JTD wrote:- (Parts without quotes)
>
>
OO is not ready for use IS an attitude problem. Especially when it is
contrary to my (and hughe number of other people's) experience in
using both Msorifice and OO
(RB) If that was the case it would sell like hot cakes. Retail vendors
are always looking out for equivalent solutions. If you had bad
experiences with M$ that's fine because it helps promote linux faster.
But my experience with M$ users is different. They are already used to
the software and after I take over the systems, their problems get
eliminated steadily and they use the systems with minimum or no hanging
and crashes. Everything starts running smoothly and efficiently except
for hardware issues or reckless users. In the end it becomes difficult
to make them change to another environment when everything works fine.
Added to that are the functionality problems like the one I described.
The user has been using Excel since more than 10 years and has good
knowledge of its working. he went through the help docs, spent almost a
day trying to get it right, but ultimately decided to stick to M$. This
doesn't make me happy in any way.
> M$ softwares may have more bugs, be less stable than nix based ones
> but when they are in the stable working mode, at least they do the
> job they are intended to do.
Utter nonsense unless u include Msoriffice and Xpee crashing 10 times
a day and using antivirus as great features and part of HM BG's grand
architecture.
(RB) This is rubbish. If M$ Office and XP crash 10 times a day, most
offices will shut down. There will be chaos. Lets not get biased so much
that we exaggerate.
If it's a bug say it's a bug and file a report, rather than make
comments that are opposite to our daily experience. I have often
asked about some problem or the other about various packages and
ALWAYS it's the developer (amongst others) who have responded,
usually within a few hrs. and Never later than 24 hrs.
So what are u yakking about?
(RB) If your experience is different, good for you. My yakking
highlights problems so that other people should not face them. Your
extreme and biased yakking steers people away from linux.
> This is in response to Krish's reply to JTD's mail and I quote...
>
> "actually the entire problem is that people don't realise the
> values of running a script.
> and by the way running a script is "nothing to do " with
> programming. I think clicking on next next finish etc is not a real
> good way of software setup."
>
> Simplifying a procedure means that one can do more work instead of
> wasting time running scripts. How would we feel if we got a mobile
> phone where instead of pressing buttons, we had to create and run
> scripts every time we wanted to dial a number
U are thouroughly confused between setting up and using.
If u are setting up the phone, that is precisely what you sorely miss.
If i were selling 50 phones to a courier company, imagine what a pain
in the ass it would be to click innumerable buttons to setup the
phone book which would be 90% common to all.
(RB) GUI is just an extension of a script. The script you mentioned can
be run by simply clicking a gui shortcut to it. It is all about
environment. If you have to work in a terminal only environment,
naturally command line and scripts is the way. If you are in a gui
environment, and if the gui is created well, it would do the same
functions as script.What is important is to understand the concept of
the job in hand, not expertise in a particular interface. For example in
the ADSL and wireless routers there is a tiny linux system running and
it can be configured using scripts. However if that was the only way,
how many service engineers would be able to use the command line
interface? Instead, there is a gui firmware interface which only the
service personnel would understand and they correctly enter the values
according to the customer's environment and the gui internally creates
relevant scripts and runs them. That is technology. You can't fight it
simply because it makes things easy for others. There are people who are
at ease with a screen full of text but there are others who feel
intimidated by it and require some graphical interface to interact. This
means we are being more inclusive, catering to different needs of
different service persons.
> or access the phone
> directory or any other function. The same process is happening in
> the background but the programmers have provided a beautiful
> interface to simply press a button.
For the unbelievably simple task of clicking a button there is a
script (software) running. When u customise (like the courier company
case) u script. when you annotate a schematic, the annotation is
different for every schematic, but the process is exactly the same,
so you script. When u perform repetititive tasks in a spread sheet
you macro (which is a script). And once u create a script u can reuse
it forever. Without sitting in front of a machine clicking "Beautiful
Buttons".
(RB) Read above reply.
> If scripting is so important,
> why don't we start doing all our home and office work in assembly
> language or machine code?
You are.
> This will give us better control of the
> hardware. It is up to the programmer to make software intuitive and
> easy to handle. It has no relation with scripting skills of the
> vendor or user. Let each one do his job properly.
You could not be more wrong.
While there is nothing wrong in controlling pcs with thought or hand
waves or clicks, doing so repetitively is a pain.
If you feel differently good for you.
Just dont pretend that your subjective preferences are god's ordained
rules and hence some piece of code is not ready for this or that. As
you can see my subjective preferences are most definetly holier than
yours.
(RB) Just because you feel that your way is the only right way to do
things it does not make it so. There are other good ways too.
--
Regards,
Rony.
Knock Knock
Who's There?
Linux
Who Linux?
GNU/Linux