On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:06:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:41:17 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I sort of agree with you on that. However, what techheads might think
of as being a good idea, isn't always a good idea. What techheads
might think of as perfectly comprehensible and/or intuitive is
gibberish to a user. And that is the real problem with open source
because you have the same technoids messing around with what should be
a simple concept and all have differing ideas about how stuff should
work.

Yeah, but . . . Most open source software works quite well out of the box,
being configurable is a major plus. Open source software may not be for
everyone, but I love it. Anytime I am forced to use a Microsoft product,
I find it very limiting and frustrating. With open source I can set up my
system as I want to, not as Microsoft thinks I should.

It's also a somewhat concept becuase it is "open source" only to those
who understand the coding structure - thus the end results will be the
same.

As the code is readily available, you can go that deeply, but it is by no
means necessary. Open source has come a long way and allows many choices.
It may not be your choice, but it is the choice of a growing number of
users.


It's a cool idea. But I'll venture a guess and say that 90% of users have
absolutely no knowledge of programming. They shouldn't have to. No different
than the way most people view their cars. Most people have no interest in
customizing, and have no clue as to how they work. They just want the things
to run. Imagine if hammers, vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers behaved like
computer software. There'd be armed uprisings.

And that's an even more interesting point.

I read somewhere that in Explorer (since the advent of Explorer),
people only use 30% of the functions available to them - everything
else is overhead.

The reason was explained as "too complicated".

Your example of "save" and "save as" is a perfect example. Why do you
need two save functions? Why not just have save? A little "window"
pops up and the default is what the file was named offering you the
opportunity to change the name or not. Why "save as"?

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"To the fisherman born there is nothing
so provoking of curiosity as a fishing rod
in a case."

Roland Pertwee, "The River God" (1928)