Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Arise SIR Jonathan Ive

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the there's-a-sword-for-that dept.

United Kingdom 183

mariocki writes "Steve Jobs' go-to design man Jonathan Ive, the creator of modern computer design classics such as the iMac, MacBook Pro and iPod/iPhone/iPad, has been awarded a knighthood in the New Year's Honours list, taking him from plain old 'Mr' straight to 'Sir' in one fell swoop. This now puts him in the same league as Paul McCartney, Michael Caine, Bob Geldof and Bill Gates. Ive said 'I discovered at an early age that all I've ever wanted to do is design' and even for Apple haters his designs have done more for personal computer design than the mainstream PC manufacturers could imagine, taking the PC from the geek den into the living room of even the most painfully trendy fashionista."

cancel ×

183 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Design Matters (5, Insightful)

InterestingFella (2537066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547120)

As much as geeks don't like to admit it, design and user interfaces matter. It matters to them too. Just look at the backlash new Gnome UI and Firefox have got recently. Even more so, casual people care a lot about design and easy of use. So do people when they get older and don't have the time to tinker with everything.

It's also why Linux will always fail - the whole principle of Linux is that there's no unified look and team that discusses, chooses and implements good UI and terms. In Linux world everyone just does whatever they want, often ignoring what or how others do it.

Good example of this is the linux shell. It still acts like it's from the 90's because people don't work together to bring it together. It's still based on text output because everyone does things differently. Compare this to PowerShell which passes objects between programs. This allows different pieces of programs to work much better together, without need to define rules on how to parse some other programs output (which also usually fails in less used cases).

Both Apple and Microsoft have got this. I hate to admit it but Windows 7 is the most beautiful Windows to date from Microsoft. So is Apple's OSX. If it wasn't for the games and some Windows only -apps I would use OSX because it is just much nicer to use. But there is no way in hell I would use Linux now. That might had been the case in 2005, but why would I do that? On top of polished interface and good design, OSX offers all the underlying tools that also make Linux powerful. And on Windows world there's PowerShell, which is much more powerful than GNU toolset has to offer.

Sorry, but apart from server world Linux just isn't going anywhere. No one really cares about the open part. They care about what they can do, and how easily they can do that. By far, Windows and OSX both offer those things and much better than Linux.

So good day Sir Ive!

Re:Design Matters (3, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547138)

yeah, design matters. that's how current macbook pro sucks. metallic 90 degree angles right where you rest your hands!

win7 rocks. the more I use osx the more I understand that and this isn't just trolling, it's a usability thing on large screens(or small screens with high dpi. osx sucks soooo hard on this, that's the reason they're shipping 1280x800 screens, up to fullhd resolution on 13" and it's unusable and unlike windows you just can't put high dpi mode that actually worked on), having multiple windows open and so forth. many of the mac choices and limitations just aren't good there and if they go more ipadishy on the desktop then it's just going to get worse and worse.

anyone know any alternate shells for osx? like litestep for windows, not terminal emulators.. but something that would take the menu bar and attach it to the window/program it's controlling, proper taskbar etc...

Re:Design Matters (3, Informative)

pinkeen (1804300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547226)

Agreed. I installed MacOS on my 15.6" laptop with high density (1920x1200) screen and it sucked. MacOS just isn't designed for high density screens, there's no way to change DPI, and even if there was no good is gonna come out of this because no app is designed with this in mind.

Re:Design Matters (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547342)

OSX has been prepping developers for High DPI screens since 10.4 and in 10.7 all of the UI assets are higher rez. Ready for the upcoming Mac Retina Displays.

So basically you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Re:Design Matters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547560)

Funny how my 4yr old 17in MBP works just fine in 1920x1200 resolution. Apps like Lightroom & Photoshop use this extra screen realestate very nicely.

Thanks Mr Ive, Nothanks Apple! (5, Informative)

improfane (855034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547148)

Thank you Johnathan Ives,

I commend the design of Apple products.

I might strongly dislike Apple but I know a good design and I thank Sir Ive but not Steve Jobs as it influences the rest of the industry. Ive has done more for us than Steve Jobs. The thing I hate is the business practices with the walled garden and arrogance over my 'user experience'. (This probably comes from Steve Job)

Thank god we now have Rounded Corners(tm).

Offtopic: Hey GP, Are you InsightIn140Bytes =P?

Re:Thanks Mr Ive, Nothanks Apple! (1, Interesting)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547310)

Thank god we now have Rounded Corners(tm).

Rounded corners since 1984. Unlike X Windows. Long time before Ives. Thanks, Bill Atkinson.

If your actual intent was to make some snide remarks about things that you are clueless about, you should post what you mean so that your arguments can be taken apart.

Re:Thanks Mr Ive, Nothanks Apple! (1)

Haxagon (2454432) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547628)

It was probably a joke about Apple's aggressive and frivolous design lawsuits in order to hurt competition.

Re:Thanks Mr Ive, Nothanks Apple! (0)

improfane (855034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547866)

Yes! That's what I mean.

Apple hurts the computer industry as it does not want to permit free competition, hence the walled gardens and lawsuits.

There's another Slashdot article about the attack on general purpose computing. It will be a sad day when we're all using 'apps' for different pieces of work. It's a mindset that takes us backward as they're never really integrated or promote openness.

Re:Thanks Mr Ive, Nothanks Apple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547918)

Thank god we now have Rounded Corners(tm).

Rounded corners since 1984. Unlike X Windows.

X11 has the Shape Extension; since about 1987. Don't let the fact that nobody uses it fool you. (Hint, blame Gnome and Qt.)

If your actual intent was to make some snide remarks about things that you are clueless about

My thoughts exactly.

Re:Thanks Mr Ive, Nothanks Apple! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547312)

I'm pretty sure InsightIn140Bytes == InterestingFella. Close UID, same writing style, same opinions, both usernames use moderation names from /. My only real issue is him having arrogant usernames that declare him to be "insightful" or "interesting".

Re:Thanks Mr Ive, Nothanks Apple! (0, Troll)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547338)

Apple computers have clearly gone straight from concept to production with no engineer input in between. Compare to concept cars: They look really good but they're completely impractical with huge rims, little or sometimes zero wheel travel, tiny slivers for headlights, rail-thin bucket seats, curvaceous fenders that are bad for aero, a center console that consists of either a single huge touchscreen or a single knob with a tiny 1-line LCD display, etc. and the engineers dull them down to make them practical before they go to production.

At Apple the engineers don't get any say, apparently, the designers rule them with an iron fist. They want a razor-thin tablet that's hard to hold, that's what comes out. They want a laptop that can cut a steak, that's what comes out. They want a phone with the antennas wrapped around it that loses the connection if you hold it wrong, that's what comes out. They want to keep the buttons to a minimum for a sleek look which sacrifices practicality, that's what comes out. Form trumps practicality every time. As pieces of art they're interesting but as computers the design isn't the best. Unskilled users praise them in the same way that a typical soccer mom driver might praise a horrible (but good-looking) car that just manages to get from A to B.

Re:Thanks Mr Ive, Nothanks Apple! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547782)

Its Sir John, not Sir Ive

(ie the Sir goes with the given name).

Re:Thanks Mr Ive, Nothanks Apple! (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547880)

Oh that never occurred to me. I assumed it was like a normal title like Mr, Miss or Mrs.

Thanks!

Re:Thanks Mr Ive, Nothanks Apple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548282)

Just a quick FYI. The title Sir preceeds only his first name not his last, he is always Sir Jonathan, never Sir Ive. The title Sir may also be used in conjunction with other titles so he can be Professor Sir Jonathan Ive, or Prof Ive, or Prof Ive KBE. Never Professor Sir Ive.

Re:Thanks Mr Ive, Nothanks Apple! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548386)

Unfortunately, while there is no doubt about talents of Sir Jonathan Ive, it takes far more than him to get good design out of the door. It takes a corporate culture that nurtures and values design, whether industrial or some other field. That's simply not present in most companies. Do remember, Ive was at Apple long before Jobs came out and how well did that go?

Re:Design Matters (3, Insightful)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547178)

What a load of tosh....
Apple designer gets an award, you go off on an anti-linux rant
anyway...

As much as geeks don't like to admit it, design and user interfaces matter. It matters to them too. Just look at the backlash new Gnome UI and Firefox have got recently.

The "backlash" to Gnome3, Unity and a few other projects that have rev'd their UI designs has not come from "casual people"
It's come from geeks / power users
They're complaining that design and overt snazzyness is detracting from the core usability
Casual users love it, though - stick an average user in front of Gnome3 or Unity and the first thing they comment on is how they really like the visual look and feel

It's also why Linux will always fail

On the desktop, I presume you mean

the whole principle of Linux is that there's no unified look and team that discusses, chooses and implements good UI and terms. In Linux world everyone just does whatever they want, often ignoring what or how others do it.

Same for any system that gives developers choice over the look and feel of their programs UI
When I was a windows user, I remember a music program called "Winamp" (quick google says the project's still going)
It's main selling point was it discarded the cluttered UI and overly large buttons and borders of the "standard winows UI", and used it's own custom design
This cut down the screen wastage, and made the program non-intrusive

You really want a system that's so rigid and inflexible that you /have/ to conform to a set way of doing things?

Good example of this is the linux shell.

No, that's a terrible example

It still acts like it's from the 90's because people don't work together to bring it together. It's still based on text output because everyone does things differently.

A shell is supposed to provide direct access, text-only, to the OS and it's core programs for easy scripting and administration

Compare this to PowerShell which passes objects between programs. This allows different pieces of programs to work much better together, without need to define rules on how to parse some other programs output (which also usually fails in less used cases).

No idea what powershell is, so can't comment

Re:Design Matters (1, Insightful)

InterestingFella (2537066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547220)

It still acts like it's from the 90's because people don't work together to bring it together. It's still based on text output because everyone does things differently.

A shell is supposed to provide direct access, text-only, to the OS and it's core programs for easy scripting and administration

Compare this to PowerShell which passes objects between programs. This allows different pieces of programs to work much better together, without need to define rules on how to parse some other programs output (which also usually fails in less used cases).

No idea what powershell is, so can't comment

So basically you don't know what you're commenting on? There is nothing that prevents PowerShell being used in text mode. It is. But it doesn't only output as text, it passes objects. This means that if you pipe commands the other programs down the line get them as object, not as text that they need to parse and which can easily change. It works much better together.

Re:Design Matters (1)

Ramin_HAL9001 (1677134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547332)

So basically you don't know what you're commenting on? There is nothing that prevents PowerShell being used in text mode. It is. But it doesn't only output as text, it passes objects. This means that if you pipe commands the other programs down the line get them as object, not as text that they need to parse and which can easily change. It works much better together.

Linux only provides the mechanism, but not the protocol, to pass objects between programs. The mechanisms are file descriptors, and sockets. To pass actual objects through those pipes or sockets, just install the protocol of your choice. XML perhaps? Or some binary format? Whatever you want.

Python, for example, can be used as a shell and allows simple serialization of objects, so you can easily pass objects between programs using Python on Linux. Most other shell-like languages also let you do this on Linux, like Perl, and Haskell. Bash doesn't have built-in capabilities to pass objects, but in Linux you don't have to use Bash for anything if you don't want to. Or you can install "DBus" and use the dbus command line tools to do object passing in Bash.

PowerShell forces you to use Microsoft's built-in object-passing mechanism. That's all well and good, but the reason people like Linux is that it gives you a choice. In Linux, you choose the right tool for the right purpose, unlike Microsoft's "use a hammer for everthing" approach.

It gives you 10 incompatible choices (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547498)

Python, for example, can be used as a shell and allows simple serialization of objects, so you can easily pass objects between programs using Python on Linux. Most other shell-like languages also let you do this on Linux, like Perl, and Haskell.

So how do you pass objects between Python and Perl? Or between either and Haskell? "It gives you a choice" doesn't help when developers of different components that you're trying to make work together make incompatible choices.

Re:It gives you 10 incompatible choices (1)

Ramin_HAL9001 (1677134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547778)

So how do you pass objects between Python and Perl? Or between either and Haskell? "It gives you a choice" doesn't help when developers of different components that you're trying to make work together make incompatible choices.

In Linux, you are right, things are more disorganized, so trying to make two programs work together who are using different components won't be easy, but you have the same problem in Windows only less so because Microsoft keeps developers on the same page. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage of Windows (or any proprietary solution): more strict, but more uniform.

But recently, more and more software is providing support for Python objects and scripting. If you want to pass objects between Python-compatible programs, use the built-in serialization or an XML library, and send the serialized (or XML) data through a pipe or socket. The receiving program must then un-serialize the data. You could also use DBus bindings to send arbitrary data between desktop applications.

Re:It gives you 10 incompatible choices (1)

InterestingFella (2537066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547854)

In Linux, you are right, things are more disorganized, so trying to make two programs work together who are using different components won't be easy, but you have the same problem in Windows only less so because Microsoft keeps developers on the same page. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage of Windows (or any proprietary solution): more strict, but more uniform.

So you are saying that you have the same problem in Windows, but significantly less so? Because different Windows programs work good together. Especially those that have been made to use PowerShell and its object passing. There is also OLE (which goes back 90's), dll's and similar technologies. Windows has *always* thought more about interoperability than Linux. In Linux you only pass text strings and it is let to every program to parse them correctly. How convenient, not.

Re:It gives you 10 incompatible choices (1)

Ramin_HAL9001 (1677134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547998)

So you are saying that you have the same problem in Windows, but significantly less so? Because different Windows programs work good together. Especially those that have been made to use PowerShell and its object passing. There is also OLE (which goes back 90's), dll's and similar technologies. Windows has *always* thought more about interoperability than Linux. In Linux you only pass text strings and it is let to every program to parse them correctly. How convenient, not.

You are right, Linux is less convenient than Windows in interlopability, because there is no one corporation controlling the user-interface for Linux. It is a trade-off between strict control over developers and more consistency in object passing, or more freedom to developers but more chaos with all the different choices. I prefer more choice in my day-to-day tasks.

The point I was trying to make is that Linux doesn't just pass unstructured text, it passes ANYTHING: unstructured text or structured objects. What you pass depends on your design choice. In PowerShell, you must use .NET object serialization to pass objects, in Linux you have a choice of your serialization strategy, Python probably being the most popular choice. A great many applications provide support for Python object passing and scripting, so in that sense python is THE PowerShell of Linux, and as time goes on, more applications will support object passing via Python serialization.

By the way, OLE is similar to TkTcl in Linux, and DLL's are exactly the same concept as Linux ".so" files.

Re:It gives you 10 incompatible choices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548546)

You use YAML, JSON or XML. Both Python and Perl have libraries that make it a piece of cake to output one of those and I have little doubt the same holds for Haskell.

Re:Design Matters (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547542)

That's all well and good, but the reason people like Linux is that it gives you a choice.

Every general purpose OS has a "choice". With this the difference between the two is Linux (and other Unix like OSs) use unstructured text for communicating between console programs, and Windows Powershell uses objects.

Re:Design Matters (1)

Ramin_HAL9001 (1677134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547676)

Every general purpose OS has a "choice". With this the difference between the two is Linux (and other Unix like OSs) use unstructured text for communicating between console programs, and Windows Powershell uses objects.

No, you get unstructured text only if you use old-fashioned programs like Bash, Grep, Find, Awk, Sed, and so on. But you don't have to use these programs, you can use Perl or Python which allows you to serialize objects and pass them between programs.

I don't know how PowerShell passes objects under the hood, but it has to be in one of two ways: (1) serialization and passing through pipes, sockets, or temporary files, or (2) shared memory. In other words, exactly like how every other modern OS does it. The difference is the language used. So you use PowerShell, you get transparent object passing. If you want that in Linux, use Python or Perl which also provides transparent object passing mechanisms.

Just because you don't know how to do object-passing it in Linux doesn't mean it is impossible.

Re:Design Matters (1)

InterestingFella (2537066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547884)

Please get this already. Python and Perl ARE NOT shells.

Passing objects via shared memory is 1) more convenient 2) hell of a lot faster and better. And it works in every program the same way.

Re:Design Matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547786)

"OS kernel uses unstructured text for communicating between programs and a scripting language uses objects".

You make no sense.

PSH doesn't pass "objects between console programs", it passes objects between PowerShell functions, just like any scripting language. The fact that its designers chose pipe syntax has nothing to do with this.

"Linux (and other Unix like OSs)", as well as Windows, don't pass anything between programs, they're just OSes - they don't know anything about console programs and any other programs as well. They do, however, provide a few IPC mechanisms which can be used to pass any data. There are higher level abstractions on those mechanisms provided by libraries for sending structured messages between programs, on Windows and on Linux.

You and InterestingShilla don't have a fucking clue and somehow get modded Insightful. What the fuck's wrong with /. mods?

Re:Design Matters (2)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547232)

Winamp is still going. I still use it as my main mp3 player on my Windows box, because of the UI being small (though I might need to get new glasses soon). Now when you install it, you can choose the classic, small, uncluttered UI, or you can go for a large button clunky piece of crap. Unfortunately the default option is the large buttoned cluttered piece of crap. I choose the classic design every time.

Re:Design Matters (2)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547278)

It still acts like it's from the 90's because people don't work together to bring it together. It's still based on text output because everyone does things differently.

A shell is supposed to provide direct access, text-only, to the OS and it's core programs for easy scripting and administration

Well done for missing the point. Your kernel doesn't use strings all over the place, it uses data structures, same for your userland – they're not busy parsing strings and manipulating them internally, they're passing data structures around. Using a text interface onto it is a reasonable approach, it allows the user to easily interact –but... It also requires silly amounts of parsing and writing out in the programs, which can be unreliable. Passing data structures around, and having standardised methods of parsing and unparsing them allows program code to be much simpler, and more reliable. I commend MS for writing their shell this way – I really hope someone attacks this problem for UNIXes too.

Just use JSON. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547530)

Passing data structures around, and having standardised methods of parsing and unparsing them allows program code to be much simpler, and more reliable.

So what's the difference between "pass binary copies of data structures around" and "pass JSON representations of data structures around"? The latter can be used even between machines of different word sizes and byte orders. If you try to make a word-size- and byte-order-independent binary data interchange language, that's almost the same as just using JSON.

Re:Just use JSON. (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548552)

Agreed, that's pretty useful too... But that's not what UNIX programs do, they provide human-readable output, and expect that when you pipe this human readable output into another process, that other process will just suck it up and deal with it. Separating the human-readable part from the sending data structures (via json if you like) between programs as power shell does is what's necessary.

Re:Design Matters (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547480)

Same for any system that gives developers choice over the look and feel of their programs UI
When I was a windows user, I remember a music program called "Winamp" (quick google says the project's still going)
It's main selling point was it discarded the cluttered UI and overly large buttons and borders of the "standard winows UI", and used it's own custom design
This cut down the screen wastage, and made the program non-intrusive
You really want a system that's so rigid and inflexible that you /have/ to conform to a set way of doing things?

I don't know of any general purpose OS that's "so rigid and inflexible that you /have/ to conform to a set way of doing things". They all have games for example that invariably have unique UIs.

The point is that it's good to have a central set of UI paradigms that are used unless there's a good reason not to, such that users know what to expect. It can take the form of a document, or it can be implicit in the design of the applications that ship with the OS. Linux doesn't really have that. There's a big variety of different paradigms, none with any particular authority.

Re:Design Matters (1)

brillow (917507) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547214)

I don't think any geek in the past decade has said that design doesn't matter.

Re:Design Matters (1, Flamebait)

InterestingFella (2537066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547244)

Geeks and Linux users constantly do. It's like with those gamers who say that graphics doesn't matter. They just cant comprehend that good graphics/UI and good gameplay/functionality can work together.

Re:Design Matters (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547536)

Gamers who say graphics don't matter probably want good-enough graphics and good gameplay because good-enough graphics are cheaper to produce (and, in the copyright business model, cheaper to buy) than stunning graphics.

Re:Design Matters (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548196)

I think that's because plenty of them view "design" as "prettiness", not because they actually think design doesn't matter.

Design matters. Flashy translucent gradients don't.

Re:Design Matters (3, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547234)

I can't really agree with you there. The whole point of the Unix shell is to provide a textual interface to various things. If you want something more complex, use something more complex.

I also don't see what's so great about Mac OSX or Windows 7. They're confusing and cluttered, and just look like a random mishmash of different widgets and design elements. There's no thought been put into the design, and it shows. Nothing is intuitive. Nothing is clear.

Re:Design Matters (2)

InterestingFella (2537066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547260)

PowerShell supports text output too. But between apps it passes things in objects.

Re:Design Matters (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547316)

There's nothing to stop you serialising objects and passing them between Unix apps if you wanted - this is maybe what Powershell does, without you seeing it - but I still don't know why you'd want to.

Re:Design Matters (1)

InterestingFella (2537066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547424)

There's nothing to stop you serialising objects and passing them between Unix apps if you wanted - this is maybe what Powershell does, without you seeing it - but I still don't know why you'd want to.

Except the "little" fact that zero other commands and programs on linux would support it.

Serialized objects (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547540)

Every web browser for Linux accepts serialized objects. The DOM is an object; it is serialized into HTML. Look at it this way: if no programs for Linux supported serialized objects over character streams, then why would there be so many libraries for parsing XML and JSON?

Re:Design Matters (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547850)

In Powershell you can write scripts that access and manipulate those objects. You can't do that in Bash.

Re:Design Matters (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548332)

I don't know on what planet you're living, but the Windows 7 I use is rather spartian in its look and feel. You have the Start menu, a paradigm around since the early 90s, perhaps earlier (I wasn't really aware of such things back then...) and a series of docked programs.

Then the desktop, another decades-old convention, with desktop icons on it.

So far I see nothing confusing or cluttered. It's clean, efficient, and in fact it's perhaps the best desktop UI I've used to date. It certainly beats Unity or GNOME 3.

Re:Design Matters (2, Insightful)

Ramin_HAL9001 (1677134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547300)

It's also why Linux will always fail - the whole principle of Linux is that there's no unified look and team that discusses, chooses and implements good UI and terms. In Linux world everyone just does whatever they want, often ignoring what or how others do it.

Yeah, like Android and their interface: totally not unified, not polished, impossible to use... wait a minute, what the fuck are you talking about?! Linux is a kernel, the rest is up to you. That's why geeks love it, it gives you choice for everything, and if you don't want choice, go with a professional distribution, like Android, or Ubuntu, or Mint.

Good example of this is the linux shell. It still acts like it's from the 90's because people don't work together to bring it together. It's still based on text output because everyone does things differently. Compare this to PowerShell which passes objects between programs. This allows different pieces of programs to work much better together, without need to define rules on how to parse some other programs output (which also usually fails in less used cases).

If you don't like the "Linux Shell" (it's called "Bash", learn what it is you are criticizing), then use some other shell that CAN pass objects between programs, like Python. Python allows you to easily serialize almost any object and pass it between programs using ordinary file descriptors. Any language that can serialize objects can pass objects between programs in Linux. The kernel itself simply provides the mechanism to do this, and you can then install the protocol of your choice to pass actual objects, unlike in Windows, which forces you to use their built-in mechanisms. Why would you want intentionally limit your options? Oh that's right, because you don't know how to use anything else.

Sorry, but apart from server world Linux just isn't going anywhere. No one really cares about the open part. They care about what they can do, and how easily they can do that. By far, Windows and OSX both offer those things and much better than Linux.

So obviously, you don't know hardly anything about Linux, which is why you hate it. And if you knew anything about computers, you would know why open source is important.

Re:Design Matters (1)

InterestingFella (2537066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547436)

Python is not a shell. Besides, serializing your output does nothing as other commands and programs cannot parse those under Linux.

Re:Design Matters (1)

Ramin_HAL9001 (1677134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547592)

Python is not a shell.

No, you are totally wrong. Python is a language, but it also has an official interactive shell, so yes it is a shell (it can be used as a shell language). Open a Terminal in Mac OS X, or in Linux, and type "python". Ta-da, you are using Python as a shell. If you want a more feature-rich python shell, just Google "python shell", you'll find more advanced shells with fancy graphical interfaces.

Besides, serializing your output does nothing as other commands and programs cannot parse those under Linux.

Also wrong. Other programs can parse serialized python objects, so long as those programs are also Python programs, or as long as those other programs link to the python runtime library to make use of native serialization methods. Software with support for python objects is becoming increasingly common in Linux.

So PowerShell is almost exactly like Python in many ways, just the language is syntactically completely different. And Python is quickly becoming a unifying force in Linux, and many large applications now support Python object serialization and scripting. Best of all, Python is not your only choice, other competing languages offer similar functionality. My favorite is Haskell, I just wish someone would re-write Blender in Haskell instead of Python.

Re:Design Matters (1)

InterestingFella (2537066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548012)

Also wrong. Other programs can parse serialized python objects, so long as those programs are also Python programs

So, in practical sense, again none.

Re:Design Matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547392)

"It's also why Linux will always fail - the whole principle of Linux is that there's no unified look and team that discusses, chooses and implements good UI and terms. In Linux world everyone just does whatever they want, often ignoring what or how others do it."

You haven't heard of Gnome or KDE?

Re:Design Matters (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547554)

the whole principle of Linux is that there's no unified look and [feel] team

You haven't heard of Gnome or KDE?

Since when have GNOME and KDE unified their look and feel?

Re:Design Matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547912)

How is this a troll?

Everything I read here rings true. Oh, right...Slashdot.

Re:Design Matters (0)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547948)

A well deserved "troll" mod, if you ask me. Suddenly, every innovation in the world can be traced back to Apple, Jobs, and Ives? WTF?

As for design and user interfaces mattering to me - you should see my desktop. And, my car. The trucks I've driven. Screw all the designers - I want plain, simple, easy to understand. Understated elegance. Fek the eye candy, glitz, and consumer appeal. I'm not a "consumer".

Want to see "consumers"?? http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/photos/ [peopleofwalmart.com]

Re:Design Matters (1)

InterestingFella (2537066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548048)

Want to see "consumers"?? http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/photos/ [peopleofwalmart.com]

Wow, you take a mockery said and somehow establish that there's connection with every non-geek? That's quite low just to establish your own "superiority" to other people.

Re:Design Matters (0)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548154)

*cough*

My "superiority", if it exists, is NOT established by the existence of photographs of freaks of nature.

You may, however, look at those photos to see who all those nifty gadgets are designed for. Most of those people NEED devices designed for the braindead!

Re:Design Matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548098)

As much as geeks don't like to admit it, design and user interfaces matter.

As much as design geeks don't like to admit it, functionality and performance matter. Just look at the backlash new Gnome UI and Firefox have got recently. Even more so, causal people care a lot about simplicity and function. So do people when they get older and don't have the time to deal with all the flourishes.

Re:Design Matters (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548478)

And this is why InterestingFella claims (Desktop) Linux users say design doesn't matter.

Functionality, performance and simplicity are part of the design. Just because some particular designers haven't achieved (or even try to) those goals doesn't mean it isn't design.

Re:Design Matters (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548436)

I disagree. The Linux desktop has plenty of examples of great design. The problem is that they're directed at a completely different target audience.

Apple, particularly with iOS, designs towards being pleasant to the eye and immediately approachable by a new user. The Desktop Linux projects that try to do the same have much weaker designs, yes.

Where Desktop Linux does have good design is when they target a different set of users, and try to accomplish different goals, particularly speed of usage. High information levels, fast control schemes, lack of visual cues that can slow down the UI, etc.

Why are these designs good? Because these applications are usually being developed and iteratively improved by their own users, who can identify the pain points and try different approaches without having to study design.

Of course, ignorant people who think design is eye candy think Desktop Linux doesn't have good design. It's completely false. The problem is that it's only targeted at a very small number of users.

Re:Design Matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548574)

Nothing interesting in this comment. I stopped halfway.

On a sidenote: (2, Funny)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547130)

He was knighted with a sword made of translucent acryl.

*Tadum* *Crash* *Thud*

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week.
Tip your waiter and try the fish.

Re:On a sidenote: (2)

bfandreas (603438) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547292)

Terry Prachett made his own sword from a meteorite when he received his honours.
That's as wonderful as owning a pet elephant.
And I say this not in disrespect of Sir Jon. Design does matter. Usability helps with the potential usefulness of an item. In fact, bad usability marrs the usefulness of an item more than anything else. Apple understood this and slashed features for sake of usability.
Take for instance a door handle. It serves one purpose and one alone. Ornaments should not get in the way of that. It does not need self-lighting features, WiFi connection to indicate wether the door is closed or not. It needs no rumble pack, expansion slots, self heating, a cup holder,...
Door handles are easy but when it comes to general purpose items like computers then it becomes a lot harder. Recognizing that for the things you design it for places it into an exposed position in the household which adds aesthetical requirements it didn't have before is a now obvious strike of genious. Excersizing the design with that in mind and such consitency is high craftmannship.
If you carry a device at all times then it doesn't only have to look neat but also feel pleasing to the touch.
I don't own iDevices because I don't like paying for a company's cash register which seems to be the primary business model of Apple. I don't like being dictated how I use stuff nor do I like being prevented to be tinker with it. These preferences are mine and possibly that iStuff may be for you. That's a reason for why the devices are so successfull and trend setting.The clarity of focus does make them a piece of art.
The choice to include him in the New Years Honours List is justified. He did something and wasn't merely born to it. Outdated or no, it is a way of our civilisation to honour those thad furthered it. Well done.

Re:On a sidenote: (1)

Ramin_HAL9001 (1677134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547348)

taking him from plain old 'Mr' straight to 'Sir' in one fell swoop

Is that why they use a sword? So that can make you a knight in one fell swoop?

Whatever. The British peers system is totally worthless anymore. Sure, congratulations are in order, but... why?

Good to see industrial art being acknowledged, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547154)

... I bet HRH Queen Elizabeth asked him a support question about iOS5 before he left the stage...

Tim Berners-Lee (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547160)

Tim Berners-Lee would have been a better example than that scumbag Bill Gates.

Re:Tim Berners-Lee (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547366)

Many people would have been.

Proper use of "sir" (5, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547162)

The first comment already got this wrong, so a quick primer on how to use the title "sir".
He can be referred to as simply "Jonathan Ive", or "Jonathan", or "Jony" or whatever; you don't have to use the title.
You can call him "Sir Jonathan Ive" or "Sir Jonathan".
However, "Sir Ive" is not correct; honorifics of this sort don't work like "doctor" or "president". It'd be like calling the current monarch "Queen Windsor".
For women who are knighted, you'd simply substitute "Dame".

Re:Proper use of "sir" (0, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547224)

Proper use of Sir: "The queen is a wrinkled old bag and you are all tools for listening to her, Sirrahs." Seriously, who cares about the proper use of Sir? Nobody in the USA, where we don't have kings, queens, knights... or heroes.

Re:Proper use of "sir" (0)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547258)

Proper use of Sir: "The queen is a wrinkled old bag and you are all tools for listening to her, Sirrahs." Seriously, who cares about the proper use of Sir? Nobody in the USA, where we don't have kings, queens, knights... or heroes.

Are you a jaded teenager angry at Christmas because you didn't get a white iPhone?

Re:Proper use of "sir" (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547268)

Proper use of Sir: "The queen is a wrinkled old bag and you are all tools for listening to her, Sirrahs." Seriously, who cares about the proper use of Sir? Nobody in the USA, where we don't have kings, queens, knights... or heroes.

From the Americans that I know, quite a few do. .

And Martin Luther King's family would disagree, as would the residents of Queens, New York, and all Batman fans on two grounds :-)

Re:Proper use of "sir" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547630)

"Seriously, who cares about the proper use of Sir?"

people with social skills

Re:Proper use of "sir" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548118)

We may not knight people who have done good things, but we do give them Congressional Gold Medals.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C%2APL%5B%3C%230%20%20%0A

And there's the Congressional Medal of Honor too, for military heroes.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but we do have a few knights here in the U.S., not that means much. Bill Gates, George H.W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Billy Graham, and Steven Spielberg have all received honorary knighthoods. Honorary, I suspect, because real knighthood requires swearing fealty to the monarch, which is tantamount to renouncing your U.S. citizenship.

Re:Proper use of "sir" (4, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547230)

You can call him "Sir Jonathan Ive" or "Sir Jonathan".

"Now you can call me Ray, or you can call me J, or you can call me Johnny, or you can call me Sonny, or you can call me Junie, or you can call me Junior; now you can call me Ray J, or you can call me RJ, or you can call me RJJ, or you can call me RJJ Jr." ultimately ending with, "but you doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_J._Johnson [wikipedia.org] "

Despite whatever titles granted to him by watery tarts hurling scimitars, I guess folks will just call him whatever they like.

Sounds like a backroom deal . . . (5, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547166)

Apple gives Britain an iPad app to run the country . . . Britain gives Apple a Knighthood . . .

. . . this was obviously an arranged exchange . . .

"Arise Sir Jonathan Ive"? (4, Informative)

Sc4Freak (1479423) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547202)

In ceremony of knighting, the knight-elect kneels on a knighting-stool in front of The Queen, who then lays the sword blade on the knight's right and then left shoulder.

After he has been dubbed, the new knight stands up, and The Queen invests the knight with the insignia of the Order to which he has been appointed, or the Badge of a Knight Bachelor.

Contrary to popular belief, the words 'Arise, Sir ...' are not used.

Source: royal.gov.uk [royal.gov.uk]

What a surprise! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547216)

A rich, connected man gets a knighthood. How delightfully unexpected!

your point is what exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547664)

If you look at his bio, you will find that he came from a very middle class background. He studied Industrial Design at a Polytechnic. These are all Universities now but I got a 1st in Mech Eng at a Poly in the 1970's. Their courses were very pratical orientated. That shows in his designs that even I as a non cool Mechanical Engineer can appreciate. The construction of the Alloy bodied MacBook is pure genius.
IMHO, this gong is very well deserved.

Oh, this is a real knighthood as opposed to the fake (aka honorary) one given to Bill Gates.

If he left Apple, he could walk into pretty well any design studio in the world and virtually name his price and get the job.

now I'm going back to helping rebuild a WW2 Merlin engine. They are another work of genius. The superchargers are just beautiful.

Dieter Rams (2)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547228)

Why not Sir Dieter Rams? I mean, the designs are basically his...

Re:Dieter Rams (4, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547252)

Why not Sir Dieter Rams? I mean, the designs are basically his...

First, what you are saying "the designs ares basically his" is nonsense. Second, there are many more iPods and iPhones sold than Braun radios. Third, he is German and lived and worked in German, so he is way down on the Queen's list. Fourth, he's got the Commanders Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, which Jony Ive has very little chance to get, for about the same reason.

Not all the same (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547264)

The first three examples are the same the fourth is not. His non-sirness Bill Gates is not a British subject and is a filthy stinking unethical robber baron of the highest order.

Re:Not all the same (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547350)

HAHAHA silly stupid people with mod points that think it still matters. That is what the little slide bar and Load All Comments button are there for.

Sir Jonathan Ive is ABOVE Paul McCartney (4, Informative)

Saphati (698453) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547302)

Sir Jonathan Ive is a KBE. To be exact, in the order of precedence, he is above Sir Paul McCarthney (who is an MBE) and Sir Michael Caine (who is a CBE), and Bill Gates (is only an honorary knight. He cannot use the title. If he were British, he would be a KBE). He ranks equally with Sir Bob Geldof who is also a KBE. The whole Order of Precedence (in England and Whales) is very complicated, and to an American, a bit silly.

Re:Sir Jonathan Ive is ABOVE Paul McCartney (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547354)

Sir Paul McCartney ranks as a Knight Bachelor, as does Sir Michael Caine. While lower than a KBE, it is still higher than an MBE or CBE.

Bob Geldoff is not a UK citizen as Ireland is no longer a part of the UK. He cannot use the title either.

If you want to be exact, you should at least be closer to being correct.

Re:Sir Jonathan Ive is ABOVE Paul McCartney (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547454)

The western part of the UK of which Charles is the Prince of is called Wales.

Whales are the large sea mammals that are nearly extinct.

Re:Sir Jonathan Ive is ABOVE Paul McCartney (5, Informative)

jeremyp (130771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547466)

Sir Jonathan Ive is a KBE.
To be exact, in the order of precedence, he is above Sir Paul McCarthney (who is an MBE)

Paul McCartney received the MBE along with the other Beatles in 1964. The MBE does not entitle the holder to call himself "Sir". McCartney was upgraded to full knighthood in 1996. McCartney and Michael Caine are actually knights bachelor which ranks above KBE. The confusion arises because they were both awarded non knight honours earlier.

The whole Order of Precedence (in England and Whales) is very complicated, and to an American, a bit silly.

The order of precedence in whales is blue, sperm, humpback....

Re:Sir Jonathan Ive is ABOVE Paul McCartney (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547532)

The entire idea of a royal family is, to put it lightly, a bit silly. Perhaps you guys should come out of the middle ages...

Re:Sir Jonathan Ive is ABOVE Paul McCartney (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547862)

The entire idea of a royal family is, to put it lightly, a bit silly. Perhaps you guys should come out of the middle ages...

It seems that the US has its own set of "Royal" families - Bush, Kennedy....

Re:Sir Jonathan Ive is ABOVE Paul McCartney (1)

moreati (119629) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547534)

The whole Order of Precedence (in England and Whales) is very complicated, and to an American, a bit silly.

It's silly to us as well.
Regards, A Brit

Re:Sir Jonathan Ive is ABOVE Paul McCartney (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547696)

Most of Britain's systems are quite silly. (e.g CCTV, the royal family)

The deuce you say! (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547330)

Mr Ive was "hurt" by Mr Jobs taking credit for innovations that came from the design team.

wait, you mean Jobs isnt the angelic being everyone has made him out to be?

Re:The deuce you say! (1)

Haxagon (2454432) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547704)

If that's true, I want those flowers I sent to to the Apple store back! You're right, though, the whole cult of personality that surrounded his death was sickening.

Didn't he refuse it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547606)

See subject.

Or rather, getting such title makes him a subject?

Archaic medieval honors (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547666)

I would have been more impressed if he had turned it down.

"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."

Re:Archaic medieval honors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547902)

I've read interviews both with people who do have honours and those who don't that they first get connected and asked if they will accept one if asked. If someone lies to say they will accept the honor just to publicly turn it down, they'll probably make quite a few enemies.

More than that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547680)

you mean: the iMac, the iMac again, the iMac again, the iBook, the iBook again, the MacBook, the MacBook Pro, MacBook Pro again..... and iPod/iPhone/iPad

Yeah Thanks... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38547702)

"taking the PC from the geek den into the living room of even the most painfully trendy fashionista.""

Yeah thanks.

Wait... no... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38547942)

I thought Steve Jobs did everything him self, that he created the iPhone from scratch and that he is the greatest person who ever lived!!!

OBE joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548234)

Knight of the British Empire..wtf
What British Empire?

Why did J.G Ballard refuse to accept his OBE
His quote "a Ruritanian charade that helps to prop up our top-heavy monarchy"

Design DOES matter, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548306)

While I must commend him for designing some really sleak looking products. He makes it sound if apple is the only one capable of design work.

That said, you cannot talk about design before you talk about working. Apple is great at putting the cart before the horse.

FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

But, but... (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548480)

I thought Ian Maxtone Jones [imdb.com] invented the iPod. ;-)

Proof once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548486)

that stupid people are happy with pretty design instead of useful functionality.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?