john_82 at tiscali.co.uk
Fri Dec 11 16:04:14 GMT 2009
On Friday 11 December 2009 15:27:12 spir wrote:
> Patricia Max <pam at lampinc.com> dixit:
> > And last, but not least, when I read about "folders" on Unix, I want to
> > scream. That term is not part of my Unix vocabulary. It was not part of
> > system V, it was not part of BSD, it was not part of other Unix flavors
> > such as SunOS, and it was not part of early linux systems. It belongs to
> > Bill Gates.
> You should take a bit of distance, here. "Directory" is a very wrong term
> for the meaning it is supposed to have; simply one of numerous legacy words
> dating back to the 70's, probably even earlier. "Folder" is far better, I
> hope you're cool enough to admit this fact; it even goes well along with
> the 'file' metaphor I guess. Also, while not sure of this, I bet this term
> does not "belong to Bill Gates" but instead was first introduced by any
> other system designed before windows; whose designers were better at
> terminology than the ones of unix. Even if 'folder happens to have been
> introduced by m$, well let's steal one of the very few good things that
> came out of there; instead of sticking at bad choices for wrong pride
> reasons (I first learnt on unix myself).
Computers have always had files almost since the year dot. The term folder has
only been used in relationship to visual desktops. May have been via apple
but most probably gates. When using the term directory Gates has had and
still does have those as well. Neither term can mean anything explicitly in
relationship to the actual organisation on the storage media. The term was
coined for joe blogs who knew what a filing cabinet was and was as a
consequence more comfortable.
I suspect that the lady mostly uses the console. She likes a C shell. Many
people working there would have a mental problem typing change folder or such
like there. Next time your near a windoze box try it in a dos shell. Windoze
too has it's kernel, shell and visual desktop but since windows what ever it
isn't so apparent,.
> Imo, Linux's extremely poor terminology is a major obstacle for newcomers;
> it's one of the reasons why potential power users with enough good will,
> skill, and even past competence, will never get it. This would not be such
> serious if linux did not _require_ simple users to tweak in the beast's
> guts simply to have it work more or less as expected. Result: many simply
> go back where they come from -- even if they were highly motivated to jump
> into the FLOSS world, possibly for moral reasons. Proper naming is *super*
> important, words lead our thoughts; either they help, or prevent us to
Agree 100% in a way. The bit your complaining about obviously grew up in a
lab. Having said that though the organisation is excellent and as flexible as
it can be. There's the kernel, there is a shell and there is a visual
desktop. What you are mostly complaining about I assume is the shell and I
agree 100% with your comment..
Note the word desktop - another comfortable term for joe blogs. The whole idea
of a visual desktop actually started at IBM. Many people who say they trained
on Unix actually only used X windows.
One nice thing about linux is that there are a number of visual desktops
available so if one doesn't like it here one can try another. But then
people always complain about and resist change especially if it has an effect
on long term habits.
> la vita e estrany
> This message is from the kde mailing list.
> Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
> Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
> More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
More information about the kde