Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 03:35:28 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: softweyr@xmission.com (Wes Peters) Cc: jamie@itribe.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft the GUI King (was Re: ATT Unix for Windows) Message-ID: <199709030835.DAA00405@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199709030704.BAA12723@obie.softweyr.ml.org> from Wes Peters at "Sep 3, 97 01:04:56 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wes Peters said: > > John S. Dyson writes: > > I am a very serious computer user, developer, and HATE to use the > > mouse or move my hands from the keyboard in any way. If God would > > have meant for us to use a mouse, he would have given us three hands > > :-). I think that my aversion to the mouse has to do with being a > > touch-typist. In my case, a mouse is used as a "mode switch" alot > > like the control or alt keys. It entails needing to reorient my > > hands on the keyboard after use. > > And I'm a superficial computer user who never does anything with his > computer but net-surf. > That is suprising :-). > > In general, sweeping generalizations such as "never make the user take > his hands off the keyboard" are useless. ;^) > Actually, I have been trying to show that a GUI only environment, with poor character mode support doesn't solve everything. I am just as (un) comfortable using X when debugging the kernel, as browsing large files trying to study source code when limited to an 80x25 screen. Even when using X, the editor that I am using is fully functional, without pain, with or without the mouse. Isn't the VC++ editor or Microsoft Word kind of a pain to use without the mouse? I have a choice of "to mouse" or "not to mouse" under U**X. The only system that seems to have gotten almost everything wrong (IMO) with very few effective or low cost workarounds is the Windows (NT) development environment. The VB environment is incomprehensible with standard components that aren't. The seamless upgrade from VB4 to VB5 isn't/wasn't. Components developed with the "standard" OLE linkage mechanism -- .ocx files quit working. Geesh, the type info is passed around, and it didn't work. It is pretty obvious that they are not designing or thinking things through before shipping product. Also, those silly things (.ocx's) can pollute your registry during development if you aren't careful about cleaning up. Another thing, if you are developing a VC project, and need to modify it, or start from scratch on a new one -- it is a real challenge to go through the menu hierarchy to figure out all of the options used. It seems that Microsoft would have done alot better if they could have stayed away from proprietary file formats for projects info, etc -- so you could see what is really going on. Those proprietary file formats (I think) are a result of forgetting about text based files -- that can be edited by editors such as VI, or somesuch. It was interesting that on my last project at AT&T, where I used command line VC++, nmake, and VI for my part of the application -- always got things done on time, and things just worked. The poor sucker who tried to use the GUI VB, VC++ environment had nothing but troubles. The GUI hides so much about what is going on, he never could figure things out without alot of pain. He wouldn't listen to me and throw out the GUI stuff, and just learn about what is going on for real to get rid of the colorful chaffe. Suffice it to say, his part of the project never worked reliably. (The above is an anecdote about the way that GUI environments can and often do obscure the development process.) I admit that he wasn't an NT programming expert, but I think that he would have made alot more progress if he would have got rid of much of the dubious "help" that Microsoft gave him :-). One of the great things about X is that it integrates the use of the xterms (or whatever) seamlessly with the GUI enviroment. You have the flexibility of specifying which (virtual) display (or computer) that your apps run on, and no such flexibility comes easily on the other "popular" GUI environment. (The bogus (silly) telnet that comes with NT doesn't count -- it doesn't even send resize info to the server.) Of course, you can buy lots of components in order to bring NT closer to the level of a free U**X, but that makes the "cheap" NT license of about $300 end up being over $1K-2K. And then, on that "cheap" NT machine, try doing 2 or 3 compiles in parallel even on a PentiumPro... Oh yea, you want more than 10 connections? Then it costs even more -- on a per client basis... Summing up my position, when using X windows on a reasonably good performing U**X clone, you can adjust the user interface as needed. Almost any argument about the disadvantages about the X windows user interface can be answered with a user-mode, non-privileged solution. YOU have control under X windows, and the interfaces are fully documented (or at least available in source code form.) You are pretty much stuck with what Microsoft gives you on NT, however. They dictate how you interact on their OSes. (Sure would like mouse pointer focus on NT :-), for example). I used to have a very liberal attitude about Microsoft, until I had to develop code on their platform. Now, I know why people often don't like their platform. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709030835.DAA00405>