A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy. - Linux

This is a discussion on A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy. - Linux ; Another goody came though the post. Check this out. No comments from me required. And THIS is the guy who champions OSS and Linux? He's a know nothing loony. They are stable enough but I miss a lot of features ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

  1. A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.


    Another goody came though the post. Check this out. No comments from me
    required. And THIS is the guy who champions OSS and Linux? He's a know
    nothing loony.

    They are stable enough but I miss a lot of features when I use them. Multiple desktops, KDE network integration, etc.
    -h on the command line.
    What /is/ usable? To whom?
    "Usability" is marketing hype to some... like "innovation"
    Sure. I liked that article you pointed to, no free software UI is broken, ever.
    Which article? URL?
    Can't put my finger on it, I just remember the contents and conclusion. It was about a deep trolling method aimed at free software projects.
    Trolls come in and complain about the UI, usually to make it more like some commercial piece of crap.
    Oh, I know which article.
    This wastes a lot of developer time. Simply considering the issue is a waste. ... I thought you would remember.

    'Handbook' example... "it's not usable..."
    Finally, when they get their way, they turn around and laugh, "Ha, we screwed you. You have confused your long time users, wasted your time and not gained any market share."
    They said GIMP had been screwed this way before.
    They could demand assimilation to other programs like Photoshop and then get users into a legal mess for copycatting.
    "Waaaa waaahhh! The UI is different. Make it like name>... that's the 'correct' GUI"



    Let's recap.

    Ready?

    OK ....


    "no free software UI is broken, ever."




    --
    "Ignore the forging nym-shifting troll who pretends to be chrisv! I'm the *REAL* chrisv!"
    chrisv, COLA.

  2. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:

    > "no free software UI is broken, ever."


    Make that

    "no UI is broken, ever"

    Some people like a particular UI, others don't. I'm one of those guys
    who's very fond of the Gimp UI as it is. So is it broken? Well, not
    for me at least. I also very much like the interface of command line
    apps such as mutt and slrn. Yes, there was a learning curve involved,
    but once I got the hang of it, those applications made my mail and news
    reading life a whole lot more comfortable.

    For me the problem with UIs is that there seems to be a craving for
    one universal way to interact with applications, and that way is
    pointing and clicking on boxes and menus, and thus having the smallest
    possibe learning curve. I find that odd. When it comes down to using
    computers, all of a sudden learning is bad, even if learning will get
    you to a point where it will become easier/faster to perform certain
    tasks...

    --
    In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!' And
    there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole
    lot better.
    ~ Ellen DeGeneres

  3. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Hadron on Monday 20 October 2008 03:22 : \____

    > Another goody came though the post.


    Got nothing better to do than to stalk? Still embarrassed to admit it?

    Does SweatyB compensate you for the time you spend harassing people?

    Is MS Preening in Public Posts?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The author of the email, posted on ZDNet in a Talkback forum on the Microsoft
    | antitrust trial, claimed her name was Michelle Bradley and that she
    | had "retired" from Microsoft last week.
    |
    | "A verbal memo [no email allowed] was passed around the MS campus encouraging
    | MS employee's to post to ZDNet articles like this one," the email said.
    |
    | "The theme is 'Microsoft is responsible for all good things in computerdom.'
    | The government has no right to prevent MS from doing anything. Period.
    | The 'memo' suggests we use fictional names and state and to identify
    | ourselves as students," the author claimed.
    `----

    http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1999/02/17745
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkj8POMACgkQU4xAY3RXLo71cwCeOAlHfJPIZ2 gvGK1KJeFtemkN
    1WQAoJLpKr81clmsc7aiF4mHT8kSLphd
    =acqP
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  4. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    TomB writes:

    > On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >
    >> "no free software UI is broken, ever."

    >
    > Make that
    >
    > "no UI is broken, ever"


    *unbelievable*

    >
    > Some people like a particular UI, others don't. I'm one of those guys
    > who's very fond of the Gimp UI as it is. So is it broken? Well, not
    > for me at least. I also very much like the interface of command line
    > apps such as mutt and slrn. Yes, there was a learning curve involved,
    > but once I got the hang of it, those applications made my mail and news
    > reading life a whole lot more comfortable.
    >
    > For me the problem with UIs is that there seems to be a craving for
    > one universal way to interact with applications, and that way is
    > pointing and clicking on boxes and menus, and thus having the smallest
    > possibe learning curve. I find that odd. When it comes down to using
    > computers, all of a sudden learning is bad, even if learning will get
    > you to a point where it will become easier/faster to perform certain
    > tasks...


    UIs are broken with they are inconsistent, buggy and unintuitive. It's
    called a user Interface for a reason. It *interfaces* the user with the
    program. And if it does not do a good job of that then it is broken.

    With your attitude it's no surprise so many OSS applications have so
    little take up. The OSS which succeeds have generally good user
    interfaces.

    --
    "At BT Global, our crown jewels are the services we supply to our
    customers. With jNetX we own the intellectual property for our
    services, allowing us to evolve the services as and when required."
    Mark Kent,Head of Technology Strategy,COLA Hypocrite

  5. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    > TomB writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>
    >>> "no free software UI is broken, ever."

    >>
    >> Make that
    >>
    >> "no UI is broken, ever"

    >
    > *unbelievable*
    >
    >>
    >> Some people like a particular UI, others don't. I'm one of those guys
    >> who's very fond of the Gimp UI as it is. So is it broken? Well, not
    >> for me at least. I also very much like the interface of command line
    >> apps such as mutt and slrn. Yes, there was a learning curve involved,
    >> but once I got the hang of it, those applications made my mail and news
    >> reading life a whole lot more comfortable.
    >>
    >> For me the problem with UIs is that there seems to be a craving for
    >> one universal way to interact with applications, and that way is
    >> pointing and clicking on boxes and menus, and thus having the smallest
    >> possibe learning curve. I find that odd. When it comes down to using
    >> computers, all of a sudden learning is bad, even if learning will get
    >> you to a point where it will become easier/faster to perform certain
    >> tasks...

    >
    > UIs are broken with they are inconsistent, buggy


    That can be one meaning of broken. In this case however broken refers
    to "not as it's done in other, more known applications". Read the
    snippet you posted again.

    > and unintuitive.


    Subjective at best. I don't want to go there...

    > It's
    > called a user Interface for a reason. It *interfaces* the user with the
    > program. And if it does not do a good job of that then it is broken.


    If it's buggy and inconsistent: yes.
    If it deviates from a commonly used approach: no.

    > With your attitude it's no surprise so many OSS applications have so
    > little take up. The OSS which succeeds have generally good user
    > interfaces.
    >


    Again: look at the context of "broken" in the snippet you posted.qzq

    --
    Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

  6. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    TomB writes:

    > On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >> TomB writes:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>>
    >>>> "no free software UI is broken, ever."
    >>>
    >>> Make that
    >>>
    >>> "no UI is broken, ever"

    >>
    >> *unbelievable*
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Some people like a particular UI, others don't. I'm one of those guys
    >>> who's very fond of the Gimp UI as it is. So is it broken? Well, not
    >>> for me at least. I also very much like the interface of command line
    >>> apps such as mutt and slrn. Yes, there was a learning curve involved,
    >>> but once I got the hang of it, those applications made my mail and news
    >>> reading life a whole lot more comfortable.
    >>>
    >>> For me the problem with UIs is that there seems to be a craving for
    >>> one universal way to interact with applications, and that way is
    >>> pointing and clicking on boxes and menus, and thus having the smallest
    >>> possibe learning curve. I find that odd. When it comes down to using
    >>> computers, all of a sudden learning is bad, even if learning will get
    >>> you to a point where it will become easier/faster to perform certain
    >>> tasks...

    >>
    >> UIs are broken with they are inconsistent, buggy

    >
    > That can be one meaning of broken. In this case however broken refers
    > to "not as it's done in other, more known applications". Read the
    > snippet you posted again.
    >
    >> and unintuitive.

    >
    > Subjective at best. I don't want to go there...


    Not at all subjective. Guidelines are out there. Snit posted links to
    them. You might not LIKE the guidelines but when all apps follow them
    then you learn once and use anywhere. And that is intuitive.
    >
    >> It's
    >> called a user Interface for a reason. It *interfaces* the user with the
    >> program. And if it does not do a good job of that then it is broken.

    >
    > If it's buggy and inconsistent: yes.


    Good. We agree. So a UI can be broken. We got there.

  7. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 05:22:35 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Another goody came though the post. Check this out. No comments from me
    > required. And THIS is the guy who champions OSS and Linux? He's a know
    > nothing loony.
    >
    > They are stable enough but I miss a lot of features when I use them. Multiple desktops, KDE network integration, etc.
    > -h on the command line.
    > What /is/ usable? To whom?
    > "Usability" is marketing hype to some... like "innovation"
    > Sure. I liked that article you pointed to, no free software UI is broken, ever.
    > Which article? URL?
    > Can't put my finger on it, I just remember the contents and conclusion. It was about a deep trolling method aimed at free software projects.
    > Trolls come in and complain about the UI, usually to make it more like some commercial piece of crap.
    > Oh, I know which article.
    > This wastes a lot of developer time. Simply considering the issue is a waste. ... I thought you would remember.
    >
    > 'Handbook' example... "it's not usable..."
    > Finally, when they get their way, they turn around and laugh, "Ha, we screwed you. You have confused your long time users, wasted your time and not gained any market share."
    > They said GIMP had been screwed this way before.
    > They could demand assimilation to other programs like Photoshop and then get users into a legal mess for copycatting.
    > "Waaaa waaahhh! The UI is different. Make it like > name>... that's the 'correct' GUI"
    >
    >
    >
    > Let's recap.
    >
    > Ready?
    >
    > OK ....
    >
    >
    > "no free software UI is broken, ever."


    He's even more loony than I first thought!
    What a collection of nutsacks.

    I'll bet they are being watched by Britain's version of Homeland Security
    because they certainly seem a wee bit unstable.
    The coppers probably figure this is some kind of weird coded message or
    something.
    Hahahah!


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  8. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    "Hadron" stated in post
    gdhsfj$vqp$3@registered.motzarella.org on 10/20/08 5:10 AM:

    > TomB writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>> TomB writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "no free software UI is broken, ever."
    >>>>
    >>>> Make that
    >>>>
    >>>> "no UI is broken, ever"
    >>>
    >>> *unbelievable*
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Some people like a particular UI, others don't. I'm one of those guys
    >>>> who's very fond of the Gimp UI as it is. So is it broken? Well, not
    >>>> for me at least. I also very much like the interface of command line
    >>>> apps such as mutt and slrn. Yes, there was a learning curve involved,
    >>>> but once I got the hang of it, those applications made my mail and news
    >>>> reading life a whole lot more comfortable.
    >>>>
    >>>> For me the problem with UIs is that there seems to be a craving for
    >>>> one universal way to interact with applications, and that way is
    >>>> pointing and clicking on boxes and menus, and thus having the smallest
    >>>> possibe learning curve. I find that odd. When it comes down to using
    >>>> computers, all of a sudden learning is bad, even if learning will get
    >>>> you to a point where it will become easier/faster to perform certain
    >>>> tasks...
    >>>
    >>> UIs are broken with they are inconsistent, buggy

    >>
    >> That can be one meaning of broken. In this case however broken refers
    >> to "not as it's done in other, more known applications". Read the
    >> snippet you posted again.
    >>
    >>> and unintuitive.

    >>
    >> Subjective at best. I don't want to go there...

    >
    > Not at all subjective. Guidelines are out there. Snit posted links to
    > them. You might not LIKE the guidelines but when all apps follow them
    > then you learn once and use anywhere. And that is intuitive.


    There are different competing guidelines - and I am OK with that. What I
    want to see desktop Linux mature into is a system where you can select which
    of the guidelines you want to go with - or even make your own, within reason
    (the more flexible the better). Right now desktop Linux lacks the choice to
    have a unified and well thought-out UI across the whole desktop.
    Shuttleworth is working to correct that.

    >>
    >>> It's
    >>> called a user Interface for a reason. It *interfaces* the user with the
    >>> program. And if it does not do a good job of that then it is broken.

    >>
    >> If it's buggy and inconsistent: yes.

    >
    > Good. We agree. So a UI can be broken. We got there.




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


  9. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Snit on Monday 20 October 2008 17:39 : \____

    > Right now desktop Linux lacks the choice to
    > have a unified and well thought-out UI across the whole desktop.


    Like KDE/Qt?

    How many toolkits are there in Windows and Mac OS X? Don't pretend that
    everything is written in VS and Cocoa.

    > Shuttleworth is working to correct that.


    What? Perception? UI consistency isn't fixed by a packager like Canonical.
    That's just marketing hype...

