Cedric, you should append this to "The Unix-Hater's Handbook"----I'm not providing a link because I'm sure you already know it!
---Fellow Unix-hater, and Mac OS user (add flame suppressor here) On Jan 25, 10:21 pm, Cedric Greevey <cgree...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Sean Corfield <seancorfi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Cedric Greevey <cgree...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In other words, "ported software setup sucks!"? :) > > > That's not the conclusion I would have drawn... ;) > > >> Rather ironic, when the tendency, at least historically, has been for > >> Windows (and Mac) to have superior usability when it comes to native > > > That depends on your point of view. I don't consider Windows > > particularly usable - and I've used every version of it from 3.1 to > > date... I'm sure we'll just agree to disagree on this one... > > I guess you're talking about a different kind of usability than I am. > > On the one hand, there's "it works properly and doesn't constantly > crash". That's where Windows software has tended to be deficient (and, > until recently, security). > > On the other hand, there's "setup for the typical configuration is > point, click, reboot, done, and then you can sit down at it and use it > with domain knowledge, general computer skills, and little else, and > generally only need to consult some thick manual, or a cheat-sheet, or > forums, or Wikipedia, or something when you're doing something unusual > or advanced rather than common tasks such as cut, copy, and paste". > That's where Unix software has tended to be deficient, often requiring > complicated setup (though sometimes not) and almost always requiring a > cheat-sheet, at least, to use it if you aren't a very regular, > experienced user of the software. Frequently solution-space knowledge > is even needed -- knowledge of compilers, terminology like "buffer", > and so forth. Non-industry-standard bindings, mouse input semantics, > selection and menu behavior (if there even are menus), and terminology > abound in the typical case, up to and including various idiosyncratic > neologisms specific to a single piece of software and not used by > unrelated software with the same function (e.g. only emacs calls the > clipboard or clipboards a "kill ring"; not only doesn't Notepad, nor > does Editpad, Notepad++, vi, nano ...). > > Newer stuff, particularly designed for use with a package manager at > install time and either Gnome or KDE, has tended to avoid these > problems, though. Hence the "at least historically" above. > > Of course, this isn't limited purely to Unix. Before widespread > networking and large market penetration of Windows PCs, idiosyncratic > software and multiple attempts at standards proliferated on most > platforms, excluding the Mac which came OOTB with a standard GUI > toolkit. Old MS-DOS software is as guilty as vintage Unix software, > with Wordstar and ancient versions of Lotus Notes (even for a while > after it got a GUI!) being particularly infamous for requiring of > users enormous feats of application-specific memorization and/or > cheat-sheets. > > On the other hand, nobody uses those old pieces of MS-DOS software > anymore. For some reason correspondingly old Unix software has a > to-some-dismaying tendency to stay in use year after year. :) > > Actually, this may be a downside of open source. The likely reason is > that the old MS-DOS software is proprietary, no longer maintained by > the original developers, and in all likelihood no longer even exists > as source, whereas the old Unix software is open source and people > that got used to it stuck with it and even kept developing it > themselves, so the software outlives generation after generation of > hardware and is functionally immortal, but inertia keeps it full of > legacy idiosyncrasies from before common idioms of computer > interaction became standardized as a consequence of the computer > becoming a common household tool rather than something only used at > work, at school, and by geeks. So, open source seems to result in > keeping old, pre-standardization things in use until the *users* die > off rather than the hardware generation that begat it. > > On the positive side, nobody is forced at gunpoint to use any of it > and standard-compliant alternatives that you can just sit at and use > tend to exist in most cases. (Though a usable, FOSS alternative to the > GIMP (GUI, of course, but *highly* idiosyncratic to anyone used to > Photoshop) still seems strangely lacking ...) > > Mind you, it still can impinge on others from time to time. For > example, by causing a not-insignificant fraction of mailing list > traffic on some lists to consist of questions like "how do I make > ancient ASCII-terminal-oriented piece of software Foo play nice with > Unicode characters transmitted over the network?" and answers to same. > :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
