On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Sean Corfield <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Cedric Greevey <[email protected]> wrote: >> In other words, "ported software setup sucks!"? :) > > That's not the conclusion I would have drawn... ;) > >> Rather ironic, when the tendency, at least historically, has been for >> Windows (and Mac) to have superior usability when it comes to native > > That depends on your point of view. I don't consider Windows > particularly usable - and I've used every version of it from 3.1 to > date... I'm sure we'll just agree to disagree on this one...
I guess you're talking about a different kind of usability than I am. On the one hand, there's "it works properly and doesn't constantly crash". That's where Windows software has tended to be deficient (and, until recently, security). On the other hand, there's "setup for the typical configuration is point, click, reboot, done, and then you can sit down at it and use it with domain knowledge, general computer skills, and little else, and generally only need to consult some thick manual, or a cheat-sheet, or forums, or Wikipedia, or something when you're doing something unusual or advanced rather than common tasks such as cut, copy, and paste". That's where Unix software has tended to be deficient, often requiring complicated setup (though sometimes not) and almost always requiring a cheat-sheet, at least, to use it if you aren't a very regular, experienced user of the software. Frequently solution-space knowledge is even needed -- knowledge of compilers, terminology like "buffer", and so forth. Non-industry-standard bindings, mouse input semantics, selection and menu behavior (if there even are menus), and terminology abound in the typical case, up to and including various idiosyncratic neologisms specific to a single piece of software and not used by unrelated software with the same function (e.g. only emacs calls the clipboard or clipboards a "kill ring"; not only doesn't Notepad, nor does Editpad, Notepad++, vi, nano ...). Newer stuff, particularly designed for use with a package manager at install time and either Gnome or KDE, has tended to avoid these problems, though. Hence the "at least historically" above. Of course, this isn't limited purely to Unix. Before widespread networking and large market penetration of Windows PCs, idiosyncratic software and multiple attempts at standards proliferated on most platforms, excluding the Mac which came OOTB with a standard GUI toolkit. Old MS-DOS software is as guilty as vintage Unix software, with Wordstar and ancient versions of Lotus Notes (even for a while after it got a GUI!) being particularly infamous for requiring of users enormous feats of application-specific memorization and/or cheat-sheets. On the other hand, nobody uses those old pieces of MS-DOS software anymore. For some reason correspondingly old Unix software has a to-some-dismaying tendency to stay in use year after year. :) Actually, this may be a downside of open source. The likely reason is that the old MS-DOS software is proprietary, no longer maintained by the original developers, and in all likelihood no longer even exists as source, whereas the old Unix software is open source and people that got used to it stuck with it and even kept developing it themselves, so the software outlives generation after generation of hardware and is functionally immortal, but inertia keeps it full of legacy idiosyncrasies from before common idioms of computer interaction became standardized as a consequence of the computer becoming a common household tool rather than something only used at work, at school, and by geeks. So, open source seems to result in keeping old, pre-standardization things in use until the *users* die off rather than the hardware generation that begat it. On the positive side, nobody is forced at gunpoint to use any of it and standard-compliant alternatives that you can just sit at and use tend to exist in most cases. (Though a usable, FOSS alternative to the GIMP (GUI, of course, but *highly* idiosyncratic to anyone used to Photoshop) still seems strangely lacking ...) Mind you, it still can impinge on others from time to time. For example, by causing a not-insignificant fraction of mailing list traffic on some lists to consist of questions like "how do I make ancient ASCII-terminal-oriented piece of software Foo play nice with Unicode characters transmitted over the network?" and answers to same. :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
