Re: Graphical Interfaces

From: Mxsmanic (mxsmanic_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/13/05 

Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:01:40 +0100

Trent Buck writes:

> You mean like an xterm? Yes. It's called Terminal (I think), in
> /Applications/Utilities.

Yes, xterm was what I had in mind. Can you do all the things you can do
on a regular UNIX system?

> I agree. Or at least, Apple will focus on improving the closed parts,
> and the FLOSS community will focus on improving the open parts.

I think the open-source community will abandon anything having to do
with OS X and will move on to other things. Eventually Apple will make
the whole OS its own.

> Exactly. I'm amazed that Windows has been so lax in addressing this
> issue, since at least SOME of their people must grok this.

Very few people, I'm afraid. Microsoft is primarily a company of
microcomputer programmers; most of them have no experience with any
other type of computer or environment. This has consistently hurt them
in areas like servers, security, backup and restore, database integrity,
ergonomy, remote administration, remote user support, and so on.

A sampling of the things that Microsoft has never really understood:

 - You can't reboot servers to install software.
 - You can't stop servers to take backups.
 - You need other options for problem recovery besides a total restore.
 - You cannot upgrade an entire OS just to fix a problem.
 - In many organizations, you can't upgrade anything in less than two years.
 - Not everyone has the latest and fastest hardware.
 - Not everyone blindly upgrades to the latest version of everything.
 - You cannot have user-friendliness and security at the same time.
 - You cannot play video games and have a secure and reliable system at the same time.
 - Not everyone wants new bells and whistles every six months.
 - Most large companies prefer a two-year upgrade cycle, minimum.
 - You cannot assume that a computer has only Microsoft software installed.
 - Adding features creates new security holes.
 - Most administrators prefer command-line interfaces, not GUIs.
 - GUIs are virtually unworkable for remote administration.
 - No operating system can be the best server AND the best desktop.
 - Servers should not have GUIs.
 - Better performance is a very respectable goal for new software.
 - Smaller size is also a very respectable goal for new software.
 - A one-time-license business model is nearly suicidal over the long term.
 - People are more interested in new software than in upgrades of existing software.
 - It isn't necessary for everything to be integrated with everything else.
 - Comments in code are a good thing.
 - Internal documentation of software is a good thing, especially for tech support.
 - Tech support is a cost center, not a profit center.
 - The best way to lower support costs is to write better software.
 - Sometimes changing software is as easy as loading a new CD.
 - Many customers know when they are being screwed.

Many other things could be cited. Of course, Microsoft is not alone
here--most microcomputer software companies are making the same mistakes
(which is why Microsoft still dominates).

> Yep. It doesn't work under Windows, because Windows' window manager
> wasn't designed to do it. You don't have to show all windows at once,
> and you can divide the screen unevenly. For example,
> http://twb.ath.cx/~twb/img/xwd/current.png

Lots of empty space there. 

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: migrating NT domain to Win2000, tips?
    ... After having read these e-mails and also some articles on the Microsoft ... stand-alone servers), I just need to upgrade the NT4-PDC to a W2K DC ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: migrating NT domain to Win2000, tips?
    ... After having read these e-mails and also some articles on the Microsoft ... stand-alone servers), I just need to upgrade the NT4-PDC to a W2K DC ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.setup_upgrade)
  • Re: Office 2000 upgrade -- cant find qualifying product
    ... But Microsoft's Knowledge Base says Office 2000 upgrade CAN be ... and to contact tech support about it. ... Why should I have to pay Microsoft another penny to get them to ... then your license to use the upgrade is void. ...
    (microsoft.public.office.setup)
  • Re: Exchange 2000 to 2003 Migration
    ... This appears to be a significant methodology oversight bt Microsoft. ... > place upgrade process. ... > We created a second administrative group for our 2003 servers, ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • Re: To Anyone who has Internet Explorer Installed or any other browser (Everybody)
    ... > Try and imagine if MS required a full upgrade each time ANY flaw ... vulnerability you listed above includes patches for versions of IE ... But hey...might as well make this post into "Big bad Microsoft", ...
    (alt.computer.security)