GIMP - Linux

This is a discussion on GIMP - Linux ; uThe charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy is: For discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other operating systems.Snit wrote: > "Hadron" stated in post > g7hrki$pnd$1@registered.motzarella.org on 8/8/08 9:18 AM: > > ... >>> Again Wendy... idiots like you justify this ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 148

Thread: GIMP

  1. Re: GIMP

    uThe charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy is:

    For discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other operating
    systems.Snit wrote:
    > "Hadron" stated in post
    > g7hrki$pnd$1@registered.motzarella.org on 8/8/08 9:18 AM:
    >
    > ...
    >>> Again Wendy... idiots like you justify this mess by calling it choice.
    >>> Like it or not each app designer does not get to choose how menus are
    >>> orgainzed. The "File" menu contains options like Open, Save and Print.
    >>> Just because some moronic idiot wants to put these choices under
    >>> "Tools" or "Help" or the "Edit" menu doesn't justify that it's a good
    >>> idea because somehow it's choice. A poorly designed menu isn't
    >>> "choice" - it's stupidity.

    >> And therein lies the problem with talking to idiots like High Plains
    >> Hypocrite and Rick here in COLA. They simply *ARE* that stupid. They
    >> really think that moving such stuff is really about "choice". It make me
    >> cringe to think either of them have anything whatsoever to do with SW
    >> design, implementation and maintenance.

    >
    > If someone wants the choice of an inconsistent and fractured user experience
    > then I am all for them having the ability to screw themselves over that way.
    > Rick has stated very well why doing so is a bad idea (not best for the user,
    > leads to more errors, etc.).


    Wow. Snits says I am the UI expert again.

    >
    > What I do not get is why Rick and others in COLA are *against* the clearly
    > better choice to have a unified and consistent user experience *on a
    > distro*.


    What yo don't get is that all a user has to do is install a KDE or Gnome
    system.



    > They read that and start spewing BS about "one true UI" as though
    > having it where distros *could* do things better would make it impossible
    > for them to have their poorly designed interfaces if they wanted one.


    You are the one wanting just on windowing environment avalbel to a user
    at a time.

    >
    > For people who claim to be so pro-choice they surely are against any choice
    > that is clearly "better for the user" than the ones they advocate for.


    You are a liar. You told a lie, and I have just pointed it out.

    >
    >>>> There are key reasons for the layouts and certain personalities will tend
    >>>> to prefer one over the other.
    >>> The primary key reason for standard meny layouts and keyboard
    >>> shortcuts is consistency. Something that linux lacks badly.

    >> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes from
    >> Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not good from
    >> the user's perspective.

    >
    > Rick:
    > I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.
    >
    > Rick:
    > And yes, I do know that it is better for the user if the button
    > are all in the same places in comparable dialog boxes, and that
    > common menu items are the same.
    >
    > Rick:
    > Actually my view is not so different from usability experts.
    > It does enhance usability to have menus and controls in the
    > same places across applications. The more uniform or
    > consistent that is, the better for the user. I have said this
    > many times before. I am not coming around to your point of
    > view.
    >
    > Rick:
    > I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across
    > an interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.
    >
    > Rick says quoting him on those things is not a lie... but to agree with him
    > is.


    That is another lie. I have never said that. That's at least 2 lies in
    this post.

    >
    >>>> Oops! There is the problem! Choice! Why we can't have that! It is too
    >>>> democratic! Too free! Moo! Moo! Moo! Baah! Baah! Baah!
    >>> It's not choice if it's utter stupidity. Piss-poor menu and UI design
    >>> is not the result of choice. It's the result of non-standard UI design
    >>> which makes the application unorganized mess.

    >> High Plains Hypocrite really is too dumb to see it.
    >>

    > Anyone with a inkling of computer experience understands why a fractured
    > user experience is a bad thing. There is a lot of agreement on this in the
    > real world:
    >
    > Snit RonB
    > Hadron Rick
    > Tim Smith Gregory Shearman
    > KDE docs Peter Köhlmann
    > Gnome docs JEDIDIAH
    > OpenOffice docs El Tux
    > Firefox docs vs. chrisv
    > Screen shots 7
    > Videos
    > Tim Berners-Lee
    > Peer Reviewed Studies [1]
    > Shuttleworth, Mark
    > UI Experts [2]
    > Common sense
    > Bloggers
    >
    > [1] Including, but not limited to the ones referenced here:
    > Carole A George, "Usability testing and design of a
    > library website: an iterative approach" 2005
    > Cheul Rhee, et. al., "Web interface consistency in
    > e-learning. Online Information Review" Social
    > Science Module database" 2006
    > John W Satzinger, Lorne Olfman "User Interface Consistency
    > Across End-User Applications: The Effects on Mental
    > Models" 1998
    > R. Chimera, ³The Carm Group: Designing GUIs for
    > Usability² 1996.
    > R. Chimera and B. Shneiderman, ³User Interface Consistency:
    > An Evaluation of Original and Revised Versions for a
    > Videodisk Library² 1993
    >
    > [2] Including, but not limited to:
    > Richard Chimera of the Human-Computer Interaction
    > Laboratory at the University of Maryland and ASU, etc.
    >
    >
    > Jakob Nielsen:
    >
    > Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
    > http://snipurl.com/oppedisano
    >
    > Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access
    >
    >



    --
    Rick

  2. Re: GIMP

    Snit wrote:
    > "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    > slrng9p1m2.5cf.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 8/8/08 10:47 AM:
    >
    >>> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes from
    >>> Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not good from
    >>> the user's perspective.

