General discussion

Locked

Why is Linux interface in poverty?

By vidalr ·
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

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

23 total posts (Page 1 of 3)   01 | 02 | 03   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

An example please

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Why is Linux interface i ...

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.

Collapse -

What's SPECIFICALLY bad about SPECIFIC interfaces?

by jmgarvin In reply to Why is Linux interface i ...

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.

Collapse -

Granted, I am not a Linux GURU, But

by w2ktechman In reply to Why is Linux interface i ...

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

Collapse -

OK lets get some reality checks going here

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Why is Linux interface i ...

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.

Collapse -

Linux Computer interface problem

by vidalr In reply to OK lets get some reality ...

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.

Collapse -

If what you say here is how you really think, then you need

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Linux Computer interface ...

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.

Collapse -

Oh that's easy

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Linux Computer interface ...

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.

Collapse -

LINUX INTERFACE

by vidalr In reply to Oh that's easy

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

Collapse -

OK Vidalr, I'll answer some of this here, but I'm also

by Deadly Ernest In reply to LINUX INTERFACE

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.

Collapse -

You were asked for anexample to illustrate

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to LINUX INTERFACE

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.

Back to Linux Forum
23 total posts (Page 1 of 3)   01 | 02 | 03   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums