From: David Cantrell Date: 11:59 on 23 May 2006 Subject: helping the user is not an error When the user asks for help, giving that help is not an error. So please use STDOUT and not STDERR. It makes it so much easier to redirect your overly verbose spew into less(1).
From: Peter da Silva Date: 12:24 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error Oh, geeze, I have a quarter century of hate saved up for programs that write to stdout, stderr, or even open up /dev/tty deliberately and spew stuff around all my pipelines regardless. EVERY operating system has hateful equivalents to these... MS-DOS 2.11, where loading ansi.sys meant that it was MUCH quicker to just write to stdout or stderr was actually quicker than calling the BIOS even for full-screen apps... and yet people still went around the whole file model and hit the BIOS anyway. Then mapped the video memory directly and broke horribly on the first multitaskers like DoubleDOS. AmigaDOS, applications that opened a separate screen instead of opening a window in the Workbench, so even though I had an enhanced video card that could run 800x600 I had to keep two monitors connected when I was using it. And of course early WIndows apps that were just ports of DOS apps that did the same thing on Windows, changing screen resolutions and NOT WORKING WITH MY OPTICAL MOUSE because they were trying to install their own mouse driver. Back to the Amiga... Programs that made their own widgets so they ignored the high res text and 3d look I got from patching Intuition to take advantage of my video card. And on Windows that's become pandemic, to the point where finding a non-skinned application for some classes of apps is actually impossible. Hate! Don't bloody do it yourself when the OS does a better job! (even in X11, plain Athena widgets were ugly, but Xaw3d and other versions of the library made them look and work much more normally... we didn't need a whole new API and Motif and the rest... bastards...)
From: Philip Newton Date: 12:39 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error On 5/23/06, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > Back to the Amiga... Programs that made their own widgets so they > ignored the high res text and 3d look I got from patching Intuition to > take advantage of my video card. > > And on Windows that's become pandemic, to the point where finding a > non-skinned application for some classes of apps is actually > impossible. Don't remind me. Why, in particular, do media players have to look like flowers or who-knows-what? System default widgets might not look as if Christo designed them but at least they're recognisable, so people know what to expect! User interface guidelines are there for a reason, and even Microsoft kinda-sorta sticks to them. --=20 Philip Newton <philip.newton@xxxxx.xxx>
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 12:45 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error * Philip Newton <philip.newton@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 13:40]: > User interface guidelines are there for a reason, and even > Microsoft kinda-sorta sticks to them. Except for their media player. Regards,
From: Philip Newton Date: 12:53 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error On 5/23/06, A. Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > * Philip Newton <philip.newton@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 13:40]: > > User interface guidelines are there for a reason, and even > > Microsoft kinda-sorta sticks to them. > > Except for their media player. *sigh* Yes. Which, as I result, I can hardly use. It looked just fine in the mid-90's -- why did they have to go and mess up the interface? Hateful. --=20 Philip Newton <philip.newton@xxxxx.xxx>
From: Yoz Grahame Date: 13:05 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error On 5/23/06, Philip Newton <philip.newton@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On 5/23/06, A. Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > > * Philip Newton <philip.newton@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 13:40]: > > > User interface guidelines are there for a reason, and even > > > Microsoft kinda-sorta sticks to them. > > > > Except for their media player. > > *sigh* Yes. Which, as I result, I can hardly use. > > It looked just fine in the mid-90's -- why did they have to go and > mess up the interface? Hateful. I *think* it's all Winamp's fault, but can't prove it. I'm actually genuinely interested in researching this for a reason - does anyone know what totally-user-skinnable apps existed before Winamp? Incidentally, if you long for a Windows Media Player with the old v6 interface but with modern features, I highly recommend Media Player Classic: http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/ ... which is worth keeping around even if you have VLC as it's slightly less hateful about certain things, such as ACTUALLY WORKING OUT WHERE MY BLOODY DVD DRIVE IS. -- Yoz
From: Chris Devers Date: 13:44 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error On Tue, 23 May 2006, Yoz Grahame wrote: > I *think* it's all Winamp's fault, but can't prove it. I'm actually > genuinely interested in researching this for a reason - does anyone > know what totally-user-skinnable apps existed before Winamp? X11 ?
