[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH.

From: Tim Harrison
Subject: Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH.
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:24:27 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120

Hey Nicola.

Nicola Pero wrote:

I feel that 'App' is a short abbreviation, and so less user friendly for
non-English native speakers, and for non-computer nerds in general.

I find 'Application' much easier to understand, because it is more

To me it's like the difference between calling a directory /libs and
calling it /Libraries, or between /usr and /Users.  Power users always
understand both.  Newbies and 'normal users' (and non-English speakers
too) don't like the abbreviations, because they are obscure.

I agree with this.  See below for my incoming rant. :)

I was assuming that this was the same for everyone, but I see your point
about the 'feeling' - I probably missed the language nuance.

Not really.  It's individual interpretation.  So far, Jeff is the only one

who's expressed an opinion that "Applications" is anything other than just

more descriptive.  I'm not saying that he's wrong, but rather that the

intention was specifically to be more consistent and descriptive, rather
than pretentious.

I think UNIX needs to learn a few lessons in this day and age. All computer users are not wizards and geeks. Sometimes, you have to stop acting exclusive. My favourite example is "/var/lib". Tell me, without looking at the FHS, what /var/lib is for (no sys/net admins need reply ;)), and why one would name it /var/lib? It's ridiculous. I'm more of the "say what you mean" crowd. GNUMail.app, to me, is an "application", so I would expect to put it in the "applications" directory.


Tim Harrison

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]