> "jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de" <jos...@lisp.de> writes: > > On 26 Okt., 18:16, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) > > wrote: > >> "jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de" <jos...@lisp.de> writes: > >> >> Notice that that means that an application must do all that can be done. > >> >> For example, iPhoto includes a mail UA to be able to send photos by > >> >> email. Of course, it's insufficiant, so they still allow for > >> >> multi-window use on MacOSX.
> >> > No, it can just switch. If you send mail on an iOS device, the mail > >> > app comes to the front.
> >> Well in the case of small screen device, it's a big constraint, so I > >> won't discuss.
> > I have Aperture from Apple (the big brother of iPhoto), full screen, > > no menubar. I do a right click, context menu, export>mail, the > > Mail app comes to the front, Aperture goes away (I have it on another > > space), a mail is open with the exported image). > > Nothing is replicated. Mail is for Mail, Aperture for photos.
> Sure, but it's ugly. That's why in the latest iPhoto, they do it > directly from iPhoto. I see that as a tendency, due to the whole-screen > paradigm.
I have to see what it does. I'll get it later today, I guess. The iPhoto before created a mail in the Mail application. But even then it is not ugly. It is consistent with the multimedia importer, font chooser, file save dialog, and other high-level single task UIs that can be used in different applications.
> >> This shows that even if Apple tools converge toward a look-and-feel 'à > >> la mode', they don't necessarily unify with third party developments, > >> and therefore you can have at the same time applications with different > >> looks and feels. This has occured all along Apple history.
> > Yes.
> >> And I just saying that once you have a single application on the screen, > >> it doesn't matter if the look and feel is different, because there's > >> nothing else on the screen to compare it with.
> > Once you start switching between apps it matters. And you will > > switch.
> I don't think so, really. Just compare the user interfaceS of the > current applications, eg. in Leopard.
> No two of them have a button in common (at least in their main > interaction screen, they might have secondary dialogs using the same > toolbox).
Yes, this has been critized already. I find also the iOS UI lacks consistency. It's a bit better with the Pro apps. Personally I would prefer a less diverse UI with fewer UI metaphors.
> >> >> Then why not a McCLIM application? There would be no need to cater to > >> >> the Cocoa Toolbox.
> >> > Use McCLIM with a Cocoa backend. There is only a sketch for that, but > >> > the idea is that CLIM runs on top of a native backend and uses native > >> > buttons, windows, panes, dialogs, ...
> >> Yes. But even farther, use any kind of GUI toolbox, drawing on a custom > >> view backed in a Cocoa window or screen. Like any game does.
> > But that's wrong. One really wants the standard UI elements. Low level > > (buttons, menus, ...) and high level elements (color picker, file > > picker, ...).
> We cannot say that reuse has been a big success of OO.
Yes, but reuse is more on a component level with OO interfaces. It is not that bad with Cocoa, but not every app is written with it.
> There may be > some economic sense in reusing a toolbox from one application to the > other, but it seems nowadays that there is more incentive to present a > distinct style in each application. This has always been the case for > games, and for multi-media applications.
Yes, I find this trend a bit disturbing. Sometimes I think the we see a time of experimentation (which we have seen before) and that there will be a few years later a move back to more consistent UIs.
> This is spreading to other > applications. I guess that gesture input will lead to application > specific controls, to manipuluate the objects of each application in > their specific ways, and therefore the views used will also be more > specific.
I see that trend, too. Though Apple (and others) tries to 'standardize' gestures, based on the works from Fingerworks. I think need more time to get the basics right. See for example how Apple struggled with a cut&paste UI for touch. I find it still not very usable. Touch screen UIs have a lot of inherent limitations, at least currently. For example working with the Keynote presentation program on an iPad is for some tasks a bit frustrating, since some user interaction is very inefficient. I would guess that if these problems are not solved there will be a mild disappointment about the usability of touch screens over time.
> Nowadays, the computers (MacOSX) represent only 30% of Apple's profit, > and we agree that this share will decrease with time, in relative terms. > It seems that people are realizing that Apple computers are better than > others, and it is quite possible that in absolute terms, even more Mac > computers be sold. It's not accountants who are buying Macintoshes, but > "digital lifers". In any case, that means that the applications that > will be used on the computer will be more like those used on iOS, and > won't require as much standard controls as most MS-Windows applications.
I'm not sure about that. I think users will demand more consistent UIs.
