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

[Michael Shigorin]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 08:06:03AM -0400, Eric Dunbar wrote:
> > Most of the people I know who are attracted to the command
> > line love books. [...] The people I notice who are fans of
> > GUI's [...] reacted quickly to visual information.

> > Is this argument flawed? Sure.

But it's not!

> Interesting, I can't say I can either confirm or deny your
> observations.

Thanks Charles for the wording, thanks Eric for bringing it back
to the public, and I second this example (+know a few people who
came to similar results of their observations, too).

---

> 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.

> *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. :)

> (I'm perhaps the anomaly in that I have a profound hatred of
> computers).

Hm...  I don't hate them since I've come to have no feelings over
what doesn't have feelings itself.  It's stuff which has never
been alive, so why love it or hate it.

> > > FLOSS has done of note has been copied).
> > This is pretty typical Microsoft FUD. (That F/OSS doesn't innovate).

+1

> [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
:-)

> By-and-large I *do not* see innovation in Linux/FOSS.

You just see what you know and know what you see, that's it.

> I don't count a widget or two here-and-there in GNOME or KDE as
> innovative, unless they profoundlly change the way a lot of
> people work. There are some minor GUI innovations (e.g. virtual
> desktops, although, was it GNOME/KDE/X.org/XFree that took
> virtual desktops from the technology preview floor and used
> them or did early x-windows implementations on UNIX use virtual
> desktops... never mind, I experimented with virtual desktops on
> Mac OS  in the late 80s (I liked them, but that was before a
> more mature app switching interface developed) ;-).

Discussed last week AFAIR.

> OO.org is a clone of MS Office.

Ex-proprietary.

> 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.

> [though, all Moz/Netscrape browsers and IE do have a common
> somewhat (or fully?) open origin ;-)]

You should go learn history, it's not so.  You can start with
IE's "About" and the explanation of "Mozilla" word somewhere.

> Under the hood, Linux and BSD are Unix clones.

BSD is UNIX, Linux isn't really.  In fact, Linux seems to be
post-UNIX fixing many of its shortcomings.

> you *can* have different work paradigm all-in-one. If Linux
> gets better, your experience with the CLUi won't get worse,
> and, you can always keep the GUI components you like.

Eric, it's your brilliant-statement-of-the-message. (no pun)

> 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.

-- 
 ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike at altlinux.ru>
  ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/