Run OSX on x86

[flap]

quote:Fortunately, the rest of us choose not to live in the 1970s. For us there is Xcode, and GNUstep's Project Center.

The rest of "us"? So you're a programmer?

   

quote:I wonder... could that mean you shouldn't fuck around with the OS? Yes, I think it does.
...
People don't give a fuck about that. They want to be able to run their software easily.
...
That's right, as the object of running OS X is to glean its benefits, which are

1) Consistency
2) Superior design
3) Superior implementation
4) STEP Heritage

Ok, let me explain something. What you consistently fail to recognise is that:
1) user-friendliness does not necessarily equal (in fact, is often at odds with) usability
2) despite what you seem to believe, computers weren't invented so that people like you can listen to Garth Brooks MP3s and surf the web. They actually have a serious, practical purpose. That purpose is better served with flexible, usable, configurable software. Not consistency, not user friendliness, not eye candy, not media players with integrated cd burning and tea making facilities, and not this "STEP Heritage" (whatever the hell that actually means) that you're unable to shut up about.

It's like a kid telling an adult that they think all cars should be replaced with go-carts, because then they'll be able to drive too. Don't get me wrong; it's good that user friendly software exists, because it enables the average user to use computers. But don't make the mistake of being arrogant enough to assume that, just because you find it easy to use, it's a better system.

I think your hero Maddox says it quite well:

   

quote:...vi in unix. Anything else is for failures

[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]

[Mandrake]

Who the fuck said that 'If Apple wanted the marketshare Microsoft has they would have it'! That is so damn stupid. Apple is a propieratry company just like Microsoft and would love nothing more than for 90% of people to use it's products. But only 2% of people use a Mac... so obviously that is a load of bullshit.

[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: Mandrake ]

[Claris]

Ah, it's good to see a good ol' fashioned jimmyjames literary beating handed to someone who really deserves it.

[Paladin9]

quote:Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:COUGHFORDCOUGHFOCUSCOUGH

   

[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: Paladin9 ]

[hm_murdock]

quote:Ok, let me explain something. What you consistently fail to recognise is that:
1) user-friendliness does not necessarily equal (in fact, is often at odds with) usability

Agreed. That's why this new "task-based" concept, while "user friendly" is not very useable. I understand the difference in user friendly and useability. Mac OS (System 1 through OS 9.2.2) were THE standard for useability. I however, would say that there were some parts of them that were not very friendly. Many times, as you say, being user friendly gets in the way of real functionality. Any time you oversimplify something so to be useless to knowledgable users, that's killed it. UI design walks a fine line.

 

quote:2) despite what you seem to believe, computers weren't invented so that people like you can listen to Garth Brooks MP3s and surf the web.

No shit.

 

quote:They actually have a serious, practical purpose. That purpose is better served with flexible, usable, configurable software.

It's best served by software that's well-designed enough to begin with that it doesn't have to be tweaked. DESIGN IS KEY. We're not talking about what kinda cutsey graphics you've got, but real design... check out a UI design concept book, and you'll learn about cognitive science. This is the study of how people think, nothing more or less. To fully understand the way people interact with a computer, not just the UI, but the way they understand all of the concepts that go into using it... you first have to know how people think. The best software works how you think.

Case in point. Software installation. This is my number one thing, by the way. A well-designed system will make even the most difficult tasks simple.

How does Linux do it? God only knows. It depends on what Linux distro you run, and then it most likely relies on some terminal command or control panel app. If you're lucky, your app has an installer and it doesn't crash and burn.

You might not be so lucky.

How did Mac OS do it? Application has icon, you double click icon, no matter where it is, it runs.

How does Mac OS X do it? Application bundle has icon, you double click it, no matter where it is, it runs.

Now... tell me something. Does being able to run the app NO MATTER WHERE IT EXISTS hinder useability?

 

quote:Not consistency

INCORRECT.

Consistency across the entire system is the very HEART of good design, and that's what I'm talking about. Over 80% of the people that use computers... wait for it... are you ready? THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT COMPILING KERNELS, OR PROGRAMMING, OR ANY OTHER ADVANCED TASK.

Your rather derisive and elitist statement makes it sound as though all those people are just some kind of low, second-class persons. Hey, I hate to break it to you... THEY DRIVE THIS INDUSTRY. They're your CUSTOMERS. It's your duty and your job to serve them well, with well-designed, well coded apps.

I have no doubts in your coding abilities, I've got no room to say anything, as I can't code to save my ruttin' life. However, I think that your low opinion of good design would hobble your apps.

 

quote:not user friendliness, not eye candy, not media players with integrated cd burning and tea making facilities, and not this "STEP Heritage" (whatever the hell that actually means) that you're unable to shut up about.

No, it is all about the STEP. NeXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, Rhapsody, Mac OS X, and soon GenSTEP. As the ultimate evolution of the STEP concept, GenSTEP has all of the advanced OpenStep-layer goodies, plus a very advanced, next-generation UNIX layer, powered by the Linux kernel.

Insomnia's got it running... why don't you ask him? He's trying out Komodo (GenSTEP's Linux core)... see just how good Linux can be once you give up on the outmoded, ole-timey ways of doing things and embrace the future. It's not so alien as you obviously believe. It's different enough to be better, though.

 

quote:It's like a kid telling an adult that they think all cars should be replaced with go-carts, because then they'll be able to drive too. Don't get me wrong; it's good that user friendly software exists, because it enables the average user to use computers. But don't make the mistake of being arrogant enough to assume that, just because you find it easy to use, it's a better system.

I do not assume that it's better... I know it is. This is not opinion, but fact. Superior in every way. GenSTEP is better still.

I sincerely hope that you can let go of the withered past and step into the future, or at least the present. Nobody will force you to give up the tools you've always used. You can keep using vi, and whatever other tools you prefer... but don't shut yourself out from the benefits that the NeXT-generation (    ) OSes bring.

[flap]

quote:Any time you oversimplify something so to be useless to knowledgable users, that's killed it. UI design walks a fine line.

I don't particularly mean that. User friendliness is about complicating an interface, not simplifying it. The best example is command line applications, which have incredibly simple interaces. They're not intuitively easy to use, and have a relatively steep learning curve, but the interface is simple. I don't know where console apps fit into your definition of "consistency" or "UI design", but they illustrate best my point about usability over user friendliness.

 

quote:It's best served by software that's well-designed enough to begin with that it doesn't have to be tweaked. DESIGN IS KEY.
...
Consistency across the entire system is the very HEART of good design

Let me clarify what you mean by "bad design". When you say "design", are you actually just referring to interface design? And, if so, do you really just mean GUI design? And if you mean that, then when you say "bad design" do you really just mean "user-unfriendly design"? It's rather a bold statement to suggest that a tried and tested Unix application (graphical or otherwise) is badly designed, just because it's inconsistent with other applications, or it's not easy for beginners to use.

 

quote:check out a UI design concept book, and you'll learn about cognitive science. This is the study of how people think, nothing more or less. To fully understand the way people interact with a computer, not just the UI, but the way they understand all of the concepts that go into using it... you first have to know how people think. The best software works how you think.

Again, does this refer only to graphical applications? If it does then I still think you're missing the point. All of this HCI crap is irrelevant to most of the programs I use, because they don't really even have an "interface" (i.e. a GUI) as you understand it.

 

quote:Your rather derisive and elitist statement makes it sound as though all those people are just some kind of low, second-class persons. Hey, I hate to break it to you... THEY DRIVE THIS INDUSTRY.

I hate to break it to you, but they don't. Even Microsoft, king of the flowery kiddy-proof interface, makes most of its money from corporate customers, selling server software and programs that will be used in an environment in which users aren't sitting at home on their own, with no support.

 

quote:I sincerely hope that you can let go of the withered past and step into the future, or at least the present.

You're assuming that's what's best for you is best for me. I don't care if the average user finds it easier to use winzip than tar/gzip, or a word processor rather than latex. I prefer to use command line tools when I can, and I prefer the fleixibility of unix over a tightly-integrated, but user friendly, interface. I used windows for years before I switched to unix and realised that I could get everything done much more quickly using command line applications, and a "user unfriendly" OS. If you don't like them, then don't use them, but don't assume that user friendliness is good for everyone.

[Paladin9]

seriously, I do not have the attention span to read all of these posts.

I just want to say that I really like the old mac os becuase it was so easy to work with and fix.  I became vary familiar with it, and becuase of the way it works, it is really easy to troubleshoot and fix problems.  That is, on the rare occasion when something went wrong.

[Laukev7]

Just what do you mean by 'usability', flap? Do you mean that you find command line interfaces more efficient than graphical interfaces? Just because Windows and many other systems put user-friendliness before usability (the 'flowery kiddy-proof interfaces') doesn't mean that some graphical interfaces are not sometimes more efficient than command line.

You may be used to command line and have experienced clunky, convoluted interfaces, but sometimes graphical interfaces can be very efficient and complex in their own ways. For many software writers 'user-friendliness' is all about gaudy graphics and frankly inefficient hand-holding wizards. However, Mac OS has amongst other features an intricate language of keyboard shortcuts and drag-and-drop features, much more involved than any other system (at least graphical ones).

Mac OS, is not only 'user-friendly', it is also acclaimed for being the most efficient graphical interface. That was my whole point about interface ergonomy.

Of course, it is up to the user to decide whether the most efficient option is to put up with Winzip wizards and windows, type gzip -xzvf ./foo.gz or just slide the file on the Stuffit icon.

[flap]

quote:Just what do you mean by 'usability', flap? Do you mean that you find command line interfaces more efficient than graphical interfaces?

