Anyway…

I’m actually still in the initial stages, in the overall context of the project.  Basically, to create a Linux distribution (from scratch, as I am doing), it begins similar to a chicken-and-egg problem.  You have to use an existing system to create building blocks, and use the building blocks to create a complete toolset.  Then, you use the toolset in a limited environment, which makes zero assumptions (a “chroot” environment, for geeks out there), to begin construction of the target system.

While doing this is actually pretty straightforward, usually, the difficulty and complexity enters the stage when thoughts about the future begin to crop up.  Issues such as future maintenance and automation complicate matters because while there might be a working toolset to construct a target system, no one wants to have to manually create the target system each time something changes.  Also, if something changes within the toolset itself, the component will need to be rebuilt, or worse, the entire toolset will require rebuilding such that the whole thing remains cohesive.

This is similar to around the time when man first thought about hunting and killing for food.  He realized he could fashion a tool to make a weapon.  Next, he used the tool to create the weapon, which was then used to hunt and kill for food.  As evolution continued, he created more efficient tools, to in turn create better weapons that would enable him to hunt and kill more exotic food.  The same general principle exists when creating a Linux distribution — though, we’re not depending on the need to eat in our software toolchain, we are depending on the ability to make more software available, which will comprise a Linux distro.  The tricky part is to know how to manufacture tools in such a way that when a component in the process breaks, it is trivial to fix it so much to the point that if a tool very deep in the toolset breaks there is less need to re-manufacture everything that was built with it.  Henry Ford had a very good idea, with small replaceable parts.

At this point, I’m at the point that I have the toolchain built.  Before I go much further, I need to figure out a sensible way to maintain this toolchain so that if/when something becomes stale or breaks, I will spend less time repairing the toolchain and more time tending to the actual Linux software in the distribution.  Also, since the toolchain itself was build manually and painstakingly, I also need a system to churn out software using the toolset I have.  Perhaps a framework/system could be used for both maintaining the toolset, and maintaining the distro?

I’m quite sure this is not entirely a brand new problem — major Linux distros would have had to flesh this out very early on.  The trouble is, though, whatever they’re using to handle this type of framework, they’re not very up front in saying exactly what they use, what it does, or where it came from.

I know what I want my system to do.  I have a general idea how it should fit all together.  My dilemma is that I’m splitting my time between searching the Internet for any existing software to satisfy the need, and planning how I might create my own toolchain/distro maintenance framework/system.  There are, actually, existing systems that do something along these lines, but they were designed for very specific purposes, and implemented with specific needs in mind, which resulted in assumptions that require specific platforms.  Not very useful in my case, because I’m creating from scratch with no assumptions.

Eventually, I will have an automated system that will:

• institute modularity wherever practical
• automatically rebuild (with dependent software if necessary) anything that needs updating/fixing
• handle both the toolchain itself, and the target Linux software

In my original post, I noted that it would take some effort to change the way I use my desktop.  BumpTop, while very well thought out, and a genuinely original idea both in solving a problem and implementation of the solution, doesn’t fit well with how I personally use my computer.  This is not BumpTop’s fault.

For decades I have been using computers with different OSes, desktop orientations, window managers, looks and feels, constantly searching for “Desktop Nirvana”, which is to say the desktop state that mixes function with style and elegance while taking into account an optimal amount of practicality.  In other words, I’m all for eye-candy, as long as the eye-candy serves a purpose, even if that purpose is simply a “cool” factor.  As with all “cool” factors, it comes at a price, whether it be slower screen refresh rates like a 3D desktop [see Compiz], or more CPU resources consumed [see Google Desktop], or possibly even reservation of a portion of desktop real estate [see Rainmeter & Enigma].  BumpTop, on the other hand, seemed to not be so much eye-candy, but actually be more functional than cosmetic/stylish.

The problem BumpTop attempts to solve is that of desktop organization.  The analogy is a physical desk with papers and magazines sitting on a desk, in piles, with each item spacially relative to other items on the desk.  This is a brilliant way to see the problem, actually — arrange things spacially however the user of the items uses them, rather than “in a grid”, or “in a folder” as modern desktops coerce users to do.  For example, if I place things into a folder, and keep the folder on the desktop, yes I can organize the items, but I can’t SEE the items until I open the folder. However, if I organize things into a “pile” such as a physical pile on a shelf, I can SEE what items are in the pile without actually doing much at all, and I know which items are in which piles, whereas if they were in folders I would have to open each folder until I found what I was looking for.

This is all great in concept, and in implementation, and is precisely where BumpTop shines.

But, what if you’re like me, and have been organizing your desktop the same way for years?  Ever since Windows 3.0, I have been organizing my desktop to reduce (or eliminate) clutter, more or less in the same manner.  Along comes BumpTop, blazing the way in desktop organization, and I have almost nothing on my desktop to organize.

So what do I do?  I start putting things on the desktop!

I quickly found that while BumpTop solves the problem, I didn’t have the problem it solves.  This became quite annoying for me, partially because I had to adjust my way of doing things on the computer, but also partially because BumpTop is not a desktop — its an application.  BumpTop does not *replace* the desktop, but sits on top of your normal desktop, and hides the desktop that the operating system (Windows) provides.  The desktop that comes with the OS is optimized and made to mesh with the rest of the operating system.  BumpTop is a 3rd party application that acts as a go-between, wedged in the middle of the original desktop and YOU.

While the concept of organizing things on the desktop into piles, groups, and the like, is a sound concept that is proved through its use, the fact is that it is still “just another application” that has to interact with the desktop/operating system.  This makes it slower than your original desktop, and vulnerable to crashes, bugs, and other nuiances like computer resource reservation, installed applications are vulnerable to.  In other words, BumpTop solves a particular problem, but the solution comes at a cost.  The cost is running another application all the time that hides your original desktop — It does not make your original desktop go away; it only hides it and helps you organize things in a more “human” way.  This makes the application slower than if it was the desktop itself, which would elminate the orginal icon-laden desktop altogether.

Interaction with BumpTop was much less responsive than with the original desktop.  Keeping in mind that I only tested the beta, and things are bound to get better overall, BumpTop will still remain an application and not a full desktop replacement that completely eliminates the original unorganized workspace.

…an application that does not solve a problem for someone like me.

Since I have mentioned it, I’ve been using Enso, which almost completely eliminates the need to have icons on the desktop at all.  After a few keystrokes, I’m using whatever software installed on my computer, whether I have a desktop icon for it or not.  It has become second nature in the way I interact with my computer, so much that I have found (don’t laugh) that when Enso isn’t running, for a few seconds I enter a state of panic because I have forgotten how to launch the application software I wanted to use.  Caps Lock, O, “Open:  “  Fire — “Firefox? Mozilla Firefox?  Windows Firewall?  OpenOffice.org Impress?”  Amazingly, “Firefox” is usually at the top of the list, because Enso has remembered the last time I said “Fire”, Firefox is what I wanted.   If I want to run Photoshop, I just Caps Lock, type O, then type “photo”, and I see a list containing: “Adobe Photoshop CS4?, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2.2?, Photosynth?, Windows Photo Gallery?, etc”.

When Enso is not running (because it crashed, or hasn’t fully launched yet), I do…
Caps Lock…   Caps Lock light is now on.
Uh oh.
Ok.  Firefox is on the “Quick Launch” bar, so I’ll just click that.
I need to run Photoshop, now.  Caps Lock…  Caps Lock light is now off.
Uh oh.  Umm….   ok, I think its in the “Start Menu”…   Start ->  Adobe….  something…  oh, there it is.  Adobe Photoshop CS4.  Got it.  Luckily.

For people like me, who have pretty much always organized their desktop, BumpTop, albeit a wonderfully thought out piece of software, is probably not for you.

For people like me, and even people not like me, I highly recommend Enso.  BumpTop and Enso are not competing products, and solve completely different problems, but they do both help with the human-to-computer interaction immensely.

I’ve thought of a few different ways to answer that question, but I’m always led to two different methods of thinking: Active and Passive.

One way to view the use of personal computers is Passive. By this, I mean that computers aren’t necessarily used as a tool to actively accomplish a goal in the grand scheme of owning a computer, but is meant as an appliance that provides a fundamental use. There are no large heavy computations taking place to predict election results or simulate weather on a distant planet. The computer sits on a desk and is available on a whim of the owner to perform very short tasks like viewing family photos, listening to music or chatting with a friend while balancing the checkbook via online banking.

One analogy in the passive use of computers would be to compare a PC to a home, since people live in homes but don’t USE their homes for much of anything other than a place to live.

A PC is like a home:

1. People own houses with windows, doors, rooms and yards. People want computers they can customize to their liking, with different video cards and monitors (like windows), network cards (like doors), memory and hard drives (like rooms and yards to store things).
2. Home owners purchase appliances and budget for infrastructure repairs as needed. PC owners furnish their devices with software according to their own needs and budget (similar to the way you furnish a home) and purchase peripherals that help them facilitate their use.
3. Home owners budget for expansions or a move to a new location as needs change. People normally budget for a new computer, or an upgrade every so often, and plan for a move (of important stored data).
4. Houses are parts of communities (even if the house is in the middle of nowhere and the closest neighbor is miles away it is still considered a community), with home owners helping each other in cooperation to help the community thrive and succeed. PCs are part of a large community since the majority of personal computers are networked in some form, taking part in a community, most often more than one. There are instant message communities, blogs of similar interests, as well as family members emailing each other.
5. Home owners do their best to secure their homes when they’re gone such that possessions within are not damaged/stolen, or the houses themselves are not vandalized. Personal computer owners, for the most part, understand there is an apparent need to secure their computers (they install virus scanners and firewalls because they understand a need to “lock the doors”).

In the passive view, homes are very similar to computers in the way they’re used. Many people have little trouble at all fixing a door or knowing who to call to repair plumbing in their home, yet PC owners don’t necessarily know what is wrong with it when it doesn’t behave as they expect — whether it be a broken video card or a failed mouse.

PCs can also be like cars, making their use more active than passive.

1. Vehicle owners like to fully customize their cars, making them unique and distinguishable from vehicles of the same make and model. Computer users will customize their desktop backgrounds, icons, mouse cursor, mouse pad, etc. to enhance routine daily use.
2. The mechanically inclined enjoy tinkering with the engine, or transmission, sometimes completely replacing factory standard parts with custom 3rd party parts. Computer geeks will tinker with certain aspects of the operation of the computer, customizing all the system defaults, installing specialized uncommon software or even replacing the operating system with something other than what the machine came installed with.
3. Automobile owners view their vehicles as more than just a conveyance, but as an investment or even a status symbol, and go to lengths to protect it as such with theft deterrence and tracking systems. Some PC users view their devices as more than just a tool or a novelty and use it to accomplish tasks they would not otherwise be able to perform without a computer; they balance their checkbook, participate in an auction, or keep a journal or photograph album to be shared with people they’ve never met.
4. There are drivers that speed, so much that they’ve invested in RADAR detection devices in attempts to break the speed limit without getting caught. There are PC owners that could be considered scofflaws in that they violate license agreements, copyright agreements, as well as ethical use.

Active view suggests that vehicles are like computers in that they provide more utility and that makes them not only used more but more functional in their use. The hot-rodders with souped up systems, fancy peripherals, and homegrown or free software become trailblazers that push the limits. These are the “computer geeks” and “hackers”.

Looking at things this way, I’ve found that there are contrasts between these two use cases, but there are also a few similarities. To extend the analogies, homes and vehicles, both require people to obtain some sort of insurance to protect themselves and others as well as the items contained within. Both cases also imply a concept that owners are master of their own domains, constantly making their own decisions.

Doc Searls is exploring how Linux and the Net could be considered infrastructure of hard and soft. I’m not sure how my analogies here would fit into that concept. One thing I am certain of, though, is that there seems to be a fundamental need for change in the way people use computers, or even view the way they are used.

Everyone is forced into becoming their own system administrator, making their own (often uninformed) decisions about their computers whether they actively choose to or not. Whether they realize it or not, this happens often to their own loss and pain (and sometimes damaging others) because most people don’t know how to be a system administrator.

Maybe there should be a license in order to operate a computer. Perhaps there should be some kind of insurance to protect ourselves from computer operators without a license.

Yeah.  Its…  like…  AAAAAAaaaaahhhh!!  What the hell is WRONG with you??  Why don’t you let me HELP you, or at least lets talk about it rationally??!!!

Anyways, just askin’.  Its a legitimate question, right?

That may seem strange to some… but it makes perfect sense to the analytical mind that is self-aware.

Genius
For most people, “genius” is a term they use to describe people that are smarter than the average person. While this seems to be true, its actually deeper than that. “Smart” people appear to make fewer mistakes than others, or they are perceived to be correct more often than not. Really, being a “genius” is as simple as being able to properly analyze things, events, and situations. It has nothing to do with already knowing an answer, or having common sense.
Example: an analytical mind (”genius”) can determine if a peg can fit into a hole before attempting to actually place the peg in the hole. The analysis of size and shape of the peg versus the size and shape of the hole is carefully examined, and thousands of mental calculations are done. If the peg and hole don’t carefully align together mentally, the “genius” will abandon the thought process of putting the peg into the hole. It just won’t be possible, and alternatives are examined.
This is what is called analytical intelligence.

Common Sense
Everyone has common sense. It is basically the ability of your brain to remember the outcome of a test. People know that red means stop, and green means go. Why? Because if they thought red means go, bad things will happen and people will get hurt. You know not to touch a pot on the stove because it may be hot. Why? You tried touching a hot pot before, and you burned your fingers. It is common sense because the outcome was a bad traffic accident or pain in your fingers from the pot on the stove. This is what some psychologists call practical intelligence.

Analytical and Practical
Everyone approaches problems differently. The analytical mind (”genius”) begins by examining the situation, all the facts, and how all the information presented relates. There are no attempts to solve anything until all the options for a solution are carefully weighed for the most successful result. On the flip side, common sense is based solely on what has already happened in the past — there is no analysis at all except to try to match the current situation to a similar instance in history.
They said that even Einstein, the father of modern physics and general relativity, used to forget his own phone number. For most people, its common sense to remember your own phone number. How could one of the most brilliant minds in history forget his own phone number? Common sense. Maybe he never had a need to phone himself. If he had a need to phone himself, he would have discovered what his phone number is and gone through the mental process of touching a hot pot — he would remember instinctively. While it might not be true that even Einstein forgot his phone number, or even had a phone, it begins to form a theory…

Common Sense and Genius are inversely proportionate.
The more common sense someone has, the less genius (analytical intelligence) that person will have. Likewise, the more someone appears to be “smart”, the less common sense he/she will likely have. I believe this is because when the brain approaches something, it tends to lean to one way of thinking than the other. After a while, the brain gets used to thinking one way more than another. Or, it could be that most of the energy in the brain gets reserved to one way of thinking than another.

Some people put their keys in the exact same place each time they come home after a drive, because they’ve learned that if they place the set of keys as a routine, there is no need to analyze where keys might be when they are needed again.
Some people put their keys wherever they drop them when they get home. These people can remember where their keys are most of the time, and the rest of the time use a combination of analytical and practical intelligence — “where did I leave them last time?” “what was I doing, when I put them down?” “what are all the common places I leave the keys?”
Some people do not care to remember where they leave their keys, and go through the entire analytical process each time they need their keys. Every time keys are needed, the process begins — “Are the keys here?” “Are the keys near the door?” “Are the keys on the counter, near the door?” “Are the keys in the car?” “Are the keys still in my pocket?” and so on.

What’s the point of all this?
Some people are completely analytical, and appear to be “smart” while other people have good common sense but aren’t praised for their intelligence. This seems backward, or at least odd. However, it does seem to be true that any one person could be mostly analytical and have no common sense, or a person could have a tremendous amount of common sense but not know how to effectively solve problems.

So, really… when you think about it… if you find yourself losing your keys, you just might be a genius! And… if people call you a genius… use some of your brain power to remember where the hell your keys are. If these two kinds of people could merge into a cohesive unit, the world would be a better place, and we’d all be learning and remembering, and probably have fewer problems.