Which way to go for linux/comp-systems?

[xbob]

Arctic, what you are asking for is an appliance, not a computer.

yes and no. sure, i am asking for a simple way to do things, but must i cripple down a computer system, in order to make it usable for older people? if there were not so much possibilities of bloating systems due to the hardware we have, all would imho be more reduced to the stuff we really need and we would think more of how we construct an operating system, given the limited resources.

 

right now, we tend to program everything the way we like, as long as it works, because with the current technology, it doesn't really matter if one app uses 10 or 30 mb ram. we have enough hardware resources, we can write a "not so clean" code for programs and nobody will cry "foul, you wasted 5 mb ram". i still think that programmers and user got lazy due to the constant "technological progress" we make.

 

yes, some might state that they constantly need all the power their comp has. but for what? most have to agree that they need that power for gaming. boooh! that is no reason for defending bloated and thus complicated systems imho. and rendering images? i have done that on less powerful computers. okay, it might take 2 hours longer, but what the heck? if it takes some more time, then let it and drink a coffee or read a book in the meantime. there are better things to do in life than working faster and faster and faster and faster and ...

;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know that you can re-focus the whole industry to satisfy ease of use issues for older people, I still contend a good net appliance will fill this need. Put those same older people at a command line and they'll get up and walk away. A fully equipped PC isn't as simple as a toaster or microwave, and it probably can't be.

 

As for bloat, it's in the eye of the beholder. I remember my first 386 but I don't miss it, I much prefer my current system by a long shot, bloat and all. I would rather be able to compile a program in a few minutes to see if it works/if I like it than to wait 2 hours to find out. I like media rich web pages and SuperKaramba with it's guages. I also think much of this demand for speed is required for many business users and not just gamers, and as a network admin I can say that I would much rather have tools open in 2 seconds versus 2 minutes.

[arctic]

I don't know that you can re-focus the whole industry to satisfy ease of use issues for older people

:lol:

i am not trying to refocus the whole industry in that way. the issues of older people were just an example for showing the "bad sides" of current computers.

 

I also think much of this demand for speed is required for many business users and not just gamers

well, some ten years ago, we also had computers in business and the stuff they had was sufficcient. why ain't it sufficient today? because we think that way or do we really need every year new machines that work faster and are more powerful? (i can still write a letter by using pen and paper. i don't really need a 4 mhz comp to write something or draw some lines. or am i wrong? ;) )

[Ixthusdan]

Anthropology is interesting. The anthropologist thinks that sitting and observing is a possibility in the real world. They concoct elaborate sets of rules prohibiting interaction with the observed groups of people, so as not to poison their dis-passionate observations. Indeed, an anthropologist can witness murder and death without getting involved. :D Of course, anthropologists fail to view their very presence as the poison that throws their observations into subjectivity, rather than objectivity.

 

So it is with computers.

 

Why not have an appliance? Why not just have a word processor? The answer is that the very capacity that computers introduce alters the expectations and the environment. And the difficulties of using a computer are introduced by these changes. We started down the road answering simple problems. The solutions create new sets of problems, which give rise to different solutions, creating new problems, blahblahblah....:roll:

 

Microsoft acts like the anthropologist, in that technology must be simple for the user. What they can't solve they ignore. Their world domination tech-monopoly is only a side affect of their anthropological approach to technology!!

 

So which way to go? Complex, in order to learn the new problems, of course!

[xbob]

:lol:

i am not trying to refocus the whole industry in that way. the issues of older people were just an example for showing the "bad sides" of current computers.

 

well, some ten years ago, we also had computers in business and the stuff they had was sufficcient. why ain't it sufficient today? because we think that way or do we really need every year new machines that work faster and are more powerful? (i can still write a letter by using pen and paper. i don't really need a 4 mhz comp to write something or draw some lines. or am i wrong? ;) )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are taking a narrow view of buisness computing, from groupware to interactive content, things have gotten a bit beyond opening Edit and banging out some text. And I'm not aware of too many businesses or home users who upgrade every year (excluding the gamers we mentioned above), it's more of an ebb and flow where some users keep their technology to squeeze out "just a little more value" while some are ready for new features and power "now". Neither party is wrong, so why alter the progress of technology if everyone is satisfied and something worthy exist at every price point?

 

You are starting to sound like a Luddite :unsure: ? :D Yes you can use a pen and paper to write anything, but then without the technology we are using right now I wouldn't be reading your response to this for several day, and all of these other people couldn't join in the discussion. Sure, we could have done this more than 10 years ago sitting at a green screen, but if accessibility is your concern, hasn't this (albeit sometimes difficult) technology made this whole discussion more accessible?

 

Arctic, let me say up front you are a deep thinker, and I thuroughly enjoy having this discussion with you, but it's this bloated technology that makes it all possible.

[arctic]

but it's this bloated technology that makes it all possible

okay, it is this "bloated technology" you say. i state that this "bloated" technology is not really necessary, if we would provide users with even smaller programs, more simplistic programs. but we would have to define "bloated" first in order to start a deep discussion.

:D

don't get me wrong, i personally like an eye-catching desktop/os, and when i really feel, i want something more simplistic, i switch on blackbox or the like. but i seriously ask myself, why programs that do not really do more than e.g. word for dos did, take up 100 times more hd-space today than they did fiftteen years ago, without adding anything really new? word for dos used some seven megabyte on a 100 mb hd (which was an extremely hd for that time). now look at todays word-processing programs. ~70+ megabyte hd space and 64 mb ram minimum. this is a bad joke. not everyone is willing to buy (or can afford) a new comp every two years in order to keep pace with technology. okay, that is the way that business is, i understand that (every company wants to sell processors, hd's,...). but: why haven't we been able to augment an applications capabilities/abilities while reducing its size at the same time without giving up on stability?

[xbob]

but it's this bloated technology that makes it all possible

okay, it is this "bloated technology" you say. i state that this "bloated" technology is not really necessary, if we would provide users with even smaller programs, more simplistic programs. but we would have to define "bloated" first in order to start a deep discussion.

:D

don't get me wrong, i personally like an eye-catching desktop/os, and when i really feel, i want something more simplistic, i switch on blackbox or the like. but i seriously ask myself, why programs that do not really do more than e.g. word for dos did, take up 100 times more hd-space today than they did fiftteen years ago, without adding anything really new? word for dos used some seven megabyte on a 100 mb hd (which was an extremely hd for that time). now look at todays word-processing programs. ~70+ megabyte hd space and 64 mb ram minimum. this is a bad joke. not everyone is willing to buy (or can afford) a new comp every two years in order to keep pace with technology. okay, that is the way that business is, i understand that (every company wants to sell processors, hd's,...). but: why haven't we been able to augment an applications capabilities/abilities while reducing its size at the same time without giving up on stability?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dunno', I thought that was exactly what Linux was doing?

[Darkelve]

but i seriously ask myself, why programs that do not really do more than e.g. word for dos did, take up 100 times more hd-space today than they did fiftteen years ago, without adding anything really new? word for dos used some seven megabyte on a 100 mb hd (which was an extremely hd for that time). now look at todays word-processing programs. ~70+ megabyte hd space and 64 mb ram minimum. this is a bad joke. not everyone is willing to buy (or can afford) a new comp every two years in order to keep pace with technology. okay, that is the way that business is, i understand that (every company wants to sell processors, hd's,...). but: why haven't we been able to augment an applications capabilities/abilities while reducing its size at the same time without giving up on stability?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

About the word processor: AbiWord and Textmaker are small both in HD size and memory usage. Textmaker is great for older computers. Then, there are those thingies like Latex or Lyx (or something). I imagine these are very small, but professional. Sure they won't have any mind-blowing GUI, but neither did your Word for Dos.

[arctic]

i also thought so, when i started with linux, but if you look at some programs, i doubt it. i think there must be a way to make the packages even smaller. if we look e.g. at the size of computers today, compared to the 1970's, they are very small, have even smaller data-storage equipment. why didn't get the coding of programs get smaller, too? :unsure:

 

maybe it has to do with the different programming-languages that are basically somehow similar in their approach (correct me, if i am wrong here, as i am no professional programmer). ain't there a way for a more compressed language than c, c++, python, etc.? i think this could help both programmers and users alike (although it would surely be a whopping task to develop a new language again and implement it in linux ).

[xbob]

i also thought so, when i started with linux, but if you look at some programs, i doubt it. i think there must be a way to make the packages even smaller. if we look e.g. at the size of computers today, compared to the 1970's, they are very small, have even smaller data-storage equipment. why didn't get the coding of programs get smaller, too?    :unsure:

 

maybe it has to do with the different programming-languages that are basically somehow similar in their approach (correct me, if i am wrong here, as i am no professional programmer). ain't there a way for a more compressed language than c, c++, python, etc.? i think this could help both programmers and users alike (although it would surely be a whopping task to develop a new language again and implement it in linux  ).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't entirely disagree with this, but I am not a programmer and wouldn't know where to start. The C languages we designed with poratbility in mind, so I think user demand drives the bloat. Take away features=smaller code, but is that what most people want? Arctic, it strikes me that one paticular program has sent you off on this chain of thoughts, what program tipped you over the edge on this topic?

[tyme]

ain't there a way for a more compressed language than c, c++, python, etc.?

C/C++ is a compiled language. I write code that I understand, I run the compiler on it, and it compiles it into a binary. That binary is 0's and 1's, machine code - you can't get any more compressed than that. In the case of compile languages, it's not a matter of the language - it's a matter of the programmer. If I'm going to be doing a certain calculation a couple times, I just make it a function that I can call when I need it - this reduces the amount of code that is written, and will reduce the run time and size of the compiled program.

 

Programs have become bigger because they have more features. That's all there is to that discussion. I think some program writers (*cough* MS *cough*) need to go back and audit their code to find a way to minimize it.

[arctic]

Arctic, it strikes me that one paticular program has sent you off on this chain of thoughts, what program tipped you over the edge on this topic?

 

okay, the first program is the good old internet browser. anyone remember the sizes of the first netscape version? sure, they were not that pretty, but they did the job. second: why do we need java and subsequently java-plugins? or flash? (don't start a flame-war with me now ;))

second program was (obvioulsly) word-processing, third program was my e-mail app, fourth was winzip (got bigger without being any different and yes, i switched to freezip and things like that later), fifth program was photoshop (great software, indeed (except the price)), sixth program was *...ahem...* windows in itself and then i got a bit frustrated with the ram-usage of linux.

 

Programs have become bigger because they have more features.

 

nope. did i mention winzip? ah yes... i did. and my email-program? ah,... too.

[tyme]

why do we need java and subsequently java-plugins? or flash? (don't start a flame-war with me now ;))

if you don't want 'em, don't get 'em, :P

 

and then i got a bit frustrated with the ram-usage of linux.

you do realize that a lot of the usage is just cached RAM, which is freed when needed?

 

you yourself may not understand the need for anything beyond a tandy 1500 with DOS and a few batch scripts, mixed with some basic CUI programs...

 

but I find the newer technologies are needed and do in fact have advantages. Home computers are no longer just internet stations and word processing units. They're musicals studios in a box. graphic creation stations and gaming platforms.

[arctic]

but I find the newer technologies are needed and do in fact have advantages. Home computers are no longer just internet stations and word processing units. They're musicals studios in a box. graphic creation stations and gaming platforms.

okay, here we are at the point of personal preferences where further arguing will lead to no solution. you might find them useful, i (in parts) do not them useful. :)

 

 

QUOTE(arctic @ Jul 25 2004, 05:06 PM)

why do we need java and subsequently java-plugins? or flash? (don't start a flame-war with me now ;) )

 

if you don't want 'em, don't get 'em,  :P

 

yeah, but then i can't see some websites :P

 

you do realize that a lot of the usage is just cached RAM, which is freed when needed?

yupp. but even so... open office eats lots of ram, same does mozilla.

[xbob]

okay, here we are at the point of personal preferences where further arguing will lead to no solution. you might find them useful, i (in parts) do not them useful. :)

 

 

QUOTE(arctic @ Jul 25 2004, 05:06 PM)

why do we need java and subsequently java-plugins? or flash? (don't start a flame-war with me now ;) )

 

if you don't want 'em, don't get 'em,  :P

 

yeah, but then i can't see some websites :P

 

you do realize that a lot of the usage is just cached RAM, which is freed when needed?

yupp. but even so... open office eats lots of ram, same does mozilla.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But you have a choice, you can run Deb with FluxBox, or an even lighter window manager. You can use Vi or eMacs for text editing, and there are tons of lightweight web and mail clients. This goes back to trying to refocus the industry again, the web is now media rich and plug-ins serve a great purpose, bloat or not the Internet continues to evolve into different things, some better, some worse. There is nothing stopping you from hanging in IRC, getting your mail with Pine and so forthe. You are a solution in search of a problem, you have the freedom to run as light and unfettered as you chose or as bloated and eye-candy laden as your hardware can handle.

[tyme]

but I find the newer technologies are needed and do in fact have advantages. Home computers are no longer just internet stations and word processing units. They're musicals studios in a box. graphic creation stations and gaming platforms.

okay, here we are at the point of personal preferences where further arguing will lead to no solution. you might find them useful, i (in parts) do not them useful. :)

Whether you or I agree on whether or not it's useful to us, the need is there in the real world. We don't have to agree on how useful these things may be -to us-, because what is being discussed is whether or not the need for them exists - and I know for a fact it does.

 

Like xbob points out, you're trying to change the industry to meet your very basic needs, when many others are in need of the power and "bloat" which you denounce as "useless" (IYO, that is).