Re: [dev] Interesting post about X11

From: Connor Lane Smith <>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:28:28 +0100

On 16 June 2010 12:39, Kurt H Maier <> wrote:
> There's no 'psychological interaction'
> with computers, unless the user is profoundly insane.

You're seriously claiming that psychology doesn't come into an
individual's interaction with tools? Have you ever read anything on

> the fact that you consider Acme's interface
> 'well-designed' indicates at best a lack of consensus in the matter.

On 16 June 2010 09:23, Connor Lane Smith <> wrote:
> I'm not sure whether Pike was right with
> regards to rio and acme, which is why I use dwm and (bitterly) vim.

> I think you've mixed up the sides in that match.  vi and Sam lie on
> one end of that road, and Acme and Emacs are at the other end.

Vi is a modal clusterfuck. I mean, the crazy shit that thing does?
It's different on every machine. Even Bill Joy doesn't use vi anymore.

> I note you dismiss ed, probably because of its underdesigned "User
> Experience."  I use ed more often in my work than vi and sam combined.

I dropped ed for sam -d. But you know what? One could say, "I use DOS
more than Unix!" Your using X more than Y means jack.

> I agree that programmers need well-designed
> interaction

I'm glad you agree. Well, turns out programmers should "give a shit
about 'user experience'" then. That's cleared that one up.

(Perhaps we should take this off-list if you want to continue it, I
suspect it bores spectators.)

Received on Wed Jun 16 2010 - 12:28:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Jun 16 2010 - 12:36:02 UTC