Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:35:44 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm-dated-1016735744.da14eb@mired.org> To: Chip Morton <tech_info@threespace.com> Cc: FreeBSD Chat <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The Great GUI Debate (was Re: Free BSD) Message-ID: <15507.36992.94921.650074@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020316112644.01b11558@threespace.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020316100234.01b21638@threespace.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020315181331.01b26160@threespace.com> <20020314204235.L152-100000@pogo.caustic.org> <15505.28725.937368.158235@guru.mired.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20020315190230.01b2a4f8@threespace.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020316112644.01b11558@threespace.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <4.3.2.7.2.20020316112644.01b11558@threespace.com>, Chip Morton <tech_info@threespace.com> typed: > At 11:02 AM 3/16/2002, Mike Meyer wrote: > >Leaving the steaming heap that Apple/MS has foisted off on us as an > >interface is the worst idea I've seen since the last time I talked to > >an MS support rep (~1982). > >Of all the behavior models for windowing systems that I know of, > >that's the least efficient one. > Look, if you or Lambert or Raskin or anybody else think that you have a > better idea, then have at it. If you build a mousetrap that is truly > better than the one we use now, then I'm sure the world will quickly beat a > path to your doorstep. Mine's plpwm. It's part of the plwm port. > >Most major manufacturers put an acceleration control on the steering > >wheel, at least for their high end cars. I'm pretty sure one of the F1 > >teams did the same. > I can't afford high-end cars, and neither can most folks. But I don't > believe it's not done because it's a "high-end" concept; I believe it's not > done because the benefits are outweighed by other negative factors, notably > the "re-learning curve." No, it's a luxury item. > Well, real-time recording onto CDs and DVDs is still a dream here in > America, so for my use, CDs/DVDs aren't so clearly better than casettes and > VHS videotapes. And this denies that there have been other comparable form > factors that the industry didn't push as eagerly--MDs, DATs, and laserdiscs > come to mind quickly. I think the issue for the music industry is less > about the quality of our listening experience than about content control. The people I know who were serious about real-time recording moved to either DAT or mini-disks a long time ago. Then again, most of them have since give those up, and do real-time capture to disk, edit and mix on the computer, then burn the CD. > >Unfortunately, while the steaming heap of a GUI most people use is > >indeed the least efficient, it's at worst a factor of two worse, not a > >factor of 10. So the only way it's going to get changed is if MS > >manages to shove it down our throats. Having monopoly power, they can > >do that. > And I think this is the crucial point here. Raskin's ideas may be better, > but are they so much better that the masses will be willing to switch? I > don't think so. Even if I spend a whole hour per day doing window > operations, my savings is three minutes per day. But now I hate using my > computer. So where's the gain? And how much time did I waste trying to > learn this new, improved way of doing things. Why are you assuming that you'd hate Raskin - or my - way of doing things? Personally, I hate the MS/Apple GUI way of doing things. I even invented a benchmark for windowing systems quality. It's called "curses", and takes into account the quality of the interface and the responsiveness of the underlying hardware. All it is is a measure of profanity over time. So with Windows, my curses benchmark is about 4 per hour. With plpwm - hmmm - I can't establish a benchmark, because I haven't cursed at it in the three months I've been using it. With Intution, or a properly configure twm on a fast machine, it was about 1 per 8 hours. > > > The actual look of a window manager (or car, or woman, or anything else) > > > only matters very early up front. You may be wowed by the look of the > > > windows and widgets early on, but after that it really doesn't matter to > > > you while you're working. > >Actually, it does matter. If you notice them, then you're not > >working. That's why the look matters. Being wow'ed early on is usually > >a bad sign, not a good one. > Again I disagree. Over a long period of time, people will get used to > whatever shiny baubles they were impressed with early on. My candy-colored > scrollbars don't make me any more/less efficient than if I had a simple > two-color scrollbar. I don't pay them any attention any more until I have > to scroll something. In this case, we just have to agree to disagree. I remember to many people being *very* happy when the Amiga lost it's "halloween" color scheme as the default. > And if you're NOT using the system for a long time, then the efficiency > gained from changing things isn't worth the time it would take to relearn them. True. The problem is that the current system was designed for people who spent 10 or 15 minutes a day using a computer. How many people who work in an office spend anywhere near that little on a computer? How many people reading this spend that little time on email? > > > In fact, I might argue that the pleasure I get out of having an > > > attractive, colorful windowing system with my girlfriend on the > > > wallpaper would actually make me more productive on the whole. > > > Productivity isn't just about the milliseconds saved in dragging the > > > mouse from one corner to the next. > >True enough. But since you can do that with almost any GUI, it's sort > >of irrelevant. > It's not irrelevant because you and Raskin just argued that these sort of > amenities detract from my productivity. I never argued that point. While I agree with Raskin in the large about common interfaces - they suck rocks - I don't necessarily agree with him on the details. In particular, having a background image is pretty much a nop. > The problem I see with this argument is that it tries to measure human > productivity in machine cycles. My saving five minutes per day in improved > productivity may be pointless if I hate using my ugly window manager. The > benefits here are not without a cost. No, it doesn't. It measures human productivity in terms of human time. Personally, I don't care if you want to lug 3d-bricks across your girlfriends carcass while you work. I believe you should be allowed to do that. In fact, one of the things that sucks about the common interfaces is that all they let you change are the trivial things like the looks, but not any of the important things that would actually make them more efficient, not just glitzier. > > > Like I said, he can develop his 1-bit WM and then he can have it. > >He already did, and he already does. > Then he should be happy and stay off happy users' screens. He can't keep you from reading his articles on the web. If you don't like them, don't read them. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15507.36992.94921.650074>