SRL Archive - News and General

Please one by one post on this thread with a virtual slap towards jerrycooper.

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12355-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=31199&messageID=579806&start=-9612

It's very frustrating. Click the next button to read the hiliarous comments towards jerrycooper.

i'm first *SLAP*

*SLAP*… *SLAP* *SLAP* *SLAP*…

Sorry I Got Carried Away… lol :D

I get agressive by reading this.

*sla….bursts Out Laughing*

Obviously trolling but STILL

program New;
const
  Slaps = 5000;
  
var
  I: Integer;
begin
  for I:= 1 to Slaps do
  begin
    writeln('*SLAP*');
    wait(RandomRange(250, 750));
  end;
end.

…He HAS to be kidding, right?

Yes.

linux > windows

though windows own in the user-friendly department

user friendly department?
You mean userfriendly myth!

This is a big one. It's a very big term in the computing world, "user-friendly". It's even the name of a particularly good webcomic. But it's a bad term.

The basic concept is good: That software be designed with the needs of the user in mind. But it's always addressed as a single concept, which it isn't.*

If you spend your entire life processing text files, your ideal software will be fast and powerful, enabling you to do the maximum amount of work for the minimum amount of effort. Simple keyboard shortcuts and mouseless operation will be of vital importance.
But if you very rarely edit text files, and you just want to write an occasional letter, the last thing you want is to struggle with learning keyboard shortcuts. Well-organized menus and clear icons in toolbars will be your ideal.*

Clearly, software designed around the needs of the first user will not be suitable for the second, and vice versa. So how can any software be called "user-friendly", if we all have different needs?
The simple answer: User-friendly is a misnomer, and one that makes a complex situation seem simple.

What does "user-friendly" really mean? Well, in the context in which it is used, "user friendly" software means "Software that can be used to a reasonable level of competence by a user with no previous experience of the*software." This has the unfortunate effect of making lousy-but-familiar interfaces*fall into the category of "user-friendly".*

So it is that in most "user-friendly" text editors & word processors, you Cut and Paste by using Ctrl-X and Ctrl-V. Totally unintuitive, but everybody's used to these combinations, so they count as a "friendly" combination.

So when somebody comes to Linux and finds that it's "d" to cut, and "p" to paste, it's not considered friendly: It's not what anybody is used to.

Is it superior? Well, actually, yes.*
With the Ctrl-X approach, how do you cut a word from the document you're currently in? (No using the mouse!)
From the start of the word, Ctrl-Shift-Right to select the word.*Then Ctrl-X to cut it. The Linux approach? dw deletes the word.
How about cutting five words with a Ctrl-X application?
From the start of the words, Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-RightCtrl-Shift-RightCtrl-Shift-RightCtrl-Shift-RightCtrl-X

And with Linux?
D5w

This is a sad fact. The harder you make it to access an application's functionality, the friendlier it can seem to be.*
This is because friendliness is added to an interface by using simple, visible 'clues' - the more, the better.

After all, if a complete novice to computers is put in front of a WYSIWYG word processor and asked to make a bit of text bold, which is more likely:

He'll guess that "Ctrl-B" is the usual standard*
He'll look for clues, and try clicking on the "Edit" menu. Unsuccessful, he'll try the next likely one along the row of menus: "Format". The new menu has a "Font" option, which seems promising. And Hey! There's our "Bold" option. Success!

Next time you do any processing, try doing every job via the menus: No shortcut keys, and no toolbar icons. Menus all the way. You'll find you slow to a crawl, as every task suddenly demands a multitude of keystrokes/mouseclicks.

Making software "user-friendly" in this style is like putting training wheels on a bicycle: they let you get up & running immediately, without any skill or experience needed. It's perfect for a beginner.

Nobody out there thinks that all bicycles should be sold with training wheels: If you were given such a bicycle today, I'll wager the first thing you'd do is remove them for being unnecessary encumbrances: Once you know how to ride a bike, training wheels are unnecessary.

And in the same way, a great deal of Linux software is designed without "training wheels" - it's designed for users who already have some basic skills in place. After all, nobody's a permanent novice: Ignorance is short-lived, and knowledge is forever. So the software is designed with the majority in mind.*

This might seem an excuse: After all, MS Word has all the friendly menus, and it has toolbar buttons, and it has shortcut keys. . . Best of all worlds, surely? Friendly*and efficient.

However, this has to be put into perspective: Firstly, the practicalities: having menus and toolbars and shortcuts and all would mean a lot of coding, and it's not like Linux developers all get paid for their time.*Secondly, it still doesn't really take into account serious*power-users: Very few professional wordsmiths use MS Word.

Ever meet a coder who used MS Word? Compare that to how many use emacs & vi.*

OWNED