From: Chris Devers Date: 06:23 on 11 Oct 2007 Subject: inrainbows.com Okay, so it's a web site. So there's that. And okay, so most of the content on this list tends to be things that are let's say "accidentally hateful" or "hates of omission rather than hates of commision", which is to say, they're usually not actively trying to be difficult, but just chafing against how savvy users would expect them to behave. So there's that, too. But come on. I wanted to like this. This is supposed to be The Future. Radiohead releases their new album sans record label, on their website. Except, err, in 20 minutes of poking around, I can't find a link for it. I keep getting linked to different domains, including one selling all of their other albums, but nothing for this one. The closest is a link labelled "HODIAU DIREKTON", which pops a new window with the album art for the album I'm trying to find, but no link to it. (I'm sure of this, I ended up reading the HTML source to be sure of it.) So, no problem, I try Google. No radiohead.com links in the first couple of pages. Hrm. First one is rollingstone.com, which seems promising for at least pointing the right direction. Except, err, the first half-dozen or so people commenting on the article are saying "I want to buy the album, but can't find the link". Hrm. Ah, here we go, someone says that you have to just "know" to go to inrainbows.com, which now I see that the nice Mr. Google tried to tell me about, albeit without the customary link summary info, hence my seeing right past it the first time. So, load the site, what do we have? Album art. Colors. *click* A promo-slash-info page. *click* An order page, with links for DISCBOX or DOWNLOAD, both labelled "PRE-ORDER", even though it's no longer pre-. Oh well. *click* "This item has been added to your basket". *click* Back to order page. Find VIEW BASKET link. *click* The famous oh-so-prisoner's-dilemma "name your price" page. With no numbers filled in, and no "Checkout" link. Fill in a number. *click* "You have no items in your basket." *click* Back to order page. Dammit. Go to DOWNLOAD again. *click* Fill in a number. "PAY NOW" link magically appears. Super. *click* From there it's pretty routine web order checkout stuff, but the hoops you have to go through to get to that point are absurd, implying at least one or both of: * rock bands know nothing about making a usable web site (and thus this could end up poisoning their experiment in "name your price" as would-be buyers either give up and turn to BitTorrent, or get annoyed & pay zero) * rock bands actually *might* know how to make a usable web site, but may just be willfully trying to confound all expectations how how a site should work (and thus still poisoning their experiment) In any case, I'll happily pay for a copy of a CD, but I'm feeling a lot more wary about paying for ... whatever it was that the process for getting this "name your price" this way was trying to accomplish. As far as I can see, the point is to insult the industry and the buyers. :-/
From: Chris Devers Date: 14:31 on 29 Sep 2007 Subject: RsyncX RsyncX is a Mac GUI for rsync. Fair enough. It wants to be complete, so it bundles an rsync binary. Fair enough. But come on. Why litter the $PATH like this? $ /usr/local/bin/rsync --version | head -1 rsync version 2.6.0 protocol version 27 The system is already bundled with this: $ /usr/bin/rsync --version | head -1 rsync version 2.6.3 protocol version 28 No wonder half my usual rsync flags haven't been working since a coworker installed RsynxX... :-/ Then again, spite me for not using full paths. Fair enough.
From: Chris Devers Date: 03:38 on 05 Apr 2007 Subject: shrunken Vista So this is probably too easy a target, but what the hell. Someone came to me today asking for help getting something to work on her 4 day old Vista laptop. One of those fun situations where the Damned Thing doesn't work, and it's tricky to pin down whether it's one vendor's hardware or software, or the other vendor's hardware or software, but all you can do is make sure everything is up to date & hope for the best. A tragic hope, to be sure. Providing a fun distraction from all of this, the system spontaneously went black, then came back up with the display resolution dropped from something like 1280x800 to 800x600. "Why did everything get so big?", she asked. Good question. We have half a dozen windows open, so too tedious to right-click on the desktop, better to just bring up the Control Panel. But wait, where is it? Ah, I see, it's one of about a dozen items on the second row of the Start menu, with the translucent background that makes it disappear against the window behind it. Tricky. Bring up Control Panel. We're looking at the new, streamlined, Vista iteration of this interface, apparently. It would seem that in this version they've done away with all the icons entirely, as we're staring at a blank window, with some useless text on the sidebar & some menu options up top. One of the menu options offers "Classic view", which seems promising. Click it. Icons appear! Start scanning the list, none of them look promising. No "display", no "monitor", no "resolution", etc. Hm. One of them mentions NVidia, which is exactly where one would expect a computer-industry-naive person like this to go looking for ideas. Click it. A window comes up. It offers a way to change 3D settings. And that's about it. Hm. Start debating whether we can just reboot to make the problem go away, or try the Gateway equivalent of zapping PRAM (hey why not). Back to the Start menu, nothing labelled "shutdown", "reboot", etc. Ah, but there on the bottom row, one of the buttons has the universally used (but universally un-recognized) "power" logo -- the one like a pointing-updards "C" with a line pointing up. Click it. The screen immediately goes black and the fans fall silent. Press the power button. The system immediately comes up to a login screen. "Does it really boot this fast?" "No, you just logged me out. Should I reboot?" "Please." She then takes an elaborate series of steps that I'm too annoyed to pay much attention to. A couple of minutes later, we've rebooted and the display problem remains unresolved. (We haven't even had time to deal with the original question that brought her over asking for help...). Right- click on the desktop, the context menu again offers nothing for "display" or "monitor" or anything obvious like that, but "NVidia" shows up again. Click it. A different window comes up, looking much more like the traditional Windows display settings dialog. Fix the resolution. Sheep shaved, problem solved. We never did get around to figuring out the original problem though. Now, to be fair, I am admittedly rusty and getting rustier with my Windows skills, but come on, can it really be that hard to just label things usefully? Why should someone have to know the manufacturer of the video hardware in order to make changes to the display? Why does every damned laptop have a completely different mechanism -- all with entirely too many useless knobs & switches -- for attaching to an open wireless network? What, in short, would be so bad about just offering one, simple, consistent way to do common tasks like this, rather than these further down the rabbit hole journeys into madness? It's enough to make a grown man cry, I tells ya.
From: Chris Devers
Date: 15:17 on 29 Sep 2006
Subject: flogging a dead horse, but masterfully
Andy Ihnatko should be on hates-software. He does it so well. :-)
To rudely over-quote:
But what I've endured over the past few months is the equivalent
of a weeklong road trip with someone whose company you've always
enjoyed, but never really known as a true friend. Windows has
propped its bare smelly feet up on my dashboard and told me the
story about how he was so hung over during his aunt's funeral that
he threw up into the coffin a little. His greasy hair has left
smears on the inside of the window that no solvent can shift. He
just sort of assumed that he could use my iPod, and during the one
time he took a turn at the wheel, the battery was completely flat
and I had to listen the story about the funeral a second time.
So I'm not saying that my fond regards won't return in time. But I'm
going to have to spend a few weeks alone first.
[...]
As Mac users, we haven't had enough exposure to wretched software
design to develop any natural antibodies, and for this, we envy our
brethren in the Windows community. We truly, truly do.
[...]
Thirty days after you unpacked a new PC, it starts. The DVD decoder
starts asking you if you want to now purchase the optional super DVD
decoder. The antivirus app tells you that your subscriptions are out
of date and you need to provide a credit-card number. There was some
kind of branded media player that you never launched even once, and
it continues to throw popups in your face every five minutes despite
your yelling at the screen every time it happens.
Yes, your user experience has now turned into Pledge Week at your
local public television station ... and you did't even get to see a
Monty Python marathon first.
[...]
What shocks me back into reality? A sudden memory from a couple of
weeks ago, when I came across the official personal website of
Justin Guarini.
You know ... the guy who came in second during the first season of
"American Idol." The one who looks like Sideshow Bob from "The
Simpsons," and who sings like a yard-sale painting of a teary-eyed
clown on brown velvet.
Yeah, he built the site in iWeb.
If I'm a member of the same user community as that guy, then
clearly, I shouldn't go throwing stones.
http://www.macuser.com/ihnatko/ihnatko_harsh_words_for_window.php
From: cdevers
Date: 04:00 on 13 Sep 2006
Subject: Oh please wait a minute Mister iTunesman
Please Mr iTunesman
( Stop )
Oh yes, wait a minute
Mister Tunesman
( Wait )
Wait Mister Tunesman
(*) Please Mister Tunesman look and see
( Oh yeah )
If there's some artwork in your store for me
( Please, Please, Mister Tunesman )
Why's it takin' such a long time
( Oh yeah )
For me to see about this artwork of mine
There must be
Some PNGs tonight
For my song files
To make them right
Please Mister Tunesman
Look and see
If there's some artwork
Some artwork for me
I've been standin' here
Watchin' Mister Tunesman
So confusedly
Take the soundtrack
For the movie "Rushmore"
It has "The Faces"
But others too
So why ya' usin' "Ooh La La"
For the cover?
Repeat (*)
So many soundtrackss
You passed them by
See the tears
Standin' in my eyes
You didn't stop
To see compilations
By leavin' them
The right illustrations
Repeat (*)
( Why don't you check it and see one more time
for me you gotta )
Wait a minute, wait a minute...
( Mister Tunesman )
Mister Tunesman look and see
( C'mon deliver the artwork, 'cause right now it don't work )
Mister Tunesman
*ahem*
Sorry, I'm on a Motown kick this week.
Really though, grabbing album artwork is clever and useful, but...
* ...using The Faces' "Ooh La La" for the "Rushmore" soundtrack?
* ...using James Brown's "Black Caesar" for "Lock, Stock, and Two
Smoking Barrels"?
* ...using James Brown's "20 All Time Greatest Hits!" for both the
"Rocky IV" soundtrack (for "Living in America", the only song I have
from that album) and Nancy Sinatra's version of "You Only Live
Twice" from the James Bond soundtrack of the same name (and again,
the only song I have from that album).
Would it be too hard to check if a track is flagged a compilation, and
if so, make sure that the retrieved artwork is from an compilation?
For that matter, making sure that the name of the album (and artist) is
the same on both sides would be a good start, no?
Still, quirks aside, and ObHate aside, it is a fun UI...
From: Chris Devers
Date: 20:25 on 03 May 2005
Subject: obfuscated opt-out clauses
The MSDN subscription renewal form I was handed yesterday had the
following delightful opt-out clause in the footer:
I do not want Microsoft to send me pertinent security,
product, an event information via:
[ ] work address
[ ] email address
[ ] business phone number
[ ] Microsoft Partners may contact me with information
about their products, services, and events.
No, it's not *technically* software, bu rather a threat about how they
would like to use their software against you if you can't successfully
traverse their mindfield of a mandatory registration form.
And hatefulness? Yes, it has that, in spades.
From: Chris Devers
Date: 20:59 on 07 Apr 2005
Subject: Windows's Network Connection Wizard
Boot new computer.
As is perfectly reasonable, networking isn't set up and doesn't default
to just asking for a DHCP lease. Why make assumptions?
(Also, for good measure, select a good, reasonable, headache-inducing
default screen refresh rate of 60 Hz, because if you pick a rate too
high you might burn out a perfectly good monitor that will be useless
forever, but if you set it too low, the human will easily recover from
the migraine in well under an hour.)
Look under Network settings. Only one icon shows up:
Make New Connection
Sounds promising, click on it.
Welcome to the Network Connection Wizard
You click "Next", and are presented with a series of paths to follow.
Dial up to private network ?
No, I just want to get a DHCP lease on the local LAN.
Dial up to the Internet ?
No, I just want to get a DHCP lease on the local LAN.
Connect to a private network through the Internet ?
No, I just want to get a DHCP lease on the local LAN.
Accept incoming connections ?
No, I just want to get a DHCP lease on the local LAN.
Connect directly to another computer ?
No, I just want to get a DHCP lease on the local LAN.
Sorry, that's it. You need to pick one of the above.
Shit. Okay, "Connect directly to another computer" sounds kind of close.
Kind of. Until you click "Next" to look at it.
Choose the role you want for this computer:
( ) Host. This computer has the information you want to access.
( ) Guest. This computer will be used to access information on the
host computer.
No, no no. Go back, randomly try "Accept incoming connections".
Selet the check box next to each device you want to use.
[ ] Direct Parallel (LPT1)
No no no! The VPN ones definitely don't look right, but then neither do
the dial-up ones. What the hell, try "Dial-up to the Internet".
The dialog goes away, and is replaced by
Welcome to the Internet Connection Wizard
Blah blah blah.
(*) I want to sign up for a new Internet account.
( ) I want to transfer my existing Internet account to this computer.
( ) I want to set up my Internet connection manually, or I want to
connect through a local area network (LAN).
YES! YES! THAT ONE RIGHT THERE!
How do you connect to the internet?
(*) I connect through a phone line and a modem
( ) I connect through a local area network (LAN).
THE SECOND ONE YOU SIMPLETON!
Select the method you would like to use to configure your proxy
settings. Blah blah blah.
+- Automatic Configuration -----------------------------------+
| |
| [ ] Automatic discovery of proxy server (recommended) |
| [ ] Use automatic configuration script |
| Address: [ ] |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
[ ] Manual proxy server
What? Huh? No, I just want a damned DHCP lease.
Do you want to set up an Internet mail account now?
(*) Yes
( ) No
And be saddled with Outlook or Outlook Express? I think not!
Completing the Internet Connection Wizard
Blah blah blah.
[X] To connect to the Internet immediately, select this box
and then click Finish.
Fine, whatever. "Finish".
An Internet Explorer window pops up and attempts to load www.msn.com.
Thirty seconds later...
The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The web site
might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to
adjust your browser settings.
(Neither of which is in fact true, but no matter.)
Please try the following:
* Click the _Refresh_ button, or try again later.
(No change.)
* If you typed the address, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
(N/A.)
* To check your connection settings, click the *Tools* menu, and
then click *Internet Options*. On the *Connections* tab, click
*Settings*. The settings should match those provided by your
local area network (LAN) administrator or Internet service
provider (ISP).
(I *am* the lan admin in this case, and these instructions are plainly
on the wrong track.)
* If your Network Administrator has enabled it, Microsoft Windows
can examine your network and automatically discover network
connection settings. If you would like Windows to try and discover
them, click _Detect Network Settings_.
Sounds promising! Click it!
[Nothing happens. But it takes a long time for nothing to happen.]
Wait longer.
[Nothing continues to happen. The mouse pointer is an arrow again.]
Give up and go back to your Mac or Linux machine.
Everything just works.
Yay.
From: Chris Devers Date: 20:22 on 07 Apr 2005 Subject: Windows permissions and painfully misimplemented multi-user system Ghod do I love installing applications on Windows for new hires. In a better world, this would be no big deal. Install the OS, set us basic system settings, create accounts &/or attach to Samba domain, install standard applications, deploy. But no, the application installs are rarely that straightforward. Some require an administrator account to install, because they need to vomit random files and folders all over <C:\Program Files> and possibly <C:\Documents and Settings>. Some do not require an administrator account to install, because they just need to vomit random files and folders all over <C:\Program Files> and possibly <C:\Documents and Settings>. Spot the inconsistency thus far. The former tend to be available to all users of the system; the latter tend to just work for the account that installed it. Moreover, more often than not, the latter *don't work at all* for any account other than the one that installed it, which leads to all kinds of fun debug routines. "What the hell? Palm Desktop worked when I gave you that computer, and so did AdAware. Why don't they work now? Why does everything else work?" Sometimes, the "easy" fix is to go in, move any vomitus from my <C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator> tree over to the system-wide <C:\Documents and Settings\All Users> one, then follow this up with the equivalent of a `chmod -R 0777` to allow anyone to do anything to the settings and application files & folders, not because this makes sense, but because if I don't do it, the application doesn't work at all. And of course, there's no rhyme or reason to this. As near as I can tell, it's all just down to the whim of the vendor's programming and QA departments, because Microsoft doesn't appear to enforce any kind of recognized coding or deployment policy about this. My favorite crapware of an installation is probably Meetingmaker, which can only be installed by an account with administrator priviliges -- implying that it's going to be available system wide. But no, it only works for the account which installed it, so if your company policy is not to grant users admin accounts on their desktops, then they can't use the company groupware system. To fix this, you have to do the above mentioned "grant full access to this folder tree to all accounts", at which point anyone can tamper with it however the whim might please them. This may be risky, but if you don't do it that way, you just can't run it. Brilliant. I'd be berating Meetingmaker for this bonedead setup, but they're hardly the only ones doing this sort of thing. Palm Desktop makes the same mistake. AdAware is "better", in that it will run for other users, but all the widgets are missing, so it might as well not work at all. Etc. Haven't these people learned any lessons from other systems? All the endless wrangling over /bin /usr/bin /usr/local/bin /opt/bin /sw/bin etc is tedious, but the point being debated is valid & widely accepted -- there needs to be distinctions among vendor, system, and user installed programs -- and the approaches to the problem all more or less make the situation Less Bad. Windows just ignores it all and has everything drop into a shared /bin directory, which you may or may not need magic pixie dust to alter. Maybe I just need some of the magic pixie dust that the stoner that settled on this was smoking at the time...
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi