Switch to .ruby extension?

Hi,
I just had to comment on one thing.

The
hardcore hackers don't need to lose anything if Timmy The Five Year Old
has an overlying interface to Unix that makes sense to him, so why the
incredible opposition to user-friendliness?

There are distributions of Linux that aim for this sort of thing. Maybe you
should google for it or check it out....http://www.linuxiso.org

I know about those. They're the exceptions to the rule. I'm complaining about the rules, not the exceptions.

Hrm. The reason I have to use the command line at times is because the GUI was created to be "User Friendly". If we attempted to make *all* unix command lines accessible to children and other inexperienced people, it would suck the power right out of it, just like the gui. I figure that GUIs are for user-friendliness, and command lines are for raw power. I don't resent the difficult time I had learning how to use the command line; I figure it's the price I paid to be able to use that power. If you aren't willing to learn it, you don't get to use it.

I still say a small tool (named 'help') would be a good idea, but I don't see it as being a full fledged tutorial, just a set of quick pointers. I know that one of the first things I typed when I sat down to figure out this "Terminal" thing was 'help'. If that had pointed me to 'apropos' and 'man', I would have gotten started a lot sooner. Instead, a friend did it, and I learned it after all.

If you want a super user-friendly command line, install it. But don't make me use it, I won't touch it. It's user friendly enough for me.

cheers,
Mark

···

On Jun 11, 2004, at 2:40 PM, Tyler Zesiger wrote:

* Tyler Zesiger <mailing-lists@zesiger.com> [0641 22:41]:

Zach Dennis wrote:
Someone once told me to "RTFM" when I couldn't figure out how to work a
*nix text editor. I felt insulted, that he insinuated that *I* was the
one with the problem, not the text editor.

You wanted to know how to use a tool, and someone told you to read
the instructions, and you felt insulted?

There are hundreds of editors for *NIX, many are designed by people
who were used to a different OS or similar. You'd have to look
for them though, which I expect will enrage you :slight_smile:

I know about those. They're the exceptions to the rule. I'm complaining
about the rules, not the exceptions.

Ah, I see, you know about the alternatives, but prefer to use a tool
you don't like and complain about it. God help you.

···

--
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the
universe.
    -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns

Just had to comment on this bit. vi isn't easy to *learn*; it's easy to
*use*. You can do a lot of very powerful stuff with surprising ease, far
more so than in the more userfriendly editors. emacs too, espcially if
you're an octopus :slight_smile: There's a *reason* people still use them over more
standardised editors, and 'geek cred' isn't it.

martin

···

Tyler Zesiger <mailing-lists@zesiger.com> wrote:

Someone once told me to "RTFM" when I couldn't figure out how to work a
*nix text editor. I felt insulted, that he insinuated that *I* was the
one with the problem, not the text editor. In fact, text editors are
dang near the oldest software technology we have. I've used dozens,
maybe even hundreds of them, and not once have I ever had to "RTFM"
before starting to use it, because they've all adopted the same
intuitive UI conventions that have worked well for a decade - Except for
*nix editors. They're 20 years out-of-date.

If you try to argue that typical *nix editors are in fact easy to use
(vi, et al), and it's "obvious" how to use them, as many *nix people do,
maybe you should step out of your geek-bubble and try learning something
completely new - maybe something that's also poorly designed and 20+
years out of date.

Someone once told me to "RTFM" when I couldn't figure out how to work a
*nix text editor. I felt insulted, that he insinuated that *I* was the
one with the problem, not the text editor. In fact, text editors are
dang near the oldest software technology we have. I've used dozens,
maybe even hundreds of them, and not once have I ever had to "RTFM"
before starting to use it, because they've all adopted the same
intuitive UI conventions that have worked well for a decade - Except for
*nix editors. They're 20 years out-of-date.

I get really tired of hearing people say something is bad just because
they lack the capacity to learn to use it. I learned Vim from the user
manual. It took hours of my time, but it was EXTREMELY worthwhile. I cant
imagine using visual studio for development. Its a grotesque waste of
system resources, and its not very customizable. Vim may be old, but it
sure beats the modern competition. So far, I have been able to extend vim
to meet EVERY single one of my needs. If you dont want to learn to use it,
then dont use it - but dont expect everybody to bend over backwards to
facilitate YOUR laziness/stupidity.

