[CS-FSLUG] Random comment on comment

[Don Parris]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:03:11 -0500, Ed Hurst <softedges at tconline.net> wrote:
> Don Parris wrote:
> > I would say a "clean" interface is one that's uncluttered and looks
> > nice.  Of course, "pretty", "nice", "handsome", "charming", and
> > similar adjectives might better suit the situation.  Of course, I'm
> > currently attempting a "clean" re-installation of SUSE on one box -
> > that is, devoid of any traces of a previous install.  This is
> > important because I believe my last re-installation was contaminated
> > or tainted by the ghost of the first installation.  Are you following
> > this, so far? :)
> 
> Yeah, sure.... NOT. (There's another pop phrase for you, except it
> actually has an established meaning.)
> 
> What is clutter? On the counter next to my bathroom sink, there are
> countless bottles, tubes, and various other objects. They are all neatly
> place in rows, organized by purpose (not by type), and I know exactly
> where everything is. You can hardly see any counter space open, except
> at the front edge -- don't want stuff falling off, you know.
> 
> Is that cluttered? It *is* clean because I dust and wipe often. And it
> is very usable because that's how my brain is organized. It looks pretty
> nice to me, because I never have to hunt for things. In other words,
> "clean interface" is a buzz-word which by no means equates with "more
> usable." Am I in this one-in-a-million, or just kinda oddball?
> 
> And what is "clean code"? Does less code automatically mean "cleaner"?
> What is less code means dropping out a checkpoint that just isn't likely
> to be used -- but does come up once in awhile? I've seen some "clean"
> bash scripts that will never mean a thing to me, but I know how to get
> what I need most of the time.
> 
> I maintain my church's lawnmower. It's *never* clean, because it stays
> covered with dust. Dusty roads, dusty soil under the grass, etc.
> However, it is always properly lubricated, and I sharpen the blades
> after every two acres of mowing. It always works well, but is never clean.
> 
> If you ask me, this business of talking about "clean interface" is just
> an attempt to sway people, to define for them what it means to be an
> elite user of computers. Don't tell me about "clean." Tell me about
> "adaptable to needs of a wide variety of individual users." Tell me I
> get what I want, and so does the snob next door. I like stuff organized,
> but all close to the surface. I have my favorite CLI stuff I do, with
> two or more Xterms open on my six desktops at any given moment. Each one
> is used differently, so the window size and shape are different. I don't
> care how easy it is to change the window shape, size, location, etc.
> I'll get it where and how I want it and leave it for days on end.
> 
> So my rant is a slap at the snobbishness of a certain parisan group of
> users. Too often that group is Gnome fanatics, but includes others. Nor
> do I love KDE so much (yes, there are more than two, just like political
> parties in the US). KDE is better for me because I can set it my likings
> immediately, with just a few clicks. Can't with Gnome. Too bad. Gnome
> isn't written for me. Nor is Rat Poison, E, and a hundred others. IceWM
> is written for me. In ten minutes I can create a menu from scratch that
> will match my use pattern. It requires a text editor, and is not what we
> could call "elegant" but works for me.
> 
> I am far more impressed when writers tout the newest thing as
> "configurable" and "adaptable" and to a wide array of needs and uses.
> 
> Yep, it's still about freedom.
> 
Hmmm....   CHADDB's MySQL back-end is not what I would describe as
"clean" or elegant.  Yet any church could easily deploy it, whether
they choose to wait for the java front-end, or simply hook it up to
OpenOffice.org.  The Java front-end will likely add elegance, and if
well written, bring out or enhance the power of the back-end design. 
Users could choose between a so-called native interface or web-enabled
interface.  It's back-end seeks modularity.

If the front-end proves to be modular, as expected, it will allow for
ease of maintenance and upgrading.  It will also allow flexibility for
end-users.  In other words, you could choose which functions you want,
rather than shoving them down your throat.  Is this more the kind of
thing you _want_ to hear?

Don

> 
> _______________________________________________
> ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> Christiansource at ofb.biz
> http://cs.uninetsolutions.com
> 



-- 
DC Parris GNU Evangelist
http://matheteuo.org/
gnumathetes at gmail.com
Free software is like God's love - 
you can share it with anyone anywhere anytime!