🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 23 Mar 1997 23:51:57 +1000, steve batson <xbat@deakin.edu.au> wrote:
>Jason Stokes wrote:

>> Big deal.  This was a major marketing angle of the Sirius Cybernetics
>> Corporation in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", if you >remember.
>> The frustration of using the system is entirely masked by the
>> satisfaction of getting the system to work at all.  In other words,
>> Linux's fundamental design flaws are entirely masked by its > superficial
>> design flaws.
>
>I don't understand why you cannot see the sophisticated level that Linux
>runs on.
>
>To justify that you truly understand what you're talking about, why
>don't you explain (in detail) the "fundamental" and "superficial" design
>flaws. 
>
>I assume you are well aquainted with low-level OS kernel programming.

I don't have to be.  I'm talking about ergonomic issues here, not whether
the OS has a nice API.  I'm also talking about, not only the Linux kernel,
but all the application software that comes with it.

I don't have time to go into Unix ergonomic problems in detail right now,
but the fact that many programs and commands are bugward compatible to
design mistakes made in the mid seventies is a problem.

See any book on user interface issues for a better discussion.

Oh, and the Linux kernel does have fundamental design flaws.  Being
monolithic, for example, does not do much for its alledged instructional
value.  Of course, we all use hardware and software that is many years out
of date, but the kernel has plenty of design flaws.  

Don't get me wrong, I like Linux.  But if Linux is to become truly
democratic, we have to start looking at ergonomic and useability issues. 
The way X-resources are modified, for example, would be a prime target for
improvement if I had the opportunity to do so.
 
-- 

Jason Stokes: j.stokes@bohm.anu.edu.au
Ph: +61 (06) 291 93 84