I'm too old for popup books, but I *do* look for books that are easy to
understand. Doesn't everybody?

I dont. You cant grow/learn/evolve if you need everything to be watered
down for you. I ALWAYS look for books that will challenge me. Sometimes, I
even inconvenience myself intentionally if I think I will learn something
valuable from it.

I had a hard time finding "cp" because I was staring at a black screen
with a blinking cursor, with no other clues as to what to do next - NOT
because I have the mind of a 3 year old, as you insinuate.

It would be rather difficult to discern the command structure just by
staring at a blank screen - so, try opening a book, it usually helps. Its
also hard to perform surgery if you don't know the tools/physiology, and
its hard to understand french if you dont know a single word of it. Would
you go to france and start complaining that the natives ought to speak
english because it would be easier for you?

>Most programmers
>never get to that level, so there are a lot of programmers out there who,
>when asked to do something they simply can't do, defend themselves by

saying

>it shouldn't be easy to use/learn in the first place.

Whoa...I don't recall ever seeing anyone say that something shouldn't be
easy to use/learn on this thread. I think *common sense* should apply here.

Did I say anyone said that here?

If you are unwilling to take the time to learn something then don't go cry
wolf and say that it isn't *intuitive* enough. It also isn't that
developers cannot do something, there are so many hours in a day, days in a
week, weeks in a year and then you have to bring home a paycheck so you can
put food on the table. You have to weigh and balance what is needed for the
product to be benefecial to the user, and you need to be able to have it
developed in a worthwhile time. I would love to write you an OS that is so
intuitive a three year old could use it without any help...however who's
going to fork over the cash and wait n number of years for it to be
developed?

So in your mind, the reason so much software is hard for people to use is
because programmers don't have time to do any more than just get the software
working, and ease of use simply isn't going to put food on the table.

That's really laughable. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates might have something to
say about that particular position.

>That mentality is, thankfully, going away as more and more truly brilliant
>programmers are putting some of their time into newer open source
> projects, instead of only into commercial ones. KDE is one good example
> of how that way of thinking is fading away in the *nix community.

It isn't that that *way* of thinking is fading away...it took many years of
developer building blocks to get to the point to where developers can start
focusing on projects so intensely like KDE. You have to lay a foundation,
and the build the walls before you can hang pretty pictures on it. Now that
I think about it...building a house isn't intuitive enough....I should be
able to build my own without ever having to learn how to build :wink: right?

If you mean *nix is the foundation on which KDE is built, sure, of course.
But no one designed unix with KDE or even X-Windows in mind. KDE could very
easily be just as difficult and cryptic to everyday users as anything else in
*nix. It's not that KDE can now afford to be easy to use because *nix laid
the foundation. What about Macs, Windows and Beos? Those aren't (well, OS X
is) based on a Linux core, and they're easy to use.

No, I stand by what I said. New talent is working around Linux these days and
things are getting easier to use, as well as remaining, or being more,
powerful.

>The command line interface, though, is a tough nut to crack because it's

been

>around so long. If it were being developed from scratch today, surely

there

>are enough inexperienced computers users that you could probably design
>something that's both powerful and intuitive to use.

The CLI does what is needed to do. It isn't evolving because there is no
need for it to evolve. That is why people are developing GUI's. Eventually
sometime I'm sure it will evolve, but at the moment there doesn't seem to
be a need besides a ...wouldn't it be nice.

Where did I say the CLI needed to evolve? Where on earth are you getting the
material to argue against anything I've said in that paragraph? Are you just
arguing to hear yourself argue?

  Sean O'Dell

···

On Monday 14 June 2004 16:46, Zach Dennis wrote:

Ben Giddings wrote:

[snip]

Tyler Zesiger wrote:

Someone once told me to "RTFM" when I couldn't figure out how to work a *nix text editor. I felt insulted, that he insinuated that *I* was the one with the problem, not the text editor. In fact, text editors are dang near the oldest software technology we have. I've used dozens, maybe even hundreds of them, and not once have I ever had to "RTFM" before starting to use it, because they've all adopted the same intuitive UI conventions that have worked well for a decade - Except for *nix editors. They're 20 years out-of-date.

