🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <839@goanna.oz>, jlc@goanna.oz (J.L Cybulski) writes:
> Now, I ask a question:
> 
> 	Couldn't it be easier for the user (not the programmer though)
> 	to construct configurable software?

Argh.

First, as mentioned, those people who transport their work between a variety
of different systems end up having to reconfigure their software alot, or
keep different copies with all the different configurations for their firm.
("Well, if I'm on Bob's machine, I have to have this configuration...")

The second problem is that they have to KNOW TO CONFIGURE THEIR SOFTWARE.  I
have to know that Bob's machine is somehow inherantly different than mine and
things don't necessarily work the same.  It all gets very annoying after
awhile ("Do I have AppleTalk?  What's an AppleTalk?")

I have a PC CAD program and PCs with IBM CGA monitors (resolution of 640x200
with 1 colour), IBM EGA monitors (resolution of 640x400 with 4 colours, I think)
and AT&T monitors (resolution of 640x400, 1 colour) and I keep having to
reconfigure my PC CAD program for each of these machines whenever I want to
use it.  Now, it's annoying but not debilitating because I know which machines
have which monitors, but some people can't tell one monitor from the other.

Third, how do you know what you want.  One of the niftiest things about Word
3.0 is, in my opinion, boxes.  They're great!  However, if anyone had ever
asked me "Hey, do you think boxes are important?" I'd've said no.  Hell, before
I used the Macintosh, I'd've said the same thing about the ability to use
different fonts.
--
"Follow the brightest star                Peter Merchant (merchant@dartvax.UUCP)
 As far as the brave may dare."