[geeks] Subject: Re: Microsoft Surface...

[Mark]

On 4 Jun 2007, at 01:46, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:

>> That's so much BS it's not true.
>
> Really, how so?

If you'd actually READ my mail you might have realised how I was  
making my point.

> They *might* do design of the mouse and board layout internally,  
> but that's
> pretty trivial stuff.  Most of their case designs suck, but overall  
> the mice
> are OK, and I never contested that.

No, but you said that by sticking to standards they make good mice.  
My point is this is *BS* - loads of people stick to 'standards' and  
make crappy mice that suck. The fact is that the majority of the  
appeal is in the design and ergonomics of the mouse. Finding the  
correct plug to attach it to my computer is a secondary. I really  
like their keyboards for the same reason, but other people make nice  
keyboards, like Apple and IBM, so I don't used theirs exclusively.

Go into any computer store and look at how many 'standards based'  
keyboards and mice there are on the stand. Then work out how many  
you'd actually want to buy. The former number is much larger than the  
latter. *That* is my point, and why yours is flawed.

Oh and FWIW Microsoft mice have always been really good, right since  
the first one. Wether they are optical or not is a non-issue for me -  
Microsoft Mice have always been right up there.

>> As a lot of Linux distro's prove you can stick to 'standards' in a  
>> variety
>> of ways, some of which are truly terrible :P
>
> How is this relevant?

Because Linux is built on 'standards', same as Mice.

> Just out of curiosity, what standards does Linux adhere to that are  
> truly
> terrible?

Erm, my point was some distros impliment 'standards' in much worse  
ways than others.

> 99% of it is UNIX and open standards that far more than Linux uses,  
> so I'd be
> interested in what you think is so bad.

There are various implementations of the /dev structure across Linux  
and UNIX. This is supposed to be a standard, yet used of different  
dev engines means it's not implemented as well on some as on others,  
and it damn well changes just when you have it worked out, which  
breaks your shell scripts... or even just leads to you just not being  
able to find your hard drive dev until you figure it out. You can  
more or less count on UNIXs not changing the notation every 5 mins.  
Sure it has changed over the years, but even if the underlying engine  
changes they try to stick to the same overlying notation. I certainly  
saw little difference between Solaris 7,9 and 10 for example. Linux  
people do shoddy changes whereby they alter the way it works, maybe  
for the better, but neglect to build in any legacy value. Some of  
them are better at it than others though.

Where to keep config files... In /etc/ you cry!... Not on some Linux  
distros... I have found xfree,conf or xorg.conf in so many damn  
places other than /etc/X11/ over the years... UGGHHH... It's not the  
only one either... I've had wandering config files for mysql, apache,  
samba... it's monumentally stupid.

> I know of a few, but I'm curious if you were just making idle  
> commentary or if
> you really knew of something.

Since when was idle commentary illegal? I don't backup my arguments  
unless I fell people here may not be aware of the reasons for my  
comment. As you demonstrated, you know the reasons for my comment  
already, I'll bet plenty of others do too.

> I can sum up how I feel like this: UNIX sucks, but everything else  
> currently
> sucks worse.

Jeesh you have such a downer on everyone!

> I'm not real happy with the computer industry as a whole, and  
> Microsoft is
> probably the largest single guilty party, but hardly the only one.

I'd agree that it's stuck in a rut at the moment, and it's not going  
forward. But I think I made the point way back up there somewhere  
that it needs ideas like Surface to bust out of the current mould.  
I'm already really annoyed by the people who have bashed it because  
'it's not ergonomic - people can't work hunched over that thing!'.  
For gods sakes it's not DESIGNED for that. It's a social and  
collaborative tool. Allowing people to sit around a table and do  
stuff together. It;s a direct attack on the (in my opinion really  
crappy) stilted 'one computer, one person' ethos. Computers these  
days can do so much so well why not allow more than one person on a  
machine at once and let them interact. Also this design could be  
adapted to work for a workstation. It's not set in stone. I'll be it  
has WACOM are already one it...

Anyway if it's too low for you STAND IT ON A BOX!*

*that was a joke ;)

-- 
Mark Benson

My Blog:
<http://mdblog.68kmac.org>
68kMac.org:
<http://www.68kmac.org>
Visit my Homepage: <http://homepage.mac.com/markbenson>

"Never send a human to do a machine's job..."