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 17:18 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error * Chris Devers <cdevers@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 14:45]: > On Tue, 23 May 2006, Yoz Grahame wrote: > > I *think* it's all Winamp's fault, but can't prove it. I'm > > actually genuinely interested in researching this for a > > reason - does anyone know what totally-user-skinnable apps > > existed before Winamp? > > X11 ? ...what? Regards,
From: David Cantrell Date: 17:36 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 06:18:32PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Chris Devers <cdevers@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 14:45]: > > On Tue, 23 May 2006, Yoz Grahame wrote: > > > I *think* it's all Winamp's fault, but can't prove it. I'm > > > actually genuinely interested in researching this for a > > > reason - does anyone know what totally-user-skinnable apps > > > existed before Winamp? > > X11 ? > ...what? Oh come on, you have to admit that making each client application resonsible for deciding how to draw its widgets is crazy. If 'twere up to me, X servers would be responsible for rendering at least the basics, with - perhaps the user being able to choose which widget library to use. I would take a screenshot showing K, Gnome, Motif and a couple of others next to each just to demonstrate why it's stupid, but really, you know what it would look like, so there's no point. Making the server responsible would also serve to reduce nyetwork traffic.
From: jrodman Date: 18:08 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 05:36:04PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 06:18:32PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > * Chris Devers <cdevers@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 14:45]: > > > On Tue, 23 May 2006, Yoz Grahame wrote: > > > > I *think* it's all Winamp's fault, but can't prove it. I'm > > > > actually genuinely interested in researching this for a > > > > reason - does anyone know what totally-user-skinnable apps > > > > existed before Winamp? > > > X11 ? > > ...what? > > Oh come on, you have to admit that making each client application > resonsible for deciding how to draw its widgets is crazy. If 'twere > up to me, X servers would be responsible for rendering at least the > basics, with - perhaps the user being able to choose which widget > library to use. > > I would take a screenshot showing K, Gnome, Motif and a couple of > others next to each just to demonstrate why it's stupid, but really, > you know what it would look like, so there's no point. I guess I think at least X11 has a reason for being inconsistent, that is, they put that functionality in a library, which leads to awful, but it also means stuff still works centuries later. I dunno, it is awful, and hateful, but I hate winamp/skins a lot more for being quite explicitly pointless and intentionally unpleasant. But if we're going to wander into "inconsistent widgets are terrible" territory (which they are), I'm going to have to mention the joy of Opera for Linux. At best a half-baked port, there are so many bad things about it it deserves a proper Top Level Hate. But a quick summary of the many levels of inconsistency can be found succinctly captured in an image: http://skonnos.ducker.org/~jrodman/image/opera-sucks.jpg
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 19:39 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error * jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx <jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 19:10]: > But if we're going to wander into "inconsistent widgets are > terrible" territory (which they are), I'm going to have to > mention the joy of Opera for Linux. I abandoned Opera when they went from pure-Qt in 5.x to a skinned interface in 6.x. I cannot fathom, oh no I can't, why it suddenly felt almost as sluggish as Mozilla. Now, I keep Opera around to test any web layout stuff I do. Purely for those rare occasions, I went looking for a theme that would irritate me at least a little bit less. Well guess what, there is NOT A SINGLE FREAKIN' THEME for Opera that DOES NOT BLOW CHUNKS. It's all k3wl eyec4ndy cow manure. Every. Single. One of them. Craptacular beyond belief. Regards,
From: H.Merijn Brand Date: 20:30 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:39:43 +0200, "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > * jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx <jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 19:10]: > > But if we're going to wander into "inconsistent widgets are > > terrible" territory (which they are), I'm going to have to > > mention the joy of Opera for Linux. > > I abandoned Opera when they went from pure-Qt in 5.x to a skinned > interface in 6.x. I cannot fathom, oh no I can't, why it suddenly > felt almost as sluggish as Mozilla. ATM Qt is the biggest problem for me :/ > Now, I keep Opera around to test any web layout stuff I do. > Purely for those rare occasions, I went looking for a theme that > would irritate me at least a little bit less. Well guess what, > there is NOT A SINGLE FREAKIN' THEME for Opera that DOES NOT BLOW > CHUNKS. It's all k3wl eyec4ndy cow manure. Every. Single. One of > them. Craptacular beyond belief. How much skin do you need? Or better how bare can you strip it? This is my Opera9 on OpenSUSE 10.0 with KDE 3.5.2 with HTTP::Proxy as dynamic page changer: http://www.xs4all.nl/~hmbrand/opera9.jpg
From: Peter da Silva Date: 13:01 on 24 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error On May 23, 2006, at 2:30 PM, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > How much skin do you need? Or better how bare can you strip it? Who cares? The BIG problem with skinnable apps is that they never ever *behave* consistently with the native UI (or, in the case of X11, with any of the native UIs). Even if you replicate the native UI perfectly in the most efficient skin in teh world, it's still a separate implementation and will differ in maddeningly subtle and nauseatingly unsubtle ways. I want a GUI where the server does such a fast and efficient and user-friendly job of rendering user-configurable widgets directly, and only passes complete operations back to the application, so that people who write skinnable apps for it are lynched. The horrible thing is, the closest thing we have to that is a web-browser, and people actually LIKE web pages that micromanage the UI in horrid and incompatible ways. (hate-users.com, ISAGN)
From: H.Merijn Brand Date: 14:26 on 24 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error On Wed, 24 May 2006 07:01:55 -0500, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On May 23, 2006, at 2:30 PM, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > How much skin do you need? Or better how bare can you strip it? > > Who cares? The BIG problem with skinnable apps is that they never ever > *behave* consistently with the native UI (or, in the case of X11, with > any of the native UIs). Even if you replicate the native UI perfectly > in the most efficient skin in teh world, it's still a separate > implementation and will differ in maddeningly subtle and nauseatingly > unsubtle ways. > > I want a GUI where the server does such a fast and efficient and > user-friendly job of rendering user-configurable widgets directly, and > only passes complete operations back to the application, so that people > who write skinnable apps for it are lynched. The horrible thing is, the > closest thing we have to that is a web-browser, and people actually > LIKE web pages that micromanage the UI in horrid and incompatible ways. I fully agree with the above! OTOH I think we live in the loosers camp, as the venodrs of these `bigger' apps, are influenced by the `nmeds' of those imbeciles theat cannot use a pc or application that is not skinnable. Not that I *want* to, but we have to live with that.
From: Peter da Silva Date: 12:54 on 24 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error On May 23, 2006, at 11:36 AM, David Cantrell wrote: > Oh come on, you have to admit that making each client application > resonsible for deciding how to draw its widgets is crazy. If 'twere up > to me, X servers would be responsible for rendering at least the > basics, > with - perhaps the user being able to choose which widget library to > use. Ah, NeWS, we hardly knew ye... The most hateful thing is that the people who have the code to NeWS won't talk about even trying to open source it because they think it's worthless these days. :P
From: Chris Devers Date: 17:39 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error On Tue, 23 May 2006, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Chris Devers <cdevers@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 14:45]: > > On Tue, 23 May 2006, Yoz Grahame wrote: > > > I *think* it's all Winamp's fault, but can't prove it. I'm > > > actually genuinely interested in researching this for a > > > reason - does anyone know what totally-user-skinnable apps > > > existed before Winamp? > > > > X11 ? > > ...what? I'm pretty sure X11 was pummeling people with ugly, yet pointlessly endlessly configurable diarrhetic UI abominations several years before Winamp came back to do the same thing with much less ambition. A UI that makes you hate playing music on your computer? Piffle. X11 can make you hate turning the damn computer on in the first place.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 18:08 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error * Chris Devers <cdevers@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 18:40]: > I'm pretty sure X11 was pummeling people with ugly, yet > pointlessly endlessly configurable diarrhetic UI abominations > several years before Winamp came back to do the same thing with > much less ambition. There's a difference between a skinnable app and a toolkit-less platform. We were talking about the former. And even so it shipped with an optional default toolkit way back when. Toolkit themeability is different than app skinnability in my opinion. gtk+ and Qt are themeable too, and I don't mind that at all. 99.90% of all themes are worse than crap, but if you look for ones which people with half a clue actually put work into instead of trying to make their computer l00k k3wl you will find a few really good ones. (Industrial, Bluecurve, Clearlooks, etc.) ...but I admit I had completely forgotten about Xdefaults and friends. And I'd rather you hadn't reminded me... ugh. Regards,
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 17:22 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error * Yoz Grahame <yoz@xxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 14:10]: > Incidentally, if you long for a Windows Media Player with the old v6 > interface but with modern features, I highly recommend Media Player > Classic: > http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/ > ... which is worth keeping around even if you have VLC as it's > slightly less hateful about certain things, such as ACTUALLY WORKING > OUT WHERE MY BLOODY DVD DRIVE IS. I also hear this one is pretty popular among people who only need an audio player: http://www.foobar2000.org/ Pity it's Windows only, the UI looks so minimal I'd love to give it a shot. Regards,
From: H.Merijn Brand Date: 17:37 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error On Tue, 23 May 2006 18:22:35 +0200, "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > * Yoz Grahame <yoz@xxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 14:10]: > > Incidentally, if you long for a Windows Media Player with the old v6 > > interface but with modern features, I highly recommend Media Player > > Classic: > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/ > > ... which is worth keeping around even if you have VLC as it's > > slightly less hateful about certain things, such as ACTUALLY WORKING > > OUT WHERE MY BLOODY DVD DRIVE IS. > > I also hear this one is pretty popular among people who only need > an audio player: http://www.foobar2000.org/ > > Pity it's Windows only, the UI looks so minimal I'd love to give > it a shot. Beep Media Player is too sophisticated already? http://freshmeat.net/projects/beep-player/ Easy to use without skins, and it is a lot more reliable than xmms
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 17:54 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error * H.Merijn Brand <h.m.brand@xxxxxx.xx> [2006-05-23 18:40]: > On Tue, 23 May 2006 18:22:35 +0200, "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > > I also hear this one is pretty popular among people who only > > need an audio player: http://www.foobar2000.org/ > > Beep Media Player is too sophisticated already? > http://freshmeat.net/projects/beep-player/ > Easy to use without skins, and it is a lot more reliable than > xmms Err... exactly how does one use BMP without skins, pray tell? Regards,
From: jrodman Date: 18:19 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 06:37:15PM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > On Tue, 23 May 2006 18:22:35 +0200, "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > > > * Yoz Grahame <yoz@xxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 14:10]: > > > Incidentally, if you long for a Windows Media Player with the old v6 > > > interface but with modern features, I highly recommend Media Player > > > Classic: > > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/ > > > ... which is worth keeping around even if you have VLC as it's > > > slightly less hateful about certain things, such as ACTUALLY WORKING > > > OUT WHERE MY BLOODY DVD DRIVE IS. > > > > I also hear this one is pretty popular among people who only need > > an audio player: http://www.foobar2000.org/ > > > > Pity it's Windows only, the UI looks so minimal I'd love to give > > it a shot. > > Beep Media Player is too sophisticated already? > http://freshmeat.net/projects/beep-player/ > Easy to use without skins, and it is a lot more reliable than xmms I could have sworn that the beep project was abandoned by the developers. Apparently, it is an update of xmms which has huge layers of code duplication (I've checked, it's true, hate) and was generally unmanagable. Beep was just a port of xmms to gtk2.x AFAIK, so should be just about as hateful overall. I suppose BMPX is a restart of the project? I'd know better, but the bmpx page has this for content: Fatal error: Call to undefined method Sanitizer::escapeid() in /data/www/bmpx/bmpx/includes/Parser.php on line 3153 Woohoo, I have a lot of confidence in this software. Why do people insist on generating front pages to sites dynamically with php tinkertoys? HATE. I'm in semiregular contact with one of the developers working on Audacious, _yet another_ branch of xmms. This one seems to be pie-in-the-sky second system syndrome. "We will rewrite all the interfaces and protocols to be better". So far it mostly seems to be xmms with all the plugins you never wanted included by default, so the compile will take over 8 hours. At least the people building what they call "xmms 2" are abandoning the craptacular interface by default that is designed around a screen resolution from the mid-1990s, doesn't respect window placement, etc. etc. Too bad it seems to be in perpetual alpha. -josh
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 19:32 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error * jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx <jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-05-23 19:25]: > I suppose BMPX is a restart of the project? Yes, BMPx is "we gave up trying but we're reusing the same name for a completely different project anyway because we're the same developer team." > I'd know better, but the bmpx page has this for content: > > Fatal error: Call to undefined method Sanitizer::escapeid() in > /data/www/bmpx/bmpx/includes/Parser.php on line 3153 > > Woohoo, I have a lot of confidence in this software. Besides looking unprofessional, what does the quality of the CMS really have to do with the quality of the software, tho? > Why do people insist on generating front pages to sites > dynamically with php tinkertoys? HATE. It's a pretty vanilla Mediawiki installation. It worked an hour ago when I went there. > I'm in semiregular contact with one of the developers working > on Audacious, _yet another_ branch of xmms. Actually, Audacious started out as a continuation of the old, abandoned BMP codebase (aka BMP Classic) -- you know, "*we* want to continue trying, but we'll use a different name for the same project because we're *not* the same developer team." Are you confused yet? What really sucks is that everyone and their mother is now using Gstreamer. I sure hope that Gstreamer stops sucking, and soon, because else I'll never get away from BMP Classic. if there's one thing that the XMMS codebase has going for it, it's that it doesn't rely on a sprawling monster of an overengineered dependency to play a bit of music. Regards,
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 14:57 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error [Microsoft Media Player] > *sigh* Yes. Which, as I result, I can hardly use. I keep a copy of version 2 around. Then there's itunes which (on the Mac at least) looks like it's a standard Cocoa application, but is some kind of Carbon-based precursor to actual Carbon and uses its own magic widgets and stuff. (by the way, I've read that Audion page mentioned elsethread and I've downloaded the "retired" version... and I'm glad it didn't become iTunes)
From: Bill Page Date: 12:52 on 23 May 2006 Subject: Re: helping the user is not an error > Why, in particular, do media players have to look like flowers or > who-knows-what? System default widgets might not look as if Christo > designed them but at least they're recognisable, so people know what > to expect! User interface guidelines are there for a reason, and even > Microsoft kinda-sorta sticks to them. these guys? http://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/
Generated at 10:27 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi
