Those are all great, but how do they relate to touch interfaces? Are touch interfaces inherently invalid in the eyes of the UNIX philosophy? This is ironic, since I believe well over 90% of touch-based OSs in use are UNIX-based.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:50, Chad M/ Germann <cgerm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 12:52 +0100, frederik.nn...@gmail.com wrote: >> how do you define Unix-like in 2011? > > In a nutshell Keep it Simple, Stupid. > > to expand. > > 1. Small is beautiful. > 2. Make each program do one thing well. > 3. Build a prototype as soon as possible. > 4. Choose portability over efficiency. > 5. Store data in flat text files. > 6. Use software leverage to your advantage. > 7. Use shell scripts to increase leverage and portability. > 8. Avoid captive user interfaces. > 9. Make every program a filter > 10. 10 Clarity is better than cleverness > 11. Separate policy from mechanism; separate interfaces from > engines. > 12. In interface design, always do the least surprising thing > 13. When a program has nothing surprising to say, it should say > nothing. > 14. When you must fail, fail noisily and as soon as possible > 15. Programmer time is expensive; conserve it in preference to > machine time > > > -- Ian Santopietro Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended" Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
