CLI+books/GUI+videos mindsets (was: Mac OS X v. Linux)

[Eric Dunbar]

On 6/30/05, Michael Shigorin <mike at osdn.org.ua> wrote:
> > First of all, the reason I think it'll be *good*: by "bending"
> > the environment to make it more user friendly* you attract more
> > people. By attracting more people you attract more developers
> 
> Not neccessarily... but generally so.
> 
> > (including proprietary ones, which is *good* (e.g. Real)) and
> > investment, and, with more developers and investment comes
> > higher quality code and novel code.
> 
> Obviously you didn't have much chance to read different
> proprietary sources yourself... it isn't the synonim of HQ code.
> I'd even dare say "quite the contrary", especially these days.

Investment != proprietary, and, to be blunt, the *BEST* APPS out there
often are proprietary.

MS Office _IS_ a much more stable _AND_ polished set of apps than
OO.org. PhotoShop spins circles around GIMP for stability and SPEED.
This isn't to say that OO.org and GIMP are not usable. They certainly
ARE, however, they're not in the same leage as PhotoShop or OO.org.
It'll be a few years yet before OO.org comes even close to the older
versions of Office in terms of up-time and interface quality (part of
that'll come with improvements to GNOME/KDE) but it'll take time and
time and time. MS has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into
Office development over the years. That is the kind of investment that
buys you a solid app. OO.org will eventually get there, but at a
*much* slower pace.

> > *user friendly = usable to people without extensive experience
> > with the CLUI or manuals...
> 
> It's "GUI user friendly" or "total newbie friendly", please don't
> deprive us CLI users of being such. :)

As stated before and elsewhere -- the CLUI and GUI co-exist
peacefully. Improvements to the GUI do not harm the GUI, well, since
the GUI is stuck at 1975! Keeping the GUI down because of CLUI demands
would be a bad idea (not saying it's happening) because the GUI opens
computers up to people as TOOLs, CLUIs restrict the use of computers
to the techno-geek elite (perhaps that's why some are fearful of an
improving GUI... they're clinging to the last vestiges of a CLUI in
hopes that they can extort some more $$$s out of users in support fees
;-).

> > [my take on 'innovative' is something important and widely used
> > that did not have a closed source precedent]
> 
> It's crippled definition but Charles is right even by that one.
> Heck, the aforementioned virtual desktops are brilliant example
> :-)

Although, I suspect you're wrong on virtual desktops! I was playing
with virtual desktops long before you'd ever heard of them, ON A MAC
in the late 80s. To me that suggests that they had they *probably* had
their first wide-spread use in early UNIXes (perhaps some of the early
x-windows implementations?).


> > GIMP is a clone of Photoshop.
> 
> Not sure, 1.x was quite original in many facets.  2.x is more of
> a clone on GUI side, but I didn't script it or use heavily so I
> have no say there.

And, for most people that's all that counts -- apps are TOOLs, and, it
doesn't matter if you use a hammer or a rock to hammer a nail. What
matters is the job you can do with it. The hammer is a much more
efficient tool for hammering a nail than a rock.

As for scripting, that seems like a relatively meaningless argument
since PhotoShop is scriptable, is it not?

> > If the FOSS movement is founded on such shakey ground, then I
> > suggest people examine the legality of their software anyway
> > (and, I don't think FOSS is founded on overly shakey ground).
> 
> We're all living on a *very* shakey ground.  Few realize it.

(assuming no indecipherable sarcasm) If that's the case, we should
re-examine, and perhaps eliminate the use of certain (or all?) FLOSS
software if they are in violation of legitimate software patents!

<rant>What I find utterly hypocritical in many FLOSS users is this
desire to play MP3s. One problem is that all FLOSS MP3
players/encoders are in violation of a number of patents. The second,
and more problematic issue is that the bulk of MP3s on computers do
not belong (morally/ethically) to the possessor of those MP3s.

Hmm. Users of FLOSSoftware, where access rights are guaranteed by the
author of the software, using music that is [sometimes/often] stolen
[through MP3 format and MP3 file sharing] where the authors of the
music have CHOSEN not to release their music into the public domain.
Some of the hypocrits might cry foul if someone used FLOSS in a
program in violation of the licence, but would think twice about
playing their ill-gotten MP3s :-(</rant>

Time to go see if the mouse was trapped (in a live trap).

Eric.