Re: [9fans] sad commentary

[Eris Discordia <eris.discordia@gmail.com>]

> You clearly have a very particular, narrow idea of what a "user" is, and
> a very muddy idea of how research works.

Could be, but you sayign it amounts to ad hominem, right?

> a very muddy idea of how research works. Obviously getting an optical
> jukebox isn't practical for Joe Public sitting in his flat, but it makes
> great sense for lots of users in larger settings. Perhaps more to the

Joe Public? Not even a SOHO affair or a startup will have a jukebox. Not
even a normal university campus will have one (though, CS/CE/EE "labs" may
be exceptions). It's not worth the effort and the price. Magnetic (e.g.
hard disk), solid-state (e.g. NAND Flash), and "conventional" optical (e.g.
a CD/DVD-R in a drive or at most a duplicator machine) is so "cheap" no one
will think of using a jukebox.

By the way, that's only an "example" of how far fetched the Plan 9 paradigm
is to the normal user--who "isn't" Joe Public for the most part.

> Put another way: the topic under research wasn't "how do we provide the
> backup functionality people are asking for?", but "how would having daily
> dumps change the way you work? would that be useful?". It's a less
> product- oriented set of questions, but produces more fundamental results.
>
> // Plan 9 seems to be a "niche" OS, as I pointed out before.
>
> That may well be true, or at least that it isn't mainstream and
> mass-market. That's never been its objective, and I'm sorry if you wasted
> your time based on misunderstanding that.

Fine with me. Did those "fundamental" results end in "visible" results that
people could enjoy? If yes, then no need to complain about "people" not
recognizing your system; if no, revise your goals or don't complain about
the lack of recognition. Those who "can" appreciate fundamental results are
already doing so, e.g. Russ Cox and a handful of other top-notch CS people
in a handful of top-notch universities. My "open letter" was written from a
lowlife's standpoint.

> // UTF-8 in an English-only "user" paradigm is only extravagance.
>
> We've got enough folks around here who use something other than English
> as their primary language with their computer that this complaing falls
> down. You're right that there's more research to be done here, such as on
> right-to-left input methods and composing characters, but that's far from
> the same thing.

Are your non-English-speaking people capable of doing their research paper
in some localized TeX/troff/groff/[some other typesetting software]
version, or writing an email in their native tongue? Or reading their
non-English non-Latin email? Or properly indexing their set of non-English
documents using a simple search? "Without innocence, the cross is only
idol." Without applications "features" are only burden.

> If the UI model doesn't work for you, well, that's a shame, I guess. Based
> on the bash love from earlier posts, I'm going to hazard a guess that your
> complaints are largely based on the old keyboard vs. mouse argument. I
> doubt hauling out the old references would be convincing once you've
> already made up your mind.

On the contrary, while I do like using keyboard I'm very much a "polymath."
Mouses are very good input devices for certain applications. The way the
mouse is used--or "abused"--in rio and acme poses a problem. It is the
"easy way out" to attribute that to my--probably Windows-doped--taste.
There "is" a least common denominator that accommodates the basics of all
tastes, and "that" is lacking in rio.

Window decorations (as they're called in X-speak) are not "mere
decorations," they're useful. The two button (+/- wheel) mouse is prevalent
because for most people only the index and middle finger are robust enough.
The ring finger is never on par with them, except of course with the
unnecessary adjustment Plan 9 users seem to go through. Assigning the
middle finger to both second and third buttons is another solution which is
equally uncomfortable.

Microsoft certainly has put a lot of money into researching human
interfacing and the outcome is free for all to get and implement. Don't
think for a moment that because it's Microsoft it has to be taken lightly.
Hundreds of small rounded corners have made the Windows GUI experience a
much better experience than that of "any" alternative GUI.

--On Monday, June 30, 2008 7:07 PM -0400 a@9srv.net wrote:

> // Systems research? Did you actually "research" how a normal user used
> their  // computer? Did you even try to guess how a normal user used
> their system?  // Did you do that and end up with a technical manual
> whose prime example for  // backup strategy involves a "Jukebox?"
>
> You clearly have a very particular, narrow idea of what a "user" is, and
> a very muddy idea of how research works. Obviously getting an optical
> jukebox isn't practical for Joe Public sitting in his flat, but it makes
> great sense for lots of users in larger settings. Perhaps more to the
> point, experience with fs(4) led pretty directly to the current
> construction of fs(3), fossil(4), and venti(6) - all of which are much
> more suitabe for Joe.
>
> Put another way: the topic under research wasn't "how do we provide the
> backup functionality people are asking for?", but "how would having daily
> dumps change the way you work? would that be useful?". It's a less
> product- oriented set of questions, but produces more fundamental results.
>
> // Plan 9 seems to be a "niche" OS, as I pointed out before.
>
> That may well be true, or at least that it isn't mainstream and
> mass-market. That's never been its objective, and I'm sorry if you wasted
> your time based on misunderstanding that.
>
> // UTF-8 in an English-only "user" paradigm is only extravagance.
>
> We've got enough folks around here who use something other than English
> as their primary language with their computer that this complaing falls
> down. You're right that there's more research to be done here, such as on
> right-to-left input methods and composing characters, but that's far from
> the same thing.
>
> If the UI model doesn't work for you, well, that's a shame, I guess. Based
> on the bash love from earlier posts, I'm going to hazard a guess that your
> complaints are largely based on the old keyboard vs. mouse argument. I
> doubt hauling out the old references would be convincing once you've
> already made up your mind.
> Anthony
>
>