The Wish for an Iconic Desktop

Years ago, I learned that MicroSoft figured out that users didn't like icons on their desktops, and were confused by all the "clutter" that resulted from random programs installing random icons at random times. Since they had no power to prevent these icons from getting there in the first place (in particular, computer vendors loved to include several icons for stock software for their new users! but it was also a problem with random near-viral-trojan programs common at the time too), they introduced a tool to detect unused icons and suggest their removal.

Of course, being the ornery rebellious rascal I tend to be, my reaction to this was "Leave my icons alone! Even the ones I don't want!" To be sure, this didn't bother me too much, since I had already moved to mostly using Linux, but it was something that still rubbed me the wrong way.

At the time, I loved icons! My desktop had a lot of icons! It was a convenient way to keep track of papers I was interested in, to quickly find apps I used often, and to see, at a glance, what I was working on and what I was trying to do ... but there was one thing that drove me nuts about icons, and it was bad enough, I had drifted away from using them: whenever my screen resolution changed, or I accidentally hit "sort icons" when I meant something else, or when I looked at my screen funny and sneezed, my icons would be completely rearranged, and I would have to spend an hour or so putting things back to where I wanted them!

Mind you, this wasn't just a MicroSoft problem, although the problem was bad there. I was using KDE, which which is a Linux Desktop.

This is one of the things that comes to mind when I think about the "Principles of Sane Laws of Computing" -- in particular, the importance of preserving data, and altering it only when the user wants to alter it. The problem, though, is that too many system designers think "data" is text documents, or databases, or photos, or movies ... they don't seem to realize that the "directory stacks" I create in my command line using "pushd" and "popd" commands are data, too! Or the programs I have up and running. Or ... well, the icons I have on my desktop.

I am convinced that MicroSoft was right about people not liking icons -- but I don't think they fully thought through all the reasons that people might not like icons. What good is it to have a lot of icons on your desktop, if every time a new one pops up, or a new screen resolution is selected, or a new monitor added, or who knows what else triggers this? -- everything is rearranged so that a user can no longer rely on their memory to find what they are looking for? I strongly suspect that had Windows (and other graphical environments, for that matter) respected people's placements of icons, the studies would have shown greater popularity and less confusion.

It's been several years since I've had lots of icons on my desktop. I haven't investigated enough whether KDE has advanced so that it could work the way I want it to. Perhaps I'll take some time to poke at it, and see what has changed over the years, and what has stayed the same. Or maybe I just need to ask someone who has recent experience!

Regardless, this is something that's been on my mind for years. Maybe I'll find a way to implement the "iconic system" I have in my head, and see if it really would be as great as I imagine it to be!

OpSys i, the Imaginary Operating System

When I was in college, I gave a lot of thought about what I liked about MS DOS, and what annoyed me about it. The biggest annoyance? That while I logged into my college's Novell network to access my personal files, email, and so forth, any changes I made to that computer were limited to that computer only, and if anyone else came afterward and changed the settings, when I returned to that computer, it would be different! That, and it annoyed me that when my family had a single computer between all of us, we were in constant "tussles" with our settings there, too, and we all had access to each other's personal files. Thus, I wanted an MS DOS that was truly multi-user.

And what did I want from Windows, that would be nice in a Command Line setting? I'd like to be able to run multiple programs at the same time, and switch between them as needed! It annoyed me that I had to either choose to operate under the constraints of a graphical environment, or I had to choose to run one program at a time, closing one so I could open another.

I was determined to fix all of this! At the time, I was particularly in love with Forth (well, technically, I still am) and was going to expand it into an object-oriented dialect I'd call "Opium" (because I figured it would be addictive), and this would be my basis for this system. I realized early on that I'd need to have applications for my OS to be worthwhile, so I imagined writing to WordPerfect asking them to port their program to my OS -- and I suspected early on that WordPerfect almost certainly wouldn't do that for an OS with one user (namely me!).

What became of this? It kindof stalled out when college homework and activities took precedence ... nonetheless, when I finally got around to understanding this odd new OS called "Linux" -- I found the OS I was wanting to design! It had fantastic user management, and if I wanted to run a dozen apps at a time, between "Ctl-Z" to suspend, "fg" to bring to the foreground, "bg" to have it run in the background, and "kill" to eliminate rogue processes, I could do these things from the Command Line!

The name "OpSys i" was a mix of imitating the naming style for "Op Amps" and an admiration of imaginary numbers. Sadly, "OpSys i" will necessarily remain purely imaginary ... unless one considers Linux the embodiment of my imagination!

Then again, maybe I could tame my ambitions some day ... and write my own tiny operating system for microcontrollers ... if I do, perhaps I should call it "OpSys i".

Why am I a Command Line Cave Dweller?

Several weeks ago, I encountered this question on Quora: Do Linux fans actually believe that command line is more user-friendly and intuitive than GUI?. The answer has been percolating in my head ever since then, and I expected to quote it here as an explanation for why I am a "Command Line Cave Dweller". But now that I have finally answered the question myself, I see that I didn't answer the question I wanted to answer for this post (or maybe it does, but it's just too wordy and rambly).

So, what is it about the Command Line that makes it so attractive to permanently move into and make my home? Enough so, that I have not just permanently moved into this space, but have become a patriotic citizen?

Certainly, my childhood experiences almost certainly played a role: I was cut my teeth on BASIC (both on Atari and on a beast of a computer my Father brought home from his work at Sperry Univac, with its 8-inch floppy disks), and when PCs became popular, I lived and breathed MS DOS, and thought Windows 3.1 was clunky and cheesy. But I also can't help but think that, even then, I would have abandoned the Command Line if it wasn't a pleasant experience -- after all, while I have fond memories of the various incarnations of BASIC I have used, I nonetheless cannot help but observe that using BASIC (including "QuickBASIC", which is probably my most favorite incarnation of the language), particularly after having learned better computer languages, is a painful experience.

The answer is multi-faceted, but perhaps the biggest attraction is its simplicity. At its most fundamental level, I give it characters by typing on the keyboard, and the Command Line processes those characters, and spits back answers based on them -- and if I wanted to add ways for the Command Line to process characters, regardless of computer language, all I had to do was learn how to "pull in" characters, which I could then process them in whatever way I desired, and then "push" the results "back out" to the world.

Beyond that, I think that most people underestimate the power of text-based protocols and display systems. Tmux and Gnu Screen gives us windows and panes; escape codes enable pop ups and buttons and pseudo-graphics ... and because all of this is made up of text, it can all be selected and pasted elsewhere!

Perhaps my greatest gripe against the Command Line is, ironically enough, that I cannot use it to display images. It's my understanding that it's possible, and there are even terminals dedicated to providing that functionality, but I haven't yet figured out how to do it.

This Lesson is EVERYWHERE!

Ok, all my "short" blog posts so far have been surprisingly long. Perhaps this one could be short!

A couple of days ago, I noticed A little lever underneath the steering wheel -- one I may have been oblivious to for the last several years -- or maybe I initially knew about it but just forgot about it? -- that does something very simple: it allows me to push the steering wheel in, or pull it out, and to tilt it up or down, and then lock it into place. This may be a simple feature, but it enables each driver of our car to get the steering wheel "just right" for each of us. In another vehicle, it came in very handy when my wife was pregnant!

This is a result of an Air Force discovery: when they were losing pilots to crashes in the 1950s, they noted that their planes were designed for the "average" pilot of the 1920s, and figured that they needed to recalibrate what it meant to be "average". But when they tried to find "average" people, they found almost no one! Hence, the Myth of the Average User, and the realization that the only way to accommodate pilots was to make as many things as adjustable as possible!

This is one lesson that bureaucrats in particular, and pretty much everyone else as well, needs to learn: there is no such thing as "average", and to pretend otherwise will only lead to tortured souls.

This is the single biggest problem I see in education today -- assuming that everyone progresses the same rate, and should learn the same thing, year after year, with no interruption -- and if one particular child doesn't do that, it's a flaw in the child's abilities, and not a problem of the system - and we try to "fix" this for autistics, ADHDers, dyslexics, the highly intelligent, the mildly stupid, and other misfits, with bandaids called "Individual Education Programs" that can be just as rigid as the system it is trying to patch (except for the highly intelligent ones -- even when they are dealing with autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other issues, it's generally assumed that they are smart enough that they'll just "work it out by themselves").

With regards to technology, this is a major reason why I find Windows and Mac OS so irritating: they don't match the way I think, and if I try to get them to match, the result is buggy and weird. While Linux can also struggle with the customization I crave, it nonetheless has far more flexibility to try to do my own thing!

I FOUND IT! Principles of Sane Computing

Several years ago, I was working at a Cryptocurrency Startup that hoped, among other things, to create a cryptocurrency computing platform where, for a little bit of "coin", one can pay for some computing power to do pretty much anything. This is where I learned of NixOS, which we explored as an approach for managing packages and versions -- and I cannot remember if someone pointed me to these "Principles of Sane Computing", or if I found them on my own, they got lodged into my brain and have influenced my thinking concerning human and computer interaction. I nonetheless lost track of them, and couldn't find them, regardless of how hard I tried to search.

But recently I found them! I want to share them here, because if I can, I hope to emulate these principles (and others) with my work in 3D graphics! (I am somewhat limited with what I could do, however, if only because I'm limited to "userspace", and not in a position to write a complete operating system at this time.)

The First Law of Sane Personal Computing: Strict obedience. Assuming physically-intact hardware, the user shall retain full control of the machine at all times. In particular, the handling of the keyboard, mouse, and other human interface devices must take absolute priority over all other processing. The user shall have the ability to issue commands and receive immediate confirmation of said commands at all times, regardless of system load.

The Second Law of Sane Personal Computing: Forgives mistakes. Information which entered the machine through deliberate user action shall never be destroyed or otherwise rendered inaccessible except as a result of deliberate user action to that end. No user action shall lead to the destruction of information unless said destruction is the explicit and sole purpose of the action. If all non- volatile storage space that could hold full undo-information for user-initiated actions is exhausted, the user shall be informed immediately and given the opportunity to explicitly erase unwanted data or connect additional storage devices, thus preventing unintentional information loss.

The Third Law of Sane Personal Computing: Retains knowledge. Volatile storage devices (i.e. RAM) shall serve exclusively as read/write cache for non-volatile storage devices. From the perspective of all software except for the operating system, the machine must present a single address space which can be considered non-volatile. No computer system obeys this law which takes longer to fully recover its state from a disruption of its power source than an electric lamp would.

The Fourth Law of Sane Personal Computing: Preserves meaning. Compilation is to be considered a form of caching, and thus shall happen solely behind the scenes, like all other forms of caching. The machine is to accept no externally-introduced executable code except in the form preferred for making modifications (i.e. source.) All executable code visible during any kind of debugging session or accessible to the user/programmer in any other way shall also be exclusively of this form. Nothing residing at any lower levels of abstraction shall be semantically relevant to the machine's operation. In effect, the machine behaves exactly like a "hardware interpreter" of a high-level programming language. Note that what the silicon actually does to achieve this is irrelevant so long as no programmer need ever be made aware of just how it does it.

The Fifth Law of Sane Personal Computing: Survives interruptions. If the machine encounters an error condition requiring the user's manual intervention, the state of the now-halted process prior to this event shall be preserved, and the user given an opportunity to correct the error using an interactive debugger and resume execution from the saved-and-corrected state. The debugger shall display the code which generated the condition -- and any other executable code on the system, upon request. All of the code shall be viewable and editable in the form preferred for modification.

The Sixth Law of Sane Personal Computing: Reveals purpose. All of the information contained inside the machine's storage array (see the Third Law), whether executable or not, shall be accessible at all times for inspection and modification by the user/programmer, in the form preferred for modification. The user/programmer shall have the ability to modify the functionality of any executable code within the system without cycling power or performing any similar ritual. No modification of any kind shall be able to render the means for undoing said modification (the keyboard and a spare instance of the built-in debugger) inoperable.

The Seventh Law of Sane Personal Computing: Serves loyally. The machine shall never tell a lie to the user/programmer. It shall obey all orders given to it through the human interface devices, without attempting to pass judgement on their legality or morality. The machine shall not put the interests of any third party (including society in the abstract) above those of its user/programmer.

