There is a lot of coastline and not that many police/coastguards. In fact we have been closing down the coastguard stations since satellite tracking of commercial shipping became the norm.
(I come from a part of the UK that was notorious for smuggling, wrecking and other forms of piracy).
Is the wikipedia page more or less correct or in need of editing in your view?
(Given that you are probably the current world expert on Noether having written the book)
Link to a pdf file that you don't need an institutional login for.
I did an activity in a basic maths class based on this paper years ago. Each student had an A3 map of the main island of the UK. Some set their compasses to 5cm radius and counted the number of radii around the island. Others tried 2.5cm, and 1cm and half a cm. Worked ok, good lesson.
> Here Reich fell in with musicians, dancers, sculptors and filmmakers. Sculptor Richard Serra was a neighbour of Reich’s at the time in Lower Manhattan, as was experimental filmmaker Michael Snow. For a brief period, Reich helped out with fellow minimalist Philip Glass’s removal company, Chelsea Light Moving. He recalls paying $65 a month in rent for a loft on Duane Street. “But I had a hard time paying that,” he says.
Personally, I quite like being able to use the CUA keyboard shortcuts to access menu items. I like consistency over decades but I appreciate that there are other ways of looking at this.
That looks exactly like an office app should look like. Basic interface patterns, clear distinctive visual areas and borders, all in the tradition of a classical graphical user interface. And yes, classical GUI more or less peaked in the early 2000's and it has generally been a downhill from there because the irresistible need of the industry for offering "something new" every few years.
Excuse me word processors are meant to have a ribbon, backstage view and where in LibreOffice is a sidepanel for me to talk to LibreLM to do agentic editing?
Plus if it runs on Android it must support snackbars.
"You are running version 7.0" - why not try some screenshots from this decade?
I have version 25.8.4.2 running here. It looks rather better and most importantly offers me the choice of a ribbon or not and many other choices rather than enforcing a single "opinionated" interface.
Me: I started off with the likes of Wordperfect and Wordstar, Lotus 123 and Quatro Pro, Harvard Graphics, and rather a lot more and that's just on MS's efforts. I've also taught PageMaker, CorelDraw and a lot more stuff that I have forgotten.
I am (probably) rather older than you and that does not make either of us "right" or "wrong".
However, I have been an IT trainer on and off for 30 odd years and I have seen how all the differing design paradigms and UI efforts have scarred end users.
Have you ever noted how awful all and I mean ALL UIs are generally awful? I'll give you two examples - Apple and KDE, that came up for me recently:
Apple tablet or phone: Print something. This is from memory but the UI is so shit it doesn't matter if I get it wrong. Press the rectangle with an up arrow, select a printer, press the word Print (next to the other icon that might do something)
KDE: I can't be arsed at this point to bother. There are things that are not intuitive.
If LO doesn't work for you then that's fine - buy something that does. For me, I create some horrendously complicated documents and it does work OK and believe me - I know how to stress an application - its my job and has been for some years. I also find it easier to teach people how to use LO as opposed to MSO.
That's just me. I'm sure you have some anecdotes of your own.
Maybe try installing a current version and seeing for yourself, there's multiple UI styles to chose from now, even one that is meant to mimic the MS "ribbon".
It looks great using Plasma. If the comparison and "problem" is the lack of a "ribbon" menu, etc., then you are missing the whole point of Office alternatives: they are free, open source, but most importantly, they are usable. That is, they do not eschew usability and function for the sake of change, pure aesthetics, or a company's latest foray into some new gimmick.
Ultimately, the "classic" approach taken is because many users feel that the classic style is more usable and makes them more productive irrespective of their learned habits of the past 20-30 years.
Microsoft did usability studies on real people to determine the ribbon interface is better. This is back in the days when software companies cared about objectively verifiable results.
No, they did not (or if they did, they didn't publish it). If I'm wrong, please give me some links because I'd genuinely love to see it.
Microsoft did those usability studies on the versions of Office that were current before the ribbon. The ribbon followed those studies as their attempt at a solution.
A few times over the years I've tried to search for usability studies of the ribbon interface because I've never got on with it myself. I find plenty of others asking the same thing online, and everybody points them to those same earlier studies from before the ribbon, while wrongly telling them it's a study of the ribbon.
Those studies are unable to tell us whether or not MS's attempt at a solution actually fixed the problems.
I believe the ribbon was a downgrade in usability terms (but people expect it in office suites, purely because it's seen as looking more modern). And I'd love to see real intensive research to tell me whether my belief is right or wrong.
Yeah, that's exactly it - there were all those history blogposts, full of very interesting stuff, but all about before the ribbon was in active use. (Pity about the image rot.) No usability studies of the ribbon itself.
Parts of those blog posts were unintentionally revealing of the groupthink of an enclosed bubble of people who couldn't see the wood for the trees. A great example is this piece about moving menu entries around so you couldn't build muscle memory, and had to take the time to look for what you wanted:
> First, remember that we're analyzing this with 20/20 hindsight... there was a lot of excitement (not just at Microsoft) about "auto-customization"... to present exactly the right UI for the person at hand. Now, it's easy to say that today people are generally against this idea... but we know that mainly through trying... the adaptive UI in Office 2000
As I recall it, the vast majority at the time - users, reviewers, UI/UX writers - considered its downsides to be completely obvious and were firmly against it. Its designers were apparently the only ones who needed 20/20 hindsight to see that.
> I remember thinking that the thought process behind the ribbon was very solid
I agree, the historical research, and the work on identifying the problems, was very solid. But the massive criticisms of the ribbon suggest it was not an entirely successful attempt at a solution.
I've seen it said that there's no way Microsoft would have neglected to carry out major usability studies on such a major UI change, and that the fact that nothing's been published, after all the blogposts and talks beforehand, suggests they chose to bury a bad result. No idea whether there's any truth in that of course, but it does sound plausible.
As a techie with no horse in this race I've always found the ribbon very usable. It has a layered shortcut system that is much logical than the legacy one, it still supports the legacy shortcuts (Alt-d, f, f forever!) and the number of commands now easily accessible for sure is higher than with the old menus.
Only no, it’s not and everyone reviled it when it came out but we’ve been stuck with it ever since.
MS may have done usability studies earlier (say, when they cared about dethroning Lotus 123 and WordPerfect) but that war was long won when the ribbon UI came out, by then they only cared about milking the cash cow.
It looks awful and undiscoverable on a standard Mint/Cinnamon install.
Anyway, the point is surely that if LibreOffice really wants to attract users from Microsoft Office, then it should do everything possible to optimise that transition?
Offering the option of a UI mimicking the familiar MS Office layout is not a difficult engineering problem. And if it makes users significantly more likely to switch, it should be a high priority to implement.
Honestly, at this stage, thinking of Gimp, FreeCAD, LibreOffice, and Blender, it’s as though there’s a weird group psychology deliberately against offering even decent (let along best-in-class) UIs in the open source world. These are all apps with excellent fundamental underlying engines/tech which are handicapped hugely by their UI/UX. (Yes I know some of these have improved in recent years, but only after far longer without improvements.)
>Offering the option of a UI mimicking the familiar MS Office layout is not a difficult engineering problem. And if it makes users significantly more likely to switch, it should be a high priority to implement.
It's already there. It really feels like such criticisms are from people who haven't used it in 10+ years.
Well, if that's the case, I take (that part of) it back and I'll fire up Mint later to explore. Thanks. It wasn't an obvious option when I tried LibreOffice a few weeks ago, but maybe I should have explored further.
My experience is less than two years old. I have the impression that those who defend it have a UI taste that is stuck in the 2000s. The same people who also point at UIs that are barely usable and ugly from a modern perspective like Windows 2000 and say "this was the pinnacle of UI".
Perhaps it's that well-known psychological effect where people self-report higher productivity when using an interface they find more visually appealing, whereas studying them proves the opposite is true.
Just a few examples of what makes Windows 2000 barely usable for me (and pretty much anyone who grew up with later UIs):
No central place to search for software, files, or settings. You have to dig through layers of menu trees like an idiot.
No visual preview to find the right open window. You have to alt-tab through a list of windows like an idiot.
No way of separating windows into work spaces / desktops (whatever you might call them). You have to either constantly kill windows or work your way through layers of them. The point above doesn't help with that.
This one has less to do with Windows 2000 but was part of the state of the art of the time for software: Walls of icons and buttons and not even a way to group them. Sometimes the entire window is just one wall of tiles sometimes there's the tool bar of doom at the top.
On top of lacking usability, Windows 2000 is ugly. Mostly because all main UI elements like buttons are visually thrust into your face by faux 3d elevation. This had it's place at the time when most of your users would not have had experience with computer UIs in the first place. With those users UI designers back then felt they needed to overemphasize visual cues from the real world. Nowadays you can show the user just a box or something that looks like a link (because people are used to browsers now). Maybe give a cue by changing the emphasis on hover.
The other reason that comes to mind why Windows 2000 is so ugly is colors. Again, this is due to its time and the capabilities of graphics cards back then that mostly didn't allow more subtle color differences.
I'm just using Windows 2000 as pars pro toto here. Pretty much all graphical UIs back then were lacking modern usability features and UI sensibilities, regardless of OS.
> Perhaps it's that well-known psychological effect where people self-report higher productivity when using an interface they find more visually appealing, whereas studying them proves the opposite is true.
You have your slightly condescending explanation for why we disagree and I have mine. Let me give you a hint quoting Douglas Adams:
"I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
Well 'ancient' to me in the context of computer interaction means punched cards (mechanical punches!) and a card reader, upper case only, so these terms are relative I suppose.
I think this is a matter of choice and it is nice that there are choices. As other posters in this little sub-tree have suggested, there are people who value continuity over a period of time.
LibreOffice on Windows still uses native Win32 controls. While you could call that a stylistic choice, even Microsoft has abandoned it for new apps.
This kind of UI is a dealbreaker for many new users, especially Gen Zers. How could open source conquer the world without attracting our youngest generations?
They should have bundled GTK like GIMP does. That would make the experience feel much less like it is from the XP era.
(I know these types of comments often get downvoted, but I challenge you to explain why you disagree.)
Is your team looking at the cloud version or a local install?
If latter would suggest checking current version of LibreOffice (which is Collabra Office Classic) as a local (i.e. on client computer) install. If former, then I'd imagine you will have to fill the form in to get access.
Small, medium and large colleges in the UK ran on Novell servers and 386 client machines with windows for workgroups and whatever Office they came with. I think the universities were using unixy minicomputers then though. Late 80s early 90s. Those 386 machines were built like tanks and survived the tender ministrations of hundreds of students (not to mention some of the staff).
My 32 bit laptop is a Thinkpad T42 from 2005 which has a functioning CDROM, and which can run Slackware15 stable 32bit install OKish, so I haven't tried any of this but:
My first thought: How about using a current computer to run qemu then mounting the Lenny iso as an image and installing to a qemu hard drive? Then dd the hard drive image to your 32bit target. (That might need access to a hard drive caddy depending on how you can boot the 32bit target machine, so a 'hardware regress' I suppose).
My second thought: If target machine is bootable from a more recent live linux, try a debootstrap install of a minimal Lenny with networking (assuming you can connect target machine to a network, I'm guessing with a cable rather than wifi). Reboot and install more software as required.
I have OpenBSD running on my old 2004 Centrino notebook (I might be lagging 2-3 versions behind, I don't really use it, just play around with it) and it's fine until you start playing YouTube videos, that is kinda hard on the CPU.
Yes, NetBSD and OpenBSD work fine on the 2005 T42 but as you say video performance is low. Recent OpenBSD versions have had to reduce the range of binary packages (i.e. outside of the base and installed with pkg_add) on i386 because of the difficulty of compiling them (e.g. Firefox, Seamonkey needing dependencies that are hard to compile on i386, a point the poster up thread made).
"TYCO Print is a printing service where professors can upload course files for TYCO to print out for students as they order. Shorter packets can cost around $20, while longer packets can cost upwards of $150 when ordered with the cheapest binding option."
And later in OA it states that the cost to a student is $0.12 per double sided sheet of printing.
In all of my teaching career here in the UK, the provision of handouts has been a central cost. Latterly I'd send a pdf file with instructions and the resulting 200+ packs of 180 sides would be delivered on a trolley printed, stapled with covers. The cost was rounding error compared to the cost of providing an hour of teaching in a classroom (wage costs, support staff costs, building costs including amortisation &c).
Do you think the statement 'Public universities are always underfunded' is relevant when asking how it is that Yale, a private university in the US, requires fees for photocopies of class materials, while in UK universities that appears uncommon?
Yale is private. That comment is therefore not relevant to Yale.
Either the UK experience is with private schools, in which case the statement is irrelevant, or it is with public schools, in which case the statement is either wrong or irrelevant.
> Either the UK experience is with private schools, in which case the statement is irrelevant, or it is with public schools
Amused by your use of two more terms that have different meanings in the UK (although young people are confusing things by adopting the American meanings)!
The point is that British universities are almost entirely private institutions that get a lot government funding, in particular for British students (so they pay much lower tuition fees) and research.
There is a heavy reliance on government funding at British universities so they are probably to some extent comparable to American public universities. On the other hand some have substantial resources of their own. They can also turn down government funding, and some have threatened too at times when unhappy with the terms that come with it.
Given that Yale seems to have had a serious funding gap last year because the government reduced funding it seems comparable to what your sources call a "public" university in the UK
> Either the UK experience is with private schools, in which case the statement is irrelevant, or it is with public schools, in which case the statement is either wrong or irrelevant.
Yale has far more money than any British university so regardless of how you classify them, the question of why Yale charges for things British universities do not is relevant regardless of how you classify them.
I think the systems are too different to compare that finely. I think the best way of explaining universities here in American terms is that they are all private universities, but almost all get government funding in return for keeping fees at a set price for British students (overseas students can get charged a multiple of that price).
That is over simplified because of differences between England, Scotland, Wales and NI, and historical differences in how different universities were founded etc, but its roughly correct I think.
Oh, apologies for the red herring here. In UK a 'college' is usually a Further Education College or a Sixth Form College. These institutions cater for students from 16 to 19 plus various adult education courses and some degree level work, the latter usually validated by a local university.
So your experience is of colleges? My fault too as I jumped to the conclusion that a previous comment of yours about not having taught in schools as meaning you taught an university. I should know better, especially as my kids both went to sixth form colleges for A levels.
That said, It makes Yale look even worse. They are better funded that British universities, and universities in turn are mostly better funded than HE/sixth form colleges.
It's more completing book length works that are published by a publishing house. Therefore subjected to content editing, copy editing and finding an audience. Quite a complex multi-stage process.
What criteria are you using to evaluate writing? Can you point to an example that you think is good writing?
(I say all this as someone who is still working on stringing words into sentences)
(I come from a part of the UK that was notorious for smuggling, wrecking and other forms of piracy).
reply