[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OS questions draft, III



I'm working on 0x007. I played around a bit trying to come to some sort
of understanding with sdoc - 0x006. I think I'm getting close to its
perspective, but alas I'm not there yet...

> Woah. Actually, I flagged those as newly-changed, rather than needing-
> help. But you put some good thought into them nonetheless, and they
> will end up much better for it. Thanks.
      Spoo. I really should wait for the coffee to kick in before doing
stuff in the mornings...

>>!* ability to act as servers for email, web pages, file access,
>>!  telnet, file  transfer, etc.
>>> !  [was: ability to run servers for email, web pages, file access,
>>>    telnet, file transfer, etc.]
>>>    [was: running servers (mail, httpd, samba, telnetd, ftpd, etc)]
>>> ![should this be 'server' or 'servers'?]
>>
>>I would suggest separating these somewhat:
>>
>>* Being able to use your computer to be a mail server, web page
>>  server.
> how about "as a mail server or web page server"
     Yup. Better wording. Updated in 0x007.

>>* Being able to use your computer to share files over the network
>> (file server) or over the internet (file transfer (FTP) server)
> how about "over a local network" rather than "over the network"
> maybe "over a local or company network"
     Yup. That's clearer. Updated in 0x007.

>>* Being able to connect to your computer from another computer
>> (telnet) this is the same question as is asked later, under
>> "connecting to your computer remotely"
     ... True, unless you want to dial into your own machine (with your
machine acting as your home base). There is a degree of redundancy here,
but I think it has to be teased out a bit more.

>>* Having sufficient technical support from your internet service
>>  provider to resolve difficult technical problems ('difficult'
>>  from the perspective of the computerphobe).
> first of all, 'sufficient' needs to go, for reasons Kimboo was talking
> about earlier. I want to communicate what we're trying to ask as
> efficiently and clearly as possible. Otherwise we waste the surveyee's
> time.
> Do we really need 'difficult' in there? Who's to judge 'difficult'?
> Wait, you just answered that one. :) But if 'difficult' is from the
> perspective of the computerphobe, wouldn't most any technical question
> be 'difficult', and thus we can throw the word out?
     Agreed. It's gone - 0x007.

>>!* ability to integrate computer with communications devices
>>!  (telephone, video conferencing, etc)
>>> ! [was: telephony (integrating computers and communications) [needs
>>>   help]]
>>
>>[This is pretty broad. What if we tease these out a little bit more]
>>
>>* Being able to use your computer to:
>> - dial the telephone for a voice call
>> - send and receive faxes
>> - answer calls (answering machine)
>> - voice mail for several people
>> - fax-on-demand
> 
> Are these last two as important as the first three? (I can see
> 'fax-on-demand' being as important I guess (but I want a short
> argument first :), but voice mail for several people?)
     This is in fact what some friends are doing with their PC's ...
with voice mailboxes set up for members of the family, business, etc.
FOD can also be set up this way (WinFax / TalkWorks allows numerous FOD
sections). Voice mail doesn't seem much of a stretch from duty as
answering machine. I'm a bit less convinced as well for FOD, but I can
see where it would be useful ("for a list of this year's Linux Group
meeting places and times, please press 1..."). I guess all I'm saying
here is that it's already being done via Windoze. 


>>* Being able to use your computer to communicate / conference with
>>  others using audio / and video?
> 
> how about "audio and/or video"?
     Why not? I hesitated there for a sec, but I realize that not
everyone communicates verbally ('video, but no sound? ghastly!'). Once
frame rates get good enough (if they aren't already), there's no reason
why lip-readers can't use video-only comms (even if only to save
bandwidth).

>>* Being able to use your computer for speech to text transcription
>>  (ie. NaturallySpeaking or ViaVoice-type stuff)?
> This is getting pretty esoteric. I'd like to keep most of the
> questions in the realm of 'what people already do in at least one
> OS'. Er, people already do this in Windows, don't they. There goes
> my argument. Can we broaded the question slightly, into asking both
> speech->text and text->speech?
     How about 'Being able to use your computer for speech to text
transcription (you speak, it types), or text to speech transcription
(you've typed, it reads it back to you)?'

>>> * being able to use (read/write/convert) files saved in industry
>>>   standard word processing file formats
>>>   [was: being able to use (read/write/convert) industry standard
>>>    word processing file formats]
>>Suggest add: being able to use (read/write/convert) files saved in
>>industry standard work processing file formats.
> 'work processing'? like what?
     Spoo. Typo. I meant 'word processing' so that formats like TeX <>
WP 5.X, 6-8 <> MS Word <> LaTeX <> AMIpro <> etc could be exchanged.
Then I realized that this was already accounted for in the first
question. See previous self-admonition about not having completed the
consumption of caffeinated beverages before such work... :-)

>>!* Access to OS source code (for modification, configuring, etc.).
>>* Source code contains all of the computer instructions for a given
>>  operating system or application. How important is being able to
>>  customize the OS source code for configuration or modification so
>>  as to optimize the basic OS for your computer system or to improve
>>  the OS for your needs?
> 
> Aiee. This question is really long. It also introduces ideas (like
> whether they would want the source code to optimize or improve it)
> that I'm not sure I wanted involved in the original question. People
> know what source code is, right? How much do we have to explain?
     Good point. I wanted to put the idea out, but you make a very good
point about ... those in the know will already know this is possible,
and those who yet aren't probably won't care about source code and what
it is. Suggest rewriting it as follows?

* having the operating system source code freely available for
optimizing or improving the OS for your needs?
> How about
> * Access to operating system (OS) source code (for reading or
>   customizing)
     Ideas? Suggestions?

>>* How important is being able to have access to the source code for
>>  the software packages you use so that you may customize the
>>  application for your own needs or optimize the application for your
>>  computer system?
> 
> Why do we need to provide a reason-for-wanting-the-source in the
> question? Will that look like it's leading them into answering a
> certain way?
     Good point - it would be leading. How about:

* Having access to an application's source code for customizing or
  optimizing the application?

>>> * being able to transparently encrypt data going to and from your
>>>   computer via the network.
>>> * being able to transparently encrypt data stored on your computer
>>>   [was: encryption]
>>> ["transparently" probably needs some help here]
>>> !['transparently' means that it's happening without the user's
>>> ! direct intervention. That is, everything works the same way as it
>>> ! would if there weren't encryption happening, and the user doesn't
>>> ! have to care.]
>>* How important is being able to have data encrypted on the computer
>>  so that other cannot access your data, while being able to use your
>>  own data as easily as if it were not encrypted.
> 
> I see now that this is two questions. the first is ability to have
> encryption at all, the second is making it easy to use. i think the
> first is an appropriate question, and the second is too specific.
> that's why we're having trouble getting a good description of
> 'transparently' in a concise question. How about
> 'being able to easily encrypt data going to and from your computer
> via the network'? perhaps 'easily'->'conveniently'? Or just leave the
> adverb out entirely?

How about separating it into two questions:
* Having your data encrypted on the computer so that others cannot
access your data without your authorization?
     (this would allow for file sharing via network)
* That any encryption mechanisms used allow you to use your own data as
readily as if it were not encrypted?

>>* How important is using an operating system which is stable, running
>>  for a long (weeks, months, years) without crashing or requiring a
>>  restart.
> does the appended clause gain us anything?
    Hmm.. My reason being the liberal interpretation of the word
'stable': X is very stable if you need to do a 5 minute task. Yes, this
is an exaggeration on my part, but it seems to me that stability is a
matter of perspective unless it is stated specifically. Perhaps I'm
over-reacting.

>>* How important is being able to use applications which are stable,
>>  and can run without crashing or requiring a restart?
> we have an assumed "How important is" in front of each question. So we
> shouldn't add it to any of the actual questions. That's why so many of
> our questions have started with participles so far. :)
     Good point. Must have been a pre-coffee question :-) How about:
* Being able to use applications which are stable, and can run without
crashing or requiring a restart?

>>> * prompt bugfixes
>>> [proposal to nuke this question. opinions?]
>>> ![kimboo: by 'prompt bugfixes', I mean that when the people in charge
>>> ! of the OS (or applications, I guess) get told about a bug, they
>>> ! provide a bugfix for it in a short amount of time. I had assumed
>>> ! that the actual patching of the bug would be automated. Nobody
>>> ! would accept it if it weren't fully automated.]
>>Adequate software support? (I rant a bit about this down below)
     On second thought, maybe this question is a bit redundant, given
the question on software support down below.

>>!* Documentation on the internet that can be downloaded and/or printed
>>!  [was: printed docs from the internet (and a directory of said
>>!  docs)]
>>* How important is being able to find documentation for your software
>>  which you can download, copy and print for your personal use?
> I'd like to keep the mention of the internet in this question

* Being able to find documentation (for the operating system and
applications) on the original disks or via the internet which you can
download, copy and print for your personal use?

>>> !* Availability of printed documentation/guides at book stores
>>> !  [was:printed docs available at book stores]
>>* How important is being able to find good books dealing with the
>>  operating system and the programs you use at book stores?
> 'good' is pretty useless there. 'suitable' or 'appropriate' or the
> like might make more sense, tho. hrm.
* Being able to find books at local book stores dealing with the
operating system or applications you use?

>>!* Software tutorials that interactively teach you how to use your
>>!  computer and applications
>>!  [was: having the os send each new user an email containing 'how
>>!  to use MAN, APROPOS; where to find docs, how to read docs etc.']
>>* Having a set of interactive software tutorials to help you learn the
>>  basics of how to use your computer and its applications (General
>>  orientation to OS and software in order to access basic OS/ App
>>  functionality)?
> 
> do they just teach 'the basics'? i think i'd prefer to ask what my
> question is asking -- it's more broad, rather than more specific. I
> see that you're trying to break the tutorial question into two --
> basic and intermediate. But I'm thinking maybe it should stay one
> question, and then the intermediate help issue be separate?
     Tough call. On one hand, I see two classes of users, depending on
their ability to find the information they seek: the first being those
who don't know how to find the info they require (if only because they
don't have enough experience to know what it is they are looking for in
the first place ... and face it, we ALL go through that stage :) and
thus need to be initiated to OS/app issues in general as well as the
issues specific to a given OS/app in particular; the second being those
who at least have an idea of what they're looking for - even if it means
that they'll know it when they see it - and know how to go about finding
that information. Thus, the former group need the handholding, and the
latter group do not - they don't mind the complexity, as long as they
have an efficient means of sorting through it (which is the basis for
the second question below). Of course, there may well be room for a
third group in there somewhere...

>>* Having an intuitive way to find detailed information quickly for a
>>  given operating system or software feature (Specific information to
>>  access intermediate advanced OS / App functionality)?
> 
> this is a good question to ask
     Thanks!

>>> !* software brand reputation (good or bad)
>>> !* hardware brand reputation (good or bad)
>>> !  [was: brand reputation (good or bad)]
>>>   [was: corporate reputation]
>>     I think I see where you're going here. If the software has no
>>brand on it (like most open source software), will the user still
>>want to use it? I mean, you know if you get a shrink wrap box from
>>Corel, Red Hat, Netscape, etc that it should really work. Now what
>>about the open source stuff that doesn't have the name of a
>>corporation on it, or if the app has a 'strange' name (all lower case,
>>sometimes not intuitively pronouncable for a newless cluebie), will
>>the same implicit trust of the user still be there? Given the pride
>
> yes, yes exactly
> 
>>that the community has in producing lots of very usable software for
>>free, perhaps this has to be impressed on the potential user community
>>a bit more.
     Just to expand a bit more. Seems to me that if there is a central
catalog of linux software (Roger - can you point me to the right place
here?), then perhaps rephrasing the question to the effect of 'obtaining
software from a reputable source?' would be appropriate. My concern here
is how do we separate the 'true' open source programmers from other
individuals having less than altruistic intentions (using 'new' software
as a means to exploit security vulnerabilities, f'rinstance). 


> Also, once we've gotten this survey under our belt, we'll have a lot
> better of an idea how to do real surveys that work (hopefully). On the
> other hand, I'm probably going to be too busy then to put priority on
> another survey. But I'd be happy to keep this forum open for people to
> discuss all sorts of brilliant new survey ideas. But let's leave the
> distant future to itself for now, eh? :)

Yeah. I've set aside some sections near the bottom of the survey page as
catch-alls for things falling into the 'other' category. These could be
put onto another page perhaps, if we want it there. I don't mind putting
stuff outside our mandate down there for now, as long as is isn't too
distracting.

Well, time for more coffee and to get thesis work done. :-) Cheers,

Pete

-- 
Pete St. Onge - McGill U.  Limnology - Fun with Ropes & Buckets
pete_st_onge@iname.com         http://wwp.mirabilis.com/4322052
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEUL Expert Group - Linux for All!          http://www.seul.org
Programming For Science Page        http://www.trentu.ca/~erpds