The Kernel startup messages are still there..just not all those verbose
junks. Even Linus said he wants less messages. Not to mention, there can
always be a diagnostic boot that will NOT hide them, but the extra verbose
things which aren't pass/fail messages aren't actually needed. Does your
system boot any different if it didn't report what version of the MD driver
you have, or the offsets of the fsck that just happened? In reality, you
just need to know is it using MD, Are the MD devices starting, did my system
just FSCK, did my system just fail starting my nic driver, etc. Beware the
thought that dumbing down and hiding are the same. Why do you think LPP was
invented?
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jens Benecke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 2:04 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Win4Lin-users] running windows commands from linux
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 04:54:28PM -0500, Gonyou, Austin wrote:
>
> > I disagree that hiding things is a way to make things user
> friendly. If
> > OSX had a big stinking xterm icon on the desktop, would
> that make it any
> > less user friendly?
>
> Then why do some current distros _HIDE_ the kernel startup messages?
>
> > The real issue is that by hiding things sometimes(which I'm
> not in favor
> > of for the record), it can cut back on support calls
> because people can
> > sometimes get access to potentially system crippling things
> like rm if
> > they don't know that rm * will delete everything in a dir, etc.
>
> Actually, I think it's much more probable that they accidentally press
> 'delete' while all files are selected. In Linux, they can only destroy
> their own data, anyway.
>
> But you might be right generally.
>
I think both of these scenarios are correct, but in a system, like windows,
which only has root, the results can be disastrous. Dumbing linux or unix
down in general would cause these problems. Obviously we're smart enough to
know why they should be avoided, thus one of the powers of opensource is
realized. We communicate our thoughts about these things. We try to make
sure others know.
> > That aside, making things user friendly is more a matter of
> accessability
> > and UI design, rather than just where things live.
>
> It#s a matter of consistency. People like to think 'Ah, I've seen that
> before'.
>
>
> And it's a matter of _simple_ interfaces. Think letters.
> Which do you think
> is easier: arabic hieroglyphs or roman alphanumerics? Most
> probably the
> latter.
>
> Why? The hieroglyphs are much more 'picturesque', showing what they
> _really_ mean. They are symbols of their meaning and you can
> 'guess' what
> they might mean if you encounter a new one.
>
> BUT: there are far too many of them! The interface is too complex!
>
> We have 26 letters (+ symbols perhaps 50 altogether). That
> makes up our
> _WHOLE_ language. Of course, the letters do not have ANYTHING
> visual in
> common with their meaning - but nevertheless, most people
> think they are
> simpler. There are fewer paradigms to learn.
>
Actually, people think icons are simpler. If you run X, and have KDE or
GNOME or Enlightenment, then you know what I'm talking about. You must have
a combination of both pictures and words, no matter the language, to make a
full User Interface. Pictures alone in a worded society do not a UI make. We
know this, but we must define what is needed as a community, that we should
offer to the rest of the world.
> It's the same with computers. A graphical interface can only
> convey _one_
> meaning. If the meaning changes, it has to be redesigned. Each program
> uses a slightly different interface. Install a new version
> and you might
> find that the configuration has changed completely, the
> interface has other
> buttons and you find nothing.
>
>
> The shell (for example) is an extremely _simple_ interface to
> an extremely
> rich set of features. Once you have grasped the basic couple
> of operations
> (execute, pipes, redirection, perhaps a couple utilities) you
> can perform
> just about everything your computer can do. Of course, there
> is the higher
> initial learning curve (just like in the roman alphabet), but
> you won't
> have to relearn for each new program.
>
>
> Yes, GUIs do make sens some of the time. Not all of the time, however.
>
>
> > Probalby not, because you wouldn't know how to start any
> programs. In
> > essence, everything is hidden from you. It's all about UI
> design, and
> > accessability. The better UIs are designed, the more
> customizeable it is,
> > within a given parameter set, the more useable it is.
>
> Good you said 'better'. You can squeeze almost everything
> into that word ;)
>
> All GUIs (including Windows and Mac) I've seen so far
> restrained me in some
> way or another as soon as you start serious work. There was an option
> missing, or I couldn't combine apps in the way I wanted, or whatever.
>
> The shell never has. And I guess it never will.
>
>
>
> --
> Jens Benecke
> http://www.hitchhikers.de/ - Die kostenlose Mitfahrzentrale
> f�r ganz Europa
>
_______________________________________________
Win4Lin-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.netraverse.com/mailman/listinfo/win4lin-users
