Re: What I'm doing

["Dan \"Effugas\" Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
To: gnome-gui-list@gnome.org <gnome-gui-list@gnome.org>
Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: What I'm doing


>looks like you  got parts of it. the fancy thing  was that for once there's
>quite a difference to windoze, because there is a  user-created structure,
>not just one  big  "program" menu  where every install thing dumps its
>icons.


That's just it...users really don't mess with user created
structures....they don't make user created structures...they just don't.
*I* just don't, and I've never seen anybody who did.  It's really easy
to...just nobody does it.  This is seriously a research thing, Tom.  It is
incredible how lazy us users are.

>second, true to my "in your face" attitude, the user should be shown the
>obvious place where he can configure his stuff in a very simple way. see, I
>know most users won't touch a thing if it requires even the least amount of
>thinking. so what they'll get is a dialog that gives them a handful of very
>simple choices, plus an option to get into in-depth ("advanced")
>configuration.

THEY DON'T DO IT.  Look how absolutely brain dead easy it is to set up
folder heirarchies in Internet Explorer 4.  It's a BEAUTIFUL
interface--nobody touches it.

>classification of apps will be done using the keywords from the Linux
>software map (lsm files).  there should be a default configuration that
>shows some of the possibilities AND is useful to the vast majority of
people
>(for example having games and apps in seperate folders is useful to almost
>everyone except those people who don't have a single game (I don't think
>there are pure gamers on Linux already).


Well, obviously you wouldn't have a folder for games to go into if you have
no games.

I don't think our solutions are that far off, Tom.  We BOTH want the user to
be able to redirect where installs go.  What I think your error is is that
you think that user shouldn't be given that detailed of an install system to
begin with.  The fact is, and you can't get around this:  Users will, in
general, place applications wherever the default places them.

>> Yes, but it's a style issue.  Remember:  Gnome GUI shouldn't really be
tied
>> to Linux, Unix, or anything.  It's worth it to say "Reboot modalities
suck
>> ass".
>
>I don't think it's a style issue. any, and I mean ANY, user-level stuff
that
>requires a reboot is a big, fat bug. simple as that. the uptime of the
>machine I'm writing this on is at (shell) 122 days now. I'm NOT going to
>reboot for ANY application, no matter what it is. that's not a style issue,
>it's a question of whether you're writing unix or windoze apps.


Windoze apps shouldn't require reboots either.  Did you know maybe between a
third and a half of windows reboots requested by software are NOT NECESSARY?
That's been my personal experience.  It's very rare that an installed
program just won't work without a reboot.  Yet, Windows still requests it.

Like I said earlier, GNOME itself maybe a unix app, but the style guide
should be applicable everywhere just like the Macintosh Human Interface
Guidelines are applicable everywhere.

The fact of the matter is, that Windows has a severe HCI bug.  Lets call 'em
on it.

>> This is true.  But we can't advertise or brag about the backgrounds.
>> "Thirty years?  Old technology, so what.  OH!  IT NEVER REBOOTS!
KILLER!"
>
>of course we can. main marketing rule: you can advertise ANYTHING. :)
>
>it's a question of how you do it.


Lets replace the penguin with Lindy The Luscious Linux Lover ;-)

"Microsoft Windows may suck, but Linux blows."

...hoping there are no children on the list...

Dan