to ray:

[symbioidlj]

This is in reply to Ray's reply to my last post about switching back to windoze... It's 1000 characters too long, and i"m not gonna try to trim that many characters(though, it's quite verbose, and maybe it can be done, but... It is, I believe, well written enough, I believe, to post as a regular post anyways...
---------------------------
hmm... well, i wouldn't go quite so far as to say I want complete ease of use. Notice that I said I wanted the tweakability. I don't expect tweakability without any work. I guess what I'm mostly disappointed is the interface. Yeah, I can learn it. Great. But I'm more concerned, and maybe it's because of the whole push for Linux on the desktop thing, that it's not as easy as it should be. I'm not saying it's not good. I LOVE the stability of linux. I love just feeling secure. I absolutely love BASH.

I will go back to linux, but I plan on doing it when I have a complete hard drive to devote to it. Maybe it's just some strange fucking OCD thing, but I'd prefer to have completely separate drives devoted to windows and linux(yeah yeah, you're like "why even have windows?!" well, I play games, so tough :) )

I don't expect there to be a completely optimal solution. Everything has it's flaws. And linux, will, IMO, get more useable, as it has always done. Most of my concerns are more the concerns about Linux being hyped as the next great thing(it is, but I think it's better in a server-environment than a home desktop setting at this point) when there needs to be something else. Believe me, I will re-install linux(and probably gentoo... after fucking with Mandrake, I realized I remembered how much of a pain in the ass RPM's are)

Let me ask you this. Do you honestly believe then, that interface is completely irrelevant? Of course there is a learning curve for anything. Even if I were to "switch" to the "user-friendly" Macs, I'd have to relearn a whole new way of doing things. That's not my complaint. I don't even have a problem with Linux really, ultimately.

So, let's put it this way:

Computers are made to do things. I want to do things. I also want to do them simply, and elegantly(the essence of math, science, and computer programming, n'est pas?) Simple doesn't necessarily mean easy, I don't have a problem with a little bit of hacking, that's good. But I don't think a user should be forced to hack a system to do something. It's hard for me to explain my thoughts on this. And maybe you can't "get" me no matter how hard I try. I guess, ultimately, I'm sort of in the middle of the road. I'm not a hardcore hacker, nor am I joe-blow computer user. I'm not expecting complete ease of use, nor desiring it. I don't want just fluff. I want to be able to access the internals if and when I desire, but I don't want to have to be forced to examine them if I merely want to accomplish something. Computers are tools, and as such, should be efficient as tools.

When you have a drill, do you have to open up the case, and look at it for ten minutes, examine how this part does this and that part does that, and then re-assemble it, and then drill? No, you press the button and drill. That's elegance in interface design. I say these things about linux, not cuz I hate it. I love it. I want it to improve. I had(had... I think I still have a paper copy somewhere, but lost the digital in the hard-drive wipe) a piece I wrote on how Linux could improve it's interface in the directory heirarchy... Maybe I will eventually be able to code something up or write some more detailed specifications on how this could be done.

I've been waiting for your reply, cuz I knew it would be a beaut... And it was.

My stance on the OS issue is complex. I can't just take one side or the other. I think there are multiplicities of viewpoints and each has positive and negative aspects.

And why? I posted a gripe about the Unix filesystem. DevFS is supposed to be a sort of cure for the Device system, and it's actually somewhat close to the view I had for the larger file system. Some things about the Unix filesystem are great. But why do we insist on using technology based upon something that's 30 years old? Partially this is necessary. This is how evolution works. Each generation follows the old, and inherits flaws of the past. But if one is to do a complete reworking of something, why not modify it? For hackers linux is fine. For sysadmins, it's fine. for the home user, it's not. Maybe you don't care about the home user. And that's fine. I don't even know if that's something linux should really be targeting. Certainly not at this point. I'm a bit rambly, I apologize for this lack of coherency. But the point is, there is nothing wrong with having a system that WORKS. And works without hassle. But there is something wrong with a system that works, but doesn't allow you to modify HOW it works.

