>CC: Free and open source software developers and 4chan /g/
Required reading.
>>55369278
Someone needs to send this to the developers of GIMP
>>55369353
Are you really arguing against better UIs mate? Just fucking reset your entire life. You're going nowhere.
>>55369353
>he doesn't use ed
>>55369433
I'm arguing against "better" (idiot friendly) UIs where they don't belong: on an OS made to be used for real work by people who know what they're doing. A complex tool that needs to be explained.
GIMP shouldn't even be on Linux. It's a toy program for toy computing. Go use a mac if you want to airbrush bigger tits onto your animes.
>>55369450
>ed
>not sam
>1992
>>55369433
We are past the point where UIs are complicated or clunky to use. Nobody should be bitching about this anymore. If you dont understand how to use a computer at this point, you never will.
Trade your oxygen addiction for a helium mask.
>>55369522
This is what freetards who do nothing but sit in a terminal believe
>>55369464
>I'm arguing against "better" (idiot friendly) UIs where they don't belong: on an OS made to be used for real work by people who know what they're doing.
>A complex tool that needs to be explained.
in the context of a complex tool, you'd expect people to understand stuff by themselves. even if that's the case, you can make UIs that explain themselves. e.g., shortcuts as commands, information bars, etc.
it's like when one talks about "common sense". well, common sense comes AFTER you learn things in a given context. same thing for the pic in the OP.
>>55369502
I have never seen this answered
>/pol/shit being deleted
Based mods
Delete /pol/ next
>>55369578
There is no answer, because wincucks don't know what "unix-like" means.
>>55369531
What do you find terribly complicated about using a computer?
>>55369647
Trying to draw a circle in GIMP
>>55369541
For those people, you have Windows/OSX.
But if you want a job in tech you have to learn tech.
Tough shit.
>>55369656
Do you have parkinsons?
>>55369666
Do you think most tech companies use Linux as their desktop OSs?
LOL
>>55369680
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu
?
>>55369604
Gotta keep them contained.
>>55369714
Was there a point to this post?
>>55369680
uh yeah a lot of companies do
it's about 60-40 OSX/Linux depending on where you work
nobody uses windows for development, fuck outta here nigga
>>55369604
I don't even post on /pol/. Racism is essential for the normal-free operation of 4chan. Now that anime is trendy amongst sheltered white hipsters who actually had friends growing up and furfagtopia is making people less hostile towards gay dogfuckers, actual /pol/fags and /pol/fag mimicry are our last lines of defense against idiots that can't figure out how to draw a circle in gimp.
I hope every single one of them looks at a wall of "maki" and "nigger", gives up, and goes back to le upvote site for their graphics card advice.
>>55369578
OS X just violates the OP image and hides functionality in places that need to be explained, like modifier key+clicks and command line tools that are undocumented/poorly documented+completely unsupported and prone to sudden change. OS X users whine, and then learn it while championing shit like OP, as unaware of their hypocrisy as a black man is unaware of the actual purpose of his welfare check.
It's the complete opposite of linux. where the UIs make perfect sense and are self explanatory to the point of including docs in the UI itself, but enrage retards regardless because their tiny brains can't absorb all the information at once without an ungodly amount of hand holding. Make a circular selection, border the selection, and fill it? Oh my god, you might actually have to learn a new paradigm after only using MS paint. A paradigm with flexible tools!
OS X designers pretend they've presented all of their functionality simply and elegantly, but they haven't. They make systems that need to be explained to be used to their full potential.
Linux designers follow the OP image, and it confuses retards like OP who "CC:" to. You can pretty much safely assume that anyone complaining about FOSS UI design is just a retard that wants less functional software so they can use an advanced server and production operating system for bottom of the barrel data entry and porn viewing baby shit.
>>55369723
It proves you wrong.
>>55369714
>disables the installation of some applications
Too many people wasting company time on Dwarf Fortress?
>>55369726
Every single code monkey house is using Windows and eclipse
>>55369739
That Wikipedia link proves that most tech companies are using Linux?
>>55369680
Windows, Unix, Cisco IOS.
Either way you need terminal knowledge.
Someone should seriously send that poster to Autodesk and the devs of Zbrush
Freetards could also really use it
>>55369734
The question was "What functionality does OSX lose out on due to aesthetics?"
>>55369749
Oh, so you've worked in a lot of code monkey houses so you would know these things
>>55369770
I'm educated.
>>55369734
This
Never mind the fact that Gnome and KDE are basically OSX and Windows as far as UIs go.
If you couldnt get work done on that, you cant get work done on any computer.
>>55369764
Certain applications are not for casual retards and assume prior experience with similar applications and paradigms
>>55369767
The answer, illiterate, is "a lot of GUI functionality gets moved outside of the graphical user interface and into one-neat-trick land". So, it's a UI that needs to be explained, not a freetard designed UI with a 3d beveled button with a cute dragon icon that takes you to the monitor rotation settings that don't work with nvidia GPUs.
>How to access monitor rotation settings on OS X
>a series of command+option clicks because it's too confusing
>>55369802
That's not a loss of functionality
The answer is that OSX doesn't lose out on any functionality due to aesthetics.
>>55369821
Talk about moving the goalposts
>>55369834
Yeah, you.
>>55369834
>>55369842
This argument is heading toward a resolution soon, I can feel it.
>>55369842
The discussion was about whether the UI needed to be explained, not about the loss of functionality.
Back to plebbit you go!
>>55369884
Actually, that was the question.
>>55369767
>>55369278
>The single meaningful criteria for judging a UI is simplicity
Vim has an interface that's hard to understand, but it's still a great interface due to how powerful it is.
But I guess that poster is right if what you're building is a smartphone app for basketball-americans.
>>55369821
It actually is
The functionality is changing certain things from within the GUI, or through some other well documented or supported method
>>55369884
A UI that needs to be explained has lost functionality
When it comes to free software, the UI is detailed and self explanatory. It's the program that needs to be explained, and that's okay. But that's what OP is actually complaining about. Not that you need to hold in the clutch belt tensioner switch to actuate the automatic hammer's slow cycle, but that there's an automatic hammer in the first place, despite the automatic hammer having a button labeled "SLOW CYCLE". Regular hammers are much easier to use!
Literally fucking triggered when someone releases something that's useful and convenient but you have to compile it yourself. It's some sort of sick joke.
>>55369915
>free software UI is self explanatory
I'm in tears
>>55369278
>black man complaining that computers are too hard to use
Where have I seen this before...
I see nothing wrong with the pic in the OP, yet I also see nothing wrong with free software.
if you have been taught to do things the "windows ways", of course you'll get used to that. OTOH, if you got used to typing a bunch of short commands to do huge amounts, then that's a "self-explanatory" UI for you.
also, I don't get why you keep talking about the black guy. are you people retarded? can't you see that the pic has nothing to do with what the OP wrote?
>>55370159
>can't you see that the pic has nothing to do with what the OP wrote?
err, I mean, it has to do, but it was taken out of context.
>>55370178
Hey if OP wants to pass along the message that computers are racist to the free software community, I'm all for it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121103194213/http://linuxforniggers.us/download
>>55369918
A bunch of stuff I use has to be compiled.
It depends on the developer, but some programs are still easier to compile than some windows programs.
1. open tarball
2. read readme file
3. install the prerequisite packages listed
4. 'cmake ./' or './configure'
5. 'make'
6. ???
7. profit
my favourite program has a bash script that does all that for you
>>55370485
It's wrong to think that you want create something of utility and convenience for the general public but assume everyone has the tools or knowledge on how to compile programs. A lot of examples I've come across are not simply programs created by programmers, for programmers. Code monkeys need to understand that when you make these things with the intent to release it to the public, developing the software is just half of the story. You need to take consider the distribution and end user experience too. Compile it, document some simple instructions like a readme, and make a visible download button. For some reason some people manage to fuck up all three.
>>55369464
but mac has photoshop
>>55369884
>When it comes to free software, the UI is detailed and self explanatory.
>>55370716
Managed to fuck up my quote, blaming free software UI. For it.
>>55369915
>>55370649
>the tools
Anyone can get the tools to compile most Free Software on GNU/Linux.
