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

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Mark wrote:

> No, but you said that by sticking to standards they make good mice.  

No, I didn't.

I said mice were not controlled by Microsoft.  They didn't design them and
they don't control the standards, so they cannot change them.  That's keeps
them from doing a lot of their classic screw-ups.

> 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  

It changes pretty rarely, and /dev isn't a UNIX standard.  There are some
proposed standards, but vendors are free to do what they please here, and
always have been.

The UNIX wars were partially about things like this.

It's worth noting that Windows, VMS, MVS, and a host of other operating
systems don't have standardized device and device namespace handling either.

> 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.

Linux and FreeBSD both changed /dev.  The first attempt for Linux was rocky,
but it didn't really change the names.  Mostly both OS have made the creation
of enties in /dev automatic.  They use links to provide the legacy names, so
very little was broken.

What I really hate is how the various UNIX are handling dynamic devices like
USB hardware.  I think they choose schemes that are either overcomplicated or
not very reliable.

Of course, Windows is really worse, since it gives you know user visible
namespace at all for things like that, all handled in the black box under the
hood.

Not sure how Apple does it these days, never looked.  Hopefully it is saner
than either of the other major camps.

> 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.

Now you talking about what application writers have done, and I agree with you.

The UNIX vendors really can't do much about this.  In the past they had to
create a standard for themselves and stick with it, because there wasn't one
otherwise.  Projects like Gnome are not even self-consistent.

Gradually people are starting to realize that fixing this requires cooperation
between application and OS creators, but it has been a slow and painful
process so far.

But then look at the competition:

Windows apps store configuration, DLLs, and other resources all over the
place, with tons of it being redundant copies.  A good percentage of even new
Windows apps are still not multi-user.  Files, databases, that horrid registry
system, and proprietary binary-only configuration files scattered all over
your Windows install.  Few systems are so messy.

BTW: this is a classic example of what I mean when I say everything sucks, but
UNIX sucks the least.  There is no reason for any of this crap, yet here we are.

>> 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!

No, I'm just being truthful and realistic.  Sorry if it bothers you.

>> 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.  

The industry is producing bloated, buggy, and poorly designed software.
That's not just being stuck in a rut, that's a major problem.

Regarding Surface... it's interesting and might even be fun, but it is an
evolutionary step, not revolutionary.  It's yet another generation of
collaboration software and devices going back years.

I saw similar hardware in 1992 done by a university UI research group.  Just
like Surface, except it has more input devices besides the touch screen, and
it was much more limited due to the processing power of the day.

If you'll take a good look at UI research, especially from places like MIT,
you'll see that the "innovation" of Surface has been done over and over in
various forms.

The main thing is that in 2007, we finally have the processing power and
display technology to make it a viable product.

For that matter, we've been building table-top video games for over 20 years
now, which is quite similar in the basics.

> 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. 

You've never interacted socially or collaboratively for hours at a time?

Take a good look at the movie again... they showed it being used for real work
with people hunched over it.

I suspect anyone who uses one a lot, even just for fun, is going to want it
mounted differently.

Also interesting is how they plan to handle things like security, user
accounts, and that sort of thing.

> 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  

Ha, Microsoft was one of the key players chanting death to timesharing and one
computer/person when they got started.

I'm not knocking it, I just find the irony amusing.

What comes around goes around.







-- 
shannon           |    Tara is grass, and behold how Troy lieth
                  |    low--And even the English, perchance their
                  |    hour will come!