So, the flaw with MS is that it's closed and you can't get the control you may desire. Linux allows that control, but it's not simple. There needs to be a more comprehensive heirarchical interface levels included in Linux. But there's a lot of issues that need to be included in this. Dynamic Libraries vs Statically Linked software. How does this issue get resolved. Ultimately, I think this is the biggest hurdle with Linux. I was impressed with Portage, I will say that.

I guess I'm mostly saying, don't judge me for a seeming lack of trying. I just have a different understanding of what an OS should do and be, and each OS has it's own purpose and place. Don't worry, I'll get back to Linux once I'm able to get a second hard drive.

Comments

[ziggurat.livejournal.com]

i disagree with ray s comment. a computer is not a system that is supposed to engage you. it is a tool that you use to accomplish tasks. if the computer gets in the way of you accomplishing a task, then that is a design flaw.

there are a lot of reasons to love linux. ease of use, elegant GUI, and guaranteed hardware support out of the box are just not among them. if those are the most important goals for you and your computer, then linux ain t for you.

linux can do those things, but not without some work. and for some people, every minute spent working to get their computer to do what they want, is a minute wasted.

learning the system, having control, having freedom, mastering difficult tools, these are very rewarding. having an ftp and apache server on your laptop, compiling the newest software, every week, having a free compiler to write code with, contributing to the future freedom of software, and the eventual overthrow of those republicans with the industry in vice grips. these are all things to consider.

but ultimately, if the computer doesn t do what you want, it is just an expensive paperweight.

[narcissuskisses.livejournal.com]

"linux can do those things, but not without some work. and for some people, every minute spent working to get their computer to do what they want, is a minute wasted."

The way I see it, those people shouldn't be using Linux, then. MS is for the kind of people who don't want to have to futz with stuff, who want their computer to do what they want when they want it to without having to create customized kernels and the such. As is Mac, to an extent. I just think Dave isn't Linux material.

Re: Big Mac fix.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

hmmmmmm...
OK. So...

I agree with Ziggurat most. I also agree with what brent(vesicular, btw, he's the skinny kid in my photo on the front porch where I'm drinking soda. We've been best friends since forever...) said about Microshit...

MS DOESN'T do what I want when I want it to. Linux does, but it takes time. Mac is probably the most like the ease of use. But I'm not saying I want ease of use, necessarily. A halfway point between ease and hackability...

I was at first taken aback by your statement that "Dave isn't Linux material", and I was offended, but I admit, I saw my first post where I said "Linux just isn't for me".

Now, I have to make some qualifications. I LIKE Linux. I feel that everyone thinks I'm berating it and hate it or something. I really appreciate that you CAN hack it. I love to hack it, when I want, on MY terms. That said, this is the reason I said I WILL install linux once I get a second HD. Putting it on a second drive is, I admit, just an OCD thing with me. Now, I want to use linux, but not as an everyday OS, I want to use it to play. As a toy. As something fun to do. Maybe that's just not hardcore enough. Maybe I'm a wuss for wanting to have fun with it. Calling it a toy, however, is not to denigrate it. I love the power of Linux. You mentioned Linux in a different post, and how people love the stability of it. I do to. I adore it's stability. I love it's power, even if I don't utilize it to it's fullest. If I have no need for a tool(for example, sed or grep or something else) I don't feel I should have to learn it. But if I want to learn it for my own sake to understand how it works, or to integrate it into everyday use, then I will.

By saying "Dave isn't Linux material" you're essentially making the point that the human must conform to the computer and not vice-versa. This is a very poor design principle.

I think you may agree with some of this. But, I don't want people to assume that I don't like linux, that it's not for me, or anything of that nature. I just prefer to utilize linux in a different way.

Oh, and if I could play games(all games, not just the ones that WineX/TransGaming have available) on linux, and have a decent audio-editing solution(there's some being worked on, so that's a start), and if the GIMP was actually worth shit, I would use that too... If all those three requirements were met, I would really rather not have windows at all.

But the other gripes of linux still remain.

As I posted in a reply to vesicular, the real point of the post is why isn't there a non-unix based open-source OS project that's viable? Why is Linux,(along with the BSD's), really the only choice the open-source world has for a stable/secure OS.

