Jeff Waugh | 1 Jan 01:37 2004

Re: Re: GNOME > you

<quote who="Jeremy Hankins">

> This is (honestly) a fascinating argument to make, and I'd love to hear
> you substantiate it.  I.e., why do you believe people (normal or
> otherwise) distinguish between how they do something and what they're
> doing?

Sandy is a nursing student. She has to write a report on effective rapid
grief management techniques for hospital clients by tomorrow. She must hand
in a printed copy. Sandy knows her spelling is pretty bad, and that she can
save her report onto a disk to print a school. She uses the word processor
on her Dad's work laptop.

Jeremy is a computing and political science student. He has to write a paper
on the context of special-interest serving technology law in the late 20th
century. Jeremy has read the wisdom of Knuth, values the mathematically
beautiful output of TeX, believes in preserving the independence of content
and presentation in his work, and would like to publish his paper on paper
and his website. He uses LaTex on the maths department workstations.

Sandy doesn't care about the tool, the technology or the process - she just
wants to get shit done. Jeremy does - there are technical considerations
that are important to him. They both have the same goal, but are undertaking
it in very different ways.

- Jeff

--

-- 
linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia         http://lca2004.linux.org.au/

(Continue reading)

Jeff Waugh | 1 Jan 01:41 2004

Re: GNOME > you

<quote who="Jay Sulzberger">

> Certainly your General Inter-Process Communication Solution

I don't know what you're referring to, and I'd be surprised if we had one.

> should allow me to make myself a conventionally arranged system of 'config
> files'.  I look forward to this small hack.

GConf, the GNOME configuration backend and API, supports different backend
implementations. You are 100% welcome to write one to your own specification
which may involved writing individual *nix-style or INI-style conf files for
each client, and monitoring them through fam or dnotify to catch manual
changes. I'm sure there are other ways of going about it too.

Writing a backend to these specifications is not even remotely a priority
for me, or the GConf developers, so unless you're willing to scratch your
own itch, you'll have to keep looking forward to it.

- Jeff

--

-- 
GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norway                    http://2004.guadec.org/

    Markets are what you sell bubbly health drinks, fluorescent blow up
                furniture and mobile phone ring melodies to.
_______________________________________________
linux-elitists 
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists

(Continue reading)

Aaron Lehmann | 1 Jan 02:02 2004

Re: Re: GNOME > you

On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 11:37:56AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> Jeremy is a computing and political science student. He has to write a paper
> on the context of special-interest serving technology law in the late 20th
> century. Jeremy has read the wisdom of Knuth, values the mathematically
> beautiful output of TeX, believes in preserving the independence of content
> and presentation in his work, and would like to publish his paper on paper
> and his website. He uses LaTex on the maths department workstations.

Jeremy doesn't sound like the kind of person who would use GNOME. Sorry.
_______________________________________________
linux-elitists 
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists

Jeff Waugh | 1 Jan 02:11 2004

Re: Re: GNOME > you

<quote who="Aaron Lehmann">

> On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 11:37:56AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Jeremy is a computing and political science student. He has to write a
> > paper on the context of special-interest serving technology law in the
> > late 20th century. Jeremy has read the wisdom of Knuth, values the
> > mathematically beautiful output of TeX, believes in preserving the
> > independence of content and presentation in his work, and would like to
> > publish his paper on paper and his website. He uses LaTex on the maths
> > department workstations.
> 
> Jeremy doesn't sound like the kind of person who would use GNOME. Sorry.

Aaron just wanted to make sure that everyone knew he got the point. Thanks
very much, Aaron, glad you could make it.

- Jeff

--

-- 
Come to gnome.conf.au 2004!   http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/2004/gnome.conf.au/

                          chown -R us:us yourbase
_______________________________________________
linux-elitists 
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists

Nick Moffitt | 1 Jan 02:22 2004
Picon

Re: GNOME > you

begin  Jeff But don't get all fretty-pants on us. Weff  quotation:
> <quote who="Karsten M. Self">
> > That's an attitudinal death spiral.  Your own current satisfaction
> > with the project appears to be directly at odds with its stated
> > goals.

	Okay, so you're basically saying exactly what I did when I
said that Jeff was full of shit for claiming that GNOME was all about
non-unix-weenie types.  You're just saying it in a way that tries to
be +00 31337 4 GN0M3.

> It turns out, that coders and productive geeks actually care more
> about what they're doing than how they're doing it - just like those
> "normal" people.  But they can only reach that point by dipping
> their toes in the water. That is what we want to see happen with
> GNOME. Right now, you're hooked on all the "how I do it" stuff, but
> with a taste of the usability kool-aid, and the realisation that you
> just want to get shit done, suddenly it all starts to make sense.
> You're treating the computer the same way your Mum does. Great.

	Put another way, inflexibility is the biggest symptom of the
clueless wrote user.  Many just mask it by PGP-signing their e-mails
to look cool.

