue about the best
way to get there, I would walk straight out of a store if the owner
recited an incomprehensible list of stock numbers at me; before looking
at his watch and asking how many I wanted.
--
Bob
Calling alcoholism 'a disease' is
the politically correct substitute for 'a self induced insanity.'
Ben
2008-07-15 16:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Someone elsewhere once said,
"The CLI is more intuitive and natural to human beings. When you go
into a shop which would you prefer : to say "I would like x please" or
to struggle with a GUI of list boxes, entry boxes, radio buttons, check
buttons etc etc?"
Balderdash, unless that someone happens to be a savant, in which case
it's merely highly improbable
When I know exactly what I want I'm happy to simply walk into a store
and ask for it; without needing to know the stock number.
However
If I knew what outcome I wanted, but didn't have a clue about the best
way to get there, I would walk straight out of a store if the owner
recited an incomprehensible list of stock numbers at me; before looking
at his watch and asking how many I wanted.
Seconded. And the way most stores are laid out is analogous to a GUI
anyway. You see what's available with your eyes and pick and choose what
you want based on what you see.

Besides that, speaking in a natural language with another human being is
quite different to learning to interact with a CLI.
JEDIDIAH
2008-07-15 17:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by Bob
Someone elsewhere once said,
"The CLI is more intuitive and natural to human beings. When you go
into a shop which would you prefer : to say "I would like x please" or
to struggle with a GUI of list boxes, entry boxes, radio buttons, check
buttons etc etc?"
Balderdash, unless that someone happens to be a savant, in which case
it's merely highly improbable
When I know exactly what I want I'm happy to simply walk into a store
and ask for it; without needing to know the stock number.
However
If I knew what outcome I wanted, but didn't have a clue about the best
way to get there, I would walk straight out of a store if the owner
recited an incomprehensible list of stock numbers at me; before looking
at his watch and asking how many I wanted.
Seconded. And the way most stores are laid out is analogous to a GUI
anyway. You see what's available with your eyes and pick and choose what
you want based on what you see.
...or just ask the clerk.

Quite often this is the only way you are going to get what you want
in any timely sort of fashion (if at all).
Post by Ben
Besides that, speaking in a natural language with another human being is
quite different to learning to interact with a CLI.
Not really. With any context you need to learn the jargon and the
ettiquite in question.
--
Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
both at the same time was something worth patenting.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Ben
2008-07-15 18:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
Post by Bob
Someone elsewhere once said,
"The CLI is more intuitive and natural to human beings. When you go
into a shop which would you prefer : to say "I would like x please" or
to struggle with a GUI of list boxes, entry boxes, radio buttons, check
buttons etc etc?"
Balderdash, unless that someone happens to be a savant, in which case
it's merely highly improbable
When I know exactly what I want I'm happy to simply walk into a store
and ask for it; without needing to know the stock number.
However
If I knew what outcome I wanted, but didn't have a clue about the best
way to get there, I would walk straight out of a store if the owner
recited an incomprehensible list of stock numbers at me; before looking
at his watch and asking how many I wanted.
Seconded. And the way most stores are laid out is analogous to a GUI
anyway. You see what's available with your eyes and pick and choose what
you want based on what you see.
...or just ask the clerk.
Quite often this is the only way you are going to get what you want
in any timely sort of fashion (if at all).
Post by Ben
Besides that, speaking in a natural language with another human being is
quite different to learning to interact with a CLI.
Not really. With any context you need to learn the jargon and the
ettiquite in question.
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI, and
using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where something is.
If using the CLI for everything was perfectly natural to most human
beings, then computers wouldn't have only kicked off when GUIs became
standard components of the operating system, Microsoft wouldn't have 95%
of the OS market, and Ubuntu wouldn't be the most popular Linux
distribution today.

The CLI is natural to those who are technically minded, not to the
average user, something I'm re-hashing from the a.o.l.ubuntu newsgroup.
Ezekiel
2008-07-15 18:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
Post by Bob
Someone elsewhere once said,
"The CLI is more intuitive and natural to human beings. When you go
into a shop which would you prefer : to say "I would like x please" or
to struggle with a GUI of list boxes, entry boxes, radio buttons, check
buttons etc etc?"
Balderdash, unless that someone happens to be a savant, in which case
it's merely highly improbable
When I know exactly what I want I'm happy to simply walk into a store
and ask for it; without needing to know the stock number.
However
If I knew what outcome I wanted, but didn't have a clue about the best
way to get there, I would walk straight out of a store if the owner
recited an incomprehensible list of stock numbers at me; before looking
at his watch and asking how many I wanted.
Seconded. And the way most stores are laid out is analogous to a GUI
anyway. You see what's available with your eyes and pick and choose what
you want based on what you see.
...or just ask the clerk.
Quite often this is the only way you are going to get what you want
in any timely sort of fashion (if at all).
Post by Ben
Besides that, speaking in a natural language with another human being is
quite different to learning to interact with a CLI.
Not really. With any context you need to learn the jargon and the
ettiquite in question.
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI, and
using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where something is.
If using the CLI for everything was perfectly natural to most human
beings, then computers wouldn't have only kicked off when GUIs became
standard components of the operating system, Microsoft wouldn't have 95%
of the OS market, and Ubuntu wouldn't be the most popular Linux
distribution today.
The CLI is natural to those who are technically minded, not to the average
user, something I'm re-hashing from the a.o.l.ubuntu newsgroup.
The CLI is *not* natural to anyone. It is more efficient to someone who has
spent years working with and memorizing archane commands like (mv, grep,
awk, etc) but there is no way, no how that these commands and numerous
switches/options are "intuitive" or "natural" to anyone.




** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
JEDIDIAH
2008-07-15 19:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
Post by Bob
Someone elsewhere once said,
"The CLI is more intuitive and natural to human beings. When you go
into a shop which would you prefer : to say "I would like x please" or
to struggle with a GUI of list boxes, entry boxes, radio buttons, check
buttons etc etc?"
Balderdash, unless that someone happens to be a savant, in which case
it's merely highly improbable
When I know exactly what I want I'm happy to simply walk into a store
and ask for it; without needing to know the stock number.
However
If I knew what outcome I wanted, but didn't have a clue about the best
way to get there, I would walk straight out of a store if the owner
recited an incomprehensible list of stock numbers at me; before looking
at his watch and asking how many I wanted.
Seconded. And the way most stores are laid out is analogous to a GUI
anyway. You see what's available with your eyes and pick and choose what
you want based on what you see.
...or just ask the clerk.
Quite often this is the only way you are going to get what you want
in any timely sort of fashion (if at all).
Post by Ben
Besides that, speaking in a natural language with another human being is
quite different to learning to interact with a CLI.
Not really. With any context you need to learn the jargon and the
ettiquite in question.
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI, and
using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where something is.
It's not necessarily that simple.

You have to know WHAT to ask for and HOW to ask for it.

I had that very problem in a home improvement store lately.
Post by Ben
If using the CLI for everything was perfectly natural to most human
beings, then computers wouldn't have only kicked off when GUIs became
standard components of the operating system, Microsoft wouldn't have 95%
Neither is necessarily "natural". That's just a load of propaganda.
Post by Ben
of the OS market, and Ubuntu wouldn't be the most popular Linux
distribution today.
The CLI is natural to those who are technically minded, not to the
average user, something I'm re-hashing from the a.o.l.ubuntu newsgroup.
For an "average user", a GUI is not necessarily any more natural.

Photoshop & GIMP are great examples of this...
--
Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
both at the same time was something worth patenting.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Ezekiel
2008-07-15 19:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
The CLI is natural to those who are technically minded, not to the
average user, something I'm re-hashing from the a.o.l.ubuntu newsgroup.
For an "average user", a GUI is not necessarily any more natural.
Photoshop & GIMP are great examples of this...
Great example that illustrate's his point. Do tell how "intuitive" and
"natural" it would be to do image processing (ala Photoshop & GIMP) from the
command line. Because what you're saying is that a complex tool is still
complex when you put a GUI on it. Unless you can show that it's easier with
a CLI then the GUI *is* simpler and more natural for people to use.




** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
JEDIDIAH
2008-07-15 20:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ezekiel
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
The CLI is natural to those who are technically minded, not to the
average user, something I'm re-hashing from the a.o.l.ubuntu newsgroup.
For an "average user", a GUI is not necessarily any more natural.
Photoshop & GIMP are great examples of this...
Great example that illustrate's his point. Do tell how "intuitive" and
"natural" it would be to do image processing (ala Photoshop & GIMP) from the
command line. Because what you're saying is that a complex tool is still
That wasn't quite my point but it's funny you should mention this since
many graphical applications (for windows or Linux) have fully enabled
CLI or scripting facilties built into them so that advanced expert users
can specify exactly what they want rather than trying to aim at a screen
with a mouse.
Post by Ezekiel
complex when you put a GUI on it. Unless you can show that it's easier with
a CLI then the GUI *is* simpler and more natural for people to use.
--
Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
both at the same time was something worth patenting.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Ezekiel
2008-07-15 20:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ezekiel
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
The CLI is natural to those who are technically minded, not to the
average user, something I'm re-hashing from the a.o.l.ubuntu newsgroup.
For an "average user", a GUI is not necessarily any more natural.
Photoshop & GIMP are great examples of this...
Great example that illustrate's his point. Do tell how "intuitive" and
"natural" it would be to do image processing (ala Photoshop & GIMP) from the
command line. Because what you're saying is that a complex tool is still
That wasn't quite my point but it's funny you should mention this since
many graphical applications (for windows or Linux) have fully enabled
CLI or scripting facilties built into them so that advanced expert users
can specify exactly what they want rather than trying to aim at a screen
with a mouse.
Not really. I have one of these apps and have used the scripting. It's
primarily used for "batch" operations. You want to resize a bunch of images.
You want to apply some filter to a bunch of images. You want to add a
"watermark" to a bunch of images.

Scripting is all but useless for actual "image editing" as what would be
done when someone aims at the screen with a mouse. Or perhaps you could
explain how users who write these scripts would happen to know the exact X,Y
coordinates of where they want to make their edits? Scripting isn't for
image editing... it's for batch processing.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ezekiel
complex when you put a GUI on it. Unless you can show that it's easier with
a CLI then the GUI *is* simpler and more natural for people to use.
--
Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
both at the same time was something worth patenting.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Bob
2008-07-15 20:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ezekiel
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
The CLI is natural to those who are technically minded, not to the
average user, something I'm re-hashing from the a.o.l.ubuntu newsgroup.
For an "average user", a GUI is not necessarily any more natural.
Photoshop & GIMP are great examples of this...
Great example that illustrate's his point. Do tell how "intuitive" and
"natural" it would be to do image processing (ala Photoshop & GIMP) from the
command line. Because what you're saying is that a complex tool is still
That wasn't quite my point but it's funny you should mention this since
many graphical applications (for windows or Linux) have fully enabled
CLI or scripting facilties built into them so that advanced expert users
can specify exactly what they want rather than trying to aim at a screen
with a mouse.
Its funny you should mention that. What else was there *before*
Microsoft kidnapped that mouse: And what made it breed faster than rabbits?
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ezekiel
complex when you put a GUI on it. Unless you can show that it's easier with
a CLI then the GUI *is* simpler and more natural for people to use.
--
Bob
Calling alcoholism 'a disease' is
the politically correct substitute for 'a self induced insanity.'
JEDIDIAH
2008-07-15 21:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ezekiel
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
The CLI is natural to those who are technically minded, not to the
average user, something I'm re-hashing from the a.o.l.ubuntu newsgroup.
For an "average user", a GUI is not necessarily any more natural.
Photoshop & GIMP are great examples of this...
Great example that illustrate's his point. Do tell how "intuitive" and
"natural" it would be to do image processing (ala Photoshop & GIMP) from the
command line. Because what you're saying is that a complex tool is still
That wasn't quite my point but it's funny you should mention this since
many graphical applications (for windows or Linux) have fully enabled
CLI or scripting facilties built into them so that advanced expert users
can specify exactly what they want rather than trying to aim at a screen
with a mouse.
Its funny you should mention that. What else was there *before*
Microsoft kidnapped that mouse: And what made it breed faster than rabbits?
Plenty.

Microsoft was pretty much the LAST company to give any respect to the
mouse. I used my first mouse driven application on the Apple II.
Post by Bob
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ezekiel
complex when you put a GUI on it. Unless you can show that it's easier with
a CLI then the GUI *is* simpler and more natural for people to use.
--
Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
both at the same time was something worth patenting.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Bob
2008-07-15 20:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
Post by Bob
Someone elsewhere once said,
"The CLI is more intuitive and natural to human beings. When
you go into a shop which would you prefer : to say "I would
like x please" or to struggle with a GUI of list boxes,
entry boxes, radio buttons, check buttons etc etc?"
Balderdash, unless that someone happens to be a savant, in
which case it's merely highly improbable
When I know exactly what I want I'm happy to simply walk into
a store and ask for it; without needing to know the stock
number.
However
If I knew what outcome I wanted, but didn't have a clue about
the best way to get there, I would walk straight out of a
store if the owner recited an incomprehensible list of stock
numbers at me; before looking at his watch and asking how
many I wanted.
Seconded. And the way most stores are laid out is analogous to
a GUI anyway. You see what's available with your eyes and pick
and choose what you want based on what you see.
...or just ask the clerk.
Quite often this is the only way you are going to get what you
want in any timely sort of fashion (if at all).
Post by Ben
Besides that, speaking in a natural language with another human
being is quite different to learning to interact with a CLI.
Not really. With any context you need to learn the jargon and the
ettiquite in question.
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
It's not necessarily that simple.
You have to know WHAT to ask for and HOW to ask for it.
I had that very problem in a home improvement store lately.
Regardless of choice of method being cli or gui, without the OS
expertise *and* communication skills necessary to quickly ascertain the
op's needs, as distinct from often imaginary wants; either methodology
can be equally frustrating to all.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
If using the CLI for everything was perfectly natural to most human
beings, then computers wouldn't have only kicked off when GUIs
became standard components of the operating system, Microsoft
wouldn't have 95%
Neither is necessarily "natural". That's just a load of propaganda.
Post by Ben
of the OS market, and Ubuntu wouldn't be the most popular Linux
distribution today.
The CLI is natural to those who are technically minded, not to the
average user, something I'm re-hashing from the a.o.l.ubuntu
newsgroup.
For an "average user", a GUI is not necessarily any more natural.
Photoshop & GIMP are great examples of this...
Where did the statisticians find these 'average' users, aren't they as
rare as honest politicians?

If the average user field was narrowed to exclude all who dare
click on a help panel, pro cli dogmatism would have a lot more going for it.
--
Bob
Calling alcoholism 'a disease' is
the politically correct substitute for 'a self induced insanity.'
Homer
2008-07-15 23:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
Post by Ben
If using the CLI for everything was perfectly natural to most human
beings, then computers wouldn't have only kicked off when GUIs became
standard components of the operating system,
Really? I was under the impression that GUIs were primarily introduced
to take advantage of multi-tasking features, rather than simply as a
means of arbitrarily replacing the command shell.

If the GUI was the all-perfect replacement for the CLI, then how do you
account for the fact that nearly every GUI ever released also includes a
CLI?

Maybe it's because so many maintenance tasks still require CLI shell
access, and no I'm not talking about Linux, I'm talking about Windows,
specifically the use of regsrv32 to remove DLL registered components for
software that does not provide a proper uninstaller (e.g. Nero Scout),
or using secedit to repair permissions on the interminably broken
Windows registry, or using sfc to restore files lost or corrupted by
Malware (an unfortunately common occurrence under Windows), and hundreds
of other examples.
Post by Ben
Microsoft wouldn't have 95% of the OS market
I think I, the US Department Of Justice, the EU Commission antitrust
investigators, and everyone else in the world with any intelligence
knows exactly why Microsoft has 95% of the market.
Post by Ben
and Ubuntu wouldn't be the most popular Linux distribution today.
Ubuntu is the only GNU/Linux distribution with a GUI?

When did that happen?

Also, I'm sad to hear of the loss of BASH from Ubuntu. Is that a new
feature of Hardy, or is it common to all Ubuntu releases?
Post by Ben
The CLI is natural to those who are technically minded, not to the
average user
The CLI is natural to anyone who wishes to get things done quickly,
without messing around with endless buttons and menus and dialogue
boxes. The CLI is natural to anyone who wishes to perform repetitive
tasks on large numbers of files, that would otherwise take days of
manually clicking "OK" boxes in some GUI equivalent operation. The CLI
is natural to anyone who wishes to create and run scripts that perform a
large and complex range of functions, for which no single GUI equivalent
exists. In short, I simply couldn't use a computer without CLI access.
That goes for both Linux /and/ Windows.
Post by Ben
something I'm re-hashing from the a.o.l.ubuntu newsgroup.
Yes, I can tell.
--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
| armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
| neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
| technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
00:17:37 up 207 days, 20:53, 4 users, load average: 0.10, 0.28, 0.31
Snit
2008-07-15 23:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
If using the CLI for everything was perfectly natural to most human
beings, then computers wouldn't have only kicked off when GUIs became
standard components of the operating system,
Really? I was under the impression that GUIs were primarily introduced
to take advantage of multi-tasking features, rather than simply as a
means of arbitrarily replacing the command shell.
Unix was multitasking with a CLI long before there were GUIs.
Post by Homer
If the GUI was the all-perfect replacement for the CLI, then how do you
account for the fact that nearly every GUI ever released also includes a
CLI?
There is a place for both - they work well *together*. Most people, though,
have no need for the CLI... or should not on a well designed system.
Post by Homer
Maybe it's because so many maintenance tasks still require CLI shell
access, and no I'm not talking about Linux, I'm talking about Windows,
specifically the use of regsrv32 to remove DLL registered components for
software that does not provide a proper uninstaller (e.g. Nero Scout),
or using secedit to repair permissions on the interminably broken
Windows registry, or using sfc to restore files lost or corrupted by
Malware (an unfortunately common occurrence under Windows), and hundreds
of other examples.
Sure - there are lots of things CLIs do very well. They are not as easy to
learn to use but they can be very, very efficient and flexible.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
Microsoft wouldn't have 95% of the OS market
I think I, the US Department Of Justice, the EU Commission antitrust
investigators, and everyone else in the world with any intelligence
knows exactly why Microsoft has 95% of the market.
For many people there is no alternative. Apple does not serve the low end
as well - nor the gamers nor the large business community (though that is
debatable). Linux is not on the radar - it is cheaper, sure, but it is
still a mish-mash of different systems all living on one computer. This
creates a very fragmented user experience - and all too often the programs
on Linux are not designed for the general user... or when they are they are
not designed by *designers* but by programmers.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
and Ubuntu wouldn't be the most popular Linux distribution today.
Ubuntu is the only GNU/Linux distribution with a GUI?
When did that happen?
Also, I'm sad to hear of the loss of BASH from Ubuntu. Is that a new
feature of Hardy, or is it common to all Ubuntu releases?
I think you misunderstood what you read.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
The CLI is natural to those who are technically minded, not to the
average user
The CLI is natural to anyone who wishes to get things done quickly,
Clearly incorrect.
Post by Homer
without messing around with endless buttons and menus and dialogue
boxes. The CLI is natural to anyone who wishes to perform repetitive
tasks on large numbers of files, that would otherwise take days of
manually clicking "OK" boxes in some GUI equivalent operation.
Again clearly incorrect.
Post by Homer
The CLI
is natural to anyone who wishes to create and run scripts that perform a
large and complex range of functions, for which no single GUI equivalent
exists. In short, I simply couldn't use a computer without CLI access.
That goes for both Linux /and/ Windows.
You have a very unrealistic view of what is "natural" to many, many people.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
something I'm re-hashing from the a.o.l.ubuntu newsgroup.
Yes, I can tell.
--
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.
Ben
2008-07-16 00:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Thank you.

For a new user, if they're going to use the CLI they have a few options;

1) Pull up the man pages and try to make heads or tails of it
2) Ask on a forum or Usenet for help
3) Take a tutorial in the CLI, and try and make heads or tails of what
they're told there.

The simple fact is that for the run-of-the-mill user, a GUI presents all
of the options there for them to use and is very straightforward.

A CLI, however, has too many commands to remember, is boring, and they
fear making a mistake, because if they do, there's no GUI option right
there for them to un-check and click ok to revert to the original
configuration, so with the CLI, what do they do?

Go straight back to the forum and copy/paste the CLI's error messages
and get another command to paste into the CLI without remembering anything.

I also highly doubt you can say the CLI is "faster" than a GUI for
average users who turn to a forum for everything they want and wait an
hour for a response.
Snit
2008-07-16 00:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Thank you.
You are welcome.
Post by Ben
For a new user, if they're going to use the CLI they have a few options;
1) Pull up the man pages and try to make heads or tails of it
Man page? Sure - I know what that means and can read them, but for a new
user. Give me a break.
Post by Ben
2) Ask on a forum or Usenet for help
If you even know what that means. How would you? Or do you mean a new user
of CLIs but not new to computers in general?
Post by Ben
3) Take a tutorial in the CLI, and try and make heads or tails of what
they're told there.
Or get a book, take a more formal class, etc.
Post by Ben
The simple fact is that for the run-of-the-mill user, a GUI presents all
of the options there for them to use and is very straightforward.
Well, is *more* straightforward. There is still a lot of learning to do.
The abstract nature of hierarchical directories is a mystery to many users -
even those who have used computers for some time. Heck, even recognizing a
window as a discrete unit is something that is not intuitive. The amount us
techie folks take for granted is amazing.
Post by Ben
A CLI, however, has too many commands to remember, is boring, and they
fear making a mistake, because if they do, there's no GUI option right
there for them to un-check and click ok to revert to the original
configuration, so with the CLI, what do they do?
Panic. :)
Post by Ben
Go straight back to the forum and copy/paste the CLI's error messages
and get another command to paste into the CLI without remembering anything.
Or understanding why. Or knowing if it is safe.
Post by Ben
I also highly doubt you can say the CLI is "faster" than a GUI for
average users who turn to a forum for everything they want and wait an
hour for a response.
A CLI is, for most users, clearly *not* faster. This does not mean that the
CLI is not an incredibly powerful tool for many.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
The Ghost In The Machine
2008-07-16 00:57:39 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ben
<***@gmail.com>
wrote
on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:04:01 +0100
Post by Ben
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Thank you.
For a new user, if they're going to use the CLI they have a few options;
1) Pull up the man pages and try to make heads or tails of it
And how does one "pull up" a manpage? How does one *know*
of a manpage, the 'man' command, or a shell terminal to
execute such a command?

I'll give brownie points to both KDE and Gnome for
providing a help system, but I'm not sure how well
it works.

I'll have to go through the hints to see if they mention
'man' as a command in a terminal. I'm not hopeful.
Post by Ben
2) Ask on a forum or Usenet for help
Good luck, if one can't get on the Internet or doesn't
have a working webbrowser.
Post by Ben
3) Take a tutorial in the CLI, and try and make
heads or tails of what they're told there.
And one might find this tutorial precisely where?
Granted, I could probably find one using Google, and
one hopes for some sanity.
Post by Ben
The simple fact is that for the run-of-the-mill user, a GUI presents all
of the options there for them to use and is very straightforward.
Not always. Microsoft's GUI in particular likes to hide
what it considers irrelevant menu entries. (The user can
retrieve them with a little work.) PCLinuxOS hides
certain button text on one requester, which Snit has already
posted a link to (I'd have to find it, but basically one
button overlaps another).
Post by Ben
A CLI, however, has too many commands to remember, is boring,
I fail to see what "boredom" has to do with this problem.
I need to do something, I look it up.
Post by Ben
and they
fear making a mistake, because if they do, there's no GUI option right
there for them to un-check and click ok to revert to the original
configuration, so with the CLI, what do they do?
Backspace.
Post by Ben
Go straight back to the forum and copy/paste the CLI's error messages
and get another command to paste into the CLI without remembering anything.
I also highly doubt you can say the CLI is "faster" than a GUI for
average users who turn to a forum for everything they want and wait an
hour for a response.
Or can't type.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #11823822:
signal(SIGKILL, catchkill);
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Snit
2008-07-16 01:33:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ben
on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:04:01 +0100
Post by Ben
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Thank you.
For a new user, if they're going to use the CLI they have a few options;
1) Pull up the man pages and try to make heads or tails of it
And how does one "pull up" a manpage? How does one *know*
of a manpage, the 'man' command, or a shell terminal to
execute such a command?
Exactly! And even if one does... well... to many people they are
unintelligible.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
I'll give brownie points to both KDE and Gnome for
providing a help system, but I'm not sure how well
it works.
I'll have to go through the hints to see if they mention
'man' as a command in a terminal. I'm not hopeful.
I would have to play as well. Maybe later.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
2) Ask on a forum or Usenet for help
Good luck, if one can't get on the Internet or doesn't
have a working webbrowser.
Hey, a school once asked me to do an *intro* computer class online. By
Intro I mean the how-to-use-a-mouse level intro.

I told them they were insane. They got someone else to try... and it
flopped. Started with something like 15 students and they *all* dropped out
or stopped all communication within 2 weeks. I was called back to help make
better face to face classes. :)
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
3) Take a tutorial in the CLI, and try and make
heads or tails of what they're told there.
And one might find this tutorial precisely where?
Granted, I could probably find one using Google, and
one hopes for some sanity.
Local computer club? Hire someone?
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
The simple fact is that for the run-of-the-mill user, a GUI presents all
of the options there for them to use and is very straightforward.
Not always. Microsoft's GUI in particular likes to hide
what it considers irrelevant menu entries. (The user can
retrieve them with a little work.) PCLinuxOS hides
certain button text on one requester, which Snit has already
posted a link to (I'd have to find it, but basically one
button overlaps another).
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.pdf>

Even without such silliness as that, many things are "hidden" in a GUI -
there is click, right click, center click (and more if you have more mouse
buttons), click and drag, right click and drag, option/alt click, option/alt
click and drag, alt/option right click and drag... now add the control key
and the shift key and the space bar and *combos* and you come up with an
amazing number of options. Photoshop users will know what I mean. :)

Sure, some of this is made to be "documented" by altering the mouse pointer
icon, but it is still not very discoverable to find all the "switches".
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
A CLI, however, has too many commands to remember, is boring,
I fail to see what "boredom" has to do with this problem.
I need to do something, I look it up.
Post by Ben
and they
fear making a mistake, because if they do, there's no GUI option right
there for them to un-check and click ok to revert to the original
configuration, so with the CLI, what do they do?
Backspace.
But generally no undo.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
Go straight back to the forum and copy/paste the CLI's error messages
and get another command to paste into the CLI without remembering anything.
I also highly doubt you can say the CLI is "faster" than a GUI for
average users who turn to a forum for everything they want and wait an
hour for a response.
Or can't type.
--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein
The Ghost In The Machine
2008-07-16 17:02:27 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
<***@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:33:43 -0700
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ben
on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:04:01 +0100
Post by Ben
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Thank you.
For a new user, if they're going to use the CLI they have a few options;
1) Pull up the man pages and try to make heads or tails of it
And how does one "pull up" a manpage? How does one *know*
of a manpage, the 'man' command, or a shell terminal to
execute such a command?
Exactly! And even if one does... well... to many people they are
unintelligible.
I think the initial intent for 'man' was for shorthand, not a
long-winded expostulation of exactly how that command fits into the
entire scheme of things. To that extent, 'man' works well enough,
though there's always room for improvement, especially now that
there's hyperlink capability.

Ideally, we'd have a 'man' replacement that pulled
up webpages, and the webpages would be written with
cross-references that could simply be clicked on. Certain
efforts such as 'tkman' exist (tkman could be likened
to a custom browser), but we're nowhere near there yet,
and it's not an issue with code development; it's an issue
with good writing and good help page/website development.

For example, how does 'ls' fit in with the directory/file
system? That page needs to be somewhere, in order
to have the user more fully understand why 'ls' shows
certain names. Ideally that directory/file system page
would have links (or chains) to the kernel as well to
explain the ins and outs of Linux's implementation of a
generic file system, with additional links to specific
filesystems such as ext2, ext3, ntfs, and vfat. Of course
many of these will not be for the novice, but the idea is
to provide for both, if we can.

Good documentation is a challenge.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
I'll give brownie points to both KDE and Gnome for
providing a help system, but I'm not sure how well
it works.
I'll have to go through the hints to see if they mention
'man' as a command in a terminal. I'm not hopeful.
I would have to play as well. Maybe later.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
2) Ask on a forum or Usenet for help
Good luck, if one can't get on the Internet or doesn't
have a working webbrowser.
Hey, a school once asked me to do an *intro* computer class online. By
Intro I mean the how-to-use-a-mouse level intro.
Ow. Someone had a serious brain cramp there.
Post by Snit
I told them they were insane. They got someone else to try... and it
flopped. Started with something like 15 students and they *all* dropped out
or stopped all communication within 2 weeks. I was called back to help make
better face to face classes. :)
Indeed.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
3) Take a tutorial in the CLI, and try and make
heads or tails of what they're told there.
And one might find this tutorial precisely where?
Granted, I could probably find one using Google, and
one hopes for some sanity.
Local computer club? Hire someone?
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
The simple fact is that for the run-of-the-mill user, a GUI presents all
of the options there for them to use and is very straightforward.
Not always. Microsoft's GUI in particular likes to hide
what it considers irrelevant menu entries. (The user can
retrieve them with a little work.) PCLinuxOS hides
certain button text on one requester, which Snit has already
posted a link to (I'd have to find it, but basically one
button overlaps another).
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.pdf>
Even without such silliness as that, many things are "hidden" in a GUI -
there is click, right click, center click (and more if you have more mouse
buttons), click and drag, right click and drag, option/alt click, option/alt
click and drag, alt/option right click and drag... now add the control key
and the shift key and the space bar and *combos* and you come up with an
amazing number of options. Photoshop users will know what I mean. :)
You forgot scrollbars. They *inherently* hide something.
Granted, most users will intuit that they need to move
the scrollbar, and with the notable exception of Xaw, the
scrollbar is easily moved by using the left mouse button,
pressing, dragging, and releasing.

The same is the case for popup menus. Granted, your
examples are more insidious (hence the trend to show key
shortcuts in menus as a documentation aid).
Post by Snit
Sure, some of this is made to be "documented" by altering the mouse pointer
icon, but it is still not very discoverable to find all the "switches".
Almost impossible to find switches of that sort and there
are more than 100 of them, and that's before considering
combinations such as CTRL-ALT-DELETE, CTRL-SHIFT-4, and
SHIFT-A followed by CTRL-X.

I don't consider that effective UI, unless they are also
in menu entries.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
A CLI, however, has too many commands to remember, is boring,
I fail to see what "boredom" has to do with this problem.
I need to do something, I look it up.
Post by Ben
and they
fear making a mistake, because if they do, there's no GUI option right
there for them to un-check and click ok to revert to the original
configuration, so with the CLI, what do they do?
Backspace.
But generally no undo.
True. Of course undo is not done at the GUI level anyway;
the closest to an undo a GUI has (that I know about,
anyway) would be Microsoft's scrollbars, which basically
flop back to their original settings if the user moves his
mouse out of the trench/trough. I for one consider such
behavior irritating, but at least it's consistent from a
philosophical standpoint.

AFAIK, most editors implementing GUI use a journal; this
journal has rows each of which refers to an edit instruction.
This is separate from a GUI, though might be supported by
certain OS libraries or (more likely) widget APIs.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
Go straight back to the forum and copy/paste the CLI's error messages
and get another command to paste into the CLI without remembering anything.
I also highly doubt you can say the CLI is "faster" than a GUI for
average users who turn to a forum for everything they want and wait an
hour for a response.
Or can't type.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
important, it's the ability to DO something
with it.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Homer
2008-07-16 06:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
"Discoverable"?

Rubbish. What exactly is there to discover? You know what the word
"find" means, don't you? It's certainly more "discoverable" than
"gnome-search-tool" which isn't even listed in any of the menus (Fedora
8). And then if you do manage to discover gnome-search-tool you (as a
newbie) still have to go read up about "regular expressions" anyway.

Oops, looks like your newbie is stuck. Egads, he might actually have to
/learn/ something. Can't have that. Well, you should know about people
not learning anything, given your "credentials".
Post by Ben
For a new user, if they're going to use the CLI they have a few options;
1) Pull up the man pages and try to make heads or tails of it
Which is presumably your cynical way of implying that newbies are not
merely /new/, but actually too stupid to read.
Post by Ben
2) Ask on a forum or Usenet for help
3) Take a tutorial in the CLI, and try and make heads or tails of
what they're told there.
God forbid they should ever be forced to learn anything.

Maybe you think people should just be able to jump into a car and drive
off, without learning to drive first, too.
Post by Ben
The simple fact is that for the run-of-the-mill user, a GUI presents
all of the options there for them to use and is very
straightforward.
Right, and subsequently remain ignorant for the rest of their natural
lives, because they were too lazy to actually learn anything. And
whenever they're hit by limitations of the GUI, since they are seemingly
unwilling or unable to read simple instructions, they become permanent
fixtures in the help groups, incessantly asking the same stupid
questions over and over again, rather than taking the time to learn
something properly /once/, because their GUI dependence has transformed
them into drooling idiots.
Post by Ben
A CLI, however, has too many commands to remember
That would be /your/ limitation, not the CLI's. If you have such
difficulty remembering things, perhaps you aught to go for a CAT scan,
you may have more serious issues than just reading difficulties.
Post by Ben
is boring
LOL!

Yes, I realise you Ubuntu kids need constant stimuli to compensate for
your short attention span, but frankly I think I'd rather just get some
work done, rather than be distracted by pop-ups reminding me that I need
to press the OK button to continue.
Post by Ben
and they fear making a mistake
Yes, because as everyone knows it's impossible to destroy a system using
the GUI. Oh, but wait ... if that were true then that would mean the CLI
can do something the GUI can't, and that's obviously not right, since
the GUI can Do Everything®. And not only does it Do Everything®, but it
does it all for you without you even needing to think, which is probably
just as well, since some people seem to completely lack that capacity.
Post by Ben
because if they do, there's no GUI option right there for them to
un-check and click ok to revert to the original configuration, so
with the CLI, what do they do?
It's called backspace. It's on that big; confusing thing called a
keyboard. Those square blobby things are called keys. They have numbers
and letters and funny-looking symbols on them. If you stare at the
keyboard for a long time, you might find the backspace key. Then again,
you might just get dizzy and pass out.
Post by Ben
Go straight back to the forum and copy/paste the CLI's error messages
Thankfully such software does actually produce useful output to
facilitate diagnosis. God help you if you have to diagnose problems with
a GUI "app". Good luck explaining to your newbie that he has to install
the debug package first to restore the debugging symbols (which are
usually stripped out for efficiency), and then install gdb and/or
strace. Of course he could always examine the log file ... if he can
find it (back to the CLI). Maybe the "app" actually produces verbose
output, if launched from the CLI (oh-oh, there's that CLI again). Then
again, maybe he'll get lucky and have a "perfect" system, where no GUI
"app" ever fails for any reason ... ever.

Wouldn't that be great? Then he could spend the rest of his life
drooling over his keyboard. Well at least he'll actually find a /use/
for his keyboard, which I suppose is /something/ to be grateful for.
Post by Ben
and get another command to paste into the CLI without remembering anything.
What's to remember? You might need to sit down for this one, as it's a
bit of a shocker, but apparently Linux can multitask and X11 can have
more than one window open at the same time, thus enabling you to have
both your browser *and* your BASH prompt open at the same time. Yes, I
know it's hard to believe, but you can even read the Web page at the
same time as typing into the CLI. I know, it amazed me too.
Post by Ben
I also highly doubt you can say the CLI is "faster" than a GUI
You have many doubts, that for sure. Your biggest one seems to revolve
around your expectations of other people's abilities. I have my doubts
too, but most of mine revolve around the universal pertinence of yours.
Post by Ben
for average users
Wait a minute, I thought you were talking about /newbies/. So now you've
downgraded even /average/ users to the status of idiots too, have you?

The fact is that the CLI is not (despite your misapprehension) exactly
rocket science, and I am not some CLI God, but rather it is /you/ and
your army of sheep who seem to be floating somewhere below the water margin.
Post by Ben
who turn to a forum for everything they want
Yes, it's a bummer when everything in life isn't just handed to you on a
plate, isn't it?
Post by Ben
and wait an hour for a response.
It must be excruciating, especially with all that tantalising knowledge
just sitting there at your fingertips, desperately yearning to be read,
and yet you just sit there, like a lemon.
--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
| armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
| neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
| technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
07:43:52 up 208 days, 4:19, 4 users, load average: 0.20, 0.33, 0.35
JEDIDIAH
2008-07-16 15:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
"Discoverable"?
Rubbish. What exactly is there to discover? You know what the word
"find" means, don't you? It's certainly more "discoverable" than
"gnome-search-tool" which isn't even listed in any of the menus (Fedora
8). And then if you do manage to discover gnome-search-tool you (as a
newbie) still have to go read up about "regular expressions" anyway.
Fedora isn't exactly the paragon here... Bad example.

[deletia]
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
1) Pull up the man pages and try to make heads or tails of it
Which is presumably your cynical way of implying that newbies are not
merely /new/, but actually too stupid to read.
man is all you need... man, man,man
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
2) Ask on a forum or Usenet for help
3) Take a tutorial in the CLI, and try and make heads or tails of
what they're told there.
God forbid they should ever be forced to learn anything.
They might have to go to the library or bookstore an get a BOOK.

Heaven forbid.

BTW, there are 20 year old Unix books that will be more than suitable.
Post by Homer
Maybe you think people should just be able to jump into a car and drive
off, without learning to drive first, too.
Post by Ben
The simple fact is that for the run-of-the-mill user, a GUI presents
all of the options there for them to use and is very
straightforward.
Right, and subsequently remain ignorant for the rest of their natural
lives, because they were too lazy to actually learn anything. And
Yup.

[deletia]
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
A CLI, however, has too many commands to remember
You can say the same of GUI's in general.

There's far more "out there" than just what's intalled on your
sytsem. If you really want to achieve your full potential with
the machine you have to go out and look for stuff.

It's different from a documentation hunt really...

[deletia]

The crux of the matter is that the GUI has FAILED. It has FAILED
to create users that are empowered to explore the system and what
their other option are and realize the full potential of their
machine.

That is why Apple "just bundles it all" now.

Finding your own movie editor would be just too much trouble for the
average user.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Snit
2008-07-16 15:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
"Discoverable"?
Yes. No need to figure out what word to type... no need to know there even
is a "magic" word to type.
Post by Homer
Rubbish. What exactly is there to discover? You know what the word
"find" means, don't you? It's certainly more "discoverable" than
"gnome-search-tool" which isn't even listed in any of the menus (Fedora
8). And then if you do manage to discover gnome-search-tool you (as a
newbie) still have to go read up about "regular expressions" anyway.
One does not need to use a regular expression to use a GUI... at least not
in general.

Most users will *never* use a regular expression. Never.
Post by Homer
Oops, looks like your newbie is stuck. Egads, he might actually have to
/learn/ something. Can't have that. Well, you should know about people
not learning anything, given your "credentials".
And when you sink to personal insults you show your lack of faith in your
argument.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
For a new user, if they're going to use the CLI they have a few options;
1) Pull up the man pages and try to make heads or tails of it
Which is presumably your cynical way of implying that newbies are not
merely /new/, but actually too stupid to read.
You are now calling people who do not get "man" pages "stupid". This
removes any credibility you think you might have had. Really.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
2) Ask on a forum or Usenet for help
3) Take a tutorial in the CLI, and try and make heads or tails of
what they're told there.
God forbid they should ever be forced to learn anything.
Maybe you think people should just be able to jump into a car and drive
off, without learning to drive first, too.
Again your elitism is noted... but at least you acknowledge that your
solution requires significant learning - presumably more than the
alternative (a GUI), hence showing you largely agree with the point you are
arguing against.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
The simple fact is that for the run-of-the-mill user, a GUI presents
all of the options there for them to use and is very
straightforward.
Right, and subsequently remain ignorant for the rest of their natural
lives, because they were too lazy to actually learn anything.
What an absurd thing to say... as if people have some obligation to become
geeks. Get over it.
Post by Homer
And whenever they're hit by limitations of the GUI, since they are seemingly
unwilling or unable to read simple instructions, they become permanent
fixtures in the help groups, incessantly asking the same stupid questions over
and over again, rather than taking the time to learn something properly
/once/, because their GUI dependence has transformed them into drooling
idiots.
Most users never get "hit" by the limitations of a GUI ... at least not to
the extent where it is worth their becoming geeks.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
A CLI, however, has too many commands to remember
That would be /your/ limitation, not the CLI's. If you have such
difficulty remembering things, perhaps you aught to go for a CAT scan,
you may have more serious issues than just reading difficulties.
Again your elitism and lack of understanding of how much it takes to learn a
CLI is noted.

Whatever... you are boring. I stopped reading your drivel.
...
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Ghost In The Machine
2008-07-16 17:37:50 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Homer
<***@slated.org>
wrote
on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:44:14 +0100
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
"Discoverable"?
Rubbish. What exactly is there to discover? You know what the word
"find" means, don't you?
No, I don't. Granted, the word is suggestive, but in
English, it's used as a verb. Some ad hoc examples:

"I find your lack of faith disturbing" -- Darth Vader
"I'm trying to find the remote".
"I couldn't find the spaceport." -- The Kruton Interface (Ensign
Warner-Hillary, who was supposed to be the navigator
on the U.S.S. Repulse)
"Find those Gelflings! Now!" -- The Dark Crystal

There are also the usual derivative forms such as "found",
"finding", "finder", or one who has found something.
(Just to confuse things, "founder" means something a little
different, though it might be related to a company founder
finding a niche market to make a profit in. I'd have to look. [*])

In Unix, it has an entirely different syntax, and there
are no derivative forms as such. English doesn't have
switches, but the Unix/Linux find has plenty of them:

$ find . -type f -name '*.jpg'
$ find . -type f -iname '*.jpg'
$ find . -mtime -3 -iregex '.*\.jpg'
$ find . -exec /usr/local/bin/fancyfilter.sh \; -printf "%h %p %s"

-iname is like -name except that the match is done case insensitively;
-regex and -iregex use regular expressions rather than globs.
-exec runs an arbitrary program with the filepath as a single argument,
and it can return 0 or not return 0.
-printf has a syntax all its own.

For more details, consult 'man find', as opposed to an English
dictionary. ;-) If you're very lucky you have the same version
I do. Of course that falls under your (1) option above,
which is fine.

In Windows, "find" doesn't even exist unless one has
installed third party software such as Cygwin or SFU.
It's called "search", and that's assuming one even uses
it nowadays, as opposed to clicking on the cute little
puppy dog.

(It's things like "find" vs. "search" that drove me
crazy when using Apollo DOMAIN's DomainOS; the system
was just close enough to Unix, and just different enough,
to be annoying.)

Now, contrast that to a well-crafted GUI with a button
marked "find". Similar if less complicated problems ensue;
that button has a suggestive but rather generic word on it.
Does one know the format of the output it will generate?
But at least here, he can see the button, absent scrolling
issues; at the '$ ' prompt, the user doesn't see "find",
though he might be able to search for find if he knows about
and uses double-tab, which on my system works but generates a
large amount of output, maybe 2000 lines worth.

Both could use external documentation, but in the case of
the button the user might get by without it, especially
with so-called "balloon help". Of course the very general
notion of locating, seeking, or searching still exists.
Post by Homer
It's certainly more "discoverable" than
"gnome-search-tool" which isn't even listed in any of the menus (Fedora
8). And then if you do manage to discover gnome-search-tool you (as a
newbie) still have to go read up about "regular expressions" anyway.
Find has globs. My version of find also has -regex.
Post by Homer
Oops, looks like your newbie is stuck. Egads, he might actually have to
/learn/ something. Can't have that. Well, you should know about people
not learning anything, given your "credentials".
Post by Ben
For a new user, if they're going to use the CLI they have a few options;
1) Pull up the man pages and try to make heads or tails of it
Which is presumably your cynical way of implying that newbies are not
merely /new/, but actually too stupid to read.
Depends on how well the manpages are written. Find's
manpage in particular is a little confusing in the
second paragraph; where does one find the "findutils"
documentation? The "SEE ALSO" section does hint that one
can find it online but doesn't give a URL. Most of the
rest of it's OK, if a little terse in spots.

One can of course Google.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
2) Ask on a forum or Usenet for help
3) Take a tutorial in the CLI, and try and make heads or tails of
what they're told there.
God forbid they should ever be forced to learn anything.
One would hope that they already know, but that's not
always a given, especially in locales such as an elementary
school class.
Post by Homer
Maybe you think people should just be able to jump into a car and drive
off, without learning to drive first, too.
And how does one learn how to drive? One either reads a
book, asks on a forum for relevant info, or takes a driving
course (maybe informally through Mom and Dad, or a more
formal class on the basics; most likely a mixture of both).
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
The simple fact is that for the run-of-the-mill user, a GUI presents
all of the options there for them to use and is very
straightforward.
Right, and subsequently remain ignorant for the rest of their natural
lives, because they were too lazy to actually learn anything. And
whenever they're hit by limitations of the GUI, since they are seemingly
unwilling or unable to read simple instructions, they become permanent
fixtures in the help groups, incessantly asking the same stupid
questions over and over again, rather than taking the time to learn
something properly /once/, because their GUI dependence has transformed
them into drooling idiots.
A point, indeed. Admittedly, I'd just as soon the CLI and GUI
work together anyway, but I've seen a fair number of attempts;
none of them quite cut it.

Of course a GUI is better for certain graphical operations (e.g.,
entering a polygon, drawing a picture), and a CLI better
for certain scripting operations, especially if one can
chain commands together into a script oneself -- trivial to do
in Bash.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
A CLI, however, has too many commands to remember
That would be /your/ limitation, not the CLI's. If you have such
difficulty remembering things, perhaps you aught to go for a CAT scan,
you may have more serious issues than just reading difficulties.
That's also what 'apropos' or Google are for.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
is boring
LOL!
Yes, I realise you Ubuntu kids
?
Post by Homer
need constant stimuli to compensate for
your short attention span, but frankly I think I'd rather just get some
work done, rather than be distracted by pop-ups reminding me that I need
to press the OK button to continue.
Post by Ben
and they fear making a mistake
Yes, because as everyone knows it's impossible to destroy a system using
the GUI. Oh, but wait ... if that were true then that would mean the CLI
can do something the GUI can't, and that's obviously not right, since
the GUI can Do Everything®. And not only does it Do Everything®, but it
does it all for you without you even needing to think, which is probably
just as well, since some people seem to completely lack that capacity.
Post by Ben
because if they do, there's no GUI option right there for them to
un-check and click ok to revert to the original configuration, so
with the CLI, what do they do?
It's called backspace. It's on that big; confusing thing called a
keyboard. Those square blobby things are called keys. They have numbers
and letters and funny-looking symbols on them. If you stare at the
keyboard for a long time, you might find the backspace key. Then again,
you might just get dizzy and pass out.
Post by Ben
Go straight back to the forum and copy/paste the CLI's error messages
Thankfully such software does actually produce useful output to
facilitate diagnosis.
If you're lucky. Granted, the chances are higher than with
a GUI whose window simply vanishes for no apparent reason
because of a program crash. Of course the same could
happen with a CLI program which dies because of a segmentation
violation; it's the *shell* that prints out that happy little
message, if I'm not mistaken. (It gets a termination code
from wait().)
Post by Homer
God help you if you have to diagnose problems with
a GUI "app". Good luck explaining to your newbie that he has to install
the debug package first to restore the debugging symbols (which are
usually stripped out for efficiency), and then install gdb and/or
strace. Of course he could always examine the log file ... if he can
find it (back to the CLI). Maybe the "app" actually produces verbose
output, if launched from the CLI (oh-oh, there's that CLI again). Then
again, maybe he'll get lucky and have a "perfect" system, where no GUI
"app" ever fails for any reason ... ever.
Wouldn't that be great? Then he could spend the rest of his life
drooling over his keyboard. Well at least he'll actually find a /use/
for his keyboard, which I suppose is /something/ to be grateful for.
Post by Ben
and get another command to paste into the CLI without remembering anything.
What's to remember? You might need to sit down for this one, as it's a
bit of a shocker, but apparently Linux can multitask and X11 can have
more than one window open at the same time, thus enabling you to have
both your browser *and* your BASH prompt open at the same time.
Depending on screen resolution.
Post by Homer
Yes, I
know it's hard to believe, but you can even read the Web page at the
same time as typing into the CLI. I know, it amazed me too.
Post by Ben
I also highly doubt you can say the CLI is "faster" than a GUI
You have many doubts, that for sure. Your biggest one seems to revolve
around your expectations of other people's abilities. I have my doubts
too, but most of mine revolve around the universal pertinence of yours.
Post by Ben
for average users
Wait a minute, I thought you were talking about /newbies/. So now you've
downgraded even /average/ users to the status of idiots too, have you?
The fact is that the CLI is not (despite your misapprehension) exactly
rocket science, and I am not some CLI God, but rather it is /you/ and
your army of sheep who seem to be floating somewhere below the water margin.
Post by Ben
who turn to a forum for everything they want
Yes, it's a bummer when everything in life isn't just handed to you on a
plate, isn't it?
Post by Ben
and wait an hour for a response.
It must be excruciating, especially with all that tantalising knowledge
just sitting there at your fingertips, desperately yearning to be read,
and yet you just sit there, like a lemon.
[*] other languages get even weirder; German in particular
sticks endings on verbs and can construct nouns from entire
subsentences.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129:
std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)
if(*i == thing) {...}
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Hadron
2008-07-16 18:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Homer
on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:44:14 +0100
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
"Discoverable"?
Rubbish. What exactly is there to discover? You know what the word
"find" means, don't you?
No, I don't. Granted, the word is suggestive, but in
"I find your lack of faith disturbing" -- Darth Vader
"I'm trying to find the remote".
"I couldn't find the spaceport." -- The Kruton Interface (Ensign
Warner-Hillary, who was supposed to be the navigator
on the U.S.S. Repulse)
"Find those Gelflings! Now!" -- The Dark Crystal
There are also the usual derivative forms such as "found",
"finding", "finder", or one who has found something.
(Just to confuse things, "founder" means something a little
different, though it might be related to a company founder
finding a niche market to make a profit in. I'd have to look. [*])
In Unix, it has an entirely different syntax, and there
are no derivative forms as such. English doesn't have
$ find . -type f -name '*.jpg'
$ find . -type f -iname '*.jpg'
$ find . -mtime -3 -iregex '.*\.jpg'
$ find . -exec /usr/local/bin/fancyfilter.sh \; -printf "%h %p %s"
-iname is like -name except that the match is done case insensitively;
-regex and -iregex use regular expressions rather than globs.
-exec runs an arbitrary program with the filepath as a single argument,
and it can return 0 or not return 0.
-printf has a syntax all its own.
For more details, consult 'man find', as opposed to an English
dictionary. ;-) If you're very lucky you have the same version
I do. Of course that falls under your (1) option above,
which is fine.
In Windows, "find" doesn't even exist unless one has
installed third party software such as Cygwin or SFU.
It's called "search", and that's assuming one even uses
it nowadays, as opposed to clicking on the cute little
puppy dog.
(It's things like "find" vs. "search" that drove me
crazy when using Apollo DOMAIN's DomainOS; the system
was just close enough to Unix, and just different enough,
to be annoying.)
Now, contrast that to a well-crafted GUI with a button
marked "find". Similar if less complicated problems ensue;
that button has a suggestive but rather generic word on it.
Does one know the format of the output it will generate?
But at least here, he can see the button, absent scrolling
issues; at the '$ ' prompt, the user doesn't see "find",
though he might be able to search for find if he knows about
and uses double-tab, which on my system works but generates a
large amount of output, maybe 2000 lines worth.
Both could use external documentation, but in the case of
the button the user might get by without it, especially
with so-called "balloon help". Of course the very general
notion of locating, seeking, or searching still exists.
Post by Homer
It's certainly more "discoverable" than
"gnome-search-tool" which isn't even listed in any of the menus (Fedora
8). And then if you do manage to discover gnome-search-tool you (as a
newbie) still have to go read up about "regular expressions" anyway.
Find has globs. My version of find also has -regex.
Post by Homer
Oops, looks like your newbie is stuck. Egads, he might actually have to
/learn/ something. Can't have that. Well, you should know about people
not learning anything, given your "credentials".
Post by Ben
For a new user, if they're going to use the CLI they have a few options;
1) Pull up the man pages and try to make heads or tails of it
Which is presumably your cynical way of implying that newbies are not
merely /new/, but actually too stupid to read.
Depends on how well the manpages are written. Find's
manpage in particular is a little confusing in the
second paragraph; where does one find the "findutils"
documentation? The "SEE ALSO" section does hint that one
can find it online but doesn't give a URL. Most of the
rest of it's OK, if a little terse in spots.
One can of course Google.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
2) Ask on a forum or Usenet for help
3) Take a tutorial in the CLI, and try and make heads or tails of
what they're told there.
God forbid they should ever be forced to learn anything.
One would hope that they already know, but that's not
always a given, especially in locales such as an elementary
school class.
Post by Homer
Maybe you think people should just be able to jump into a car and drive
off, without learning to drive first, too.
And how does one learn how to drive? One either reads a
book, asks on a forum for relevant info, or takes a driving
course (maybe informally through Mom and Dad, or a more
formal class on the basics; most likely a mixture of both).
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
The simple fact is that for the run-of-the-mill user, a GUI presents
all of the options there for them to use and is very
straightforward.
Right, and subsequently remain ignorant for the rest of their natural
lives, because they were too lazy to actually learn anything. And
whenever they're hit by limitations of the GUI, since they are seemingly
unwilling or unable to read simple instructions, they become permanent
fixtures in the help groups, incessantly asking the same stupid
questions over and over again, rather than taking the time to learn
something properly /once/, because their GUI dependence has transformed
them into drooling idiots.
A point, indeed. Admittedly, I'd just as soon the CLI and GUI
work together anyway, but I've seen a fair number of attempts;
none of them quite cut it.
Of course a GUI is better for certain graphical operations (e.g.,
entering a polygon, drawing a picture), and a CLI better
for certain scripting operations, especially if one can
chain commands together into a script oneself -- trivial to do
in Bash.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
A CLI, however, has too many commands to remember
That would be /your/ limitation, not the CLI's. If you have such
difficulty remembering things, perhaps you aught to go for a CAT scan,
you may have more serious issues than just reading difficulties.
That's also what 'apropos' or Google are for.
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
is boring
LOL!
Yes, I realise you Ubuntu kids
?
Post by Homer
need constant stimuli to compensate for
your short attention span, but frankly I think I'd rather just get some
work done, rather than be distracted by pop-ups reminding me that I need
to press the OK button to continue.
Post by Ben
and they fear making a mistake
Yes, because as everyone knows it's impossible to destroy a system using
the GUI. Oh, but wait ... if that were true then that would mean the CLI
can do something the GUI can't, and that's obviously not right, since
the GUI can Do Everything®. And not only does it Do Everything®, but it
does it all for you without you even needing to think, which is probably
just as well, since some people seem to completely lack that capacity.
Post by Ben
because if they do, there's no GUI option right there for them to
un-check and click ok to revert to the original configuration, so
with the CLI, what do they do?
It's called backspace. It's on that big; confusing thing called a
keyboard. Those square blobby things are called keys. They have numbers
and letters and funny-looking symbols on them. If you stare at the
keyboard for a long time, you might find the backspace key. Then again,
you might just get dizzy and pass out.
Post by Ben
Go straight back to the forum and copy/paste the CLI's error messages
Thankfully such software does actually produce useful output to
facilitate diagnosis.
If you're lucky. Granted, the chances are higher than with
a GUI whose window simply vanishes for no apparent reason
because of a program crash. Of course the same could
happen with a CLI program which dies because of a segmentation
violation; it's the *shell* that prints out that happy little
message, if I'm not mistaken. (It gets a termination code
from wait().)
Post by Homer
God help you if you have to diagnose problems with
a GUI "app". Good luck explaining to your newbie that he has to install
the debug package first to restore the debugging symbols (which are
usually stripped out for efficiency), and then install gdb and/or
strace. Of course he could always examine the log file ... if he can
find it (back to the CLI). Maybe the "app" actually produces verbose
output, if launched from the CLI (oh-oh, there's that CLI again). Then
again, maybe he'll get lucky and have a "perfect" system, where no GUI
"app" ever fails for any reason ... ever.
Wouldn't that be great? Then he could spend the rest of his life
drooling over his keyboard. Well at least he'll actually find a /use/
for his keyboard, which I suppose is /something/ to be grateful for.
Post by Ben
and get another command to paste into the CLI without remembering anything.
What's to remember? You might need to sit down for this one, as it's a
bit of a shocker, but apparently Linux can multitask and X11 can have
more than one window open at the same time, thus enabling you to have
both your browser *and* your BASH prompt open at the same time.
Depending on screen resolution.
Post by Homer
Yes, I
know it's hard to believe, but you can even read the Web page at the
same time as typing into the CLI. I know, it amazed me too.
Post by Ben
I also highly doubt you can say the CLI is "faster" than a GUI
You have many doubts, that for sure. Your biggest one seems to revolve
around your expectations of other people's abilities. I have my doubts
too, but most of mine revolve around the universal pertinence of yours.
Post by Ben
for average users
Wait a minute, I thought you were talking about /newbies/. So now you've
downgraded even /average/ users to the status of idiots too, have you?
The fact is that the CLI is not (despite your misapprehension) exactly
rocket science, and I am not some CLI God, but rather it is /you/ and
your army of sheep who seem to be floating somewhere below the water margin.
Post by Ben
who turn to a forum for everything they want
Yes, it's a bummer when everything in life isn't just handed to you on a
plate, isn't it?
Post by Ben
and wait an hour for a response.
It must be excruciating, especially with all that tantalising knowledge
just sitting there at your fingertips, desperately yearning to be read,
and yet you just sit there, like a lemon.
[*] other languages get even weirder; German in particular
sticks endings on verbs and can construct nouns from entire
subsentences.
That was an awful lot of text to point out that Homer and Halliwell are
idiots and most users simply prefer GUIs when they are properly
designed. As Rick acknowledges, the less fractured they are then the
better they are too.
The Ghost In The Machine
2008-07-16 19:27:19 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron
<***@googlemail.com>
wrote
on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:08:46 +0200
[my text snipped for brevity]
Post by Hadron
That was an awful lot of text to point out that Homer and Halliwell are
idiots and most users simply prefer GUIs when they are properly
designed.
And you had to include all of it, didn't you? :-P
Nevertheless, it is clear that someone here doesn't quite get it
when it comes to user interface.

Maybe it's me. ;-)
Post by Hadron
As Rick acknowledges, the less fractured they are then the
better they are too.
It's a tradeoff. I frankly don't know how to characterize
it properly, but in warfare there's a concept known as
acquiring one's target; presumably the general idea is to
measure (via radar or other means) and comprehend/process
the landscape out there, identify the enemy, steer the
missile towards him, and then blow up.

Or, in the case of a sniper, he gets the unenviable task
of looking around, shoving that heavy, deadly stick in the
right direction, maybe using a scope on the rifle, moving
it around a bit more, then squeezing the trigger, hoping
the bullet hits the perp (and not the hostage he's holding,
if there is one).

Metaphorically, this also works to some extent for GUIS;
the user has to look for the information he needs in the
GUI somewhere on his monitor screen, move his cursor to the
requisite position, and click or type in his instructions.

The simpler the GUI, the faster the user can achieve the
initial targeting -- to a point; the mouse can only move
so fast. ;-)

It even works for CLIs, since one has to know where the
cursor is. A lot of terminals nowadays use a solid block;
it's easier to see in with all that text than an underline.
A fair number of terminals blink the block as well.

One can also measure the target acquisition process,
using a small laser directed into the eye, or maybe just
a specialized camera using ambient light.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/03/eye-controlled-interaction-for-your-gui-coming-soon/

is a bit speculative, but illustrates where they might go with this.

http://penfield.psych.uiuc.edu/omnibrain/2006/04/webpage-eye-tracking.html

is also useful, for a different reason; the webpage
designer just might want to know where his users are
looking, and redesign things accordingly so that the
eyeballs linger in a spot of his choosing, or the
eyeballs don't get lost.

A more formal paper (requires subscription) might be had
at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10017/32205/01499470.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=1499470
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
"Woman? What woman?"
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Hadron
2008-07-16 19:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron
on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:08:46 +0200
[my text snipped for brevity]
Post by Hadron
That was an awful lot of text to point out that Homer and Halliwell are
idiots and most users simply prefer GUIs when they are properly
designed.
And you had to include all of it, didn't you? :-P
Nevertheless, it is clear that someone here doesn't quite get it
when it comes to user interface.
Maybe it's me. ;-)
Post by Hadron
As Rick acknowledges, the less fractured they are then the
better they are too.
It's a tradeoff. I frankly don't know how to characterize
it properly, but in warfare there's a concept known as
acquiring one's target; presumably the general idea is to
measure (via radar or other means) and comprehend/process
the landscape out there, identify the enemy, steer the
missile towards him, and then blow up.
The whole world is a trade off. You try to aim for perfection. You never
reach it generally but you know the direction you are going in. In this
case a consistent and usable UI. No room for fractured nonsense as Rick
was quick to point out before he started to flip flop all over the
place. I think Koehlmann might have applied the electrodes.
Andrew Halliwell
2008-07-17 00:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
That was an awful lot of text to point out that Homer and Halliwell are
idiots and most users simply prefer GUIs when they are properly
designed. As Rick acknowledges, the less fractured they are then the
better they are too.
There you go, proving my point for me again
You can't go to any thread without insulting me.
you're obsessed. Sick. You need help.
I'm not even INVOLVED in that subthread.
--
| ***@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
Hadron
2008-07-17 00:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Post by Hadron
That was an awful lot of text to point out that Homer and Halliwell are
idiots and most users simply prefer GUIs when they are properly
designed. As Rick acknowledges, the less fractured they are then the
better they are too.
There you go, proving my point for me again
You can't go to any thread without insulting me.
you're obsessed. Sick. You need help.
I'm not even INVOLVED in that subthread.
You were involved in the thread.
Andrew Halliwell
2008-07-17 00:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Post by Hadron
That was an awful lot of text to point out that Homer and Halliwell are
idiots and most users simply prefer GUIs when they are properly
designed. As Rick acknowledges, the less fractured they are then the
better they are too.
There you go, proving my point for me again
You can't go to any thread without insulting me.
you're obsessed. Sick. You need help.
I'm not even INVOLVED in that subthread.
You were involved in the thread.
So? Nothing before this post was attributable to me.
My first post started further down in the threading, unrelated to ANYTHING
said prior to that one.
--
| ***@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Hadron
2008-07-17 00:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Post by Hadron
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Post by Hadron
That was an awful lot of text to point out that Homer and Halliwell are
idiots and most users simply prefer GUIs when they are properly
designed. As Rick acknowledges, the less fractured they are then the
better they are too.
There you go, proving my point for me again
You can't go to any thread without insulting me.
you're obsessed. Sick. You need help.
I'm not even INVOLVED in that subthread.
You were involved in the thread.
So? Nothing before this post was attributable to me.
My first post started further down in the threading, unrelated to ANYTHING
said prior to that one.
Err, you think you can only be referred to if your reply was prior in
that sub thread?

You amaze me more and more.
--
"Maybe he knows where the body is because he saw where
it was put." -- "Rick" defending Hans Reiser (his hero) in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Andrew Halliwell
2008-07-17 00:43:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Err, you think you can only be referred to if your reply was prior in
that sub thread?
You amaze me more and more.
Good...
Now
As nothing in this subthread was by me... And therefore ghost was not
referring to me in any of the articles prior to and including the one you
replied to, how can you justify...

"That was an awful lot of text to point out that Homer and Halliwell are
idiots and most users simply prefer GUIs when they are properly
designed. "

Where did that come from? Hmmm? Also, putting words into ghost's mouth.
Therefore also insulting him by crediting him with your own stupidity...
You become more obsessive compulsive the more you post.
You become more shrill and desperate. As I said.
You are insane, completely upminster.
--
| ***@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Hadron
2008-07-17 00:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Post by Hadron
Err, you think you can only be referred to if your reply was prior in
that sub thread?
You amaze me more and more.
Good...
Now
As nothing in this subthread was by me... And therefore ghost was not
referring to me in any of the articles prior to and including the one you
replied to, how can you justify...
Some of us can reply to one sub thread but have the entire thread in
scope. You should try it. You won't look so stupid.
Post by Andrew Halliwell
"That was an awful lot of text to point out that Homer and Halliwell are
idiots and most users simply prefer GUIs when they are properly
designed. "
Where did that come from? Hmmm? Also, putting words into ghost's mouth.
You are on record with your views on CLI v GUI.
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Therefore also insulting him by crediting him with your own
stupidity...
He actually agreed.
Post by Andrew Halliwell
You become more obsessive compulsive the more you post.
You become more shrill and desperate. As I said.
LOL. You should record yourself. You're becoming unhinged as more and
more of your idiocy is highlighted.
Post by Andrew Halliwell
You are insane, completely upminster.
Andrew Halliwell
2008-07-17 01:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Good...
Now
As nothing in this subthread was by me... And therefore ghost was not
referring to me in any of the articles prior to and including the one you
replied to, how can you justify...
Some of us can reply to one sub thread but have the entire thread in
scope. You should try it. You won't look so stupid.
So if that's the case, what was my input in this thread prior to your lunacy
here? Hmmm?

What did I have to say about GUIs in this thread?
OR CLIs for that matter?
Post by Hadron
Post by Andrew Halliwell
"That was an awful lot of text to point out that Homer and Halliwell are
idiots and most users simply prefer GUIs when they are properly
designed. "
Where did that come from? Hmmm? Also, putting words into ghost's mouth.
You are on record with your views on CLI v GUI.
Oh, where's that then? Certainly not this thread.
Post by Hadron
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Therefore also insulting him by crediting him with your own
stupidity...
He actually agreed.
Let's ask him shall we?
Ghost. Do you agree with that statement?
"That was an awful lot of text to point out that Homer and Halliwell are
idiots"

Or is loonytunes here still putting words into your mouth?
Hey, it's the only way to find out, after all.

I think it's time ghost stopped treating you with long detailed posts.
You don't deserve anything but scorn in this newsgroup. (or any linux
related group for that matter). I wonder if he'll agree with THAT.
(prolly not, I know he likes long detailed posts to string you trolls
along...)
--
| ***@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
The Ghost In The Machine
2008-07-17 01:46:14 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andrew Halliwell
<***@ponder.sky.com>
wrote
on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:05:27 +0100
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Post by Hadron
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Good...
Now
As nothing in this subthread was by me... And therefore ghost was not
referring to me in any of the articles prior to and including the one you
replied to, how can you justify...
Some of us can reply to one sub thread but have the entire thread in
scope. You should try it. You won't look so stupid.
So if that's the case, what was my input in this thread prior to your lunacy
here? Hmmm?
What did I have to say about GUIs in this thread?
OR CLIs for that matter?
Post by Hadron
Post by Andrew Halliwell
"That was an awful lot of text to point out that Homer and Halliwell are
idiots and most users simply prefer GUIs when they are properly
designed. "
Where did that come from? Hmmm? Also, putting words into ghost's mouth.
You are on record with your views on CLI v GUI.
Oh, where's that then? Certainly not this thread.
Post by Hadron
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Therefore also insulting him by crediting him with your own
stupidity...
He actually agreed.
Let's ask him shall we?
Ghost. Do you agree with that statement?
"That was an awful lot of text to point out that Homer and Halliwell are
idiots"
I do not consider the intelligence, idiocy or lack of
either thereof of Homer or you to be relevant to the main
thrust of this thread, which is (presumably) to discuss
CLI versus GUI. I will therefore take no position either
way at this time on the latter part of that statement.
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Or is loonytunes here still putting words into your mouth?
Hey, it's the only way to find out, after all.
I will not disagree with the former part of his assessment;
I tend towards the loquacious. ;-)
Post by Andrew Halliwell
I think it's time ghost stopped treating you with long detailed posts.
You don't deserve anything but scorn in this newsgroup. (or any linux
related group for that matter). I wonder if he'll agree with THAT.
(prolly not, I know he likes long detailed posts to string you trolls
along...)
And hopefully to keep things interesting. However, if he's going
to continue to insult he runs the risk of no output at all from
this particular poster, assuming anyone's still reading
the thread as opposed to merely downscoring/killing it.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
/dev/signature/pedantry: Resource temporarily unavailable
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Hadron
2008-07-17 09:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Post by Hadron
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Good...
Now
As nothing in this subthread was by me... And therefore ghost was not
referring to me in any of the articles prior to and including the one you
replied to, how can you justify...
Some of us can reply to one sub thread but have the entire thread in
scope. You should try it. You won't look so stupid.
So if that's the case, what was my input in this thread prior to your lunacy
here? Hmmm?
What did I have to say about GUIs in this thread?
OR CLIs for that matter?
Well done. You have plummeted even further into the depths of idiocy.
Andrew Halliwell
2008-07-17 09:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Andrew Halliwell
What did I have to say about GUIs in this thread?
OR CLIs for that matter?
Well done. You have plummeted even further into the depths of idiocy.
You continue to make idiotic claims and *I'M* the one plunging into idiocy?
Hadron... You've truly lost it.
And you're getting very very boring. (Getting? Ed)
I think I may just ignore you for a while, see if you fixate on someone
else or if you're still banging your head against a wall trying to attract
my attention.

buhbye
--
| ***@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
Hadron
2008-07-17 10:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Post by Hadron
Post by Andrew Halliwell
What did I have to say about GUIs in this thread?
OR CLIs for that matter?
Well done. You have plummeted even further into the depths of idiocy.
You continue to make idiotic claims and *I'M* the one plunging into idiocy?
Hadron... You've truly lost it.
And you're getting very very boring. (Getting? Ed)
I think I may just ignore you for a while, see if you fixate on someone
else or if you're still banging your head against a wall trying to attract
my attention.
buhbye
I noticed you had started to strut around and in the presence of such
luminaries as 7 and High Plains Hypocrite had a feeling you might be
taking yourself a bit too seriously. Your arguments are full of flaws,
your industry experience is clearly close on zero and your constant
harping on about removing other peoples income so you can steal their
work for free is, to be honest, somewhat nauseating.

But back to the point in hand it point out what a poor debater you are
and how unlikely you are to tell the truth : YOU came into this thread
showing off about your "ls" knowledge. And this discussion was directly
linked with CLI v GUI. Now, do try and get a clue before you show
yourself up as a bigger twonk than you already appear.
Homer
2008-07-16 22:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Now, contrast that to a well-crafted GUI with a button marked "find".
Both concepts are trivially easy to grasp, and those who make a big deal
out of it are merely peddling hyperbole, hence my assertion that this
entire thread is completely bogus.

If there really are people out there who are incapable of grasping
something as simple as the CLI, and can only possibly use computers if
they are guided by Clippy every single step of the way, then may they go
away and click their little buttons, and be happy. But I hope that such
people don't expect me to dumb-down to their level just because they are
idiots.

In many ways this argument reminds me of that quack professor Barry
Schwartz's anti-choice doctrine, which attempts to assert the "choice is
bad" because it "paralyses people". He goes to great lengths, and
produces many examples and analogies to justify this claim, but in all
his detailed explanations he fails to accurately define the most
important thing upon which his assertions depend, namely "people". His
argument is hyperbole and false reasoning based upon the presumption
that everyone is stupid, and therefore we all lack the capacity to make
choices, thus suffering this "paralysis" effect.

My argument is that not all people are as stupid as Schwartz (and
Hadron; Snit; Ben and others) would claim, and that the rest of society
should not have to be held back because certain elements in that society
are idiots. By all means make special arrangements for them. Give them
their pre-school Teletubbies interface, and may they use it with
pleasure, but may they leave the rest of us alone to get on with our
work; allow us the /choice/ to not use their toy interfaces; and accept
that such interfaces may be right for /them/, but that does not mean
they are universally right for /everyone/.
--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
| armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
| neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
| technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
23:14:48 up 208 days, 19:50, 3 users, load average: 0.24, 0.26, 0.26
The Ghost In The Machine
2008-07-16 22:42:34 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Homer
<***@slated.org>
wrote
on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:15:29 +0100
Post by Homer
Now, contrast that to a well-crafted GUI with a button marked "find".
Both concepts are trivially easy to grasp,
To those that know English, perhaps. One hopes that as
Linux, Windows, and OSX evolve, that more attention is
paid to internationalization issues in the GUI, and
possibly in the CLI as well (though there's only so
much one can do in the latter area, especially with
single-letter options).

Certainly Xaw has the capability, implemented long ago
(though not many use Xaw anymore), and Windows still has
it today. I'd have to study what KDE and Gnome have,
though in Gnome's case one might provide different Glade
GUI files if necessary.

For its part Apache has a capability that allows for
serving different webpages depending on language; the user
need merely set his webbrowser properly.

Of course a manual page in, say, Polish, could explain
"find" anyway, as a more or less abstract token.
Post by Homer
and those who make a big deal
out of it are merely peddling hyperbole, hence my assertion that this
entire thread is completely bogus.
It may very well be, at that; I'll admit I'm curious as to
some of the technical challenges involved but there is the
question as to whether the returns justify the effort (or,
if one prefers, whether the ends justify the means).
Post by Homer
If there really are people out there who are incapable of grasping
something as simple as the CLI, and can only possibly use computers if
they are guided by Clippy every single step of the way, then may they go
away and click their little buttons, and be happy. But I hope that such
people don't expect me to dumb-down to their level just because they are
idiots.
A point, indeed a point.
Post by Homer
In many ways this argument reminds me of that quack professor Barry
Schwartz's anti-choice doctrine, which attempts to assert the "choice is
bad" because it "paralyses people".
Too much might indeed do so, but "too much" is probably up
to the individual person. I'd characterize the problem
slightly differently, though precisely how is far less
clear, but everyone has a certain "radius" or "set".
This has in fact been corroborated by cellphone research.

One might also look at the 0.00 ~= 100.00 fallacy. After all,
0.00 =~ 0.01 =~ 0.02 =~ ... =~ 99.98 =~ 99.99 =~ 100.00, therefore
0.00 ~= 100.00.

What's one's radius? Good question.
Post by Homer
He goes to great lengths, and
produces many examples and analogies to justify this claim, but in all
his detailed explanations he fails to accurately define the most
important thing upon which his assertions depend, namely "people". His
argument is hyperbole and false reasoning based upon the presumption
that everyone is stupid, and therefore we all lack the capacity to make
choices, thus suffering this "paralysis" effect.
My argument is that not all people are as stupid as Schwartz (and
Hadron; Snit; Ben and others) would claim, and that the rest of society
should not have to be held back because certain elements in that society
are idiots. By all means make special arrangements for them. Give them
their pre-school Teletubbies interface,
Sugar? :-)
Post by Homer
and may they use it with
pleasure, but may they leave the rest of us alone to get on with our
work; allow us the /choice/ to not use their toy interfaces; and accept
that such interfaces may be right for /them/, but that does not mean
they are universally right for /everyone/.
But they should be available; I wouldn't want to restrict
them either. Evolution, after all, has given us everything
from aardvarks to zebras, with a *lot* of variation in
between (we're still discovering new species, in fact);
one might expect similar results in computer software.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous munition.
Please notify the US government immediately upon reception.
0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ...
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Snit
2008-07-17 01:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Homer
Now, contrast that to a well-crafted GUI with a button marked "find".
Both concepts are trivially easy to grasp, and those who make a big deal
out of it are merely peddling hyperbole, hence my assertion that this
entire thread is completely bogus.
If you are trying to push the idea that a CLI is as easy for the general
user as the GUI then you are merely showing your lack of real world
experience working with non-techie users.

Seriously: the idea that this would even be a debatable point shows one of
the problems with the Linux / OSS community - a lack of connection with
general users. Of course, if your goal is simply to make a tool for
yourself (and for other techies perhaps) then this is not as much of an
issue... but if your goal is to make a general desktop computer for the
general user this is a *huge* issue.

Luckily folks such as Shuttleworth get it. They understand the importance
of an excellent UI and are working toward getting Linux to eventually be as
good as the gold standard in that area (and, presumably, better in some
areas).
Post by Homer
If there really are people out there who are incapable of grasping
something as simple as the CLI, and can only possibly use computers if
they are guided by Clippy every single step of the way, then may they go
away and click their little buttons, and be happy. But I hope that such
people don't expect me to dumb-down to their level just because they are
idiots.
And here you are belittling people who are not techies. I hope they do
*not* ask you for help - that would turn them away from technology.
Post by Homer
In many ways this argument reminds me of that quack professor Barry
Schwartz's anti-choice doctrine, which attempts to assert the "choice is
bad" because it "paralyses people". He goes to great lengths, and
produces many examples and analogies to justify this claim, but in all
his detailed explanations he fails to accurately define the most
important thing upon which his assertions depend, namely "people". His
argument is hyperbole and false reasoning based upon the presumption
that everyone is stupid, and therefore we all lack the capacity to make
choices, thus suffering this "paralysis" effect.
Your assessment is completely incorrect. Nothing about the Paradox of
Choice implies "stupid" people.
Post by Homer
My argument is that not all people are as stupid as Schwartz (and
Hadron; Snit; Ben and others) would claim
Can you point to *any* time *any* of us have claimed people are stupid?
Perhaps in individual cases or a group of morons online, but in general?

No.

You cannot.

You simply are lying about my views and the views of others.

And, of course, dishonesty is your only way of "defending" your view.
Post by Homer
, and that the rest of society should not have to be held back because certain
elements in that society are idiots.
You jumped topics from the benefits of GUIs to the downsides of choice to
people intelligence levels... and then you are pretending they are all
intimately tied together. This shows a severe lack of understanding on your
part.
Post by Homer
By all means make special arrangements for them. Give them their pre-school
Teletubbies interface, and may they use it with pleasure, but may they leave
the rest of us alone to get on with our work; allow us the /choice/ to not use
their toy interfaces; and accept that such interfaces may be right for /them/,
but that does not mean they are universally right for /everyone/.
You sound like you think someone is trying to take something away from you.
I bet not even you can quote *anyone* who has said they want to. Frankly
you are sounding paranoid.
--
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
great nations. - David Friedman
JEDIDIAH
2008-07-16 15:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Thank you.
For a new user, if they're going to use the CLI they have a few options;
1) Pull up the man pages and try to make heads or tails of it
2) Ask on a forum or Usenet for help
3) Take a tutorial in the CLI, and try and make heads or tails of what
they're told there.
...the same goes for the GUI.

The mouse gave my mother fits the first time she tried Windows.
Post by Ben
The simple fact is that for the run-of-the-mill user, a GUI presents all
of the options there for them to use and is very straightforward.
...assuming they understand what's being presented to them.
Post by Ben
A CLI, however, has too many commands to remember, is boring, and they
fear making a mistake, because if they do, there's no GUI option right
If they're afraid of screwing up, the GUI isn't going to help them.
They will approach the GUI with the same level of squeamishness and
never EVER get anywhere with it. All those allegedly "easy" tools will
be wasted.
Post by Ben
there for them to un-check and click ok to revert to the original
configuration, so with the CLI, what do they do?
Go straight back to the forum and copy/paste the CLI's error messages
and get another command to paste into the CLI without remembering anything.
I also highly doubt you can say the CLI is "faster" than a GUI for
average users who turn to a forum for everything they want and wait an
hour for a response.
The "average user" can't deal with Nero either.

The fact that an app has a GUI means that it is by no means simple.

This little realization struck me a number of years ago when
contemplating the scanning app that came with a particular SCSI
scanner for Windows. It gave more of a "complex appearance" to
the task than the Linux counterpart of the time.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Snit
2008-07-16 16:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Thank you.
For a new user, if they're going to use the CLI they have a few options;
1) Pull up the man pages and try to make heads or tails of it
2) Ask on a forum or Usenet for help
3) Take a tutorial in the CLI, and try and make heads or tails of what
they're told there.
...the same goes for the GUI.
To a lesser extent, sure.
Post by JEDIDIAH
The mouse gave my mother fits the first time she tried Windows.
I have worked with many such users.

Does she now use a CLI?
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
The simple fact is that for the run-of-the-mill user, a GUI presents all
of the options there for them to use and is very straightforward.
...assuming they understand what's being presented to them.
Very true... and there is lot to learn - no doubt.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
A CLI, however, has too many commands to remember, is boring, and they
fear making a mistake, because if they do, there's no GUI option right
If they're afraid of screwing up, the GUI isn't going to help them.
Not fully... but more than a CLI. One of the examples where I have talked
about a GUI not doing things to "help" as much as it could is learning to
understand the abstract "world" of files and folders. I have also talked
about solutions that have been found... at least partial solutions.
Post by JEDIDIAH
They will approach the GUI with the same level of squeamishness and
never EVER get anywhere with it. All those allegedly "easy" tools will
be wasted.
You act as though because a GUI is merely easier but not completely
intuitive makes it no *more* intuitive or better for the general user than a
CLI. That is very much black and white thinking on your part.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
there for them to un-check and click ok to revert to the original
configuration, so with the CLI, what do they do?
Go straight back to the forum and copy/paste the CLI's error messages
and get another command to paste into the CLI without remembering anything.
I also highly doubt you can say the CLI is "faster" than a GUI for
average users who turn to a forum for everything they want and wait an
hour for a response.
The "average user" can't deal with Nero either.
The fact that an app has a GUI means that it is by no means simple.
Correct.
Post by JEDIDIAH
This little realization struck me a number of years ago when
contemplating the scanning app that came with a particular SCSI
scanner for Windows. It gave more of a "complex appearance" to
the task than the Linux counterpart of the time.
--
"And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. It¹s
never a reason." - Bill Gates
The Ghost In The Machine
2008-07-16 00:44:13 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
<***@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:39:47 -0700
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Also self-documenting; that's a GUI's major strength.

Take 'ls'. How does one know there's an '-a' option?
One doesn't, unless 'ls' also has a convention for printing
its options (turns out 'ls --help' works in that regard),
or one uses a different program (traditionally, 'man ls').

Contrast that to a well-done GUI where the buttons are obvious.
Admittedly, a poorly-done GUI confuses things, but that's
the case with any software system anyway.
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
If using the CLI for everything was perfectly natural to most human
beings, then computers wouldn't have only kicked off when GUIs became
standard components of the operating system,
Really? I was under the impression that GUIs were primarily introduced
to take advantage of multi-tasking features, rather than simply as a
means of arbitrarily replacing the command shell.
Unix was multitasking with a CLI long before there were GUIs.
And properly too. ;-) Back in the early 70's, if not
even earlier. By contrast, the PC didn't quite get
multitasking until well into the 90's (though part of
that was a hardware problem, as the 8086 didn't exactly
have a functioning MMU); the Amiga beat it handily (it
had preemptive multitasking when it was first introduced
in 1985, but was derided as a "game machine", and is
now somewhere in limbo, if not totally dead), and even
Multifinder came out in 1988 as part of System 7 (not to
be confused with Unix System 7, which came out in 1981 or
1982), while Win32s was (IIRC) still struggling with
cooperative multitasking.

Win95 did introduce preemptive multitasking, and NT
improved on the concept by rewriting the entire kernel.
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
If the GUI was the all-perfect replacement for the CLI, then how do you
account for the fact that nearly every GUI ever released also includes a
CLI?
There is a place for both - they work well *together*.
Most people, though, have no need for the CLI... or should
not on a well designed system.
Ideally, a CLI tool would have a GUI created for it automagically.
It's not as trivial as one would like, though, especially if
an option for a tool depends on another option being specified,
or having a specific value.
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Maybe it's because so many maintenance tasks still require CLI shell
access, and no I'm not talking about Linux, I'm talking about Windows,
specifically the use of regsrv32 to remove DLL registered components for
software that does not provide a proper uninstaller (e.g. Nero Scout),
or using secedit to repair permissions on the interminably broken
Windows registry, or using sfc to restore files lost or corrupted by
Malware (an unfortunately common occurrence under Windows), and hundreds
of other examples.
Sure - there are lots of things CLIs do very well. They are not as easy to
learn to use but they can be very, very efficient and flexible.
Or total crap, like COMMAND.COM. (CMD.EXE is a little
better. It'll be interesting to see how well Powershell
works, but I'm not that hopeful.)

I wonder if CMD.EXE's fixed the

CD \\hostname\share\subdir

crap-up yet... ;-)
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
Microsoft wouldn't have 95% of the OS market
I think I, the US Department Of Justice, the EU Commission antitrust
investigators, and everyone else in the world with any intelligence
knows exactly why Microsoft has 95% of the market.
For many people there is no alternative. Apple does not serve
the low end as well
I suspect they never intended to. The high end is more
profitable. They also have better quality equipment; part
of the "freezes" et al that DFS and his ilk propagate onto
COLA may simply be because of insufficient power from the
power supply, for example -- in other words, a hardware problem.

(The same could be said for a number of Windows problems,
of course.)
Post by Snit
- nor the gamers nor the large business community (though that is
debatable).
Not very, though I would hope the game development industry is
aware of OpenGL. Certainly Unreal Tournament and Quake "got it".
Post by Snit
Linux is not on the radar - it is cheaper, sure,
but it is still a mish-mash of different systems
all living on one computer.
Most OSes are a mish-mash of different systems;
the trick is to make them play nicely together.

Windows in particular supports CreateFile() and
ShellExecute(). The former is a very low-level function
that returns a file handle (and might create a file on
disk); the latter is a high-level function that can edit,
explore, find, open, or print a file or directory --
the third argument, which is a NUL-terminated string.

As an illustration of the strangeness of Windows'
design, ShellExecute()'s second argument *is* in fact
a NUL-terminated string which has to be one of "edit",
"explore", "find", "open", or "print", according to MSDN.
It can also be a NULL pointer, in which case a default verb
is used. The returned value is an HINSTANCE which has to
be compared with the value 32; however, it's not really
a true process handle. The good news: this is callable
by just about everybody, though it is not entirely clear
to me what happens when the first argument -- the owner
window -- is NULL, and one asks to open a document --
or an executable!

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb762153%28VS.85%29.aspx

As for CreateFile(), a more proper name would have been
"CreateFileHandle", but for some reason they didn't use
that particular name; CreateFile() can either create a file
or open a file -- or for that matter open a device such as
a named pipe.

Still, when all is said and done, one still gets a slightly
better user experience than with Linux, mostly because
Microsoft schlepped lots of pretty paint onto their UI.

Seamless? Not on your life. Yet Windows does work,
when it's not crashing because of some stupidity elsewhere.
Post by Snit
This [mishy-mashedness]
creates a very fragmented user experience - and all too often
the programs on Linux are not designed for the general user...
or when they are they are not designed by *designers* but
by programmers.
Yes it does, though I'm not sure how to fix it until all
of the implementers thereof, at least of the GUI portions
(the main ones being KDE and Gnome) get together and hash
out a method by which any one of the GUI sets can drive
all of the others. This will probably require a metaGUI
framework of some sort, something along the lines of what
ICCCM did long ago for window managers, which even today
still use their conventions.

An alternative would be to select for exactly one GUI
set, a solution that will not sit well with most people
(I like Gnome and don't care for KDE; many like KDE and
think Gnome is junk; still others don't like either one).
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
and Ubuntu wouldn't be the most popular Linux distribution today.
Ubuntu is the only GNU/Linux distribution with a GUI?
When did that happen?
Also, I'm sad to hear of the loss of BASH from Ubuntu. Is that a new
feature of Hardy, or is it common to all Ubuntu releases?
I think you misunderstood what you read.
What the hell? If Ubuntu's misplaced Bash then I'm wondering
what shell they're using.
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
The CLI is natural to those who are technically minded, not to the
average user
The CLI is natural to anyone who wishes to get things done quickly,
Clearly incorrect.
Depends. A well-trained touch typist can probably do quite a bit
with the CLI, though it's far from "natural".
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
without messing around with endless buttons and menus and dialogue
boxes. The CLI is natural to anyone who wishes to perform repetitive
tasks on large numbers of files, that would otherwise take days of
manually clicking "OK" boxes in some GUI equivalent operation.
Again clearly incorrect.
Depends on the GUI. The more intelligent GUIs (presumably MacOSX
is among them) will allow one confirmation dialog for all of
the selected files in all windows, or at least all of the selected files
in one window, when moving, copying, or deleting files.

Even Windows isn't *that* bad -- one gets two dialog boxes
in many operations (one for files, one for directories);
both of them have an "Yes on All" option.
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
The CLI
is natural to anyone who wishes to create and run scripts that perform a
large and complex range of functions, for which no single GUI equivalent
exists. In short, I simply couldn't use a computer without CLI access.
That goes for both Linux /and/ Windows.
You have a very unrealistic view of what is "natural" to many, many people.
Especially since CLIs are not intrinsically documented. (There is one
very esoteric exception that I know of, and most people wouldn't know
about Mentor Graphic's "Human Interface", unless they're working
with Mentor Graphics CAD/CAM/CAE software. The user thereof could
hit control-Questionmark and get a template/prompt bar which would
allow the user to see and select the options he wants.)
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
something I'm re-hashing from the a.o.l.ubuntu newsgroup.
Yes, I can tell.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Snit
2008-07-16 01:25:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:39:47 -0700
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Also self-documenting; that's a GUI's major strength.
At least self-documenting to some extent, sure.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Take 'ls'. How does one know there's an '-a' option?
One doesn't, unless 'ls' also has a convention for printing
its options (turns out 'ls --help' works in that regard),
or one uses a different program (traditionally, 'man ls').
-----
ls --help
ls: illegal option -- -
usage: ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTWabcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
-----

I think that would be of *no* help to most people. Not sure the man page
would help most people much either. :)
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Contrast that to a well-done GUI where the buttons are obvious.
Admittedly, a poorly-done GUI confuses things, but that's
the case with any software system anyway.
True. And a GUI needs to be not only designed well but it should be
(relatively) consistent across the OS. Desktop Linux struggles here quite
badly.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
If using the CLI for everything was perfectly natural to most human
beings, then computers wouldn't have only kicked off when GUIs became
standard components of the operating system,
Really? I was under the impression that GUIs were primarily introduced
to take advantage of multi-tasking features, rather than simply as a
means of arbitrarily replacing the command shell.
Unix was multitasking with a CLI long before there were GUIs.
And properly too. ;-) Back in the early 70's, if not
even earlier. By contrast, the PC didn't quite get
multitasking until well into the 90's (though part of
that was a hardware problem, as the 8086 didn't exactly
have a functioning MMU); the Amiga beat it handily (it
had preemptive multitasking when it was first introduced
in 1985, but was derided as a "game machine", and is
now somewhere in limbo, if not totally dead), and even
Multifinder came out in 1988 as part of System 7 (not to
be confused with Unix System 7, which came out in 1981 or
1982), while Win32s was (IIRC) still struggling with
cooperative multitasking.
Win95 did introduce preemptive multitasking, and NT
improved on the concept by rewriting the entire kernel.
Correct - the point being there has been multitasking on CLI systems a lot
longer than on GUI systems... and the early GUIs were not multitasking.
Claiming GUIs were introduced *primarily* to take advantage of multitasking
seems to be a hard argument to make.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
If the GUI was the all-perfect replacement for the CLI, then how do you
account for the fact that nearly every GUI ever released also includes a
CLI?
There is a place for both - they work well *together*.
Most people, though, have no need for the CLI... or should
not on a well designed system.
Ideally, a CLI tool would have a GUI created for it automagically.
It's not as trivial as one would like, though, especially if
an option for a tool depends on another option being specified,
or having a specific value.
Correct. Look at all the lousy GUI tools for something as simple as cron.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Maybe it's because so many maintenance tasks still require CLI shell
access, and no I'm not talking about Linux, I'm talking about Windows,
specifically the use of regsrv32 to remove DLL registered components for
software that does not provide a proper uninstaller (e.g. Nero Scout),
or using secedit to repair permissions on the interminably broken
Windows registry, or using sfc to restore files lost or corrupted by
Malware (an unfortunately common occurrence under Windows), and hundreds
of other examples.
Sure - there are lots of things CLIs do very well. They are not as easy to
learn to use but they can be very, very efficient and flexible.
Or total crap, like COMMAND.COM. (CMD.EXE is a little
better. It'll be interesting to see how well Powershell
works, but I'm not that hopeful.)
I wonder if CMD.EXE's fixed the
CD \\hostname\share\subdir
crap-up yet... ;-)
I used to have a list of many, many inconsistencies in its options... long
gone now. :)
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
Microsoft wouldn't have 95% of the OS market
I think I, the US Department Of Justice, the EU Commission antitrust
investigators, and everyone else in the world with any intelligence
knows exactly why Microsoft has 95% of the market.
For many people there is no alternative. Apple does not serve
the low end as well
I suspect they never intended to.
Correct - or at least not the "modern" Apple since the return of Jobs.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
The high end is more profitable. They also have better quality equipment;
part of the "freezes" et al that DFS and his ilk propagate onto COLA may
simply be because of insufficient power from the power supply, for example --
in other words, a hardware problem.
(The same could be said for a number of Windows problems, of course.)
Apple has had its share of hardware problems... but nothing like the
abundance on Windows machines that I see.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
- nor the gamers nor the large business community (though that is
debatable).
Not very, though I would hope the game development industry is
aware of OpenGL. Certainly Unreal Tournament and Quake "got it".
For the debatable part I was talking more about the large business... but
frankly Apple is not there and not really focused on getting there.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Linux is not on the radar - it is cheaper, sure,
but it is still a mish-mash of different systems
all living on one computer.
Most OSes are a mish-mash of different systems;
the trick is to make them play nicely together.
OK... Linux *feels* like a bunch of different systems. That is a problem.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Windows in particular supports CreateFile() and
ShellExecute(). The former is a very low-level function
that returns a file handle (and might create a file on
disk); the latter is a high-level function that can edit,
explore, find, open, or print a file or directory --
the third argument, which is a NUL-terminated string.
As an illustration of the strangeness of Windows'
design, ShellExecute()'s second argument *is* in fact
a NUL-terminated string which has to be one of "edit",
"explore", "find", "open", or "print", according to MSDN.
It can also be a NULL pointer, in which case a default verb
is used. The returned value is an HINSTANCE which has to
be compared with the value 32; however, it's not really
a true process handle. The good news: this is callable
by just about everybody, though it is not entirely clear
to me what happens when the first argument -- the owner
window -- is NULL, and one asks to open a document --
or an executable!
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb762153%28VS.85%29.aspx
As for CreateFile(), a more proper name would have been
"CreateFileHandle", but for some reason they didn't use
that particular name; CreateFile() can either create a file
or open a file -- or for that matter open a device such as
a named pipe.
Still, when all is said and done, one still gets a slightly
better user experience than with Linux, mostly because
Microsoft schlepped lots of pretty paint onto their UI.
Seamless? Not on your life. Yet Windows does work,
when it's not crashing because of some stupidity elsewhere.
OS X does this better than Windows or Linux. Here are print and save
dialogs from somewhat dated Windows and Mac systems:

<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/interface/dialogs/>

The OS X ones are not completely consistent - but they are pretty darn good.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
This [mishy-mashedness]
creates a very fragmented user experience - and all too often
the programs on Linux are not designed for the general user...
or when they are they are not designed by *designers* but
by programmers.
Yes it does, though I'm not sure how to fix it until all
of the implementers thereof, at least of the GUI portions
(the main ones being KDE and Gnome) get together and hash
out a method by which any one of the GUI sets can drive
all of the others. This will probably require a metaGUI
framework of some sort, something along the lines of what
ICCCM did long ago for window managers, which even today
still use their conventions.
I was heartened to hear that Ubuntu folks are focusing on these type issues
as much as they seemed to me to be based on their OS. I am sure others are
looking at this as well.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
An alternative would be to select for exactly one GUI
set, a solution that will not sit well with most people
(I like Gnome and don't care for KDE; many like KDE and
think Gnome is junk; still others don't like either one).
Correct. I think there is a definite benefit to having different distros
having different UIs... but within a distro the UI should be the same (well,
mostly the same... and maybe not all distros... and, of course, the GUI
should be changeable in a distro (or most distros)).
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
and Ubuntu wouldn't be the most popular Linux distribution today.
Ubuntu is the only GNU/Linux distribution with a GUI?
When did that happen?
Also, I'm sad to hear of the loss of BASH from Ubuntu. Is that a new
feature of Hardy, or is it common to all Ubuntu releases?
I think you misunderstood what you read.
What the hell? If Ubuntu's misplaced Bash then I'm wondering
what shell they're using.
Misplaced Bash?
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
The CLI is natural to those who are technically minded, not to the
average user
The CLI is natural to anyone who wishes to get things done quickly,
Clearly incorrect.
Depends. A well-trained touch typist can probably do quite a bit
with the CLI, though it's far from "natural".
I did not say a CLI could not be amazingly efficient... but it is not
"natural".
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
without messing around with endless buttons and menus and dialogue
boxes. The CLI is natural to anyone who wishes to perform repetitive
tasks on large numbers of files, that would otherwise take days of
manually clicking "OK" boxes in some GUI equivalent operation.
Again clearly incorrect.
Depends on the GUI. The more intelligent GUIs (presumably MacOSX
is among them) will allow one confirmation dialog for all of
the selected files in all windows, or at least all of the selected files
in one window, when moving, copying, or deleting files.
Even Windows isn't *that* bad -- one gets two dialog boxes
in many operations (one for files, one for directories);
both of them have an "Yes on All" option.
You jumped from CLIs to GUIs.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
The CLI
is natural to anyone who wishes to create and run scripts that perform a
large and complex range of functions, for which no single GUI equivalent
exists. In short, I simply couldn't use a computer without CLI access.
That goes for both Linux /and/ Windows.
You have a very unrealistic view of what is "natural" to many, many people.
Especially since CLIs are not intrinsically documented. (There is one
very esoteric exception that I know of, and most people wouldn't know
about Mentor Graphic's "Human Interface", unless they're working
with Mentor Graphics CAD/CAM/CAE software. The user thereof could
hit control-Questionmark and get a template/prompt bar which would
allow the user to see and select the options he wants.)
I have seen similar CLIs... and the speech commands I have played with are,
really, a form of CLI... and some of those have similar ideas.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
something I'm re-hashing from the a.o.l.ubuntu newsgroup.
Yes, I can tell.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
The Ghost In The Machine
2008-07-16 02:23:01 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
<***@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:25:17 -0700
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:39:47 -0700
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Also self-documenting; that's a GUI's major strength.
At least self-documenting to some extent, sure.
If done right.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Take 'ls'. How does one know there's an '-a' option?
One doesn't, unless 'ls' also has a convention for printing
its options (turns out 'ls --help' works in that regard),
or one uses a different program (traditionally, 'man ls').
-----
ls --help
ls: illegal option -- -
usage: ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTWabcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
-----
I think that would be of *no* help to most people. Not sure the man page
would help most people much either. :)
Hm...it appears you have an older version of 'ls'. The
usage line is extremely terse to the point of being cryptic,
but does give one a hint as to what options ls can support.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Contrast that to a well-done GUI where the buttons are obvious.
Admittedly, a poorly-done GUI confuses things, but that's
the case with any software system anyway.
True. And a GUI needs to be not only designed well but it should be
(relatively) consistent across the OS. Desktop Linux struggles here quite
badly.
Very much so.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
If using the CLI for everything was perfectly natural to most human
beings, then computers wouldn't have only kicked off when GUIs became
standard components of the operating system,
Really? I was under the impression that GUIs were primarily introduced
to take advantage of multi-tasking features, rather than simply as a
means of arbitrarily replacing the command shell.
Unix was multitasking with a CLI long before there were GUIs.
And properly too. ;-) Back in the early 70's, if not
even earlier. By contrast, the PC didn't quite get
multitasking until well into the 90's (though part of
that was a hardware problem, as the 8086 didn't exactly
have a functioning MMU); the Amiga beat it handily (it
had preemptive multitasking when it was first introduced
in 1985, but was derided as a "game machine", and is
now somewhere in limbo, if not totally dead), and even
Multifinder came out in 1988 as part of System 7 (not to
be confused with Unix System 7, which came out in 1981 or
1982), while Win32s was (IIRC) still struggling with
cooperative multitasking.
Win95 did introduce preemptive multitasking, and NT
improved on the concept by rewriting the entire kernel.
Correct - the point being there has been multitasking on CLI systems a lot
longer than on GUI systems... and the early GUIs were not multitasking.
Claiming GUIs were introduced *primarily* to take advantage of multitasking
seems to be a hard argument to make.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
If the GUI was the all-perfect replacement for the CLI, then how do you
account for the fact that nearly every GUI ever released also includes a
CLI?
There is a place for both - they work well *together*.
Most people, though, have no need for the CLI... or should
not on a well designed system.
Ideally, a CLI tool would have a GUI created for it automagically.
It's not as trivial as one would like, though, especially if
an option for a tool depends on another option being specified,
or having a specific value.
Correct. Look at all the lousy GUI tools for something as simple as cron.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Maybe it's because so many maintenance tasks still require CLI shell
access, and no I'm not talking about Linux, I'm talking about Windows,
specifically the use of regsrv32 to remove DLL registered components for
software that does not provide a proper uninstaller (e.g. Nero Scout),
or using secedit to repair permissions on the interminably broken
Windows registry, or using sfc to restore files lost or corrupted by
Malware (an unfortunately common occurrence under Windows), and hundreds
of other examples.
Sure - there are lots of things CLIs do very well. They are not as easy to
learn to use but they can be very, very efficient and flexible.
Or total crap, like COMMAND.COM. (CMD.EXE is a little
better. It'll be interesting to see how well Powershell
works, but I'm not that hopeful.)
I wonder if CMD.EXE's fixed the
CD \\hostname\share\subdir
crap-up yet... ;-)
I used to have a list of many, many inconsistencies in its options... long
gone now. :)
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
Microsoft wouldn't have 95% of the OS market
I think I, the US Department Of Justice, the EU Commission antitrust
investigators, and everyone else in the world with any intelligence
knows exactly why Microsoft has 95% of the market.
For many people there is no alternative. Apple does not serve
the low end as well
I suspect they never intended to.
Correct - or at least not the "modern" Apple since the return of Jobs.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
The high end is more profitable. They also have better quality equipment;
part of the "freezes" et al that DFS and his ilk propagate onto COLA may
simply be because of insufficient power from the power supply, for example --
in other words, a hardware problem.
(The same could be said for a number of Windows problems, of course.)
Apple has had its share of hardware problems... but nothing like the
abundance on Windows machines that I see.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
- nor the gamers nor the large business community (though that is
debatable).
Not very, though I would hope the game development industry is
aware of OpenGL. Certainly Unreal Tournament and Quake "got it".
For the debatable part I was talking more about the large business... but
frankly Apple is not there and not really focused on getting there.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Linux is not on the radar - it is cheaper, sure,
but it is still a mish-mash of different systems
all living on one computer.
Most OSes are a mish-mash of different systems;
the trick is to make them play nicely together.
OK... Linux *feels* like a bunch of different systems. That is a problem.
Feel is not inaccurate; Linux *is* a bunch of different systems,
unless one is discussing the kernel exclusively, and even then,
one might ask regarding the major subjections in /usr/src/linux.

But in any event Linux has:

- the kernel.
- X.
- KDE and Gnome.
- Squeak (a derivative of Smalltalk).
- Firefox, which can generate GUIs by using HTML and Javascript;
these GUIS include pulldown buttons, typed-in text input,
and various other issues.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Windows in particular supports CreateFile() and
ShellExecute(). The former is a very low-level function
that returns a file handle (and might create a file on
disk); the latter is a high-level function that can edit,
explore, find, open, or print a file or directory --
the third argument, which is a NUL-terminated string.
As an illustration of the strangeness of Windows'
design, ShellExecute()'s second argument *is* in fact
a NUL-terminated string which has to be one of "edit",
"explore", "find", "open", or "print", according to MSDN.
It can also be a NULL pointer, in which case a default verb
is used. The returned value is an HINSTANCE which has to
be compared with the value 32; however, it's not really
a true process handle. The good news: this is callable
by just about everybody, though it is not entirely clear
to me what happens when the first argument -- the owner
window -- is NULL, and one asks to open a document --
or an executable!
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb762153%28VS.85%29.aspx
As for CreateFile(), a more proper name would have been
"CreateFileHandle", but for some reason they didn't use
that particular name; CreateFile() can either create a file
or open a file -- or for that matter open a device such as
a named pipe.
Still, when all is said and done, one still gets a slightly
better user experience than with Linux, mostly because
Microsoft schlepped lots of pretty paint onto their UI.
Seamless? Not on your life. Yet Windows does work,
when it's not crashing because of some stupidity elsewhere.
OS X does this better than Windows or Linux. Here are print and save
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/interface/dialogs/>
The OS X ones are not completely consistent - but they are pretty darn good.
AIUI, OSX also supports unnamed files in its GUI; drag
an application icon (not a file!) and drop it into a
print bucket, and the printer receptor does exactly the
right thing.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
This [mishy-mashedness]
creates a very fragmented user experience - and all too often
the programs on Linux are not designed for the general user...
or when they are they are not designed by *designers* but
by programmers.
Yes it does, though I'm not sure how to fix it until all
of the implementers thereof, at least of the GUI portions
(the main ones being KDE and Gnome) get together and hash
out a method by which any one of the GUI sets can drive
all of the others. This will probably require a metaGUI
framework of some sort, something along the lines of what
ICCCM did long ago for window managers, which even today
still use their conventions.
I was heartened to hear that Ubuntu folks are focusing on these type issues
as much as they seemed to me to be based on their OS. I am sure others are
looking at this as well.
I am not so sure, though there are a couple of engines that
came out that have cross-drive capability (that's my term
for it; I don't have a better one). It's a baby step in
the right direction.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
An alternative would be to select for exactly one GUI
set, a solution that will not sit well with most people
(I like Gnome and don't care for KDE; many like KDE and
think Gnome is junk; still others don't like either one).
Correct. I think there is a definite benefit to having different distros
having different UIs... but within a distro the UI should be the same (well,
mostly the same... and maybe not all distros... and, of course, the GUI
should be changeable in a distro (or most distros)).
I'm not as sure of that either; consider cross-training
issues if one switches distros. Ideally all distros would
behave identically, although they would probably have
different initial set-points for their GUI config (one
might use a certain set of icons with a red background and
transparency and use click-to-focus, another might use a
different set with a blue background and no transparency,
and use sloppy-focus-follows-mouse; still another might
rearrange subframes in a controlled fashion within certain
windows, and use a green-purple theme), but all of them
would be customizable/configurable to any point within
the set-space (which might be expanded if anyone in IT is
good at drawing icons), and one wouldn't be able to tell
the difference.

Also, if one is using the Gnome GUI system, the KDE library
(and any tools using such) would follow the Gnome settings
if Gnome is the master, or the Gnome settings would reflect
the KDE choices and intercommunicate with KDE if KDE is
the master.

Ideally also, one would be able to specify the user's
set-space, as a proper subset of the system set-space.
One might, for instance, restrict the user to a certain
set of IT-supplied themes, each with an appropriate
corporate logo. An acceptable alternative is editing the
system set-space (by deleting or adding files), if the
user can't add to the set-space within his own directory.

And ideally the set-space would include HTML, in the sense
that one can create a dialog box either using traditional
C code, KDevelop-generated code, Glade-3 like XML code,
or HTML/CSS code, and all would look exactly the same
visually, without too much fiddling. They would also
have identical behavior upon window resize, within certain
limits.

Of course all of the above blurs the line between a Webpage
and an application window, but what is a Webpage anyway?
As far as the user's concerned, it's a program opening
a window on his desktop; the program reads information
from the webpage server to build the visual elements of
the webpage, in a standard fashion.

AJAX isn't *that* exciting; the concept of replacing a widget
in its parent has been around since there have been widgets.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
and Ubuntu wouldn't be the most popular Linux distribution today.
Ubuntu is the only GNU/Linux distribution with a GUI?
When did that happen?
Also, I'm sad to hear of the loss of BASH from Ubuntu. Is that a new
feature of Hardy, or is it common to all Ubuntu releases?
I think you misunderstood what you read.
What the hell? If Ubuntu's misplaced Bash then I'm wondering
what shell they're using.
Misplaced Bash?
Well, the '>>>>' says BASH was lost. The Bourne-again shell is
a very popular option.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
The CLI is natural to those who are technically minded, not to the
average user
The CLI is natural to anyone who wishes to get things done quickly,
Clearly incorrect.
Depends. A well-trained touch typist can probably do quite a bit
with the CLI, though it's far from "natural".
I did not say a CLI could not be amazingly efficient... but it is not
"natural".
Correct. As for efficiency, depends on a number of factors, most
of them having to do with proper event handling.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
without messing around with endless buttons and menus and dialogue
boxes. The CLI is natural to anyone who wishes to perform repetitive
tasks on large numbers of files, that would otherwise take days of
manually clicking "OK" boxes in some GUI equivalent operation.
Again clearly incorrect.
Depends on the GUI. The more intelligent GUIs (presumably MacOSX
is among them) will allow one confirmation dialog for all of
the selected files in all windows, or at least all of the selected files
in one window, when moving, copying, or deleting files.
Even Windows isn't *that* bad -- one gets two dialog boxes
in many operations (one for files, one for directories);
both of them have an "Yes on All" option.
You jumped from CLIs to GUIs.
A UI's a UI. G, CL, doesn't matter to me; the intent is to
communicate with the computer or software thereon.

The Linux 'mv -i' command prompts for every file,
for example. Bad, but might be suitable for scripting
(although a better solution is to do individual 'mv'
commands, if one's really all that worried about it).
A better prompting mechanism is illustrated by unzip.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
The CLI
is natural to anyone who wishes to create and run scripts that perform a
large and complex range of functions, for which no single GUI equivalent
exists. In short, I simply couldn't use a computer without CLI access.
That goes for both Linux /and/ Windows.
You have a very unrealistic view of what is "natural" to many, many people.
Especially since CLIs are not intrinsically documented. (There is one
very esoteric exception that I know of, and most people wouldn't know
about Mentor Graphic's "Human Interface", unless they're working
with Mentor Graphics CAD/CAM/CAE software. The user thereof could
hit control-Questionmark and get a template/prompt bar which would
allow the user to see and select the options he wants.)
I have seen similar CLIs... and the speech commands I have played with are,
really, a form of CLI... and some of those have similar ideas.
Speech input is still most likely in its infancy,
or at least its childhood. While useful for
certain canned reports, I'm not sure when it will
become the tool described (in rather anachronistic
form) in Second Foundation (Isaac Asimov) as
Arcadia (Arkady) dictates her school paper, or
shown in "Assignment: Earth" (Star Trek: TOS:
http://www.treknation.com/episodes/tos/season2/assignment_earth.shtml).

But we'll see; language, after all, mutates. The language
I'm most familiar with in that respect (and I'm not that
familiar with it) is LOGLAN, which a friend (who since
moved to Texas) mentioned while we were in high school.
Its main strength is phonetic unambiguity; given any
stream of phonemes, the words and word boundaries are unambiguous,
at least for non-proper names.

http://www.loglan.org/

It is possible Esperanto has a similar capability, but I'm not
as familiar with it.

English, with its many homonyms, is absolutely terrible
in that regard: contrast

"they are meetin' the people"

(a dialectical variation of "they are meeting the people")

versus

"they are meat in the peep hole".

Without careful enunciation, one presumably gets interesting results
in trying to input one of the two. Nevertheless,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522969977053791779

shows an interesting competition between someone using
Nuance, which is apparently a speech input system for
mobiles, and someone who's all thumbs... ;-) (The
competition is a little unfair, as the texter is using
a 10-key instead of a full if miniature Blackberry-type
keyboard affair. Still, they can input rather fast, if
their thumbs hold out.)
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
something I'm re-hashing from the a.o.l.ubuntu newsgroup.
Yes, I can tell.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: No such file or directory
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Snit
2008-07-16 05:20:59 UTC
Permalink
"The Ghost In The Machine" <***@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> stated in post
5l20l5-***@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 7/15/08 7:23 PM:

...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Also self-documenting; that's a GUI's major strength.
At least self-documenting to some extent, sure.
If done right.
There can be some advanced features that are not easily "discoverable" nor
well "self-documented".
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Take 'ls'. How does one know there's an '-a' option?
One doesn't, unless 'ls' also has a convention for printing
its options (turns out 'ls --help' works in that regard),
or one uses a different program (traditionally, 'man ls').
-----
ls --help
ls: illegal option -- -
usage: ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTWabcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
-----
I think that would be of *no* help to most people. Not sure the man page
would help most people much either. :)
Hm...it appears you have an older version of 'ls'. The
usage line is extremely terse to the point of being cryptic,
but does give one a hint as to what options ls can support.
Hint is correct. Oh, I have the standard version that ships with OS X...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Contrast that to a well-done GUI where the buttons are obvious.
Admittedly, a poorly-done GUI confuses things, but that's
the case with any software system anyway.
True. And a GUI needs to be not only designed well but it should be
(relatively) consistent across the OS. Desktop Linux struggles here quite
badly.
Very much so.
Yes... its interface is quite badly fractured. Some in COLA deny this...
which shows, frankly, that they know nothing of desktop Linux or are lying.
...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
For the debatable part I was talking more about the large business... but
frankly Apple is not there and not really focused on getting there.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Linux is not on the radar - it is cheaper, sure,
but it is still a mish-mash of different systems
all living on one computer.
Most OSes are a mish-mash of different systems;
the trick is to make them play nicely together.
OK... Linux *feels* like a bunch of different systems. That is a problem.
Feel is not inaccurate; Linux *is* a bunch of different systems,
unless one is discussing the kernel exclusively, and even then,
one might ask regarding the major subjections in /usr/src/linux.
- the kernel.
- X.
- KDE and Gnome.
- Squeak (a derivative of Smalltalk).
- Firefox, which can generate GUIs by using HTML and Javascript;
these GUIS include pulldown buttons, typed-in text input,
and various other issues.
Other OSs are a collection of parts as well... but they can be better
integrated parts.

...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Seamless? Not on your life. Yet Windows does work,
when it's not crashing because of some stupidity elsewhere.
OS X does this better than Windows or Linux. Here are print and save
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/interface/dialogs/>
The OS X ones are not completely consistent - but they are pretty darn good.
AIUI, OSX also supports unnamed files in its GUI; drag
an application icon (not a file!) and drop it into a
print bucket, and the printer receptor does exactly the
right thing.
Hmmm, what is the "right thing" in that case?

Dragging a folder prints a directory listing...
Dragging an application (non-bundled) does nothing.

...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Yes it does, though I'm not sure how to fix it until all
of the implementers thereof, at least of the GUI portions
(the main ones being KDE and Gnome) get together and hash
out a method by which any one of the GUI sets can drive
all of the others. This will probably require a metaGUI
framework of some sort, something along the lines of what
ICCCM did long ago for window managers, which even today
still use their conventions.
I was heartened to hear that Ubuntu folks are focusing on these type issues
as much as they seemed to me to be based on their OS. I am sure others are
looking at this as well.
I am not so sure, though there are a couple of engines that
came out that have cross-drive capability (that's my term
for it; I don't have a better one). It's a baby step in
the right direction.
Ubuntu seems, to me, to be trying to build consistency. Sure, they have a
*long* way to go, but I think they are the best of the desktop Linux
distros.

From PCLOS:

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

Clearly screwy but not as bad as, say, PCLOS.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
An alternative would be to select for exactly one GUI
set, a solution that will not sit well with most people
(I like Gnome and don't care for KDE; many like KDE and
think Gnome is junk; still others don't like either one).
Correct. I think there is a definite benefit to having different distros
having different UIs... but within a distro the UI should be the same (well,
mostly the same... and maybe not all distros... and, of course, the GUI
should be changeable in a distro (or most distros)).
I'm not as sure of that either; consider cross-training
issues if one switches distros. Ideally all distros would
behave identically, although they would probably have
different initial set-points for their GUI config (one
might use a certain set of icons with a red background and
transparency and use click-to-focus, another might use a
different set with a blue background and no transparency,
and use sloppy-focus-follows-mouse; still another might
rearrange subframes in a controlled fashion within certain
windows, and use a green-purple theme), but all of them
would be customizable/configurable to any point within
the set-space (which might be expanded if anyone in IT is
good at drawing icons), and one wouldn't be able to tell
the difference.
And you should be able to set the system to use KDE or Gnome or... whatever.
And whatever preferences program, etc.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Also, if one is using the Gnome GUI system, the KDE library
(and any tools using such) would follow the Gnome settings
if Gnome is the master, or the Gnome settings would reflect
the KDE choices and intercommunicate with KDE if KDE is
the master.
Exactly!
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Ideally also, one would be able to specify the user's
set-space, as a proper subset of the system set-space.
One might, for instance, restrict the user to a certain
set of IT-supplied themes, each with an appropriate
corporate logo. An acceptable alternative is editing the
system set-space (by deleting or adding files), if the
user can't add to the set-space within his own directory.
And ideally the set-space would include HTML, in the sense
that one can create a dialog box either using traditional
C code, KDevelop-generated code, Glade-3 like XML code,
or HTML/CSS code, and all would look exactly the same
visually, without too much fiddling. They would also
have identical behavior upon window resize, within certain
limits.
Of course all of the above blurs the line between a Webpage
and an application window, but what is a Webpage anyway?
As far as the user's concerned, it's a program opening
a window on his desktop; the program reads information
from the webpage server to build the visual elements of
the webpage, in a standard fashion.
The differences are getting more blurred every day.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
AJAX isn't *that* exciting; the concept of replacing a widget
in its parent has been around since there have been widgets.
...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
What the hell? If Ubuntu's misplaced Bash then I'm wondering
what shell they're using.
Misplaced Bash?
Well, the '>>>>' says BASH was lost. The Bourne-again shell is
a very popular option.
I think the claim that BASH was lost was in incorrect claim. I would have
to follow the thread back...

...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Depends. A well-trained touch typist can probably do quite a bit
with the CLI, though it's far from "natural".
I did not say a CLI could not be amazingly efficient... but it is not
"natural".
Correct. As for efficiency, depends on a number of factors, most
of them having to do with proper event handling.
Even if the technical details are done poorly you can automate things in a
CLI that are rarely automated in a GUI (though Automator allows you to do
*some* of that type of stuff).
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
without messing around with endless buttons and menus and dialogue
boxes. The CLI is natural to anyone who wishes to perform repetitive
tasks on large numbers of files, that would otherwise take days of
manually clicking "OK" boxes in some GUI equivalent operation.
Again clearly incorrect.
Depends on the GUI. The more intelligent GUIs (presumably MacOSX
is among them) will allow one confirmation dialog for all of
the selected files in all windows, or at least all of the selected files
in one window, when moving, copying, or deleting files.
Even Windows isn't *that* bad -- one gets two dialog boxes
in many operations (one for files, one for directories);
both of them have an "Yes on All" option.
You jumped from CLIs to GUIs.
A UI's a UI. G, CL, doesn't matter to me; the intent is to
communicate with the computer or software thereon.
Both are the same in that way... but above the topic was the CLI... which
got changes to the GUI.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
The Linux 'mv -i' command prompts for every file,
for example. Bad, but might be suitable for scripting
(although a better solution is to do individual 'mv'
commands, if one's really all that worried about it).
A better prompting mechanism is illustrated by unzip.
Depends on your needs. I am sure I have used move -i for... um...
something. :)

..
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Especially since CLIs are not intrinsically documented. (There is one
very esoteric exception that I know of, and most people wouldn't know
about Mentor Graphic's "Human Interface", unless they're working
with Mentor Graphics CAD/CAM/CAE software. The user thereof could
hit control-Questionmark and get a template/prompt bar which would
allow the user to see and select the options he wants.)
I have seen similar CLIs... and the speech commands I have played with are,
really, a form of CLI... and some of those have similar ideas.
Speech input is still most likely in its infancy,
or at least its childhood. While useful for
certain canned reports, I'm not sure when it will
become the tool described (in rather anachronistic
form) in Second Foundation (Isaac Asimov) as
Arcadia (Arkady) dictates her school paper, or
http://www.treknation.com/episodes/tos/season2/assignment_earth.shtml).
I mostly agree... but it is still essentially a command line, even if not
the primary UI for the system (for most people).
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
But we'll see; language, after all, mutates. The language
I'm most familiar with in that respect (and I'm not that
familiar with it) is LOGLAN, which a friend (who since
moved to Texas) mentioned while we were in high school.
Its main strength is phonetic unambiguity; given any
stream of phonemes, the words and word boundaries are unambiguous,
at least for non-proper names.
http://www.loglan.org/
Wow... how many people speak it?
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
It is possible Esperanto has a similar capability, but I'm not
as familiar with it.
English, with its many homonyms, is absolutely terrible
in that regard: contrast
"they are meetin' the people"
(a dialectical variation of "they are meeting the people")
versus
"they are meat in the peep hole".
Without careful enunciation, one presumably gets interesting results
in trying to input one of the two. Nevertheless,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522969977053791779
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472>

There are still some challenges. :)
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
shows an interesting competition between someone using
Nuance, which is apparently a speech input system for
mobiles, and someone who's all thumbs... ;-) (The
competition is a little unfair, as the texter is using
a 10-key instead of a full if miniature Blackberry-type
keyboard affair. Still, they can input rather fast, if
their thumbs hold out.)
--
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
The Ghost In The Machine
2008-07-16 17:51:51 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
<***@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:20:59 -0700
Post by Snit
...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Also self-documenting; that's a GUI's major strength.
At least self-documenting to some extent, sure.
If done right.
There can be some advanced features that are not easily "discoverable" nor
well "self-documented".
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Take 'ls'. How does one know there's an '-a' option?
One doesn't, unless 'ls' also has a convention for printing
its options (turns out 'ls --help' works in that regard),
or one uses a different program (traditionally, 'man ls').
-----
ls --help
ls: illegal option -- -
usage: ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTWabcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
-----
I think that would be of *no* help to most people. Not sure the man page
would help most people much either. :)
Hm...it appears you have an older version of 'ls'. The
usage line is extremely terse to the point of being cryptic,
but does give one a hint as to what options ls can support.
Hint is correct. Oh, I have the standard version that ships with OS X...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Contrast that to a well-done GUI where the buttons are obvious.
Admittedly, a poorly-done GUI confuses things, but that's
the case with any software system anyway.
True. And a GUI needs to be not only designed well but it should be
(relatively) consistent across the OS. Desktop Linux struggles here quite
badly.
Very much so.
Yes... its interface is quite badly fractured. Some in COLA deny this...
which shows, frankly, that they know nothing of desktop Linux or are lying.
Or haven't given sufficient thought on the issue or have chosen
to ignore it.
Post by Snit
...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
For the debatable part I was talking more about the large business... but
frankly Apple is not there and not really focused on getting there.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Linux is not on the radar - it is cheaper, sure,
but it is still a mish-mash of different systems
all living on one computer.
Most OSes are a mish-mash of different systems;
the trick is to make them play nicely together.
OK... Linux *feels* like a bunch of different systems. That is a problem.
Feel is not inaccurate; Linux *is* a bunch of different systems,
unless one is discussing the kernel exclusively, and even then,
one might ask regarding the major subjections in /usr/src/linux.
- the kernel.
- X.
- KDE and Gnome.
- Squeak (a derivative of Smalltalk).
- Firefox, which can generate GUIs by using HTML and Javascript;
these GUIS include pulldown buttons, typed-in text input,
and various other issues.
Other OSs are a collection of parts as well... but they can be better
integrated parts.
Much better integrated.
Post by Snit
...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Seamless? Not on your life. Yet Windows does work,
when it's not crashing because of some stupidity elsewhere.
OS X does this better than Windows or Linux. Here are print and save
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/interface/dialogs/>
The OS X ones are not completely consistent - but they are pretty darn good.
AIUI, OSX also supports unnamed files in its GUI; drag
an application icon (not a file!) and drop it into a
print bucket, and the printer receptor does exactly the
right thing.
Hmmm, what is the "right thing" in that case?
Dragging a folder prints a directory listing...
Dragging an application (non-bundled) does nothing.
One would expect that dragging an open window of a
document would correspond with the tool which had opened
that document. This generalizes very nicely, since an
icon of a document or folder (as opposed to an icon of
an opened window viewing that document) can be handed
off with the tool being the desktop manager proper.
The print application might have to query somebody as to
the proper tool to open and print the document, if it's
handed only the document; the logical tool would be the
desktop manager, since it already has a handle thereto anyway.

If the tool doesn't understand the concept sufficiently,
there's always the possibility of a simple pixel or
vector/text metafile dump. A confirmation requester might
be helpful in that case, with a "switchoff" option so that
the user doesn't get annoyed.

All of this assumes some sort of remote procedure call system.
In the case of X, one sets properties.

Even with the directory listing, there are issues; one might
for instance want a recursion option.
Post by Snit
...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Yes it does, though I'm not sure how to fix it until all
of the implementers thereof, at least of the GUI portions
(the main ones being KDE and Gnome) get together and hash
out a method by which any one of the GUI sets can drive
all of the others. This will probably require a metaGUI
framework of some sort, something along the lines of what
ICCCM did long ago for window managers, which even today
still use their conventions.
I was heartened to hear that Ubuntu folks are focusing on these type issues
as much as they seemed to me to be based on their OS. I am sure others are
looking at this as well.
I am not so sure, though there are a couple of engines that
came out that have cross-drive capability (that's my term
for it; I don't have a better one). It's a baby step in
the right direction.
Ubuntu seems, to me, to be trying to build consistency. Sure, they have a
*long* way to go, but I think they are the best of the desktop Linux
distros.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/ubuntu-menu.pdf>
Clearly screwy but not as bad as, say, PCLOS.
All of these are GTK or Gnome, AFAICT. Not quite enough
of a sample.

Got any KDE?
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
An alternative would be to select for exactly one GUI
set, a solution that will not sit well with most people
(I like Gnome and don't care for KDE; many like KDE and
think Gnome is junk; still others don't like either one).
Correct. I think there is a definite benefit to having different distros
having different UIs... but within a distro the UI should be the same (well,
mostly the same... and maybe not all distros... and, of course, the GUI
should be changeable in a distro (or most distros)).
I'm not as sure of that either; consider cross-training
issues if one switches distros. Ideally all distros would
behave identically, although they would probably have
different initial set-points for their GUI config (one
might use a certain set of icons with a red background and
transparency and use click-to-focus, another might use a
different set with a blue background and no transparency,
and use sloppy-focus-follows-mouse; still another might
rearrange subframes in a controlled fashion within certain
windows, and use a green-purple theme), but all of them
would be customizable/configurable to any point within
the set-space (which might be expanded if anyone in IT is
good at drawing icons), and one wouldn't be able to tell
the difference.
And you should be able to set the system to use KDE or Gnome or... whatever.
And whatever preferences program, etc.
Exactly. The driver sets, but the non-driver can tell the
driver what to set as well. (Some care should be taken
lest one gets into a communications loop.)
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Also, if one is using the Gnome GUI system, the KDE library
(and any tools using such) would follow the Gnome settings
if Gnome is the master, or the Gnome settings would reflect
the KDE choices and intercommunicate with KDE if KDE is
the master.
Exactly!
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Ideally also, one would be able to specify the user's
set-space, as a proper subset of the system set-space.
One might, for instance, restrict the user to a certain
set of IT-supplied themes, each with an appropriate
corporate logo. An acceptable alternative is editing the
system set-space (by deleting or adding files), if the
user can't add to the set-space within his own directory.
And ideally the set-space would include HTML, in the sense
that one can create a dialog box either using traditional
C code, KDevelop-generated code, Glade-3 like XML code,
or HTML/CSS code, and all would look exactly the same
visually, without too much fiddling. They would also
have identical behavior upon window resize, within certain
limits.
Of course all of the above blurs the line between a Webpage
and an application window, but what is a Webpage anyway?
As far as the user's concerned, it's a program opening
a window on his desktop; the program reads information
from the webpage server to build the visual elements of
the webpage, in a standard fashion.
The differences are getting more blurred every day.
As they should. What is a browser anyway? It's a program
that can read webpages. What's a webpage? It presents
text, forms, and GUI elements such as buttons.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
AJAX isn't *that* exciting; the concept of replacing a widget
in its parent has been around since there have been widgets.
...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
What the hell? If Ubuntu's misplaced Bash then I'm wondering
what shell they're using.
Misplaced Bash?
Well, the '>>>>' says BASH was lost. The Bourne-again shell is
a very popular option.
I think the claim that BASH was lost was in incorrect claim. I would have
to follow the thread back...
...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Depends. A well-trained touch typist can probably do quite a bit
with the CLI, though it's far from "natural".
I did not say a CLI could not be amazingly efficient... but it is not
"natural".
Correct. As for efficiency, depends on a number of factors, most
of them having to do with proper event handling.
Even if the technical details are done poorly you can automate things in a
CLI that are rarely automated in a GUI (though Automator allows you to do
*some* of that type of stuff).
Automator presumably has an internal CLI that might simply track mouse
clicks and drags.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
without messing around with endless buttons and menus and dialogue
boxes. The CLI is natural to anyone who wishes to perform repetitive
tasks on large numbers of files, that would otherwise take days of
manually clicking "OK" boxes in some GUI equivalent operation.
Again clearly incorrect.
Depends on the GUI. The more intelligent GUIs (presumably MacOSX
is among them) will allow one confirmation dialog for all of
the selected files in all windows, or at least all of the selected files
in one window, when moving, copying, or deleting files.
Even Windows isn't *that* bad -- one gets two dialog boxes
in many operations (one for files, one for directories);
both of them have an "Yes on All" option.
You jumped from CLIs to GUIs.
A UI's a UI. G, CL, doesn't matter to me; the intent is to
communicate with the computer or software thereon.
Both are the same in that way... but above the topic was the CLI... which
got changes to the GUI.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
The Linux 'mv -i' command prompts for every file,
for example. Bad, but might be suitable for scripting
(although a better solution is to do individual 'mv'
commands, if one's really all that worried about it).
A better prompting mechanism is illustrated by unzip.
Depends on your needs. I am sure I have used move -i for... um...
something. :)
..
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Especially since CLIs are not intrinsically documented. (There is one
very esoteric exception that I know of, and most people wouldn't know
about Mentor Graphic's "Human Interface", unless they're working
with Mentor Graphics CAD/CAM/CAE software. The user thereof could
hit control-Questionmark and get a template/prompt bar which would
allow the user to see and select the options he wants.)
I have seen similar CLIs... and the speech commands I have played with are,
really, a form of CLI... and some of those have similar ideas.
Speech input is still most likely in its infancy,
or at least its childhood. While useful for
certain canned reports, I'm not sure when it will
become the tool described (in rather anachronistic
form) in Second Foundation (Isaac Asimov) as
Arcadia (Arkady) dictates her school paper, or
http://www.treknation.com/episodes/tos/season2/assignment_earth.shtml).
I mostly agree... but it is still essentially a command line, even if not
the primary UI for the system (for most people).
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
But we'll see; language, after all, mutates. The language
I'm most familiar with in that respect (and I'm not that
familiar with it) is LOGLAN, which a friend (who since
moved to Texas) mentioned while we were in high school.
Its main strength is phonetic unambiguity; given any
stream of phonemes, the words and word boundaries are unambiguous,
at least for non-proper names.
http://www.loglan.org/
Wow... how many people speak it?
With luck, a few hundred.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
It is possible Esperanto has a similar capability, but I'm not
as familiar with it.
English, with its many homonyms, is absolutely terrible
in that regard: contrast
"they are meetin' the people"
(a dialectical variation of "they are meeting the people")
versus
"they are meat in the peep hole".
Without careful enunciation, one presumably gets interesting results
in trying to input one of the two. Nevertheless,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522969977053791779
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472>
There are still some challenges. :)
Ah yes, I think this was the one I was actually looking for.
Not that Microsoft is the first to have this sort of issue;
Doonebury noted the Newton's many issues with handwriting
recognition more than a decade ago.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
shows an interesting competition between someone using
Nuance, which is apparently a speech input system for
mobiles, and someone who's all thumbs... ;-) (The
competition is a little unfair, as the texter is using
a 10-key instead of a full if miniature Blackberry-type
keyboard affair. Still, they can input rather fast, if
their thumbs hold out.)
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
Windows. Multi-platform(1), multi-tasking(1), multi-user(1).
(1) if one defines "multi" as "exactly one".
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Homer
2008-07-16 22:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:20:59 -0700
Post by Snit
Yes... its interface is quite badly fractured. Some in COLA deny
this... which shows, frankly, that they know nothing of desktop
Linux or are lying.
Or that you are making a big deal out of nothing, by applying derogatory
terms to something that is actually one of GNU/Linux's greatest benefits
(i.e. choice), whilst conveniently ignoring the same fractured interface
problems in Windows (e.g. Office 2007).
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Or haven't given sufficient thought on the issue or have chosen to
ignore it.
Probably because to most of us, it's a total non-issue.
--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
| armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
| neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
| technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
23:22:41 up 208 days, 19:58, 3 users, load average: 0.24, 0.28, 0.27
Snit
2008-07-17 01:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Homer
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:20:59 -0700
Post by Snit
Yes... its interface is quite badly fractured. Some in COLA deny
this... which shows, frankly, that they know nothing of desktop
Linux or are lying.
Or that you are making a big deal out of nothing
Not making a big deal out of it... simply noting it.
Post by Homer
, by applying derogatory terms to something that is actually one of
GNU/Linux's greatest benefits (i.e. choice), whilst conveniently ignoring the
same fractured interface problems in Windows (e.g. Office 2007).
I said *nothing* of Windows at all... if someone says that Windows lacks
problems with a fractured UI I would disagree with them - though Office 2007
is not a very good example of the fractured UI problems I have talked about.

Oh, and your claim that I am against choice is completely wrong.
Post by Homer
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Or haven't given sufficient thought on the issue or have chosen to
ignore it.
Probably because to most of us, it's a total non-issue.
Ease of use and reduction of errors / lost work *should* be an issue (and a
non-fractured / consistent UI that is designed well is a substantial part of
that)
--
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
Snit
2008-07-17 01:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
OS X does this better than Windows or Linux. Here are print and save
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/interface/dialogs/>
The OS X ones are not completely consistent - but they are pretty darn good.
AIUI, OSX also supports unnamed files in its GUI; drag
an application icon (not a file!) and drop it into a
print bucket, and the printer receptor does exactly the
right thing.
Hmmm, what is the "right thing" in that case?
Dragging a folder prints a directory listing...
Dragging an application (non-bundled) does nothing.
One would expect that dragging an open window of a
document would correspond with the tool which had opened
that document.
Oh, I dragged the application itself.

OS X does not allow for the dragging of unsaved documents.

...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Ubuntu seems, to me, to be trying to build consistency. Sure, they have a
*long* way to go, but I think they are the best of the desktop Linux
distros.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/ubuntu-menu.pdf>
Clearly screwy but not as bad as, say, PCLOS.
All of these are GTK or Gnome, AFAICT. Not quite enough
of a sample.
Got any KDE?
Not on Ubuntu... but even using just the pre-installed tools there are some
pretty big inconsistencies.

...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
I'm not as sure of that either; consider cross-training
issues if one switches distros. Ideally all distros would
behave identically, although they would probably have
different initial set-points for their GUI config (one
might use a certain set of icons with a red background and
transparency and use click-to-focus, another might use a
different set with a blue background and no transparency,
and use sloppy-focus-follows-mouse; still another might
rearrange subframes in a controlled fashion within certain
windows, and use a green-purple theme), but all of them
would be customizable/configurable to any point within
the set-space (which might be expanded if anyone in IT is
good at drawing icons), and one wouldn't be able to tell
the difference.
And you should be able to set the system to use KDE or Gnome or... whatever.
And whatever preferences program, etc.
Exactly. The driver sets, but the non-driver can tell the
driver what to set as well. (Some care should be taken
lest one gets into a communications loop.)
Like many Usenet debates. :)

...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Of course all of the above blurs the line between a Webpage
and an application window, but what is a Webpage anyway?
As far as the user's concerned, it's a program opening
a window on his desktop; the program reads information
from the webpage server to build the visual elements of
the webpage, in a standard fashion.
The differences are getting more blurred every day.
As they should. What is a browser anyway? It's a program
that can read webpages. What's a webpage? It presents
text, forms, and GUI elements such as buttons.
No argument here.

...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Correct. As for efficiency, depends on a number of factors, most
of them having to do with proper event handling.
Even if the technical details are done poorly you can automate things in a
CLI that are rarely automated in a GUI (though Automator allows you to do
*some* of that type of stuff).
Automator presumably has an internal CLI that might simply track mouse
clicks and drags.
Hmmm, you can do menu items but I am not sure about clicks and drags... not
without third party tools that is.

...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Without careful enunciation, one presumably gets interesting results
in trying to input one of the two. Nevertheless,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522969977053791779
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472>
There are still some challenges. :)
Ah yes, I think this was the one I was actually looking for.
Not that Microsoft is the first to have this sort of issue;
Doonebury noted the Newton's many issues with handwriting
recognition more than a decade ago.
And in 10 years of work MS was not able to do any better. :)
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Andrew Halliwell
2008-07-16 08:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
-----
ls --help
ls: illegal option -- -
usage: ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTWabcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
-----
I think that would be of *no* help to most people. Not sure the man page
would help most people much either. :)
Hm...it appears you have an older version of 'ls'. The
usage line is extremely terse to the point of being cryptic,
but does give one a hint as to what options ls can support.
***@ponder:~# ls --help
Usage: ls [OPTION]... [FILE]...
List information about the FILEs (the current directory by default).
Sort entries alphabetically if none of -cftuvSUX nor --sort.

Mandatory arguments to long options are mandatory for short options too.
-a, --all do not ignore entries starting with .
-A, --almost-all do not list implied . and ..
--author with -l, print the author of each file
-b, --escape print octal escapes for nongraphic characters
--block-size=SIZE use SIZE-byte blocks
-B, --ignore-backups do not list implied entries ending with ~
-c with -lt: sort by, and show, ctime (time of last

continued for many screenfulls...
I think snit just made that ls --help response up, meself.
Unless that's the output from BSD ls used in OSX, in which case... bit crap
innit?
--
| ***@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
Snit
2008-07-16 14:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
-----
ls --help
ls: illegal option -- -
usage: ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTWabcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
-----
I think that would be of *no* help to most people. Not sure the man page
would help most people much either. :)
Hm...it appears you have an older version of 'ls'. The
usage line is extremely terse to the point of being cryptic,
but does give one a hint as to what options ls can support.
Usage: ls [OPTION]... [FILE]...
List information about the FILEs (the current directory by default).
Sort entries alphabetically if none of -cftuvSUX nor --sort.
Mandatory arguments to long options are mandatory for short options too.
-a, --all do not ignore entries starting with .
-A, --almost-all do not list implied . and ..
--author with -l, print the author of each file
-b, --escape print octal escapes for nongraphic characters
--block-size=SIZE use SIZE-byte blocks
-B, --ignore-backups do not list implied entries ending with ~
-c with -lt: sort by, and show, ctime (time of last
continued for many screenfulls...
I think snit just made that ls --help response up, meself.
Nope. You are insane.
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Unless that's the output from BSD ls used in OSX, in which case... bit crap
innit?
As I said, it is from OS X.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Andrew Halliwell
2008-07-16 15:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Unless that's the output from BSD ls used in OSX, in which case... bit crap
innit?
As I said, it is from OS X.
In that case...
Bit crap innit?
--
| ***@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
Snit
2008-07-16 15:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Post by Snit
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Unless that's the output from BSD ls used in OSX, in which case... bit crap
innit?
As I said, it is from OS X.
In that case...
Bit crap innit?
Not sure I would call it "crap" but would be good to have. Then again the
standard in Unix is to call the man pages... and that works fine.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
The Ghost In The Machine
2008-07-16 17:53:45 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andrew Halliwell
<***@ponder.sky.com>
wrote
on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:57:21 +0100
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
-----
ls --help
ls: illegal option -- -
usage: ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTWabcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
-----
I think that would be of *no* help to most people. Not sure the man page
would help most people much either. :)
Hm...it appears you have an older version of 'ls'. The
usage line is extremely terse to the point of being cryptic,
but does give one a hint as to what options ls can support.
Usage: ls [OPTION]... [FILE]...
List information about the FILEs (the current directory by default).
Sort entries alphabetically if none of -cftuvSUX nor --sort.
Mandatory arguments to long options are mandatory for short options too.
-a, --all do not ignore entries starting with .
-A, --almost-all do not list implied . and ..
--author with -l, print the author of each file
-b, --escape print octal escapes for nongraphic characters
--block-size=SIZE use SIZE-byte blocks
-B, --ignore-backups do not list implied entries ending with ~
-c with -lt: sort by, and show, ctime (time of last
continued for many screenfulls...
I think snit just made that ls --help response up, meself.
Actually, no; I've seen similar tersity on older HP/UX systems,
I think.
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Unless that's the output from BSD ls used in OSX, in which case... bit crap
innit?
Most likely.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Snit
2008-07-17 01:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andrew Halliwell
on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:57:21 +0100
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
-----
ls --help
ls: illegal option -- -
usage: ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTWabcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
-----
I think that would be of *no* help to most people. Not sure the man page
would help most people much either. :)
Hm...it appears you have an older version of 'ls'. The
usage line is extremely terse to the point of being cryptic,
but does give one a hint as to what options ls can support.
Usage: ls [OPTION]... [FILE]...
List information about the FILEs (the current directory by default).
Sort entries alphabetically if none of -cftuvSUX nor --sort.
Mandatory arguments to long options are mandatory for short options too.
-a, --all do not ignore entries starting with .
-A, --almost-all do not list implied . and ..
--author with -l, print the author of each file
-b, --escape print octal escapes for nongraphic characters
--block-size=SIZE use SIZE-byte blocks
-B, --ignore-backups do not list implied entries ending with ~
-c with -lt: sort by, and show, ctime (time of last
continued for many screenfulls...
I think snit just made that ls --help response up, meself.
Actually, no; I've seen similar tersity on older HP/UX systems,
I think.
Generally people who assume others are just making things up are showing
that they are likely to do so.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Unless that's the output from BSD ls used in OSX, in which case... bit crap
innit?
Most likely.
--
You really have to give credit to Apple for driving innovation.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Andrew Halliwell
2008-07-17 01:52:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Generally people who assume others are just making things up are showing
that they are likely to do so.
OR
They're quite familiar with the trolling tactics in this newsgroup and when
you have to deal with such inbred morons as moshe and hadron, anything is
possible.

And you must admit, snit, you ARE a known troll in this newsgroup.

Added to that I didn't notice your reference to OSX when you mentioned the
output of ls --help. So I attributed it to linux output.
Which would've meant either a VERY old ls, I was mistaken and it was a BSD
version of ls or you WERE making it up.

Just kept my bases covered by mentioning all the options.
--
| ***@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Snit
2008-07-17 02:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Post by Snit
Generally people who assume others are just making things up are showing
that they are likely to do so.
OR
They're quite familiar with the trolling tactics in this newsgroup and when
you have to deal with such inbred morons as moshe and hadron, anything is
possible.
And you must admit, snit, you ARE a known troll in this newsgroup.
I can point to people *accusing* me of that... but can you point to me
actually trolling? I suppose if you count my responding to trolls and
repeatedly quoting the evidence that shows they flip flop or lie or whatever
then you could make that argument.
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Added to that I didn't notice your reference to OSX when you mentioned the
output of ls --help. So I attributed it to linux output.
You could have asked and not made an assumption of dishonesty from someone
you cannot point to evidence of past dishonesty.
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Which would've meant either a VERY old ls, I was mistaken and it was a BSD
version of ls or you WERE making it up.
I clearly was *not* making it up - simply no reason to think that would be
the reason. In other words to note it as a logical possibility is fine but
to assume that is the likely cause would speak poorly of you.
Post by Andrew Halliwell
Just kept my bases covered by mentioning all the options.
So you were not saying you thought it was a likely explaination?
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
thufir
2008-07-17 04:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Andrew Halliwell
And you must admit, snit, you ARE a known troll in this newsgroup.
I can point to people *accusing* me of that... but can you point to me
actually trolling?
Only trolls turn off archiving.


-Thufir
Ben
2008-07-17 04:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by thufir
Post by Snit
Post by Andrew Halliwell
And you must admit, snit, you ARE a known troll in this newsgroup.
I can point to people *accusing* me of that... but can you point to me
actually trolling?
Only trolls turn off archiving.
-Thufir
Circumstantial evidence doesn't count. :)
Snit
2008-07-17 05:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by thufir
Post by Snit
Post by Andrew Halliwell
And you must admit, snit, you ARE a known troll in this newsgroup.
I can point to people *accusing* me of that... but can you point to me
actually trolling?
Only trolls turn off archiving.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't count. :)
If I were asking him to point to a post and I had archiving turned off for
years that would be one thing... but I had it off for a *day* or two and it
was recent enough where, I believe, all of the posts are still in the Google
archive.

Pretty much Thufir is trying to bad mouth me because I have pointed out some
of his lying.
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
thufir
2008-07-18 06:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by thufir
Only trolls turn off archiving.
[...]
Post by Ben
Circumstantial evidence doesn't count.
Well, I don't see a counterexample for that claim!


-Thufir
Snit
2008-07-18 06:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by thufir
Post by Ben
Post by thufir
Only trolls turn off archiving.
[...]
Post by Ben
Circumstantial evidence doesn't count.
Well, I don't see a counterexample for that claim!
You were caught lying - I quoted your lie.

You responded not by trying to defend your lie but by going on the offensive
and accusing me of lying based on your *lack* of evidence. Utter BS on your
part.

Here is the lie I quoted of yours, which you snip repeatedly:

Your whole "argument" boils down to: "My students can't
figure out how to use a desktop.  Somehow, they understand
the album to song relationship but fail to apply that
understanding to directories and files.  But, they can use
the mac very well because it has this super duper consistent
interface.  Linux should adopt the Mac interface. Hell, just
buy a Mac."

Had you merely been mistaken you could have admitted to it long ago - but
even after you were told you were wrong you refused to acknowledge it. You
have openly and unabashedly lied about me and my views.

Is there any defense of your actions where you could claim it was *not*
trolling?
--
"The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay
thufir
2008-07-18 14:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by thufir
Post by Ben
Post by thufir
Only trolls turn off archiving.
[...]
Post by Ben
Circumstantial evidence doesn't count.
Well, I don't see a counterexample for that claim!
You were caught lying - I quoted your lie.
First off, I didn't lie, fucker. Only in usenet can you get away with
that shit. Secondly, you fail to provide a counter example.



-Thufir
Snit
2008-07-18 16:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by thufir
Post by Snit
Post by thufir
Post by Ben
Post by thufir
Only trolls turn off archiving.
[...]
Post by Ben
Circumstantial evidence doesn't count.
Well, I don't see a counterexample for that claim!
You were caught lying - I quoted your lie.
First off, I didn't lie, fucker.
I quoted your lie... and you repeatedly snipped it. Here it is, again:

Your whole "argument" boils down to: "My students can't
figure out how to use a desktop.  Somehow, they understand
the album to song relationship but fail to apply that
understanding to directories and files.  But, they can use
the mac very well because it has this super duper consistent
interface.  Linux should adopt the Mac interface. Hell, just
buy a Mac."

Those are your words... and your comments were lies.

You lied.

You can deny you lied, of course, but you cannot change the fact that you
lied.
Post by thufir
Only in usenet can you get away with
that shit. Secondly, you fail to provide a counter example.
A counter example of you lying? Um, I am sure if I dug a lot I could find
an example of you forgetting to lie in a post. Who cares.
--
But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price, who is not too
concerned about freedom, I don't think we can say the Linux desktop offers
the very best experience.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Ben
2008-07-18 12:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by thufir
Post by Ben
Post by thufir
Only trolls turn off archiving.
[...]
Post by Ben
Circumstantial evidence doesn't count.
Well, I don't see a counterexample for that claim!
-Thufir
I'm just saying that by itself isn't enough to claim someone is a troll.
Show us some history of trolling first. :P
Snit
2008-07-18 12:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by thufir
Post by Ben
Post by thufir
Only trolls turn off archiving.
[...]
Post by Ben
Circumstantial evidence doesn't count.
Well, I don't see a counterexample for that claim!
-Thufir
I'm just saying that by itself isn't enough to claim someone is a troll.
Show us some history of trolling first. :P
As I have done with him by quoting a direct derogatory lie of his that he
will not comment on.

I could, of course, post many other examples of his trolling.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Ben
2008-07-18 12:58:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Ben
Post by thufir
Post by Ben
Post by thufir
Only trolls turn off archiving.
[...]
Post by Ben
Circumstantial evidence doesn't count.
Well, I don't see a counterexample for that claim!
-Thufir
I'm just saying that by itself isn't enough to claim someone is a troll.
Show us some history of trolling first. :P
As I have done with him by quoting a direct derogatory lie of his that he
will not comment on.
I could, of course, post many other examples of his trolling.
Oh well, then just ignore his posts and don't respond to him.
thufir
2008-07-18 14:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Oh well, then just ignore his posts and don't respond to him.
Ah, if only....


-Thufir
Snit
2008-07-18 16:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by Snit
Post by Ben
Post by thufir
Post by Ben
Post by thufir
Only trolls turn off archiving.
[...]
Post by Ben
Circumstantial evidence doesn't count.
Well, I don't see a counterexample for that claim!
-Thufir
I'm just saying that by itself isn't enough to claim someone is a troll.
Show us some history of trolling first. :P
As I have done with him by quoting a direct derogatory lie of his that he
will not comment on.
I could, of course, post many other examples of his trolling.
Oh well, then just ignore his posts and don't respond to him.
I enjoy pointing out the lies of the trolls. Call it a weakness.

Your whole "argument" boils down to: "My students can't
figure out how to use a desktop.  Somehow, they understand
the album to song relationship but fail to apply that
understanding to directories and files.  But, they can use
the mac very well because it has this super duper consistent
interface.  Linux should adopt the Mac interface. Hell, just
buy a Mac."

That is the current lie of Thufur's I am having fun with... and he just
snips and runs. That is all he will ever do.

Oddly that brings a smile to my face. :)
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
2008-07-17 05:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by thufir
Post by Snit
Post by Andrew Halliwell
And you must admit, snit, you ARE a known troll in this newsgroup.
I can point to people *accusing* me of that... but can you point to me
actually trolling?
Only trolls turn off archiving.
What makes you think that? And being that I had it off for a total of, I
think, one day (maybe two) are you going to judge my entire posting history
off of the few posts that *will* be removed from the Google archive (I do
not think they have yet been!)

In any case, if you want to talk about actions that show someone to be a
troll, then your actions of simply making up stories about my views
certainly is trolling. You said:

Your whole "argument" boils down to: "My students can't
figure out how to use a desktop.  Somehow, they understand
the album to song relationship but fail to apply that
understanding to directories and files.  But, they can use
the mac very well because it has this super duper consistent
interface.  Linux should adopt the Mac interface. Hell, just
buy a Mac."

Had you merely been mistaken you could have admitted to it long ago - but
even after you were told you were wrong you refused to acknowledge it. You
have openly and unabashedly lied about me and my views.

Is there any defense of your actions where you could claim it was *not*
trolling?
--
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.
thufir
2008-07-18 14:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
What makes you think that? And being that I had it off for a total of,
I think, one day (maybe two) are you going to judge my entire posting
history off of the few posts that *will* be removed from the Google
archive (I do not think they have yet been!)
I don't follow your posts, but when I do run across them on google the
ones I see always indicate that no archives are on; only trolls do that.



-Thufir
Snit
2008-07-18 16:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by thufir
Post by Snit
What makes you think that? And being that I had it off for a total of,
I think, one day (maybe two) are you going to judge my entire posting
history off of the few posts that *will* be removed from the Google
archive (I do not think they have yet been!)
I don't follow your posts, but when I do run across them on google the
ones I see always indicate that no archives are on; only trolls do that.
Who cares what you think about people turning of archiving? That is not
relevant to the fact that you are a liar:

Your whole "argument" boils down to: "My students can't
figure out how to use a desktop.  Somehow, they understand
the album to song relationship but fail to apply that
understanding to directories and files.  But, they can use
the mac very well because it has this super duper consistent
interface.  Linux should adopt the Mac interface. Hell, just
buy a Mac."

You lied. It is that simple. You are trying to run from that fact by
claiming that since you cannot show I lied then that must mean I am a
liar... your "logic" is idiotic.
--
Is Swiss cheese made out of hole milk?
Homer
2008-07-16 07:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:39:47 -0700
Also self-documenting; that's a GUI's major strength.
Given Windows' infamously cryptic error messages, I'd say it's a major
weakness. GUI apps on Linux don't fair much better. If you're lucky one
might get a "segmentation fault", but more often than not one gets a big
nothing. Of course there's always gdb and/or strace, but then we are
still talking about newbies here, right?

As for just typical day-to-day operations, well take a good look at the
equally infamous "Ribbon" interface for MS Office 07, and tell me again
how "self documenting" the GUI is. As "self documents" go, that one's a
cross between Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Take 'ls'. How does one know there's an '-a' option? One doesn't,
unless 'ls' also has a convention for printing its options (turns out
'ls --help' works in that regard), or one uses a different program
(traditionally, 'man ls').
Contrast that to a well-done GUI where the buttons are obvious.
Admittedly, a poorly-done GUI confuses things, but that's the case
with any software system anyway.
And the difference between a well-done GUI and a well-done --help is
what exactly, from a self-documenting POV?
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Unix was multitasking with a CLI long before there were GUIs.
I didn't say /using/, I said "taking advantage of". A multi-tasking
environment is considerably more useful if one can have multiple windows
open on a single workspace. That's how /I/ remember GUI's being promoted
back in the early days. I certainly don't remember anyone claiming that
I'd "never have to use the CLI ever again", or other such rubbish.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Most people, though, have no need for the CLI... or should not on a
well designed system.
Right, so please explain to me how I'm supposed to pipe the output from
one GUI to another GUI, or combine the effects of multiple GUI "apps" to
perform complex tasks automatically.

There are one or two examples of such programs, but not many.
VirtualDub's frame server and the VFAPI comes to mind. Then there's VBS
for those programs that support it, but there's no universal standard
that enables me to combine the features of multiple applications into a
single result.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Sure - there are lots of things CLIs do very well. They are not as
easy to learn to use but they can be very, very efficient and
flexible.
Case closed.

[snip snit's irrelevant "fractured UI" drivel]
--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
| armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
| neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
| technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
08:28:03 up 208 days, 5:03, 4 users, load average: 0.47, 0.28, 0.27
JEDIDIAH
2008-07-16 15:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:39:47 -0700
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Also self-documenting; that's a GUI's major strength.
Take 'ls'. How does one know there's an '-a' option?
Read the manpage.

Realization of this requires only one mnemonic.

That really isn't much.

Not GUI's OTOH have been complicated enough to confuse
the sort of end user you are claiming to champion since
the late 80's.

GUI apps have been that big, bloated and complicated for that long.

The key to groking any interface is not being intimidated by it.

You're just perpetrating the culture of fear.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
One doesn't, unless 'ls' also has a convention for printing
its options (turns out 'ls --help' works in that regard),
or one uses a different program (traditionally, 'man ls').
Contrast that to a well-done GUI where the buttons are obvious.
Admittedly, a poorly-done GUI confuses things, but that's
the case with any software system anyway.
If your task is non-trivial, your interface will be too.

CLI vs. GUI doesn't matter.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
If using the CLI for everything was perfectly natural to most human
beings, then computers wouldn't have only kicked off when GUIs became
standard components of the operating system,
Really? I was under the impression that GUIs were primarily introduced
to take advantage of multi-tasking features, rather than simply as a
means of arbitrarily replacing the command shell.
Unix was multitasking with a CLI long before there were GUIs.
And properly too. ;-) Back in the early 70's, if not
even earlier. By contrast, the PC didn't quite get
multitasking until well into the 90's (though part of
that was a hardware problem, as the 8086 didn't exactly
The 386 was released in '85.

By the 90's, 8086 were largely relegated to the trashheap.

[deletia]
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Snit
2008-07-16 16:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:39:47 -0700
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Ben
There's still an inherent difference between learning to use a CLI,
and using one's native language in a shop to ask a clerk where
something is.
How is clicking buttons any more "native" than typing "find"?
More discoverable and less to remember.
Also self-documenting; that's a GUI's major strength.
Take 'ls'. How does one know there's an '-a' option?
Read the manpage.
Realization of this requires only one mnemonic.
Put a relative newbie / non-techie in front of a manpage and have them read
it.

You will learn a lot by doing so. :)
Post by JEDIDIAH
That really isn't much.
It would no be that much for you to watch a few newbies / non-techies.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Not GUI's OTOH have been complicated enough to confuse
the sort of end user you are claiming to champion since
the late 80's.
GUIs take learning as well... but they are far, far more comfortable for
most users.
Post by JEDIDIAH
GUI apps have been that big, bloated and complicated for that long.
The key to groking any interface is not being intimidated by it.
You're just perpetrating the culture of fear.
You are showing your lack of understanding of general users.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
One doesn't, unless 'ls' also has a convention for printing
its options (turns out 'ls --help' works in that regard),
or one uses a different program (traditionally, 'man ls').
Contrast that to a well-done GUI where the buttons are obvious.
Admittedly, a poorly-done GUI confuses things, but that's
the case with any software system anyway.
If your task is non-trivial, your interface will be too.
CLI vs. GUI doesn't matter.
Incorrect.
...
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Bob
2008-07-15 18:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
Post by Bob
Someone elsewhere once said,
"The CLI is more intuitive and natural to human beings. When you
go into a shop which would you prefer : to say "I would like x
please" or to struggle with a GUI of list boxes, entry boxes,
radio buttons, check buttons etc etc?"
Balderdash, unless that someone happens to be a savant, in which
case it's merely highly improbable
When I know exactly what I want I'm happy to simply walk into a
store and ask for it; without needing to know the stock number.
However
If I knew what outcome I wanted, but didn't have a clue about the
best way to get there, I would walk straight out of a store if
the owner recited an incomprehensible list of stock numbers at
me; before looking at his watch and asking how many I wanted.
Seconded. And the way most stores are laid out is analogous to a
GUI anyway. You see what's available with your eyes and pick and
choose what you want based on what you see.
...or just ask the clerk.
Quite often this is the only way you are going to get what you want
in any timely sort of fashion (if at all).
Post by Ben
Besides that, speaking in a natural language with another human
being is quite different to learning to interact with a CLI.
Not really. With any context you need to learn the jargon and the
ettiquite in question.
If hurling incomprehensible cli strings at newbies is etiquette, it's no
wonder I got tangled up in knots.
--
Bob
Calling alcoholism 'a disease' is
the politically correct substitute for 'a self induced insanity.'
Ben
2008-07-15 18:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Ben
Post by Bob
Someone elsewhere once said,
"The CLI is more intuitive and natural to human beings. When you
go into a shop which would you prefer : to say "I would like x
please" or to struggle with a GUI of list boxes, entry boxes, radio
buttons, check buttons etc etc?"
Balderdash, unless that someone happens to be a savant, in which
case it's merely highly improbable
When I know exactly what I want I'm happy to simply walk into a
store and ask for it; without needing to know the stock number.
However
If I knew what outcome I wanted, but didn't have a clue about the
best way to get there, I would walk straight out of a store if the
owner recited an incomprehensible list of stock numbers at me;
before looking at his watch and asking how many I wanted.
Seconded. And the way most stores are laid out is analogous to a GUI
anyway. You see what's available with your eyes and pick and choose
what you want based on what you see.
...or just ask the clerk.
Quite often this is the only way you are going to get what you want in
any timely sort of fashion (if at all).
Post by Ben
Besides that, speaking in a natural language with another human being
is quite different to learning to interact with a CLI.
Not really. With any context you need to learn the jargon and the
ettiquite in question.
If hurling incomprehensible cli strings at newbies is etiquette, it's no
wonder I got tangled up in knots.
Thank you, at least one person who agrees with me.
The Ghost In The Machine
2008-07-15 18:37:59 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob
<***@invalid.invalid>
wrote
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:46:41 +1000
Post by Bob
Someone elsewhere once said,
"The CLI is more intuitive and natural to human beings.
Not. The CLI requires a little more training. Granted,
after that training, it can be far more useful.

In the Linux case, the training's pretty simple;
one is taught that the keyboard can type letters,
if necessary (think 5 year old or so in some cases),
then the function of the return key, quotes, Enter, and
backspace, and if necessary control-backspace -- some
terminal emulators still have that Ctrl/H/DEL confusion
thing -- and hopefully arrows for history, tab for file
completion/quickie listing, and Ctrl/W as well. Then give
him 'man' and 'apropos', and he's good to go. With a GUI,
it's just double-click....but it depends on what one double-clicks
on as to what happens next, though in the case of a CLI
it depends on what's expecting that input.
Post by Bob
When you go
into a shop which would you prefer : to say "I would like x please" or
to struggle with a GUI of list boxes, entry boxes, radio buttons, check
buttons etc etc?"
That's not a CLI. That's more of an ELI. ;-) Still, I
could spin a fair number of scenarios from a hypothetical
customer service rep on the phone that would involve
one of:

"type in the command see dee slash, then type in ell ess
space dash ell"

as opposed to

"OK, your desktop's up, now find "My Computer". Oh, it's
not English? Well, I'll have to help you in English sir.
Anyway, it looks like a monitor with a keyboard in front;
double click on it. You got a window. Good! Now locate
the C colon drive. No sir, that's not a waste disposal
pipe for the ocean; "colon" is two vertical dots. Yes,
the letter C. Double-click on the thing that looks like a
silver box."

And that's one of the simpler ones. Try, for example,
find / -xdev -type f -mtime -7 | cpio -oc > /mybackupfile.
Explain *that* using a GUI. ;-)

I'd say the CLI is easier to use, but not more intuitive, but
it's a subtle point; GUIs are self-documenting, but CLIs
require a 'man' command or equivalent. Granted, I learned
touch-typing on a QWERTY long ago, and 'man' to me is
second nature.

I could see computers of the future being installed with
clients such as WebEx, VNCServer, or GotoMyPC; the CS
person would then simply remotely control the user's
computer at need.

Of course, so could other things.
Post by Bob
Balderdash, unless that someone happens to be a savant, in which case
it's merely highly improbable
When I know exactly what I want I'm happy to simply walk into a store
and ask for it; without needing to know the stock number.
If the store's sufficiently well laid out; some stores are
better than others.
Post by Bob
However
If I knew what outcome I wanted, but didn't have a clue about the best
way to get there, I would walk straight out of a store if the owner
recited an incomprehensible list of stock numbers at me; before looking
at his watch and asking how many I wanted.
Or went into the back stockroom each time and recited another number
each trip.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #7878218:
class C { private: virtual void stupid() = 0; };
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Snit
2008-07-16 15:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Homer
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:39:47 -0700
Also self-documenting; that's a GUI's major strength.
Given Windows' infamously cryptic error messages, I'd say it's a major
weakness.
Not just the error messages but the "yes" "no" buttons on dialogs instead of
the "Delete" "Cancel" style of better designed OSs.

...
Post by Homer
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Unix was multitasking with a CLI long before there were GUIs.
I didn't say /using/, I said "taking advantage of". A multi-tasking
environment is considerably more useful if one can have multiple windows
open on a single workspace. That's how /I/ remember GUI's being promoted
back in the early days. I certainly don't remember anyone claiming that
I'd "never have to use the CLI ever again", or other such rubbish.
The original Mac OS had no CLI to speak of... for years I said I wanted an
OS with a Mac-like front end *and* with a Unix-style command line available.
Post by Homer
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Most people, though, have no need for the CLI... or should not on a
well designed system.
Right, so please explain to me how I'm supposed to pipe the output from
one GUI to another GUI, or combine the effects of multiple GUI "apps" to
perform complex tasks automatically.
Automator. :)
Post by Homer
There are one or two examples of such programs, but not many.
VirtualDub's frame server and the VFAPI comes to mind. Then there's VBS
for those programs that support it, but there's no universal standard
that enables me to combine the features of multiple applications into a
single result.
On OS X there is - AppleScript and Automator.
Post by Homer
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Sure - there are lots of things CLIs do very well. They are not as
easy to learn to use but they can be very, very efficient and
flexible.
Case closed.
[snip snit's irrelevant "fractured UI" drivel]
What did you disagree with?
--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein
The Ghost In The Machine
2008-07-16 18:04:22 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
<***@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote
on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:26:01 -0700
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:39:47 -0700
Also self-documenting; that's a GUI's major strength.
Given Windows' infamously cryptic error messages, I'd say it's a major
weakness.
Not just the error messages but the "yes" "no" buttons on dialogs instead of
the "Delete" "Cancel" style of better designed OSs.
I didn't say the Windows or Ubuntu dialogs were
well-designed, and anyone can muck up a perfectly good
wheel. ;-) (One of the more amusing examples thereof
is in the British TV version of the Hitchhiker's Guide
to the Galaxy; the American variant went a slightly
different route.)
Post by Snit
...
Post by Homer
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Unix was multitasking with a CLI long before there were GUIs.
I didn't say /using/, I said "taking advantage of". A multi-tasking
environment is considerably more useful if one can have multiple windows
open on a single workspace. That's how /I/ remember GUI's being promoted
back in the early days. I certainly don't remember anyone claiming that
I'd "never have to use the CLI ever again", or other such rubbish.
The original Mac OS had no CLI to speak of... for years I said I wanted an
OS with a Mac-like front end *and* with a Unix-style command line available.
There might have been one deep in the bowels of Apple,
when they were making the Peanut (which eventually became
the original Mac, if I'm not totally mistaken).
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Most people, though, have no need for the CLI... or should not on a
well designed system.
Right, so please explain to me how I'm supposed to pipe the output from
one GUI to another GUI, or combine the effects of multiple GUI "apps" to
perform complex tasks automatically.
Automator. :)
This appears to be a cross between CLI, though at a
lower level than usually seen, and a positional system.
Basically, it appears Automator can find controls and set
or activate them -- a useful capability.