Yes. Obviously I acknowledge that this won't be the case for most people - many people won't want to bother learning an application's switches, or maybe they simply can't type that quickly. But those who do choose to use console apps don't do so because they're 'stuck in the past'. It isn't the case that command line programs are 'archaic' and GUIs are 'modern' and up-to-date. It's simply that one type of interface has been around longer than the other.

 

quote:doesn't mean that some graphical interfaces are not sometimes more efficient than command line.

I agree. Non-interactive tasks (finding files, grepping through files, copying/moving/deleting files, compiling etc) are more quickly accomplished, in my opinion, using the shell. But many interactive tasks are more suited to a graphical interface. For example I use xcdroast to create cd images (though I still burn them from the command line), a graphical media player, a graphical browser etc.

 

quote:sometimes graphical interfaces can be very efficient and complex

I know they can be complex, that's the problem.

 

quote:Of course, it is up to the user to decide whether the most efficient option is to put up with Winzip wizards and windows, type gzip -xzvf ./foo.gz or just slide the file on the Stuffit icon.

Exactly. For me it's easier and quicker to type a command than to open up a new program and click some buttons, or drag an icon. I can type a command to tar up a directory almost as quickly as I can think it. When you become used to using them command line then (provided you can type quickly enough) it becomes more intuitive than using a GUI. Using a GUI is like using a multiple choice interface. It's easy but your expressiveness is limited. With the shell, you just tell the computer what to do and it does it. You can bolt programs together, combining their functionality; you can issue batch commands so it does a number of things at once; and best of all you can automate all of this using scripts.

[hm_murdock]

re: design...

Design at every level. In an OS, that's everything from filesystem layout, to how errors are handled, to something as seemingly meaningless as what color things should be, be they graphics or text.

UI design is only one part of overall design. And UI design is not about making the pictures, but about mapping things out, and determining the best way to arrange objects for maximum useability. That can be anything from determining the syntax for a terminal command, to laying out menus in a GUI app.

re: users...

This is the beef I've got... you're pretty much saying that *what you like is better*. No qualifications... just better. We will assume that you mean that it's better for EVERYBODY. You hadn't really said otherwise, so this is what we're led to believe.

Now, despite your apparent hatred for "users", they're the focus of things. Nobody gives a fucking shit about some back-line server apps. They can be as ugly and poorly made as you want. They're designed to be set once, and left alone. However, something that people use every day doesn't have that luxury.

From how you talk, everybody is a mongrel, halfwitted fool for using these "kiddie-proof" GUIs. You're obviously just trying to make yourself sound all cool.

So, here's an idea.

Get along with everybody, love your brother and smoke lots of ganja.

I edited this because somebody whined. We need less whiners.

[ May 12, 2004: Message edited by: JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder ]

[hm_murdock]

One more thing...

Bundles are Better

[img]http://jimmyjames.sytes.net/media/bundvscrap.jpg[/i]

I'm right, you're wrong. Get over it.

Edit: Huge images and triple posts deleted. Jimmy James, post that crap again and I will recommend you for troll status.

[ May 12, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[flap]

You seem to alternate between reasonable posts and childish rants. If the pattern continues your response to this should be quite amicable.

 

quote:Design at every level. In an OS, that's everything from filesystem layout, to how errors are handled, to something as seemingly meaningless as what color things should be, be they graphics or text.

You're still referring to interface design, or at least the design decisions that the user will be aware of. The most important aspects of software design are those that relate to how the software is actually built and implemented.

 

quote:This is the beef I've got... you're pretty much saying that *what you like is better*.

Uh? I thought that was what you were saying. What I actually said was

 

quote:it's good that user friendly software exists, because it enables the average user to use computers.
...
If you don't like [user-unfriendly programs], then don't use them

For the record, I have no interest in what type of interface or what programs you use. You can use a speak and spell for all I care. You're the one proselyting on behalf of OSX. I never tried to convince anyone else to use what I use.

 

quote:You're obviously just trying to make yourself sound all cool.

No, that comes without effort.

[ May 12, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
I'm right, you're wrong. Get over it.

Yes Jimmy, you truly outsmarted Flap with your fancy picture and your big letters.
 

[hm_murdock]

Also, flap, it's not your place to judge my posts. I find yours to fluctuate between uniformed to elitist and rude.

Just simply halfass.

 

quote:Yes Jimmy, you truly outsmarted Flap with your fancy picture and your big letters

it isn't hard! all you have to do for some of these people is have some flashing lights and colors and they'll stare back, vacuous and blank!

Edit: Posts merged.

[ May 12, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[Paladin9]

quote:Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
So, here's an idea.

 

Nobody asked your opinion in the first place, so fuck off.

Jimmy, if you keep this up, I WILL bin this post.  It is ok to argue and disagree with people, but you must stop calling people morons and saying "fuck off".  This is what makes someone a troll.