APPLEVISION Monitor

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Mon May 6 16:54:49 2002

No ... it's the use of terms like "winblows" that indicates the limited
thinking. There are plenty of reasons why one might hate Microsoft, but
letting that hatred stand in the way of clear thinking about why the entire
computer industry is going the way it is a clear indicator that the references
of foolishness or stupidity are pointing in the wrong direction.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Moyers" <rmoyers_at_nop.org>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor


> On Monday 06 May 2002 14:48, you wrote:
>
> > The fact is we DO expect to operate a computer without having to enroll in
> > a defensive computing class, though I think it might be warranted just the
> > same.
>
> > People also expect to get work out of their microwave oven or TV set as
> > soon as they turn it on. Why not the computer? It's not sacred. It's
> > just an appliance.
>
> An appliance has its function predetermined, a computer does not
> its what i often mean by "winblows limited" thinking, the brain
> damage caused by winblows, the destruction of creativity
> and the forming of a box around the brain that it soon cannot
> operate outside of.
>
> A toaster makes toast but it cannot ... well it makes toast.
> And a TV set ... well its a video receiver
>
> And winblows .. is well winblows
>
> Unix on the otherhand, look and feel, user interface, end
> use, nothing is predetermined, because no human on earth could
> hope to know what you desire of it, unless you're precooking
> prefab for the Kelly girls in the secretarial pool or a touch
> screen order station for a burger stand. and then the aim
> is to provide the tools not force anyone to accept anything.
>
Clearly, the majority of the world doesn't agree with you. Most of the
computers that live in offices are used in exactly the way that you're
denegrating here, and if they didn't do that, you couldn't afford one and
neither could I.
>
> Chapter 1: Philosophy Matters
> "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
> -- Henry Spencer
>
<geting on soapbox>

This sort of drivel comes from those who are so insecure in their
understanding of the world, as well as the world of computers, that they fear
that if someone else is able to do what they cannot, they're doomed to
oblivion. Perhaps they're right... or should be.

<back on the ground now>
>
> Write small pieces connected by clean interfaces.
> Design programs to communicate easily with other programs.
> Robustness is the child of transparency and simplicity.
> Design for simplicity; add complexity only where you must.
> Design for transparency; spend effort early to save effort later.
> In interface design, obey the Rule of Least Surprise.
> Programmer time is expensive; conserve it in preference to machine time.
> Avoid hand-hacking; write programs to write programs when you can.
> Use smart data so program logic can be stupid and robust.
> Prototype, then polish. Get it working before you optimize it.
> Distrust all claims for ``one true way''.
>
... well, me-boy ... I'd say, "take a slice of yer own advice ..."
Received on Mon May 06 2002 - 16:54:49 BST