command line vs gui
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: micro solution backpack cd-writer hell
Next: "...error while loading shared libraries: libg2c.so.0"
From: Lee Sau Dan on 6 Dec 2005 01:10 >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> writes: >> Do you really, honestly consider it user friendly to require >> the user to reduce his/her search criteria to their normal form >> before giving them to the program? Peter> Please don't draw up strawmen! I did not suggest reducing Peter> to normal form - I merely noted that normal form is Peter> SUFFICIENT, Interesting! This time, we have something that is sufficient but NOT necessary! :D Peter> and since I proposed a method that covers normal form, THAT Peter> METHOD is therefore sufficient too. I'd refrain from the word "sufficient" in this context. Rather, I'd say the expressive power is "complete" (Boolean-complete). But... it's still inefficient, counter-productive, counter-intuitive, user-unfriendly. You're simply reinforcing the claim that a decent GUI can't be made for 'find'. -- Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´° ~{@nJX6X~} E-mail: danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
From: Peter T. Breuer on 6 Dec 2005 01:14 In comp.os.linux.misc Lee Sau Dan <danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: > Obviously, you never really worked with rewriting or simplifying > Boolean expressions. Otherwise, you should know that DNF/CNF are > usually less compact and less intuitive and more redundant than a more Sigh ... > deeply nested form. The normal forms are only good because they're > only 2 levels deep (ignoring the depth of the "NOT" operator) and the They can be as long as you like, left to right. I prefer length to depth A & B & C & D is four levels "long", for example. I don't know why you think deep and complex is better than long and simple! We are aiming at a comprehensible user interface! Clearly clarity is better. Peter
From: Peter T. Breuer on 6 Dec 2005 01:16 In comp.os.linux.misc Lee Sau Dan <danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: > But you require the *human* operator to compute the normal form first, Of course not. I wish you would stop "arguing" in non-sequiturs! No "computation" takes place in the human, simply selection from a check-list. > just to enter it into your "user-friendly" GUI. Why should he be > required to do that, in the first place? Non-question. Peter
From: Peter T. Breuer on 6 Dec 2005 01:16 In comp.os.linux.misc Lee Sau Dan <danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: >>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> writes: > >> Here's an example of something that doesn't seem to me to be > >> expressible that way: > Peter> They all are - boolean normal form. > If you REQUIRE you user to transform his intuitive Boolean expression > into a normal form before they can use your GUI, then your GUI is Go away nitwit, I have had enough of you. I do not require it, and it is not required. Peter
From: Peter T. Breuer on 6 Dec 2005 01:17
In comp.os.linux.misc Lee Sau Dan <danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: >>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> writes: > Peter> About five or six .. file, directory, link, special device > Peter> inode, socket, pipe, ... anything else? > >> Read 'man find' to learn how much you're missing! > Peter> I don't have to - there are only those types of inode. The > Peter> man page lists 7, because it distinguishes char special > Peter> device and block special device. > So, you missed the other predicates like -print, -exec, etc.? I was talking about the -type atomic. If you want to talk about something else, talk away. Peter |