Thats a lie, there was a lot more too the later Wins than anything Xerox had.
Yes but they'd had 20 years! Prior to that, there was a lot less.
And it's not "a lie". If it is indeed wrong, it's "a mistake", or "an
error". Or in fact "an opinion".
Switch your brain over from pejorative mode.
Nope, not with networking that even stupid users could use.
Trumpet Winsock wasn't much of a challenge to use, but it was still
the days when you had to know what you were doing. Back on good ol'
3.1, where one program going wrong totalled the system. Anyway there's
more to networking than it's user interface. In fact they're
completely separate.
Nothing like how Win networking ended up.
Windows networking evolved from people using Novell under DOS, and
Windows 3.1 would use those same DOS calls. It evolved from there, but
isn't particularly revolutionary. And if Novell still existed, they
might well have done it better.
Anyway now the entire Internet and most internal networks use IP
anyway. Finally, something wins because it's better. That, and the
idea of mass-to-mass communication turned out more popular than The
Microsoft Network, their version of Compuserve just as Compuserve was
breathing it's last.
Quite a bit of the detail was nothing like either.
Apart from renaming "Bookmarks", oh, and bastardising HTML (admittedly
started by Netscape for similar reasons), what?
How odd that Linux has used so much of the UI seen with Win.
That's because they want to attract new users, who can move over much
easily if things work the way they're used to. Not necessarily the
best way, and that itself's another plague, locking people into
specific UI mindsets. Until recently it had a very different
interface, evolved directly from Xerox.
Linux is still a bit too complicated. Not as much as the nightmare of
Slackware years gone by, where I was expected to work out the timing
in milliseconds of my monitor's electron gun, then edit it into a text
file, just to get a frigging picture. Which I never got to work.
The Linux problem is it's written by people who use it, and obviously
being the system programmers, know every inch of it. They need to get
a bunch of newbies and old ladies in to user-test it, then take some
notes. Obviously this doesn't fit in well with their model of not
being a corporate behemoth.
I once read that computers crash less the longer you've used them.
Basically software is "training" it's users to subconsciously avoid
the things that make it go wrong, in the case of more adept users,
they barely notice they're doing it. Simpler users keep a notepad.
I think this is related to Linux's main problem. They speak the lingo
too fluently, confusing it with English for normal people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"hey let's educate the brutes, we know we are superior to them anyway,
just through genetics, we are gentically superior to the working
class. They are a shaved monkey. If we educate them, they will be able
to read instructions, turn up on time and man the conveyor belts,
sorted." #
