[luau] MSWindows

[Eric Hattemer]

I've been busy lately, and never had the chance to reply to this message,
but here we go:

From: "Jimen Ching" <jching at flex.com>

> On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Eric Hattemer wrote:

I suppose I missed the logic in the first part of your message, so I'm
cutting it.

> >Only about 1:5 times when I try to compile something in linux does it
> >come out correctly.
>
> Let me get this straight, you are comparing the installation of windows
> programs to the compilation of linux programs?  And for some reason, you
> feel they should have the same difficulty level?  Or the same easiness
> level...

Perhaps this is slightly unfair.  I've never compiled anything in windows
that I didn't write myself.  However, this is because I didn't need to.
That's just how I get a lot of programs in linux.  Only taking redhat rpms
is like refusing to run any program not written by microsoft.  I have seen
other organizations make redhat rpms for their programs, but often its for
an older version of redhat.  Even if they are the right version, they often
require odd dependencies, as mentioned in my last email on this subject.

>
> >get things installed on.  Windows doesn't require that the user remember
> >anything.  Do you really think most of the world moved away from the
command
> >line by pure chance?  No, it allows you to manipulate files and etc.
without
> >learning or remembering any commands.
>
> More evidence of brain washing?  You're telling me that you didn't have to
> remember anything to use or install Windows applications?  So you were
> born with the knowledge of the 20 to 40 odd menu options in MS-Word?  Or
> the 5 to 10 dialogs for installing the new Inbox Express?  I guess
> Microsoft must have found the technology to beam this information directly
> to your mother's brain, and she passed it to you via the umbilical cord.
> The Ctrl-C to copy and the Ctrl-V to paste is learned through osmosis,
> right?

As for installing, I put the CD in, it says, "would you like to install
this," then I say yes, yes, next, next, finish.  If I forgot how to do this
each time, it would be no trouble to figure it out again.  I didn't mention
use of MS-Word.  However, if I had, I would have had a clear case.  Just by
looking through the file menus for word, you can mostly tell what they do.
Now there are some obscure ones, but I simply don't need to use those ones.
However, if I ever found the need, the words in the file menus match up well
with the intended functions.  So its quite possible to find out new
functions intuitively.  Compare that to something like vi, which may be
faster or more powerful, etc, but really takes a lot of work to learn.  Oh,
and about the ctrl-C, ctrl-V, I suppose its not pertinent information that
those are written on my keyboard, but I could find those in the file menus,
and conveniently enough, they have the keyboard shortcuts written in.  This
is another example of learning the slow but easy way first, then eventually
moving to the harder yet faster method.

> I am the type that says: "I wish the people, who wants to use Linux, to
> learn the tools the right way, rather than expect it to function like
> Windows.  Even if that means learning vi."

Would it be acceptable for us to use emacs?  Its laid out in a much more
intuitive way.  Even pico is easier to use than vi.

>
> As for pushing the responsibility towards the user, that is exactly what
> Microsoft does.  The only difference with Linux is that it is not
> Microsoft.  And that just ticks you off because we are asking you to
> relearn what took you years to learn already.  Why should you have to
> relearn anything at all to use Linux?  Linux should just do it the
> Microsoft way.  Because that is THE RIGHT WAY, THE ONLY WAY!
>
> Take a look at KDE and GNOME as evidence.  Those developers believe as you
> do.  Why re-invent the wheel, when Microsoft did it right the first time?
> Microsoft has brained washed the entire planet to the point where people
> defend it without knowing why.  It is sad, but it is also reality.
>

If the command line were definitively better, why would anyone have left
DOS?  Windows sold well because it was easier to use than DOS ever was.  To
get people to use win3.1 didn't take "brainwashing", it just took them
seeing how easy it was to use.  Now I haven't used gnome in a while, but KDE
has many customizations and themes that allow you to make it look very
different from windows if you want.

Now I'm not saying the command line should be eliminated or anything silly
like that.  I use the windows command propmt for things like ping, ipconfig,
nslookup, etc.  I use the linux command prompt on a regular basis.  But I
think that the command prompt should just be for more obscure functions, or
for advanced users who find it faster to use; not for beginning users doing
basic operations.

-Eric Hattemer

> --jc
>
> P.S.  Do not for a moment believe that Microsoft is unique.  Give Red Hat
> a chance, and they will do the same.  I don't believe there is anyone who
> is reading this email believes that AOL, Oracle, Sun, Viacom, or any other
> conglomerate wouldn't want what Microsoft has.  Don't believe for a second
> that these companies don't want to use the same tactics to achieve the
> same goals.  We hate Microsoft because it affects us the most.  In the
> 70's and 80's, our older colleages before us hated IBM and AT&T for the
> same exact reasons.  The young believe they invented the rebellion.  But
> the only new thing is the technology.
>
> --
> Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)      jching at flex.com     wh6brr at uhm.ampr.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LUAU mailing list
> LUAU at videl.ics.hawaii.edu
> http://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/luau
>
>