> > Well, the advantage of the Symbolics UI is/was that it has many ways > > to work: context menus for objects and backgrounds, keyboard > > accelerators, menus, a command line in each app. There are literally > > hundreds of commands on the keyboard to interact with the UI. More > > than one can remember. It also needs 'mouse warp' capability, since > > the UI moves the mouse in some cases.
> Having the programs move the mouse for you is somewhat disturbing, I > never got used to it with the few programs I encountered who did that.
It is not as bad as it was in SUN's window system.
> Even mouse wrapping around the screen (having a tore geometry for the > screen), which I implemented on the driver for the first Mac big screen, > wasn't so great.
I did not like that either.
> One thing that I think would be nice still, is eye tracking to position > the mouse cursor. > Then you would click with your brain with:http://www.emotiv.com/
I have no experience with that. Could be interesting.
On 2010-10-26 18:04:25 -0400, jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de said:
>> Remember: menu bar = desktop
> No, the desktop is underneath, part of the Finder.
The Finder has the *same menu bar* as all other apps. The Finder menu bar *is* the desktop menu bar, and that is the exact same menu bar shared by *all* applications. That's why certain menus remain fixed even when you switch applications (Apple menu, date and time, user, etc.). That's why you can drag and drop data from *any* app to the desktop. That's the Mac's desktop metaphor. Most users don't even know that the Finder is an application - they think the Finder *is* Mac OS X.
That's why Macs have always had a *single* menu bar, not a different menu bar for each window. The desktop metaphor is supposed to be seamless across applications. Giving each window its own menu bar destroys the single desktop UI metaphor. This is why Windows is fundamentally borked in UI terms - it adds the needless complexity of multiple menu bars to an otherwise simple desktop UI metaphor.
This is why touch-sliding apps with menu bars would never pass Jobsian muster - it would suggest that every app had its own desktop. Instead, the desktop is going away *entirely*. You only need a desktop when your UI is based on *files*. But the UI is no longer going to be based on files, its going to be based on *apps*.
Remember OpenDoc? That UI was based around documents, with each document editable by multiple applications. Jobs's vision is the exact opposite - a UI based around apps, where the user doesn't need to know or care how or where the users data is stored. Notice how this leaves the user ripe for vendor lock-in of the user's data, which again, is not accidental. Spend a few days identifying faces in iPhoto, organizing events and locations, etc., and suddenly migrating your snapshots to some other photo organizer app or web service doesn't seem like such a good idea...
> Finder -> Launch Pad
>>> Dock.
>> Dock -> Mission Control (for apps already running) & Launch Pad (for >> Apps not yet running)
> The Dock is still there in the demos.
Don't get too attached to it - it's being replaced by Launch Pad and Mission Control. Notice the NASA theme? "Dock" is a nautical term - it's going bye bye. If they had renamed it to "Space Station" or "Space Dock" then it would be hanging around. There are no accidents in Apple terminology or emphasis. It's all carefully choreographed to get the users exited about the new - "Launch Pad!" "Mission Control!" - and bored about the ho-hum legacy stuff "Dock? - meh" This way they don't miss it when it gets dumped. The Dock is not long for this world my friend.
> Launch Pad is nothing more than a glorified app menu we already have > in the Dock.
Which is why the Dock has gotta go. Don't you get it? New is *always* better! Even if there's absolutely no new functionality! If it's new, it *must* be better! It's even got a hi-tech space exploration name godammit!
"Eagle, this is Huston MISSION CONTROL. Activating LAUNCH PAD. 3, 2, 1, Now launching Mail - we have ignition, er, application loading! Eagle we have Mail launch!"
See how much better it is than a boring old Dock. Now you can futz around on your computer *and* pretend to be controlling space craft all at the same time!
>>>> direct manipulation of files in the file system -> in-App file saving >>>> and sharing
>>> We have that.
>> You won't have direct access to the file system for long
> A wild speculation.
A prediction born of a half a lifetime of watching Apple show old technologies to door. I'm truly surprised you haven't picked up this pattern before. Didn't you see the end of Java coming? Apple only embraced Java in the early Mac OS X days to get developer mind share. Once that goal was accomplished Java quickly became the unwanted step-child of Mac OS X. It was only a matter of time.
> A wild speculation. 10.7 is not yet here and will be released mid next > year. > Nobody knows what is in 10.8
And they're unlikely to ever know - they'll probably merge iOS and Mac OS by then, and the new fusion will almost certainly not be called Mac OS X 10.8.