    ...kind of like Apple.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Roughly 2% of your keyboard is O/S-specific
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Swap: 4088500k total, 417880k used, 3670620k free, 264040k cached
    http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkj85rsACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6B5wCfbgpZgfZvrt u0iQ8ckqXniedF
    g3UAniHbcrTfrhKToOmrJPaILjgUckC+
    =wJ12
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  10. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    "Roy Schestowitz" stated in post
    4314472.cJacC4uzYn@schestowitz.com on 10/20/08 1:14 PM:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > ____/ Snit on Monday 20 October 2008 17:39 : \____
    >
    >> Right now desktop Linux lacks the choice to
    >> have a unified and well thought-out UI across the whole desktop.

    >
    > Like KDE/Qt?
    >
    > How many toolkits are there in Windows and Mac OS X? Don't pretend that
    > everything is written in VS and Cocoa.


    For OS X essentially *all* software the general user will ever see uses the
    Aqua UI. The exception to this used to be Classic apps... but those are no
    longer supported.

    A number of people do run Windows on their Macs, too, but by default they do
    not run at the same time and running Windows is not the norm.

    On Linux, however, the norm is to have a mish-mash of different UIs... and
    programs that use the UI guidelines they are theoretically designed for only
    poorly. My screenshots are now a bit outdated, but here are examples of
    what I mean:

    From 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:



    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?


    >> Shuttleworth is working to correct that.

    >
    > What? Perception?


    No.

    > UI consistency isn't fixed by a packager like Canonical.


    Correct.

    > That's just marketing hype...
    >
    > ...kind of like Apple.


    You are incorrect... read his blog. My predictions are, at least to some
    extent, coming true. When they do Linux "advocates" will tout what I have
    been advocating as an advantage of Linux over OS X and Windows... but until
    then people in COLA will claim I am wrong. Heck, how many people in COLA
    have put down FireFox for the private browsing feature I noted it was, at
    the time, lacking... now suddenly it is no longer a bad thing.



    --
    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


  11. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    On 2008-10-20, Snit was urged to write the following:

    > On Linux, however, the norm is to have a mish-mash of different UIs... and
    > programs that use the UI guidelines they are theoretically designed for only
    > poorly. My screenshots are now a bit outdated, but here are examples of
    > what I mean:
    >
    > From PCLOS:
    >
    > Poorly done menus
    >


    Let's get the same argument out of the closet then...

    In there are at least four programs that run on Windows as well:
    Firefox, mplayer, Xchat and OpenOffice. So the same inconsistancy is
    valid for Windows as well...

    --
    "Ubunut" is a funny typo.
    ~ Jeremy Chadwick

  12. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    TomB wrote:

    > On 2008-10-20, Snit was urged to write the following:
    >
    >> On Linux, however, the norm is to have a mish-mash of different UIs...
    >> and programs that use the UI guidelines they are theoretically designed
    >> for only
    >> poorly. My screenshots are now a bit outdated, but here are examples of
    >> what I mean:
    >>
    >> From PCLOS:
    >>
    >> Poorly done menus
    >>

    >
    > Let's get the same argument out of the closet then...


    Nope, please don't
    Snot Michael Glasser, the most incompetent IT teacher of all time and
    bogus "business man" will never admit that he mixes apps from all kinds of
    UIs for linux, but never does so when arguing the OSX point

    > In there are at least four programs that run on Windows as well:
    > Firefox, mplayer, Xchat and OpenOffice. So the same inconsistancy is
    > valid for Windows as well...
    >


    It is also present for OSX. At least when you follow the "point" of Snot
    Michael Glasser that "most" (read that as "some") of those nice apps
    available for linux run on OSX too (after all, it simply isn't allowed to
    happen that linux has vastly more apps than OSX). And suddenly those poor
    OSX users have to deal with the horrors of slightly different looking
    apps...
    --
    My other computer is your windows box


  13. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    TomB writes:

    > On 2008-10-20, Snit was urged to write the following:
    >
    >> On Linux, however, the norm is to have a mish-mash of different UIs... and
    >> programs that use the UI guidelines they are theoretically designed for only
    >> poorly. My screenshots are now a bit outdated, but here are examples of
    >> what I mean:
    >>
    >> From PCLOS:
    >>
    >> Poorly done menus
    >>

    >
    > Let's get the same argument out of the closet then...
    >
    > In there are at least four programs that run on Windows as well:
    > Firefox, mplayer, Xchat and OpenOffice. So the same inconsistancy is
    > valid for Windows as well...


    No one denies that apps on ANY platform which don't conform are bad.

    The point is that Linux makes it worse because of the immediate
    Gnome/KDE choice.

    Frankly I hate switching between Gnome and KDE applications.

    mplayer has a whole raft of GUI interfaces so that muddies the waters
    even more. But oyu can pretty much discount any improvements since
    XChat, mplayer an OO are probably only used on less than 1% of Windows
    PCs so there's not much call for things being tidied up.

    --
    "Nice to know I live in your head, bitch."
    -- Tattoo Vampire in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  14. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    "TomB" stated in post
    S87Lk.9039$Qh1.7880@newsfe30.ams2 on 10/20/08 2:57 PM:

    > On 2008-10-20, Snit was urged to write the following:
    >
    >> On Linux, however, the norm is to have a mish-mash of different UIs... and
    >> programs that use the UI guidelines they are theoretically designed for only
    >> poorly. My screenshots are now a bit outdated, but here are examples of
    >> what I mean:
    >>
    >> From PCLOS:
    >>
    >> Poorly done menus
    >>

    >
    > Let's get the same argument out of the closet then...
    >
    > In there are at least four programs that run on Windows as well:
    > Firefox, mplayer, Xchat and OpenOffice. So the same inconsistancy is
    > valid for Windows as well...


    Your conclusion is fairly sound - but your reasoning to get to it is flawed:
    those programs, other than maybe the first, are not the norm for Windows.
    Still, it would be better for the other to fit the standards as well - no
    argument against that from me!


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


  15. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    48fd081f$0$16194$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net on 10/20/08 3:37 PM:

    > TomB wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-20, Snit was urged to write the following:
    >>
    >>> On Linux, however, the norm is to have a mish-mash of different UIs...
    >>> and programs that use the UI guidelines they are theoretically designed
    >>> for only
    >>> poorly. My screenshots are now a bit outdated, but here are examples of
    >>> what I mean:
    >>>
    >>> From PCLOS:
    >>>
    >>> Poorly done menus
    >>>

    >>
    >> Let's get the same argument out of the closet then...

    >
    > Nope, please don't
    > Snot Michael Glasser, the most incompetent IT teacher of all time and
    > bogus "business man" will never admit that he mixes apps from all kinds of
    > UIs for linux, but never does so when arguing the OSX point


    I talk about the norms of what is used on each platform, Peter, a topic that
    you not only are not willing to accept but you feel the need to lash out, as
    you do above, when such common sense approaches are discussed.

    You loath common sense. Oh well.

    >> In there are at least four programs that run on Windows as well:
    >> Firefox, mplayer, Xchat and OpenOffice. So the same inconsistancy is
    >> valid for Windows as well...

    >
    > It is also present for OSX.


    Correct... and with OS X users are used to a superior environment (at least
    in terms of consistency). That is why you see things such as this:

    Firefox:
    -----
    Top New Features:
    Platform-Native Look & Feel
    -----
    UI consistency is so important it gets listed in the top 7 new features. On
    the same page:
    -----
    The new Firefox looks and feels like home. Think of it as a
    Firefox whoąs really good at making friends. Whether you use
    Windows Vista, Windows XP, Mac or Linux, the browser
    seamlessly integrates into your computerąs environment. A
    native look makes for a flawless interface that never gives
    you pause.
    -----
    So, yes, the Firefox developers clearly get the importance of UI
    consistency. I do wonder when you will catch up.

    OpenOffice:
    -----
    Following three years of continuous improvement,
    OpenOffice.org has now reached the landmark version 3.0, with
    a host of new features including native support for Mac OS X
    users.
    -----
    Wow. OpenOffice does not just include native support in a bullet list of
    features - it *only* lists native support for OS X as its attention-getter.
    Clearly the folks who make OpenOffice get what you do not. Please, Peter,
    try to catch up!

    Even with the other two, neither as popular as Firefox or OpenOffice, there
    is work to get them to fit in with OS X... Mac users clearly seek the
    benefits of such:

    MplayerOSX:
    -----
    MPlayerOSX is binary distribution of MPlayer (The Movie Player
    for Linux) and comes with native GUI in MacOSX.
    -----

    X-Chat Aqua:
    -----
    X-Chat Aqua is X-Chat with an Aqua interface for MacOS X
    -----

    Same can be said for GIMP and many other projects - developers know how
    important it is to have a consistent UI, especially on the platform with the
    gold-standard in doing so (even with all of its flaws).

    You do not get it - so you spew BS like the following:

    > At least when you follow the "point" of Snot Michael Glasser that "most" (read
    > that as "some") of those nice apps available for linux run on OSX too (after
    > all, it simply isn't allowed to happen that linux has vastly more apps than
    > OSX). And suddenly those poor OSX users have to deal with the horrors of
    > slightly different looking apps...


    Peter... all you can do is lash out when you know you are over your head.
    When will you catch up to the folks who make the very software you noted was
    on 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.




  16. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    "Hadron" stated in post
    gdj26g$2gn$1@registered.motzarella.org on 10/20/08 3:54 PM:

    > TomB writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-20, Snit was urged to write the following:
    >>
    >>> On Linux, however, the norm is to have a mish-mash of different UIs... and
    >>> programs that use the UI guidelines they are theoretically designed for only
    >>> poorly. My screenshots are now a bit outdated, but here are examples of
    >>> what I mean:
    >>>
    >>> From PCLOS:
    >>>
    >>> Poorly done menus
    >>>

    >>
    >> Let's get the same argument out of the closet then...
    >>
    >> In there are at least four programs that run on Windows as well:
    >> Firefox, mplayer, Xchat and OpenOffice. So the same inconsistancy is
    >> valid for Windows as well...

    >
    > No one denies that apps on ANY platform which don't conform are bad.


    But the apps mentioned there do, mostly, follow the UI guidelines on OS X...
    or, at the very least, there are forks that do so. OS X users are used to
    an excellent experience - software that does not have at least a basic level
    of support for that experience is shunned. The makers of Firefox and
    OpenOffice *clearly* get this, as I talked about in my reply to Peter in
    this thread.

    > The point is that Linux makes it worse because of the immediate
    > Gnome/KDE choice.


    With OS X you have to go out of your way to get inconsistency (with some
    minor exceptions). With Linux you have to go do far out of your way to get
    even basic consistency that *no* desktop Linux distro has been able to
    achieve this ... though distros such as Ubuntu are clearly working on it.

    > Frankly I hate switching between Gnome and KDE applications.
    >
    > mplayer has a whole raft of GUI interfaces so that muddies the waters
    > even more. But oyu can pretty much discount any improvements since
    > XChat, mplayer an OO are probably only used on less than 1% of Windows
    > PCs so there's not much call for things being tidied up.




    --
    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


  17. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Snit on Monday 20 October 2008 22:55 : \____

    > "TomB" stated in post
    > S87Lk.9039$Qh1.7880@newsfe30.ams2 on 10/20/08 2:57 PM:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-20, Snit was urged to write the following:
    >>
    >>> On Linux, however, the norm is to have a mish-mash of different UIs... and
    >>> programs that use the UI guidelines they are theoretically designed for
    >>> only
    >>> poorly. My screenshots are now a bit outdated, but here are examples of
    >>> what I mean:
    >>>
    >>> From PCLOS:
    >>>
    >>> Poorly done menus
    >>>

    >>
    >> Let's get the same argument out of the closet then...
    >>
    >> In there are at least four programs that run on Windows as well:
    >> Firefox, mplayer, Xchat and OpenOffice. So the same inconsistancy is
    >> valid for Windows as well...

    >
    > Your conclusion is fairly sound - but your reasoning to get to it is flawed:
    > those programs, other than maybe the first, are not the norm for Windows.
    > Still, it would be better for the other to fit the standards as well - no
    > argument against that from me!


    Apple has consistent (binary! Yucky!!) build-in apps and so does KDE. All
    platforms have ISVs and third-party applications though, so the
    so-called 'inconsistencies' remain. Just because Apple shoppers 'drink',
    consume and embrace anything Apple gives (no matter the bugs and cost) doesn't
    mean the platform 'magically' makes things consistent.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    "I feel we are much too smug in dealing with Novell. Perhaps they didn’t hurt
    us in DOS yet — but it’s not because of product or their trying. It’s because
    we already had the OEMs wrapped up."
    --Jim Allchin, Microsoft
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkj9E+YACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5PUACfVBetvyScOR zHoVk9icnVk+W1
    i5AAn1DUB5SV7HwGRYuAE3VKGZBYyNNA
    =gfu8
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  18. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    "Roy Schestowitz" stated in post
    2353080.sqRqsDb4bn@schestowitz.com on 10/20/08 4:27 PM:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > ____/ Snit on Monday 20 October 2008 22:55 : \____
    >
    >> "TomB" stated in post
    >> S87Lk.9039$Qh1.7880@newsfe30.ams2 on 10/20/08 2:57 PM:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-20, Snit was urged to write the following:
    >>>
    >>>> On Linux, however, the norm is to have a mish-mash of different UIs... and
    >>>> programs that use the UI guidelines they are theoretically designed for
    >>>> only
    >>>> poorly. My screenshots are now a bit outdated, but here are examples of
    >>>> what I mean:
    >>>>
    >>>> From PCLOS:
    >>>>
    >>>> Poorly done menus
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Let's get the same argument out of the closet then...
    >>>
    >>> In there are at least four programs that run on Windows as well:
    >>> Firefox, mplayer, Xchat and OpenOffice. So the same inconsistancy is
    >>> valid for Windows as well...

    >>
    >> Your conclusion is fairly sound - but your reasoning to get to it is flawed:
    >> those programs, other than maybe the first, are not the norm for Windows.
    >> Still, it would be better for the other to fit the standards as well - no
    >> argument against that from me!

    >
    > Apple has consistent (binary! Yucky!!) build-in apps and so does KDE.


    I assume you mean OS X when you say "Apple", after all, Apple does have
    other platforms (the iPod/iPhone, etc.). There is no distro of any OS
    called "KDE". Why would you compare an OS with KDE?

    > All platforms have ISVs and third-party applications though, so the so-called
    > 'inconsistencies' remain.


    One: the inconsistencies are not "so-called", they are real.

    Two: on OS X it is not just Apple software that follows the basic UI
    guidelines (similar print and save dialogs, same widgets on windows, same
    placement of preferences and other common menu items, etc.) Even with the
    above listed OpenSource software I have shown how there is a focus to make
    them be "native"... they are certainly not made by Apple! Read the MS blogs
    - their Mac group struggles to make their software as Mac-like as
    possible... as does Adobe for its Mac applications.

    > Just because Apple shoppers 'drink', consume and embrace anything Apple gives
    > (no matter the bugs and cost) doesn't mean the platform 'magically' makes
    > things consistent.


    You bizarrely limited the conversation to just Apple-provided software and
    then pretend that your doing so somehow says something about "Apple
    shoppers". Do you see your error in doing so?


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


  19. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:57:06 +0000, TomB wrote:

    > On 2008-10-20, Snit was urged to write the following:
    >
    >> On Linux, however, the norm is to have a mish-mash of different UIs... and
    >> programs that use the UI guidelines they are theoretically designed for only
    >> poorly. My screenshots are now a bit outdated, but here are examples of
    >> what I mean:
    >>
    >> From PCLOS:
    >>
    >> Poorly done menus
    >>

    >
    > Let's get the same argument out of the closet then...
    >
    > In there are at least four programs that run on Windows as well:
    > Firefox, mplayer, Xchat and OpenOffice. So the same inconsistancy is
    > valid for Windows as well...


    Beware of arguing with Michael Snit Glasser. He will troll, deliberately
    misinterpret, & change what you say.


    --
    Did you know?
    Hadron Quack & his wife divorced over religious differences.
    He thought he was God, but she didn't.


  20. Re: A good UI is a waste of time according to Roy.

    "William Poaster" stated in post
    pan.2008.10.21.10.28.30.81568@mc2-brunel.deb on 10/21/08 3:28 AM:

    > On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:57:06 +0000, TomB wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-20, Snit was urged to write the following:
    >>
    >>> On Linux, however, the norm is to have a mish-mash of different UIs... and
    >>> programs that use the UI guidelines they are theoretically designed for only
    >>> poorly. My screenshots are now a bit outdated, but here are examples of
    >>> what I mean:
    >>>
    >>> From PCLOS:
    >>>
    >>> Poorly done menus
    >>>

    >>
    >> Let's get the same argument out of the closet then...
    >>
    >> In there are at least four programs that run on Windows as well:
    >> Firefox, mplayer, Xchat and OpenOffice. So the same inconsistancy is
    >> valid for Windows as well...

    >
    > Beware of arguing with Michael Snit Glasser. He will troll, deliberately
    > misinterpret, & change what you say.
    >

    So you say - without a shred of evidence. Not a single shred.

    Nor, of course, will you ever present such evidence. 100% predictable.


    --
    .... something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
    resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop
    experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
    - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)


+ Reply to Thread