From: Herbert Kleebauer on 26 Aug 2007 11:14
> There are still Command Lines - which is utterly un-acceptable,
> in an OS, on the user side -, but user-interfaces are progressing.
> Still dramaticaly counter-intuitive, but better than before.
The only justification for a graphical desktop is the ability to
have many command windows displayed simultaneously. If you
communicate with a human, do you point on graphical pictograms
or do you speak (write) to him. Why don't you use the same method
when communicating with a piece of software?
Don't forget to install the Midnight Commander, it's the most
essential program on a Linux system.
From: Betov on 26 Aug 2007 11:33
Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait news:46D198E3.D80EAFC5
> The only justification for a graphical desktop is the ability to
> have many command windows displayed simultaneously. If you
> communicate with a human, do you point on graphical pictograms
> or do you speak (write) to him. Why don't you use the same method
> when communicating with a piece of software?
Communicating with words (Command-Lines) implies a *Language*.
A user does not have to _learn_ any Language. Mind you, when
facing the Linux password bug, i had to re-boot in "rescue
Mode", first. Do you want a user to even *know* what a "rescue
mod" is, and how to access this?! No. this is not his job. Then,
after the "rescue mode", i had to type in, a "bash" Command.
How do you want a *user* to know what command to type in?!
Well, fact is that i knew what to type in. Then, i had... to
exit from there. How do you want a user to know how to do that?!
Your question is so absurd that i can't believe it. A user does
not even have to *know* that "bash" _exists_. This is utterly
unacceptable to have to use it.
What would have been acceptable, when facing the bug, would have
been a Dialog, with a title saying: "Change PassWord:", an Edit-
control, and the required "Abort" and "OK" buttons. Period. There
is absolutely nothing intelligent with knowing the tips&tricks,
which are nothing but reflects of the programmers failure.
OK, i cannot shout at volunteers free works, but, saying that
the actual mess is "intelligent" is the reverse of truth.
< http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 26 Aug 2007 11:37
"rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu" <rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu> �crivait news:1188141084.393714.74240
Hi, clown! Still there? Wow.
< http://rosasm.org >
From: CodeMonk on 26 Aug 2007 12:17
> of a user to *learn* anything at all. The job of a user is, as its name
> says, to *use* a Software, and if a Software's final user has anything
> to *learn*, before usign the Soft, the programmer has failed.
Careful !!! :) Even RosAsm's interface is less than intuitive, and
that's from a "final user" assembler programmer's perspective.
From: santosh on 26 Aug 2007 12:22
Jim Carlock wrote:
> Just some curious questions, as I don't have a working Linux system
> anywhere near me.
> Most apps inside Linux are console apps, right?
Numerically yes, for an average Linux installation.
> And for the apps that draw their own dialogs and forms, what would
> you say those run as? Are they ALL pretty much X-Windows? Or is
> it all up in the air depending pretty much upon what the programmer
> wants? Is there a particular technology that applies moreso than any
> other technology?
The X server merely provides the ability to write pixels to the video buffer
and receive input from input devices. Hardly more than that. Various GUI
toolkits, like GTK+, QT, Xt, wxWidgets, etc., provide premade GUI controls.
At a higher level, desktop systems like KDE, GNOME, Xfce, etc., provide
interoperability between separate GUI programs.
So the hierarchy can be viewed like this:
Your App -> Desktop system -> GUI Toolkit -> Xlib -> X server -> Linux
This is not a strict hierarchy. Your application can bypass one or more of
the intermediate levels, except the X server. Actually you can bypass that
too, but not in a practical sense.
Generally, you can start by learning to use a toolkit like GTK+ or QT and
from there, work in both directions, one towards integrating into a desktop
environment, the other, towards lower level interaction with Xlib and the X
Most programmers only bother with the higher level progression.
Generally GTK+ is favoured over QT, because it's more universally available,
but these days, the differences are more aesthetics.