All these principles are also nicely summarized in a single blog post, Seven Laws of Sane Personal Computing. When I rediscovered this blog, I went down a bit of a rabbit hole, because Loper OS has a lot of discussion on the fundamentals of computing and how they can be different from what they are today. For my part, I'm pretty sure I have absorbed additional Laws of Sane Computing, both from my own research, and from my own thoughts!

I am particularly inspired by the lost arts of complete computer control as established by Lisp machines and Smalltalk, as well as other desirable features seemingly lost to time, that work hard to satisfy the Fourth and Sixth Laws. Whenever my computer freezes, however temporarily, I always think back to the First Law and wonder why, at a minimum, I can't at least have control of my mouse, my keyboard, my display, and any task I want focus on. And I always think of the Third Law whenever I have to restart my computer, knowing I'm going to lose certain programs I have running, as well as directory information stored in particular panels.

My Own Little 3D World

Over the years I have had the privilege to try my hand at several 3D CAD programs -- in particular, I worked with BRL CAD because I wanted to experiment with Finite Element Analysis, and when I took a course in Finite Element Analysis, the curriculum was based on Ansys. I have also gone through a LinkedIn course on Solidworks (albeit without access to the program itself), tinkered with Blender (but not too deeply, because Blender doesn't work nicely with Finite Element Analysis), and poked at OpenSCAD and tore my hair out when I tried FreeCAD -- but then it was just as it was transitioning from version 0.21 to version 1.0.0.

And, while it's not exactly a CAD program, several years ago I experimented with using quaternions to handle rotations in Python, with the unfulfilled ambition of creating a 3D version of Nibbles called Nibbles 3D.

I'm pretty sure there are other platforms I have encountered and played with, but I cannot think of what they are at this time.

So, while my experience with 3D CAD software has been spotty, I have nonetheless had enough time to find myself frustrated by several platforms. But despite my frustrations, I quickly discovered that, even when frustrating, CAD programs provide a valuable service: when I was first trying to learn BRL CAD, I struggled to convert PDF blueprints into BRL CAD shapes -- so decided I should pull out my trusty compass, protractor, and ruler, and try my hand at drawing the part the "old fashioned" way -- but I quickly found myself trying to pinch and twist the paper drawings trying to get different perspectives!

Why is it that 3D CAD programs rub me the wrong way? Simply put, I have yet to use a 3D CAD program that works the way I think. I tend to think in terms of points making lines and planes and even volumes, I want to describe curves and surfaces with equations, I would like to explore differential geometry and viewpoints that follow curves and other weird things. And I want to move in a way I find natural! But as far as I can see, CAD programs aren't all that configurable when it comes to movement. (Perhaps I haven't just explored enough -- FreeCAD in particular had several options for 3D space navigation ... and it's not implausible that they have a way to create your own conventions.)

I am not alone about my concerns with 3D CAD! One Franklin Veaux on Quora disputes the notion that 3D printing is popular; one of his gripes concerns the state of 3D CAD:

3D modeling programs are currently in about the state word processing was in back in the days of WordStar. There are basically two tiers of 3D modeling programs: primitive, limited programs with terrible user interfaces, and powerful, full-featured programs with UIs that are beyond terrible. I come from a time when it was considered “normal” to buy a commercial program and then copy-paste the BIOS hooks for your particular CP/M machine into the program and assemble it yourself, and modern 3D apps have the worst user experience I have ever encountered. When your program makes patching a CP/M app look user friendly, you’ve made some poor life choices.

In a Formlabs Short, Adam Savage (of "Tested" and "Mythbusters" fame) expressed his own concerns that 3D CAD makes it difficult to create aesthetically pleasing drawings and other things.

So, what the heck would I do differently? I would draw on my experience with Vim and Emacs and Tmux -- make the system highly configurable and extendible. I would draw from my experience playing Descent and make movement casual and completely controllable. I would further draw on game design, adding in real-time collision detection and a physics engine, and even attempt to run Finite Element Analysis in real time. I would like to blur the lines between the base computer language (Common Lisp), computer algebra systems, and computer graphics. When I want to do something, I would like to do it in a nice, intuitive, mathematical way -- a good portion of my frustrations with CAD comes from having to jump through hoops to do what I want to do, and in too many cases, what I want to do is altogether impossible -- but I should be able to define a line anywhere, darn it! and put notes and stuff wherever I want!

I admit to approaching the subject with a tad bit of naivety -- I'm sure that *some* of this has been implemented in *some* CAD systems -- but not really. If I design a part, I want to just "drop it in place" (in some cases, literally), and let the geometry, the physics engines, and whatever artificial constraints I wish to throw in or deactivate at the last minute, all as a natural part of the design process. I cannot do that with any system currently available.

And, having said all that, I'm not even sure I'm "the one" who will make 3D CAD intuitive -- I am, after all, using freaking Common Lisp and Vim and Emacs as my inspiration! I have reasons for doing that, to be sure, but those reasons deserve more explanation.

Perhaps all this is just an excuse -- a way to justify starting from scratch with "first principles", and see what can grow from there -- after all, we live in a world where pretty much everything seems to have been already discovered, debugged, and packaged nicely in little black boxes that let us be ignorant of what's inside -- and, to be fair, to some degree that ignorance is justified, even necessary, if merely because the world is a complex and overwhelming place, and it's impossible to implement All the Things anyway.

Then again, if no one ever starts out from first principles, to learn what we already know, how in the world can we push against the frontiers of knowledge, to extend them beyond what we currently know and understand?

Work as a Junior Engineer

I mentioned in my last blog post that I have started a position as a "Junior Engineer". I did not seek this position out. My wife found it in online Classifieds and sent it to me, about two or three weeks after I cynically applied to about a dozen places to satisfy the terms of applying for unemployment deferment for student loans. (I don't like doing that, because I don't particularly want to work full time, and I don't even know if I can even work full time at this point, but every time I apply, I ask myself "if the job is offered, would I take it and give it my best shot?" and so long as I answer "yes", I figure it's just cynicism and not dishonesty.) I applied as a lark because the position seemed interesting, and I figured that because I lacked a mechanical engineering degree, I wouldn't be offered anything anyway.

In the course of about two weeks, I went through a quick interview process that ended with me being hired!

What the heck am I doing there? As I said before, I applied on a lark not expecting to get this position, so I don't know. My employer, however, thought that between my mathematical background, my tinkering with 3D graphics and CAD, and my software engineering experience, it should be enough for me to take on some of his clients' projects so that he could focus more of his own time on preparing a drone for DARPA. So far at least, he's been right! Right now, I'm working on a project to try to push the limits of physics to figure out if we could recreate a free energy device that the client was convinced he created a couple of decades ago.

What have I learned so far? I really, really, really like 3D printing! I have also learned how to program ESP32 microcontrollers -- which has also reinforced my irritation with C and C++. I have proven to myself I can use CAD programs just fine, although probably in ways that make mechanical engineers cringe -- and although I appreciate OnShape, it reinforces to myself that maybe I can do better. I have learned (from listening to discussions about a coworker's project) that ABS plastic isn't food safe -- which explains why I felt so sick that one time I ate a bowl of Legos. And I have learned I can really, really really enjoy my work ... but still be completely miserable! I have also learned how much time I've been spending on both chores and getting my children to do their chores (mostly by how much chores have just pretty much stopped when I started working full time) -- and thus, if I want to do more of my own things, I need to find ways to get my children to do more chores, and to encourage them to do things on their own accord.

How long can this last? I don't know. My employer will be moving soon, and as much as I'd like to follow him, I don't think I could justify it when I'm only making $20/hour and it would be disruptive for the rest of my family. What's worse, however, is that full-time work completely drains my energy. Unless I can figure out how to work full-time (or whether I need to cut back on hours) and still sleep when I need to, work on my own things, I cannot help but worry that I am going to run myself into the ground.

Free energy, seriously? Isn't that a waste of time? It probably is, but I figure that between the tiny possibility that the client might be right about this, and all the microcontroller and 3D CAD work I've been learning, and the cynical fact that someone is willing to pay for this, even if the task ultimately proves unfruitful, I cannot help but appreciate the opportunity!