RE: Just My 2 Cents
> Christian Lavoie wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I think more and more people are wanting Microsof-like
> > applications, because the Microsoft philosophy has some good ideas,
> > especially when you are a end-user.
> [...]
> > Let's take the Windows' IE and Office integration as an example. In the
> > basic, it's a great idea. You get to do everyday tasks more easily, the
> > appropriate tools are more handy and more and more softwares
> can use those
> > apps as subsets of themselves. You get a serie of
> to-be-powerful tools that
> > are imposed as standards, guaranteeing that your knowledge is to be
> > preserved from task to task.
> >
> > Now my point is: Microsoft has some great ideas, and it would
> be a shame to
>
> Well, I disagree. Personally I dislike massively integrated
> applications like Outlook and Explorer. They are too big, too slow
> and too complicated (to use and maintain). And I'm convinced that my
> knowledge of how to use Outlook will be obsolete in a few years
> because MS (or any molopoly) has a vested interest in *not* having
> standards or letting thier tools be integrated by someone else.
Looks like you are not the clueless newbie I was talking about! =)
Seriously: Without gettin' on a your opinion vs mine, I think modularized
OS-integrated (up to a certain point. I'll be the first to support NOT to
include those parts in the kernel!) Office-life suite of apps is a good
thing.
First, you get a set of standard apps. There's one way to edit text, and
whatever text it is, it's the same way... Sounds like TeX/LaTeX?
Second, by integration, I meant like having them more handy, and more
disponible. If you integrate MSWord in the Windows explorer and the only
result is haveng a executable of 6megs, I agree it's the wrong way... But
with today's dynamic loading technology, I don't think that being able to
view a MSWord file in the file browser is bad. Actually, it's a great idea,
IMHO.
Third, I never said there should be a *single* suite of Office apps (and I
probably never will). But having a certain amount of resemblance and
standardization would make Linux' difficulty of use way less important
(still for newcomers).
> I'd wager that the single biggest reasons that Unix has survived and
> prospered over the last 20+ years is not because of it's design as an
> OS but because of the software design philosophy of it's interface.
> Paraphrased, it goes something like this:
>
> Create small programs that do a single task and do it well.
> Support a common communication mechanism so that each of these
> small programs can be used together to solve complex tasks.
>
That could easily apply to a good suite of apps the way I'm thnking about
them. you get a component that edit text, that is highly specialized in
editing text, and you get to re-use that. Now, that this very component is
itself componentized still is possible.
> This is certainly the future direction of software development, once
> "integration" and obsfucated standards as a business model (which a
> monopoly will certainly want to employ) are overthrown, or more
> likely, crumble under it's own weight and complexity.
Current Microsoft standards are too weighty and complex because they are not
built upon existing proven standards. The internet was not built in a single
day. Yet Microsoft is trying to impose it's users too big things in too less
development time. Having complex standards is not an issue, but we need to
have them working, and for that, they need a powerful, flexible, and PROVEN
base. Microsoft is trying to re-write the whole industry in it's own way...
Let's just hope it never succeeds.
Reply to: