Hi folks, Have I missed the point? Did Digital Research create the GUI in vain? (DR was before Gates, Jobs or Linus mind). Was the 'desktop' that graphic thingy on screen showing replicas of file folders you could point at with the mouse cursor and click click to open to find your files all in vain? I think not! If it is so bad, why do most Linux distros offer the GUI desktop? Surely booting your machine to view on screen some icons that by pointy-clicky gets you where you want to be to do what you want to do - even play with C++ if that is your wish. Why do it the hard way - even if you can do it the hard way? So it is purer computing - so what??? I suppose if you spend your day typing machine code you may not need the desktop that the 99.999% of computer users do. I can open a directory on a drive, navigate to a program folder, find the exe file or other trigger - I used to do it in CP/M and DOS but why type out a path when you can point and click? The icon is after all a short cut to where you want to be, it is in effect a virtual command line. I think it is the command line mindset that puts most people off Linux and locks 'em into 'doze. If Linux was perceived as 'doze but better and dare I say cheaper ('cos most of it is FREE) but as easy to use via pointy-clicky 'doze style 'desktops then I'm sure there'd be many many more users. Lets face it, most home computers have a form of doze pre-installed so the can switch on and point. They couldn't care two hoots how the magic of pointy-clicky works - just that it works for them. And then when it all falls apart, they call the guru in or go back to PC World. In most cases that's extra profit for some-one! Ain't I a cynic eh? Just my twopen'orth mind! BD.
On Saturday 26 November 2005 11:47, Bob Dove wrote:
Hi folks,
Have I missed the point? Did Digital Research create the GUI in vain? (DR was before Gates, Jobs or Linus mind). Was the 'desktop' that graphic thingy on screen showing replicas of file folders you could point at with the mouse cursor and click click to open to find your files all in vain? I think not! If it is so bad, why do most Linux distros offer the GUI desktop?
No, I kind of agree with you. As mentioned, the whole use of pointers opens a world of interaction that cannot be achieved easily with a keyboard and mouse.
Surely booting your machine to view on screen some icons that by pointy-clicky gets you where you want to be to do what you want to do - even play with C++ if that is your wish. Why do it the hard way - even if you can do it the hard way? So it is purer computing - so what???
I think you're missing the point a bit though - if you grow up in consoles and still prefer them for some stuff you're not trying for geek points, are you? You just personally find it much easier and more intuitive. Besides which, there's a truism about the CLUI that gets missed. Typing commands in at a keyboard is often much easier, quicker and more intuitive than spending eons wheeling the mouse around. If they'd removed mouses from computers and everyone had learned to use CLUIs, everyone would know this. As it happens, console-phobia means that everyone has learned to do things the long-winded, tedious way. Don't get me wrong - there are some things which are easier with a mouse, and floating windows - not cutting off noses to spite faces here :)
I suppose if you spend your day typing machine code you may not need the desktop that the 99.999% of computer users do. I can open a directory on a drive, navigate to a program folder, find the exe file or other trigger - I used to do it in CP/M and DOS but why type out a path when you can point and click? The icon is after all a short cut to where you want to be, it is in effect a virtual command line.
To be fair, I don't think you can compare DOS to the average unix shell in terms of usability. Even having said that, however, if you're looking for a report you saved last week, how far is Average Joe windows-user going to have got moving his patented Microsoft Bluetooth Headgear & Rod around the place informing XP's animated dog he'd like a (very slow) search performed and clicking the huge fisher-price button in the time it takes you to dir *rememberedstring* /p/w/s it?
I think it is the command line mindset that puts most people off Linux and locks 'em into 'doze. If Linux was perceived as 'doze but better and dare I say cheaper ('cos most of it is FREE) but as easy to use via pointy-clicky 'doze style 'desktops then I'm sure there'd be many many more users.
Actually, experience forces me to disagree with you there. That's almost how Mac OS X is perceived to be - that's how most end-users I know would describe what they've heard about it, but in the end, familiarity is what stops people changing computer systems. They like their start button based environment, and they want to keep their current software - even if the alternative is better. Reality is, People Fear Change, innit :D
Lets face it, most home computers have a form of doze pre-installed so the can switch on and point. They couldn't care two hoots how the magic of pointy-clicky works - just that it works for them. And then when it all falls apart, they call the guru in or go back to PC World.
Yeah, but a computer is not a simple device. To people who enjoy having to download several hundred megabytes of superfluous rubbish in Service Packs before thay can have a usable bluetooth stack in an OS they paid nearly 300 squids for, just because they won't get off their proverbial backside and seek one out, there will always be things like windows. Just a personal opinion, but good luck to 'em. I enjoy the fact that when it comes to linux everybody helps each other, and newbies don't get treated in a disparaging manner and so on - I always help as much as I can myself not least because others have done it for me - but there is a certain set of windows zealots - Luddites with a big L that just cannot be bothered, and you get nothing but abuse out of these people because they have to use bash on a unix system, or because they REFUSE to read the manual and want you to magic the knowledge into their heads without any effort (indeed, consider that you OWE them this as a consequence of them bothering to try linux - probably not their fault, they're used to commercial software models) . I say let Billy keep them because he can be providing a useful service to someone whilst Microsoft decides whether it ever wants to be a good compsci outfit again. If ease-of-use junkies' souls are ever to be saved, there's always Apple, anyway.
In most cases that's extra profit for some-one! Ain't I a cynic eh?
I know what you're saying, but to my mind if there were fewer computer "shamen" in the world, we'd all be better off. And that counts doubly for retail chains that will charge people money to run scandisk, defrag and spybot S&D on their computer and call it a "tune-up" (hahahaha).
Just my twopen'orth mind!
Cool - hope you don't mind my whittering on about it, that's all \:D/
BD.
<Disclaimer: This disgruntled diatribe was brought to you by a particularly idiotic and abusive correspondence from one of said Luddites, and the letters O and T. Raghhhh> Cheers, -- Ten
On 27-Nov-05 Ten wrote:
[...] Besides which, there's a truism about the CLUI that gets missed. Typing commands in at a keyboard is often much easier, quicker and more intuitive than spending eons wheeling the mouse around.
Not to mention less error-prone in general -- you don't risk clicking on the wrong bloody thing or with the wrong bloody button. On the flip side, though, you also have to be careful with the keyboard sometimes, for the same reason. E.g. when in "command" mode in 'vim'. And, on those occasions when I've used Word, I have sometimes done something like Ctrl-I by accident instead of Shift-I, say, and found I've re-formatted the whole bloody document (almost irrevocably -- recoverable only with pain and difficulty). But the advantage in this respect is definitely on the CLUI side, as far as I'm concerned. Cheers, Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 27-Nov-05 Time: 18:40:16 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
(Ted Harding) wrote:
On 27-Nov-05 Ten wrote:
[...] Besides which, there's a truism about the CLUI that gets missed. Typing commands in at a keyboard is often much easier, quicker and more intuitive than spending eons wheeling the mouse around.
Not to mention less error-prone in general -- you don't risk clicking on the wrong bloody thing or with the wrong bloody button.
I don't see how this is any more error prone than pressing the wrong key. Ian
On 27-Nov-05 Ian bell wrote:
(Ted Harding) wrote:
On 27-Nov-05 Ten wrote:
[...] Besides which, there's a truism about the CLUI that gets missed. Typing commands in at a keyboard is often much easier, quicker and more intuitive than spending eons wheeling the mouse around.
Not to mention less error-prone in general -- you don't risk clicking on the wrong bloody thing or with the wrong bloody button.
I don't see how this is any more error prone than pressing the wrong key.
Because it requires careful eye-hand coordination. You can touch-type without watching closely where your fingers are -- once you have your wrists/elbows anchored your fingers know where to go, on a familiar keyboard. Did you ever try to touch-mouse? Cheers, Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 27-Nov-05 Time: 19:37:21 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 19:37 +0000, Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
On 27-Nov-05 Ian bell wrote:
(Ted Harding) wrote:
I don't see how this is any more error prone than pressing the wrong key.
Because it requires careful eye-hand coordination. You can touch-type without watching closely where your fingers are -- once you have your wrists/elbows anchored your fingers know where to go, on a familiar keyboard.
Did you ever try to touch-mouse?
I NEVER look at the mouse when I'm moving the cursor, so I guess I can "touch mouse" much better than I can touch type LOL Peter
(Ted Harding) wrote:
On 27-Nov-05 Ian bell wrote:
(Ted Harding) wrote:
On 27-Nov-05 Ten wrote:
[...] Besides which, there's a truism about the CLUI that gets missed. Typing commands in at a keyboard is often much easier, quicker and more intuitive than spending eons wheeling the mouse around.
Not to mention less error-prone in general -- you don't risk clicking on the wrong bloody thing or with the wrong bloody button.
I don't see how this is any more error prone than pressing the wrong key.
Because it requires careful eye-hand coordination. You can touch-type without watching closely where your fingers are
Except the vast majority of users are not touch typists. Ian
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 18:23 +0000, Ten wrote:
I know what you're saying, but to my mind if there were fewer computer "shamen" in the world, we'd all be better off.
And that counts doubly for retail chains that will charge people money to run scandisk, defrag and spybot S&D on their computer and call it a "tune-up" (hahahaha).
Yes and I have also heard that some garages charge to change the oil in your car. The sad fact is that time is money and if doing those things resolves a problem and is beyond what the end user has the time/knowledge to do themselves then why shouldn't they charge. I am not condoning sloppy application of (mostly) automated tools as a answer all problem to every machine that comes through the door, but if someone does these things to improve the stability and performance of the machine and has acceptable results then why not ? Of course in an ideal world a large percentage of people wouldn't be using an operating system that frequently needs such attention...but as long as it does and that work isn't being performed and charged for where it is not needed then I think a reasonable charge for the time taken is justified. Actually some of the machines that pass by me end up going out charged at a somewhat less than our hourly rate simply because if I charged them for the full time it (sometimes) takes to rid a sickly Windows box of all the spyware, malware and viruses it would quickly become uneconomic for the customer to proceed. We operate a policy of customer education and if there is a quick fix that the customer can apply with instruction then this is freely given..similarly if there is advice we can give the customer on how to avoid a repeat visit then it is of course shared...but if the box comes in and has bench time to resolve a problem then I am afraid I have to charge something.....I think (hope) that you are referring more to the "tune up" services which are implied as necessary at regular intervals even when they are not.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 01:47:31AM +0000, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
Actually some of the machines that pass by me end up going out charged at a somewhat less than our hourly rate simply because if I charged them for the full time it (sometimes) takes to rid a sickly Windows box of all the spyware, malware and viruses it would quickly become uneconomic for the customer to proceed.
To draw further on your comment about garages charging for oil changes, services etc. don't you think that if computers cost from 8 grand for a base model up to 50 grand for a full on gamers machine/workstation that people would be more willing to pay for the amount of work it takes to fix them and they would probably keep them in good service ;) You are quite right in what you said about it becoming uneconomic for people to have computers fixed, much easier to buy a new cheap dell every time your old computer starts to go slow and that will come with wizzbang OS 7 with all the updates on it and the 3 month trials for anti-virus, anti-spyware and a decent firewall. Of course after 3 months they want the best part of 50 quid to keep them working.... but you don't want to pay that, you already paid for the computer, why should you pay again? (The cynic in me suggests that they are 3 month trials so that it shortens the "life" of the computer so that you are buying a new computer much sooner than you would otherwise). I also figure that most people don't care about anything enough to want to learn how to keep their computer operating nicely, (or for that matter their car, household appliances etc.) they would rather be sat in front of tv watching "reality housewife murder operation swap factor". There is also the aspect that there are many dodgy computer repair shops around, I know of a local one that charged a neighbour of mine 150 quid to re-install Windows "because it has a virus" (all that had happened was the anti-virus software had quarantined the virus and on boot put up a message saying "you need to manually clear this virus, or similar" and they gave him the machine back after just wiping the disk, reinstalling the OS and not putting any drivers on the machine. They then told him that the fee didn't include getting updates and drivers etc. and that he would have to put all his data back on the machine! They hadn't even taken an image of the drive before they started! (these are the kind of "shamen" that Ten is reffering too I think) Thanks Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 08:03 +0000, Adam Bower wrote:
They then told him that the fee didn't include getting updates and drivers etc. and that he would have to put all his data back on the machine! They hadn't even taken an image of the drive before they started! (these are the kind of "shamen" that Ten is reffering too I think)
Actually I have an entirely different word for those sort of people, but there are a few ladies on this list so I shall refrain from using it. :-) It's true what Ted said in a latter post though, that the industry is destined to get the same reputation as cowboy plumbers and dodgy mechanics. Hence why I twitched in my last post (probably a bit too much) The situation isn't too bad at the moment, of all the places a user could go to in my home town to get advice or service I can only think of one (plus PC World, but I am not even counting them for the moment) that I wouldn't gladly recommend. The main problem is that because the underlying workings of a computer are a complete mystery to 80% of IT users (a made up statistic but I bet it's not far out) most of them haven't got any way to judge whether they are being taken for a ride or not. This of course is a big incentive to the less than honest players out there to make an easy buck. The problem with the big boys (like PC World) is that it is too expensive for them to employ truly knowledgeable people on the sales floor. I am not sure what happens in the repair centre but I guess it is all procedure based work done from a script (again to allow them to employ at a lower skill level). I also think that the larger retailers suffer a bit because they are trying to sell PC's like they are an appliance and to be honest they are nowhere near user friendly enough for that. Perhaps what we need is a guild or something....
On Monday 28 November 2005 01:47, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 18:23 +0000, Ten wrote:
I know what you're saying, but to my mind if there were fewer computer "shamen" in the world, we'd all be better off.
And that counts doubly for retail chains that will charge people money to run scandisk, defrag and spybot S&D on their computer and call it a "tune-up" (hahahaha).
Yes and I have also heard that some garages charge to change the oil in your car.
Ah, another industry plagued by the same problems :)
The sad fact is that time is money and if doing those things resolves a problem and is beyond what the end user has the time/knowledge to do themselves then why shouldn't they charge.
I am not condoning sloppy application of (mostly) automated tools as a answer all problem to every machine that comes through the door, but if someone does these things to improve the stability and performance of the machine and has acceptable results then why not ?
Of course in an ideal world a large percentage of people wouldn't be using an operating system that frequently needs such attention...but as long as it does and that work isn't being performed and charged for where it is not needed then I think a reasonable charge for the time taken is justified.
Actually some of the machines that pass by me end up going out charged at a somewhat less than our hourly rate simply because if I charged them for the full time it (sometimes) takes to rid a sickly Windows box of all the spyware, malware and viruses it would quickly become uneconomic for the customer to proceed.
We operate a policy of customer education and if there is a quick fix that the customer can apply with instruction then this is freely given.. similarly if there is advice we can give the customer on how to avoid a repeat visit then it is of course shared...
You see, these are perfect examples of how you *should* behave, and perfect examples of what's not getting done by the unscrupulous.
but if the box comes in and has bench time to resolve a problem then I am afraid I have to charge something.....
You turn up, you do the work, you charge for it, and that's all to the good I say :)
I think (hope) that you are referring more to the "tune up" services which are implied as necessary at regular intervals even when they are not.
What I'm referring to is not only misrepresentation of what's needed but misrepresentation of the standard of service and expertise you're getting. If you take a machine to a "clinic" where a yts monkey is being presented as an expert and you have a problem they're unaware of, they won't tell you they can't identify the source of your problem. Oh no, first the buggers will charge you fifty quid to run said tools, THEN let you go away and rediscover the problem for yourself, THEN charge you still more to fix it again - whether they have any idea of what's wrong or not, and so on.. There are also people who will give people back their machines with the same hardware in them and hit them for a replacement fee, people who propagate viruses(who can forget the number of companies overlooking NYB'd floppies because of the business it brought them in the early 90s, or in fact the propagation of windows for the work it brings, heh) and so on - you know the sort of thing. It's all because people are being encouraged to pay good hourly rates for someone who will *only* have 3 solutions to a windows problem, which suggest they are hiring the services of a professional. There are mechanics who'll charge you money to change your oil when it doesn't need doing/is not your problem, and every dishonest or inept mechanic charges the same rates as a brilliant one, if not higher. As a consequence, many people find it hard to know whether to trust a mechanic, even when they're quite familiar with them. Like I said, if people want to be very gullible users then good luck to them, but the multitudinous people in the computing professions that are only awaiting their TV debut on BBC One's "Rogue Traders" reflects badly on everyone, and for me, represents the bad stuff about the way mainstream computing has gone. If we're not careful, people will start to view us in the same light as lawyers or something - then we're all stuffed :P
participants (7)
-
Adam Bower -
Bob Dove -
Ian bell -
Peter Onion -
Ted.Harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk -
Ten -
Wayne Stallwood