From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 5 14:07:55 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7661916A4CE for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:07:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at (lilzmailso01.liwest.at [212.33.55.23]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D49943D2F for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:07:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dgw@liwest.at) Received: from cm58-27.liwest.at ([212.33.58.27]) by lilzmailso01.liwest.at with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AzNU1-0002BB-Pv; Fri, 05 Mar 2004 23:07:54 +0100 From: Daniela To: Jim Zajkowski , freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 23:02:31 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <200403052226.19659.dgw@liwest.at> <2EAEEFC4-6EEE-11D8-AE09-000A95DA58FE@jimz.net> In-Reply-To: <2EAEEFC4-6EEE-11D8-AE09-000A95DA58FE@jimz.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200403052302.31896.dgw@liwest.at> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Most wanted X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:07:55 -0000 On Friday 05 March 2004 21:43, Jim Zajkowski wrote: > On Mar 5, 2004, at 5:26 PM, Daniela wrote: > > These are areas where optimization is critical, because if two > > programs deliver equal quality, professionals will always choose the > > one that is much faster than the other. > > Almost always, substantial speed gains in e.g. MPEG compression come > from algorithmic advances and not by switching to assembly. I know. I love to do all kind of optimization, including algorithm improvements. But I'm so into low-level programming, that it's (sometimes) easier for me to code in ASM than in C. > Professionals also prefer tools that work the way they do, which is why > most professional tools have steep learning curves -- because they're > made to be efficient, not accessible. Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, and > even UNIX have difficult interfaces for beginners but efficient > interfaces for seasoned users. Word, on the other hand, has a > difficult interface for everyone. Yes, that's true. While I would not yet call myself a seasoned user, I think shell navigation is more efficient than that graphical stuff, but newbies disagree with me.