Usability Standard EI Informatics
Hi,
I would like to expose the following proposal.
All we are not programmers. From an user point of view, I think there should exist a fifth liberty: We should be able to implement every single action that a program can do by its command.
This way, I propose the 'Usability Standard EI Informatics' as:
" In each operating system and program, every action should be possible to implement by the command console. As in graphics applications, each action usually comes with its keyboard shortcut next, it must also be accompanied by the equivalent command in the command console. "
I expect any comments. Thanks.
That is not a freedom. That is a feature. And a feature that cannot always be implemented because of the restrictions of command line interfaces. For instance, I can draw on GIMP. Good luck to implement that "action" in a command line interface.
I think it would make a good feature. Since we're talking about free software, you already have the liberty to implement it. Or pay somebody else to do the job.
Ey, it's a freedom.
Maybe you are not be able to see it beacuse you are programmers. You have the freedom to elaborate things with free software by its code. Users haven't.
Thanks.
Like I said before, you're already free to hire somebody do it for you if you can't do it yourself.
How much? :)
Hohohoho! Yeah, you are 'free' to hire somebody do a free software for you if you can't do it yourself too, right?
Pleaseeee! Be more open-minded.
It is a not about being open-minded. It is about defining to the word "freedom". According to http://www.dictionary.com/browse/freedom (but pick any dictionary you want), "freedom" is "exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.". A program does not control you because it has no CLI. If its license is proprietary though, then it prevents you from adding/improving its CLI: that is external control.
You 'can' create another programm similar, from the begining. If you want a free programm, do it yourself. How do you feel if someone told you that?
I, as an user, just wanna the same: Free Software you can use without be an expert in hieroglyphs (programming).
Think about it thoroughly.
Thanks.
If you want a free programm, do it yourself.
Like lembas wrote, you do not have to do things yourself: freedom 3 makes the whole user community control the software.
I, as an user, just wanna the same: Free Software you can use without be an expert in hieroglyphs (programming).
Excellent analogy: do hieroglyphs (or their author) deny your freedoms because you cannot read them by yourself? It is absurd. Defining "freedom" as "being able to do anything by oneself" only leads to such absurdities. Fortunately, you do not write any dictionary.
Like not being able to read hieroglyphs, not being able to (easily) use a program is not a denial of your freedoms. *You* are not able. It is not an external control/interference/regulation (such as copyright, DRMs, non-disclosure of the source code, etc.) that prevents you from using the program.
I'm gonna try to make you understand my point of view, supposing you are not a fanatic nor a member of spanish mob. :)
Please, substitute my idea for Free Software in your own arguments and
then ask yourself to realise that you're wrong.
This way:
" Excellent analogy: do hieroglyphs (or their author) deny your freedoms because you cannot read / write them by yourself? It is absurd. Defining "freedom" as "being able to do anything by oneself" only leads to such absurdities.
Fortunately, you do not write any dictionary.
Like not being able to read / write hieroglyphs, not being able to (easily) use a program is not a denial of your freedoms. *You*
are not able. It is not an external control/interference/regulation (such as copyright, DRMs, non-disclosure of the source code, etc.) that prevents you from using the program. "
Thanks.
I do not see how adding "write" changes anything. When a free software program does not have a CLI, it is not because its author wants to control you. It is just because nobody worked on it. And anybody is free to work on it or pay somebody to work on it. Instead you want to force the author to write a CLI (what is not even always possible: like drawing on GIMP).
The same holds for any feature. A free software program not having a GUI (most users actually prefer GUIs), not being accessible, not being translated to your language, not being stable, not being secure, etc. is a not a program that denies your freedoms. It is an imperfect program.
Please, replace 'CLI' and others with 'Free Software' to get it. This way:
" I do not see how adding Free Software changes
anything. When a ' program does not have
Free Software, it is not because its author wants
to control you. It is just because nobody worked on it. And anybody is free to work on it or pay somebody to work on it. Instead you want to force the author to write a Free Software (what is not even always possible: '). "
:)
On the other hand, I accept to discuss about the different between simply features and liberty features.
" The same holds for any feature.
A free software program not having a GUI (most users actually prefer GUIs), " - I understand and remark the different between 'easy of use' and 'freedom of use'
" not being accessible, " - When exist people blind (for example), talking about OS, without some features it can not be achieved any freedom. (even with no proprietary code)
" not being translated to your language, " - Maybe before it was too difficult. But now, from my point of view, an easy way to brute-translate it, at least, must be able to incorporate (like OS installation).
A reflexion here: Proprietary Software is written in a 'different'
language that programmers don't understand, right? Otherwise, you would transcribe it to Free Software instantly.
" not being stable, not being secure, etc. is a not a program that denies your freedoms. It is an imperfect program. " - I agree. We can call it 'Imperfect Free Software'.
I hope to hear. Thanks.
When a ' program does not have Free Software, it is not because its author wants to control you.
Yes, it is.
It is just because nobody worked on it.
Choosing a free software license does not require more work than choosing a proprietary software license.
Instead you want to force the author to write a Free Software (what is not even always possible: ')
It is always possible. Proprietary software could be illegal (it harms our freedoms)... but we are not there yet.
I accept to discuss about the different between simply features and liberty features.
Freedom is not a feature.
I understand and remark the different between 'easy of use' and 'freedom of use'
Why would it be different for the command line interface?!
When exist people blind (for example), talking about OS, without some features it can not be achieved any freedom.
The user cannot use a free software program if it is inaccessible. But that does not mean the program (or its developers) controls the users. Accessibility is a feature. A required feature for many users but a feature anyway. Not a freedom.
But now, from my point of view, an easy way to brute-translate it, at least, must be able to incorporate (like OS installation).
Sorry I cannot make sense of this sentence. It is a language I do not understand. But you have not denied my freedoms because you wrote in a language I do not understand. i18n is a feature.
Proprietary Software is written in a 'different' language that programmers don't understand, right?
Wrong. Any programming language can be used to write any software, free or proprietary. If the language is compiled (such as C), then a binary (that corresponds to the source code) is created and is not human-readable. The binary can be free or proprietary. Now, if the binary is free, that means the corresponding source code is distributed to the users (freedom 1 or 3 require that). If the binary is proprietary the source code is (typically) not distributed to the users, who therefore are helpless. But, you see, the difference is not technical. At all.
You didn't get it. :( I tried to get you to realize that your arguments against 'Usability Standard EI Informatics' are as weak as they are for Free Software. And you did answer yourself again.
Anyway, I respect you to think freely.
" It is always possible. Proprietary software could be illegal (it harms our freedoms)... but we are not there yet. " - I agree. The only government, to who my power would confer, must act this way.
Discuss about the different between simply features and liberty features - maybe in another thread.
When I talk about 'freedom of use',I just say that freedoms achieved for developers by means of Free Software must be extended to users (all kind of users).
And finally,
" Proprietary Software is written in a 'different' language that programmers don't understand, right?
Wrong. Any programming language can be used to write any software, free or proprietary. If the language is compiled (such as C), then a binary (that corresponds to the source code) is created and is not human-readable. The binary can be free or proprietary. Now, if the binary is free, that means the corresponding source code is distributed to the users (freedom 1 or 3 require that). If the binary is proprietary the source code is (typically) not distributed to the users, who therefore are helpless. But, you see, the difference is not technical. At all. " - You didn't get it again. I said the same as above, maybe a person can't speak a spoken (or programming) language in the same way developers can't free proprietary software.
I realise your opinion, I exposed mine. Thanks.
Here is an article by rms, who explains better than I the difference between a feature and a freedom: https://gnu.org/philosophy/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html
I just say that freedoms achieved for developers by means of Free Software must be extended to users (all kind of users).
They are. Through freedom 3:
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.
I said the same as above, maybe a person can't speak a spoken (or programming) language in the same way developers can't free proprietary software.
A proprietary program is freed if and when its author(s) change its license for a free software license. There is no language barrier, no technical barrier, nothing. The program is exactly the same. Do you understand?
When I talk about 'Usability Standard EI Informatics', I'm assuming that CLI is the simplest way to achieve it, maybe is not.
The goal is that an user can be able to execute every action of a software changing its parameters by a simple order. I mean, maybe a macro recorder, with parameters, in graphical environment could be enough *.
* I tried an extension for Firefox (iMacros)(it didn't worked so well) that could be moved to another software.
:|
It still sounds like you want every free/libre program to have complete CLI functionality.
If not, then I get the impression that you want non-programmers to be able to change how software works without any programming knowledge?
Like Magic Banana already said, freedom 3 lets people and the community share modified versions of programs, whereby non-programmers also benefit when somebody implement a feature or change how a free/libre program works.
Changing computer programs written in a programming language naturally requires knowledge of the programming language the program was written in, so if that's the goal: read a book and learn code. =)
With 'Usability Standard EI Informatics' , we talk about 'Freedom of Use':
I want non-programmers to be able to make each action of a software works by means of parameters without any programming knowledge.
Users respect developers work improving programms. We want to have the freedom to use every action of software by means of parameters. (CLI, macros ...)
Thanks.
Maybe a better declaration of 'Usability Standard EI Informatics' :
Users should be able to create macros with every action that software provides.
That could be mentioned for a software or for an OS.
Software with a command line interface (CLI), these orders can be sequenced using a script (command file). If the interface is graphical, actions are not always immediately concatenated.
Two ideas:
As in graphics applications, each action usually comes with its keyboard shortcut next, it should also be accompanied by the equivalent command in the command console.
Another option is that the OS include a program to create macros for other software (such as a macro recorder).
Thanks.
What is EI?
EI = 'Estado Independiente'. It could be translated as 'Independent State'. (from https://estadoindependiente.wordpress.com/)
I did the same people do with other expressions like:
MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria)
People uses the acronyms into the original language.
Thanks.
So "EI" is some sort of secessionist political movement? What does that have to do with free software?
One thing to note is that this supposed improvement "from user's point of view" requires one to be competent enough to use the command line interface, something which many users (foolishly) seem to find scary, difficult and off-putting. One could argue that if energy was spent working towards this goal, it could have been instead used in improving the immediately discoverable and more familiar but ultimately weaker and slower graphical user interface.
I think of myself as a "power user". (I write relatively simple scripts and generally poke around but cannot program.) As such I would benefit from more command line opportunities. My mom who also uses Trisquel certainly wouldn't.
Macros can be deployed graphicly too. With a macro recorder (I saw some software into firefox, 'imacros'). I think it records mouse movements and strokes from keyboard.
If someone know about a software that allows record macros into Trisquel, please tell me.
Thanks.