I wrote 'Nuke Redmond'

From: jpero_at_cgocable.net <(jpero_at_cgocable.net)>
Date: Sun May 7 04:43:28 2000

> From: "Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner" <spc_at_armigeron.com>
> Subject: Re: I wrote 'Nuke Redmond'
> To: classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org
> Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 03:53:02 -0400 (EDT)
> Reply-to: classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org

> It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once stated:
> >
> > > Like Allison's comments about user space kept away from OSes and this
> > > limits the blowups if a typical user make an miss is spot on.
> > >
> > I've never experienced this before, but I'm having difficulty parsing this
> > sentence.
>
> Basically it means that as a user, if I try to delete the entire
> filesystem it won't work. I, as a user, don't have the priviledges to
> delete any old file---if I own them, yes, I can do what I please. But
> system wide files? Nope. Can't do. Need administrative privs to delete
> any arbitrary file.

What I was thinking of is a untoucheable and invisible OS and for
managing data is data users created only. Applications and any
little utils, drivers and hardware all are seen as "modules".
Drivers and hardware go hand in hand and is therefore as hardware
module set. For applications and small utils, they would be
software modules.

The user interface would be two sets of fancy "fuseboxes", each
"fuse" is module for applications have very simple but understandable
items like button that glows when on software startup, turn off
certain features and/or disable that module by turning off the master
button that is glowing to go out. To remove the application, a user
would grab n' pull the certain application module out of it's socket
(snick sound) and drop it in trash (noise trashcan makes when
something thrown in) but the user-created data remains. Adding
applications and any certain stuff software in nature come in form of
a module(s) that you drag it from a install cdrom to the empty socket
"application fusebox" with audiable click. Rearranging the startup
enabled modules by physically rearrange the modules by their order.

To launch applications, is by the run buttons, to end it, press it
again it audibly starts, the button go dark with sound of running
down. There should be two levels of user expertises: single mode or
run multiple applications. If a application takes so long to run
should show progress line extending, no numbers. Processing
heavily, should show "hmmm".

Same idea for hardware modules and "fusebox" with few features in
each module for each hardware. Finally, to pull the hardware, user
either pull the hardware itself and the modules simply diappears.
Plug that hardware (it incidently has own drivers suite built in),
module appears. USB's feature is very close to this mark but this is
utterly spoiled by asking for a driver and still too complex and not
in form of user interface I described.

Note, the physical appearance should reflect what it
should look like they have used everyday in their lives that make no
mistaking what it is and use it. Not icons and text, each module has
a name on it.

Think of the myst and riven interfaces especially the buttons that
lights and reconigizable info status.

Snip!

What I described would work with vast majority of users with
flashing "12:00" vcrs even my mom would understand and use it in a
flash. Apple's new stuff is not up to what I just described.
I-opener concept is very close to that mark. M$ stuff is too complex
and too confusingly, bad wordings and maze-like.

Also, no menu! Basic functions that get used heavily comes in form
of few buttons in a row. To use more complex features and to access
features, use function commands via keyboard and a manual. People
can learn by rote by using it again and again thereby the manual get
used less and less with time. Too much time is wasted picking out
menus with mouse. Should consider the mouse as minor part just for
buttons, selecting lines or items, adjust something.

> -spc (One running on a diskless machine)

Wizard
Received on Sun May 07 2000 - 04:43:28 BST