Message 01671 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 88/129 L6 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux




On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Graham Seaman wrote:

When people in the past talked about 'linux taking over the world' I
didn't understand that they meant 'linux will clone windows'.

  This is part of the political transformation required.  In order to
allow people to move over to the methodologies represented by FLOSS we
first need to move them away from their current legacy installed base.  
This means everything from cloning existing functionality (down to the
look-and-feel, as ugly as it is) to creating hybrid environments that mix
methodologies (OpenOffice.org/Mozilla on Microsoft Windows, MacOS-X and
Lindows).

  I happen to believe that once we get the critical mass on the FLOSS side
that truly innovative interfaces will start to grow.  To be motivated to
create these interfaces we do need to have a large enough group of people
who can try new things without having to start from scratch.

  We really are all unique people, and any interface that is 'one size 
fits all'  ends up forcing the person to conform to the computer rather 
than the computer conform to the person.  Computers will really start to 
get interesting at that stage.

gulp... in which universe? If you really believe C is more accessible than
(modern) Fortran you've been writing too much C lately ;-)


  I guess the point is more that average citizens should only need to know
how to express concepts in a logical way that will convey a unique idea to
be able to give instructions to a computer.  I don't believe that the
current breed of computer languages really facilitates this for the
average person as there is a steep learning curve for them.

There is no natural language that makes writing a book easy, why should
there be a programming language that makes writing programs easy?

  There is a difference between the persons inability to express what they
want to say clearly, and the 'audience' (computer, human, whatever) not
being able to accept a clearly expressed idea.

  There are (at least ;-) two sides of any communication. I believe that
current computer programming languages are not yet advanced enough to
accept a clearly articulated set of instructions without the author
conforming to the current limitations of those languages.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/

_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 88/129 L6 [In index]
Message 01671 [Homepage] [Navigation]