Unix editors are not "out of date", they're just different. Saying that Unix editors are out of date is like saying that Chinese is out of date. So many countries now use a roman alphabet, that China should "get with the times" and use a roman character set, and complaining that it's hard to read Chinese.

Actually, Unix editors aren't different - they're the same as every other text editor was 20 years ago. That is to say, obsolete. (or should I say obsol33t?)

It's ironic you should sarcastically mention Chinese as being out of date, because that's *exactly* how it's viewed in China. China has always had a literacy problem because the Chinese language, the characters specifically, were just too difficult to master. So, in modern times, the Chinese government has pushed for it to be simplified in an effort to improve literacy rates. It's impossible to build a technologically advanced populace when the primary barrier to entry isn't higher education, it's mastering your own language.

I agree, the first time you use vi or emacs you'll definitely need a manual close by or you'll be completely lost. On the other hand, how many career programmers do you know that use Notepad as their primary editor?

I prefer TextPad. I don't think anyone uses Notepad anymore, not for 10 years at least. Your comparing to something that's long since been superceded.

The ideal for usability is something that has a gradual learning curve, and has extremely advanced features that are slowly exposed. Very things meet that ideal, however.

Notepad has an extremely shallow learning curve, but it plateaus very quickly. Emacs and vi have very steep learning curves, but it could be argued that they never plateau.

I don't think having a shallow learning curve means it can't be sophisticated. We're talking about text editors here, it's the easiest work you can possibly do with a computer, it almost takes effort to figure out how to make it hard to do.

In any case, when I open up textpad, or any of the thousands of other modern text editors, it works just like notepad until I dig into the menu options. Typing letters makes new letters, using backspace or delete gets rid of them.

[snip]

If a black screen with a blinking cursor is not cryptic, I don't know what is. Windows has a "Start" menu. Why can't the command line say "type 'man' for help" the first few times it boots up? I can't tell you the grief I suffered in the IRC chans when I first asked for help. All people would say is simply "man". What is "man"? I didn't know.

Oh, it can! It would be really easy to modify the shell startup files to print this sort of message out, or to set up a bunch of useful aliases. By default, 'zsh' tries to correct you when you mistype something. Isn't that friendly?

That's just great, I spend a month figuring out how the OS works, then another month figuring out how to do that, and I've accomplished nothing with my time, and by the time I'm done, I no longer need what I've just spent so much time and money doing. Oh, and the best part is, once I'm done doing all that, and I no longer need it for myself, and I've lost 2 months worth of working time, I can't recoup my losses because of the GPL...(this thread will never die if someone replies to this).

The thing is, people who care about usability have focused on the graphical environment. The nice thing about open source, however, is that you're free to fix anything you feel is open.

If you think that the default shell startup files should print out a page of introductory text explaining how to use the shell, create those files, and either find a distribution that wants to use them, or start your own 'CommandlineFriendly' distribution. If it really bothers you, but you're not willing to put any time into fixing it, then why are you complaining?

Let's assume for the time being that I'm a user, not a Unix hacker, and that I wouldn't even know where to begin.

However, knowing that a commandline is difficult, why would you start using it unprepared? There are lots of books out there that will help you learn Unix, so why not use them?

To me, complaining about the user-unfriendliness of the commandline is like complaining about the user-unfriendliness of a jet cockpit. It probably could be made much more intuitive, on the other hand, the vast majority of people who find themselves in jet cockpits are experienced pilots. Rather than needing a simple, friendly interface, they need something that gives them full control.

Another ironic comment, just like the one about the Chinese language. Have you ever flown a multimillion-dollar, incredibly sophisticated, US military jet fighter? They're designed to be very easy to use, even under the most stressful circumstances (like moments before death). It's designed to be as simple to use as possible, with the UI intervening at every step. Nothing of the power and sophistication is lost in making it user-friendly, but quite a lot is gained. The pilot can still adjust every parameter on that machine, without interference from the UI, simply because it's well designed.

···

Anyhow, this is either trolling or just way offtopic, so I say we stop now.

Ben

I'm not talking about the command line per se, I'm talking about user-friendliness in general.

Mark Hubbart wrote:

[snip]

···

If you want a super user-friendly command line, install it. But don't make me use it, I won't touch it. It's user friendly enough for me.

cheers,
Mark

Dick,

Zach Dennis wrote:
Someone once told me to "RTFM" when I couldn't figure out how to work a
*nix text editor. I felt insulted, that he insinuated that *I* was the
one with the problem, not the text editor.

