Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)

From: Christopher Smith <csmith_at_amdocs.com>
Date: Mon Apr 22 17:21:38 2002

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raymond Moyers [mailto:rmoyers_at_nop.org]

> you mean those systems that eschew the command line by
> makeing the function it provided impossible ?

Touche'

> Unix is superior *because* it retained the command line.
> the Unix GUI is also superior, because it is network transparent.

Ok, well, I would argue that Unix is superior to windows because
what architecture Unix has is much more well implemented that the
windows architecture. Having a command-line is, of course, very
helpful in trying to do real work with a computer, but I don't' know
whether I'd give it as a point of superiority.

> > Allmost 99% of unix is based on the main frame model of computing
> > where you have 50 people all say text editing with the same editor
> > and 3 people running a program in the background.

> Ok so you dont know anything about unix, thats what you are
> saying here.

Not exactly, I think he's saying that Unix acts like a multi-user
system. ;) Of course, I could be way off, but I wouldn't argue if
that's the case.

> > The windows model is based on personal computers with
> crappy hardware
> > that you have 100% of the system to yourself.

> How does that differ from my unix boxes ? i certainly have them all
> to myself.

If your unix boxes are based on crappy hardware, I feel sorry for you.

Honestly, the real difference is that on a Unix system, in order to
make the system treat you as if you're the only user in the world,
you've got to make some "adjustments." That's as it should be.

> > I would like to see a 3rd system, one where the concept of
> information
> > can be shared and that gives you a standard toolkit for
> both character
> > and bitmaped displays

> That is an oxymoron, even tho what unix has now makes this look
> like what is happening.

This is hard to interpret. The runes tell me that this might either
mean that he'd like a standard set of APIs for controlling both textual
and graphical windows. That's kind of an interesting idea, and if that's
the case, take a look at Oberon (the programming environment).

They also mention that he could be speaking of separate standard APIs,
a standard for each type of screen. If that's the case, I'd say NeXT
had this for a while. :) X11 is interesting, but the NeXT GUI is much
more efficient and coherent than most X11 systems, AFAICT. The major
exception in X11 being SGI's IndigoMagic environment, which is wonderful.

> Gimp dont translate to a tty very well, but an xterm is certainly the
> bitmapped representation of the tty.

True, but it's certainly possible to make a graphical terminal, and a
standard set of escape sequences. This has been done a few times, with
acceptable results.

> and the bitmapped display is network transparent, making it superior
> to everything else, 2 CPUs or a farm of 4000 boxes, you

I'm still going to mention NeXTSTEP as an exception here. "Superior to
everything else" is a dangerous statement. Network transparency is nice,
of course, and NeXT has that too.

> Unix already has this X11 is a standard you can run your sun apps
> your irix apps your freebsd apps all on the GUI of your linux box all
> at once. and last time i looked, all the other systems have adopted
> our plumbing, not the other way around.

Of course, if you have this, why not use the GUI of your SGI ;)

> eh ? what would be wrong with a nice large 4096 x 3192 screen
> with whatever size fonts you desire ? and the ability to populate
> that screen with the workload of a whole stack of boxes.

Indeed. I wonder this often, myself.

> to the microset winblows can provide. unix has point and
> click too, but it isnt implimented stupidly.

Well, that depends on your definition of "point and click." I certainly
have Unix systems that do it, by any definition, but it's harder to find
a Unix machine that does it according to the definition of most end users.

It can be done very well, and still not dumb the machine down. It has
been done on SGI, NeXT, and AT&T's "UnixPC" to name a few, but I wouldn't
consider what most Unix systems come with (CDE -- Yuck, or for linux GNOME
"Please wait while we redraw the screen...") worth bothering to use.

> So utopian brainwashed fiction writers are now your authority
> on such things ..

Well, the only thing wrong with a utopia is that it's not possible to
sustain for any length of time.

In conclusion, I'm all for criticism of windows, but please note that Unix
is not perfect either. It's just better ;) There are many things that
Unix could learn from other systems. Access controls, privleges, for
instance. -- and it could certainly learn what not to do, and how to
market itself from any microshaft product.

Chris


Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL

/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
 
Received on Mon Apr 22 2002 - 17:21:38 BST