Typing computer software

[machintruc]

That may sound retarded, but I think software DO give some priority to some information aspects, and less to others.

I started by typing... video games (cognitive and emotional content). There's some evidence that most shoot-em-up's are LSI, most FPS's are SEE, and so on.

That night, (my mind is really restless...) I had a thought that for example, operating systems can have types.

Here are some examples :

DOS and CP/M : LII
Windows : LIE
Linux : ILI
Solaris : LSI
OpenBSD : LSI
NetBSD : SLE
OS/2 : LSE (reminiscent of IBM, which is LSE)

I'll explain :

- Windows is more efficiency-oriented, but to the detriment of stability (doesn't much apply in NT-based Windows, though)
- BSD is more stability-oriented, and minimising vulnerabilities (negativist )
- Solaris is reputated to be very stable, but very slow
- OS/2 is quite stable and efficient, but quite slow
- DOS-like systems appear complicated, but are actually very easy to understand, logical and consistent - it's caracteristic of

However, this is quite approximative.

What for an Enneagram of Operating Systems ? which one should integrate which one ?
What for minimising weak aspects ? Windows is currently acquiring and . All types can feel like they were their illusionaries at times... Sometimes I feel like I'm an LSE.

What for typing other computer software ? For example, what motivates some internauts to prefer Firefox to IE, or IE to Firefox ? or even other obscure browsers...

I mean, Socionics does not just describes aspects of human mental, verbal and physical behaviours. It also explains the aspects of the whole reality. Even computer software, or even hardware. No matter what.

[xyz]

Linux can't be sli. Way too much philosophy.

[machintruc]

Linux can't be sli. Way too much philosophy.

Then what type do you suggest for Linux ?

[machintruc]

I think maybe ILI?

Quite possibly.

[machintruc]

I can make a partial enneagram of operating systems :

5 MS-DOS
6 Windows
7 NetBSD
8 OpenBSD
9 Linux
1 Solaris
2 (still not found)
3 OS/2
4 (still not found)

See the integration thing.

[machintruc]

Althro I don't think Microsoft is ILE and rather LIE, I think Windows NT is ILE.

No, Windows NT is very clearly efficiency-oriented, though not very stable, hence LIE.

In contrast to OS/2, which is still efficiency-oriented, more stable but slower, then LSE.

[machintruc]

The thing is Windows NT is not efficiency oriented. It was compatibility and extensibility oriented.

I will quote a piece.

You're basically quoting the thing. But I don't think Windows is .

[machintruc]

I do not think it's oriented. I think it was oriented.

It was built on modernizing and integrating many generations of disparate systems under a single umbrella.

How do compatibility and extensibility are rather than ? Isn't it more like "space" ? "territory" ?

[machintruc]

I think they are two sides of the same in this particular situation.

It was as if they were gathering up all the potential energy from all this disparate based systems that were performing the tasks at that time... and preparing it for (adoption) and of course eventually (market dominance).

But the actual creation of Windows NT imo was a endeavor.

Think of it as a quadra relay.

The actual creation of NT may be , but not NT itself.

[aestrivex]

how do you type a piece of software? seriously.

[Mediator Kam]

how do you type a piece of software? seriously.

I was going to say the same thing.

[cracka]

how do you type a piece of software? seriously.

I think software is just the tip of the iceberg. I bet there's a few people here that have typed everything in their home...lol

[UDP]

blah blah blah

[machintruc]

Usually there are rival softwares that do approximately the same thing.

Some people seek stability (), others seek efficiency (), others seek compatibility (), and so on.

For example, you can ask yourself :

- What are the types of Windows/Linux users
- What are the types of Microsoft Office/Openoffice.org users
- What are the types of IE/Firefox users
- What are the types of Norton AV/Kaspersky/PC Cillin/AVG/NOD32/ClamAV users

and so on.

I mean, types in a cognitive, and physiological sense. For example :

1. An ESI may avoid using antiviruses/firewalls/etc. because he's very skilled to evaluate the good and the bad, and because he wants and antiviruses prevent .

2. An IEI may feel weak and do extensive security software : AV's, firewalls, antispywares, antirootkits, etc. Even if this prevents , because IEI's aren't really interested by .

[machintruc]

FWIW --

I use open source software when I can, mostly because it's free (I'm stingy).

So, I use OpenOffice instead of Microsoft Office, for a start. I do still use Windows because that's simply what I have and I haven't gotten around to installing Ubuntu yet (procrastination). In every other instance, apart from my virus scanner, I use open source, or at least free, software.

Also, Firefox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IE.

And I can't stand the latest Mac OSs (but I didn't mind the earlier ones, like 10 years ago). The interface is horrible. I'm actually quite fond of the Windows XP interface (but Vista needs to die), the problem is that it's Windows.

I should probably hurry up and install Ubuntu.

Personally I set Vista to look like 2K. I'm pretty old-school-inclined.

If you're procrastinatory, then Ubuntu is for you. Except that as an E5, you're not a conflict-avoiding humanistic retard.

In contrast to + types, which think of concrete profit, - types think of ABSTRACT profit. - is greediness. That's right : - types think like "less expenditures, more profit". - types usually think so too.

I can say that : Individualistic types (NT + SF) are more open-source inclined than Collectivistic types (NF + ST).

Ah, if this is what you mean by typing software that is different then what I had sort of think to myself on this topic. Since I write software, often when I'm using software I will get the impression of the creator thru his work and art.

By "typing software" I mean that such software may or may not be relevant to some information elements.

Personally, I tried to deal with Linux, which is . As a type, I tend to do , but not think . Therefore Alphas and Betas are less Linux-inclined than Gammas and Deltas. I somewhat like , but I feel it too complicated for me.

I also tried a few times to create software. Except that I'm pretty bad at it. I may write functional code, find bugs or such, but when I read my own code it's barely readable. I have an hard time to think in an algorithmic manner. That's the difference between and . types are usually more naturally at ease with software programming. Non types may have some skills, but should train their algorithmic thinking.

AND, to play the chauvinist, I can say that women have, on average, less coding skills than men.

Then, for example, most programming software is . I can even say that BASIC and PASCAL are more relevant to LSE, whereas C++ and Assembly are more relevant to LIE.

But... are you ? Then you'll certainly LOOOVE mind-mapping and spreadsheet software.

[machintruc]

I'm currently thinking of typing physiological content of computer software. That seems very nerdy, but I think this has a role in IM, and in motivations to prefer some computer software to others.

For example, I'm doing research in gaming (because such software is easier to type). Why do you prefer some video game rather than another ?

Let's enumerate possible physiological configurations in video games :

-?- : very hard games that produce involvment from the player (Spindizzy Worlds, Bubble Bobble)
-?0 : hard games which may involve tactical rescuing or heroic themes (Robotron, Gaiares)
-?+ : very hard, intimidating games, which involve survival in very hostile conditions (R-Type, Raiden, Contra)
0?- : games that are based on thinking, usually not realtime (Tetrisphere, Military Madness)
0?0 : detail-oriented, slightly intimidating, real-time logical games that require thinking (Radiant Silvergun, Ikaruga, Dodonpachi)
0?+ : competition-oriented games heavily based on the win/lose dichotomy (most FPS's, fighting games, and racing games)
+?- : easy games that produce involvment from the player, accomodating to him (Mario, Mr. Heli)
+?0 : easy games that try to "please" the player rather than proposing him a challenge ; heavy good/evil dichotomy. (Banjo & Kazooie, Sonic)
+?+ : easy and challenge-oriented games (still don't know any ; Bangai-O maybe ???)

S- hard
S+ easy

D- involvment-oriented
D+ challenge-oriented

Recently, I have a thought that inanimate objects may have physiological configurations, or some equivalent. It may be useful as for choosing software than for choosing painting colour or tiled floor

[machintruc]

Internet Explorer : ILI (minimalistic look, looks like "wanting" to be spatially filled)

Mozilla Firefox : LII (well-structured, easy to use and to customise)

[Ezra]

At first I thought this was a joke of a thread; I was considering starting one called "Typing microchips" or something. But I can see some value in it. Consider Mac; what are their principles? What functions do they rely on? Well, IMO, the ideas come from a Si valuer who recognises the value of family and relationships - maybe Fi - (the whole idea of a 'family' computer, as opposed to the Microsoft business-orientated style), who is also adept in Se, enough to create a slick, well-designed computer. At the same time, such a big profit organisation would have to employ lots of Te. So, at the moment, it looks like Mac is fundamentally Delta.

Anyone could say Microsoft was Gamma, although Gates and his 'vision of the future' would seem more Beta, particularly EIE.

[tcaudilllg]

Althro I don't think Microsoft is ILE and rather LIE, I think Windows NT is ILE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cu...tware_engineer)

The lead designer is ILE imo and he really is not the same as the company.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/doc...d.html#forward

The forward to Inside Window's NT.

The biggest thing about Windows has always been the sacrifice for stability in compatibility rather then efficiency.

Also things like older versions of IE and Outlook were open to all sorts of scripting, there were more concerned with feature extensibility rather then anything resembling security.

What I see in this as the important point is that the software conforms to the type of its project leader. This seems to be a maxim for projects in general.

[tcaudilllg]

At first I thought this was a joke of a thread; I was considering starting one called "Typing microchips" or something. But I can see some value in it. Consider Mac; what are their principles? What functions do they rely on? Well, IMO, the ideas come from a Si valuer who recognises the value of family and relationships - maybe Fi - (the whole idea of a 'family' computer, as opposed to the Microsoft business-orientated style), who is also adept in Se, enough to create a slick, well-designed computer. At the same time, such a big profit organisation would have to employ lots of Te. So, at the moment, it looks like Mac is fundamentally Delta.

Anyone could say Microsoft was Gamma, although Gates and his 'vision of the future' would seem more Beta, particularly EIE.

Why not look more closely at Herzy's thread on "jumping to conclusions about type"? I say again and again that you cannot concretize information elements, nor can you associate "visions of the future" -- even prophesy -- with EIE alone. Rick's element vocabularly pages have been terribly abused.

[Ezra]

What the fuck are you talking about?