I didn't write that line, Tyler did.

Just to clear things up.

Zach

···

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004

Quoteing sean@celsoft.com, on Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:40:26AM +0900:

But no one designed unix with KDE or even X-Windows in mind. KDE could very
easily be just as difficult and cryptic to everyday users as anything else in
*nix. It's not that KDE can now afford to be easy to use because *nix laid
the foundation. What about Macs, Windows and Beos? Those aren't (well, OS X
is) based on a Linux core, and they're easy to use.

No, I stand by what I said. New talent is working around Linux these days and
things are getting easier to use, as well as remaining, or being more,
powerful.

It looks like new money to me, not new developers. Most of the big
projects are heavily funded by industry, either ones who sell the
software for money (KDE), or because it gives them a competetive edge
(Sun funding Samba development... they want their servers to be able to
be Windows domain controllers and file servers), gcc, Apache, even
GNOME.

Sam

···

On Monday 14 June 2004 16:46, Zach Dennis wrote:

It's not new money. KDE doesn't have the money IBM or Sun have/had. Unless I
missed something.

I also see loads of new projects coming out that aren't funded at all that
beat out older *nix projects. Take Sendmail for example. Sendmail *is*
commercial and funded. Exim is not. Exim is a terrific replacement for
Sendmail; has most if not all (now) of Sendmail's functionality, and is so
much easier to learn and master, it's hardly comparable.

It's better developers. Linux is growing in popularity, and programmers
usually making big bucks in large commercial sectors are devoting more of
their free time to open source projects.

  Sean O'Dell

···

On Monday 14 June 2004 19:09, Sam Roberts wrote:

Quoteing sean@celsoft.com, on Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:40:26AM +0900:
> On Monday 14 June 2004 16:46, Zach Dennis wrote:
> But no one designed unix with KDE or even X-Windows in mind. KDE could
> very easily be just as difficult and cryptic to everyday users as
> anything else in *nix. It's not that KDE can now afford to be easy to
> use because *nix laid the foundation. What about Macs, Windows and Beos?
> Those aren't (well, OS X is) based on a Linux core, and they're easy to
> use.
>
> No, I stand by what I said. New talent is working around Linux these
> days and things are getting easier to use, as well as remaining, or being
> more, powerful.

It looks like new money to me, not new developers. Most of the big
projects are heavily funded by industry, either ones who sell the
software for money (KDE), or because it gives them a competetive edge
(Sun funding Samba development... they want their servers to be able to
be Windows domain controllers and file servers), gcc, Apache, even
GNOME.

> >Most programmers never get to that level, so there are a lot of
> >programmers out there who, when asked to do something they simply
> >can't do, defend themselves by saying it shouldn't be easy to
> >use/learn in the first place.

I don't know whether it's really like that. If you're mainly talking
about open soure (or free) software, then in many cases it's probably
more like this: those programmers put their free time in their
projects, and they think it's more important to get in the needed (in
their opinion) features, than to add documentation or to make it
userfriendly. Additionally, i'm sure that a lot of programmers just
don't have any idea about how to make a good intuitive gui, for
example.

So in your mind, the reason so much software is hard for people to use is
because programmers don't have time to do any more than just get the software
working, and ease of use simply isn't going to put food on the table.

I think this applies to programmers who don't get paid for the work
they do. Userfriendliness (including documentation) most of the times
is low priority for them.

That's really laughable. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates might have something to
say about that particular position.

Hmmm.. 'userfriendliness' is also relative. What is more
userfriendly... typing 'rm *.jpg', or selecting each jpg-file
individually (if you first find out how to let explorer/finder show
extensions), and then dragging them to the trash-can, and then
emptying the trashcan ? _To me_, the former is a lot easier and seems
more userfriendly. :wink:

But seriously, i think that especially Mac OS X is really good
concerning userfriendliness.

If you mean *nix is the foundation on which KDE is built, sure, of course.
But no one designed unix with KDE or even X-Windows in mind. KDE could very
easily be just as difficult and cryptic to everyday users as anything else in
*nix. It's not that KDE can now afford to be easy to use because *nix laid
the foundation. What about Macs, Windows and Beos? Those aren't (well, OS X
is) based on a Linux core, and they're easy to use.

