|
Mark_Wallace wrote: An operating system is meant to provide users access to their hardware, and to allow them to run the programs they need.
Yes.
Mark_Wallace wrote: And nothing more.
Ah.
But here's the problem: Computer science agrees with you. Computer reality is more complex than that now.
We have moved to an era where what in practice we call an 'operating system' is actually an entire application/functionality package. This is true for phones, it is true for Linux distributions, and it has to be true for desktop/laptop Windows too.
There's just no way round this: It is where the market is.
Mark_Wallace wrote: I can't even think of a windows "product" I use that isn't directly related to running the system. For every bloated, sluggish, ugly app that windows welds on top of the OS, there are multiple third-party apps that are hugely better -- and that aren't inextricably linked to the operating system in ways that cause more breakages and problems for users than hackers cause.
Yup, I understand. I don't usually trust or like apps supplied with Windows for similar reasons. But you must surely recognise that neither you nor I are normal users. All those normal users out there... well, they just use what they're given.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Linux says:
Hey, we installed this browser while we were installing the OS, otherwise you would have had trouble getting one. Either keep it or use it to download the one you want -- oh, and we've installed a tiny media player, too, which you can get rid of, if you prefer another one.
microsoft says:
Hey, we've spent years turning the best browser in the world into one of the worst, and we've mixed it in with your operating system so intricately that you don't dare uninstall it, or even touch it, because Terrible Things will happen -- oh, and don't even think of removing or disabling the godawful, bloated media player we've installed, because even formatting your drive and starting over won't fix what doing that'll break!
Actually it seems to me that both Linux and Microsoft say exactly the same things in this context nowadays. That is:
"Here's the operating system browser, here's the operating system media player. You can install whatever you want but we all know that most of you (on both Linux and Windows) aren't going to do that. You got a package and most of you are just going to stick to it."
And why is it like that? because phones did it (mainly). They have massively shaped expectations. Also the nature of Linux distributions (with all their pre-loaded packages that users are increasingly loath to deviate from) encourage it too.
Mark_Wallace wrote: No it isn't.
Creating events quickly, easily, transparently, and smoothly is a key function of people -- people who have to create events quickly, easily, transparently, and smoothly.
Arguing over semantics doesn't help.  People use software and, in the world we're now in, they expect their operating to come with the software they need to do stuff like create events. If it doesn't come with software built in and ready to go then users see it as weaker or inferior. Thus Windows has to compete with phones and Linux that already do exactly this. Just like phones and Linux, Windows users can install other software if they want. But fewer and fewer seem to be doing this.
|
|
|
|
|
markrlondon wrote: They have massively shaped expectations.
... of mobile phones.
- Most mobile phones are used almost exclusively for social purposes, viewing media/playing games while not at home, and as phones.
- Most computers are used almost exclusively for getting work done, viewing media/playing games while at home, and a comparatively small amount of non-work-related social purposes.
You're comparing a family car to a truck, and saying that trucks should be redesigned to be more like family cars.
It just doesn't work that way, no matter how much microsoft wants to believe it does.
How long have you worked for them, by the way?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: - Most mobile phones are used almost exclusively for social purposes, viewing media/playing games while not at home, and as phones.
- Most computers are used almost exclusively for getting work done, viewing media/playing games while at home, and a comparatively small amount of non-work-related social purposes.
You're comparing a family car to a truck, and saying that trucks should be redesigned to be more like family cars.
Exactly. That was my point too. You explained it better,.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: markrlondon wrote: They have massively shaped expectations.
... of mobile phones.
No, the key point to remember is that non-technical end users (it doesn't matter if they are corporate employees, SOHO users, or home users) don't differentiate. It doesn't matter whether it's a phone or a desktop or a laptop or a tablet or their tv. It's all the same to them.
The world has moved on.
To say that...
Mark_Wallace wrote: - Most mobile phones are used almost exclusively for social purposes, viewing media/playing games while not at home, and as phones.
- Most computers are used almost exclusively for getting work done, viewing media/playing games while at home, and a comparatively small amount of non-work-related social purposes.
... is no longer largely true. Phones are used commonly for work and laptops/desktops are used commonly for talking to the family, playing games, watching movies, etc.
The point is that it is anachronistic to try and differentiate as you do above. It is a difference that has largely been eliminated and is being further eliminated every day.
You're comparing a family car to a truck, and saying that trucks should be redesigned to be more like family cars.
If by "truck" you mean either pickup trucks or SUVs, then in fact they can and do make excellent do-everything family cars.
I was of course talking about computers (in all their forms) and not vehicles but if you want to compare computers with vehicles then we do in fact see a similar phenomenon: What were once specialist vehicles (e.g. pickup trucks and SUVs) have become mainstream family vehicles in many cases. I.e. Where once there was a difference, that difference is being eliminated by the progress of events.
Mark_Wallace wrote: It just doesn't work that way, no matter how much microsoft wants to believe it does.
And yet we see it every day. I can't understand why you are denying what is self-evident every day, i.e. that there is no longer a fundamental difference in end users' minds between one sort of computer (a mobile phone) and another sort (laptops or desktops). Sure, the form fact is different but it is obvious that they are both capable of a range of tasks, both business and pleasure, and thus people really do expect that.
As I say, the world has moved on. Fixed differentiations are no longer valid.
By all means, a desktop computer should not have a mobile phone UI and a mobile UI is not suitable for a desktop computer, due to the differences in form factor. But bland details of UI are not what we're talking about here.
And no, I don't work for Microsoft. But I do provide technical support for a range of users of varying types. And I can tell you that they see no reason why Windows should not work more like their phone. Like it or not, that is the reality that desktop/laptop OSes (Windows and also Linux) must adapt to.
|
|
|
|
|
markrlondon wrote: the key point to remember is that non-technical end users (it doesn't matter if they are corporate employees, SOHO users, or home users) don't differentiate
Where's that "che catso dici?" emoji, when I need it!
We're never going to agree on this, and there's no point in just repeating ourselves.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Oh yeah. He retired.
And is irrelevant. Just like you and soon me. 
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: And is irrelevant. Just like you and soon me.
You speak for yourself!
I've always been irrelevant!
(Anyone who thinks they're not is a dangerous person.)
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
modified 14-Apr-20 5:35am.
|
|
|
|
|
True.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Adding two spaces after a period is something that so many people seem to do, despite others obviously going for what they believe to be the correct choice and using just one space. I guess they've already fixed all the bad stuff
|
|
|
|
|
They'll have to pry my from my cold, dead hands! 
|
|
|
|
|
Someone who is obviously an idiot said: While the two-space rule actually made sense in the era of typewriters
I'll agree that that makes sense to idiots, and to people with absolutely no spatial awareness whatsoever.
Let your faith lie in the truth, not stand in lies[^].
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
In this time of craziness it's refreshing there are small pockets of sanity.
Next they need to hunt down and kill the "--" I see in text. Use a single dash, or an em-dash if you have the ability, but tautologic punctuation must die.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Next they need to hunt down and kill the "--" I see in text
If they include it in all MS software not only office...
Good luck with HTML comments in VS 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: Good luck with HTML comments in VS
For HTML, remove the space in "&n dash;" and you get "–".
But typing "--" always means an en-dash, in all contexts, and makes it easier for you to see what you're writing.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
And I meant if they do an auto-correct of the "--" to "-" then...
<!--
<tag>
whatevert
</tag>
getting changed to
<!- vs this with one ->
<tag>
whatevert
</tag>
might get funny.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd buy that program just to complain about it when it doesn't run!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
In copy and manuscripts for publication/printing, you insert two hyphens to indicate an en-dash, and three for an em-dash, and you don't use symbols that may not be present in the machines used by the fifteen people along the line who have to handle your text, so I'm afraid it's a sign that professional standards are being followed, not a mistake.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
To Hell with professional standards! Chaos and misplaced apostrophe's for all!
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: misplaced apostrophe's
That's "greengrocers apostrophe's"! 
Some standards must be upheld!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
There is a right way and a wrong way to perform code commenting in source code; here's what not to do. // why not?
|
|
|
|
|
Yet another person who couldn't walk the walk, yet feels qualified to tell those of us that *can*, how it should be done....
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Them as can, do; them as can't become bad teachers.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
0: Remember that adding "the dog's" means it's good
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Don't comment on the obvious
This dogma, more than anything else, is the root of all evil when it comes to "how to comment" posts.
I couldn't even guess the number of times someone has assumed something is "obvious" but is clearly highly ambiguous, or worse, totally and utterly not obvious. I've even done it myself: made a pithy comment since I thought it was obvious and then, 6 months later, had no idea what was going on.
And then there's the "obvious" at the time and for the situation, but then times and situations change. New functionality, new technology, even the changing use of terminology means things become un-obvious very quickly.
Comment always. Comment to clarify. Comment to tell the story of what you feel the code should be doing even if it's obvious because that one comment, that one tidbit, could save a dev a week of pain or worse - a catastrophically bad assumption.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
