RE: Interface and computah luvin' muthahs, perils of complexity

["Robert G. Brown" <bob@xxxxxxx>]

>>Please note that I didn't say that "Bloatware" doesn't exist...
>One man's meat is another man's poisson. [No sp, just my mangled french pun]
Terrible!

>>My Mother, who can type 145 words per minute (and has for the last 50 years) 
>>just LOVES the little paper clip and all of his///
>My mom has "adapted" to the new style of interface Gates is pushing, but
>doesn't really feel comfortable with it.....
>>The question: Is she running Bloatware?  Please answer this,...
>If it helps her to be more productive, then it isn't entirely worthless,...
And if it's not "entirely worthless" is not Bloatware?
I'll turn this around... is Enlightenment "Bloatware"?

>[Bob notes my reason given for high prices of "niche" products like custom
>computers and organic foods is not sufficient explanation by itself]
>Yes, there are more reasons, and thanks for pointing them out. Thankfully,
>as long as users have access to quality tools, ....
You're welcome. Now, no one's going to able to take those tools away, or
even render them obsolete. Continued commitment and energy are the
only ways out, as we will see.

>there's little anyone can do to stop programmers from meeting whatever
>demand they perceive. Whether they can make money at it is a different story.
Outside of Open Source, I see software developers behaving exactly the same
way dairy farmers do. When milk prices drop too low, the street gutters run 
with milk. Software developers move away, or take up woodworking or something.

>The GNU/LPF/FSF model of free software, paid tech support doesn't seem to
>satisfy many programmers,...
Pragmatic reason... everyone seems to like development, but no one seems to
like maintenance.  Development is glamorous, maintenance is dull. Lagecy
maintenance is worse, a dull, dead-end job. And tech support is contact with 
(yucko!) actual USERS, who drag along all their disinformation, confusion,
and lack of understanding up on the phone, and at the worst possible time,
when something failed.  If ya can fix the problem fast, you're a real star,
but if you can't you can be thought of (and treated) like a real bum.

>and I can understand why -- I'd rather see property rights respected, and
>let people decide for themselves whether they want to use free, cheap or
>expensive software, or any combination thereof.
Oh.. these reasons are a little different from mine! :)  You are covering the
waterfront with regard to software development and distribution model you
like... which is fine with me; you want people to have the choice of which
economy(ies) they'll work in.

>But my quibbles with Richard Stallman are more ideological hair-splitting
>than anything else;
I disagree, IMO you have DEEP and SERIOUS disagreements with RMS (wait 'til
I tell him! :).  In particular, plese write something about your view of
"property rights" with regard to software.

>he's certainly done much more than Bill Gates to make the world of
>computing a better place.
Hard to tell. RMS' contribution has in some ways been deeper and less 
visible, and it's that very invisibility that makes it harder to asses.

>Bill has his place, but it's much lower on my
>personal scale of things -- McDonald's and Chevy, mass market, mediocre.
I'll stand by my assesment of Bill as a Robber Baron... no one ever accused 
Carnegie of making bad steel, or Rockefeller of shipping tainted or inferior
oil.  I think MS ships about the best software it can, but it's got limits
(some of them imposed from within, decisions of its own managers), only a 
few of which are visible to us outsiders.

>(The cost of specialized "vertical" applications that meet a very specific
>niche rules them out as an option for many people. Here, programmers could
>make money contracting out for custom jobs.)
This is what's going on. No one contracts to write word processors anymore,
or generic reporting tools, either. Very few independent developers field
tools on this level anymore.

>>>It would be very interesting to see how a Gateway, Dell, or Compaq would 
>> ship a computer with Linux....
>I'd like to see a comparison of the various companies that offer Linux
>preinstalled; how well they handle orders, etc. One would hope it would be
>a more positive experience than your first Gateway roundup...  
Almost sight unseen, these are al "boutique" operations. They'll lead with 
listening, not with alphabet soup and shill. I suppose some of them will
try to fit you into some inventory they have in the stockroom, but if you 
really don't find the mold comfortable, they're much more inclined to
tailor make something just for you.

Hey, call 888-LINUX4U and find out. I don't have the corner on marketing
reseach in this LUG,  anyone can play!

