> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doc [mailto:doc@mdrconsult.com]
> I have done software support in a Windows environment, and
> I have done
> training of both adults and children in both Linux and Windows.
> Chris's crack about finding the new document after writing it, in
> Windows, was dead on. My stint as "the computer guy" in a
> Windows shop
> was in a University of Texas research lab. Not exactly morons I was
Well, Doc -- you're not the only one who's had to support windows. ;)
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
>I can't remember an instance where a Mac application allowed the
>user to enter the colons, although they were used internally, and
>you could use them in some developer tools that gave command
>lines or operated on "makefile"s.
I'm unaware of any "consumer" application that presents the colon to you
EXCEPT Script Editor when writing AppleScripts. But that should really
fall under the dev tools catagory, I just figured it was worth a mention
since it is installed with the default OS install.
I can say for sure that no time is the average user of a Mac forced to
deal with the colon for a path. For that matter, no time is the average
Mac user forced to deal with a path at all... on the Mac it is all laid
out in terms of storage inside folders. Sure, underneath the surface that
is all directory path stucture, but from the UI standpoint, it is much
more friendly to just think "I put my resume inside my Documents folder".
Windows has gotten MUCH MUCH better at removing the path structure from
the user, but it still isn't quite there (witness just about any
application installer that will still ask if you want to store the app in
"C:\Program Files\MyApp")
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
>Chris (and everybody, for that matter) try OS X, if you get the
>chance. I think you'll like it, especially if you have some experience
>with *BSD or *nix already. Or I could show you next time you're up here,
>Chris...
I have X installed on another partition on my home iMac. I use it from
time to time, but I have a number of tools that I need that are classic
only, and just work better under OS 9 native.
Although, the #1 tool is Interarchy's stream watching abilities. They
don't offer an X version, so I have to use the os 9 version, which won't
work under classic. But this was really an issue of *nix ignorance.
Interarchy removed the ability from the X version, because BSD already
HAS the ability, something that I only just became aware of.
Chances are good, this weekend, I will boot back into X and give it
another whirl (my other hold out is a good web browser that will ALSO let
me do the daily AOL crossword puzzle... so far only IE in X will do it,
and I prefer not to run MS stuff if I have a choice)
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raymond Moyers [mailto:rmoyers@nop.org]
> Unix, for years, shipped with a editor nobody could use
> and backspace key that did not work, and seemed rigged
Hmm -- the backspace key has always worked for me, and the
editor, while being not incredibly nice, was useable.
> Linux is the first nix i saw that came out of the install
> with a working backspace key and several editors
> that a person new to Unix could use.
Obviously, you hadn't been introduced to IRIX or NeXTSTEP.
> I credit these two things for its success, no longer
> did it have two most fierce deterrents to learning.
I never saw them as real problems. The editor could be
replaced, and if you don't like the way the backspace key
works, you can re-assign it. :)
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick@idcomm.com]
> While I agree there is plenty of room for preferences, I
> don't see why one
> would want everything isolated from everything else on the
> LAN, when the
> existence of the LAN is warranted by the need for shared
> access. ON top of
If you're talking about his remote X session in a separate
window, I think he's emulating a not-so-good "feature" of
windows, there, actually. Have you used Citrix, for instance,
or "microsoft terminal server?"
I like the normal X11 way of handling local and remote
applications identically.
> that, typing half a screenful of text just to make some file
> on some other
> machine accessible seems a mite burdensome. Even under DOS
> it only takes a
> single half-line of text.
Heh -- Yep. I think he gave you a bad example. You know about
NFS (or AFS, or whatever), right? One can configure these once,
in the one line you speak of, and have another system's files
available thereafter as if they were your own.
SSH (previously RSH would have done...) will allow you to use
remote CPU resources if you like, too, and in the same single
line.
> Some people just like *NIX because it enables them to stroke
> their own need
> for pseudo-sophistry.
As with any platform. I can't argue that.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
> "Douglas H. Quebbeman" wrote:
>
> > But I'm a geek. At what cost have we dumbed-down the computer
> > so that nearly anyone can use it? And are you aware that in
> > the minds of marketing people, the market is *far* from
> > saturated, as there are still lots of people who never use
> > them and don't have them. So you can expect another order of
> > magnitude of dumbing-down...
>
> It is not hiding information that is the problem, it is
> locking the knowlage it in a safe, throwing away the key
> and dumping in the sea.
Agreed, that happens all-too frequently... but many of us here
are dedicated to the prevention of knowledge becoming lost,
and where possible, to its rediscovery.
A late visit last night dropped paper listings of stuff I did
20+ years ago that I've been unable to recover from magtape.
It's a bit 'o typing, but if we can't get the tapes read, you
can bet your bottom dollar I'll be typing it back in.
-dq
>Go on, nick a fruit sticker and scan it in as proof, dare ya...
I tried, but none of the McIntosh apples had stickers that say the name
on it. And the shelf tag was a nice plastic expensive looking plate with
nutritional info and stuff on it. Of course you would think that would
stop me from trying to take it, but no, it was the strong glue holding it
to the produce cabinet that kept it from being mine.
I did however buy one (figured it would be a good lunch snack), so I have
the nice sticker that says "#4019" to remind the minimum wage cashier
what number to punch in to charge me correctly.
BUT... as it should happen, the register receipt on their nice new fancy
POS terminal did show the name. (Point Of Sale for the acronym impaired,
not Piece Of Sh*t although I think the cashier would argue in favor of
the latter).
So the following link is a scan of my receipt (and the #4019 sticker)
showing the name as the receipt printed it. If anyone wishes to still say
the fruit is spelled MacIntosh, well, I leave it to them as an exercise
in web searching to validate it.
<http://www.mythtech.net/McIntosh.jpg>
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
The nice thing is that both TP 5.5 and TC 2.01, along with TC++1.0, are
available for free download from Borland at https://community.borland.com.
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison [mailto:ajp166@bellatlantic.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 8:09 AM
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: So-Called Real Programmers and FORTRAN
From: Glen Goodwin <acme_ent(a)bellsouth.net>
>> From: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca>
>
>> I think small and clean ( bootstrap able too is handy) languages are few
>> and far between. C was that at one time, but not any more. While I don't
>> expect complers to run in 64kb I think 64 Meg is far too much bloat.
>
>So, use an older C compiler. I still use Turbo C++ 1.0. The C++
>implementation sucks, but for "real" C code under MS-DOS, it still kicks
>ass, and runs in 640 Kb. I wish I had something as good for CP/M-86 :>(
Borland TurboPascal V5.5 and TurboCV2.01 They are 8086 sized and still
produce good code that seems to run fine under W98se and NT4.
Allison
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick@idcomm.com]
> I just consider "user-friendly" as being such that you can
> take an unitiated
> but interested party, set them down at the console, and
> expect them to be able
> to do what they want to do without first attending extensive
> training. I know
Most computer systems could claim that title, then. I don't know
of any system, for instance, where word processing requires
extensive training. (I am assuming that by "do what they want,"
you'd mean to exclude writing device drivers ;)
At a very worst, one must convince them to type the command for
the word processor, and start writing.
> Windows does that, however, and so, apparently does the Mac,
> though I find it
> confusing because it's not what I've grown to know, if not love.
Again, I think most systems do. It's probably just a question
of degree, and doubtless there's a point beyond which you'd call
a system "user friendly."
You seem to treat "user friendly" as an end in itself, or perhaps
it's the means to get more work from your employees? I see it as
a means of using the computer to do what I want, so the "user
friendly" must not get in the way of doing that. Any system where
that happens, no matter how "user friendly," seems downright
hostile to me. :)
Also remember that "user friendly" is relative.
It's a difficult matter to find a good, generic user interface. It's
fine to design machines to do one thing, or a few things, and they'll
do them very well if the people working on the design know what's
going on.
Making a generic system is more difficult. There's the matter of
scope: what should the system do? There are trade-offs in simplicity
vs. completeness. Many other problems arise too. I don't think anyone
has ever done this perfectly, and everyone who tries has some problems.
In fact, many of the problems stem from conscious design choices.
I'm sure that until this hypothetical "perfect interface" appears, we
will all have our preferences. This interface is not acceptable, for
reason Q; this other one won't work, because it's difficult to do Z...
... but this one is "user friendly," because it does what I want it
to do. What, you don't do much lambda calculus? Use it anyway, it's
"user friendly!" No, there's no word processor available, but who
cares... ;)
Anyway, you get the point, I'm sure. For a windows user to say to
somebody "windows is user-friendly, because it lets me run office
apps easily" is silly, since the next person may not care a bit for
office apps. I could tell that same person "windows is user hostile,
because it's difficult to handle dynamic libraries, and its API is a
mess."
Will that matter to the user? (The answer is yes, but they don't know
it, so they don't care.) It's all in what you're doing, and what you
can put up with to get it done.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
