__/ [Lefty Bigfoot] on Sunday 05 February 2006 20:59 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote
> (in article <ds4bcs$1hvl$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
>> __/ [Lefty Bigfoot] on Sunday 05 February 2006 07:49 \__
>>> Once again, an army of software developers focused on demo-ware
>>> instead of a useful, functional UI for daily use.
>> These bits are disabled by default.
> In which case there isn't much point in demoing them. After
> watching the videos, there is even less point in demoing them.
> Most are absymal.
Okay, to be fair, 'demoable' bits should be part of a demo. It would be hard
for viewers to convey the user experience and practical advantages while
sitting in a chair and watching a projected picture. Then again, I take your
point and I agree to some extent.
>> That aside, your comment implies that Linux does not have a "functional UI
>> for daily use"?
> No, it does not. It implies that the features demo'd do not
> move toward enhancing the existing UI to that end.
This must have been a falsified inference on my behalf. Yes, I agree.
>> Have you used Linux at all?
> LOL. Yeah, since the dark ages when nobody used it. I've done
> Linux development work for three different companies, I've used
> at least a dozen different distros (and many versions of each)
> over the years, and I still use it daily on 3 different
> computers. I've run it on x86, AMD64, PPC, an iPaq, etc. Nice
> shot in the dark though. :-)
Oops. I have not come across your name before (in my poor defence). That is
the misfortunate outcome of a presumptuous and fragile group like COLA.
Humility is me, the joke's on me.
>> Or did you ditch *nix in the
>> mid-nineties, which may leave you with the impression and fallacy that
>> Linux is "all command-line"?
> Nope. And, I actually like the command line for most tasks that
> don't really need a gui. The CLI is typically faster for me
> when I have a specific task in mind. I don't try and pretend
> that is applicable to the general population though. Keep
>> Your comment clearly describes what we already see in XP where no function
>> is available to the user, even upon will. Commercial third-party software
>> often makes up for the gap. Vista is clearly a case of demo-ware, which
>> has led to whines because it's there by default.
> I'm not sure how my comment says anything at all about Windows,
> but since you were so accurate with your earlier comments, I'll
> just put this in the same category.
I forgot to mention Mac OSX, which as Peter rudely said, revolves around
showcasing itself. Vista seems like Microsoft's answer to that "Windows XP
is not as Pretty as Tiger" statement. I guess that practicality if forsaken
nowadays and gives space to new types of design incompetence. As long as
it's reversible, that's fine.
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Free the mind, the source will follow"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:10am up 20 days 1:26, 12 users, load average: 0.56, 0.45, 0.45
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms