Linux

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Why is Linux interface in poverty?

0 helpful
23 replies

by vidalr

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

The term ?Interface? is used differently by individuals, specialist , media professionals, interface managers, plus those in computing and cognitive science . We cannot forget in computer interface the
abstract people, the hackers the game makers, chat rooms retrieval id's.
For example interface scholars have shown their concern in computer interface or human to human communication. Many designers have develop useful definitions in specific fields to improve this phenomena call computer interface.
This definitions has the fortunate consequence of having different kind of processes carrying the C.I. phenomena.
A general definition of C.I. is that man and machine, or machine as a medium for man can communicate whiteout hindrance, if there are errors or misinformation it will cause to humans a problem which consequences are the lack of creativity and evolution.
Why Linux does not have the in the broad sense the human C.I.? I do have 9 different versions of Linux live dvd, my pay check has arrived so for sure I going to buy 2 more? yet one of the most basic and brainless feature wont be there the human C. I.?
I ask why? why? why!!!!!!
waiting for your speedy feed back
R

23 replies

by tony hopkinson

I've sometimes struggled to find the interface I required for linux functionality. That's generally because I had had my windows or VMS head on though.

by jmgarvin

The CLI is clean, various window managers are clean, and most of the tools that you would use on a daily basis are either intuitive or map to similar MS tools.

So, specific examples would be nice so we could figure out what is wrong.

by w2ktechman

try using a different interface. Linux distros have several different interfaces, if you want one mor like Windows, go with KDE, if you want one similar to, but not too much like Windows, try GNOME, there are others as well like x-windows, etc.
If you are talking about an interface for an administration task, then please specify

by deadly ernest

1. An interface is the bit, physical or otherwise, where two seperate structures come together. The interface between a person and a phone network is the telephone dial. What you have concentrated on here is the Graphics User Interface of a Computer Operating System - and they can be however their designers want them to be. Over the years I've used hundreds of COS GUIs.

2. everything you have said is applicable to all computer software - operating systems and applications. So why single out the Linux ones. Only reason I can see here is that you find the LInux ones harder as they're slightly different to what you're used to using. It's like going from a 3 gear stick shift to four on the floor. A bit tricky to get the hang of, is all.

3. Each distribution of Linux is different as each designer wanted a different GUI, one that suits the result they're looking for. However, the variation is only about the differences that you get between MS Win 3.1, NT, 95, XP, and Vista - often even less than Win 98 and Vista.

Summary - if you don't like any of what you see, and can't be bothered asjusting to it, keep trying more, than try Unix, BSD, Mac etc until you find one you like. If you're very used to the MS Windows style. Try Linspire Linux or Redmont Linux - they're based on a Windows type GUI.

by vidalr

When speaking about Computer Interface we propose that not only variety of software or computer systems can apply these principles, on the contrary we do not suggest but we emphasize that C. I. Must be consistent with this field-independent conceptual framework for information. Our definition is a generalization of the work of disciplinary specific concepts of information about C.I. Provided by scholars such as Buckland, Dekker, and Shannon. We believe that our definition is consistent with the problems and the data found in a wide range of fields in both the humanities, social sciences, and ``hard" sciences, our definition will conflict with other definitions that limit the domain of a field's study of C. I. ; this conflict arises between any general definition and more specific and limiting definitions. We are not saying that these field-specific definitions are wrong for the field in which they are defined; instead, we suggest a more general definition that can be applied to a broad range of fields and can facilitate communication about Computer human interface phenomena.
Note that we do consider the different GUI or variety of Linux flavors ``errors" or ``misinformation" in our discussion of Computer interface, the reader should assume processes are error-free until that point, unless otherwise stated.

As a poor example we can use voice over ip protocol or V.O.I.P a business oriented science that have been around since 1987 . Why it has not click? Because, the interface the name voice over ip protocol is too complex for the home user. Is cheaper, practical yet out of the 270 millions of Americans how many are using VOIP?
One of the most common ways to define information is to describe it as one or more statements or facts that are received by a human and that have some form of worth to the recipient. For example, maybe Americans do not realize that they can talk and even see their friends and family for free using MSN they talk long distance and pay the phone bill to people who have a computer, this very act is of paying for what is free is an error a misinformation maybe what Microsoft has to do is to have more Computer Interface so that every time that windows is open a telephone and the sky cloud jpg says: So and So wants to talk with you.
If C. I. is needed on Voip how much an operating system must have it. Linux doesn?t..
Why?
R.

by deadly ernest

to start from scratch again. There are some basic principles that apply to all interfaces, like keep it simple, and design it well. But there are no principles that you state apply in the manner you're speaking off.

You speak of the interface for VOIP being bad, then start talking about it's name or designator. A designator is NOT an interface, it's just a name or label, some sort of tag to refer to it. An interface is what allows two disparate things to interact.

A better name for VOIP would be NetPhone, but VOIP is the acronym of the technical term, and the marketing people took that to run with. Most people drive a car and fill it up with gas - yet it's real name is automobile (derived from automated buggy) and uses petroleum gazoline to run on.

You talk about using VOIP and webcam over MSN, yet totally leave out the fact that large portions of the community do NOT have access to the technologies to make these work properly. They both need broadband for best performance and neither are worth using on dial up under 40 kbps. Many people still have basic phone services and can't handle these. Also VOIP is only good where enough people use have them, or the normal phone system is linked to it some how. For most of the time since VOIP first started, you could only call someone when they had a VOIP phone as well, and were using the same service as you. Gee, remember when, in the USA, you couldn't call someone on the Bell network except from a Bell phone - same deal mate. Now some companies are integrating VOIP with normal phone services, and we should see an expansion in this area. But why should Mr J get VOIP, if none of the people he calls are available through it. That's been the problem here.

You obviously misunderstand the differences between the two networks and purposes of the Internet and a phone service. One is instant communication with a direct link, at a set standard (phone); while the other is a service that doesn't require instant connection (it can be used that way at times) and uses different protocols etc.

It seems to me what you are calling CI is really Ease of Use Ability, and that is totally different to an interface, and what is easy is very personal.

Linux has a much high EUA than Windows, when looking at it from the aspect of a new user. If you're used to Windows, then you have a learning curve. If used to Linux and switch to Windows, you have a higher learning curve - this is due to the well known psychological factor often called 'familiarity.'

Any computer system requires dozens of interfaces; software - software ones, hardware - software ones, people - software ones, people - hardware ones. To allow the different programs to interact with each other, the hardware, and the users.

by tony hopkinson

None of the contributors want it enough to develop it.
Open source is for us, if you want some you have to join in.
Personally I don't see any particular advantage in VOIP, certainly not enough to sit down and start coding it.

by stress junkie

If it weren't for the poor English I would think that you are quoting a book written in English. Maybe you're quoting a book written in another language.

"... we propose that..."
"... C. I. Must be consistent with this field-independent conceptual framework for information."
"We are not saying that these field-specific definitions are wrong ..."
"...the reader should assume..."

We? Our? The reader?

Are you kidding? This has to all be from a text book.

I'll admit it's pretty funny though. :D

by vidalr

It has never been the point of on these discussions to talk about Voip itself but of the lack of computer human interface. Linux does not have it.
Computer human interface has as a counterpart: information, which must de consistent and clear knowing that in exact nature (substance. Energy or abstract concept) isn?t clear. Linux provide to home users a repeat Computer human interface in most of their OS is not informative. In C.H.I be ?true? a lie or false or counterfactual information is misinformation, not information itself.
.

This C.H.I. approach to information, like most human-centered approaches to information, leads one to emphasize the meaning and use of message, ``what the message is about?" and ``what is known already?" over the information carrying messenger and the message itself. When the C.H.I. is essentially random, or the message is of no value to the recipient, such as a repeated message previously received and understood, it is colloquially said that no information was received and no information was transmitted.
Some individuals equate information with meaning. Having a C.H.I. poor as Linux makes their statement not good enough to make an event an informative act; its meaning must be perceived to make the statement informative. Arguing against this approach, ``it is psychologically almost impossible not to make the shift from the one sense of C. H. I. to the other sense, information = what is expressed by the signal sequences?.
In an approach similar to defining C. H. I meaning, information is often understood in terms of knowledge that is transmitted to a sentient being ``that which occurs within the mind upon the absorption of a message"
The reasons of Linux and what implies not to have a Computer Human Interface is a?
R

by deadly ernest

starting another sub thread on the main issue of Human Computer Interfaces, as this is getting too close to the maximum message depth.

1. VOIP access is an application, Linux is an Operating System. An OS is the base upon which the applications are added. the OS is the bit that links the hardware, the application and the user. All it should have is what's needed to use the basic hardware, and provide a usable link for access by the user.

Even Windows doesn't give you VOIP access without an application to do so.

2. You speak, constantly, against Linux, yet it is just as good as Mac and Windows, and Unix. In each case the OS is to provide a place for the applications to be accessible. Linux does that just as well as all the other computer operating systems.

In the last few months I've switched from MS Windows, to Linux. I find the Linux desktop and screen easier to use than the Windows XP one. Yes, I had to learn a bit about where Linux put things different to Windows. But I had to do the same things when I bought a new car, the dial etc are in different places. Even the various Windows versions do the same thing.

You can get similar differences between the various Linux installations as well. They all do them in slightly different manners. However, if you use the KDE desktop, then you'll find them very similar to the way Windows used to work. Gnome is a lot more different from Windows, than KDE is.

The Linux desktop is just as effective as every other OS desktop out there.

3. Think of your computer this way. The chassis, engine, wheels and transmission are the computer hardware. The OS is the steering wheel, brakes, dashboard dials, and gear lever you choose. You can now drive about. The applications are the body, seats, the windows, the power steering attachments, the car phone, the radio, the fluffy dice on the mirror, etc. They're what you touch and use on a daily basis.

4. Regarding the wider question of Computer Human Interfaces - that I'm handling in the new thread. BTW The way you've described this aspect has changed a bit since the initial post, and what you're trying to discuss makes much more sense in the post I'm responding to here.

edited to fix a couple of typos.

by tony hopkinson

a sweeping generalisation.
You provided VOIP.
I answered it.
I suggest a bit more work on in Human - Human interaction, perhaps your problems stem from here.

I see no real difference between linux and any other OS in terms of CI.

There are differences, but intuitive to you and intuitive to me are very different animals. I for instance have no problem with a command line interface. Based on my experience of dealing with computers it makes perfect sense.

Graphical interfaces can be ridiculously counter intuitive, they have to be designed in a particular way, which may not fit naturally into what they are meant to achieve.

Why are you specifically hitting on Linux? I suspect the interface isn't intuitive to you because the foundation isn't there.

by deadly ernest

A computer is a machine, fancy machine, but a machine. It's much more capable than most machines. Most computers are used for the creation, transfer, storage, dissemination, retrieval of information. To do this properly, the system must be able to provide information on what it's doing to the operator. Let's call the information it's handling data, call the operator the user, and call the user requests and processes actions. OK.

Now information is passed be between people, and between people and machines, and between machines, in many forms. In each case the information can be on actions or data. The information is formulated into symbols that mean something to both parties (whatever they are) and usually means the same thing to both parties.

OK here goes.

When a user wants to handle data, they need to formulate a request and pass this to the computer. It then processes the request, and returns the results to the user - usually by giving the user the requested data, or by storing the new data.

This process can be done in many ways, and has been done so. The computer uses electronic signals while humans use more physical symbols, usually visual ones. In the early days of computers, things like punch cards were used to transfer symbols between the computer and the user. This improved to the use of printed words on a piece of paper. Today we use keyboards to send electronic instructions one letter at a time, we use voice interaction software (like Dragon Dictate), and we use graphical user interfaces - GUI. In the future we may well use some sort of process whereby we think thoughts and they're transmitted to the computer, and the data is fed back as thoughts - scientists are already working on this.

At the moment, the most common interaction with computers and humans is to use a GUI.

In the use of a GUI, the designer picks or creates symbols. They assign a meaning to that symbol, and then instruct both the user and the computer as to what that symbol means. The industry has reached an agreement that certain symbols will always have specific meanings, also there are many symbols within the general community that have set meanings, and these are used within GUIs with their general community meaning (stop signs being a classical example).

No computer ever creates a symbol of its own, the scientists are working to try and get one to do so, such an action would be evidence of Artificial Intelligence.

The end result is that the designer establishes symbols, and their meanings, these are made known to the computer and the user. When a symbol is activated, the meaning made known to the computer is a set of coded computer instructions, that the computer follows. This process is by far the most efficient used to date, as one symbol can be sued to convey many words or ideas, what ever you wish it to.

Program designers study many social science things that have an impact on their work. Like which colours evoke what emotions, etc.

To date, all people involved in computer application, and operating system, designs stick to a bunch of very general symbols that have very general meanings. this is done to minimise the learning curve of people using a piece of software they haven't used before. Where they have to create a new symbol, they try to make it as intrinsically obvious as possible, and thus obvious what it refers to, based on normal human development and educational factors.

The next level of symbol usage is the design of menus, various actions are grouped together in sub groups and placed in a menu. This is done to give people access to a much wider set of actions. All this is also taken into account by the designers. And the values are assigned by them, errors occur, when some human, either designer or user, does not do their job correctly. Actual hardware errors are extremely rare, most turn out to be software design faults.

-----------------

There is another aspect of this that we have not covered, and I will touch on it lightly, we can start a new sub thread if you wish to delve further. That is the process of the computer assisted human - human interface or interaction. So far we have spoken about when humans deal with computers.

However, when a person, deals with another person, solely via a computer (such as this discussion thread) we have another type of interface, the Human-Machine-Human Interface H-M-H I, today, the machine is often a computer.

This type of interface has its good points and its bad points. Look at Stephen Hawking, the H-M-H I he uses allows him to interact with people, no computer, no interaction. People who need time to work out what someone is saying, finds the written word much easier to understand, they have time to puzzle out the meanings. It often removes the live response, reactions we're used to seeing.

The types of systems we're talking about here are telephones, answering machines, computer controlled answering machines, electronic boards and discussion threads (like this), chat rooms, video conferences, etc.

These system allow us to step back and be a bit dehumanised, they also allow us higher levels of anonymity. These have both good and bad aspects.

-----------

In both these interface activities, opportunities exist for errors because people frequently wish to assign their own values for what symbols (be they pictures or words) mean.

by tony hopkinson

that we only communicate in symbols.
Language is symbols. There are some symbolic conventions such as maths, electronic circuits etc that given you've learnt them are very specific, but they achieve that at the cost of what sort of information they can communicate.

For instance I worked at a steel mill, one of out most popular interfaces was a simple layout of the mill, so location labels and red blocks progressing from start to finish. It was extremely successful, but would not mean crap to anyone outside of the steel industry.

by deadly ernest

symbols, instead of words, letters etc. A symbol can be anything, and mean so much or so little. When thinking about these types of things, one must also remember that the map is NOT the territory, just one symbolic representation of it.

by dawgit

Wake up and smell the Coffee. Maybe if you had attended a Linux Conference somewhere, you'd already have the answers you seem to be searching for.
"Asterisk" at the moment that is the VOIP of choice. And guess what... 'Open Sourse' and works on Linux, and BSD, and Open Solaris. Dig, you won't find gold with your nose in the air.
Your ramblings do not make sense to me.

by vidalr

Lets concluded the Linux computer interface, this topic is crucial to today?s human use of Linux as prewriting system , we are not talking about, how well the desktop is design, because we need to speak as well about the tools , the office, the consoles, the different ways of connectivity, the hundreds of applications that are in the lives dvd of Suse 10.1 or Knoppix 5.0 plus Ubuntu 6.06 or the releases of Knoppix hacks or hacking knoppix by O?really is in this systems of Linux were the Computer human interface is not found, were the input and output, speak volumes of were I?m getting into , the coherence of the theory of truth derived for and from Linux, were the belief in Linux OS has become justified . Statement may be understood as ``true" if it exactly represents what it is describing. This is referred to as the ``correspondence" theory of truth. This applies not only to statements but to the representation and belief. The coherence theory of truth, on the other hand, suggests that truth is essentially derived for and from Linux.
A statement is true when it is consistent with a system of accepted statements. Truth may also be viewed as a representation that is learned and that will not be altered, even given additional experiences. Defined truth as the vanishing point toward which we imagine that all our temporary truths will some day converge.
The justification of a belief is based on internal considerations concerning the qualities of the function producing the belief. A belief is ``justified" if and only if the input to the function is accurately represented in the output, stop the baby talk if the input of Linux is clear then the output must be clear. Consider a handheld calculator which accepts the keystrokes ``2" ``+" ``2" ``=" and then displays the digit ``4." We note that the digit displayed is not of the same form as the input, e.g., a keystroke. Instead, an accurate function takes keystrokes and produces a displayed number. If the calculator is broken and produces the digit ``3" given the above set of keystrokes, we clearly don't have knowledge that 2+2=4.Consider a different case where the calculator is broken but the above set of keystrokes produces, through erroneous sub processes, the digit ``4" in the display. While the output is correct or ``true" and may be interpreted as a belief, it is not justified--the function is not accurate in that it does not operate as the user intends or understands the calculator to operate.
Other models of knowledge have been proposed, such as the notion that knowledge is one's ``image," what one subjectively believes to be true [Bou56]. This is close to what we have referred to as a belief, and choosing to call it ``knowledge?. Yet, like the more conventional philosophical idea of knowledge, it can be understood as the values in the output of a process, actually, the hierarchical series of processes that range from low level atomic processes up to sophisticated intellectual processes.
Perception and observation can be understood as conveying information about the input to certain processes as Linux bug fixer?s, malware makers (for humans, sensory processes such as seeing, hearing, smelling, etc.) The output of such a process may be understood as a belief. Such a belief may constitute knowledge about the input when the process or set of processes producing the belief operate in a manner consistent with the understanding of the process. These definitions of knowledge and belief are broader than the common language notions of the terms and less human-centered, in the case of belief, making the concepts more objective and more easily studied. We note that knowledge is information that is both true and justified. These perceptual, observational, and processing functions take as input sensory data from the real world, as well as personal beliefs and cultural biases, when producing information bearing output. This conceptual framework for understanding information provides a mechanism for understanding both the cultural influence on information, as well as the minutest phenomena studied by physicists.

Errors, Misinformation, and Bad Data
When discussing knowledge, truth, and information, people often begin speaking of ``misinformation" or ``bad data." Scientists often speak of ``bad data," produced by faulty measurement or poor observations. Misinformation often refers to information that is ``false," that is, the information does not directly reflect the ``true" state of the world. Consider a ``lie" told by an individual or an organization. The person making the lie knows the truth and, instead of repeating it, chooses to produce a lie for some purpose. The lie is then information about the process that produced it. It is misinformation or ``false information" only in the sense that we may not know the nature of the full hierarchy of processes, that is, the characteristics of the function that did eventually produce the lie. The exact nature of misinformation, etc., is subject to a wide range of interpretations (and misinterpretations). ``no structure can carry the information that s is F unless, in fact, s is F. False information, misinformation, and disinformation are not varieties of information" or in Linux case their computer human interface.
Misinformation and related concepts may be defined consistent with the hierarchical model. When what is transmitted is not received as sent, i.e., $x \ne f^{-1}(f(x))$ for some xthat is input to an f(), an information loss has occurred in the process. This can occur when the function fcan be said to be a partially random or noisy process. When this happens, what is transmitted was not reproduced by the function; some of what was transmitted has been ``lost."
When information has been lost in producing a particular output characteristic, the value taken on by the characteristic is determined, in part, by a random or error component. When there exists a non-null error component in determining a characteristic or variable's value, the ``information" contained in the variable may be referred to as ``misinformation." The value of a variable is information about the input; when the information is only partial and is tainted by error, it is better understood as misinformation. Essentially, this is information that is partly or wholly false.
Economists and scholars interested in decision theory often refer to error free information as perfect information. Perfect information about a source domain Xexists when there is a one-to-one mapping in a noiseless environment for the source X onto the destination set Y [Los90]. Information may be said to be incomplete when the mapping from Xis into Y, not onto Y.
We may define another form of misinformation as information that isn't justified. If one believes something for the wrong reasons, one may be said to be ``misinformed." In these cases, there is a perception that something is wrong with the recipient of the information, and it is this faulty nature of the receiver that makes something ``misinformation.
R
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4264625761212493345&q=HACKERS
http://video.google.ca/videoplay? docid=7707585592627775409&q=HACKERS

by deadly ernest

2.0 + 2.0 = 4.0 (only where I like the way the person is inputting the data). :p

Some of the comments re truths etc have some validity, but the statements are totally false in the manner in which they're applied to, and directed against Linux only.

In the past several months, Ive used several Linux systems, and in each case I found the data and information presented as equally valid and easy to use, or easier to use (thus more valid), as the MS offerings.

In effect, he's saying the Linux Human - Computer Interface is wrong because he doesn't understand it, because he's too used to another style. Thus the problem here is the Human element of this individual interface. Sorry, boys we can't fix that side , yet. The people have to be sane and prepared to accept that there IS more than ONE way of doing things right.

Using the logic being applied, then either the H-C I of Win 98 is right and the H-C I of Win XP is wrong, or the reverse, as they're two different interfaces.

Or it maybe as simple as he doesn't understand the basics - an operating system is NOT, and should NOT, be an application; and he's judging the operational effectiveness, as per his judgments, based on his expectations of built in applications. MS loads them in automatically, Linux allows you to install an OS, and then add the applications you want to use, thus giving you more control and saving space.

by tony hopkinson

Thank goodness for that.

Error free information is not possible in any system where chaos is a factor. If chaos isn't a factor then less information can be communicated not more.
Any abstraction, which is what a communication interface is, is use specific. It's heavily dependant on the recipient understanding the symbology as it was meant by the transmitter.

Only if both the transmitter and the recipient are in perfect agreement of the the meaning of the symbols will communication be perfect.

As illustrated by your post which might as well have been in Urdu, for all it communicated to me.

So again why are you targeting linux specifically? If you think drowning me in obscure technical jargon linked with specious logic has distracted me from the fact that you haven't answered this question, well you'd be wrong, again.

by kiltie

see this link for where he is extracting chunks verbatim.

http://ils.unc.edu/~losee/b5/node9.html

I still don't get what he is driving at though, I am inclined to think that you guys are feeding a Troll.

EDIT: Forgot the full reference. It's taken from
[b][i]"A Discipline Independent Definition of Information, by Robert M.Losee published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science Nov 15 1988"[/i][/b]

link (PDF): http://www.ils.unc.edu/~losee/book5.pdf

by deadly ernest

good example of the map is NOT the territory. I once helped plan a scout week long camping trip, we needed four maps of the same area to work it out properly, as each had a slightly different perspective - contour map, national forest trail and camp spot map, wildlife distribution map, emergency services availability map. They were all jammed pack with different types of information. And when we tried transparent overlays, they were un readbale, too much data.

by dawgit

Dated. ]:) (ok, very dated, as in no longer exactly relevant) I Thank you for the research to dig that one up. (I sure didn't have the time, or, the inclination to do so) I did dig up an old text book with much of the same. B-) "An Introduction to Human-Computer Interaction", by Paul Booth, the '90-'92 time frame. It's still way above this 'Troll'. (I had to do some looking for that book too, and in a month a so, it be buried again. :( )
Again, Thanks for your effort. -d

This discussion is closed to new replies.