Linux-Advocacy Digest #897, Volume #30 Fri, 15 Dec 00 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:59:39 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:5vc_5.221$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't already written
something
> >> logical.
>
> > No, you are incorrectly speculating that I am presupposing.
>
> Incorrect, given that I have what you wrote, therefore I do not need to
> speculate.
On the contrary, I never wrote anything about presupposing. Therefore
you are not only speculating, but you are wrong.
> >> Because you brought up the matter of moving the screen, claiming that
> >> you use hjkl to do that. Yet those move the cursor, not necessarily
> >> the screen. The keys I mentioned do move the screen, unless at one
> >> extreme, of course (which also applies to hjkl).
>
> > No, those move the cursor as well but the screen moves as a direct
> > result with both.
>
> The point is that you do not need to use hjkl.
What point was that? For someone used to using hjkl, anything else would
be less intuitive. Personally I almost never care about the fact of moving
the cursor one position at a time and instead use a command that more
closely represents my intention. In fact it is difficult to talk about
'wanting' the cursor to move one position in some direction or other
in a context that would invoke an intuitive action. I 'want' to postition
to some particular text, a particular line or page, or to move the screen
window to bring something else into view, and the closer the command
to make this happen is to describing the action the more intuitive it is.
> > Both accept an appropriate numeric count
>
> Which has nothing to do with needing to use hjkl.
Precisely - orthogonal combinations are the point.
> >> I said they were not intuitive for cursor movement. Get it right.
>
> > Do you mean in an absolute sense or compared to some other
> > keyboard character?
>
> Do I really need to answer that question? Do I really need to repeat
> all the times I've commented about relative versus absolute? Do you
> really not remember?
Yes, you need to answer it. I haven't read any of the other rambling
branches of this thread. There is nothing for me to remember.
> I just did it without hjkl. But more importantly, considering that
> the discussion is about viewing a document, why would you want to move
> just a line? Is your screen only one line tall?
My window sizes vary, depending on what I am doing, but often the
portion of a file I want to see at a particular time exactly fills the
screen and thus might need to be moved one line to position it correctly.>
> >>> Can you repeat that a little slower?
>
> >> I r r e l e v a n t , g i v e n t h a t w h a t w a s
> >> b r o u g h t u p w a s t h e v i e w i n g o f a
> >> d o c u m e n t , n o t t h e g i v i n g o f
> >> c o m m a n d s t o a d o c u m e n t v i e w e r .
>
> > Oh, then you are just mistaken.
>
> Non sequitur. You asked me to repeat is a little slower, which I
> did. The content did not change.
No, it follows perfectly. Before, I thought you might be merely
confused. Now that you have made it plain I understand that
you are wrong instead.
> > The point of bringing up the viewer was to discuss the command set.
>
> And I stand by my claim that you do not need to use hjkl.
OK, I don't really have an argument with that. Use what best
represents your intention.
> >> I don't understand why you think the viewing of a document is the
> >> same as editing a document.
>
> > Because it is. I may or may not choose to modify the document
> > when editing,
>
> Editing the document is changing the document.
Perhaps you feel compelled to make changes when editing. I retain
the right to chose whether or not to make changes when I edit.
> > but I don't do it blindly - at least when using
> > an interactive screen editor as we are discussing.
>
> Does anybody edit blindly?
There are non-interactive ways to edit which are very useful, but
they don't relate to a discussion of sreen editor commands.
> >> With comparable things, not the same thing. Brushing your teeth in
> >> the morning is no longer intuitive, if it ever was.
>
> > Perhaps it isn't for you.
>
> Is it for you?
It has been at times.
> >> And I keep asking you how many other editors use hjkl for cursor
> >> movement. If you answer "zero", then there wouldn't be previous
> >> experience with those keys for cursor movement in an editor. If
> >> you don't answer "zero", give me the name of the editor. So far,
> >> nobody has done that.
>
> > Elvis, vim, vile, emacs in viper-mode, emacs in vip-mode.
>
> Did you notice something all these names have in common?
Yes, they give hints that the command set will be intuitive for
vi users.
> > You seem to miss the point that innovation happens somewhere and
> > starts a new set of things that will be intuitive when you encounter
> > the less-innovative clones later.
>
> Having identical behavior doesn't make something intuitive. All you
> have to tell someone is that "this behaves the same way as vi", and
> you don't need to rely on intuition.
I disagree so I guess if you want to continue, you will have to explain
what yout think does make something intuitive instead of enumerating
the things you think aren't. For example I think that once you understand
what a steering wheel does on one device you will intuitively try to use
it the same way if you find one on another device. I don't see how
the 'intuitiveness' of this re-use of knowledge is affected by the
degree to which the devices in question differ.
> > Vi may have been the innovator, or perhaps the author had experience
> > with something similar. After the fact it doesn't make much difference.
>
> And just look at how many other products decided to go with those
> "innovations": not many. Clones like elvis exist because some vi
> users didn't want to learn a new editor on a PC. They were shunning
> the innovations of the separate cursor keypad, the mouse, and so on.
As usual you are wrong when you speculate wildly about motives.
Clones of the command set like the vip-mode and viper-mode macros
for emacs exist solely to allow the users to re-use their knowledge
of the vi commands. They add no other new capabilities to emacs.
Clones of the code were were done in general because the original
was not freely available (containing the regexp code probably from
'ed' and under AT&T copyright). The *bsd version remains exactly
for that reason. Clones like vim and elvis where done in order to
keep the original terse and useful command set but extend the program
in different ways generally not involving editing. In the gvim variation,
vim goes all the way to adding GUI menus and mouse operations. In
the character mode version you have the option of letting it have the
mouse when running in an xterm (but there are reasons to prefer leaving
normal X cut-and-paste alone). So, far from shunning innovation,
the purpose of these clones is to add it.
> >> If you don't need to make modifications, you don't need to use an
> >> editor.
>
> > How do you propose that I should make that decision before
> > viewing the existing contents?
>
> Irrelevant, given that I didn't suggest that you not view the existing
> document.
You mean what you said before is irrelevant? Or are you suggesting
always running two different programs when it turns out the editor
is necessary?
> >>> Thus it is incorrect to say that those features are always needed
> >>> or used.
>
> >> They are needed to do editing. Nothing incorrect about that.
>
> > They may or may not be. Thus it is incorrect to say 'always'.
>
> Where did I say "always"?
I didn't say you said always, I said it would be incorrect to say always.
> > The contents of the document may turn out to be just fine without
> > modifications.
>
> Then you didn't edit the document.
When I edit, it is my choice to change or not to change. You
can edit some other way if you like.
> >>> There are other differences beyond the control keystrokes. For
example
> >>> you can run vi in 'read only' mode by invoking it as 'vi -r' file or
> >>> using the name 'view'.
>
> >> Thus not "very much the same".
>
> > Identical, in fact.
>
> Since when is "vi" the same as "view"? One lets me do things; the other
> does not.
On unix machines, many programs have hard links with different names
and act differently depending on the name used to invoke them. Vi and
view are in fact different names for the same program, thus they
are identical.
> > vi's arbitrary size limits turned out to be inappropriate for some
> > current operations. Clones like vim and emacs viper-mode provide a
> > work-around, but if you are just viewing and want to avoid the copy
> > and size issues, less is better.
>
> Sounds like you're recommending that people not use vi for viewing
> a document.
The choice involves the usual tradeoffs. For small files it doesn't matter.
For large files that you know you won't modify, less is faster. For
pipelines, less is better.
> >> If I own an Acme 1000, learn how to operate it, and then encounter
> >> an Acme 1000 in some other setting, say a hotel room, for example,
> >> knowing how to operate that Acme 1000 in the hotel room does not
> >> come from intuition.
>
> > What if it is the 'new, improved 1001' model or a competitor's version
> > with a dozen new features that you don't understand or need - yet you
> > can still operate it with the 1000's methods?
>
> Then it depends on the details. Intuition applies when you're able to
> do something new without relying on some form of help.
Ah, details... What would we do without them?
> >> And I keep asking you how many other editors use hjkl for cursor
> >> movement. If you answer "zero", then there wouldn't be previous
> >> experience with those keys for cursor movement in an editor. If
> >> you don't answer "zero", give me the name of the editor. So far,
> >> nobody has done that.
>
> > Nobody realized you were incapable of finding facts for yourself.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing an incapability.
No, I was erroneously presupposing some sensibility.
> > The answer is not zero.
>
> What is the answer? Don't try to count the likes of elvis.
Beg your pardon? You want a list of editors that are like
vi, but omit all the ones that are like vi?
> >>>> I suggest you consult a more complete dictionary. Or do you wish
> >>>> to argue that brushing your teeth is intuitive?
>
> >>> Repeating the same task doesn't require intuition, but if your teeth
all
> >>> fell out and you grew a new set it would be intuitive to brush those
> >>> instead.
>
> >> Wrong, given that it's repeating the same task.
>
> > No it isn't, until the 2nd time you do it.
>
> That occurred with the first set of teeth.
Yes, repeating the task happens the 2nd time you
do the same set. Brushing new teeth the same
way as the old is done intuitively by most people
as they appear. Thereafter it is again repeating
the same task.
> >>> Some dictionaries have an alternate meaning as a synonym
> >>> to 'instinctive', but people don't really have instinctive behaviour
> >>> (although today I'd like to fly south for the winter).
>
> >> In some instances, the synonym might apply. Brushing teeth isn't one
> >> of them.
>
> > Not for people.
>
> Sounds like you're agreeing with me.
Perhaps you didn't notice the sentence started with 'not'. People do
not have instinctive behavior, at least any that I wish to discuss in
public, thus intuitive does not mean instinctive for people.
> >>> Is that the only way you can learn?
>
> >> Consulting a reference, whether it be a written manual, a web site, a
> >> summary card, or a system administrator, makes the task non intuitive.
>
> > What if someone tells you it is 'just like' some other task you
> > have already mastered?
>
> That someone acted as a reference.
How does the action of someone else have any control over whether
something is intuitive to you or not?
> >> Then exactly what have you been arguing about, if not that?
>
> > That the reuse of the orthogonal commands within the preset
> > pattern is intuitive.
>
> Really? Is the use of a Fortran DO loop with a step size of 2
> intuitive, having learned the form of the statement, and having
> previously used only a step size of 1?
>
> > That is, the fact that the same commands
> > are re-used within vi in ways that are indendent of the context
> > makes them intuitive as you construct different combinations.
>
> DO I=1,10,1
> DO I=1,100,1
>
> For the second, I've constructed a different combination. Does
> that make it intuitive?
I think there is a less general term to describe the situation where
one number can be substituted for another number in this sort of
framework.
> > If you know what 'k' does and the nature of the pattern, you
> > automatically know what 10k does, and as soon as you
> > know what 'd' does, you know what 10dk does.
>
> So, that makes:
>
> DO I=2,100,2
>
> intuitive? Note the nature of the pattern. Know what the first,
> second, and third values do.
If you can choose the numbers without reasoning, arranging
them in the patten would be intuitive as you built new
combinations. Programming normally involves reason, though.
> As I said before, you have a peculiar notion of what is intuitive.
One of us does.
> >>> Any choice of keys is an arbitrary thing.
>
> >> Using the 'h' key to enter an 'h' into a document doesn't seem all
> >> that arbitrary to me, though in principal you could redefine the
> >> keyboard to do pretty much anything, if you like.
>
> > How much are you willing to stake on that wild speculation?
>
> What's allegedly wild about it?
There are innumerable uses of the 'h' key that don't involve
inserting an 'h' into any document.
> > If you were in front of a keyboard controlling a nuclear missile
> > and wanted to start a document with the letter 'h', would you
> > hit the 'h' key without knowing anything else?
>
> I would first find out how to start a document. My intuition does
> not tell me that one can start a document by typing 'h'. I might
> try typing 'edit' to start a document, however.
And mine does not tell me that I can insert into a document
simply as a side effect of having started one.
> >>> The part that is intuitive is that you only need to learn the form
> >>> of: {optional count} {command} {range/motion} once and you can
> >>> repeat the pattern in many subsequent ways.
>
> >> Do you not sense an inconsistency here? "The part that is intuitive
> >> is...to learn"?
>
> > Not at all. People do not have an instinctive nature,
>
> On what basis do you make that claim?
The inability of anyone to reproducably demonstrate any.
> > so intuitive things are re-use of previously learned knowledge.
>
> But if the previously learned knowledge is a template, then simply
> replacing the variables with constants is not an example of
> intuition.
Yes it is.
> It is an example of following instructions.
How do the existence or lack of instructions have
any bearing on whether a given thing is intuitive?
> If, for
> example, you know that 10l moves the cursor 10 columns to the right,
> and you want to delete the next 10 characters, but you don't yet
> know the magic letter to trigger the deletion, your intuition might
> lead you to try 10d.
Is there a requirement for intuition to be correct? You might
also have been taught that the correct command to delete is
x, yet type d in this situation.
> If that happened to work, then you could
> claim that the command was intuitive. Unfortunately, it doesn't
> work. What you wanted was 10x. Not intuitive in this example.
Didn't you ever x out anything on a typewriter?
> But if you already knew that x was the command to delete a character,
> then using 10x to delete 10 characters is not relying on intuition
> at all. It's relying on filling out the template.
Yes, that is intuition. If you have to think about why a particular
combination works, then it becomes reason.
> > Learning the pattern allows you to re-use commands in different ways
> > without having to learn those other ways ahead of time, hence
> > those uses are intuitive.
>
> The very fact that you're calling it "learning" means that it isn't
> intuitive! Intuition allows you to do things *without* learning.
You don't learn the possible combinations, yet you can use
them if you know the elements. It is constructing the combinations
that is intuitive.
> >>>>> Alt? What's an Alt?
>
> >>>> It's something I learned that vi doesn't let me re-use, contrary
> >>>> to your claim.
>
> >>> If you want to use it, map it.
>
> >> Something else to learn, and it presupposes that it's possible to do.
>
> > You are presupposing the existance of an alt key.
>
> Incorrect, given that I know one exists on my computer.
I don't always work from the same keyboard and I wouldn't
presuppose that anyone else would either. I know there are
keyboards that don't have alt keys. I might use one of them.
Why should I think it is impossible for you to use one of them?
> > I suggest that that vendor providing the alt key should also provide
> > a vi configured to use it.
>
> You're confusing hardware with software. Or do you subscribe to the
> notion that choice of operating system software should be left to
> the hardware vendor, not the consumer?
The consumer should have the choice of an optimally configured
combination of hardware and software. Some are capable of
producing this themselves. Others should have someone do it
for them or buy it already configured, or they should at least
have the dignity to not complain about the things they did wrong.
> >>> But vi was around first and is hardly responsible for your choices.
>
> >> Fortunately, I had more choices when I first needed to use an editor.
>
> > How does that relate to being fortunate?
>
> I didn't have someone else's choice forced upon me.
You mean you didn't take advantage of the years of other's
experience.
> >>> It is not irrelevant in a discussion of the vi command set.
>
> >> Feel free to explain the relevance of an Alt in 1976 in a discussion
> >> of the vi command set.
>
> > There is nothing to discuss about something that doesn't exist.
>
> Then it is irrelevant. Yet you said it is not irrelevant. Do make
> up your mind.
The fact that it did not exist is relevant to the fact that it was not
included in the vi command set. But there is nothing to discuss
about it.
> >>> The set could not contain futuristic magic keys unknown at the time.
>
> >> You mean like Control? Imagine that, a "futuristic magic key".
>
> > Control keys not only existed, but the values they generate in
> > combination with the alphabetic keys were standardized at
> > the same time as the letters themselves.
>
> Really? How did you generate a control-C on an IBM 026 keypunch?
Just because there is a standard doesn't automatically mean
everyone follows it. Were those devices commonly used
on unix systems?
> >> And what caused me to learn an editor that used Alt keys, the
> >> effect being that the operation of vi was not intuitive?
>
> > Lack of guidence.
>
> Balderdash. In reality, it was the guidance of a person who had
> experience with both that led me to try an editor that used Alt
> leys.
Did that person have a good understanding of the orthogonal nature
of the vi command set? Did either of you consider the possibility
of keyboards without alt?
> >>> Most vendors would supply vi with any obvious keys on their
> >>> specific keyboard already mapped to the appropriate thing.
>
> >> Tell me, what did DEC do with their "Compose Character" key in vi?
>
> > I never had one of those. You'll have to ask someone who did.
>
> Is it possible that there might be several other vendors with
> hardware you never had? How can you justify your "most vendors"?
It is possible that some vendors provided badly configured systems
without doing the appropriate mapping, but that tends to be
a self-correcting problem.
> >>>>>>>> You mean the $ never means the dollar sign?
>
> >> What happened to the text that use to be here?
>
> > It was irrelevant.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim?
The only basis that matters in an advocacy newsgroup: my opinion.
> > Yes, you re-use previously learned knowledge in a new way without
> > having to learn it again.
>
> There's nothing new about choosing your intended step value! Are
> you seriously going to claim that someone who uses a step size of
> 1000 for the first time in twenty years of Fortran programming just
> did something "intuitive"?
No, I would claim that reasoning was necessary to make
a change like that, hence it would not be intuitive.
> No wonder you're having such a problem with this discussion. You
> really have a peculiar notion of what represents intuition.
Is 'peculiar' your term for something that differs from
your own opinion?
> > However, reasoning is usually involved in a programming loop
> > where it may not be required for your finger motions as you
> > type edit commands.
>
> See my previous example about trying to use 10d "intuitively" to
> delete the next 10 characters.
How are you re-using knowledge by guessing arbitrarily at
what a command might be?
> >>>> The problem is knowing what to use. Just because someone learns
> >>>> what symbol to use for "end of line" doesn't mean they will
> >>>> automatically know what to use for "end of file".
>
> >>> I don't see the problem here.
>
> >> Reread what I wrote.
>
> > Why, has it changed?
>
> No, but your comprehension of it might.
I have never claimed that there was anything intuitive about knowing
the elemental commands and symbols, so it isn't even an interesting
question as to whether you might guess one or not.
> >>> Are you suggesting that they would know if some other symbol had
> >>> arbitrarily been chosen for one or the other?
>
> >> I'm suggesting that they would not necessarily know that the same
> >> symbol had been overloaded.
>
> > Does that relate in some way to what either of us said?
>
> It relates to what I said.
And leads to what conclusion?
> > If they would not automatically be able to know a different symbol
> > how is it better than using only one?
>
> "Does that relate in some way to what either of us said?"
I don't think so, but you are the one who brought up the topic
of one arbitrary choice being somehow better or different
than another arbitrary choice and then refused to follow
up with how or why.
> >> And it wasn't intuitive. Why do you think two- and three-button mice
> >> became so popular? Why didn't others follow the Mac's lead, if that
> >> design was so intuitive?
>
> > Of course it isn't intuitive because it doesn't repeat previously
learned
> > knowledge. It is difficult or impossible to combine innovation with
> > intutive use.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I never said otherwise. In my own software
> design, I weigh the relative advantages of sticking with something
> familiar versus the power of something innovative. Not all innovations
> are equally powerful. Not all familiar items are equally useful.
So, we come full circle to the arbitrary keystrokes for vi commands
and the intuitive ways to combine them....
> >>> Yes, they are different things. You can learn facts without doing
> >>> any reasoning.
>
> >> That's memorization. Not what I call learning. When I expect my
> >> students to learn something, I do not expect them to simply memorize
> >> some facts.
>
> > Then you are calling learning the wrong thing.
>
> Rather ironic, coming from someone calling intuition the wrong thing.
You have the right to your own wrong opinion.
> > You can only learn facts,
>
> If I tell you that I think it's windy today, you just learned from me
> something that is an opinion, not a fact.
The fact that you tell me something does not mean that I have
learned anything. If facts are involved they are independent
of our opinions.
> > and intuitive things let you re-use those previously
> > learned facts without reasoning.
>
> There's that logical inconsistency between "intuition" and "learning"
> again.
No, that is by definition. It would be illogical to reuse knowledge
before learning it.
> > You are talking about thinking or reasoning instead.
>
> One can learn about reasoning.
But you may or may not be able to learn to reason.
> >> Reasoning is often used to determine facts. Galileo observed the
> >> phases of Venus and reasoned that it had to orbit the Sun.
>
> > Reasoning has nothing to do with facts
>
> Reread what I just wrote.
Why did you delete my refutation of what you wrote? Facts exist
whether anyone reasons about them or not. Reason produces
things that are not facts. The two things are independent.
> > although they may sometimes coincide
>
> Are you now going to diverge into a semantic argument?
I thought that is what it was all along.
> > - but so rarely that it becomes a historical event.
>
> Sounds like you just contradicted yourself. But on what basis do you
> call it "rare"?
You noted one yourself. Newton came close to reasoning out
a fact or two, Einstein came a little closer.
> > Innumerable other people reasoned other, different possibilities
> > that were not facts.
>
> Which doesn't preclude that reasoning can lead to the determination
> of facts.
A million monkeys with typewriters could too.
> > With characters that had special actions associated unless they
> > were put in a special context to negate their special nature.
> > A nicely visible example is documenting the codes used in
> > an 'embedded code' text formatter - or more currently, the
> > encoding used to allow the special characters in html or xml
> > markup to be included in the represented values. Contrast
> > these with what happens when you hit control-C in an
> > OS that uses that value as a program termination signal and
> > you see the different levels and should understand that the
> > levels might be nested arbitrarily deeply.
>
> Doesn't the adjective "special" counter the notion of "intuition"?
As always, it was non-intuitive exactly once.
> > 'Can be' applies to almost everything. It will depend on your prior
> > experience vs. the innovation in the thing in question.
>
> But Aaron claimed that nothing about computers is intuitive. Go argue
> with him.
He may be right. It depends on the computer and how much it
resembles anything the user has previously experienced.
> >> And if somebody showed you a plug and a socket, then called them male
> >> and female without telling you which is which, would you find that an
> >> intuitive used of terminology? Perhaps not "at an early age". Once
> >> again, intuition is not an absolute.
>
> > I would hope that most people would encounter the terms in
> > another context before the one that might be intuitive in
> > the sense of instinctive.
>
> Is there some other sense of "intuitive" that differs from "instinctive"?
> Your notion of "intuitive" is still peculiar. But you didn't really
> answer my question.
Yes, 'instinctive' behavior really does not require any learning. Much
animal/insect behavior is instinctive but no one can demonstate
instinctive behavior in humans. I was implying above that sex might
be instinctive, but on a second thought it is something that takes a
long time to learn to get right. So, given that nothing we do is
really instinctive, things that are intuitive are ones that we
incorrectly think do not require learning, or do not require any
new learning as a consequence of re-using prior knowlege.
> > For many people, probably approaching or past a majority in the US at
> > least.
>
> Thus some things about a computer can be intuitive. Go argue with
> Kulkis about that.
As many things can be intuitive as match prior learning.
> >>> All of them I know do.
>
> >> What fraction of the userbase do you know?
>
> > Enough.
>
> Just how large or small do you think the userbase is?
Why does that matter? The more the merrier, but we
each have just our one life's worth of prior experience.
> >> That presupposes some knowledge of a connection between ^D and signals.
> >> Some people know what to do without knowing the jargon involved.
>
> > Yes, that's why people consider it intuitive.
>
> Not knowing jargon doesn't make something intuitive. Note how I did
> NOT use the Fortran standard jargon for "start, stop, and step" values.
If you need to know the jargon, reasoning is usually involved.
> >>> Yes, believe it or not, people learn what helps them do something
> >>> better/faster/easier.
>
> >> That doesn't prove they know everything practical.
>
> > I didn't say they did.
>
> Then why did you remove what you did say?
Because the conversation was not going anywhere. Why
does it matter if our opinions differer about what someone
else knows?
> > Or did you not do something usefull after backgrounding the
> > previous one?
>
> Usually one "backgrounds" a process to permit something useful to
> be done in another window. Of course, there's no guarantee that
> what gets done is useful; if might be an accidental command to
> delete a file that you didn't want to delete.
If you have multiple windows, there is no particular need to
background something. The real value was on non-windowed
systems.
> >> On the contrary, tell that to the novice (the "escaping the special
> >> character" part), and see how many press the Esc key first.
>
> > Yes, you can tell a novice to type 'run', spelling it for him
> > and see him type 'are you in'. That is cute but equally
> > irrelevant.
>
> Nothing cute or irrelevant about my example.
It is an equally trivial misunderstanding.
> > There are innumerable ways to mislead a novice.
>
> There would be fewer with an intuitive design.
I've seen no evidence to support that, unless you are using
the semantic ruse that previously eductating the novice can
make even a complex design intuitive to him.
> > If you have to apply reasoning to deal with the differences it is not
> > intuitive. If you don't, it is.
>
> Depends on what you call "reasoning". Suppose you find yourself in
> a hotel room with a television remote control that doesn't have all
> the buttons labeled with words, but one has a different color. If
> you press that one and the set turns on, was it intuition that got
> you the desired result, or was it reasoning?
Neither, unless you have learned from a similar remote control
what the color codes mean. Otherwise it is guesswork.
> > It isn't the same task if it isn't the same teeth.
>
> As I feared, you're resorting to a semantic argument.
Of course it is a semantic argument. What other kind
is there about the meaning of a word?
> The task is
> the same. Washing your windows is still the same task, even if you
> had to replace one window because an errant baseball broke it.
Hmm, we live one life - it is all still the same life so there can't
be anything different about it from one day to the next...
> > How did you decide you should even brush the new one at all?
>
> Certainly not intuition.
Reasoning? Separate learning?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
