Arise SIR Jonathan Ive 183
mariocki writes "Steve Jobs' go-to design man Jonathan Ive, the creator of modern computer design classics such as the iMac, MacBook Pro and iPod/iPhone/iPad, has been awarded a knighthood in the New Year's Honours list, taking him from plain old 'Mr' straight to 'Sir' in one fell swoop. This now puts him in the same league as Paul McCartney, Michael Caine, Bob Geldof and Bill Gates. Ive said 'I discovered at an early age that all I've ever wanted to do is design' and even for Apple haters his designs have done more for personal computer design than the mainstream PC manufacturers could imagine, taking the PC from the geek den into the living room of even the most painfully trendy fashionista."
Design Matters (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also why Linux will always fail - the whole principle of Linux is that there's no unified look and team that discusses, chooses and implements good UI and terms. In Linux world everyone just does whatever they want, often ignoring what or how others do it.
Good example of this is the linux shell. It still acts like it's from the 90's because people don't work together to bring it together. It's still based on text output because everyone does things differently. Compare this to PowerShell which passes objects between programs. This allows different pieces of programs to work much better together, without need to define rules on how to parse some other programs output (which also usually fails in less used cases).
Both Apple and Microsoft have got this. I hate to admit it but Windows 7 is the most beautiful Windows to date from Microsoft. So is Apple's OSX. If it wasn't for the games and some Windows only -apps I would use OSX because it is just much nicer to use. But there is no way in hell I would use Linux now. That might had been the case in 2005, but why would I do that? On top of polished interface and good design, OSX offers all the underlying tools that also make Linux powerful. And on Windows world there's PowerShell, which is much more powerful than GNU toolset has to offer.
Sorry, but apart from server world Linux just isn't going anywhere. No one really cares about the open part. They care about what they can do, and how easily they can do that. By far, Windows and OSX both offer those things and much better than Linux.
So good day Sir Ive!
Re:Design Matters (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah, design matters. that's how current macbook pro sucks. metallic 90 degree angles right where you rest your hands!
win7 rocks. the more I use osx the more I understand that and this isn't just trolling, it's a usability thing on large screens(or small screens with high dpi. osx sucks soooo hard on this, that's the reason they're shipping 1280x800 screens, up to fullhd resolution on 13" and it's unusable and unlike windows you just can't put high dpi mode that actually worked on), having multiple windows open and so forth. many of the mac choices and limitations just aren't good there and if they go more ipadishy on the desktop then it's just going to get worse and worse.
anyone know any alternate shells for osx? like litestep for windows, not terminal emulators.. but something that would take the menu bar and attach it to the window/program it's controlling, proper taskbar etc...
Proper use of "sir" (Score:5, Insightful)
The first comment already got this wrong, so a quick primer on how to use the title "sir".
He can be referred to as simply "Jonathan Ive", or "Jonathan", or "Jony" or whatever; you don't have to use the title.
You can call him "Sir Jonathan Ive" or "Sir Jonathan".
However, "Sir Ive" is not correct; honorifics of this sort don't work like "doctor" or "president". It'd be like calling the current monarch "Queen Windsor".
For women who are knighted, you'd simply substitute "Dame".
Re:Design Matters (Score:3, Insightful)
What a load of tosh....
Apple designer gets an award, you go off on an anti-linux rant
anyway...
The "backlash" to Gnome3, Unity and a few other projects that have rev'd their UI designs has not come from "casual people"
It's come from geeks / power users
They're complaining that design and overt snazzyness is detracting from the core usability
Casual users love it, though - stick an average user in front of Gnome3 or Unity and the first thing they comment on is how they really like the visual look and feel
On the desktop, I presume you mean
Same for any system that gives developers choice over the look and feel of their programs UI
When I was a windows user, I remember a music program called "Winamp" (quick google says the project's still going)
It's main selling point was it discarded the cluttered UI and overly large buttons and borders of the "standard winows UI", and used it's own custom design
This cut down the screen wastage, and made the program non-intrusive
You really want a system that's so rigid and inflexible that you /have/ to conform to a set way of doing things?
No, that's a terrible example
A shell is supposed to provide direct access, text-only, to the OS and it's core programs for easy scripting and administration
No idea what powershell is, so can't comment
What a surprise! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Design Matters (Score:2, Insightful)
A shell is supposed to provide direct access, text-only, to the OS and it's core programs for easy scripting and administration
No idea what powershell is, so can't comment
So basically you don't know what you're commenting on? There is nothing that prevents PowerShell being used in text mode. It is. But it doesn't only output as text, it passes objects. This means that if you pipe commands the other programs down the line get them as object, not as text that they need to parse and which can easily change. It works much better together.
Re:Design Matters (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't really agree with you there. The whole point of the Unix shell is to provide a textual interface to various things. If you want something more complex, use something more complex.
I also don't see what's so great about Mac OSX or Windows 7. They're confusing and cluttered, and just look like a random mishmash of different widgets and design elements. There's no thought been put into the design, and it shows. Nothing is intuitive. Nothing is clear.
Re:Design Matters (Score:2, Insightful)
It's also why Linux will always fail - the whole principle of Linux is that there's no unified look and team that discusses, chooses and implements good UI and terms. In Linux world everyone just does whatever they want, often ignoring what or how others do it.
Yeah, like Android and their interface: totally not unified, not polished, impossible to use... wait a minute, what the fuck are you talking about?! Linux is a kernel, the rest is up to you. That's why geeks love it, it gives you choice for everything, and if you don't want choice, go with a professional distribution, like Android, or Ubuntu, or Mint.
Good example of this is the linux shell. It still acts like it's from the 90's because people don't work together to bring it together. It's still based on text output because everyone does things differently. Compare this to PowerShell which passes objects between programs. This allows different pieces of programs to work much better together, without need to define rules on how to parse some other programs output (which also usually fails in less used cases).
If you don't like the "Linux Shell" (it's called "Bash", learn what it is you are criticizing), then use some other shell that CAN pass objects between programs, like Python. Python allows you to easily serialize almost any object and pass it between programs using ordinary file descriptors. Any language that can serialize objects can pass objects between programs in Linux. The kernel itself simply provides the mechanism to do this, and you can then install the protocol of your choice to pass actual objects, unlike in Windows, which forces you to use their built-in mechanisms. Why would you want intentionally limit your options? Oh that's right, because you don't know how to use anything else.
Sorry, but apart from server world Linux just isn't going anywhere. No one really cares about the open part. They care about what they can do, and how easily they can do that. By far, Windows and OSX both offer those things and much better than Linux.
So obviously, you don't know hardly anything about Linux, which is why you hate it. And if you knew anything about computers, you would know why open source is important.