    >> That is a really very vague idea that doesn't acknowledge the fact
    >> that different tools could be different for a reason. Although I'm not
    >> sure anyone has come up with any meaningful metric for "fragmented"
    >> anyways.

    >
    > I am not against tools having different UIs for a *user* based reason. As
    > far as what I mean by "fragmented" it is an inconsistent user experience
    > based on non-user based reasons... such as the examples I have shown about
    > PCLOS:
    >
    > Poorly done menus
    >
    >
    > Poorly done dialogs:
    >
    >
    > Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
    >
    >
    > Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
    >
    >
    > Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much better:
    >
    >
    >
    > And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird text
    > behavior on selection:
    >
    >
    >
    > It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious. How
    > could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not have such
    > things be apparent to them - especially someone who considers themselves
    > knowledgeable about computers?
    >
    >

    Limit your examples to hose from just one windowing environment, then
    whine abut inconsistency.

    --
    Rick

  3. Re: GIMP

    "Rick" stated in post
    uIidnRtCVPGBdQHVnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/8/08 5:43 PM:

    ....
    >>> And therein lies the problem with talking to idiots like High Plains
    >>> Hypocrite and Rick here in COLA. They simply *ARE* that stupid. They
    >>> really think that moving such stuff is really about "choice". It make me
    >>> cringe to think either of them have anything whatsoever to do with SW
    >>> design, implementation and maintenance.

    >>
    >> If someone wants the choice of an inconsistent and fractured user experience
    >> then I am all for them having the ability to screw themselves over that way.
    >> Rick has stated very well why doing so is a bad idea (not best for the user,
    >> leads to more errors, etc.).

    >
    > Wow. Snits says I am the UI expert again.


    I have no problem with saying you were right on the cue when you talked
    about the problems with an inconsistent (fractured) user experience:

    Rick:
    I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.

    Rick:
    And yes, I do know that it is better for the user if the button are
    all in the same places in comparable dialog boxes, and that common
    menu items are the same.

    Rick:
    Actually my view is not so different from usability experts. It does
    enhance usability to have menus and controls in the same places
    across applications. The more uniform or consistent that is, the
    better for the user. I have said this many times before. I am not
    coming around to your point of view.

    Rick:
    I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across an
    interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.

    Where you struggle, though, is when you refuse to apply it to, say, PCLOS
    because it is *theoretically* possible to correct the problems that it ships
    with... and then you try to apply it to OS X because one could go out of
    their way to make it significantly inconsistent. This is where your passion
    for Linux overrides your ability to use common sense and logic.

    >> What I do not get is why Rick and others in COLA are *against* the clearly
    >> better choice to have a unified and consistent user experience *on a
    >> distro*.

    >
    > What yo don't get is that all a user has to do is install a KDE or Gnome
    > system.


    So name the applications on the distro of your choice. I will test it for
    you and post screen shots.

    >> They read that and start spewing BS about "one true UI" as though
    >> having it where distros *could* do things better would make it impossible
    >> for them to have their poorly designed interfaces if they wanted one.

    >
    > You are the one wanting just on windowing environment avalbel to a user
    > at a time.


    I want a consistent (non-fractured) user experience as an *option*... right
    now there is *no* evidence that such a Linux desktop exists *anywhere*, no
    less without considerable work from the user. Look at how long you have
    been unable to come up with a list of programs to test.

    >> For people who claim to be so pro-choice they surely are against any choice
    >> that is clearly "better for the user" than the ones they advocate for.

    >
    > You are a liar. You told a lie, and I have just pointed it out.


    I am not interested in your insults and grade school put downs. Can you
    rise above that? Please?

    >>>>> There are key reasons for the layouts and certain personalities will tend
    >>>>> to prefer one over the other.
    >>>> The primary key reason for standard meny layouts and keyboard
    >>>> shortcuts is consistency. Something that linux lacks badly.
    >>> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes from
    >>> Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not good from
    >>> the user's perspective.

    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> And yes, I do know that it is better for the user if the button
    >> are all in the same places in comparable dialog boxes, and that
    >> common menu items are the same.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> Actually my view is not so different from usability experts.
    >> It does enhance usability to have menus and controls in the
    >> same places across applications. The more uniform or
    >> consistent that is, the better for the user. I have said this
    >> many times before. I am not coming around to your point of
    >> view.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across
    >> an interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.
    >>
    >> Rick says quoting him on those things is not a lie... but to agree with him
    >> is.

    >
    > That is another lie. I have never said that. That's at least 2 lies in
    > this post.


    You claim it is a lie to apply your quotes to an OS (distro) where the
    problems you list *clearly* and completely unambiguously applies... as has
    been proved by screen shots. Your response was to claim that the screen
    shots had pictures of programs that were not a standard part of PCLOS but
    you were *never* able to list a single program I "faked". In response you
    went off topic and talked about how the programs were not make specifically
    for PCLOS as if that was in contention (it was not).

    >>>>> Oops! There is the problem! Choice! Why we can't have that! It is too
    >>>>> democratic! Too free! Moo! Moo! Moo! Baah! Baah! Baah!
    >>>> It's not choice if it's utter stupidity. Piss-poor menu and UI design
    >>>> is not the result of choice. It's the result of non-standard UI design
    >>>> which makes the application unorganized mess.
    >>> High Plains Hypocrite really is too dumb to see it.
    >>>

    >> Anyone with a inkling of computer experience understands why a fractured
    >> user experience is a bad thing. There is a lot of agreement on this in the
    >> real world:
    >>
    >> Snit RonB
    >> Hadron Rick
    >> Tim Smith Gregory Shearman
    >> KDE docs Peter Köhlmann
    >> Gnome docs JEDIDIAH
    >> OpenOffice docs El Tux
    >> Firefox docs vs. chrisv
    >> Screen shots 7
    >> Videos
    >> Tim Berners-Lee
    >> Peer Reviewed Studies [1]
    >> Shuttleworth, Mark
    >> UI Experts [2]
    >> Common sense
    >> Bloggers
    >>
    >> [1] Including, but not limited to the ones referenced here:
    >> Carole A George, "Usability testing and design of a
    >> library website: an iterative approach" 2005
    >> Cheul Rhee, et. al., "Web interface consistency in
    >> e-learning. Online Information Review" Social
    >> Science Module database" 2006
    >> John W Satzinger, Lorne Olfman "User Interface Consistency
    >> Across End-User Applications: The Effects on Mental
    >> Models" 1998
    >> R. Chimera, ³The Carm Group: Designing GUIs for
    >> Usability² 1996.
    >> R. Chimera and B. Shneiderman, ³User Interface Consistency:
    >> An Evaluation of Original and Revised Versions for a
    >> Videodisk Library² 1993
    >>
    >> [2] Including, but not limited to:
    >> Richard Chimera of the Human-Computer Interaction
    >> Laboratory at the University of Maryland and ASU, etc.
    >>
    >>
    >> Jakob Nielsen:
    >>
    >> Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
    >> http://snipurl.com/oppedisano
    >>
    >> Henry P. Ledgard in The Case Against User Interface Consistency
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access
    >>
    >>

    >




    --
    The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
    offering things that Linux is not.
    - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)


  4. Re: GIMP

    "Rick" stated in post
    uIidnRpCVPHpdQHVnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/8/08 5:45 PM:

    > Snit wrote:
    >> "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    >> slrng9p1m2.5cf.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 8/8/08 10:47 AM:
    >>
    >>>> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes from
    >>>> Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not good from
    >>>> the user's perspective.
    >>> That is a really very vague idea that doesn't acknowledge the fact
    >>> that different tools could be different for a reason. Although I'm not
    >>> sure anyone has come up with any meaningful metric for "fragmented"
    >>> anyways.

    >>
    >> I am not against tools having different UIs for a *user* based reason. As
    >> far as what I mean by "fragmented" it is an inconsistent user experience
    >> based on non-user based reasons... such as the examples I have shown about
    >> PCLOS:
    >>
    >> Poorly done menus
    >>
    >>
    >> Poorly done dialogs:
    >>
    >>
    >> Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
    >>
    >>
    >> Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
    >>
    >>
    >> Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much better:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird text
    >> behavior on selection:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious. How
    >> could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not have such
    >> things be apparent to them - especially someone who considers themselves
    >> knowledgeable about computers?
    >>
    >>

    > Limit your examples to hose from just one windowing environment, then
    > whine abut inconsistency.


    I will not artificially work to make PCLOS look better than it is. But look
    at the programs which I list there - there are clearly discrepancies even in
    dialogs that, presumably, are made for the same windowing environment.


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


  5. Re: GIMP

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick

    wrote
    on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:45:10 -0400
    :
    > Snit wrote:
    >> "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    >> slrng9p1m2.5cf.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 8/8/08 10:47 AM:
    >>
    >>>> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes from
    >>>> Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not good from
    >>>> the user's perspective.
    >>> That is a really very vague idea that doesn't acknowledge the fact
    >>> that different tools could be different for a reason. Although I'm not
    >>> sure anyone has come up with any meaningful metric for "fragmented"
    >>> anyways.

    >>
    >> I am not against tools having different UIs for a *user* based reason. As
    >> far as what I mean by "fragmented" it is an inconsistent user experience
    >> based on non-user based reasons... such as the examples I have shown about
    >> PCLOS:
    >>
    >> Poorly done menus
    >>
    >>
    >> Poorly done dialogs:
    >>
    >>
    >> Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
    >>
    >>
    >> Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
    >>
    >>
    >> Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much better:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird text
    >> behavior on selection:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious. How
    >> could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not have such
    >> things be apparent to them - especially someone who considers themselves
    >> knowledgeable about computers?
    >>
    >>

    > Limit your examples to hose from just one windowing environment, then
    > whine abut inconsistency.
    >


    What's wrong with using examples from one Linux-loaded computer box?
    The casual user won't know KDE from GNOME from Windows
    without someone explaining it, after all...?

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  6. Re: GIMP

    "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    017vm5-v9r.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 8/8/08 6:04 PM:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
    >
    > wrote
    > on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:45:10 -0400
    > :
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>> "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    >>> slrng9p1m2.5cf.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 8/8/08 10:47 AM:
    >>>
    >>>>> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes from
    >>>>> Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not good from
    >>>>> the user's perspective.
    >>>> That is a really very vague idea that doesn't acknowledge the fact
    >>>> that different tools could be different for a reason. Although I'm not
    >>>> sure anyone has come up with any meaningful metric for "fragmented"
    >>>> anyways.
    >>>
    >>> I am not against tools having different UIs for a *user* based reason. As
    >>> far as what I mean by "fragmented" it is an inconsistent user experience
    >>> based on non-user based reasons... such as the examples I have shown about
    >>> PCLOS:
    >>>
    >>> Poorly done menus
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Poorly done dialogs:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much better:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird text
    >>> behavior on selection:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious. How
    >>> could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not have such
    >>> things be apparent to them - especially someone who considers themselves
    >>> knowledgeable about computers?
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Limit your examples to hose from just one windowing environment, then
    >> whine abut inconsistency.
    >>

    >
    > What's wrong with using examples from one Linux-loaded computer box?
    > The casual user won't know KDE from GNOME from Windows
    > without someone explaining it, after all...?


