command line vs gui
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: micro solution backpack cd-writer hell
Next: "...error while loading shared libraries: libg2c.so.0"
From: Peter T. Breuer on 6 Dec 2005 06:32 In comp.os.linux.misc blmblm(a)myrealbox.com wrote: >[ptb] >>You get to judge whether you like the form I proposed on its own merits >>or demerits - I suggested a GUI to tick the boxes in for each one of >>the atomic propositions (i.e. one window, with boxes to tick in it), >>and a check box asking "finished?". > Well, you seem to me to be proposing a GUI that only allows entering > expressions in conjunctive normal form. How do you propose that > users enter expressions that are not in CNF? They do not know or care. > If your answer is "all > expressions can be converted to CNF" .... Who/what is doing the > converting? Nobody - they can't write anything else (it's not CNF, but something that covers cnf, but still). They simply click and try a search and if they don't like the result they click again to modify the search - no thinking (about cnf or otherwise) is required any more than you need to know SQL when putting items into a google search (yes, it understands AND and stuff). Peter
From: blmblm on 6 Dec 2005 07:34 In article <d89g63-0be.ln1(a)news.it.uc3m.es>, Peter T. Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote: >In comp.os.linux.misc blmblm(a)myrealbox.com wrote: >> In article <1rmf63-hrp.ln1(a)news.it.uc3m.es>, >> And to add "or E" to the above .... If you need conjunctive normal >> form, you need > >> ( A or E) & ( B or E) & ( C or E) & ( D or E ) > >> rather than the briefer -- and in this case simpler -- > >> ( A & B & C & D ) or E > >> Right? > >That's an interesting one - yes, that's part of a real and useful >discussion of the format I proposed and would lead to one accepting or >modifying it. To argue FOR, I'd say that all you need to do is click >"again" three times. The first time you unclick "A" and click "B", the >second time you unclick "B" and click "C", the third time you unclick >"C" and click "D". > >> As I understand it, your GUI represents A & B & C & D with four >> panels, > >Panels? checkboxes. One panel for all. Yes, I suppose that would be more sensible than what I was imagining (perhaps misled by an earlier discussion of combining filters, and thinking that each filter would be represented by a separate panel, chained by clicking "more"): Probably the only reasonable use of "and" here combines different parameters ("-name" and "-mtime", e.g.). And I suppose each checkbox could lead to something that provides some "or" functionality (e.g., -name is "*.bak" or "*.tmp"). > >> one each for A, B, C, and D, and to add "or E", you need to >> point and click your way through these four panels, adding "or E" to >> each one. Right? > >Wrong. See above. I don't understand how one achieves "or E" at all in your interface, except in a rather narrow sense (e.g., name is "*.bak" or "*.tmp"). -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
From: blmblm on 6 Dec 2005 07:45 In article <0f9g63-0be.ln1(a)news.it.uc3m.es>, Peter T. Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote: >In comp.os.linux.misc blmblm(a)myrealbox.com wrote: >>[ptb] >>>You get to judge whether you like the form I proposed on its own merits >>>or demerits - I suggested a GUI to tick the boxes in for each one of >>>the atomic propositions (i.e. one window, with boxes to tick in it), >>>and a check box asking "finished?". What does the "finished?" check box do? Originally I thought this was something that allowed you to chain .... something, not sure what, but now I'm wondering whether maybe it's just your equivalent of a "submit" or "do search now" button? > >> Well, you seem to me to be proposing a GUI that only allows entering >> expressions in conjunctive normal form. How do you propose that >> users enter expressions that are not in CNF? > >They do not know or care. How do I enter something that gives the functionality of "(A and B) or C"? For that matter, how do I combine checkboxes to get the equivalent of this command?: find . -name "*.bak" -o -mtime -1 > >> If your answer is "all >> expressions can be converted to CNF" .... Who/what is doing the >> converting? > >Nobody - they can't write anything else (it's not CNF, but something >that covers cnf, but still). They simply click and try a search and if >they don't like the result they click again to modify the search - no >thinking (about cnf or otherwise) is required any more than you need to >know SQL when putting items into a google search (yes, it understands >AND and stuff). But I claim that there are searches that cannot be done with Google, even through the "advanced" page. How do I ask for all pages that meet the following?: ("contains foo and contains bar") or ("contains qwerty") Well, maybe there's some way to tell Google "hey, I understand Boolean expressions, here's what I really want ...." -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
From: Peter T. Breuer on 6 Dec 2005 07:59 In comp.os.linux.misc blmblm(a)myrealbox.com wrote: > I don't understand how one achieves "or E" at all in your interface, > except in a rather narrow sense (e.g., name is "*.bak" or "*.tmp"). I was imagining that checking many checkboxes give you an OR. - I suppose that there could be an ubercheckbox saying "refine search" or "broaden search" in order to give you the option of going either way. If one wanted to, I suppose there could even be a "click to expand option" place near each checkbox. Anyway, my only point was "this is something WELL suited to a gui, because one constantly needs reminding of the available options and earlier choices and one often wants to modify the preceding attempt, and the choices of what to do are finite in number, repeated some finite number of times" (paraphrasing). Peter
From: Peter T. Breuer on 6 Dec 2005 08:05
In comp.os.linux.misc blmblm(a)myrealbox.com wrote: > In article <0f9g63-0be.ln1(a)news.it.uc3m.es>, > Peter T. Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote: >>In comp.os.linux.misc blmblm(a)myrealbox.com wrote: >>>[ptb] >>>>You get to judge whether you like the form I proposed on its own merits >>>>or demerits - I suggested a GUI to tick the boxes in for each one of >>>>the atomic propositions (i.e. one window, with boxes to tick in it), >>>>and a check box asking "finished?". > What does the "finished?" check box do? I suppose it's the opposite of "more?"! I haven't anything very concrete in mind! >>> Well, you seem to me to be proposing a GUI that only allows entering >>> expressions in conjunctive normal form. How do you propose that >>> users enter expressions that are not in CNF? >> >>They do not know or care. > How do I enter something that gives the functionality of > "(A and B) or C"? Chose A, C checkboxes. Click "again". Chose B, C checkboxes. Click "finish" ("search", whatever). > For that matter, how do I combine checkboxes to get the equivalent > of this command?: > find . -name "*.bak" -o -mtime -1 Click two of them. >>that covers cnf, but still). They simply click and try a search and if >>they don't like the result they click again to modify the search - no >>thinking (about cnf or otherwise) is required any more than you need to >>know SQL when putting items into a google search (yes, it understands >>AND and stuff). > But I claim that there are searches that cannot be done with Google, Sure there are - it's one of my major annoyances that you can't search for a date range, r sort the output by date instead of their idea of relevance. > even through the "advanced" page. How do I ask for all pages that meet > the following?: > ("contains foo and contains bar") or ("contains qwerty") To do an OR, you have to do two searches, and concat the resluts. > Well, maybe there's some way to tell Google "hey, I understand Boolean > expressions, here's what I really want ...." There are secondary websites that do that for you. They compose an answer for you by querying google underneath. Search for "google2" and such. Peter |