Now, I'm going to start working on my specifications and proposals for Linux. Maybe I'll just start the SHIVIX distro. heh. Yeah. That's easy. :)

Re: Big Mac fix.

[narcissuskisses.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I didn't mean that how it came out. I meant it more as you ended up taking it. You seem to have worked and worked with this, hoping that it will come out in your favor, but things just go to shit. I personally don't have the patience for that kind of stuff. Ray works on his comp a LOT. From what I've learned about Linux, that just seems to be the way it is. You have to have patience and work on it all the time. Those of us who don't want to spend what feels like a lifetime on an OS that is supposed to work for us, and not the other way around, should maybe look into options other than Linux. That's kinda what I meant.

Now, I see you want it as kind of a toy to play with. And I guess if you are still into the coolness of what Linux can offer, then go for it. In watching Ray, it just appears to take some time. It sounds like a fun toy, really. More than what I could handle. But if you've got the time and the patience, you can turn it into exactly what you are looking for.

I guess I've been reading into what you've been saying about it in past posts. You just seem really frustrated. In experience, if something has frustrated me, even after giving it more that its fair chance, I just decide that it is not for me. (I wrongly stated above that "you were not for it".)

Ah, that came out much better than my above comment. Sorry to cause any confusion.

Re: Big Mac fix.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

ah, it's ok... i just feel on the defensive, cuz I admit I did feel taken aback by the seeming harshness of Ray's post. And I do feel strangely that somehow I have to "prove my cred" or whatever. And that if I don't use it(but the thing is I like it, just not all of it), then I don't have the cred. I feel like there's some sort of bullshit social game that happens with linux. Hardercore/geeker than thou, or something.

Looking at a review of SuSE, I realized the problem. The guy said basically "I can browse with mozilla, write in openoffice, compose html in bluefish, listen to mp3s in xmms..." and that's it. And maybe, for the average user, maybe linux actually IS ok. And for the hardcore geeks it's ok. But for us half-ass, not-quite-as-geek-as-god geeks, it can be frustrating. Of course ya gotta learn somehow/sometime. But I wanna learn, for example, how to program perl, not how to spend hours to install perl before I can learn perl. I think that's the gist(as if I haven't repeated that point over and over) Anyways, yeah, I just have to learn not to be on the defensive so damn much.

[narcissuskisses.livejournal.com]

You seem to want Linux to do EXACTLY what YOU want it to. Linux is Linux. Yes, it is evolving. But it was created by people who like the stability of Unix and GNU. They like it this way, and it will stay in this realm of use until someone with the knowledge makes it more "user-friendly". Many people don't want it more user-friendly. Linux is not for me. It doesn't sound like it is for you either.

[vesicular.livejournal.com]

It's funny, because I don't think Windows does what I want it to do either. Instead it feels the need to TELL ME what I aparently want to do. Fuck that.

And Linux? Please. While I like the open source model, it's only free if my time is worth nothing to me. Obviously I like hacking around, but most of the of time, I just wanna get shit done, and I don't want some pesky OS getting in the way.

Re: Big Mac fix.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

I agree with what you said about windows... I can't believe the flame this has started. I feel good.

Now, Linux. evan, the guy who coded the LogJam client for GTK, said it like this: "Linux is free only if you don't value your time" which is pretty much exactly what you said.

However, there's two ways to look at the concept of Open Source. Free, as in no money, and free as in... dare I use the phrase: Freedom. Free doesn't necessarily mean no money.

The quote about liking to hack around is really my point. I consider hacking as play. It's a toy, it's something fun. It shouldn't be work. Computers should be here for us. Not us for them. And if I wanna hack, I will. But if I wanna paint, or make music, or write I will.

I think we may disagree a bit on Open Source, perhaps just a little... I think I see maybe a little more benefit to Linux than you do. I think everyone else is seriously missing one of the biggest points of my post, and that is this: Linux is based on 30 year old technology, essentially. They haven't tried to really build the foundation in terms of interface. Either they can do that, or there should be another Open Source Project that starts to build a NEW OS from scratch that doesn't rely on the Unix base. It can contain some of the things Unix has, but it should move beyond some of the restrictions and organization that has stuck with Linux because of it's ancient heritage.

Re: Big Mac fix.

[abadman.livejournal.com]

> I can't believe the flame this has started. I feel good.

Indeed, if we can't have the occasional flame on the Internet, the terrorists have already won. In retrospect, I pretty much knew my comment was over the top, and am glad your not offended. Its sometimes hard for me to resist throwing the proverbial firecracker the hallway. Or stated plainly, sometimes I like to be a dick.

Linux is based on 30 year old technology, essentially. They haven't tried to really build the foundation in terms of interface. Either they can do that, or there should be another Open Source Project that starts to build a NEW OS from scratch that doesn't rely on the Unix base. It can contain some of the things Unix has, but it should move beyond some of the restrictions and organization that has stuck with Linux because of it's ancient heritage.

This is where I tend to disagree though. The Unix foundation is solid and has 30 years of evolution behind it. OSX is proof of that. Now X11 is not the best solution for a user friendly PC GUI. I would agree that a new start at an OSS gui would be a good thing. I would love to see an OSS postscript based GUI like aqua. The other place Linux fails to meet the user friendly mark is in integration of the various components. That's where MAC kicks but. I think this is due to development model. With OSS you have incredible diversity and you'll see some things that would never come out of the proprietary software companies. However, putting all the divergent pieces into a single whole is very difficult. It's also not as much fun as creating yet another piece of the frankenstein OS. Naturally OSS attracts developers to the fun creative tasks, but who wants to do housekeeping as a hobby? Thats why really pretty systems like MACs cost a mint. Also, with that much freedom, how do you impose continuity. The answer is that you don't, at least not as well as say mac. Why does MAC have a more contiguous user friendly interface than say Windows. I think it can be attributed to control and profit. The more control you impose the more continuity you can create, profit just provides motive. W/ a proprietary gui and a hardware monopoly, MAC has more control and thusly can force more continuity into their OS than Windows which by contrast has to release an OS to a sea of OEMs and frankenstein hardware. Still though, it has more control than the Linux distros and as you'd expect, Windows is more contiguous and easy to use than Linux. Even with linux, most of the continuity that exists has been imposed by for profit companies like RedHat. Now granted, control and profit are not the only factors in creating an easy to use / pretty interface, but it does help. OSS and Linux will probably never provide the most graceful interface out of the box. On the other hand though, that lack of centralized control basically frees control to the community which feeds constant innovation and splintering of new projects which in turn feeds the overwhelming diversity. MAC chose to build on the 30 years of Unix evolution for a reason, because they thought it was sound.

-ray.

Re: Big Mac fix.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Well, yeah, first no problem. I did get a little defensive, but I know I can tend to be a bit feisty when it comes down to it... We're probably quite similar in that way.

First I guess I'll point out that when I'm talking about interface, I'm not necessarily talking about GUI's(though they are certainly a part of that). I love the CLI... I'm not a master of it, but it does it's job and does it well... I'm thinking more about the interface between the filesystem and the user(and also the general problems that this has created) If you think there is no problem, why does DevFS exist? I personally, actually like the traditional /dev heirarchy, it's clean and simple(in some ways)... I know, I didn't really examine and explore the DevFS too much, but think one can have too many subsystems/layers in a given heirarchy. I think DevFS is a step in the right direction, but it needs to be carried to the whole system.

I have a concept called the Linux Virtual Directory Layer, which would basically add a layer over the regular filesystem/heirarchy, with a more "intuitive" approach to things. I know that once you learn the basics of the directory heierarchy you're pretty well set, and I've come some way, but it's still not quite there in terms of user friendliness. The fact that each distro has it's own unique way of setting up files doesn't help matters either. I think the LSB is supposed to be working on standards for this sort of thing.

I believe Unix is sound, most certainly. And I understand that you can't throw out the baby with the bathwater each time you start a project, nor should you desire to.

Let me ask you this. Obviously you can see pros and cons of everything. What, in your opinion, could be improved in linux? I'm curious to hear the other side from you. You have more experience with the system, so there's obviously more depth and understanding you can offer towards a genuine critique. What do you see as both the pros and cons. I'm tending to discuss the cons, because I know what the pros are, and that's why I like linux.

Regarding the monolithic hardware/software integration of the Macs, I agree. And most certainly, trying to port an os to as many systems as Linux has been(which is pretty fucking amazing, IMO), requires a lot of work, and problem with continuity/integration. Considering that the pc is a pretty open architecture on the hardware front, I think that's probably one of the most difficult thing that an open source OS must contend with...

I'm getting a bit sleepy and can't think too coherently anymore, so maybe I can continue(if I remember what I was trying to say) later. Anyways, I agree.

At the MadLUG meetings, are there discussions like this at all? I've seen on the mailing list there's a bit of politicking going on, mostly about the structure of the group itself... But are there discussions about these issues in linux? gotta go...

Re: Big Mac fix.

[vesicular.livejournal.com]

The problems I have w/ Linux (and OSS) aren't from Unix, it's mostly the model. The reason I see systems like OS X being so well done is that someone is actually putting thier foot down and making decisions. There's an amount of control and acountability and consistancy that OSS just doesn't have. To me this is the biggest problem w/ OSS and I don't see that changing.

I think this is simply because most people who write OSS software are usually writing things for *them*. They aren't worried about making money and owning a mass market like, say, Apple. This is what makes it great and horrible at the same time. You can do whatever you want, but that's both a blessing and a curse.

The other issue I see w/ Linux is they can't get over the copy-cat syndrome. While there are several innovative things on Linux, most of it is geek-centric and what isn't is blatently copied from Windows...which was copied from Mac OS. You're never going to get ahead by copying a copy.

Re: Big Mac fix.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

and now mac copies unix... :)

I was going to make this point(though about money, not control), in general. I think when you think about OSS, you can look at the shareware concept. It's pretty much the same thing. Clones of shitty products. It seems, to me at least, that the biggest problem is that a lot of these projects seem to be starter/intro projects for new programmers trying to make something. i read an article about this topic, and the guy was basically complaining how there's a million attempts to create new things that already exist. New web-servers(why? there's apache, and it works fucking awesome... maybe one or two alternatives are nice, obviously), new ftp clients(who needs more than one or two?) new text editors(not office suites, just text editors)

The problem, I think, lies not only in the Open Source model, but also just the general fact that there aren't very many hardcore coders out there. Most people dabble, or have some skills, but don't have a massive vision. Ultimately, it takes vision to create something new. Treading old ground isn't necessarily a bad thing if you can really improve a product... With open source, in theory you should be able to refine the product that already exists instead of creating a whole damned new one.

Ray mentions the point that it does seem to take large companies to produce these standards... OpenOffice(spun from StarOffice, which I believe was created by Sun), Mozilla had netscape behind it... But these are rarities. The same could be said for anything, however... You can go to a shareware site and download a bunch of shit programs written for windows/dos/probably mac too...

Ultimately, I think open-source is a very good thing, but the problem is vision, as you alluded to with the : "someone is actually putting thier foot down and making decisions." statement.

As much as Steve Jobs can annoy the fuck outta me sometimes, I have to admit, the guy is at least somewhat visionary. The sad thing, really, is that Steve pretty much single-handedly turned apple around. What happens when he leaves? Another Gassee to come along? This is where a dynamic culture of innovation is most important. It's easy to say MS is more than bill gates, but we've never seen it without bill gates. what happens if he goes.(ie: dies, cuz i highly doubt he'll actually leave MS) Not that they're very innovative per se... But, the little things that he's trying to do(you have to admit, even though he's a chump, he did have at least some sort of vision, even if it was backwards, closed and not really in tune with reality... :) ) And Linux is Linus. He still is the lead developer(though he has his Lieutenants that are able to take more control), ultimately, Linus is the one with the final say over linux.

So yeah, I agree. And maybe that's what my question about unix was. Where's the vision? Where's the real innovation in interface? Not just GUI, but system level interaction between user, data, software and hardware?

Jef Raskin has some pretty interesting ideas, but I think some may be a little too far, at least at this point. Also, that book of his seems a little too much like him trying to justify his own ideas, and sort of an apologetic for his own ideas, he didn't really whine, but I could tell there was a sense of bitterness that his ideas really didn't take off completely. Then again, maybe he was just too visionary.