> It is not that we don't listen to developers (and I would add
> "geeks"), but we understand that they are a fundamentally miniscule
> minority in the global audience of computer users. Their input is
> interesting, but doesn't have a strong representative quality when
> you're looking at solving the Greatest Common Factor problems (*NOT*
> the Lowest Common Denominator).
(Continue reading)

Aaron Lehmann | 1 Jan 03:30 2004

Re: Re: GNOME > you

On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 12:11:24PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Jeremy doesn't sound like the kind of person who would use GNOME. Sorry.
> 
> Aaron just wanted to make sure that everyone knew he got the point. Thanks
> very much, Aaron, glad you could make it.

If this is your point, it contradicts most of the hype you spew about
GNOME being right for everyone... unless you're trying to paint the
TeX-like methods as mislead and suggest that we should give up our
heathen ways and "treat the computer like Mum does" for best results.
I'd like to think that you're too rational to really believe that.
_______________________________________________
linux-elitists 
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists

Jeff Waugh | 1 Jan 03:58 2004

Re: Re: GNOME > you

<quote who="Aaron Lehmann">

> On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 12:11:24PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > > Jeremy doesn't sound like the kind of person who would use GNOME.
> > > Sorry.
> > 
> > Aaron just wanted to make sure that everyone knew he got the point.
> > Thanks very much, Aaron, glad you could make it.
> 
> If this is your point, it contradicts most of the hype you spew about
> GNOME being right for everyone... unless you're trying to paint the
> TeX-like methods as mislead and suggest that we should give up our heathen
> ways and "treat the computer like Mum does" for best results.  I'd like to
> think that you're too rational to really believe that.

You're attached to the specifics of the technology and process, so you're
taking the analogy very literally. I was demonstrating an 'normal' approach
to technology, compared to the 'interested' approach that we generally take.
The same story results in me using mutt and my Dad using Outlook Express - I
care about the specifics, he doesn't.

Ask a Mac OS X defector why they switched sometime (avoid overloading the
tech question with the freedom question to begin with) - in my experience,
the single most popular answer is because "it just works". Only after that
comes the "plus I can use some of the *nix stuff I like, too". They've
figured out that "getting things done" is more important than "it must be
done in a very particular way".

I think the biggest mistake you're making above is approaching this whole
issue as a zero-sum argument - it simply isn't. Not even remotely.
(Continue reading)

Jeremy Hankins | 1 Jan 17:22 2004

Re: GNOME > you

Jeff Waugh <jdub <at> perkypants.org> writes:
> <quote who="Jeremy Hankins">

>> This is (honestly) a fascinating argument to make, and I'd love to
>> hear you substantiate it.  I.e., why do you believe people (normal or
>> otherwise) distinguish between how they do something and what they're
>> doing?
>
> Sandy is a nursing student. She has to write a report on effective
> rapid grief management techniques for hospital clients by
> tomorrow. She must hand in a printed copy. Sandy knows her spelling is
> pretty bad, and that she can save her report onto a disk to print a
> school. She uses the word processor on her Dad's work laptop.

You're not substantiating here, you're just proposing a case and
assuming it supports your position.  But the fact is that I can explain
this sort of behavior in other ways (let me know if you'd like me to,
but I'm presuming that it's fairly obvious).  Really your message here
is completely orthogonal to the position I pointed out above.

My position, which up till your previous post I hadn't realized you
didn't accept, is that distinguishing between how & what is completely a
matter of choice & context.  Language is an excellent analogy here[1]:
you choose a distinction between method and act that suits your purpose,
just as you choose a language (e.g., jargon) that suits your purpose.
By thinking hard about the interface (language) we can make getting work
done (expressing ideas) easier, and in many cases even possible.

To put it differently: getting a job done is just a matter of expressing
it in the idiom of the interface.  This applies whether the interface is
(Continue reading)

Eugen Leitl | 1 Jan 23:17 2004

Re: GNOME > you

On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 12:03:34PM -0800, Mister Bad wrote:

> They're gutless swine who don't value their freedom.

Oink, oink.
_______________________________________________
linux-elitists 
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists
Ben Finney | 2 Jan 00:32 2004
Picon

Re: Re: GNOME > you

On 01-Jan-2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Outside of the computer field people care deeply about the tools they
> use to get their work done.

That depends very much whether the person thinks of the job done with a
computer as central to their work (for whatever definition of work) or
whether they think of it as an annoying side-task best disposed of as
quickly and painlessly as possible.

Most office work and office equipment, for most office workers, falls
into the latter category.  The computer is no more a topic of "pros and
cons of the tool" discussions than is a pencil or telephone.

In most places where a "desktop computer" is used, it's not a
conceptually central part of the work, in the way of a blacksmith's need
to hit metal or a runner's need to contact the pavement.  Rather, it's
symbolic of a chore -- organising and transmitting information -- that
gets in the way of whatever one thinks of as the *real* job.

A salesperson or receptionist may think of a telephone as both essential
and central to their task, and may be interested in discussing the pros
and cons with interest.  An accountant or graphic designer, on the other
hand, likely thinks of the telephone as essential (can't do the job
without it) but not *central* (inseperable from the job itself).  In the
latter case, a discussion about telephone technology will likely meet
with far less enthusiasm.

I propose that computers are central to people who describe their jobs
to their friends as "I work with computers", but for all other office
jobs (which do, in fact, work with computers also) the computer is about
(Continue reading)


Gmane