    Correct. And Rick forgets that I have already complied with his request...
    before he made it.

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


    -----

    What applications in there are not Gnome apps? And if any are then what is
    a similar Gnome app?

    Sadly Rick prefers to whine about how someone called this forum a "room" and
    not talk about Linux.

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


  7. Re: GIMP

    On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:04:00 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
    >
    > wrote
    > on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:45:10 -0400
    > :
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>> "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    >>> slrng9p1m2.5cf.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 8/8/08 10:47 AM:
    >>>
    >>>>> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes
    >>>>> from Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not
    >>>>> good from the user's perspective.
    >>>> That is a really very vague idea that doesn't acknowledge the fact
    >>>> that different tools could be different for a reason. Although I'm
    >>>> not sure anyone has come up with any meaningful metric for
    >>>> "fragmented" anyways.
    >>>
    >>> I am not against tools having different UIs for a *user* based reason.
    >>> As far as what I mean by "fragmented" it is an inconsistent user
    >>> experience based on non-user based reasons... such as the examples I
    >>> have shown about PCLOS:
    >>>
    >>> Poorly done menus
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Poorly done dialogs:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much
    >>> better:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird text
    >>> behavior on selection:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious.
    >>> How could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not
    >>> have such things be apparent to them - especially someone who
    >>> considers themselves knowledgeable about computers?
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Limit your examples to hose from just one windowing environment, then
    >> whine abut inconsistency.
    >>
    >>

    > What's wrong with using examples from one Linux-loaded computer box? The
    > casual user won't know KDE from GNOME from Windows without someone
    > explaining it, after all...?


    Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different with 2 different HIGs.

    .... and if the user can't tell the differences as you say, then the
    visual inconsistencies shown shouldn't be noticed, either.

    --
    Rick

  8. Re: GIMP

    "Rick" stated in post
    wJKdnYXWCsN9agHVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/8/08 6:50 PM:

    ....
    >>>> I am not against tools having different UIs for a *user* based reason.
    >>>> As far as what I mean by "fragmented" it is an inconsistent user
    >>>> experience based on non-user based reasons... such as the examples I
    >>>> have shown about PCLOS:
    >>>>
    >>>> Poorly done menus
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Poorly done dialogs:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much
    >>>> better:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird text
    >>>> behavior on selection:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious.
    >>>> How could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not
    >>>> have such things be apparent to them - especially someone who
    >>>> considers themselves knowledgeable about computers?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Limit your examples to hose from just one windowing environment, then
    >>> whine abut inconsistency.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> What's wrong with using examples from one Linux-loaded computer box? The
    >> casual user won't know KDE from GNOME from Windows without someone
    >> explaining it, after all...?

    >
    > Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different with 2 different HIGs.


    But PCLOS is *one* distro. One.

    > ... and if the user can't tell the differences as you say, then the
    > visual inconsistencies shown shouldn't be noticed, either.


    Notice or not you have talked about the problems with such inconsistencies:

    Rick:
    I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.

    Rick:
    And yes, I do know that it is better for the user if the button are
    all in the same places in comparable dialog boxes, and that common
    menu items are the same.

    Rick:
    Actually my view is not so different from usability experts. It does
    enhance usability to have menus and controls in the same places
    across applications. The more uniform or consistent that is, the
    better for the user. I have said this many times before. I am not
    coming around to your point of view.

    Rick:
    I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across an
    interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.


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




  9. Re: GIMP

    On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:38:04 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > wJKdnYXWCsN9agHVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/8/08 6:50 PM:
    >
    > ...
    >>>>> I am not against tools having different UIs for a *user* based
    >>>>> reason.
    >>>>> As far as what I mean by "fragmented" it is an inconsistent user
    >>>>> experience based on non-user based reasons... such as the examples I
    >>>>> have shown about PCLOS:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Poorly done menus
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Poorly done dialogs:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much
    >>>>> better:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird
    >>>>> text behavior on selection:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious.
    >>>>> How could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not
    >>>>> have such things be apparent to them - especially someone who
    >>>>> considers themselves knowledgeable about computers?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Limit your examples to hose from just one windowing environment, then
    >>>> whine abut inconsistency.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> What's wrong with using examples from one Linux-loaded computer box?
    >>> The casual user won't know KDE from GNOME from Windows without someone
    >>> explaining it, after all...?

    >>
    >> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different with 2 different HIGs.

    >
    > But PCLOS is *one* distro. One.


    It is nice that you can count.

    KDE and Gnome are 2 different environment that exist across platforms and
    architectures. BOTH systems are available for use in almost every Linux
    based distro, as well as BSD.

    --
    Rick

  10. Re: GIMP

    "Rick" stated in post
    wJKdnYDWCsNwmgDVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/8/08 7:58 PM:

    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:38:04 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> wJKdnYXWCsN9agHVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/8/08 6:50 PM:
    >>
    >> ...
    >>>>>> I am not against tools having different UIs for a *user* based
    >>>>>> reason.
    >>>>>> As far as what I mean by "fragmented" it is an inconsistent user
    >>>>>> experience based on non-user based reasons... such as the examples I
    >>>>>> have shown about PCLOS:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Poorly done menus
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Poorly done dialogs:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much
    >>>>>> better:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird
    >>>>>> text behavior on selection:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious.
    >>>>>> How could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not
    >>>>>> have such things be apparent to them - especially someone who
    >>>>>> considers themselves knowledgeable about computers?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Limit your examples to hose from just one windowing environment, then
    >>>>> whine abut inconsistency.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> What's wrong with using examples from one Linux-loaded computer box?
    >>>> The casual user won't know KDE from GNOME from Windows without someone
    >>>> explaining it, after all...?
    >>>
    >>> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different with 2 different HIGs.

    >>
    >> But PCLOS is *one* distro. One.

    >
    > It is nice that you can count.


    The point was not about counting but about an alternative and equally valid
    way of looking at how systems are looked at - from the user perspective
    instead of the developer perspective.

    > KDE and Gnome are 2 different environment that exist across platforms and
    > architectures. BOTH systems are available for use in almost every Linux
    > based distro, as well as BSD.


    Correct. And not in contention. As I have noted, you often state things
    which are not in contention as a means to avoid talking about topics you are
    not comfortable with.

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




  11. Re: GIMP

    On 2008-08-09, Rick wrote:
    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:38:04 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> wJKdnYXWCsN9agHVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/8/08 6:50 PM:
    >>
    >> ...
    >>>>>> I am not against tools having different UIs for a *user* based
    >>>>>> reason.
    >>>>>> As far as what I mean by "fragmented" it is an inconsistent user
    >>>>>> experience based on non-user based reasons... such as the examples I
    >>>>>> have shown about PCLOS:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Poorly done menus
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Poorly done dialogs:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much
    >>>>>> better:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird
    >>>>>> text behavior on selection:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious.
    >>>>>> How could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not
    >>>>>> have such things be apparent to them - especially someone who
    >>>>>> considers themselves knowledgeable about computers?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Limit your examples to hose from just one windowing environment, then
    >>>>> whine abut inconsistency.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> What's wrong with using examples from one Linux-loaded computer box?
    >>>> The casual user won't know KDE from GNOME from Windows without someone
    >>>> explaining it, after all...?
    >>>
    >>> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different with 2 different HIGs.

    >>
    >> But PCLOS is *one* distro. One.

    >
    > It is nice that you can count.
    >
    > KDE and Gnome are 2 different environment that exist across platforms and
    > architectures. BOTH systems are available for use in almost every Linux
    > based distro, as well as BSD.
    >


    ....some of those apps are even available on Windows.

    Infact, some of those apps are being advertised in PC Magazines
    as "cool things to have for Windows". It's almost to the point
    where they outnumber the non-libre wares.

    --

    Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
    who has pirated their music / | \


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  12. Re: GIMP

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick

    wrote
    on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:50:24 -0500
    :
    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:04:00 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:45:10 -0400
    >> :
    >>> Snit wrote:
    >>>> "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    >>>> slrng9p1m2.5cf.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 8/8/08 10:47 AM:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes
    >>>>>> from Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not
    >>>>>> good from the user's perspective.
    >>>>> That is a really very vague idea that doesn't acknowledge the fact
    >>>>> that different tools could be different for a reason. Although I'm
    >>>>> not sure anyone has come up with any meaningful metric for
    >>>>> "fragmented" anyways.
    >>>>
    >>>> I am not against tools having different UIs for a *user* based reason.
    >>>> As far as what I mean by "fragmented" it is an inconsistent user
    >>>> experience based on non-user based reasons... such as the examples I
    >>>> have shown about PCLOS:
    >>>>
    >>>> Poorly done menus
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Poorly done dialogs:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much
    >>>> better:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird text
    >>>> behavior on selection:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious.
    >>>> How could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not
    >>>> have such things be apparent to them - especially someone who
    >>>> considers themselves knowledgeable about computers?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Limit your examples to hose from just one windowing environment, then
    >>> whine abut inconsistency.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> What's wrong with using examples from one Linux-loaded computer box? The
    >> casual user won't know KDE from GNOME from Windows without someone
    >> explaining it, after all...?

    >
    > Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different with 2 different HIGs.


    And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?
    Google coughed up Hartford Financial Services as its first link --
    not exactly relevant to Linux, or even computers.

    Fortunately, it also coughed up
    http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/
    and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_interface_guidelines

    the second of which links to
    http://usability.kde.org/hig/
    as well as the first link.

    >
    > ... and if the user can't tell the differences as you say, then the
    > visual inconsistencies shown shouldn't be noticed, either.
    >


    That may be true, actually -- which makes it an NRE versus visibility
    problem.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #992381111:
    while(bit&BITMASK) ;
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  13. Re: GIMP

    "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    on96n5-eng.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 8/11/08 10:33 AM:

    ....
    >> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different with 2 different HIGs.

    >
    > And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?


    Actually, looking at a program how does one know, for certain, if it was
    designed for any given windowing environment? And why should the general
    user be required to try to figure this even before the get the software? It
    is not as though most distros have a "compatible" repository and an "other"
    repository.... or even *come* with only "compatible" software.

    Rick keeps looking at the trees and missing the forest - people do not work
    just with specific software titles they work with a *system*, in Linux terms
    a *distro*. That is the "forest" in question. If there is a forest with
    its tree population consisting mostly of elm and oak but also with some
    pine and apple and birch scattered about it is not correct to say that since
    the oaks are relatively consistent with one another then there is not a
    situation with multiple species of trees! Nor is it reasonable to say that
    all a tree-harvester has to to do make a homogenous forest is to cut down
    *all* trees but the oaks and then plant new ones. That, pretty much, is
    Rick's "solution" to the problem of the fractured UI on desktop Linux
    (though program installation might take bit less time than planting an oal
    forest!)


