🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3370B7F2.6765E86B@eris.dev.null>, Dimitri Maziuk
<dima@eris.dev.null> wrote:

> Unfortunately it's not quite that simple.  The "mainstream" idea
> seems to be that users are dumb and the system should automagically
> do everything for them 
> (ever tried word'95? Did you like wizards popping up asking "what kind 
> of document do you want to write today? Oh, a letter? Who to? What's
> their address? Are you sure?)

Yes, I've used Word95.  I can't stand Word95.  It's a bloated, poorly
designed, interfering mess, and it's menus, dialogues and toolboxes are
the tragic relics of a pathetic past.

But not all word-processors are like Word95.

> If the system  _really_ has a problem with that, it is permitted
> to ask user - but only a simple question that can be answered with
> yes or no - nothing more complicated.  Don't even think of giving
> them three choices.

I'd be the first to protest about nut-headed human interface guidelines,
and I still like my command line.  Nonetheless, there's room for
improvement in most Linux apps.

> It's not just linux or "traditional" unix applications that don't
> fit into this kind of mainstream -- it's the whole concept of unix
> that's incompatible.

Welll, Unix is an operating system and doesn't interface with the user. 
If you are talking about Unix applications, Word95 can just as easily be
implemented on Linux as in Widows95.  Bill will never do this, but it is
important for other companies to do this.

Traditional Unix applications are hard becuase they are poorly designed. 
Emacs is a poorly designed program.  Pure and simple.  But it's getting
better.  I think a good example of a well designed program is the
newsreader slrn.

-- 
Jason Stokes: j.stokes @ bohm.anu.edu.au