[clug-talk] Does the Linux Desktop Innovate Too Much? - a paradigm needed?

[Mel Walters]

Mel Walters wrote:
>
> John Jardine wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 00:37 -0600, Gustin Johnson wrote:
>>  
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Shawn wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Bruce Byfield has an article up that explores the current state of the
>>>> desktop and poses the question in this messages subject.
>>>>
>>>> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3826171_1/Does-the-Linux-Desktop-Innovate-Too-Much.htm 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's an interesting read, and has a wide range of comments as well.
>>>>       
>>> I could not finish reading all the comments.  This is one of those
>>> topics I avoid because I just end up angry.  There are lots of loud
>>> opinions by people who have no effing clue what they are talking about.
>>>
>>> I also know that I don't know what I am talking about in this realm.
>>> What I do know is that the current paradigm is broken.  If I knew 
>>> how to
>>> fix it I would.  I am hopeful that projects like KDE4 and Sugar have 
>>> the
>>> courage to innovate based on studying how humans actually work, but for
>>> right now we will have to suffer under the tyranny of the typewriter 
>>> and
>>> the TV.
>>>
>>>    
>>>> What do you think?  Is the desktop development moving too fast?  
>>>> What is
>>>> YOUR vision for a desktop 10 years from now?
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> My vision for 10 years is that there is no desktop.  Seriously, the
>>> 1970s called, they want their clunky and  inefficient human to computer
>>> interface back.  If we are very lucky, 10 years from now people will
>>> wonder just what we were thinking.  The real revolution will begin once
>>> we figure out how to actually use a computer.
>>>
>>> I suspect that gestures and or touch will dominate and mice will be as
>>> quaint as a rotary telephone. There will likely always be some sort of
>>> pen for the artists, various musical interfaces that mimic actual
>>> instruments (these won't be needed but many like me will take a 
>>> while to
>>> leave those particular interfaces behind), but for most the traditional
>>> UI will likely disappear, replaced by speech and gestures.
>>>
>>>     
>> I'm not sold on that vision.  There is a difference between data
>> manipulation, which don't need to be done via command line.  What
>> doesn't work there is data entry in all it's various forms - so how do
>> you enter your info into a zone file without your keyboard?
>>
>>  
>>> That last bit was just pure imagination.  I don't really have a clue
>>> about this stuff.  I would ask the people who are actually working on
>>> this stuff.
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>>
>>> iEYEARECAAYFAkpAeD8ACgkQwRXgH3rKGfMruACfflr1b49IEggX/6JA+ggnK8o4
>>> /uMAn01ze0fx2afHdgP8W9Fk/eQ5MSNP
>>> =BotB
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>>
>>>     
> Rather than comment on just the desktop, I think the tools in them 
> need changing even more. At least it would be easier to start there.
> The much previous comment about intuitive like a spread sheet was very 
> funny but I can picture that engineer saying this who was so used to 
> creating spread sheets.
> The world is full of mostly followers, and many years ago I overheard 
> two secretaries talking about computers and the future (MS). I did not 
> laugh out loud, and they would have believed none of my opinions anyway.
>
> OK, lets start with just one application: word processing.
> I had an interest in Lyx a while back, to make electronic typesetting 
> easy and possible for me. I put it off a few times because I just did 
> not get the interface fully. Lyx is in not a typewriter, you could say 
> it is very far away from the idea of typewriter.
> Anyway, more recently I tried Lyx again. This time it clicked in place 
> for me, and wow. It took a minute to redo an article with all 
> formatting inconsistencies removed. It was just more readable (that 
> was my goal).
> Why not a linux word pro that mimics  the good points of Lyx instead 
> of MS Office ?
>
> Is this not the almost para-dyne (paradigm) shift we need to start with?
I knew this word looked wrong but I hit send anyway. I meant paradigm. 
Thanks for pointing out my spelling error Michael.
I believe a real shift in thinking is getting us there, no ruts in the 
road allowed.
Word: paradigm
Field: Programming related to human interface
Dictionary: Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]
Def:      4. (Science) A theory providing a unifying explanation for a
        set of phenomena in some field, which serves to suggest
        methods to test the theory and develop a fuller
        understanding of the topic, and which is considered useful
        until it is be replaced by a newer theory providing more
        accurate explanations or explanations for a wider range of
        phenomena.
        [PJC] Paradigmatic

Mel
>
> Please refer to the very good pdf docs on Lyx that state why and how 
> they do things.To coin a phrase "What You See Is What You Meant" Let 
> the computer look after the details and just get your job (ie writing) 
> done.
>
> To quote Paul Griffiths about computers, "the possibilities are endless"
>
> Comments, flames:) ?
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clug-talk mailing list
> clug-talk at clug.ca
> http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
> Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php)
> **Please remove these lines when replying
>
>