Again, the name should be a clue. The Lion is the King of Beasts, the biggest and baddest of the big Cats. How do you follow that act? You don't. Lion will be the last cat named Apple OS. Mac OS X is going to be merged with iOS, and the new OS won't be cat themed. Maybe different types of puppies...
>>>> app switching by cmd-tab/appSwitcher -> touch-slide app switching of
>>> Optional.
>> Not for long.
> Another wild speculation.
Another read of Jobs taste. Jobs is a "there's only one right way to do it" person.
>>>> full screen apps & Mission Control
>>> Optional.
>> Famous last words.
> See the demo.
The demo is designed to draw 'em in - what they get once they've paid admission is another story. Remember, he has to bring the existing Mac faitful along with him on the grand journey to touch based appliance computer valhalla. This means change by stages so they aren't frightened off. Let them get used to full screen convenience, then they won't mind so much when the old paradigm goes away in future releases.
>>>> user installed software -> Apple controlled App Store
>>> Additional.
>> Wishful thinking. Even if Apple doesn't dike user installed software >> out entirely, there will be very little useful software available this >> way. Developers need to eat. They'll distribute through the App Store >> or they'll see sales dwindle to nothing. Apple is counting on this. As >> a user, you can bet on it. Once user installed software dwindles to a >> trickle, essentially no one will care when this ability is removed >> entirely.
> Another wild speculation.
Simple economics. Developers won't target an ever shrinking market which the Vendor themself is trying hard to make go away.
>>>> Note that there is no replacement here for the Finder's ability to >>>> directly manipulate the file system. This is *intentional* because that >>>> capability allows user installed software, and that is something that >>>> Jobs wants to remove from Apple products.
>>> That won't happen on Macs fully, but movements into that direction >>> would definitely be a plus. I am all for reducing the complexity >>> for me.
>> Are you for only running what Apple permits? Because that's where we're headed.
> Not we. I'm not headed there.
Yes, you are headed there. Your example of App Store freedom, the DOS emulator, was yanked from the App Store in *less than one day*! Like it or not, you're headed for a future where you may only run what Apple says you can run (unless you jailbreak your device of course).
> I'm happy to use user interfaces that > remove the burden to navgate traditional file systems. I'm > zero attached to file systems. I loved my file system less Newton. > I love apps like Hypercard, Filemaker that had autosave without files, > but database. I'm happy that my Photo apps organize the photo library > for me. Same for the music, my PDFs, my mails. I never browse > my mails via the Finder. Never. I use the spotlight search > or the Mail app.
> Years ago I saw me and others organize files in directories and > browse those with the finder. That's mostly gone. Today I search for > files and dump downloads in a big directory somewhere. The > only thing is press download. If I search for a PDF I don't use its > file name, but by content. With development tools, I use > an app like Versions to browse subversion repositories. I > don't use the finder.
> I'm happy that Apple (and many others) work on new user interfaces. > That some old stuff we used to do gets deprecated is fine. > I have something like half a million files on my Laptop (development > environment stuff, photos, ...). I really don't have the time > to organize this stuff the traditional way. I want the OS > provide ways for apps to organize that stuff for me.
> I'm really amazed that you don't understand how useful > these things are and what their purpose is.
These are two completely separate things:
1. UIs not based on viewing the file hierarch can be quite useful. 2. The purpose here is not to make life easier for the user, but to prevent users from putting whatever they please on the device.
If this were not the case, then Apple would be fine with users installing any app they like on their iPads, right?
You have to see the whole picture; everything dovetails together. No file system access *plus* an Apple policed App Store shows you that the purpose of the former (absence of file system access) is to prevent any other means of software installation but the latter (Apple's closed App Store).
> The Finder already doesn't let you directly manipulate the file system: > you can't use it to fiddle with anything in /bin, /usr, /var or to look > at dot-files in your home directory. All of that requires a command line.
You can download an app or applescript that shows invisibles, so no command line necessary; then you do whatever you like with your files, wherever they are (assuming you're an admin user). But of course, all of that requires that the OS allows user installed software. That won't last long I'm betting.
> That's not the only way to install software, and I doubt that removing > user-programmability is really on the radar for the Mac line. They still > ship with developer tools, you know.
Jobs is going to migrate customers away from PCs to appliances - he already told us so. That means migrating users away from a PC OS like Mac OS X. Once most users aren't on Mac OS X it won't matter what capabilities it has.
>> This is a future of no direct access to the file system
> That's not a bad thing, necessarily.
Necessarily, no. As long as the OS provides other means for users to install whatever they wish, then have user data live in a database, or accessible only through applications is fine. But please appreciate that the lack of direct access to the file system is ripe for abuse of precisely the Walled Garden variety we're seing with Apple's iOS.
On 10/25/2010 3:17 AM, jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de wrote:
> error rate might go down. Also editing the text is a pain with the > touch based selection/cut/copy/paste. The on-screen keyboard lacks > this functionality. That the on-screen keyboard covers the lower half > of the screen makes text adjustments also a pain.
iPad really needs a stylus. But Apple would look silly if they supplied stylus and no handwriting recognition.
I still think (or hope) that at sometime in the future we will have hadnwriting become the default, especially given the eastern scripts.
> At a complete tangent, I don't think screen keyboards will drive out > real ones. People who touch type (which I more or less do) rely on
For the short time (a day of fiddling around) I tried a windows tablet pc handwriting, I was quite happy as far as handwriting recognition was concerned. My issues were - interfacing unaware apps (such as emacs:) )didn't seem workable. - smaller form factor than what I now have in a laptop - they were expensive
I never learned touch typing, casue I have been waiting for handwriitng recognition to be the default for last 20+ years :(
So to me the biggest disappointment in iPad (and the related insinuations) is the missing stylus.
I do have a iPod touch and enjoy that very much. I think at that form factor not having stylus doesn't seem to hurt
Hopefully MS/HP or maybe Apple or whoever someday will get something like an ipad married to a tablet pc
I don't know if anyone has thought of what it would take for emacs to be usable via a stylus.
<raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-10-26 18:04:25 -0400, jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de said:
> >> Remember: menu bar = desktop
> > No, the desktop is underneath, part of the Finder.
> The Finder has the *same menu bar* as all other apps. The Finder menu > bar *is* the desktop menu bar, and that is the exact same menu bar > shared by *all* applications.
That's backwards. The Desktop is part of the Finder. As the Finder has a menubar. Like many things. But not all. Dashboard for example does not have a menubar.
> That's why certain menus remain fixed > even when you switch applications (Apple menu, date and time, user, > etc.). > That's why you can drag and drop data from *any* app to the > desktop. That's the Mac's desktop metaphor. Most users don't even know > that the Finder is an application - they think the Finder *is* Mac OS X.
I can drag to the desktop, when it is visible and a program has a useful drag functionality. I can also drag to other places. So what?
> That's why Macs have always had a *single* menu bar, not a different > menu bar for each window. The desktop metaphor is supposed to be > seamless across applications.
This idea is long gone. Somewhen in the 80s.
The single menubar is because it is easier to use, not because there is a desktop. There is no reason that there could be a desktop and multiple menubars - in fact many apps have the equivalent of that in their windows. Several applications can hide the menubar, which is part of the OS functionality.
> Giving each window its own menu bar > destroys the single desktop UI metaphor. This is why Windows is > fundamentally borked in UI terms - it adds the needless complexity of > multiple menu bars to an otherwise simple desktop UI metaphor.
No, it does not break the metaphor. The menubar is in any case a weak part of a desktop metaphor.
> This is why touch-sliding apps with menu bars would never pass Jobsian > muster - it would suggest that every app had its own desktop. Instead, > the desktop is going away *entirely*. You only need a desktop when your > UI is based on *files*. But the UI is no longer going to be based on > files, its going to be based on *apps*.
Really, that is all weird what you tell. Check out the old Magic Cap interface for a real desktop.
> Remember OpenDoc? That UI was based around documents, with each > document editable by multiple applications. Jobs's vision is the exact > opposite - a UI based around apps, where the user doesn't need to know > or care how or where the users data is stored. Notice how this leaves > the user ripe for vendor lock-in of the user's data, which again, is > not accidental. Spend a few days identifying faces in iPhoto, > organizing events and locations, etc., and suddenly migrating your > snapshots to some other photo organizer app or web service doesn't seem > like such a good idea...
That's the case for any image database. Know what, all most all professional users work with image databases. Few people use the file system. That's so old.
The area is called Digital Asset Management and iPhoto provides a tiny version of it, a personal photo management tool.
> > Finder -> Launch Pad
> >>> Dock.
> >> Dock -> Mission Control (for apps already running) & Launch Pad (for > >> Apps not yet running)
> > The Dock is still there in the demos.
> Don't get too attached to it - it's being replaced by Launch Pad and > Mission Control.
Wait, Launch Pad was launched from the Dock.
> Notice the NASA theme? "Dock" is a nautical term - > it's going bye bye. If they had renamed it to "Space Station" or "Space > Dock" then it would be hanging around. There are no accidents in Apple > terminology or emphasis. It's all carefully choreographed to get the > users exited about the new - "Launch Pad!" "Mission Control!" - and > bored about the ho-hum legacy stuff "Dock? - meh" This way they don't > miss it when it gets dumped. The Dock is not long for this world my > friend.
I feel trolled.
> > Launch Pad is nothing more than a glorified app menu we already have > > in the Dock.
> Which is why the Dock has gotta go. Don't you get it? New is *always* > better! Even if there's absolutely no new functionality! If it's new, > it *must* be better! It's even got a hi-tech space exploration name > godammit!
> "Eagle, this is Huston MISSION CONTROL. Activating LAUNCH PAD. > 3, 2, 1, Now launching Mail - we have ignition, er, application loading! > Eagle we have Mail launch!"
> See how much better it is than a boring old Dock. Now you can futz > around on your computer *and* pretend to be controlling space craft all > at the same time!
I'm feeling even more trolled.
> >>>> direct manipulation of files in the file system -> in-App file saving > >>>> and sharing
> >>> We have that.
> >> You won't have direct access to the file system for long
> > A wild speculation.
> A prediction born of a half a lifetime of watching Apple show old > technologies to door. I'm truly surprised you haven't picked up this > pattern before. Didn't you see the end of Java coming? Apple only > embraced Java in the early Mac OS X days to get developer mind share. > Once that goal was accomplished Java quickly became the unwanted > step-child of Mac OS X. It was only a matter of time.
To me it looks like everybody said that Java would be important, so Apple had to support it. Then it turned out Java wasn't important on Desktop computers. So it is not the end of Java, just that somebody else has to make a distribution. For example use OpenJDK from SUN/Oracle which builds on the Mac, too.
...
> And they're unlikely to ever know - they'll probably merge iOS and Mac > OS by then, and the new fusion will almost certainly not be called Mac > OS X 10.8.
> Again, the name should be a clue. The Lion is the King of Beasts, the > biggest and baddest of the big Cats. How do you follow that act? You > don't. Lion will be the last cat named Apple OS. Mac OS X is going to > be merged with iOS, and the new OS won't be cat themed. Maybe different > types of puppies...
> A general purpose computer is one that you, the user, can put to any > purpose you wish. You can install any software you like on it, configure > it as you like, use it for any task at all.
Hmm, that is a good definition these days. I guess the definition in my mind is too old :) -Antony
On 10/25/2010 4:50 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> Antony<spam+lisp_dot_li...@gmail.com> writes: >> What do you mean '*not* a general purpose computer' ? (I am not going >> to guess)
> Does it run emacs?
Shouldn't that be a Can it run emacs?
Anyway, see my other post about handwriting. I am waiting for emacs +stylus +handwriting ! Maybe it's that hope that allows me to suffer the key chords silently :)
Curiously I read an article on who was suiing whom in the smartphone market yesterday, and one of the things I didn't know is that Android is already well ahead of the iPhone in market share. And it will (probably) run MACLISP. So yes, I can see the writing on the wall.
Andrew Reilly <areilly...@bigpond.net.au> writes: > On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:23:13 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>> Note that there is no replacement here for the Finder's ability to >> directly manipulate the file system.
> The Finder already doesn't let you directly manipulate the file system: > you can't use it to fiddle with anything in /bin, /usr, /var or to look > at dot-files in your home directory. All of that requires a command line.
Type: Shift-Command-G /bin RET then double-click on df
> Again, the name should be a clue. The Lion is the King of Beasts, the > biggest and baddest of the big Cats. How do you follow that act? You > don't. Lion will be the last cat named Apple OS. Mac OS X is going to > be merged with iOS, and the new OS won't be cat themed. Maybe > different types of puppies...
"jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de" <jos...@lisp.de> writes: >> Nowadays, the computers (MacOSX) represent only 30% of Apple's profit, >> and we agree that this share will decrease with time, in relative terms. >> It seems that people are realizing that Apple computers are better than >> others, and it is quite possible that in absolute terms, even more Mac >> computers be sold. It's not accountants who are buying Macintoshes, but >> "digital lifers". In any case, that means that the applications that >> will be used on the computer will be more like those used on iOS, and >> won't require as much standard controls as most MS-Windows applications.
> I'm not sure about that. I think users will demand more consistent > UIs.
People don't demand consistency in outfits. On the contrary, the more they change, the more they buy them. Unfortunately there's some similarity here.
I'm sure you can sell new apps on the AppStore, by just changing the look and feel over the same code. After all, Apple has been doing that for more than ten years.
Antony <spam+lisp_dot_li...@gmail.com> writes: > On 10/25/2010 3:17 AM, jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de wrote: >> error rate might go down. Also editing the text is a pain with the >> touch based selection/cut/copy/paste. The on-screen keyboard lacks >> this functionality. That the on-screen keyboard covers the lower half >> of the screen makes text adjustments also a pain. > iPad really needs a stylus. But Apple would look silly if they > supplied stylus and no handwriting recognition.
> I still think (or hope) that at sometime in the future we will have > hadnwriting become the default, especially given the eastern scripts.
A normal physical keyboard let you enter text faster than you can write with a pen, which is logical, since you can use 8 to ten fingers at the same time. You would need stenography to be faster perhaps.
On the Palm I had a few years ago, you could write with the stylus, or type on the little physical keyboard. Input speed was the same in either case. (The little keyboard could only be used with two fingers).
On 2010-10-27 10:47:00 +0100, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
> A normal physical keyboard let you enter text faster than you can write > with a pen, which is logical, since you can use 8 to ten fingers at the > same time. You would need stenography to be faster perhaps.
But fails dismally at letting you enter anything else at any speed, or anything that isn't just normal natural language text. I generally take notes in meetings on paper with a pen (but my notes tend to be mostly not text).
(This isn't really disagreeing with you about handwriting recognition. It's potentially disagreeing with you about some kind of stylus input for non-textual stuff, though I find it hard to see how anything realistically achievable could beat paper for me).
On 2010-10-27 03:45:18 -0400, jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de said:
> That's backwards. The Desktop is part of the Finder. As the > Finder has a menubar. Like many things. But not all. > Dashboard for example does not have a menubar.
Dashboard, then later Expose, mark the beginning of the end of the single menu bar desktop UI metaphor. Isn't it obvious that Apple is transitioning away from the whole menu bar desktop UI metaphor? iOS doesn't have a menu bar or desktop at all. They're in the process of removing it from Mac OS so they can merge Mac OS with iOS. This will conveniently remove the users' expectation that they have direct access to their own files which makes locking down the device so much easier.
> The single menubar is because it is easier to use, not because > there is a desktop.
The desktop is a virtual space. The menus for manipulating items in this virtual space are in the (unique) menu bar. Adding additional menu bars breaks the illusion of a single virtual desktop space. This is why Apple resisted something like Spaces for so long - it confuses naive users who expect a single, unified virtual space which shares a single menu bar. This is also why only power users use spaces. It is not enabled by default on shipping machines and the overwhelming majority of users dont even know it's there or what it's for.
> The area is called Digital Asset Management and > iPhoto provides a tiny version of it, a personal > photo management tool.
When you combine digital asset management with no acces to the file system you have the recipe for vendor lock in. How convenient.
> Wait, Launch Pad was launched from the Dock.
For now. Then it will become a default start up item the way the Dock is now. Then the Dock will go away. If it gets renamed to "Space Dock" that means that Jobs has relented and Apple will keep it. Otherwise its going bye bye.
>> Notice the NASA theme? "Dock" is a nautical term - >> it's going bye bye. If they had renamed it to "Space Station" or "Space >> Dock" then it would be hanging around. There are no accidents in Apple >> terminology or emphasis. It's all carefully choreographed to get the >> users exited about the new - "Launch Pad!" "Mission Control!" - and >> bored about the ho-hum legacy stuff "Dock? - meh" This way they don't >> miss it when it gets dumped. The Dock is not long for this world my >> friend.
> I feel trolled.
You're being trolled by Apple. When you bite, you buy an Apple product that only lets you install what Apple approves on a device *you* own.
> Curiously I read an article on who was suiing whom in the smartphone > market yesterday, and one of the things I didn't know is that Android > is already well ahead of the iPhone in market share. And it will > (probably) run MACLISP. So yes, I can see the writing on the wall.
You can develop Android apps with a very nice scheme implementation, Kawa, right now:
On 2010-10-27 14:44:49 +0100, Raffael Cavallaro said:
> You can develop Android apps with a very nice scheme implementation, > Kawa, right now:
I wasn't suggesting MACLISP as a development tool, just as a "hey, look, this is cool" thing (in case there's any confusion). Agree with the rest of your post.
<raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-10-27 03:45:18 -0400, jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de said:
> > That's backwards. The Desktop is part of the Finder. As the > > Finder has a menubar. Like many things. But not all. > > Dashboard for example does not have a menubar.
> Dashboard, then later Expose, mark the beginning of the end of the > single menu bar desktop UI metaphor. Isn't it obvious that Apple is > transitioning away from the whole menu bar desktop UI metaphor? iOS > doesn't have a menu bar or desktop at all. They're in the process of > removing it from Mac OS so they can merge Mac OS with iOS. This will > conveniently remove the users' expectation that they have direct access > to their own files which makes locking down the device so much easier.
There have been experiments with other UI metaphor since decades. The usefulness of the weak Desktop metaphor has always been limited. I'm happy that Apple experiments with alternatives. If there is something better I'm happy to move on.
> > The single menubar is because it is easier to use, not because > > there is a desktop.
> The desktop is a virtual space. The menus for manipulating items in > this virtual space are in the (unique) menu bar.
They are also on context menus and on direct manipulation.
> Adding additional menu > bars breaks the illusion of a single virtual desktop space.
No. It just makes it more ugly. Plus the Desktop metaphor in Mac OS always has been weak.
> This is why > Apple resisted something like Spaces for so long - it confuses naive > users who expect a single, unified virtual space which shares a single > menu bar.
This is why many users bought for years third party extensions that provided exactly that. I did that too.
> This is also why only power users use spaces. It is not > enabled by default on shipping machines and the overwhelming majority > of users dont even know it's there or what it's for.
It adds complexity. Makes sense to not enable it by default.
> > The area is called Digital Asset Management and > > iPhoto provides a tiny version of it, a personal > > photo management tool.
> When you combine digital asset management with no acces to the file > system you have the recipe for vendor lock in. How convenient.
I have a database to work with on the Mac (or any other machine that is used in media production). The file system is still there, but how the database organizes the storage may be invisible. That's a feature.
> > Wait, Launch Pad was launched from the Dock.
> For now. Then it will become a default start up item the way the Dock > is now. Then the Dock will go away. If it gets renamed to "Space Dock" > that means that Jobs has relented and Apple will keep it. Otherwise its > going bye bye.
Sounds like an interesting option. Still file system, windows, desktop will be supported for a long time - so I don't see it as very useful.
Even on mobile devices it tends to be not very useful. On iOS devices I'm starting more and more to use the search to locate Apps and content.
> >> Notice the NASA theme? "Dock" is a nautical term - > >> it's going bye bye. If they had renamed it to "Space Station" or "Space > >> Dock" then it would be hanging around. There are no accidents in Apple > >> terminology or emphasis. It's all carefully choreographed to get the > >> users exited about the new - "Launch Pad!" "Mission Control!" - and > >> bored about the ho-hum legacy stuff "Dock? - meh" This way they don't > >> miss it when it gets dumped. The Dock is not long for this world my > >> friend.
> > I feel trolled.
> You're being trolled by Apple. When you bite, you buy an Apple product > that only lets you install what Apple approves on a device *you* own.
I haven't been limited on my Mac and don't see that coming. If something like that would happen, I would continue to use my current machines and otherwise switch to a different vendor.
Currently my impression is that personal computing has never been more powerful. Not only with Apple, but also with Linux/FreeBSD and Windows. We have multi terabyte disks, large screens, stable operating systems. Even small laptops are getting extremely powerful with 64bit CPUs, multi GB RAM, large disks, etc.
Other than that your postings here sound like hysteria to me. You bring up dead topics like Dylan, the Desktop or use of undocumented APIs in CCL that are all mostly irrelevant to me. Much of that is FUD. It's like having the fear that Mercedes will remove the capability to load tons of stuff on its trucks, just because they were starting to build small mass market SMART cars which lack this capability.
<raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-10-27 04:16:50 -0400, Tim Bradshaw said:
> > Curiously I read an article on who was suiing whom in the smartphone > > market yesterday, and one of the things I didn't know is that Android > > is already well ahead of the iPhone in market share. And it will > > (probably) run MACLISP. So yes, I can see the writing on the wall.
> You can develop Android apps with a very nice scheme implementation, > Kawa, right now:
In a locked down service that's written mostly in Java, where the Scheme compiler runs at Google and compiles my source there, where my code is locked at Google because they are the only one providing the service to compile things to their own virtual machine (Dalvik) that is not compatible with the JVM.
> so there's a completely different attitutde toward alternative > languages on Android as compared to iOS.
Hardly an attitude that I would be interested to follow: giving my source code to Google, giving them the right to change (!) my apps and to remove the service without notice. Without it EVEN THE SOURCE IS WORTHLESS, because the compiler is hidden at Google.
Your attitude against Apple is especially absurd with you promoting such Google 'services'.
"jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de" <jos...@lisp.de> writes: > Your attitude against Apple is especially absurd with > you promoting such Google 'services'.
This is a widespread attitude these days, and I don't know if I should laugh or cry at the naivity some Apple critics display. Although I love their services, I currently find Google's omnipresence and recent activities (e.g. all the stuff they've collected while driving along with their street view cars) far more disturbing than the current activities of Apple (I'm considering making Duck Duck Go my default search engine...). -- (espen)
> In a locked down service that's written mostly in Java, > where the Scheme compiler runs at Google and compiles > my source there, where my code is locked at Google > because they are the only one providing the service > to compile things to their own virtual machine (Dalvik) > that is not compatible with the JVM.
You willfully ignore the facts again. Kawa is a GNU project. Google doesn't own it or restrict it in any way. You are free to write any application you want in Kawa scheme, compile it on *your machine*, and offer it for sale or free distribution on the Android platform.
I'm only pointing out Google's App Inventor to show that it is *implemented* using scheme.
The platform vendor, Google is *using* a lisp to write software for the platform *themselves*.
Show me the app written internally by Apple for the iPhone or iPad that uses scheme or lisp instead of Objective-C. Oh, that's right, there aren't any - how could there be - Apple just reluctantly lifted a ban on all non-c-family languages on iOS. Duh.
Get the point now?
Please stop being willfully obtuse on this. There are *no* restrictions on your use of Kawa scheme on Android. You can write scheme apps for Android *now*. You can keep your source code anywhere you like. The compiler runs on *your* development machine, not Google's servers. The compiler is a GNU project *not Google's*.
On 2010-10-27 11:09:03 -0400, jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de said:
> I have a database to work with on the Mac (or any other > machine that is used in media production). The file system > is still there, but how the database organizes the storage > may be invisible. That's a feature.
It's only a feature if you can still get at your data some other way. Otherwise, it's vendor lock in. On iOS you *don't* have access to the file system, so you can't get at your data unless Apple lets you (by permitting an app store app that can access it).
> I haven't been limited on my Mac and don't see that coming.
That you don't see it coming is willful blindness to Apple's restrictive behavior, nothing more.
> If something like that would happen, I would continue > to use my current machines and otherwise switch to a different > vendor.
Exactly. My whole point is that the day when power users who don't want to be dictated to by Apple will need to switch platforms is fast approaching. That's what the "Post PC Era" means - the loss of the ability to use your device as you wish. Only uses explicitly permitted by the vendor will be possible on Apple's "Post PC" platform. They're clearly trying to move as many customers to "Post PC" devices as possible. They're actively growing the share of their platforms that run a "Post PC" OS, and transitioning their PC OS in the direction of their "Post PC" OS.
> Currently my impression is that personal computing has never > been more powerful.
At the very start of the PC era, mainframes had never been more powerful. That's how it always is with disruptive technologies - they blindside the old paradigm which is at its zenith.
> Other than that your postings here sound like hysteria to me.
Your Apple boosterism sounds like the jejune assertion that we live in the best of all possible worlds. We don't. It would be much better for users if iOS were not locked down; if users had direct file system access to iOS devices; in short, if iOS as installed behaved like jail broken iOS.
We don't live in that better world. We live in one where Apple have gone out of their way to make devices we've paid for ***LESS USEFUL***. Pointing out this fact is not hysteria, it's a much needed corrective to your sugar coated apologies for Apple's abusive behavior.
> It's like having the fear that > Mercedes will remove the capability to load tons of stuff > on its trucks, just because they were starting to build > small mass market SMART cars which lack this capability.
No, it's like pointing out that buying a Mac mainframe might not be a good idea if Mac mainframe's founder and CEO told you explicitly that they were planning on deemphasizing the mainframe business because we are moving into this new fangled PC future.
