unity-design team mailing list archive

[Ian Santopietro <isantop@xxxxxxxxx>]

Those are all great, but how do they relate to touch interfaces? Are
touch interfaces inherently invalid in the eyes of the UNIX
philosophy? This is ironic, since I believe well over 90% of
touch-based OSs in use are UNIX-based.

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:50, Chad M/ Germann <cgermann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 12:52 +0100, frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> how do you define Unix-like in 2011?
>
> In a nutshell Keep it Simple, Stupid.
>
> to expand.
>
>  1. Small is beautiful.
>     2. Make each program do one thing well.
>     3. Build a prototype as soon as possible.
>     4. Choose portability over efficiency.
>     5. Store data in flat text files.
>     6. Use software leverage to your advantage.
>     7. Use shell scripts to increase leverage and portability.
>     8. Avoid captive user interfaces.
>     9. Make every program a filter
>    10. 10 Clarity is better than cleverness
>    11. Separate policy from mechanism; separate interfaces from
>        engines.
>    12. In interface design, always do the least surprising thing
>    13. When a program has nothing surprising to say, it should say
>        nothing.
>    14. When you must fail, fail noisily and as soon as possible
>    15. Programmer time is expensive; conserve it in preference to
>        machine time
>
>
>



-- 
Ian Santopietro

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

"Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast
 Ofer middangeard monnum sended"

Pa gur yv y porthaur?

Public GPG key (RSA):
http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234