    --
    The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
    offering things that Linux is not.
    - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)


  14. Re: GIMP

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:33:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
    >
    > wrote
    > on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:50:24 -0500
    > :
    >> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:04:00 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
    >>>
    >>> wrote
    >>> on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:45:10 -0400
    >>> :
    >>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>> "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    >>>>> slrng9p1m2.5cf.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 8/8/08 10:47 AM:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes
    >>>>>>> from Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not
    >>>>>>> good from the user's perspective.
    >>>>>> That is a really very vague idea that doesn't acknowledge the
    >>>>>> fact
    >>>>>> that different tools could be different for a reason. Although I'm
    >>>>>> not sure anyone has come up with any meaningful metric for
    >>>>>> "fragmented" anyways.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I am not against tools having different UIs for a *user* based
    >>>>> reason.
    >>>>> As far as what I mean by "fragmented" it is an inconsistent user
    >>>>> experience based on non-user based reasons... such as the examples I
    >>>>> have shown about PCLOS:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Poorly done menus
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Poorly done dialogs:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much
    >>>>> better:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird
    >>>>> text behavior on selection:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious.
    >>>>> How could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not
    >>>>> have such things be apparent to them - especially someone who
    >>>>> considers themselves knowledgeable about computers?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Limit your examples to hose from just one windowing environment, then
    >>>> whine abut inconsistency.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> What's wrong with using examples from one Linux-loaded computer box?
    >>> The casual user won't know KDE from GNOME from Windows without someone
    >>> explaining it, after all...?

    >>
    >> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different environments with 2 different
    >> HIGs.

    >
    > And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?


    No , don't think the casual user would know without some research.

    > Google coughed up Hartford Financial Services as its first link -- not
    > exactly relevant to Linux, or even computers.
    >
    > Fortunately, it also coughed up
    > http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/ and
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_interface_guidelines
    >
    > the second of which links to
    > http://usability.kde.org/hig/
    > as well as the first link.
    >
    >
    >> ... and if the user can't tell the differences as you say, then the
    >> visual inconsistencies shown shouldn't be noticed, either.
    >>
    >>

    > That may be true, actually -- which makes it an NRE versus visibility
    > problem.






    --
    Rick

  15. Re: GIMP

    "Rick" stated in post
    R4ydnZfW_LVnGT3VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 11:29 AM:

    >>> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different environments with 2 different
    >>> HIGs.

    >>
    >> And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?

    >
    > No , don't think the casual user would know without some research.


    So how, in your view, could a casual user get a system that offers a
    consistent user experience?


    --
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
    nothing. - Unknown


  16. Re: GIMP

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:36:23 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > R4ydnZfW_LVnGT3VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 11:29 AM:
    >
    >>>> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different environments with 2 different
    >>>> HIGs.
    >>>
    >>> And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?

    >>
    >> No , don't think the casual user would know without some research.

    >
    > So how, in your view, could a casual user get a system that offers a
    > consistent user experience?


    I highly doubt a "casual user" is going to do an install, and if he/she
    does, he/she should do a little research.

    --
    Rick

  17. Re: GIMP

    "Rick" stated in post
    R4ydnZbW_LXXEz3VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 12:08 PM:

    > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:36:23 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> R4ydnZfW_LVnGT3VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 11:29 AM:
    >>
    >>>>> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different environments with 2 different
    >>>>> HIGs.
    >>>>
    >>>> And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?
    >>>
    >>> No , don't think the casual user would know without some research.

    >>
    >> So how, in your view, could a casual user get a system that offers a
    >> consistent user experience?

    >
    > I highly doubt a "casual user" is going to do an install, and if he/she
    > does, he/she should do a little research.


    You do not think a casual user can install, say, Ubuntu? Or maybe you think
    they could but just would not. Which... and why not?

    And what are they supposed to find with their research - how do you know if
    a program is made for KDE, Gnome, or something else?


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


  18. Re: GIMP

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:15:12 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > R4ydnZbW_LXXEz3VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 12:08 PM:
    >
    >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:36:23 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> R4ydnZfW_LVnGT3VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 11:29 AM:
    >>>
    >>>>>> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different environments with 2
    >>>>>> different HIGs.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?
    >>>>
    >>>> No , don't think the casual user would know without some research.
    >>>
    >>> So how, in your view, could a casual user get a system that offers a
    >>> consistent user experience?


    Find one with apps form only one environment installed? Ask around? Do
    some reading?

    >>
    >> I highly doubt a "casual user" is going to do an install, and if he/she
    >> does, he/she should do a little research.

    >
    > You do not think a casual user can install, say, Ubuntu?


    That may depend on the definition of casual user. Default installations
    of Linux based systems are extremely easy these days, but they are still
    Linux based systems. They have to be learned, just as the user's previous
    system had to be learned.

    > Or maybe you
    > think they could but just would not. Which... and why not?


    Many just would not. There's not a whole lot that can go terribly wrong
    these days IF you have done a data back up before installation.

    >
    > And what are they supposed to find with their research -


    Some differences between Gnome and KDE?
    What partitions are, and why you should have some?
    There is more to properly using a computer that click and drool?


    > how do you know
    > if a program is made for KDE, Gnome, or something else?



    Help menu -> about.

    Read the desctiptions in Synaptic (or whatever repository manager you
    use).

    --
    Rick

  19. Re: GIMP

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit

    wrote
    on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:10:00 -0700
    :
    > "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    > on96n5-eng.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 8/11/08 10:33 AM:
    >
    > ...
    >>> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different with 2 different HIGs.

    >>
    >> And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?

    >
    > Actually, looking at a program how does one know, for certain, if it was
    > designed for any given windowing environment? And why should the general
    > user be required to try to figure this even before the get the software?


    An interesting question, illustrative of the difference
    between a general Windows system, and a general Linux
    system.

    Windows:

    - for the most part, programs include required libraries
    as part of the install kit.

    - most programs are binary compatible with x86 hardware. The
    64-bit variants might give one a headache.

    - installable via double-click.

    - use the Win32/OS in most cases, though some do try to get
    cute with custom gadgetry; the most obvious thereof might
    be Quicktime 4.

    Linux:

    - programs do *not* include required libraries; either
    the distro handles the dependency issues, which allows
    the system installer to install a program and (generally)
    transparently handle same via a distro-supplied tool,
    or the system installer is expected to install some
    other libraries on an as-needed basis, if the system
    installer is doing it all himself.

    - depending on distro, one either specifies the right binary
    form (allowing for optimization), or takes the source code
    and builds it himself, either through a tool such as emerge
    (actually, 'ebuild compile'), or manual invocation of
    ./configure && make && make install .

    A rough analogy: a bicycle ready to jump on and ride,
    versus one whose major pieces need to be assembled
    (wheels, frame, brakes, chain, etc.), versus some blocks
    of metal and a few liquid-filled or pellet-filled casks
    (for the rubber and plastic bits; the pellets are small
    pieces of colored plastic). Of course the last will
    require additional tooling -- and Linux's gcc is far
    easier to acquire than wire-drawing, mill-rolling,
    forging, welding, cutting, and molding kits that one
    might require to build that bicycle from the (somewhat)
    raw ingredients.[*]

    - installable via said distro-supplied tool: rpm, deb,
    emerge, yum, etc., unless the system installer wishes
    otherwise, in which case he can build it himself,
    usually through ./configure && make && make install .

    - use one of the provided GUI solution libraries/environments.

    > It
    > is not as though most distros have a "compatible" repository and an "other"
    > repository.... or even *come* with only "compatible" software.


    The distros are primarily concerned with "compatible
    with KDE" or "compatible with Gnome"; they're not all
    that concerned about visual consistency, and for me at
    least it's not worth the bother, though it does make for
    a mildly interesting intercommunications problem.

    >
    > Rick keeps looking at the trees and missing the forest - people do not work
    > just with specific software titles they work with a *system*, in Linux terms
    > a *distro*.


    Actually, they work with a computer unit with a distro and
    possible extra software installed thereon. This is the
    most logical scope from a neophyte's view, though one can
    discuss either a generic unit with only distro-maintained
    software thereon, or a generic unit with a generic
    distro installed thereon. Such genericism, of course,
    can complicate discussions -- PCLinuxOS in particular
    has demonstrable problems with its stuff but are they
    PCLinuxOS's problem, the user's problem, or a problem with
    the specific application?

    I suspect it depends on who modified what.

    > That is the "forest" in question. If there is a forest with
    > its tree population consisting mostly of elm and oak but also with some
    > pine and apple and birch scattered about it is not correct to say that since
    > the oaks are relatively consistent with one another then there is not a
    > situation with multiple species of trees! Nor is it reasonable to say that
    > all a tree-harvester has to to do make a homogenous forest is to cut down
    > *all* trees but the oaks and then plant new ones. That, pretty much, is
    > Rick's "solution" to the problem of the fractured UI on desktop Linux
    > (though program installation might take bit less time than planting an oal
    > forest!)
    >


    Analogies are suspect but that one's not bad, though
    one can counter with the fact that all of the trees can
    result in wood. However, anyone with any knowledge can
    differentiate pine, birch, oak, mahogany. These woods
    have different characteristics when it comes to building
    among other things, tables, benches, chairs, and shelves.

    For example, pine is very soft and lightcolored;
    mahogany is a hardwood and generally dark in color.

    A modern distro isn't all that different; it provides the
    "soil" (APIs) from which "trees" (applications) can grow.
    Some soils are better than others for some trees; some APIs
    work better than others for applications.

    To its credit, Linux does the multilayer problem well enough,
    though the results can be visually annoying; a Gnome system
    can have KDE installed and KDE apps running thereon, and vice
    versa.
    [*] and even then, one has the issue that metals are
    extracted from ores, and plastics are synthesized.

    I've also seen a film where the welding is done
    via welding torches (presumably one of butane
    or acetylene), which has issues regarding carbon
    footprint -- though those issues are relatively minor
    when compared to the 5,000 gallons of gas a car being
    driven 15,000 miles and getting 30 mpg will consume
    over a 10 year period. Of course there's also the
    "pasta factor", since the bicyclist has to pump his
    legs to travel, imparting energy to the chain/wheel
    system -- but I digress.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
    void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); }
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  20. Re: GIMP

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:52:39 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
    >
    > wrote
    > on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:10:00 -0700
    > :
    >> "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in
    >> post on96n5-eng.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 8/11/08 10:33 AM:
    >>
    >> ...
    >>>> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different with 2 different HIGs.
    >>>
    >>> And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?

    >>
    >> Actually, looking at a program how does one know, for certain, if it
    >> was designed for any given windowing environment? And why should the
    >> general user be required to try to figure this even before the get the
    >> software?