I think he meant that once the libraries which KDE relies on (the core
KDE libs) were finished, that the programmers could start to focus on
ease of use. It's the same with GNOME, they have a big set of
libraries around which the GNOME desktop is built and these days they
seem to focus more and more on userfriendliness, they for example have
guidelines for the way gui-s should be built (HIG.. human interface
guidelines?), and i believe that official GNOME apps should always
follow those guidelines which then should result in uniform and
consistent gui-s.

(btw, OS X is not based on a linux core, but on a BSD core and a Mach
kernel AFAIK)

No, I stand by what I said. New talent is working around Linux
these days and things are getting easier to use, as well as
remaining, or being more, powerful.

I'm not so sure it is all/only *new* talent. But for sure, recently
userfriendliness has gotten much more attention (again, in open
source/free software world), which is a good thing of course.

> > The command line interface, though, is a tough nut to crack
> > because it's been around so long. If it were being developed
> > from scratch today, surely there are enough inexperienced
> > computers users that you could probably design something that's
> > both powerful and intuitive to use.

I do wonder what features would make the CLI more 'intuitive' ?
Because, personally, i don't think that renaming the commands (as was
suggested before) is making it much more intuitive... if you use
'copy' instead of 'cp', well, you have to know that it's 'copy', so
you have to learn it anyway. So you can as well learn 'cp' then. (i
personally don't have any problem remembering those commands, once i
know how they came to them) I have noticed before however that some
people (in general, not necessarily on this list) reason like this:
"Oh, i've been using a DOS command prompt for years... and there i use
'copy' to copy files. Now in Linux they use 'cp', what kind of
braindead OS is that ?!?" And then they go on like this: "If Linux
wants to be popular, they should make the transition for Windows/DOS
people a lot easier, so they should use 'copy'." I think that if you
switch to another OS, you should just take the time to learn the OS
and read the available documentation. You should adapt yourself to the
new environment and not the other way around. And if you really insist
on having things the way it is in your previous OS... well, then just
don't change.

But nonetheless, a more intuitive CLI sounds very interesting, i just
think it's a lot easier to say that CLI should be more intuitive, than
to actually give some ideas about *how* to accomplish that. I think a
lot of people aren't necessarily *against* userfriendliness, but for
sure they are not willing to 'cripple' their tools to make it easier
for newbies who refuse to take the learning curve. And tools like
'man' and 'apropos' can give you a lot of usefull information. Most of
the time those are enough to help yourself. (at least in my case)

Ruben

···

At Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:40:26 +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:

So in your mind, the reason so much software is
hard for people to use is because programmers
don't have time to do any more than just get the
software working, and ease of use simply isn't
going to put food on the table.

That's really laughable. Steve Jobs and Bill
Gates might have something to say about that
particular position.

Ironically, NeXTSTEP -- the most user friendly OS that has ever existed
-- didn't touch the shell. Well, they added a registry, rather than
relying as heavily on environment variables, but they were all still
Unix commands. Maybe the shell is as perfect as it can get, until we
get computers that can understand natural languages?

--- SER

I'm not talking about the command line per se, I'm talking about user-friendliness in general.

You are right, all trollers talk about same thing. You are no exception.

Mark Hubbart wrote:

[snip]

If you want a super user-friendly command line, install it. But don't make me use it, I won't touch it. It's user friendly enough for me.
cheers,
Mark

Sincerely,
Gennady Bystritsky

···

On Jun 11, 2004, at 8:13 PM, Tyler Zesiger wrote:

Tyler Zesiger wrote:

Actually, Unix editors aren't different - they're the same as every other text editor was 20 years ago. That is to say, obsolete. (or should I say obsol33t?)

Please, Unix editors like vi/vim and emacs _do_ evolve improve over time (although I personally don't use vi & emacs). Tell that to Windows, whose Notepad, last time I checked, hasn't even got a Replace functionality. You said that Notepad has been superceded. Then Why doesn't Microsoft include a better product (a text editor is certainly as least as important as a web browser).

It's ironic you should sarcastically mention Chinese as being out of date, because that's *exactly* how it's viewed in China. China has always had a literacy problem because the Chinese language, the characters specifically, were just too difficult to master. So, in modern times, the Chinese government has pushed for it to be simplified in an effort to improve literacy rates.

Taiwan still prefers the traditional instead of the simplified notation.

It's impossible to build a technologically advanced populace when the primary barrier to entry isn't higher education, it's mastering your own language.

Btw, there is a survey that Japanese/Chinese students score 3 IQ points higher than American ones, and this is attributed to the character system that the students use. Apparently, having to learn thousands of different complex characters help developing the logical/spatial skills.

···

--
dave

I take credit for all the tom-foolery in this thread.

Zach Dennis wrote:

···

Dick,

Zach Dennis wrote:
Someone once told me to "RTFM" when I couldn't figure out how to work a *nix text editor. I felt insulted, that he insinuated that *I* was the one with the problem, not the text editor.

I didn't write that line, Tyler did.

Just to clear things up.

Zach

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004

Wrote Sean O'Dell <sean@celsoft.com>, on Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 11:36:18AM +0900:

> Quoteing sean@celsoft.com, on Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:40:26AM +0900:
> > But no one designed unix with KDE or even X-Windows in mind. KDE could
> > very easily be just as difficult and cryptic to everyday users as
> > anything else in *nix. It's not that KDE can now afford to be easy to
> > use because *nix laid the foundation. What about Macs, Windows and Beos?
> > Those aren't (well, OS X is) based on a Linux core, and they're easy to
> > use.
> >
> > No, I stand by what I said. New talent is working around Linux these
> > days and things are getting easier to use, as well as remaining, or being
> > more, powerful.
>
> It looks like new money to me, not new developers. Most of the big
> projects are heavily funded by industry, either ones who sell the
> software for money (KDE), or because it gives them a competetive edge
> (Sun funding Samba development... they want their servers to be able to
> be Windows domain controllers and file servers), gcc, Apache, even
> GNOME.

It's not new money. KDE doesn't have the money IBM or Sun have/had. Unless I
missed something.

KDE has more money than Tom's Window Manager did.

I also see loads of new projects coming out that aren't funded at all that
beat out older *nix projects. Take Sendmail for example. Sendmail *is*
commercial and funded. Exim is not. Exim is a terrific replacement for
Sendmail; has most if not all (now) of Sendmail's functionality, and is so
much easier to learn and master, it's hardly comparable.

Exim was developed by the University of Cambridge, it may not be
commercial, but it wasn't some guy working in his basement, either.

ISPs using exim are contributing paid company hours into maintaining and
adding enhancements to it. There are thousands (10s of thousands?) more
ISPs today than there were 10 years ago.

Matz is payed to work on ruby full-time.

O'Reilly pours money into OS development.

It's better developers. Linux is growing in popularity, and programmers
usually making big bucks in large commercial sectors are devoting more of
their free time to open source projects.

Those developers are using Linux in large commercial sectors, and many
of those developers are contributing paid company hours to working on
it.

Cheers,
Sam

···

On Monday 14 June 2004 19:09, Sam Roberts wrote:
> > On Monday 14 June 2004 16:46, Zach Dennis wrote:

--
Sam Roberts <sroberts@certicom.com>

> > >Most programmers never get to that level, so there are a lot of
> > >programmers out there who, when asked to do something they simply
> > >can't do, defend themselves by saying it shouldn't be easy to
> > >use/learn in the first place.

I don't know whether it's really like that. If you're mainly talking
about open soure (or free) software, then in many cases it's probably
more like this: those programmers put their free time in their
projects, and they think it's more important to get in the needed (in
their opinion) features, than to add documentation or to make it
userfriendly. Additionally, i'm sure that a lot of programmers just
don't have any idea about how to make a good intuitive gui, for
example.

That's how the majority of projects go, yes, and you're right about
programmers not knowing how to make a good, intuitive GUI. That was my
point.

> So in your mind, the reason so much software is hard for people to use is
> because programmers don't have time to do any more than just get the
> software working, and ease of use simply isn't going to put food on the
> table.

I think this applies to programmers who don't get paid for the work
they do. Userfriendliness (including documentation) most of the times
is low priority for them.

I don't think a programmer who knows how to make software user friendly
ditches his skills momentarily to release hard-to-use software because it's
faster. Why do programmers work on projects on the side? As a labor of love
or for some other reason? Do they or don't they take more pride in their own
personal projects than the ones typically dictated to them at work?