>[Re hormone-treated milk: Cows were being given Bovine Growth Hormone and 
>most farmers were planning on switching entirely over to the new method. A 
>lot of people, including me, didn't like that -- we wanted to be able to 
>choose.] 
Fine. You're a fairly well-informed person on this topic, therefore the
word "choice" has real meaning in this context. You beleive that one 
prduct benefits you more than another, and your actions are guided by being
informed (even if you're dead wrong).  That's free choice. If you ARE wrong
(and it beats me at the moment whether or not you are), then you still have
the right of [bad] choice.

But if you didn't know about the issue (like I don't, really) Then you really
have no [informed, free, meaningful] choice.

>>>I've said for years that the ideal installation program will, as its very 
>>>first question, ask something like: "Do you know what you are doing?"...
>>...in NT, there's a good deal of difference 
>>>between "simple" and "advanced", especially for the SDK's (surprise! :), 
>.... Can you tell us a bit more about these installation routines?
In general, the NT people have done their homework when they've provided 
a series of dialogue boxes that walk you though the decision tree to config
a package. When this is done well, it's VERY effective. When it's done badly, 
it's a frustrating pain in the p'tschochkskies.

>Are there any features in them that you think it would be nice to have 
>in Linux?
The best parellel I can think in the Linux environment is the graphical con-
figuration for compiling a kernel (make xconfig). Running it allows you to 
set parameters and read about WHY you're doing it, and what the consequences
will be. This is informed consent on the run. If more GPL'ed software were 
configurable like that, this environment would be very much easier to deal
with, and a good deal of the mystery, perceived lack of control, and mystery
of Unix package configuration would be removed.

RPM and GLINT (Red Hat's delivery vehicles) are good attempts in that direc-
tion, but they fall prey to "Unix disease"; too many command line options,
too many obscure wheels for most everyone to master. They published a book,
M<aximum RPM, just for this purpose... it's 418 pages of text! A masterwork,
and VERY complete (I've read needed chunks of it), but don't confuse it with
something snap-easy to use for some software configuration tasks.... and it
(like many config tools) gives the developer (not the admin or end user)
the tangible advantage of control over configuration.

RPM looks very good as a base for Linux installation, and is probably also
a good way to distribute software, but if you want maximum control on the 
admin/user side you're going to read large amounts of that book and like it.
Writing a GUI on top of RPM (and a better one than GLINT) is not a bad idea.

Please understand that Microsoft has spent tens of millions packaging its
products (no I'm not talking about the neat boxes or the printing, I'm talk-
ing about those installation scripts and Wizards), and it's one of the things
they do (just about) better than ANYONE else in the industry... They still
have a long way to go in that department, too.

Writing wizard is a lot of work. However, I can tell from traffic on many
of the linux newsgroups that the word is out, packaging and standards are
becoming critical issues, and this is an indication that Linux is maturing.


>>Here's a somewhat more objective (and less anecdotal) test....
>I believe you're right about GUI's - they just make more sense....
I understand your preferences, but please realize that the command-line
have been bypassed, trampled in the competitive rush to make better (what-
ever that means) window managers.

>
>>>(The WYSIWYG model was a Very Bad Thing in at least one other respect: It 
>>>convinced all the masses who stumbled onto the World Wide Web that HTML 
>>>was just another page layout tool. 
>>Jesus told us "The poor will always be with us." This is no less true in 
>>the 20th century than it was in the 0th. ....I can understand that to an 
>>Eskimo, Postscript and HTML serve about the same purpose. That's fine with
>>me, but then my language doesn't have dozens of words for "snow".
>They *can* serve the same purpose, but as we know, they are very different
>tools, meant for very different things....
I think my point has been missed, simnply that it's a very easy mistake 
for the ignorant to make (I'm ignorant to an Eskimo; I don't know that
"Bright, pebbly, frozen snow" and "water-saturated, lumpy white snow" are
really two different things, each expressed as one word). Your instincts
are about right, to educate.  Ignorance is curable.

>>To confuse the two terms (popular and pervasive) is the worst kind of 
>>propaganda....
>I apologize if you feel I have been guilty of this, and will also do my
>best to refrain from engaging in rumormongering....
No apology needed; the BEST one is to do so, thanks.

>>>I think of Bill Gates more as P.T. Barnum than Hitler, or even Rockefeller. 
>>IMO any parallel between Gates and Hitler is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE, and 
>>in poor taste.... who does is exhibiting insensitivity and ignorance of
>>history on an appalling scale.
>Most of Usenet makes such a comparison every day, which is why I'm relying
>more on mailing lists.
It's not exactly a military secret that USE[less]NET exhibits the entire
spectrum of known human activity, from the noble and sublime to the basest
and most disgusting.

Citing what "most of USENET" does or says is not a real strong selling point,
especially if you're trying to convince your (rather more exclusive) audience
here of the correctness of any statement.
 
>>Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Astor.. these (and others) were
>>collectively known as "Robber Barons".  The practices of these men and
>>others like 'em were >> what got the Anti-Trust laws on the books...
>Read "The Myth of the Robber Barons". 'Nuff said; ...
Precis it for us here, or ship it to me, and anyone else interested in
reading it. There's no need to fob off discussion by quoting a title and 
changing the subject.

>the last thing I'm gonna do is get into more politics. 
How come? ;)

>(POLITICS, from the Greek: Poly, meaning "many", and "tics", meaning, "small
> blood sucking animals." - Dave Barry)
Nice! I like poly -- meaning Parrot, and tics, meaning nervous twitches.
Go figure.

>>Gates and Barnum; you're not portraying intent quite right.
>What "everyone knows" is not always true. 
Right, but what "everyone knows" is social norms, and frequently it defines 
the limits of what can be gotten away with.  Jesters have always had 
license not grants to those considered more "responsible".

>...His intent may not be the same as Barnum's ostensibly, but the results
>are the same -- everyone has a good laugh...
Not nearly everyone. There's a very different twist to Barnum, for a small
sum one could be amused (or maybe sickened) by what he had to show you.

If Gates is a Jester, only people like us (members of the software cognescenti)
actually get it, and we don't like the punchline very much. Much of the rest
of the principal players in the US economy (no laughing matter) take Mr. Gates
and his band of merry men seriously indeed.

So if there's Jesting in progress, most everyone doesn't see the joke.

>People grant license by acquiescence -- and not all of us (most of us on this
>list, for example) do not. "Silence shows consent," and we are the dissenters.
This is an interesting 19th century libertarian notion that's gone a little
long in the tooth, and we're faced with a basic problem because replacing this
notion isn't easy.

Here's the problem: Modern life is too complex for us to have complete con-
trol over every aspect of what we do. We want the benefits, but we don't want 
to think about the consequences, or what goes on behind the scenes to get us
what we demand.  Therefore, if we live in this society, we become silent, on
something, at sometime, because it's too mucking futch to keep up with.

So we fall silent somewhere, and someone with a vested interest in where 
we've fallen silent wins a little. That's where the Bill Gateses, the 
Andrew Carnegies, the Dr. Strangeloves exert influence. None of these people
(or characters) are really evil; they love their kids, wouldn't kick dogs,
have good table manners and mean well. But they do want control over something
we value, their agenda involves channeling our thinking, our actions, just a 
wee little bit. It's not even their fault.

Watch FAIL SAFE sometime. Whose fault was the nuclear obliteration of Moscow
and New York?  No one. No ONE person. But a thousand little choices, a thou-
sand little reactions, many decisions arrived at with less than visonary 
foresight brought that situation to pass. The scariest part of FAIL SAFE is
that for a long time, it was very, very real, and very, very possible.

Maybe it still is.

So temper your notion of "Silence shows consent", because we're all going
to be silent about the wrong thing at the wrong time at some point. We need
to find another way.

>>>who wouldn't switch under those circumstances, except a devout masochist? 
>>Someone who doesn't allow the conventional wisdom or a few names called to 
>>interfere with every choice being made in one's life? (was this a trick 
>>question? :)
>Not a trick question, just a sarcastic one. But analogies (and sarcasm) do
>not work on the Internet. :)
A literal, if somewhat spiked riposte to a question I knew was sarcastic
and rhetorical. Some folks bleed when you jab; others smile and jab back! :)

>Most people (obviously not US, we the "enlightened" (see below)) care so
>much about what others think of them that their primary goal in life is to
>conform and be accepted by others.
You've described what the much of the educational system (and many corporations)
train people for, and wish they would do.

                                                        Regards,
                                                         ---> RGB <---