It turns out the CLI is in fact Applescript.
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
There are one or two examples of such programs, but not many.
VirtualDub's frame server and the VFAPI comes to mind. Then there's VBS
for those programs that support it, but there's no universal standard
that enables me to combine the features of multiple applications into a
single result.
On OS X there is - AppleScript and Automator.
Post by Homer
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Sure - there are lots of things CLIs do very well. They are not as
easy to learn to use but they can be very, very efficient and
flexible.
Case closed.
[snip snit's irrelevant "fractured UI" drivel]
What did you disagree with?
Probably he agrees with all of it. Linux's GUI is
heavily fractured. Ubuntu might simplify things by only
including Gnome tools, but that's as far as we've gotten.
Applescript, after all, has been around since the late
80's, in some form; Hypercard and Hypertalk were superceded
in 1997 by Applescript.

Linux has no real analogue, though Tcl/Tk (or Perl/Tk or Python/Tk)
and Glade/Gtk approximate certain subfunctions.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Snit
2008-07-17 01:42:11 UTC
Permalink
"The Ghost In The Machine" <***@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> stated in post
6qp1l5-***@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 7/16/08 11:04 AM:

...
Post by Homer
Post by Snit
Unix was multitasking with a CLI long before there were GUIs.
I didn't say /using/, I said "taking advantage of". A multi-tasking
environment is considerably more useful if one can have multiple windows
open on a single workspace. That's how /I/ remember GUI's being promoted
back in the early days. I certainly don't remember anyone claiming that I'd
"never have to use the CLI ever again", or other such rubbish.
The original Mac OS had no CLI to speak of... for years I said I wanted an OS
with a Mac-like front end *and* with a Unix-style command line available.
There might have been one deep in the bowels of Apple, when they were making
the Peanut (which eventually became the original Mac, if I'm not totally
mistaken).
I meant publicly available. Apple did have a Unix variant long before OS X,
but it was not the norm for Macs.
Post by Homer
Post by Snit
Most people, though, have no need for the CLI... or should not on a
well designed system.
Right, so please explain to me how I'm supposed to pipe the output from
one GUI to another GUI, or combine the effects of multiple GUI "apps" to
perform complex tasks automatically.
Automator. :)
This appears to be a cross between CLI, though at a
lower level than usually seen, and a positional system.
Basically, it appears Automator can find controls and set
or activate them -- a useful capability.
It turns out the CLI is in fact Applescript.
Automator allows for simple "programming" or scripting with drag and drop
ease... with a growth path to more CLI scripting. It really is a pretty
amazing piece of technology. I have not used it a whole lot but when I have
it has been a great tool for me.

...
Post by Homer
[snip snit's irrelevant "fractured UI" drivel]
What did you disagree with?
Probably he agrees with all of it. Linux's GUI is
heavily fractured. Ubuntu might simplify things by only
including Gnome tools, but that's as far as we've gotten.
Applescript, after all, has been around since the late
80's, in some form; Hypercard and Hypertalk were superceded
in 1997 by Applescript.
Linux has no real analogue, though Tcl/Tk (or Perl/Tk or Python/Tk)
and Glade/Gtk approximate certain subfunctions.
As far as I know *no* other current major OS has anything similar to
Automator or AppleScript. I think the Amiga had something somewhat like
AppleScript.
--
"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>
The Ghost In The Machine
2008-07-17 02:26:02 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
<***@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote
on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:42:11 -0700
Post by Snit
...
Post by Homer
Post by Snit
Unix was multitasking with a CLI long before there were GUIs.
I didn't say /using/, I said "taking advantage of". A multi-tasking
environment is considerably more useful if one can have multiple windows
open on a single workspace. That's how /I/ remember GUI's being promoted
back in the early days. I certainly don't remember anyone claiming that I'd
"never have to use the CLI ever again", or other such rubbish.
The original Mac OS had no CLI to speak of... for years I said I wanted an OS
with a Mac-like front end *and* with a Unix-style command line available.
There might have been one deep in the bowels of Apple, when they were making
the Peanut (which eventually became the original Mac, if I'm not totally
mistaken).
I meant publicly available.
Yeah, well, I'm only guessing myself anyway. ;-) It's interesting to
compile a file using only a GUI/IDE, to be sure; I have an old Symantec
compiler flitting about somewhere.
Post by Snit
Apple did have a Unix variant long before OS X,
but it was not the norm for Macs.
The Apple LISA was a Pascal-based OS, if I'm not mistaken.
It was interesting but overpriced.
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Snit
Most people, though, have no need for the CLI... or should not on a
well designed system.
Right, so please explain to me how I'm supposed to pipe the output from
one GUI to another GUI, or combine the effects of multiple GUI "apps" to
perform complex tasks automatically.
Automator. :)
This appears to be a cross between CLI, though at a
lower level than usually seen, and a positional system.
Basically, it appears Automator can find controls and set
or activate them -- a useful capability.
It turns out the CLI is in fact Applescript.
Automator allows for simple "programming" or scripting with drag and drop
ease... with a growth path to more CLI scripting. It really is a pretty
amazing piece of technology. I have not used it a whole lot but when I have
it has been a great tool for me.
...
Post by Homer
[snip snit's irrelevant "fractured UI" drivel]
What did you disagree with?
Probably he agrees with all of it. Linux's GUI is
heavily fractured. Ubuntu might simplify things by only
including Gnome tools, but that's as far as we've gotten.
Applescript, after all, has been around since the late
80's, in some form; Hypercard and Hypertalk were superceded
in 1997 by Applescript.
Linux has no real analogue, though Tcl/Tk (or Perl/Tk or Python/Tk)
and Glade/Gtk approximate certain subfunctions.
As far as I know *no* other current major OS has anything similar to
Automator or AppleScript. I think the Amiga had something somewhat like
AppleScript.
The Amiga's UltraCard copied the idea from Apple's HyperCard.
It wasn't quite verbatim but I don't remember the differences now.

I don't know if AmigaScript got off the ground at all, and
I can't say I tracked the Amiga much past Workbench 2.0. (It
got to 3.1 or so before dying, if I'm not mistaken. A sad end
for such a promising machine.)
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #23291:
void f(item *p) { if(p != 0) delete p; }
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Snit
2008-07-17 03:08:54 UTC
Permalink
"The Ghost In The Machine" <***@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> stated in post
q6n2l5-***@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 7/16/08 7:26 PM:

...
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
The original Mac OS had no CLI to speak of... for years I said I wanted an
OS with a Mac-like front end *and* with a Unix-style command line available.
There might have been one deep in the bowels of Apple, when they were making
the Peanut (which eventually became the original Mac, if I'm not totally
mistaken).
I meant publicly available.
Yeah, well, I'm only guessing myself anyway. ;-) It's interesting to compile
a file using only a GUI/IDE, to be sure; I have an old Symantec compiler
flitting about somewhere.
Post by Snit
Apple did have a Unix variant long before OS X, but it was not the norm for
Macs.
The Apple LISA was a Pascal-based OS, if I'm not mistaken.
It was interesting but overpriced.
I owned one for a while - it was given to me. I played with it for a while
and then gave it away to a guy with an "Apple museum" at his house.

...
Post by Snit
Linux has no real analogue, though Tcl/Tk (or Perl/Tk or Python/Tk)
and Glade/Gtk approximate certain subfunctions.
As far as I know *no* other current major OS has anything similar to
Automator or AppleScript. I think the Amiga had something somewhat like
AppleScript.
The Amiga's UltraCard copied the idea from Apple's HyperCard.
It wasn't quite verbatim but I don't remember the differences now.
Nor I. I barely used it.
I don't know if AmigaScript got off the ground at all, and
I can't say I tracked the Amiga much past Workbench 2.0. (It
got to 3.1 or so before dying, if I'm not mistaken. A sad end
for such a promising machine.)
I wish it had gone further.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. - Unknown
JEDIDIAH
2008-07-17 03:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:26:01 -0700
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:39:47 -0700
[deletia]
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Case closed.
[snip snit's irrelevant "fractured UI" drivel]
What did you disagree with?
Probably he agrees with all of it. Linux's GUI is
heavily fractured. Ubuntu might simplify things by only
Shameless hyperbole.

Ubuntu doesn't lose any thing of signficance by including the
best tools from KDE. While it gains what are arguably the best
tools.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
including Gnome tools, but that's as far as we've gotten.
Applescript, after all, has been around since the late
80's, in some form; Hypercard and Hypertalk were superceded
in 1997 by Applescript.
Linux has no real analogue, though Tcl/Tk (or Perl/Tk or Python/Tk)
and Glade/Gtk approximate certain subfunctions.
--
Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,
is genuinely new: culture, like science and |||
technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \
building on the works of those that came before.

Judge Alex Kozinski
US Court of Appeals
9th Circuit


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Snit
2008-07-17 03:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:26:01 -0700
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:39:47 -0700
[deletia]
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Case closed.
[snip snit's irrelevant "fractured UI" drivel]
What did you disagree with?
Probably he agrees with all of it. Linux's GUI is
heavily fractured. Ubuntu might simplify things by only
Shameless hyperbole.
Ubuntu doesn't lose any thing of signficance by including the
best tools from KDE. While it gains what are arguably the best
tools.
It loses the level of consistency it has... and that is a significant loss.
Shuttleworth clearly gets this.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
including Gnome tools, but that's as far as we've gotten.
Applescript, after all, has been around since the late
80's, in some form; Hypercard and Hypertalk were superceded
in 1997 by Applescript.
Linux has no real analogue, though Tcl/Tk (or Perl/Tk or Python/Tk)
and Glade/Gtk approximate certain subfunctions.
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Ben
2008-07-17 04:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Shameless hyperbole.
Ubuntu doesn't lose any thing of signficance by including the
best tools from KDE. While it gains what are arguably the best
tools.
I honestly can't see any fragmentation in Ubuntu's GUI, or Fedora's. And
I run both in GNOME, just so you know. Even when I'm running KDE based
applications like Amarok or Akregator, it's still not too drastic a
change from the regular GNOME GUI, and it'd be pretty silly to say that
it makes the GUI "fragmented".
Snit
2008-07-18 20:21:21 UTC
Permalink
"The Ghost In The Machine" <***@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> stated in post
36m1l5-***@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 7/16/08 10:02 AM:

...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
1) Pull up the man pages and try to make heads or tails of it
And how does one "pull up" a manpage? How does one *know*
of a manpage, the 'man' command, or a shell terminal to
execute such a command?
Exactly! And even if one does... well... to many people they are
unintelligible.
I think the initial intent for 'man' was for shorthand, not a
long-winded expostulation of exactly how that command fits into the
entire scheme of things. To that extent, 'man' works well enough,
though there's always room for improvement, especially now that
there's hyperlink capability.
Sure... it is good for a techie audience which is the intent.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Ideally, we'd have a 'man' replacement that pulled
up webpages, and the webpages would be written with
cross-references that could simply be clicked on. Certain
efforts such as 'tkman' exist (tkman could be likened
to a custom browser), but we're nowhere near there yet,
and it's not an issue with code development; it's an issue
with good writing and good help page/website development.
The very area where OSS tends to not do well.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
For example, how does 'ls' fit in with the directory/file
system? That page needs to be somewhere, in order
to have the user more fully understand why 'ls' shows
certain names. Ideally that directory/file system page
would have links (or chains) to the kernel as well to
explain the ins and outs of Linux's implementation of a
generic file system, with additional links to specific
filesystems such as ext2, ext3, ntfs, and vfat. Of course
many of these will not be for the novice, but the idea is
to provide for both, if we can.
Good documentation is a challenge.
Very much so ... I know, I used to write documentation for training for
Intuit.

...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
2) Ask on a forum or Usenet for help
Good luck, if one can't get on the Internet or doesn't
have a working webbrowser.
Hey, a school once asked me to do an *intro* computer class online. By
Intro I mean the how-to-use-a-mouse level intro.
Ow. Someone had a serious brain cramp there.
Seriously, it was a debate as to whether or not this was a good idea. I
flat our refused to do it...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
I told them they were insane. They got someone else to try... and it
flopped. Started with something like 15 students and they *all* dropped out
or stopped all communication within 2 weeks. I was called back to help make
better face to face classes. :)
Indeed.
They could not figure out how I had predicted the class would fail... I must
be a super computer genius or something. :)

...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Not always. Microsoft's GUI in particular likes to hide
what it considers irrelevant menu entries. (The user can
retrieve them with a little work.) PCLinuxOS hides
certain button text on one requester, which Snit has already
posted a link to (I'd have to find it, but basically one
button overlaps another).
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.pdf>
Even without such silliness as that, many things are "hidden" in a GUI -
there is click, right click, center click (and more if you have more mouse
buttons), click and drag, right click and drag, option/alt click, option/alt
click and drag, alt/option right click and drag... now add the control key
and the shift key and the space bar and *combos* and you come up with an
amazing number of options. Photoshop users will know what I mean. :)
You forgot scrollbars. They *inherently* hide something.
Well, they indicate the existence of hidden material. Preferably they are
proportional - and most are these days (Apple was behind the curve on that
one... for folks who keep track of my comments about Apple and claim I say
only good things about them!)
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Granted, most users will intuit that they need to move
the scrollbar, and with the notable exception of Xaw, the
scrollbar is easily moved by using the left mouse button,
pressing, dragging, and releasing.
And more and more by using the scroll wheel.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
The same is the case for popup menus. Granted, your
examples are more insidious (hence the trend to show key
shortcuts in menus as a documentation aid).
I do not have a problem with things being "hidden" in the examples you used
- there is an indication that there is more that is not showing. Of course
the devil is in the details - I have seen many dialogs with scroll bars that
could (and should!) have simply been made larger to prevent the need of the
scroll bar.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Sure, some of this is made to be "documented" by altering the mouse pointer
icon, but it is still not very discoverable to find all the "switches".
Almost impossible to find switches of that sort and there
are more than 100 of them, and that's before considering
combinations such as CTRL-ALT-DELETE, CTRL-SHIFT-4, and
SHIFT-A followed by CTRL-X.
I don't consider that effective UI, unless they are also
in menu entries.
There might be better ways to do things, but I consider OS X's Option+E,
then E to be a better way to get the é character than the Windows method.
Of course a list of "special" characters is even better - and a user can get
that on any of the major OSs.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
A CLI, however, has too many commands to remember, is boring,
I fail to see what "boredom" has to do with this problem.
I need to do something, I look it up.
Post by Ben
and they
fear making a mistake, because if they do, there's no GUI option right
there for them to un-check and click ok to revert to the original
configuration, so with the CLI, what do they do?
Backspace.
But generally no undo.
True. Of course undo is not done at the GUI level anyway;
the closest to an undo a GUI has (that I know about,
anyway) would be Microsoft's scrollbars, which basically
flop back to their original settings if the user moves his
mouse out of the trench/trough. I for one consider such
behavior irritating, but at least it's consistent from a
philosophical standpoint.
But it is annoying. :)
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
AFAIK, most editors implementing GUI use a journal; this
journal has rows each of which refers to an edit instruction.
This is separate from a GUI, though might be supported by
certain OS libraries or (more likely) widget APIs.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
Go straight back to the forum and copy/paste the CLI's error messages
and get another command to paste into the CLI without remembering anything.
I also highly doubt you can say the CLI is "faster" than a GUI for
average users who turn to a forum for everything they want and wait an
hour for a response.
Or can't type.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
The Ghost In The Machine
2008-07-18 21:24:28 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
<***@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote
on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:21:21 -0700
Post by Snit
...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
1) Pull up the man pages and try to make heads or tails of it
And how does one "pull up" a manpage? How does one *know*
of a manpage, the 'man' command, or a shell terminal to
execute such a command?
Exactly! And even if one does... well... to many people they are
unintelligible.
I think the initial intent for 'man' was for shorthand, not a
long-winded expostulation of exactly how that command fits into the
entire scheme of things. To that extent, 'man' works well enough,
though there's always room for improvement, especially now that
there's hyperlink capability.
Sure... it is good for a techie audience which is the intent.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Ideally, we'd have a 'man' replacement that pulled
up webpages, and the webpages would be written with
cross-references that could simply be clicked on. Certain
efforts such as 'tkman' exist (tkman could be likened
to a custom browser), but we're nowhere near there yet,
and it's not an issue with code development; it's an issue
with good writing and good help page/website development.
The very area where OSS tends to not do well.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
For example, how does 'ls' fit in with the directory/file
system? That page needs to be somewhere, in order
to have the user more fully understand why 'ls' shows
certain names. Ideally that directory/file system page
would have links (or chains) to the kernel as well to
explain the ins and outs of Linux's implementation of a
generic file system, with additional links to specific
filesystems such as ext2, ext3, ntfs, and vfat. Of course
many of these will not be for the novice, but the idea is
to provide for both, if we can.
Good documentation is a challenge.
Very much so ... I know, I used to write documentation for training for
Intuit.
...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
2) Ask on a forum or Usenet for help
Good luck, if one can't get on the Internet or doesn't
have a working webbrowser.
Hey, a school once asked me to do an *intro* computer class online. By
Intro I mean the how-to-use-a-mouse level intro.
Ow. Someone had a serious brain cramp there.
Seriously, it was a debate as to whether or not this was a good idea. I
flat our refused to do it...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
I told them they were insane. They got someone else to try... and it
flopped. Started with something like 15 students and they *all* dropped out
or stopped all communication within 2 weeks. I was called back to help make
better face to face classes. :)
Indeed.
They could not figure out how I had predicted the class would fail... I must
be a super computer genius or something. :)
...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Not always. Microsoft's GUI in particular likes to hide
what it considers irrelevant menu entries. (The user can
retrieve them with a little work.) PCLinuxOS hides
certain button text on one requester, which Snit has already
posted a link to (I'd have to find it, but basically one
button overlaps another).
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.pdf>
Even without such silliness as that, many things are "hidden" in a GUI -
there is click, right click, center click (and more if you have more mouse
buttons), click and drag, right click and drag, option/alt click, option/alt
click and drag, alt/option right click and drag... now add the control key
and the shift key and the space bar and *combos* and you come up with an
amazing number of options. Photoshop users will know what I mean. :)
You forgot scrollbars. They *inherently* hide something.
Well, they indicate the existence of hidden material. Preferably they are
proportional - and most are these days (Apple was behind the curve on that
one... for folks who keep track of my comments about Apple and claim I say
only good things about them!)
I'd frankly have to look that up. For its part Microsoft
got slightly schizophrenic for awhile; IE had proportional
but at least one other app did not, in the Win95 timeframe.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Granted, most users will intuit that they need to move
the scrollbar, and with the notable exception of Xaw, the
scrollbar is easily moved by using the left mouse button,
pressing, dragging, and releasing.
And more and more by using the scroll wheel.
Aye.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
The same is the case for popup menus. Granted, your
examples are more insidious (hence the trend to show key
shortcuts in menus as a documentation aid).
I do not have a problem with things being "hidden" in the examples you used
- there is an indication that there is more that is not showing. Of course
the devil is in the details - I have seen many dialogs with scroll bars that
could (and should!) have simply been made larger to prevent the need of the
scroll bar.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Sure, some of this is made to be "documented" by altering the mouse pointer
icon, but it is still not very discoverable to find all the "switches".
Almost impossible to find switches of that sort and there
are more than 100 of them, and that's before considering
combinations such as CTRL-ALT-DELETE, CTRL-SHIFT-4, and
SHIFT-A followed by CTRL-X.
I don't consider that effective UI, unless they are also
in menu entries.
There might be better ways to do things, but I consider OS X's Option+E,
then E to be a better way to get the é character than the Windows method.
Of course a list of "special" characters is even better - and a user can get
that on any of the major OSs.
I'd have to look; I don't need to do "dead key" that often.
The few times I do, I cut and paste from gucharmap, a
Gnome utility (under Applications>Accessories>Character Map).
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
A CLI, however, has too many commands to remember, is boring,
I fail to see what "boredom" has to do with this problem.
I need to do something, I look it up.
Post by Ben
and they
fear making a mistake, because if they do, there's no GUI option right
there for them to un-check and click ok to revert to the original
configuration, so with the CLI, what do they do?
Backspace.
But generally no undo.
True. Of course undo is not done at the GUI level anyway;
the closest to an undo a GUI has (that I know about,
anyway) would be Microsoft's scrollbars, which basically
flop back to their original settings if the user moves his
mouse out of the trench/trough. I for one consider such
behavior irritating, but at least it's consistent from a
philosophical standpoint.
But it is annoying. :)
Aye.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
AFAIK, most editors implementing GUI use a journal; this
journal has rows each of which refers to an edit instruction.
This is separate from a GUI, though might be supported by
certain OS libraries or (more likely) widget APIs.
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Ben
Go straight back to the forum and copy/paste the CLI's error messages
and get another command to paste into the CLI without remembering anything.
I also highly doubt you can say the CLI is "faster" than a GUI for
average users who turn to a forum for everything they want and wait an
hour for a response.
Or can't type.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
important, it's the ability to DO something
with it.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Snit
2008-07-18 21:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Not always. Microsoft's GUI in particular likes to hide
what it considers irrelevant menu entries. (The user can
retrieve them with a little work.) PCLinuxOS hides
certain button text on one requester, which Snit has already
posted a link to (I'd have to find it, but basically one
button overlaps another).
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.pdf>
Even without such silliness as that, many things are "hidden" in a GUI -
there is click, right click, center click (and more if you have more mouse
buttons), click and drag, right click and drag, option/alt click, option/alt
click and drag, alt/option right click and drag... now add the control key
and the shift key and the space bar and *combos* and you come up with an
amazing number of options. Photoshop users will know what I mean. :)
You forgot scrollbars. They *inherently* hide something.
Well, they indicate the existence of hidden material. Preferably they are
proportional - and most are these days (Apple was behind the curve on that
one... for folks who keep track of my comments about Apple and claim I say
only good things about them!)
I'd frankly have to look that up. For its part Microsoft
got slightly schizophrenic for awhile; IE had proportional
but at least one other app did not, in the Win95 timeframe.
It was past that time when Apple was still a mixed bag... which is weird
because Apple got it right with the Apple IIgs.

Here are screen shots of Mac OS 8 (System 8) [1997]:

<http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/macos80>

And Mac OS 9 (System 9) [1999]:

<http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/macos90>

Silly, eh? :)

...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Snit
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
I don't consider that effective UI, unless they are also
in menu entries.
There might be better ways to do things, but I consider OS X's Option+E,
then E to be a better way to get the é character than the Windows method.
Of course a list of "special" characters is even better - and a user can get
that on any of the major OSs.
I'd have to look; I don't need to do "dead key" that often.
The few times I do, I cut and paste from gucharmap, a
Gnome utility (under Applications>Accessories>Character Map).
With Mac OS at least it shows you something is happening when hit the
option+e.
...
--
"The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...