> If you mean *nix is the foundation on which KDE is built, sure, of
> course. But no one designed unix with KDE or even X-Windows in mind. KDE
> could very easily be just as difficult and cryptic to everyday users as
> anything else in *nix. It's not that KDE can now afford to be easy to
> use because *nix laid the foundation. What about Macs, Windows and Beos?
> Those aren't (well, OS X is) based on a Linux core, and they're easy to
> use.

I think he meant that once the libraries which KDE relies on (the core
KDE libs) were finished, that the programmers could start to focus on
ease of use. It's the same with GNOME, they have a big set of
libraries around which the GNOME desktop is built and these days they
seem to focus more and more on userfriendliness, they for example have
guidelines for the way gui-s should be built (HIG.. human interface
guidelines?), and i believe that official GNOME apps should always
follow those guidelines which then should result in uniform and
consistent gui-s.

That doesn't change what I said about the level of quality working on open
source these days. It has greatly improved.

(btw, OS X is not based on a linux core, but on a BSD core and a Mach
kernel AFAIK)

I know.

> No, I stand by what I said. New talent is working around Linux
> these days and things are getting easier to use, as well as
> remaining, or being more, powerful.

I'm not so sure it is all/only *new* talent. But for sure, recently
userfriendliness has gotten much more attention (again, in open
source/free software world), which is a good thing of course.

Competition with more talent in the field is probably making some lesser
programmers wake up and shake off their old ways in favor of some news ones,
I'm sure.

But nonetheless, a more intuitive CLI sounds very interesting, i just
think it's a lot easier to say that CLI should be more intuitive, than
to actually give some ideas about *how* to accomplish that. I think a
lot of people aren't necessarily *against* userfriendliness, but for
sure they are not willing to 'cripple' their tools to make it easier
for newbies who refuse to take the learning curve. And tools like
'man' and 'apropos' can give you a lot of usefull information. Most of
the time those are enough to help yourself. (at least in my case)

I like the CLI how it is.

  Sean O'Dell

···

On Tuesday 15 June 2004 00:37, Ruben wrote:

At Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:40:26 +0900, > > Sean O'Dell wrote:

I think the shell is good at what it does. It could probably be made better
and more user friendly, but like I said, that might kill its overall
functionality. I think it's about as perfect as it can get. I think what
some people need are like "newbie" shells. A lot of people don't really
understand the full function of the shell, and they see it as a place where
you type commands and read the results. A lot of people use the shell that
way. They would probably do well with a shell that's just a friendly, happy
place to type commands and watch the programs do their thing, with really
easy to remember commands, and maybe even help popping out at them at every
turn. Like for general office people; non-technical types that still need to
work at the computer for certain things and, for whatever reason, still need
to get to a shell.

  Sean O'Dell

···

On Tuesday 15 June 2004 07:48, SER wrote:

>So in your mind, the reason so much software is
> hard for people to use is because programmers
> don't have time to do any more than just get the
> software working, and ease of use simply isn't
> going to put food on the table.
>
> That's really laughable. Steve Jobs and Bill
> Gates might have something to say about that
> particular position.

Ironically, NeXTSTEP -- the most user friendly OS that has ever existed
-- didn't touch the shell. Well, they added a registry, rather than
relying as heavily on environment variables, but they were all still
Unix commands. Maybe the shell is as perfect as it can get, until we
get computers that can understand natural languages?

Gennady Bystritsky wrote:

I'm not talking about the command line per se, I'm talking about user-friendliness in general.

You are right, all trollers talk about same thing. You are no exception.

Oh, you've heard these complaints before? So maybe there's some merit in them.

···

On Jun 11, 2004, at 8:13 PM, Tyler Zesiger wrote:

Mark Hubbart wrote:

[snip]

If you want a super user-friendly command line, install it. But don't make me use it, I won't touch it. It's user friendly enough for me.
cheers,
Mark

Sincerely,
Gennady Bystritsky

David Garamond wrote:
...

Please, Unix editors like vi/vim and emacs _do_ evolve improve over time (although I personally don't use vi & emacs). Tell that to Windows, whose Notepad, last time I checked, hasn't even got a Replace functionality.

Ctrl-H

:slight_smile:

James, happy gvim user on Windows and 'nix.