    >
    > An interesting question, illustrative of the difference between a
    > general Windows system, and a general Linux system.
    >
    > Windows:
    >
    > - for the most part, programs include required libraries
    > as part of the install kit.


    No more DLLs?

    >
    > - most programs are binary compatible with x86 hardware. The
    > 64-bit variants might give one a headache.
    >
    > - installable via double-click.
    >
    > - use the Win32/OS in most cases, though some do try to get
    > cute with custom gadgetry; the most obvious thereof might be Quicktime
    > 4.
    >
    > Linux:
    >
    > - programs do *not* include required libraries; either
    > the distro handles the dependency issues, which allows the system
    > installer to install a program and (generally) transparently handle
    > same via a distro-supplied tool, or the system installer is expected
    > to install some other libraries on an as-needed basis, if the system
    > installer is doing it all himself.
    >
    > - depending on distro, one either specifies the right binary
    > form (allowing for optimization), or takes the source code and builds
    > it himself, either through a tool such as emerge (actually, 'ebuild
    > compile'), or manual invocation of ./configure && make && make install


    If I am doing the ./configure routine, I usually use check install, which
    builds an rpm. That way you can rpm -e, or use the package manager.

    > .
    >
    > A rough analogy: a bicycle ready to jump on and ride, versus one whose
    > major pieces need to be assembled (wheels, frame, brakes, chain,
    > etc.), versus some blocks of metal and a few liquid-filled or
    > pellet-filled casks (for the rubber and plastic bits; the pellets are
    > small pieces of colored plastic).


    I hope you are not comparing the bicycle assembly with Linux systems. ./
    configure is extremely easy to do.

    > Of course the last will require
    > additional tooling -- and Linux's gcc is far easier to acquire than
    > wire-drawing, mill-rolling, forging, welding, cutting, and molding
    > kits that one might require to build that bicycle from the (somewhat)
    > raw ingredients.[*]
    >
    > - installable via said distro-supplied tool: rpm, deb,
    > emerge, yum, etc., unless the system installer wishes otherwise, in
    > which case he can build it himself, usually through ./configure &&
    > make && make install .
    >
    > - use one of the provided GUI solution libraries/environments.
    >
    >> It
    >> is not as though most distros have a "compatible" repository and an
    >> "other" repository.... or even *come* with only "compatible" software.

    >
    > The distros are primarily concerned with "compatible with KDE" or
    > "compatible with Gnome"; they're not all that concerned about visual
    > consistency, and for me at least it's not worth the bother, though it
    > does make for a mildly interesting intercommunications problem.
    >
    >
    >> Rick keeps looking at the trees and missing the forest - people do not
    >> work just with specific software titles they work with a *system*, in
    >> Linux terms a *distro*.

    >
    > Actually, they work with a computer unit with a distro and possible
    > extra software installed thereon. This is the most logical scope from a
    > neophyte's view, though one can discuss either a generic unit with only
    > distro-maintained software thereon, or a generic unit with a generic
    > distro installed thereon. Such genericism, of course, can complicate
    > discussions -- PCLinuxOS in particular has demonstrable problems with
    > its stuff but are they PCLinuxOS's problem, the user's problem, or a
    > problem with the specific application?


    Generally, I think, with the specific application. You generally have the
    same problems if you use the same apps on different distros.

    >
    > I suspect it depends on who modified what.
    >
    >> That is the "forest" in question. If there is a forest with its tree
    >> population consisting mostly of elm and oak but also with some pine and
    >> apple and birch scattered about it is not correct to say that since the
    >> oaks are relatively consistent with one another then there is not a
    >> situation with multiple species of trees! Nor is it reasonable to say
    >> that all a tree-harvester has to to do make a homogenous forest is to
    >> cut down *all* trees but the oaks and then plant new ones. That,
    >> pretty much, is Rick's "solution" to the problem of the fractured UI on
    >> desktop Linux (though program installation might take bit less time
    >> than planting an oal forest!)
    >>
    >>

    > Analogies are suspect but that one's not bad, though one can counter
    > with the fact that all of the trees can result in wood. However, anyone
    > with any knowledge can differentiate pine, birch, oak, mahogany. These
    > woods have different characteristics when it comes to building among
    > other things, tables, benches, chairs, and shelves.
    >
    > For example, pine is very soft and lightcolored; mahogany is a hardwood
    > and generally dark in color.
    >
    > A modern distro isn't all that different; it provides the "soil" (APIs)
    > from which "trees" (applications) can grow. Some soils are better than
    > others for some trees; some APIs work better than others for
    > applications.
    >
    > To its credit, Linux does the multilayer problem well enough, though the
    > results can be visually annoying; a Gnome system can have KDE installed
    > and KDE apps running thereon, and vice versa.


    Hmmm .. like mine. I've been using KDE, but mostly gkt apps :-)

    At the moment, I am back with WindowMaker.

    >
    >[*] and even then, one has the issue that metals are
    > extracted from ores, and plastics are synthesized.
    >
    > I've also seen a film where the welding is done via welding torches
    > (presumably one of butane or acetylene), which has issues regarding
    > carbon footprint -- though those issues are relatively minor when
    > compared to the 5,000 gallons of gas a car being driven 15,000 miles
    > and getting 30 mpg will consume over a 10 year period. Of course
    > there's also the "pasta factor", since the bicyclist has to pump his
    > legs to travel, imparting energy to the chain/wheel system -- but I
    > digress.


    If you use a single environment, and apps from that environment, then
    visual inconsistencies are either going to be bugs (and what software
    doesn't have bugs) or a failure to follow the HIG.


    --
    Rick

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast