> From: Brian Weiss <brian@got.net>
>
> I like stuff like that. But user-friendliness can be bad. When something becomes more
> user-friendly, and graphical... you get less control and you see less of what's going on
> in your operating system. When I'm online from win95 I feel very very insecure because
>
> Wrong.
> User-friendliness is *never* bad.
> User-friendliness done badly, like with W95, is bad.
> It is the implementation that is bad, not the user-friendliness.
>
> you can't see a single thing that happens. You don't see packets to and from your system
> and you don't see other system msgs. You have very little control over what happens
> around you. In Linux console, it's completely the opposite. I see every single little
> tiny thing that happens, and it can all be logged. Now, when I boot into X, there is
>
> And who, pray tell, is suggesting we disable logins?
> Who, pray tell, is even *not* *emphasizing* that this should be an
> option, and one that can be disabled for any given boot even if it is
> turned on.
>
> lot from it, which is why I even run X now. The trick is not to take it too far, like
> win95 did. I just hope to god the Linux developers know where the line stands between
> good GUI and user-friendliness and bad, and can stay on the good side of that line.
>
> No, the trick is to do it *right*.
> Good user friendliness == show the user what he wants to see, no more,
> no less.
> Bad user friendliness == show the user what *you* want him to see.
>
> You are not arguing against user-friendliness here, Brian. You are
> arguing that *your* idea of good is what should be forced upon
> *everyone* using Linux.
> Can you really defend that position? Did you realize you were taking
> it?
>
> PS - whoever the hell it was that wrote that big long reply that's all speaking in
> riddles and shit... you almost have some good points in there, but with all the riddles
> and stupid crap that's in it too... it's just annoying. not to mention you completely
> misunderstood many many things i said and spit out a bunch of crap about things i think,
> which i dont actually think. try not to make so many assumptions about things you dont
> understand. thanks.
>
> Ah, yes. The old 'I didn't understand your argument, therefore it must
> be crap' argument.
> Good one.
>
> Shalon Wood
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Boy did you contradict yourself. I don't think I've ever seen that much contradiction in one
mail. First you say there ISNT any kind of bad user-friendliness, then you say there is. And
also, who DID say anything about disabling logins and stuff like that? So far all I've seen
are people putting words into my mouth. All I was trying to say is that graphics and
user-friendliness generally hide things from the user. Not in ALL cases, but in many. The X
window system is proof of this. It's still Linux, and contains almost all the power of Linux,
and even more. Yet I do see a little bit less of what goes on in my system because of it. This
is a pretty mild example and to most people there is no difference. I had things set up so I
would see everything tiny little speck of a thing that happened involving my system in any
way, and X takes some of that away.
"You are not arguing against user-friendliness here, Brian. You are
arguing that *your* idea of good is what should be forced upon
*everyone* using Linux."
I don't know where you got that from. In fact, I never even said what should really be done
about this boot logo thing other than the fact that I'm against it. In fact, I think a boot
logo would be great, just not something that hides boot msgs. Now, if something was to hide
them.. it will most definately be an option, but I hope to god it doesn't hide them by
default. And I say most of the things I say because most of the crap I see about people being
"scared by boot msgs" seems like complete bullshit to me. Out of everyone I've ever seen run
Linux, I've not seen one that has ever been even slightly intimidated by the boot msgs. Even
when running it the first time. Whoever said the statement about how DOS has just as many, if
not more boot msgs, is exactly right in their theory. No one was ever worried about the
DOS boot msgs. I really don't see why people are getting so fired up over this and flaming me
because I stated an opinion.
BOTTOM LINE:
If you want a boot logo or splash screen... GO GET ONE. I've seen plenty of them floating
around and all seem very easy to setup.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu