🚀 go-pugleaf

chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
>edguer@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
>>I am troubled by peoples' perceptions of "FSF's inabilit[ies]".  The
>>FSF has the _ability_ to do almost anything _they_ want.  They do not
>>always have the _desire_ to do anything _you_ want.
>
>Don't confuse theory and practice, and don't confuse criticism and
>desire.

If I promise not to confuse theory and practice, will you promise not
to confuse "inability" (lacking the talent or skill) and "currently
busy with other projects".

>I've used xfig.  Vomit.

Really?  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I have found some
of its features easier to use than MacDraw.  What did you find lacking?
Have you tried idraw (X11 drawing program - part of InterViews)?  How
about xpic (X11 drawing program - part of contrib)?  There are a number
of free choices available, I only listed a few.

>I'm not too keen on anything based on X11.  Too big, too slow, the
>design decision to be window-manager-neutral doesn't do anything
>good for the user interface.

You wouldn't be satisfied with any X11 program?
Framemaker on a Sun is a lousy program compared to Framemaker on a Macintosh,
even though all the same features exist???
I don't understand your point at all (assuming you had one other than X
bashing.)

[about writing a word processor in a year]
>You might get a minimal version built, this is true.  For-profit
>market pressures force you to do something that is better than what is
>already out there.  Start free and small, then spread and grow, may be
>a worthwhile strategy.

I am glad to see you support the GNU strategy.  Start small and grow.
Release the source so that others can add the features they want or need.
Give people tools they can work with while the whistles are being added.

>>Once the FSF has a complete operating system to do development on
>>(rather than trying to help support many different flavors) we may
>>start to see all the nice "mass market specialized software" but until
>>that time, FSF is doing what they set out to do and trying to say that
>>this is an "inability" to produce packages is completely misleading.
>
>Note the implicit assumption that the FSF's operating system will be
>appropriate for running "mass market specialized software" applications.

Is there some inherent inability of a UNIX\(tm like operating system
to run "mass market specialized software" applications?  Of course
the operating system will be appropriate!

>It will probably be very interesting to hackers and programmers, because
>they'll build want they want.  Will it run on a 4 megabyte home computer
>with a '386 or 68020 in it?

Probably.  The description of the "possible target machines" says that
GNU will require "a meg of physical memory" and "a cpu that uses 32-bit
addresses".  Although they do note "2 meg would make a noticeable improvement
in performance".  This sure seems to fit within your description.
As a practical example: I run SunOS 4.1 on a Sun 3/50 (4 MB, 68020).
Why not GNU?

>Will it efficiently implement a graphical user interface?
>(hint: if it is running X11R4, the answer is "no".)

Don't worry.  X11R5 should be available by that time :-)

Macintoshes did not sell because they were the fastest or had the most
"efficient" interface computer-wise, they sold because they had an
"efficient" interface user-wise.  This same user efficiency can be
achieved in X11R4.

Yes, small and elegant software is nice and efficiency is always desireable,
but as long as it gets the job done and does not require extra work
by the user, most people are usually satisfied.  Since this is possible
to do in X11R4, I think your "efficiently" requirement is misguided.

>In theory, yes, the FSF can do whatever they want;
>in practice, they are unable, because hackers will write what hackers
>want to use and play with, and their personal desires (because of their
>experience and their prejudices, e.g., "there's nothing special about
>a Mac's user interface") are not the same as those of the mass market.

First of all, there is nothing unique about the Macintosh interface.
Look at the STAR or NeXT or Looking Glass if you like iconic interfaces.
The thing that has made the "Mac user interface" unique is that
Apple has set down rules and forced people to play by them.  This
lack of a generic set of interface rules has certainly not limited
the MS-DOS software market and it will not limit the UNIX or GNU
market.

Secondly, your prejudice against FSF "hackers" in an injustice.  There are
programmers who release GNU code who are interested in making their
software user friendly and who are interested in developing GUI interfaces.
The fact that the work being done by FSF does not yet include a GUI
has more to do its arena (operating system and POSIX tools) than with
any "hacker" prejudice.

Aydin Edguer