>the knowledge
I've found few programs which do not provide simple instructions on how to compile and run them. Those that do lack the instructions, usually were beyond the level of the ordinary user anyway.
The main problem here is that many small utilities are made for the programmer to use, and anything else is considered a bonus.
It takes a reasonable amount of effort to make, maintain and distribute binaries and packages.
But ignoring that, compilation for many packages is so easy that most people unable to follow simple copy-paste instructions would be unable to install a package or use a binary anyway.
>>55370813
This getting closer and closer to bait, good thing it won't work. For example, if you are doing some design tasks, most likely you need software that are only available on Windows or OSX because the offerings on GNU/Linux are severely lacking in versatility. No exceptions. On those operating systems, you are not given compile tools unless you actually go out of your way to obtain them. The end user experience is already fucked since the reality of using these convenience utilities is anything but convenient. Instead you distribute them in raw materials and toss them a Lego instruction booklet. The furthest I'm willing to go is use command line.
>>55370900
I assumed that you meant on GNU/Linux.
One of my favourite things about it is the simplicity of getting these little tools.
It's so much easier using a Free Software text-based tool on GNU/Linux to do something than to use a shitty 16-bit binary from 1997 or 'BEST 祝你好运 VIDEO CONVERTER 2017®' which barely works or is riddled to the teeth with crap.
But refusing to learn how to use these tools is like someone refusing to learn English. It's not that hard, and there is very little excuse.
It's not the developer's responsibility to make sure that something is easy to use on an OS they don't advocate the use of. Particularly when it is a reasonable amount of effort.
>>55371149
>it's not the developer's responsibility
It was never about being easy to use, it's about being usable out of the box. That is the end user experience I'm talking about. Like unpacking a brand new phone and instead of being greeted with a Welcome setup screen, you get prompted to compile and install a rom. It's not the end user's responsibility, it's just shitty. You say it's not that hard to download the tools and learn how compile, I say it's not that hard to compile binaries for a new version and put it up on the web.
>>55371196
These tools don't fit that analogy though.
And as I said again, they are usually made for the benefit of the developer primarily, so the fact that you can easily compile it from instructions in a readme is already better than developers need.
It's like being given a phone for free, and then being told to follow three or four steps to turn it on (like inserting a battery yourself and typing in a few commands on the screen).
In the intended case (having a build system ready --like in many GNU/Linux systems), there are fewer steps in compiling your average Free Software tool than installing a binary in Windows.
>it's not that hard to compile binaries for a new version and put it up on the web
It really depends on the program, but I don't see the need to port a program to run in a different environment, and then maintain build systems and binaries for what is a minority of users (people who would use the tool on the platform, not just the platform).
>>55369656
suck my dick, you fucking idiot
>>55370649
Now imagine someone coming from Windows (or the Ubuntu appstore) who is used to install stuff with a double click. What is he supposed to make with "cmake" ?
Write it in a text file and rename it to install.exe ?
Type it into the URL bar? That would at least direct the user to Google and something something command line
Now where do you find the command-line.exe?
How do you navigate to the correct folder?
How to change the install path and settings?
And halfway through most people will think "no way it's that complicated, I'm probably digging to deep and about to wreck my system, I'll just do it on my iPhone"
And that's where the UI failed
>>55371372
seriously, you should kill yourself if you can't figure this out in seconds. It is easy as fuck.
>>55371372
>>55371411
Needs looking up
>>55371396
Not everything is for the everyman. If the creator wants to distribute to those people, the Ubuntu app store exists and they can distribute there. It is not a failure if it is doing what the creator of the software wants it to do.
The problem is that idiots like you assume that everyone who is making open source programs desires 100% market share.
Why would someone who is giving something away for free desire that?
There is no failure except in your ability to judge the intent of the people in the open source community.
>>55371443
No. No it didn't. Because I'm not a subhuman moron who can't figure out basic functions in simple pieces of software.
>>55371474
It takes more than clicking circle and drawing it, so it needs looking up
IIRC it takes like 6 steps just to draw the circle without fill
What a joke
>>55371558
poor babbu is it too difficult?
let me get you your binky
