Subj : Old computer To : boraxman From : TALIADON Date : Thu Jun 30 2022 15:35:41 bo> Standards are missing, but standards are only standards when people bo> choose to follow them. Discipline and willingness to abide is really the bo> issue, not the existence of standards. Standards & adherence is indeed a cooperative rather than pre-emptive relationship, but standards are the only way to reliably factor scale into multi-domain projects. Back in the day when layouts/designs started to employ IC units smaller than our lithographic wavelength, we often employed Unix/Solaris boxes in order to develop bespoke OPC/Phase-Shift geometry processors - it was near impossible to do this manually once the geometry had been separated out for masking. As we were never quite sure where this processing would need to take place - some designs would require post-process input from various disciplines - it had to be designed in such a way that it was portable across the entire organisation. As the operating environment was already standardised via x11, a language (POSIX C) & toolkit (Motif) standard were enough to get the job done successfully. But these were simpler times, when all of the program logic/data was designed from scratch and complex OS/inter-application transactions were not an end-user expectation. Today, desktop functionality has become synonymous with the end-user experience, where components and features are expected to interact seamlessly and without fuss. In turn, even bespoke applications are now built using standardised paradigms, and commercial developers expect their target OS/Framework/APIs to handle these standards as par for the course. Sadly, as of today, desktop Linux is far from being able to provide the cohesive GUI/Core integration that developers have come to expect from the likes of Apple, Google, and M$ - even Qt struggles to traverse the minefield that is the Linux desktop (Gnome, KDE, Cinnamon, Xfce; Wayland, x11, etc). Ironically, Unix/Linux encompasses many standards under the hood, but for some unknown reason the GUI fraternity decided to take an entirely different path altogether - each providing the developer with more headaches than solutions. It's not all bad news, however, as many Linux developers have now begun standardising their apps around the Ubuntu core/desktop, with a "mileage may vary" caveat for all other platforms. IMHO, herein lays the salvation of the Linux desktop: if developers pick a side, then both standards and users will eventually follow, not to mention the closed-source developers who abandoned Linux when 20+ years of desktop development failed to establish any semblance of synergy. Of course, if the Linux community wants to remain an open-source arena where hobby projects can be recompiled against the user's chosen distro, then I'm happy for it to remain so, but it must also resign itself to a perpetual existence of "alternatives" and workarounds. Imagine a world where mathematics hadn't been standardised through number, algebra, geometry, and calculus - a world where every generation must stagnate whilst they reinvent the concept of quantity and magnitude all over again. IMHO, this is where the Linux desktop finds itself today. bo> I struggle with Windows, and the myriad of different "save as" dialog bo> boxes that present themselves to me during the working day. I think this is more a GUI vs CLI issue than a M$ or Windows thing per se. Generally speaking, most tasks are better suited to either one or the other; I can't really blame Screwfix if I chose to purchase a Phillips screwdriver to tighten a flathead screw. bo> I think Microsoft ruined computing, the way that Henry Ford ruined bo> transportation. The motive was to make it as available to everyone, as bo> much as possible, as quickly as possible, and the result is a mess. It's bo> hard for people to see that, because we know nothing else, and we are bo> brought up to believe that personal innovation and individual success is bo> the be all and end all. A very American way of looking at things, and bo> ultimately, a dead end. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but this comes across as more of a broader world view than any specific criticism of Ford. I suppose it depends upon which world we feel more comfortable in: one where a replacement alternator can be purchased off the shelf, or one where we have to go in search of like-minded people who happened to design their charabanc around a compatible specification. TBH, this really is the same paradigm, but at disparate scales. bo> Computers at work now are utterly awful because of Microsofts vision and bo> goal. I spend so, so, so much time juggling applications, files, and so bo> much time doing things manually that could, should, be automated. Perhaps we're back to the Screwfix analogy I used earlier: is M$ the real problem here, or the choices made by those who employ their products/services? M$, Apple, and Linux, all have back-end automation tools capable of solving this task. bo> It is this way because computing evolved with a particular business bo> model, the one you described, and with the 'cloud', things are getting bo> worse as we cede autonomy and sovriegnty of our own digital lives to bo> corporations. Agreed. This is a trend that should concern many people, but it also represents the only way software companies can truly protect their investment in the 21st century. In direct response to the threat created by the warez/piracy scene, these companies have finally found a way to get users to pay for their product time and time again. TBH, the lease paradigm is nothing new in the corporate arena, but it looks like many developers are now adopting this approach across the board. Adobe is one that springs immediately to mind. bo> We kind of intuitively know the Windows/sold software model is broken, bo> because a LOT of software is bespoke, created to solve a particular bo> purpose, not a shrink wrap product. The problem is that software still bo> is packaged and tries to be THE solution. The GNU way makes more sense. bo> You have hardware, tools, and you put them together in a way which solves bo> your problem, modifying, writing new software, or commissioning it as you bo> see fit. It leans itself more to asking "how can I make this computer do bo> X" instead of "where can I find an app that does X". Your OS should be bo> 'the app', and you interact directly with it to solve problems, do you bo> work, instead of merely being the vehicle to launch apps from. For bo> example, "how can I make the computer file a specification, update the bo> database of products the specifications refers to and supercede the old bo> one by taking necessarily input from a single dialog box and then bo> automating all the later processes" would be a question answered by bo> creating a workflow within the OS. Instead, we use all these different bo> "apps" to do each of these tasks manually, which means humans grappling bo> with machines. Again, M$, Apple, and Linux, all have generalised back-end technologies for solving specific problems, and all are ultimately destined to become the constituent part of a solution or "app". Linux itself, or the functionality that most people associate with Linux, is in and of itself a collection of apps moderated by the Linux kernel. Unfortunately, you find yourself in the unenviable situation where your employer has given you a wrench in lieu of a hammer. ================================================================== TALIADON (Lee Westlake) | TALIADON BBS (taliadon.ddns.net:23) FidoNet: 2:250/6 | fsxNet: 21:3/138 | Email: taliadon-bbs@mail.com ================================================================== --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64) * Origin: TALIADON BBS (21:3/138) .