Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:26:36 -0600 From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1008649596.5a3562@mired.org> To: Technical Information <tech_info@threespace.com> Cc: FreeBSD Chat <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: EzBSD aint for me! Was: A breath of fresh air.. Message-ID: <15384.11772.363959.693167@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011212181551.015734a8@threespace.com> References: <20011211140107.A67653@FreeBSD.org> <0112071641320B.01380@stinky.akitanet.co.uk> <01121010202100.00345@stinky.akitanet.co.uk> <20011211144049.A14693@acidpit.org> <20011211214943.A4489@tisys.org> <15382.29599.349155.309028@guru.mired.org> <20011211230257.A5157@tisys.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20011212181551.015734a8@threespace.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Technical Information <tech_info@threespace.com> types: > At 05:20 PM 12/11/2001, Mike Meyer wrote: > >You are both right. However, whenever I try to claim that Windows > >isn't as user-friendly as FreeBSD because it won't do what I, as a > >user, want it to do (see the ratpoison port for an example of what I > >want it to do) people tell me I'm crazy. > Well, I won't say you're crazy, but I disagree slightly with your point. :-) Actually, it isn't my point, it was someone elses. > I think that what you're referring to as "user friendly" is what I refer to > as "flexible"--being adaptable to a variety of tasks and conditions. Many > times the cost of flexible software is that it's a little harder to learn, > i.e., a little *less* user-friendly. I would agree with that. Flexibility is one of the attributes of what I called "expert-friendly" software. > But most of us on this list are atypical computer users. We'd gladly trade > a limiting cookie-cutter design for a more powerful, flexible design any > day. But this ignores that we are in the computing minority. And having a > rather de-facto standard design elements certainly helps the masses even if > it is constricting to the individual. There's nothing like sitting down at > another UNIX user's personal computer and trying to get accustomed to his > personalized mouse button mapping, follow-the-pointer window focusing, or > even directory structure. Maximize the xterm window, invoke screen, and forget about it. All done. > There's a reason why no car company tries to alter the arrangement > of the clutch, gas, and brake pedals, for instance. Because the industry is over twice as old as ours, and long ago settled on a standard. I believe that cars have been manufactured during my lifetime that deviated from that standard, and I know slightly less important things meet that criteria. Some of them are even critical controls if you live in the right place. And they vary even if you stay with one manufacturer. For instance, have you ever driven a car with a hydromatic transmission? I have no idea what the UI for an F1 car is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't follow that arrangement. > But my litmus test for ease-of-use tends to be this: How quickly could > someone with relevant skills but zero training sit down and figure out how > to accomplish a given task? I'm sure anyone on this list could plop down > at any Windows box and quickly get a browser, e-mail, spreadsheet, > you-name-it going and be doing practical work in a matter of minutes. How > long would it take a Windows user to figure out how to do the same on a > UNIX system? I shudder to think. Are you confusing "familiarity" with "relevant skills"? For instance, I know what the skills relevant to a spreadsheet are - they're taught in accounting classes. Most accountants - even those trained on paper only - would recognize a running spreadsheet as such, and could probably do useful work with it if someone else has already set it up. However, they probably couldn't start with a bare spreadsheet program and get useful work out of it without some training. I have no idea what the "relevant skills" are for "web browsing" and "e-mail". However, what makes it possible for me to sit down in front of a Windows box and do those things is the same thing that makes it possible for me to sit down in front of nearly any generic computer and get something done - I'm familiar with a broad range of computer interfaces, some of which I've even had training in. Note that familiarity may be a disadvantage. Users unfamiliar with any computer who were asked to type a document on the Cat that Raskin designed for Canon had no trouble with it. They just did it and were done. Users who were familiar with computers got nowhere, because they couldn't figure out how to start the word processor. > Of course, one of the things that continues to confuse me about this > ongoing thread is that typically when people cite their reason for loving > one OS more than another, they bring up a pet application or feature that > has nothing inherently to do with the operating system of choice. X > Windows System-style focusing? Your favorite application XYZ? Multiple > simultaneous users? Remote administration? Yeah, the other operating > systems have got all that too *if* you're willing to learn to use it. Um - could you tell me how to get a paned window manager running on any MS-Windows operating system? They're over 50% faster than framed window managers for typical wm applications. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15384.11772.363959.693167>