[Discuss] an "Enterprise" Linux for desktop

[Bill Cattey]

Just to show that every argument is more complicated than you think:

The primary studies that showed that the Dvorak layout was better were done by the Office of Naval Research when it was under the direction of one John Dvorak.  How do you spell conflict of interest?

Another lesson to be learned was that in matters of manual dexterity, often duration of experience matters more than physical optimization.

Seemingly it is obvious: Minimize the finger travel away from the most frequently used keys.  Yet, we are most productive with what we are moved used to.

Food for thought,

-Bill Cattey



On Nov 27, 2011, at 11:28 AM, markw at mohawksoft.com wrote:

>>> From: markw at mohawksoft.com [mailto:markw at mohawksoft.com]
>>> 
>>> Changing existing paradigms is usually a bad
>>> practice unless there is sufficient evidence a new paradigm is better.
>> 
>> The same is true of everything that is being developed by anyone anywhere.
>> Even if you invented a car that consumes negative thoughts and emits love
>> and happiness as the waste product, or even if you were abolishing
>> slavery,
>> or promoting voting rights for women or african americans in the U.S. a
>> few
>> decades ago, people who are entrenched in the existing paradigm will
>> oppose
>> your invention, and you might end up murdered if it's sufficiently
>> important
>> or whatever.
> 
> Come on, have a productive argument. The only thing missing is a reference
> to a mid 20th century authoritarian regime and you'd evoke Godwin's rule.
> We are not talking about human rights or womans' suffrage. We are talking
> about the mechanics of human interactions with machines.
> 
> Think about the QWERTY keyboard. The Dvorák proponents made their case and
> lost. QWERTY is no better or worse than Dvorák and thus, the prevailing
> paradigm won. Rightly so. That's the competition of ideas.
> 
> With user interface, we are not getting a "vote" or a choice. They are
> changing it and we have to learn a new one. We are not letting the
> competition of ideas win, we are being forced to accept new paradigms by
> fiat. IMHO this is not how open source and free software should be
> working.
> 
> 
>> 
>> It's impossible to get everyone to agree that any new change is positive.
> 
> Provide a choice and see which wins.
> 
>> So those decisions are left to the people who have localized control over
>> whatever it is.
> 
> Where's the competition of ideas?
> 
>> 
>> Sometimes the changes are unpopular (vista).  But they may still be
>> justified as a stepping stone to something better (win7 is definitely
>> better
>> than xp).
> 
> Vista is an example of how a Monopoly even has to listen.
>> 
>> As you mentioned, if a feature makes it into a product, was there ever
>> justification to put it in?  And if it's later removed, was there
>> justification to take it out?  Well sometimes things get into a product
>> because it was easy given the architecture, although the architecture may
>> later change.  Sometimes it's something some dude cares about who's
>> actually
>> implementing it.  No, it's not always well thought out, and it doesn't
>> always need to be.  In fact, it's necessary that to some extent it cannot
>> be
>> thoroughly thought out.
>> 
>> Perfection is the enemy of progress.  Plus it's subjective.
> 
> I'm all for experimentation, it is, in the end, how we learn. However,
> "serious" work creates knowledge. Knowledge lasts and contributes to the
> whole. Haphazard work doesn't last and doesn't contribute, its a
> distraction.
> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss