Flash haters, wake up (HTML5 ads demo) - <AUTHOR> http://simurai.com/post/1520282329/html5-ads

<comment><USER2> The difference is that Flash is produced solely by Adobe. Their rendering technology is closed source and produced by a single team of developers. No one can contribute to their performance except them. There are many browser developers working on their technologies, and Webkit is one of the largest currently. It's an open source project that any good developer can contribute to. Mozilla is the same. This means that if one browser is doing really power intensive animations, you can either switch to another or contribute to the performance of your browser by writing better animation code and submitting a patch.

We're a long way off from web ads being as animation intensive as the latest 3D games. Browser rendering technology can reach the point where the animations that we're used to seeing these days can be optimized quite well, especially if the graphics card is involved. Real strides in the power of HTML5 animation has only reached an awesome level in the past year or so. Next year things will be even better, and it will take advertisers a lot longer to move on from Flash.

As for ad blockers, they have been blocking non-flash content for years now. Google ads are HTML and javascript based, and they are blocked just fine. Same with popups: all javascript. Most advertisers are not going to spend a hell of a lot of time trying to get around ad blockers, since they work with mass distribution and an awful lot of punters don't care about downloading and using an ad blocker. The only sites that try really hard to make you see or click on an ad are usually scams anyway.

<comment><USER3> We're going to get 3D ads. This is not a maybe; the ability is there, so it will happen. Anything else is wishful thinking.

And they won't be rotating cube demos - no, the designers will instance an entire 3D engine, and they'll start dumping in expensive shaders and high-poly models that "work for them" on a high-end desktop. And then web sites load three or four of these ads. No optimization or acceleration is going to tame such monstrosities. Your netbook might hang just trying to load the page, forcing you to use an ad blocker whether or not you want one.

The long-term solution is for ad networks to minimize client-side tricks and stick to safer performance envelopes(images or video).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for that example, it's been mentioned several times that the Flash technology isn't the only cause of the CPU being pegged but the code that banner developers are writing as well and now I've got a good sample to share.

98% CPU usage when the tab is active. I've got an iMac, 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 4GM RAM

When the tab is active the CPU usage for Firefox is at 98%, when it isn't the active tab it goes down to 12%, that is interesting. I wonder if Flash stops on inactive tabs currently. I know you can program for that functionality but is it in there by default now?

<comment><USER5> This is how flash player now works, with the latest release it drops the frame rate of the flash movie to something like 2-3 frames per second if the movie is not visible in the browser.

Flash player is also single threaded so executes code on a single cpu core, but it does rendering using multiple cores. If you are seeing a single core spike to 100% usage then it is a sign of badly coded actionscript (onFrameEnter event handlers are very popular with designers who cut and paste as2 code), if you are seeing multiple cores at around 100% then it is a rendering issue, i.e. trying to redraw the entire stage every frame and/or a very high frame rate (> 30 fps).

I'm not sure if code attached to the frame in the Flash IDE would also cause multiple cores to spike, or if this also executes in the single threaded cycle. But again, having actionscript inside the .fla instead of separate .as files is a sign of a poorly designed/developed flash application.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Still HTML5 could give browser makers the chance to optimize, even for platforms Adobe could care less about.

</comment><comment><USER7> Basically, I don't care. Flash is awful in Linux. I can't even use it in Chrome really, I have it disabled and only use it in Firefox. It's shocking how little I actually miss. I don't see how the blocking game is going to be that much different than what it is now with AdBlock... it blocks all sorts of ads right now, it's hardly limited to flash ads.

Not to mention the author can't read.

"As of today, there are significant performance and battery life gains to be had by disabling Flash Player on Mac OS X"

is the exact opposite of

"Currently it sucks, but I also don't care about the future"

It says that there are gains by DISABLING flash... and yes, I'll keep my fingers in my ears if it keeps pushing HTML5 and related technologies forward. I hate flash. It is a daily annoyance.

<comment><USER8> Agreed. I use 64-bit Chrome in Ubuntu 10.10 and it's unusable. I'm not sure if it's better in 32-bit, but there's frankly no way I'm going to compromise on my browser choice purely because of Adobe's incompetence. It usually freezes or drops down to maybe 5 FPS when I make a video full screen, it constantly uses a ridiculous amount of CPU time, it crashes tabs, and the font rendering is as shitty as ever.

I love when videos are on Vimeo because all of their videos play natively, and when I click on a YouTube video, I'm always hoping that it isn't one of the Flash-only videos that I need to switch to Firefox to watch. HTML5 might be in its infancy, but it already sucks a lot less than Flash, at least for those of us that aren't using Windows.

The issue isn't just performance—it's who I want controlling web technologies. HTML, JavaScript, and CSS are open standards that anyone can implement. Whether or not the performance is the same right now, I have way more faith in Mozilla, Apple, Google and Opera than I have in Adobe (and if they all drop the ball, someone else will pick it up). Adobe definitely has talented engineers, but they've demonstrated again and again that they're just not capable of making Flash stable and efficient. I'm not sure if this is the legacy cruft built up in Flash, a lack of interest in performance on platforms besides Windows, or just pure incompetence, but I don't care. They've had over 5 years (over 10 if you count Macromedia) to work their shit out, and they haven't.

Flash may have had a role back when web technologies just weren't up the task for displaying any kind of rich content, but that day has passed. It's telling that the vast majority of articles I've read defending Flash are written by people who directly profit from Flash continuing to be a relevant technology. Some are Flash evangelists, others are just people who decided to hitch their careers to Flash and are just now coming to terms with what a bad decision that was, and a few just plain don't understand what they're talking about (e.g. Dave Winer). This author isn't one of them—he's actually provided a reasoned argument, and the awesome CSS3 stuff he's been putting out shows that he's not just blindly defending the only tool he knows—but people like him seem to be few and far between.

<comment><USER9> I don't want this to be a "works for me" response, but I'm currently running Ubuntu 10.04 (LTS) on 64-bit and for me the Flash Player performs excellent. I can watch hours of YouTube videos, switching to full-screen and back, without a hitch. My primary browser is Chrome (installed from the Ubuntu repos, not Google's nightly builds) but Flash Player also runs just fine in FireFox. It might be worth checking for the latest version of Flash Player.

<comment><USER8> I'm using the latest 10.2 beta release. It's actually a marginal improvement over the official 10.1 package in the Ubuntu repositories. I'm using a Lenovo X201 with a common Intel graphics chip (I think it's referred to as "Intel HD Graphics"). The chip isn't the speediest out there (games are out of the question), but it's more than fast enough for HD video.

I don't need any unsupported closed-source drivers, and my system is basically all Intel hardware, which as far as I'm aware are the most Linux-friendly components out there. I'm using a more-or-less stock Ubuntu install. One thing worth pointing out is that performance seems to be worse in 10.10 compared to 10.04, but I'm hesitant to blame Canonical, as Flash seems to be basically the only thing suffering.

The thing is, I'm probably in the top 1% of computer users in terms of competence. If I can't figure out how to make Flash work on my laptop, how the hell is my Mom going to? If it won't _just work_ on one of the most ideal Linux environments, something is fundamentally wrong.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Windows 8 — Disappointing Usability for Both Novice and Power Users - <AUTHOR> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/windows-8.html <comment><USER5> This is anecdotal, but I walked into a Windows store not too long ago to try Windows 8 on a tablet, and I was blown away at how terribly unintuitive it was. There were absolutely _zero_ visual cues to indicate where features were, how to move around the interface. _None._ Now I don't know if that's changed since then, but the experience left me with such a bad taste that I told myself I would never give it another 5 minutes' chance. Throughout the entire demo, I was asking the rep to show me again how he accessed certain menus, switched views, etc.

My technologically-illiterate parents went from zero to road geeks with their iOS devices in a matter of days. Had they been given the Surface, I imagine my legs would be in constant spasm from all the frustrated and confused phone calls I'd be receiving.

<comment><USER6> > ... how terribly unintuitive it was.

I'm a little uncertain how future proof such a claim is. I used computers before mice became common. Back in those days mice actually came with tutorial programs showing you how to use a mouse! Nowadays we would consider it somewhat absurd and no mice are shipped with such programs. Even typing tutors used to be a very popular category of software.

When I got my first smartphone it was not intuitive that such a thing as a long press existed. If you do not know about it, it can be extremely frustrating doing some actions since you will never find them. Some other cues are almost invisible - for example scroll bars tend to be very narrow. Multi- touch, pinch zoom etc are also all unintuitive before you know about them just as double clicks and drags were earlier.

There are no real cues for mouse interaction (eg double clicking), nor touch interaction (eg long press). But we don't call apps unintuitive - <USER2> interactions just became the new normal. You only need to see them a few times to pick up on them.

Perhaps Microsoft needs to have TV ads etc (dare I say a tutorial program) so their interactions become the new normal?

<comment><USER7> But mice are STILL horribly unintuitive. One of the reasons iPads have taken off so well amongst people who haven't previously been able to use computers (I have anecdotal experience with an older relative, but there are plenty of other stories out there) is that the relationship between the mouse and the pointer on the screen is pretty bizarre. Touch interfaces are better because direct manipulation is much easier to understand.

Double clicking is even worse (I have a relative who has been using computers for 20 years and still double-clicks on links on web pages). Thank goodness that's slowly being flushed out of modern interfaces.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Personally, I think "Metro/Modern UI" is a complete train wreck. While it initially received a great deal of praise from the tech press for being "unique" and "fresh", my suspicion is that a lot of the praise was incredibly shallow and based purely on aesthetic appearance and not usability.

This suspicion has been confirmed repeatedly from my own experience using Windows 8 and watching others use it as well.

<comment><USER9> My experience has been quite pleasant and has been for others I've seen use it.

Usability studies of this sort almost always find tons of problems in anything that is new. For example, remember the iPad study by the same group?

 _For the last 15 years of Web usability research, the main problems have been that users don't know where to go or which option to choose — not that they don't even know which options exist. With iPad UIs, we're back to this square one._

But it's even worse, because look at the study participants: _We tested 7 users — all with at least 3 months' iPhone experience — but only one was an "experienced" iPad user._

These were people who were well versed with the iOS UI already! And they still found the iPad hard to use! Did they really really find it hard to use? I doubt it. But that's how usability studies work. You have a short amount of time with new technology and are primed to find flaws in it. And your're primed to be unforgiving (just the nature of being in a study).

I recall being in school when cut & paste first started to go mainstream. The number of people who didn't find it or understand it would be considered bewildering now. Now its a common pattern. But it is pattern. No one complained they couldn't find it, but were happy when they did. And taught others.

All these things are patterns. Bring any non-trivial product into a lab: Chrome, iOS, AppleTV, Android, Windows 8, Boxee TV -- you'll find that people will struggle more than you think. But one thing you learn when you do usability work is that there's a distinction between discoverability and usability.

In my experience Win8 has some discoverability holes, but once you learn a few patterns its usability is quite good.

BTW, here's a review of the Surface for real people: [http://betanews.com/2012/11/14/microsoft-surface-review- for-...](http://betanews.com/2012/11/14/microsoft-surface-review-for-real- people/)

His summary? _Surface is fantastic._ Why the difference? If you are willing to spend an hour using it, rather than trying to note usability flaws, you'll find it a rather nice experience.

Jeff Atwood says, "I'm a little embarrassed to admit how much I like the Surface RT. I wasn't expecting a lot when I ordered it, but after a day of use, I realized this was more than Yet Another Gadget. It might represent a brave new world of laptop design." Jeff is someone not looking to score points by pointing out obscure design issues ala Marcos. He wants a device he can use. I think we'll see for this class of users (which is much larger than the Marcoses of the world) that they'll resonate with Atwood's take (<http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/11/touch-laptops.html>).

<comment><USER10> Indeed. I find that these studies really assess _learnability_ more than _usability_. Of course, learnability is one aspect of usability, but I'm more interested in how users fare after spending some time with it. Personally, I've found Windows 8 to be pretty enjoyable to use, after a bit of a learning curve.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wow. Scathing:

 _One of the worst aspects of Windows 8 for power users is that the product's very name has become a misnomer. "Windows" no longer supports multiple windows on the screen. Win8 does have an option to temporarily show a second area in a small part of the screen, but none of our test users were able to make this work. Also, the main UI restricts users to a single window, so the product ought to be renamed "Microsoft Window."_

I wasn't aware of this "feature"...what a disaster.

<comment><USER12> Metro apps, or whatever they are calling them nowadays, do take over the entire screen, desktop apps are as they have always been and can be opened as many as you like, and arranged as you like given your screen real-estate. I routinely have 5-10 windows open at any given time on my desktop that is running Windows 8.

<comment><USER13> To me it was pretty clear that this article was primarily reviewing the "modern UI" part of Windows 8. I think your comment reiterates the point that the "modern UI" has no place on the traditional desktop. I too use Windows 8 everyday and have successfully avoided this new UI (except for the now, in my opinion, broken desktop search). Windows 8 is not a failure, but this new UI might be.

<comment><USER12> Yes, I just wanted to make it crystal clear for people that had never used it, and thus would be even less aware of the "split" (or perhaps misunderstanding it). If people dislike Windows 8 that is fine, I am kind of lukewarm on it myself, I just prefer people to come to those conclusions off actual use experience and not FUD or mis-quoting/mis-understanding an article. Not saying anyone in this conversation did, but I have seen enough posts on the internet from people that appear to have never used X, decrying X based on some FUD/misinformation, I try to nip the opportunity in the bud when I can.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Most of the problems with Windows 8 are typical Microsoft errors. This may be the most radical example of them but basically it fits into the same patterns. The UI revamp on the desktop side was almost entirely unnecessary from a user's standpoint. It only exists to promote Microsoft's own self interests by promoting Windows phones/tablets and attracting developers to the new platform. It's the type of move that would have worked quite well for Microsoft in the 1990s when users had very little choice. With more competition now any bit of friction you introduce can drive users away. Either by switching to a competitor's product or not upgrading.

The other big typical Microsoft error was rushing out buggy/slow software and betting they would have plenty of time to fix it later. This worked fine for decades but user expectation's have increased as often happens. If someone re- released a 1950s era automobile consumers would be horrified at how unreliable it was. Totally acceptable in the 1950s. Totally unacceptable in 2012. For its size and complexity I don't think Winodws 8/RT is unexpectidly buggy/slow it's more that the competition had the luxury of a 5-6 year head start slowly evolving their operating systems. Microsoft had to do it in 2 years. So you get all the pain of bugs upfront instead of spread out over a more tolerable time table.

Ironically the biggest mistake is very atypically the type of error Microsoft makes. They rushed people into this new platform quickly without doing much to soften the ground or ease users over. Retaining the classic desktop UI was a big hedge on the Metro bet but only offers an escape not a bridge. Generally Microsoft has to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming. This is a rare case where they actually moved too fast for user comfort. If they had made Windows 8 more of a bridge with the new UI features and other major changes taking a less in your face presence they could have moved forward quickly with Windows 9 as a bigger change.

All that being said I don't think it's a total diaster. They just need to quickly walk back a few bad choices especailly for desktop users. They need to make a few concessions to usability in the Modern UI style. Mostly they just need to accept that business practices that worked when you were a giant monopoly don't work when you are the new comeptitor challenging the big established players.

<comment><USER15> This is how I see it. No one asked for Metro. Many people simply don't want it. It exists solely for Microsoft's benefit, because they want to move in that direction. I also would bet money that it's going to get harder and harder to live in a non-Metro world over the next couple years (if, that is, you are still using Windows).

I recall my Dad asking me if I was looking forward to getting Vista (back before it was revealed to be the train-wreck it was) and I replied that I wasn't. It simply had nothing I cared about. Windows 7 was the same way. Its improvements over XP are, IMO, few and of little impact. I do not find its performance to be consistently better than XP and its interface most definitely is inferior (but "Classic Shell" fixes that).

The only thing I've seen from Microsoft that was even remotely interesting in the last 10 years was Kinect, and I don't play the kind of games it's good for. Call me a hater, but MS simply doesn't have anything to offer me.

And like many people, if it weren't for games and a small handful of apps that I could live without if I really had to, I would run Linux on all my machines. However... Steam is coming to Linux and a good number of GOG games run in Wine, so soon there may literally be no reason for me to use Windows (at least when not at work).

Maybe it's the economic reality that Microsoft simply doesn't care about experts who have been using computers for 30 years because there are so few of us. We power users, experts, software developers and others may smugly abandon Microsoft because we think they aren't worth using any more, but Microsoft may simply think, "Good riddance, we don't need you any more."

I don't read what most people read, or listen to what most people listen to or watch what most people watch, so I'm used to it and that works for me.

But it's a little different with Microsoft, because they are still a very effective monopoly in some ways (e.g., Office) and even if you have no personal use for them, you can't completely escape Microsoft yet.

You've also got a good point, jsz0. Microsoft has completely forgotten how to compete. They are so used to forcing whatever they want on people and having them accept it because they have no choice. If they want to enter a new market, they used to just overwhelm the competition with their massive resources, and there wasn't much competitors could do. But it's not like that any more. They are behind the curve and falling further behind with every month. And as long as Mr. Too-Many-Y-Chromosomes is in charge, it seems unlikely to me that will change any time soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> In my opinion, the biggest failure of windows 8 is that they called it windows. If metro mode was an installable add-on for windows 7 that you could jump into whenever you wanted a simplistic or touch-friendly experience, people would love it. The usability isn't terrible on its own, it's only terrible if you try to use it while expecting a windows operating system.

for example, the only being able to run one fullscreen app at a time thing. the proliferation of iPads has shown us that users _love_ this, in the right context. The desktop PC just isn't the right context.

<comment><USER17> Trains would've been a better name.

Windows Trains 8.0

<comment><USER18> Microsoft Trains for Windows Live Home Premium 8.0

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Windows 8 must be the slowest train wreck in computing history, it's been being reviewed as crap for over a year now and they keep chugging along.

It's funny to read all the comments from over a year ago and how nothing has changed since then - [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/18/designing- sear...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/18/designing-search-for- the-start-screen.aspx)

<comment><USER20> It trainwrecked the day buisinesses decided not to use it, which was the day they got rid of booting to the traditional desktop with a start button.

It isn't a compelling purchase at all, nobody will go out and actively seek a Windows 8 device, and desktop / notebook computers have had decreased sales since everyone has one now and they are "good enough" for media consumption and text / spreadsheet editing. The only reason anyone needs more horsepower now is for graphical horsepower for animation or gaming or computational horsepower for compiling or running a server.

So nobody wants Windows 8. It is a product without a target market, and the Surface has fallen flat on its face as a one trick pony to try to corner a "market" on a tablet with a desktop.

And hopefully in a year we have a mature Ubuntu running on Android tablets just fine, and that IMO will be a much nicer desktop experience on mobile than Microsoft Window and the Windows 7 desktop at 7". Except for a tiny, tiny market of businesses that will buy surfaces for their employees to use the mobile versions of word and excel I don't see this train leaving the station.

<comment><USER21> Am I the only person who thinks the lack of a start button and a 'traditional desktop' are non issues? The lack of a start button/desktop is not a usability issue in and of itself - it's everything else that makes it such a nightmare.

<comment><USER22> >The lack of a start button/desktop is not a usability issue in and of itself

Tell that to non-technical users who have trouble remembering to use the start button when it's staring them in the face, they _need_ that visual cue at the very least.

<comment><USER21> You're right that there should be some sort of affordance to access programs.

What I meant was that the problem isn't that there's no `start` menu - it's that there's no consistent, intuitive, and quick way to access any program (along with having to switch UI's between desktop and metro, and a lot of other things) which are problems that the start menu originally solved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> For what it's worth I've been using Windows 8 since the RP and have been very happy with it. The key point that a lot of reviews fail to emphasize is that evrything that worked in Windows 7 is still there and works exactly how it always has. The removal of Aero and subtle improvements to explorer are nice updates for the desktop experience.

The start menu was always kind off useless so I didn't take long to get used to not having it there, I launch everything via search now (hit the Windows key and start typing).

<comment><USER24> _The start menu was always kind off useless_

No, it was not. It was nerfed in Windows 7, presumably as a way to deprecate it before Windows 8 got rid of it entirely, but it was very useful for a great many people before that.

Installing ClassicShell to put the XP Start Menu back is the very first thing any power user should be doing on a new Windows 7/8 machine.

If I want to type the names of programs to run them, I'll launch a DOS box. I _thought_ we had collectively agreed as an industry that this was not the best paradigm for the majority of users.

<comment><USER25> Come now, the start menu is a joke and always has been. Navigating multi- layered menus, where a slight misalignment makes you lose your place? Or an unsorted jumble of applications links from years of installing? You call that usable? Any power user worth his salt ditched the start menu eons ago with launchy or something similar. Even windows 7 came with a meaningful app search.

Anyone clinging to the start menu as some sort of epitome of usability is having a "get off my lawn" moment.

<comment><USER26> It's quite usable for casual users who don't know the names of the applications and want to explore what's in the computer. KDE offers a gret solution for this; in the start menu applications are organized by category and there's a short description next to the icon explaining what it does.

If you enter a category it doesn't add a layer, it shows the applications in the same view as if you were opening a folder; and at the bottom you always have a Search bar which works great and power users can comfortably use.

So, say, you want an application to play video. You go to Applications, select the Multimedia category, and click on the icon that says "Video player".

Both Unity and Gnome3 also have solutions in which you don't have to compromise or use quirky macros to get the behaviour you want. You can have the best of both worlds. But then, as usual, many will continue bashing Linux GUIs as if they were a usability nightmare and totally inferior. C'est la vie.

<comment><USER25> There is a lot of truth to that. But I would wager that 99% of the time you know what app you want to open and its just a matter of finding it. Typing a few letters of some part of its name is definitely a win here. Another nice solution would be for apps to have categories that they can install themselves into, and the user could filter by typing generic categories like "internet", "play video", etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have yet to take the leap in terms of using it day-to-day. I just don't have the time to play.

I had my kid install it in a small netbook we were not using just to see what it felt like. Neither one of us is interested in using it very far past boot. It's one of those "Right. Brilliant!" moments and then the notebook is closed shut and turned off.

Professionally my concern has to do with wasting time and not being able what we absolutely-positively need to do on a daily basis. As I type this I have about twenty programs up and running on this machine. It has three large monitors attached. It was specifically built to make programming, electronics design or mechanical design far more productive. If doing a web project it is not uncommon to have multiple browsers, virtual machines and IDE's going as well as PDF's and reference material. Similar scenarios exist when doing electro-mechanical design.

My current first-touch experience with W8 is just that: a first impression. And this impression has not been positive at all. I, frankly, don't have time to deal with bullshit. Metro (or whatever they care to call it) might be great for a tablet or for grandma on a single screen laptop. It absolutely suck ass for us. I wouldn't even want it present on any of my machines. What I need is an evolutionary improvement over where we are as opposed to a pole-shifting paradigm shift. I would suspect that if I decided to switch my development machines to W8 (not likely) the process might easily bring productivity down to zero or less for at least a month. This on the assumption that all applications play ball.

What's disappointing here is that, to me at least, it sure feels like MS has more than lost its way. They seem to simply not understand who uses their machines and what they need to do with them.

I get it. I get it. Grandma, uncle Fester or cousin Itt might need a dumbed- down single-finger point-and-something-happens interface so they can waste five hours a day on Facebook. However, the massive population of users who needs these machines for business, engineering, design, industrial and other applications don't need this at all. They need the ball to keep rolling in the same direction. Less bugs. More speed. Cheaper. That's it.

I was hoping that the day might come when MS might fully embrace Unix/Linux as the core underneath Windows and move us all into what could be a really neat platform in a manageable way. Of course, it is lunacy to even think that this could be possible. Then again, I present you with Windows 8.

<comment><USER28> The core OS underneath the glitzy pixels is a fine OS. Really, more than fine -- it's a /great/ OS, fantastic at asynchronicity and driver support. It has warts, but on the whole it was well thought out. (I've been working with OSes for 30+ years, starting with TOPS-10 and Unix in the late 70s. I have a little pedigree here).

The stuff they put on top, not so much. I will probably wait years until I install anything past Win7, and if MS hasn't cleaned up its act for power users by then, the only thing holding me back from switching to Linux are the apps I use, and games.

(I do wish MS had some up with a better text shell. PowerShell doesn't cut it).

Steam on Linux may take care of the games part of my needs. The apps? Visual Studio is hard to beat, and there are some others that I can't live without that don't have competent Linux equivalents. Time may erode my dependency on these.

[I left MS about a month ago. It's interesting to experience the perspective shift]

<comment><USER29> I know a lot of creative professionals who would abandon OSX and WIN in a heartbeat if Adobe would release their software for Linux.

<comment><USER28> Well, there are a host of tools used by "creatives" that would need to move. The driver scene would have to get a lot better. And sound on Linux is a disaster on rollerskates (it used to be very bad on Windows as well, until Microsoft started throwing its weight around).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Eh. I've been using Win8 on my desktop for a couple weeks now; I'm pretty happy with it. As far as I'm concerned, it works out to $40 for some nice new features and continued security/feature updates.

I don't use "Metro" mode. But I do appreciate many of the tweaks, and I'm still grinning over my cold boot times with Win8, UEFI, and SSD. I swear it boots faster than it resumes from sleep. (Resume from sleep is fast, but it seems the NIC takes a few extra seconds to re-establish a link)

</comment><comment><USER31> I've been using Windows 8 since roughly two weeks before its launch, and I agree with most of the article.

In fact, I just realized that I never use a single "Modern UI" app for the simple reason that they force my entire screen (2560x1440, 27") to be filled by one app. Such a waste of space. In desktop mode I often have four 1280x720 windows on my screen.

Windows 8 might just be the push I needed to switch to Linux.

<comment><USER32> What I don't understand is why you feel like you are supposed to use "Modern UI" apps on your big screen. You are not. Everything you enjoyed to do with Windows 7 is still possible with Windows 8. Just because there is an alternate way to do them does not mean you have to adopt it...

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Wow... I feel like I am in a minority who enjoyed windows 8. As for the article I disagree with it on many points. I am using this beast for several months (adding the beta releases to the queue) and although I was very sceptic and using the same words with Mr. Nielsen as in the UI is schizophrenic and tries to be two things in one shell BUT you know what? If you are not interested, you don't even see Metro (or whatever its post copyright lawsuit codename is). It doesn't get between your legs, it wasn't always so; my memory did record some awful experiences with CP and RC releases of Windows 8. But the release version is... good, surprisingly. I expect windows 9 will streamline it even more.

I agree that opening two browsers in desktop mode and in tablet mode can be a hassle towards users' memories but hey my workflow makes me using two different browsers in two virtual desktops so I was happy to have this feature without loading a virtual desktop app for windows.

"Lack of multiple windows" um... what? I am running a netbeans, firefox and several consoles running tweaker script programs in ruby at the moment. Of course if he meant the Metro interface, I can't see why do you expect multiple windows on a tablet interface.

And from there I felt like the article goes irrelevant and subjective. I had no problems with flat icons, and to be frank I found the news app the best of the bunch. It does not oversaturate you with the content and is blazing fast. As for live tiles, how can third party developers' choice can be accounted as a failure on Windows 8's usability? I mean if his criticisms were about the Microsoft Apps I would have accepted it but it's saying like "oh iPhone apps icons are too colorful. Shame on you Apple!"

All in all there is a weird tendency of bashing windows 8 in the press. And it doesn't deserve it. It's good, and is trying to change the desktop paradigm whether you like it or not - It is admirable, they are trying to create an original thing but this very originality is hindering them on reviews.

This is my cuppa anyway.

<comment><USER34> _I expect windows 9 will streamline it even more._

I do _not_ want to have to wait for Windows 9 for Microsoft to get their act together.

<comment><USER35> Then buy Windows 8....or Windows 7.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> at-fates-hands Wow, looks like I'm the only person who actually likes this and disagree with several of the points from the article.

First of all, you have problems finding your apps since they tool away your start menu? Get a simple, free app launcher like launchy or executor. Problem solved.

I'm running an older Intel 1.8 processor with 4GB RAM on a 32 bit system. I've had several Adobe apps open at the same time without any issues I experienced with XP, Vista or 7 such as hanging or crashing under the system usage. We all know most Adobe apps are Vamperic on system resources so I was surprised at how well 8 handled the load.

This is probably the first time I've seen an article cry about the lack of information on a news app. When I look at most news sites, it's information overload on the homepage. Try finding a specific article on that LA Times homepage? Good luck.

<comment><USER7> "First of all, you have problems finding your apps since they tool away your start menu? Get a simple, free app launcher like launchy or executor. Problem solved."

Again, that's not how usability works. You shouldn't expect regular human beings to hunt out and install third party software to help them launch applications!

<comment><USER25> I don't even have windows 8 and I know that you can search for apps right from metro! Why is it that no one gets this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Random usability rant: I find it slightly odd that, even now on Windows 8, keyboard customization requires so much effort in Windows. For example, I always make my capslock key an extra control key (if you haven't tried this before - try it!) and on OS X and most flavors of Linux, this is an easy 5 second process.

On Windows 8, there are a ton of Keyboard settings - including promising- sounding ones like "Change how the keyboard works" and "Keyboard properties" - yet you still have to use a stupid registry hack to actually change the behavior of keys (ie, to make your capslock key an additional control key).

<comment><USER37> I make my capslock a backspace. Seriously, when do you really need to type so many capitals that can't just be rationalised by using Shift instead? Using it as Control as well is a great idea! You should first try out Autohotkey, instead of resorting to registry hacks. Cheers

<comment><USER36> Ah, remapping it to backspace is kind of interesting. The reason remapping it to control works well for me is that most of the keyboard shortcuts I use for things (and I use a lot) use it, so remapping the capslock key to it helps you keep your hand on the home row more.

I'll check out Autohotkey, thanks for the tip.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I have been using Windows 8 for awhile now. I never really stopped to think about the overall usability of the OS, simply because I thought it was easy to use. Nielson makes some good points, but I think at the same time, his point- of-view is overly academic. It is an OS. If you choose Windows 8, you will use it all the time. Nuances, such as how the charms work, how gestures work, and what tile does what, fades into the background. You learn it and you move on.

</comment><comment><USER39> This is all yawn inducing.

I don't remember the last time we had this many articles on HN discussing an OS.

All this "discussion" and criticism of Microsoft and Windows is 90% conjecture or very personal (read biased) opinions.

I too have been using a Surface since launch and have been running Win8 Pro on my laptop since RTM, and guess what? I disagree with the OP.

I highly recommend you go to a store and give it a try yourself, if you can will yourself to cut through the hater-noise.

<comment><USER34> I try not to be too confrontational here, but in this case I'm probably going to have to. I would dearly love for Microsoft to release a killer OS, but so far as of yet I can't see any real compelling feature that I would be particularly interested in.

Let's be honest here... if I have to do development work, then I'm not going to use Windows 8. I'll be using Windows 7.

<comment><USER40> Why not use windows 8? It has lots of small improvements to windows 7 (better task manager, better multi monitor support, new keyboard shortcuts, integrated cloud storage...etc) that's enough for me.

Plus the new Windows runtime APIs looks very nice, and most are usable in desktop or metro apps.

<comment><USER34> From an end user POV: task manager is fine in windows 7, for any deep system performance troubleshooting I use perfmon; multi monitor support is work brilliantly for me in Windows 7; I use Dropbox, works very well for me and is quite integrated enough!

As for Windows runtime APIs, it depends on whether I want to make he bet that Windows 8 is going to be successful enough to learn them. Jury is still our on that. Besides, I'm more of a Spring man...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I spent some time using Windows 8 at the local Costco, and agree with most of Nielsen's points.

In case you need alternative ways to exit an app, try:

Alt + F4. This old-school method still works!

Hit the Windows Key on your keyboard. Treat it like the Home key on an iDevice or Android tablet. This backgrounds the app, but does not terminate it. Then, you can type the name of another app and your menu will filter down rapidly. Hit enter to launch the new app.

All the new gestures make sense on a tablet (except the swipe in from the left, but back out again to show your active apps). But the gestures are terrible when you're on mouse + keyboard. I wish Windows 8 laptops had nice big multitouch trackpads, so that you can do things like 3 & 4-finger swipes, and pinches, like with OS X.

<comment><USER42> Windows 8 supports multitouch trackpads on new computers. Many older laptops can also get gesture support with the correct drivers. My 18 month old laptop has pinch support + all the edge swipe gestures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Have been using a Surface as well as a Win8 desktop for a couple of weeks now, and I have to say this is pretty accurate.

When WinPhone first came out with the Metro UI I was a fan - there's a visual simplicity to it that's very appealing. After you use it for a while though the weaknesses become pretty glaring and hard to accept. It _is_ often very hard to tell what UI elements are interactive and what are purely informational because they are so plain. There's no way to visually discern a non-interactive icon vs. an icon that is also a button.

The lack of shading and UI chrome also means that UIs frequently become jumbled. Sections of UI blur together where on any other platform they would've been separated by a visual line, shading, or something else.

The simplicity in this case has gone too far.

It's also very true that many of the first-party apps have _ludicrously_ low information density, almost as if they expect these devices to be toys. This is in stark contrast to MS's stated goal of shipping something that is more serious, more productive than iPads and Android tablets, which up until now have been seen as leisure devices.

People often accuse Apple of taking style over substance, but Win8 IMO is a far, far more egregious violator.

There's another big issue: the first party apps suffer from some pretty serious performance problems. It doesn't bode well for your platform when your own internal teams can't ship best of breed apps. The People app, for example, takes _literally_ 6 seconds to load your recent notifications on a Surface RT - all the while without displaying any loading indicator. You literally tap the button, wait, figure it's broken, and just as you're about to move on it pops into existence - and of course the performance is so poor that it just magically appears on screen without transition.

The entire OS is littered with sloppiness of this variety - as well as apps where touchability has clearly never been comprehensively addressed. You will move from places with gloriously comfortable touch targets (like the home screen) to apps that have 9pt text links you're expected to hit.

The "search" charm is also poorly thought out. Just take a look at Amazon, eBay, iTunes, and what have yous that have substantial search functionality - Windows expects everyone to cram their search needs into a _single_ freeform text input. In fact, the eBay app on Win8 builds its own search page. Surprise, search is complex, context dependent, and not all apps can pigeon- hole it into your paradigm. Oops.

[edit] Extra rant: I was able to get the Windows Store app _completely stuck_ today on the Surface. I visited an app's detail page, and tapped the Back button to get back to the search results. _Nope_. Back button would visually indicate interaction but do nothing. Waited, nope. Sloppy bug.

So here's where it gets good. On any other platform (and in old Windows land) I could just go kill it. Except I have _no idea_ how to go about _quitting an app_ on Windows 8. Apple at least has the courtesy of allowing you to kill an app very quickly - if someone knows how to do it in Win8 I'd love to know, because clearly their own first-party apps are not good enough to be trusted to take care of themselves.

<comment><USER44> What bothers me about the OP though is that if you really dislike Metro so much on a desktop, you don't have to use it!

I'll repeat that even though I think we all know this already: if you don't want to use Metro apps, you don't have to use Metro apps. It is really that simple.

So, if you're a power user and want to stay away from all of that nonsense, then click on the "Desktop" tile and you're done. Sure, you have to return to metro when you search or for a few other minor scenarios but overall it should not be a big deal.

And then for a lot of the other complaints (e.g. hidden interface, icons that you don't think you can click) it is just a matter of time before people learn it. Then it will become a non-issue.

If OP claims he is a fan of Win7, then he should also like Win8 as the desktop and core OS is very much improved.

<comment><USER45> >What bothers me about the OP though is that if you really dislike Metro so much on a desktop, you don't have to use it!

This is said over and over again, and everyone has to keep reminding them that it's not about what is currently happening, but the fact that Microsoft is GOING IN THIS DIRECTION. The "Desktop" is slated for execution - just because they have it now doesn't mean it's going to exist forever. It's obvious that MS (and other companies) believe that this "power user" feature is unnecessary going forward.

<comment><USER44> I really don't agree with this and there is no arguing that it is simply conjecture at this point.

I don't think Microsoft thinks that Metro apps or the metro environment do or ever will offer the same level of extremely high productivity that desktop apps and the desktop environment provide.

I think we will have a much better idea of Microsoft's POV on Metro if/when they release Office apps on it. Quite simply put, if Metro Office does not have 1:1 feature parity with the desktop apps then that backs my point. If I were to bet, I would say that Metro Office will be more aligned with the web apps. I would be quite surprised if they aligned more to the full desktop clients.

Why? Because the desktop is an environment suited for mouse and keyboard where you can have super high levels of productivity. Metro will not replace that as it excels in other use cases. Can you be productive with Metro? I'd argue you can. Just as productive as in the desktop? With some apps, perhaps. With others, absolutely not.

<comment><USER36> Then how do you explain the fact that the Windows App Store is metro-only? That seems to imply that either Microsoft wants to push metro-style apps in the long run, or they don't care about the app store on the desktop - I'd put my money on the former.

<comment><USER44> Well actually you can get desktop apps off of the app store. Sort of. It just redirects you to the website where you can download the software. But it is a listing nevertheless.

<comment><USER36> Yeah, but I'd argue that the major benefit of app stores are:

\- Discoverability

\- Easy payment processing/distribution

\- Automatic updates

\- Being able to easily re-download it later

\- Consistent purchase, install, update experience

\- Some confidence on the part of the end user that what they are downloading works on their system and isn't going to harm their computer

The simple listings for non-metro apps really only benefit from the first item, and they don't really change my argument.

<comment><USER44> Yeah I agree. Though I don't think that them pushing the app store as being metro first is equal to them shunning the desktop. Perhaps that is simply something we'll agree to disagree on?

It's very important for them to have the metro environment flourish and for that they're going to need lots of metro apps and blah blah blah. Metro _IS_ important. It just isn't replacing the desktop any time soon.

<comment><USER36> To be clear - I don't think Microsoft is shunning or trying to destroy (at least in the short term) the non-metro desktop. I just think they are going to be pushing metro (or whatever it is called now) pretty hard, and if you don't like metro-style apps, they are going to be harder and harder to avoid as time goes by.

I just think that app stores are going to be more and more important to the ecosystems they exist in. For the reasons I mentioned above, I think more and more software is going to be procured via app stores (although, in big businesses it will probably be fairly small), and that is going to influence what developers build.

I probably wouldn't have built and sold a Mac app if there weren't an app store, and as I look at porting it to Windows, trying to replicate the infrastructure that I get for free with an app store isn't very appealing for the amount of money I'd likely make, so my choices are: make a metro-style app so I can use the Windows app store or not make the app at all.

> Perhaps that is simply something we'll agree to disagree on?

Fair enough :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Oh, wow, that "Change PC settings" button (if you can call it that) is abhorrent. How can something like that happen? How are you even supposed to know that's a button? Is it more often the case with Windows 8 that buttons have zero indication that they are buttons?

<comment><USER47> I've been using Windows 8 at work for compatibility testing for over a month, and I didn't know that was a button until this article pointed it out. I don't know if I should be embarrassed or agitated.

<comment><USER48> If the user misses it, it's the developers fault.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> As someone that really wanted Win8 to succeed being primarily a Win dev, I can't help but agree with the article. MS needs leadership that truly understands usability. Win8 missed most of the boat for what consumers want and drove their core supporters of enterprise devs away with all the HTML hoopla. With Sinofsky out, Ballmer needs to go next and be replaced with someone that's a better speaker and better understands users/developers if MS wants to retain any market share.

</comment><comment><USER50> Maybe Microsoft will get it right for Windows 9, like they did for Windows 7.

It might be too late, though. I never thought I'd use a Mac, if only because Windows was good enough, and I like Windows 7. But knowing the Upgrade Train is approaching, eventually to make it difficult not to upgrade to Windows 8+, and using Linux more often, and having got _real tired_ of facing a significantly different OS UX every few years for mostly no benefit to me, I find myself reluctantly researching a switch to the Apple world. If _I'm_ considering such a move, there must be tons of other people in the same boat since I don't make big moves easily, especially not at higher cost.

<comment><USER51> I'm a Mac user and i am worried that apple is gonna make osx to iOS like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Thanks. I was wondering when Jakob Nielsen would review Windows 8's UX. I agree the mono-color icons are a mistake. Icons exist for a reason - <USER3> differentiate between each app, and have its own unique identify. It's much less the case with Windows 8 icons because they are all white and mostly undifferentiated. It just makes it harder for the brain to process which is which, and where is what you're looking for, or what an icon means.

</comment><comment><USER53> From a purely desktop perspective I've found Windows 8 to be a positive step overall. As a 'power user' the main benefits I have found are better performance and stability. Those alone should be enough to mark it as a success for heavy users. The new task manager is just a bonus.

As far as the start menu is concerned I'd be surprised that any 'power user' would miss it all that much. I always used a launcher (executor) as keyboard trumps mouse for speed and the new UI makes the 3rd party launcher app obsolete. Pressing the windows key and typing the name of the app is something most users could learn and come to appreciate the boost in productivity.

</comment><comment><USER54> "Windows no longer supports multiple windows on the screen." _In Metro mode_.

<comment><USER55> Window 8

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I've been using Windows 8 on a laptop (no touch input) for few weeks and it took me 2-3 days to make it "work" like Windows 7. Since I upgrade from Windows 7, several things messed up and none of the Metro apps can be launched. Even the Store app crashes every time. Googled around, tried fixing it and giving up in the end. The only last solution is to 'Refresh' the PC which I'm hesitant to do.

So, none of the Metro apps work at all, and I don't think I'll be using them anyway on a non-touch device. The next thing I do is install some 'Start menu' alternatives like ClassicShell, IObit StartMenu8 or Start8 (Start8 works best for me, not free though). These apps will skip the Start screen (when booting up) and hook the 'Windows' shortcut to open its own menu.

There are few little annoyances like when you open images, it launches in the Metro Photos (or Images?) app which takes up the whole screen. That'll need to be changed by setting the default app for images to 'Windows Photo Viewer' (or any apps you like).

<comment><USER57> Thanks for the hint on Start8 .. looks really good!

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> This seems a little harsh, to say the least. Among other things, he seems to be criticising Microsoft for both the early efforts of third-party devs (live tiles) and because users take time to grasp some of the new UI fundamentals (charms bar). Both of those issues will disappear quickly as the OS picks up steam.

As an iPad owner myself, I am nothing but intrigued and excited by 8's tablet interface. It seems like it would be a massive, massive jump in usability from iOS (dependent, of course, on how the App Store fills out). Furthermore, while he may not be wrong re: 8's desktop usability, I think this review is unnecessarily harsh towards what must be seen as a significant and complicated transition product. Just as web design is changing to a responsive model where content dynamically adapts to different devices and display areas, so are OSes changing to be dynamic and adaptive. In the future the idea of a user experience where your files and program's were locked onto the hard drive of a single computer, accessed through a static, unchanging desktop will be absurd. Computer interfaces are going to become incredibly smart, fluid and responsive, and W8 is the first step in that direction. I think it is silly to just focus on what Microsoft didn't get perfect first time around - I think they should be congratulated on their audacity. What they've done is certainly leagues more impressive than Apple's plodding, torturous attempts to wedge iOS concepts into its 20-year old WIMP model (seriously, go use Mountain Lion - its a complete mess - but no one attacks Apple as harshly as they do Microsoft... funny that.) Anyway in the end I share his sentiment, can't wait to see how Microsoft builds on its great work with W9! One thing is for sure: the old one desktop to rule them all model is finished.

NB: just to clarify, I haven't used W8 myself. I am sure a lot of the complaints about it being too minimalist and apps being too limited are perfectly fair. But I think Microsoft was right to strip away the clutter of the WIMP legacy and start again from scratch. Adding progressively more complexity in carefully measured increments is the best way to build a mature, balanced product befitting a new generation of computing. Again, go take a look at the average Mountain Lion set-up if you want to see a ridiculously cluttered, complicated mash of UI concepts, windows, spaces, slide-away trays, menu-bars, etc etc (and try find a normal user instead of a HN-style power user for added effect.) The only argument is for me is not whether Microsoft is doing the right thing (I completely believe they are) but whether they are managing this transition well. As someone with no experience in developing major new OS versions I can only imagine the complexity, so I am inclined to go easy and try and praise what was done well and what is a good idea rather than what didn't quite pan out in the first attempt : )

<comment><USER47> What parts of Mountain Lion do you consider "a complete mess"?

LaunchPad is a joke, but other than that I find Mountain Lion to be very intuitive and easy on the eyes.

<comment><USER58> 1) If you use Mission Control, there's a linen background hidden behind the desktop. If you open the Notification Center, there's a linen background hidden behind the desktop. But if you change desktop spaces, there's only black - where's the linen (i.e. what happened to that permament physical textured backdrop Apple apparently decided was the bedrock of the UI?)

2) Not to mention that gross effect when you change desktop spaces, and the whole desktop slides over - including the menu bar (that apparently static, foundational part of the UI) - to be replace by a new menu bar! The dock doesn't change, so why does the menu bar?

3) And of course that other gross effect when you click full screen on an app (that little full-screen button nestled oddly in the top right corner of the window chrome above all the other little static buttons) - and the whole thing morphs and bulges and slides into a new space. Yeesh.

4) And yeah, Launchpad. So now apps are scattered between the dock, the application folder, and the Launchpad. Great.

5) Also, the Finder seems to get worse with every generation.

Really though, it's the sum of all the parts that offends me. When I see people with their sleek Macbook Airs on their laps, then I look at their screens, and I see stacks and stacks of scattered windows of all shapes and sizing clustered over the desktop, and everywhere, fiddly little tiny click targets (in the menu bar, in the windows themselves, in the window chrome - don't get me started on those ghastly mini traffic light buttons for mini windows...) And they're moving their fingers around in that little touchpad controlling that little mouse pointer on the screen, tapping on the little targets or slowly dragging things around...

All of this stuff was fine when computers were big slow things that sat on desks, running a handful of low-res apps at a time, driven by a mouse and keyboard. Back then, it wasn't possible to implement the fast, fluid, colourful graphical design and interface features of Metro. Windows had to be static heavy things that you carefully dragged around, resizing individual edges one mouse drag at a time. Nothing had any momentum, the whole window stack just sort of sat there like a pile of lead sheets. But now that computers are in our laps, or in our hands, and our computer use is spread between multiple device, and more often than not the average person is using a touchpad or a touchscreen to browse the internet (which has expanded into something so huge it no longer makes any sense to bottle it up in a single browser window) - and especially now that touchscreens are about to become ubiquitous on every single laptop sold in the world - the old static clunky WIMP model needs to be shuffled off to the side in place of something that makes more sense.

I will note that Mountain Lion isn't qualitatively worse for this new stage of computing than, say, Windows 7. But I have no respect for the small attempts to modernise the OS with ported iOS features. It's putting lipstick on a pig (admittedly a pig that was very good and useful for a long time and still has a lot of value in many different contexts.) Microsoft's hard reset will ultimately produce the right OS for the times, Apple's slow tweaks won't. In my opinion at least.

<comment><USER59> I agree with much of your posting, but...

> When I see people with their sleek Macbook Airs on their laps, then I look > at their screens, and I see stacks and stacks of scattered windows of all > shapes and sizing clustered over the desktop

> All of this stuff was fine when computers were big slow things that sat on > desks, running a handful of low-res apps at a time, driven by a mouse and > keyboard

I think this is exactly the wrong way around. This behaviour was _never_ fine on a desktop with a mouse — but it is the best we have to cut through multi- app tasks on an 11"/13" laptop. With Exposé and an Apple trackpad, I have never felt overwhelmed even on my 1024x768 iBook, no matter how many windows I had open (and boy was Exposé fluid in 2005!).

Every attempt at using a "cleaner" screen layout on a laptop screen has failed spectacularly for me. How is Windows 8 any different from any other tiled window manager here? I see all my windows at once, but in exchange they are smaller (too small).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> "Windows no longer supports multiple windows"

Only in Metro-Mode, right?

Its hard to imagine to have a Desktop OS that does not support multiple windows.

Did Microsoft say anything about the future of the Metro/Desktop duality?

And Metro Apps do not work on the Desktop and visa versa? So you would have to decide if you buy a "windowed" version of Photoshop or a fullscreen version?

<comment><USER61> There's not really a Metro Mode and a desktop mode, there's only one mode. You get one main app taking up most/all of the screen + optionally one companion app on the side. The desktop acts like an app and can be in either of these positions (hence why it's not really a separate mode) and within the desktop, you can run as many (desktop) apps and windows as you like and have the taskbar etc etc just as before, with the exception that the start menu has been replaced with the start screen, where you can pin, launch and switch to both the new kind of apps, the desktop as a whole, and individual desktop apps (which switch to the desktop and launch/switch to the app).

You're correct that desktop apps and the new kind of apps are separate (with the exception of web browsers which have a bizarre way they can run in both environments).

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I think the worst thing about the Windows 8-feedback so far is that everyone is very dismissive about Metro as a whole.

Lots of people (me included) will tell you that Windows 8 is great and a solid upgrade from Windows 7. That there are improvements across the line, and that _if you don't care about or don't like Metro, just don't use it_.

People are assumed not to like Metro. People are told how to avoid it. If Windows 8 in any form succeeds based on that feedback, it would still be a failure for Microsoft, because the whole point of Windows 8 and the one thing they are actually trying to sell _is_ Metro.

I'm not driven crazy by it, but I don't use it much. I don't use Metro-apps. When I was given a chance to sample a Microsoft Surface tablet, Metro made a whole lot more sense. But I'm not going to be using it on my laptop.

</comment><comment><USER63> Honest question: For a multi-billion product like Windows, doesn't Microsoft conduct usability testing?

Neilsen had 12 participants in his study and discovered quite major usability issues. I wonder if their internal testing came up with similar issues and now they are having an Emperor's clothes moment.

<comment><USER64> I've actually wondered this as well. I actually like the DESKTOP portion of Windows 8 and think it is a really nice improvement over windows 7. In fact, if Win8 shipped without metro, I'd buy it right now...happily.

But it doesn't. It comes with Metro, and although I "figured it out", I shouldn't have to. Specifically as I'm comfortable with every OS available, using iOS, android, windows (since 2.0) and OSX. Each one of them requires a bit of learning and tweaking, but I remember opening win8 RC and wondering "how do I shut this off?" Initially I got pissed off because I felt like a child, I had no idea how to find the control panel etc (without using "advanced methods, winkey-r, "control" enter). While every OS has it's weakness, if you can't do basic shit then there is a serious problem.

So, did they conduct usability testing? I also wonder. I'm gonna vote "no" on this one.

With that said, I'm still gonna get it, purely out of curiosity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> 1) Whoever was responsible for this Hindenburg of an OS needs to be removed from Microsoft immediately.

2) Whoever claims that Metro, the star feature of Windows 8, should simply be disabled as a response to near unanimous criticism is in no way qualified to discuss UI/UX.

<comment><USER66> With regards to your first point, you'll be happy to know that Steve Sinofsky was recently fired from his position as head of the Windows division.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> I was disappointed that the article didn't do a better job of separating opinion from evidence. The introduction seemed to imply that a usability test had taken place, but the results were never used to back up any of the article's criticisms.

That being the case, I have to assume that this is opinion. So, the author and the people he spoke to didn't like Windows 8 for what seem to be logical reasons. Okay, but not as illuminating as actual evidence that there are usability problems.

</comment><comment><USER68> Question: Why couldn't Microsoft user some sort of device input flag to default the Windows 8 UI to the best UI for the current input?

Tablet-mode: default to Windows 8 metro style (I'm using my fingers)

Any kind of trackpad or plugged-in mouse: Shift UI to traditional Windows GUI (Obviously I want more fine-point control)

If Windows is truly trying to cover both types of usage, they should recognize that both of these paradigms are useful in specific settings.

<comment><USER69> > If Windows is truly trying to cover both types of usage, [...]

Who says they're trying to cover both types of usage? It seems pretty clear to me that they want devs to forget about the desktop and start building metro- only apps.

<comment><USER32> IMHO they only push developers to start building Windows Store apps because, well, they _need_ apps in their store. It doesn't mean you should stop building apps for the desktop.

<comment><USER15> We'll see whether or not (and how much) desktop apps and their developers become second-class citizens in the coming months and years. I'm betting it will happen. The lure of taking such a significant cut from every app sold has to be weighing heavily on a company that is rapidly running out of ways to make more money besides planned obsolescence.

<comment><USER10> What do you mean by "running out of ways to make more money"? Didn't MSFT post their highest revenue ever this year?

Also, even for Apple the app store doesn't seem to be a big profit center. I really think that consumer preference is driving the move to app stores, not greedy platform owners.

<comment><USER15> I didn't say they were running out of making money, but the days of just churning out a new version of Windows and Office every 2-3 years and counting on millions of reflexive upgrades are limited. And since more and more money spent on computing devices is _not_ being spent on devices where Microsoft has a dominant position (i.e., laptops and desktops and servers to a lesser extent), MS is rapidly losing market share even if their share of PCs is not substantially decreasing.

Microsoft's greatest competitor to Windows version X has been version x - <USER4> ever since XP came out (except for Windows 7 whose greatest competitor was version x - 2). With Windows 8, there is very, very little incentive to upgrade unless you want to use a touch-screen device. I would bet very few people even upgrade Window any more. 99% of the time they only get a new version of Windows when they get a new computer. I know that's been true for me for 10+ years, and I'm cool with that.

Consumer preference may be driving the move to app stores, but only because no other delivery mechanism provides that kind of end-user experience of being able to pick out an app, install it by pushing a button and knowing you're almost certainly not getting malware.

Oh, except for most Linux distros for the better part of 10 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> "When running web browsers in both device areas, users will only see (and be reminded of) a subset of their open web pages at any given time."

Setting firefox as my default browser helped here. (Not going to work on RT of course). Clicking a link in the Metro mail app takes you to the desktop instance of the browser, unlike chrome and ie, which also seem to ignore any sessions you have open in the desktop version.

<comment><USER47> That reminds me of another gripe. You can only launch IE in "Metro" mode when it is your default browser. It took me about 40 minutes to figure that out on Friday.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Some parts really need to be worded better.

I can't go back from Windows 8, as a power user with 3 monitors too, and am also eagerly awaiting the Surface Pro.

I just don't see nor feel many of the "hacker news" sort of geek hate with how certain things have been done in 8. I just went at it openly and while some parts need some work for Desktop, I actually quite like it.

I think everyone also should be aware that this is basically their first iteration, of which they've said they're going for a shorter cycle akin to Mac OS, and that the Metro apps are going to be low density at least for now because of the pitiful resolution the regular Surface is at. Many of these apps are also first generation or quick ports of apps on other ecosystems. Of course they're going to target the Surface tablet first then think about how they'd do it, if they wanted to, for the desktop or laptop.

<comment><USER15> So, it's KDE 4.0, except you pay for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> You know what... get over it. You're just showing your age by not being able to figure out how the new Windows works. It may have been hip and cool to yell about how hard to use the new Win8 was a month ago but now you just sound like my grandmother.

No multiple windows on your screen? You're kidding, right? There is a new "style" of program. It's called the app. It does not belong on your desktop. If you're using an "app", you're doing it wrong. Use desktop programs, ignore the start menu except for program look-ups and carry on as normal. There is no UI difference in Win8 for a desktop user other than the start menu which can be primarily ignored.

Underlying performance improvements make up for the tiny bit of hassle anyway.

</comment><comment><USER73> I agree 100%. Windows 8 is a major step backwards. I tried to get used to it for about 2 weeks, and as a developer, I can say that it is slowing me down big time. Not intuitive, buggy, ugly, distracting UI.

<comment><USER74> As a different developer who's been using Windows 8 for about 2 weeks as well and I really like it. I will agree that some thing not being particularly intuitive and you really have to memorize a few keyboard shortcuts to get going. Once that's done it's great. The UI is almost exactly like Windows 7, with a bunch of small improvements, and while I have no benchmarks, my initial reaction is that it feels more responsive than Win 7. I have yet to really find a use the Metro part of the UI, but I simply pretend it's not there.

What in particular did you find was slowing you down?

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> They keyboard utilization is much better in Windows 8 than it was in Windows 7. The metro is just great with keyboard. Can't say the same about mouse.

</comment><comment><USER76> For anyone who has to suffer with Windows 8, Classic Shell from sourceforge will save your life.

</comment><comment><USER77> linux

<comment><USER78> Sadly none of the linux desktop environments are particularly great either - unity, gnomeshell, and kde all have different problems and none of them are nearly as refined as the OS X UI. That being said, if you are comfortable with a minimal tiling wm like awesome or xmonad, you can have a very productive environment.

<comment><USER37> Well, guh. The point of those DEs is too be highly customisable. Although, I agree that they should be more appealing out of the box.

<comment><USER75> Gnome-anything is far from customizable. If you don't count hacking it by editing XMLs and javascripts (for gnome-shell).

<comment><USER37> Did I say Gnome? Most Linux users know this. KDE, XFCE, LXCE are what you want if you need customisable UI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> UX experts gave us GNOME 3 or so I'm told.

Great work guys!

</comment><comment><USER80> The thing about Windows 8 is that it makes me uncomfortable because I'm technologically competent and feel lost all the time. It makes me feel like I don't know anything about computers when it's been my career for 15 years. It's similar to using vim for the first time, where you hit something accidentally and don't know what mode you're in, or how to get back out.</comment>


Google Test of AI's Killer Instinct Shows We Should Be Very Careful - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/google-test-of-ais-killer-instinct-shows-we-should-be-v-1792256809 <comment><USER2> The article is interesting but the title is very clickbaity ("AI's Killer Instinct").

There is no inherent killer instinct. The neural network AIs use different game strategies based on incentives defined by the creators.</comment>


Go CoC updated to remove "punitive language and anonymous reporting mechanism" - <AUTHOR> https://go-review.googlesource.com/37014 <comment><USER2> I've always found this whole idea of a Code of Conduct pretty broken. It seems to be a document written by some kind of abstract, shared moral authority which apparently has the power to decide what's good or bad.

You could possibly argue, that it represents a shared mindset of a group of people working on a common project. The thing is, it has become a base for witch hunting, public shaming and other conflicts because some people have taken the code of conduct as their bible and felt it was their duty to go on a crusade against the infidels.

Also, from a European perspective, it looks like such an American thing to do. You need written rules for everything. In Europe, when you go to a restaurant or a bar, the one common sign you'll find is the smoking forbidden one. That's it. People will politely ask if it's OK to bring a dog, or just know that going without a T-shirt is a no-go. In the US, you need half an hour just to read through all of the information before even entering the place. And people would still challenge the rules that are not explicitly stated there.

As an anecdote, I once went to a conference in a European country where immigration is close to 0, thus people are pretty much caucasian. So there was this American speaker (obviously caucasian) talking about diversity in software and would kind of try to shame the event organisers and the audience because there was no black person in the room. It was one of the most absurd situations in my life.

To me, a Code of Conduct does not belong to the realm of software. Software needs to speak computer language, not be concerned with complex, ambiguous, human ethics. You can clearly tell that the Go team has decided to go the way of "yeah, we are kind of obliged to have a CoC, but don't want to be dicking around with the topic". Good for them.

<comment><USER3> Can you give any examples of witch hunting based on CoC? Ignoring the famous example of pycon a few years ago is there another?

I feel there's a common feeling about the potential "badness" of a code of conduct, but very few actual examples.

<comment><USER4> Sure. The person who started promoting the concept of code of conducts, "Coraline Ada", has been hunting down people who violate their view of what's "right". For example pressuring third party projects to remove maintainers because they are "publicly calling trans people out" on twitter.

[https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941](https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941)

There is this other very interesting example where Coraline got called out doing the very things she despises: [https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/...](https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/278) This is of course perfectly acceptable.

<comment><USER5> She's "GitHub staff" now.

The mentality of "that person said something I disagree with [on other media] and they should be banned here [on a random project that I don't have anything to do with] or else..." is incredible toxic.

If you don't agree with "assholes" writing code or using code that was written by an "asshole", you'll have a hard time using anything open source at all.

<comment><USER4> Yup! And your project can be removed/banned from GitHub if you do something she disagrees with now. I forget which project it was that was lashed out at recently, but it's all rather insane.

<comment><USER6> That is, it looks like GitHub will _ignore it 's own code of conduct_ in order to punish "bad" people.

This is a common theme among proponents of codes of conduct.

See also Twitter's ban on many people, including Milo Yiannopoulos. He was banned for "violating the rules". But I've looked, and no one anywhere can point out which exact tweet violated which particular rule. Even more extreme, no one can point out where he said any of things he's accused of saying.

So... Twitter blocked him for "abuse", when there is zero evidence of such abuse.

I'll say this:

 _The more extreme the code of conduct, the more likely it will be broken by the people enforcing it_.

<comment><USER7> Neither Github nor Twitter have a code of conduct; they have a Terms of Service document. TOS, unlike CoCs, are written by lawyers because the goal is a full-featured CYA. And they generally contain the legalesed disclaimer "we're free to get rid of you whenever we feel like, for whatever reason we feel like". I'm sure twitter also has some extra community rules somewhere.

CoCs are worrisome because they tend to emulate that behaviour, and I _certainly do not condone overreaching TOS_ , but you can't equate those two situations. It's the behaviour of people vs. the behaviour of companies.

<comment><USER8> Github does use a CoC for their projects, actually:

"We have adopted the Open Code of Conduct for the open source projects that we maintain, including Atom, Electron, Git LFS, and many others."

[https://github.com/blog/2039-adopting-the-open-code-of- condu...](https://github.com/blog/2039-adopting-the-open-code-of-conduct)

<comment><USER7> For their projects, not for the site. Big difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think projects underestimate how off-putting Code of Conducts are. I won't touch projects with a CoC, and when a project that I'm actively contributing to introduces a CoC, I stop contributing.

Giving people who are obsessed with political correctness a leg to stand on can be damaging to a community, and trying to placate such people via a CoC is a lost cause. On the flip side, I've never seen harassment tolerated even without a CoC. I don't think CoC deter such people anyway. So IMO there is simply no upside.

Besides, any kind of potential drama is a no-go, I use my Github account for work. If I was younger, I'd probably start over again with a fresh github account that didn't have my real name attached to it. But not contributing seems like an easier solution.

<comment><USER10>
      I think projects underestimate how off-putting Code of
      Conducts are. I won't touch projects with a CoC, and when
      a project that I'm actively contributing to introduces a
      CoC, I stop contributing.

These days I try not to contribute to any project that doesn't have a CoC. The project I help maintain does, as do the communities I moderate. If someone can't create a PR without saying things that are racist, misogynist, etc. then frankly I don't want them in my community. If someone is going to be put off by the fact that mightn't be able to say something hateful if they decided they wanted to, then I'd rather not have that person in my community.

      Giving people who are obsessed with political correctness
      a leg to stand on can be damaging to a community, and
      trying to placating such people via a CoC is a lost cause.

I think that's a very negative way of looking at a CoC. Where you see "people who are obsessed with political correctness", I see "people who are tired of being constantly shit on by the vocal jerks in online communities". It's not placating, it's simply valuing people's right to contribute and participate peacefully over other people's right to be jackasses. Sure, you can do that without a CoC, but the CoC is a good signal to people that the people who are moderating the community are on their side.

      On the flip side, I've never seen harassment tolerated
      even without a CoC. I don't think CoC deter such people
      anyway. So IMO there is simply no upside.

I disagree with the assertion that CoCs don't deter people in a community; I have seen first-hand where having a code of conduct was a way of resolving something that was quickly getting out hand and was likely to have ended up with some great contributors leaving the project because they were being harassed by others. I wasn't going to convince the harassers that they were wrong about what they were saying, and I certainly wasn't going to convince the people being harassed that they should stick around in a community that was being hostile. Most people were either unaware of the threat, or else not directly affected and stayed quiet. The CoC was something of a final arbiter to put a stop to the harassment, and I had tried diligently to do so before putting on my admin hat or pulling out the CoC. I've seen _many_ other situations where similar things have played out. Without CoCs people would have either been banned from the project, or others would have left, being able to put a stop to something has helped.

      Besides, any kind of potential drama is a no-go, I use my
      Github account for work. If I was younger, I'd probably
      start over again with a fresh github account that didn't
      have my real name attached to it. But not contributing
      seems like an easier solution.

If you're neither a maintainer or community moderator, nor violating the CoC, then I don't see where the drama would come in. I have my real name attached to my github account, to the meetups I run, and the slack communities I moderate. I deal with CoC violations at times, and certainly my own harassment, but I'm not worried about "drama" effecting my reputation because I stand by my own behaviors and by my belief in the value of not letting people harass others and crate hostile toxic environments.

<comment><USER6> > If someone can't create a PR without saying things that are racist, > misogynist, etc. then frankly I don't want them in my community.

That's confusing two issues: code of conduct, and on-topic communication.

If someone opens a PR which complains about a bug in a _different piece of software_ , you would close it as off topic. If they kept doing so, you would block them as being abusive.

The same should apply to racism, sexism, etc. The issue isn't that they're wrong, it's that they're _off topic_ for a PR.

You don't need a code of conduct that says "racism is bad" in (for example) a javascript library.

For me, making _moral_ and _political_ statements in a software project raises all kinds of red flags.

<comment><USER11> The error you're making is in assuming that those are always clearly separate. There are many examples of people who were talking about on-topic technical concepts but used examples or made "jokes" which were not.

Having a clear CoC is simply a shortcut: if, say, a speaker uses a bikini picture in a slide you can simply point to it and say "you broke the CoC" rather than rehashing the nth argument about how much sexualization is acceptable in a technical context. It's like the difference between having a standard license and contributor agreement versus making it up as you go along: more work up front but it avoids problems which become more time- consuming as the number of people involved grows.

<comment><USER7> I don't see how a code of conduct helps the situation you just described. Most CoCs I know do not have a clear cut rule on this, merely broad statements which you can spend time arguing cover the case or not.

This stuff is all shortcuts, to be honest.

<comment><USER11> Picking a random example:

[https://2016.djangocon.us/coc/](https://2016.djangocon.us/coc/)

"All communication should be appropriate for a professional audience including people of many different backgrounds. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks.

Be kind to others. Do not insult or put down other attendees. Behave professionally. Remember that harassment and sexist, racist, or exclusionary jokes are not appropriate for DjangoCon. Attendees violating these rules may be asked to leave the conference without a refund at the sole discretion of the conference organizers."

So if someone decided that they wanted to have a bunch of bikini pictures in their slides or to crack jokes about something being ghetto it's starting from a different place. Because the conference organizers thought about this in advance they don't need to worry about making policy on the fly or having different people give different off-the-cuff answers and then be hammered for later changes.

Just as something like a coding style guide doesn't solve every question in software, this doesn't solve every issue related to personal conduct but it sets an overall direction and gives people an idea of what to expect: someone going to a conference with that CoC would know that the expectations are set to "business professional" rather than "hanging with my bros at the bar". You might think that something is obvious but once any event expands beyond a small homogeneous group of people all bets are off.

(And, yes, it's shortcuts just as all policies, laws, etc. are because it's easier to have a general trend known in advance than to try to reason about it from first principles after the fact.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's unsurprising to read that anonymous reporting essentially failed. When you're in charge of a community and there is a dispute between two members, you have to act as a neutral third party. Anonymous reports force a bias on one side and prevent the person in charge from getting more details about the issue.

I think especially in a technical community, GPG (or easier tools if any) are better suited to preserving privacy in important disputes.

Side semi-related rant: Why are CoCs in FOSS communities often so bureaucratic and lengthy? I get the need for rules and enforcing of rules when you have a large community, but most of them outside of open source usually manage with very few rules, most of them which are always implied. Even HN's guidelines only contain three lines about attitude which all boil down to "be civil".

I maintain two open source communities of 30 and 80 people, a gaming community of ~300 daily active members and a friends&family guild of ~200 members. I've never had to say anything else than "be nice" and "don't spam". Across all those, I've had to deal with two serious cases of harassment, neither of which would have been solved with a code of conduct. [NB: of course, community rules become a more pressing need the larger and less focused your community is]

In the mean time, I see open source projects of 5-10 max adopting massive codes of conduct that make potential contributors feel like they're reading terms of service. I was part of the founding team of a small OSS group and one of the _first_ things that came up was "we need a code of conduct" (as in, around the same time as "we need a roadmap", when the group had 5 members).

In the well-meaning fight against harassment, I see people copypasting files like they're going to be a magic bullet. If you have a community where rude behaviour and/or harassment can be a concern, it's not a piece of paper that says not to that will help; you need moderators your members feel safe contacting and who know how to handle delicate situations.

<comment><USER12> >Even HN's guidelines only contain three lines about attitude which all boil down to "be civil".

I think a lot of documents could just be replaced with a copy of Wheaton's Law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> the entire premise of a Code of Conduct like this is flawed. this is the infantilization of adults. 6 year olds need a code of conduct and an authority figure present, so they won't fling shit at each other. if we treat adults like 6 year olds then we should expect people to behave the way they are treated.

I find it hard to accept that anything more verbose than "you're an adult; act like it." is needed for a Code of Conduct. it astonishes me that this is the trend in our culture and society. big brother gonna protect you from the mean people. a world without sin. none shall pass.

what we really have is a deficit of communication skills, a deficit of maturity, and most of all a broken view of how social groups do and ought to function. this is the fallout from decades of institutional education. we now have multiple generations of people who have come to take comfort in the institutional structure of elementary school and feel lost without an authority figure to turn to.

what the fuck has happened to us?

<comment><USER14> Look at usenet posts from circa 1990. We've had a deficit of communications skills and a deficit of maturity for more than the current generation. And this is all within a much less culturally diverse group than those on the internet now.

I don't like CoCs either, but they exist because of a real problem. Let's say we adopt a CoC of "you're an adult; act like it":

What corrective actions are taken against those not acting like an adult, who takes those actions, and who is the arbiter of what qualifies as non-adult behavior?

Very small communities and communities with a single BDFL can resolve this because in the former consensus is easy to come by, and in the latter there is an ultimate point of appeal. All other communities need some way of resolving this, and adopting a CoC is one way of attempting to do so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> /shrug

It is what it is.

The idea that the working group had any meaningful power to 'discipline' people who violated the code was dubious already, and the reddit thing just made it more obvious that any kind of enforcement wouldn't really work.

Ultimately, maybe this _is_ the way forward for projects; facilitate a way to bring people together to talk rather than punish people.

For what it's worth, I don't think the code of conduct was a particular success, but I don't think it was a particular failure either.

The go community is far nicer, more welcoming and has proportionally less hostile self important twats in it than it did 3 years ago... but, that's probably just a matter of the community growing to include a lot more people.

This is probably the right change for go.

It's not an excuse to start being a douche.

</comment><comment><USER16> [https://github.com/golang/go/commit/025dfb130ae131a8005959af...](https://github.com/golang/go/commit/025dfb130ae131a8005959afa7ee57a2c3778962)

↑ can be read without JS enabled

</comment><comment><USER17> They want to be facilitators instead of decision-makers because of their bad experiences when they made final calls. You can't be a facilitator if one side is missing from the conversation. I see nothing controversial.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is a very good move, and I'm glad that the Code of Conduct was updated to be more sane. As a consequence, I'm now more willing to contribute bug reports/pull requests to the Go project.

<comment><USER19> What would have prevented you from doing so before?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> 100% what you said.

CoCs are absurd. Laws already cover all that. If they don't, fix them.

US PC crap is what it is.

<comment><USER21> > Laws already cover all that.

No they don't. There is no law that requires you to be civil. Quite the opposite, the US has very strong free speech laws.

<comment><USER20> Um yes, there are.

If your country doesn't have them, you have a serious problem.

EDIT: what's with the downvotes? Laws are supposed to guarantee a civil behavior so that we can have organized societies. If your laws don't cover that, fix them.

<comment><USER21> If I call you an idiot, is that insult covered by the law? Which law? Which jurisdiction? How will you find out about my identity? How will you enforce any potential judgment if I'm in Somalia? How much time and money will it cost you to a) get a conviction, and b) try to enforce it?

A lot of software projects have contributors from all over the world. It is just impractical to rely on the law to enforce civility.

<comment><USER20> > If I call you an idiot, is that insult covered by the law?

Yes. In Greece I can sue you over that. If that's worth my time or not is a different issue, but if I can somehow prove it, you're in trouble and I can ask for restitution for the psychological effect it had on me. I bet it's the same for all civilized countries.

CoCs have nothing to do with the rest of the things you're saying. They are not enforceable by law, they won't get you any kind of conviction. Best case scenario, you shun the person that didn't adhere by it. Which guess what? You can do that anyways, without any CoC in place.

So really, I have no clue why you think that redundant things like CoC have any practical use.

EDIT: instead of downvotes just explain where I'm wrong. Too many feelings here, very few logical arguments.

<comment><USER21> > Yes. In Greece I can sue you over that. If that's worth my time or not is a > different issue, but if I can somehow prove it, you're in trouble and I can > ask for restitution for the psychological effect it had on me.

Interesting. Does it happen often in practice?

> I bet it's the same for all civilized countries.

The US doesn't have such laws. Whether you consider the US civilised, is another matter. :) Do you want to exclude contributors from uncivilised countries?

> CoCs have nothing to do with the rest of the things you're saying. They are > not enforceable by law, they won't get you any kind of conviction. Best case > scenario, you shun the person that didn't adhere by it. Which guess what? > You can do that anyways, without any CoC in place.

The goal of a CoC is to have a set of rules that the community agrees upon and to foster a certain culture. E.g. no personal attacks, constructive criticism only, be civil in your interaction with others on the project. The consequences of violating the CoC can be to ban the violator from the project.

Wether you agree with those goals or not, it is the right of a community to decide which culture they like. And different communities will attract different kinds of people. Quite a few people choose not to contribute to the Linux kernel because of the abrasive leadership style of Linus. You might choose to not contribute to the Golang project.

You argued that you don't need a CoC because the laws already cover the same ground. If your goal is to foster a certain culture, it is simply not feasible to use the law to enforce it.

Hacker News has guidelines which are not dissimilar to a CoC, but less formalised: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Are they useless too in your opinion?

<comment><USER20> > Interesting. Does it happen often in practice?

Not really, but it does happen occasionally in work places, because if it happens often enough it is basically the equivalent of bullying(called mobbing at work).

> The US doesn't have such laws. Whether you consider the US civilised, is > another matter. :) Do you want to exclude contributors from uncivilised > countries?

It's because I consider US a civilized(and a very litigious) country that I'm sincerely surprised that its laws don't cover such things.

> The goal of a CoC is to have a set of rules that the community agrees upon > and to foster a certain culture. E.g. no personal attacks, constructive > criticism only, be civil in your interaction with others on the project. The > consequences of violating the CoC can be to ban the violator from the > project.

So basically what I described as "shunned" from the community.

But previously you said:

> Which jurisdiction? How will you find out about my identity? How will you > enforce any potential judgment if I'm in Somalia? How much time and money > will it cost you to a) get a conviction, and b) try to enforce it?

So we agree that CoCs can't serve as substitutes for laws?

The HN guidelines are a perfect example because the first half has _practical_ use which is how to submit an article and the 2nd half which is indeed useless.

Let's be honest here. What you're looking for is a magic wand that say "if you could please don't be an asshole, that'd be grand thanks" and people would be happily ever after. Right?

Well there's no solution for that and CoCs can only serve as to infuriate people who aren't assholes.

Just shun them as you would do with or without a CoC.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>