Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH.

[Tim Harrison]

Hey Nicola.


Nicola Pero wrote:

> I feel that 'App' is a short abbreviation, and so less user friendly for
> non-English native speakers, and for non-computer nerds in general.
>
> I find 'Application' much easier to understand, because it is more
> explicit.
>
> To me it's like the difference between calling a directory /libs and
> calling it /Libraries, or between /usr and /Users.  Power users always
> understand both.  Newbies and 'normal users' (and non-English speakers
> too) don't like the abbreviations, because they are obscure.


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


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


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

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

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

intention was specifically to be more consistent and descriptive, rather 

than pretentious.


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



--

Tim Harrison
harrison@timharrison.com
http://www.linuxstep.org/