Apple did not "rip-off" Xerox/PARC
Gary Riley
(kir...@psu.edu) wrote:
> Hearing people talk about how Apple ripped off the idea for their GUI is
> starting to get a bit annoying, especially when I hear it from people that
> have traditonally been strong Mac supporters. So many times I have seen
> people tout the design and efficency of the Mac interface, and then cheapen
> the accomplishment by adding something like "which they took from Xerox, of
> course". I saw it two or three times yesterday and I have finally had
> enough.
[snip]
> So, what the hell did they do with it. NOTHING! Xerox and its researchers
> never understood or believed that the public was in any way interested in a
> personal computer. One of the PARC project leaders, Alan Kay, later said
> "What I completely misunderstood about the microcomputer industry was the
> hunger people had for any kind of computer."
[snip]
> Many of the researchers were excited that someone was actually interested in
> their work and wanted to develop it for the public, Xerox certainly had no
> intention to do so. The Apple interface, though it used many of the same
> ideas is definately not a rip off. It was fine tuned and in many areas
> advanced well beyond what the PARC people ever expected.
I agree almost completely. Xerox actually did make a computer based on
the PARC research called the Star. This used to be our standard secretarial
workstation at the Johnson Space Center until several years ago. You could
definitely tell that it had the same origin as the Mac, but from the brief
experience I had using it, it was nowhere near as polished.
After 10 years and numerous enhancements, the Mac OS is in need of an
overhaul, and there are portions of the interface which are still
difficult, inconsistent, or confusing. But the impression that I am
consistently left with after using the Macintosh is that considerable
thought has been given to the design of the OS (specifically the
human/computer interface). Honestly, the impression I get from all
other OSs is that someone equated dialogs and menu with ease of use
and figured that any OS using these would be easy.
Gary Riley
Tom Halter
writes:
>I suppose the issue surrounds the definition of 'ripped off'. My
>interpretation was that Apple did not invent 'their' GUI, but simply
>took what they saw at XEROX and adapted it to their equipment/needs.
>
>BTW, that interface is rather outdated today.
>
>I find the MAC interface extremely frustrating and limiting in
>comparison to X, or OS/2 for example.
Maybe to you, but not to a first time user. After teaching
various computer novices Macs, PCs, and, yes, UNIX, the Mac was
by far the easiest to learn. If being easy to use makes it brain
dead, well than call me brain dead.
Curious, my experience is totally opposite of yours. Everybody has
their own definition of limiting and frustrating, I guess. Of all
the OS's I've used, I've found UNIX and OS/2 to be the most
frustrating and limiting. Both are a bear to install, applications
are scarce and expensive (try walking into CompUSA and finding any
apps for either OS/2 or X).
------------------------| Learn from your parents' mistakes -
Tom Halter | use birth control!
Cleveland, Ohio |
mailto:t...@apk.net |------------------------------------------
1994 Acura Integra GS-R 1992 Honda CBR600F2 DoD#1365
kir...@psu.edu
starting to get a bit annoying, especially when I hear it from people that
have traditonally been strong Mac supporters. So many times I have seen
people tout the design and efficency of the Mac interface, and then cheapen
the accomplishment by adding something like "which they took from Xerox, of
course". I saw it two or three times yesterday and I have finally had
enough.
Xerox formed PARC in 1970 as a research hotbed. It had no obligation to
produce commercial products and never intended to do so. It was a hands on
think tank.
PARC researchers used their past experiences and research from many places to
produce the supposed "ripped off" design. The original idea was to produce
an easy to use computer that had clear graphics and some mouse type device.
Interestingly, the computer they produced used Ethernet, WYSIWYG, icons,
windows and a mouse. And this is still early to mid 1970's.
So, what the hell did they do with it. NOTHING! Xerox and its researchers
never understood or believed that the public was in any way interested in a
personal computer. One of the PARC project leaders, Alan Kay, later said
"What I completely misunderstood about the microcomputer industry was the
hunger people had for any kind of computer."
Xerox was not a computer company and had no delusions that they were. Their
sales force was not prepared, nor was the computer industry established
enough for Xerox to risk such a market move. After their bad experiences in
1981 with the Z80 and CP/M, Xerox was not convinced that personal computers
would ever be a source of profits.
When Steve Jobs offered Xerox a million dollars worth of stock to let him get
a look at PARC, Xerox was more then willing. They assigned one of their
most enthusiastic resarchers to answer any and all questions and give Jobs
and his people a full tour of the place.
Many of the researchers were excited that someone was actually interested in
their work and wanted to develop it for the public, Xerox certainly had no
intention to do so. The Apple interface, though it used many of the same
ideas is definately not a rip off. It was fine tuned and in many areas
advanced well beyond what the PARC people ever expected.
(Have the "what ifs" of Apple's decision to drop the Lisa for the Mac ever
come up in these groups?)
Please people, Apple deserves a lot more credit for their work then many
people give them. The patent holders on the PARC technology have not been
cheated, and I don't think anyone would consider Boeing to be ripping off the
Wright Brothers.
I have for many years been curious about how Bill Gates would have treated
Xerox though.
BTW: Any disputed facts, clarifications, etc. would be appreciated.
Bootstrap1
>The Apple interface, though it used many of the same
>ideas is definately not a rip off. It was fine tuned and in many areas
>advanced well beyond what the PARC people ever expected.
I've been frustrated by the prevalent viewpoint that all Apple did was
take Xerox's work and market it, regardless of whether it was stolen or
licensed. My understanding is that the forerunners of the Xerox Star were
definitely the inspiration for the Mac, but that Apple's researches
improved on the interface in many ways. Some anecdotal examples I've
heard is that the PARC computers didn't have pull-down menus, didn't use
icons to represent files, etc.
However, for some time I've wanted more persuasive evidence, perhaps in
the form of screen shots from or videos of the PARC computers or the Star.
Does anyone know of a source on the Net that might have these, or of an
article or a book that might chronicle the Star interface in some detail?
Nathan Tennies
Bootstrap Enterprises
bo...@kirwaido.trystero.com
|Hearing people talk about how Apple ripped off the idea for their GUI is
|starting to get a bit annoying, especially when I hear it from people that
|have traditonally been strong Mac supporters. So many times I have seen
|people tout the design and efficency of the Mac interface, and then cheapen
|the accomplishment by adding something like "which they took from Xerox, of
|course". I saw it two or three times yesterday and I have finally had
|enough.
|Please people, Apple deserves a lot more credit for their work then
many
|people give them. The patent holders on the PARC technology have not been
|cheated, and I don't think anyone would consider Boeing to be ripping off the
|Wright Brothers.
I suppose the issue surrounds the definition of 'ripped off'. My
interpretation was that Apple did not invent 'their' GUI, but simply
took what they saw at XEROX and adapted it to their equipment/needs.
BTW, that interface is rather outdated today.
I find the MAC interface extremely frustrating and limiting in
comparison to X, or OS/2 for example.
Robert Rhode
> comparison to X, or OS/2 for example.
I find X to be extremely frustrating because it's so inconsistent.
Apart from most of them having scrollbars and buttons, near as I can
tell, the majority of X applications follow absolutely no rhyme or
reason in their user interfaces. It's the Unix command line made
graphical: Everybody rolls their own, according to their individual
whim. The result: No benefit of experience. Everything is an
educated guess. Nope, nope, nope. When it comes to getting something
done, X stinks. For nerdy dinking around, it's the cat's meow.
Curt Eggemeyer
>
>I suppose the issue surrounds the definition of 'ripped off'. My
>interpretation was that Apple did not invent 'their' GUI, but simply
>took what they saw at XEROX and adapted it to their equipment/needs.
>
>BTW, that interface is rather outdated today.
>
>I find the MAC interface extremely frustrating and limiting in
>comparison to X, or OS/2 for example.
>
X is okay, but its concept of applying init type files for influencing
various resources suck. Motif is even worse considering its a supersetted
C base window environment in a C++ world. HP-VUEs is okay, except whoever
setup their defaults must have been from another planet, and its on top
of an implementation of unix that falls short of SUN's (but I digress).
The Mac OS is a bit outdatted, but I still like the fact that it has a more
rigid standardize way of user interaction than X. Balloon help could've of
been really nice if Apple just had a fixed balloon help window rather than
those obtrusive (always appear over information you want to look at while
balloon help came up) "cute" captions.
Oh ... well the opinions rage on....
Dan Pop
>I suppose the issue surrounds the definition of 'ripped off'. My
>interpretation was that Apple did not invent 'their' GUI, but simply
>took what they saw at XEROX and adapted it to their equipment/needs.
We should give credit to Apple for the fact that they took the technology
from the XEROX labs and brought it to the public. This is the kind of
innovation that MS never did.
>
>BTW, that interface is rather outdated today.
>
>I find the MAC interface extremely frustrating and limiting in
>comparison to X, or OS/2 for example.
It is a pity that it never evolved, indeed.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: dan...@cernapo.cern.ch
Mail: CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
Dan Pop
>In article <3k5cqn$c...@sundog.tiac.net> , bo...@kirwaido.trystero.com
>writes:
>>I suppose the issue surrounds the definition of 'ripped off'. My
>>interpretation was that Apple did not invent 'their' GUI, but simply
>>took what they saw at XEROX and adapted it to their equipment/needs.
>>
>>BTW, that interface is rather outdated today.
>>
>>I find the MAC interface extremely frustrating and limiting in
>>comparison to X, or OS/2 for example.
>
>Maybe to you, but not to a first time user. After teaching
>various computer novices Macs, PCs, and, yes, UNIX, the Mac was
>by far the easiest to learn. If being easy to use makes it brain
>dead, well than call me brain dead.
You're missing the point. A system can be easy to learn and sofisticated
at the same time, as long as the sofistication is not visible to the
beginner. The best example is the configuration file for an X window
manager. The beginner can use the vanilla configuration without even
being aware that a configuration file exists or that it can be copied
to the home directory and customized. Later, s/he can start playing
with it, customizing it to his own tastes, or even replace it with
another window manager.
>
>Curious, my experience is totally opposite of yours. Everybody has
>their own definition of limiting and frustrating, I guess.
This is certainly true. The computer literate user will be frustrated by
the current limitations of the MacOS. The computer illiterate user will
be frustrated by the cryptic names of the Unix commands and the
"nonsensical" error messages. Someone coming from OS/2, might be
frustrated by all of the above :-)
Chad Irby
: The Mac OS is a bit outdatted, but I still like the fact that it has a more
: rigid standardize way of user interaction than X. Balloon help could've of
: been really nice if Apple just had a fixed balloon help window rather than
: those obtrusive (always appear over information you want to look at while
: balloon help came up) "cute" captions.
System 7.5 has introduced "Apple Guide," which is a *lot* better than
Balloon Help. It supports Balloon Help, but when you get into a
Guide-specific application, you get a window that floats in front of
everything, showing Topics, Index, and Look For buttons.
Once the developer community catches up, Guide will be a major selling
point for Macs.
--
Chad Irby / My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@gate.net / for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
A. E. Siegman
years ago, and then edited somewhat by me, based on other sources. I
think it's very interesting and informative, but IT IS NOT ORIGINAL WITH
ME.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AN UNOFFICIAL HISTORY OF ADVANCES IN COMPUTER INTERFACES
The following is an updated list of the historical origins of various user
interface concepts for mainframe and personal computers, adapted from
bboard messages posted by Oliver Steele (ste...@weiss.cs.unc.edu) in
March 1988.
Note: In the following SRI is the Stanford Research Institute, which used
to be operated by Stanford University to do proprietary and commercially
oriented research that might not have been appropriate in the University's
own research labs. During the campus disruptions of the
Vietnam-Cambodia era (1969-70) SRI bought itself free from Stanford and
was renamed SRI International. It is famous in interface history for the
pioneering early work inventing the mouse and other concepts by Douglas
Engelbart in the mid 1970s.
Xeroc PARC is the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, the dream lab on the
hill behind Stanford. It's contribution to computer interface ideas is
described in the book "Fumbling the Future: How Xerox Invented, Then
Ignored, the First Personal Computer" by Douglas Smith and Robert
Alexander. The tour of this lab that Xerox voluntarily offered to Steve
Jobs in 1979 let the cat out of the bag on many of the interface ideas
that were later used or modified into the Apple Lisa and Apple Macintosh
in 1983 and 1984.
Interface Innovation
Person(group)@company (product) (date)
Keyboard-based menus
Earlier than 1978, probably quite ancient
Keyboard-based hierarchical menus
UCSD's Pascal system (1978) or earlier
Bitmapped displays
CSL@Xerox PARC (Alto) (?) (PERQ was first commercial product) (or Terak
Corporation) (c. 1978)
BitBLT raster operations
Dan Ingalls(LRG)@Xerox PARC
Light pen as screen pointer
1960 or earlier
Joysticks
Spacewar games, 1962 or earlier
Trackballs
Some time in 1960s
Pointing device with on-screen pointer
Doug Englebart@SRI (mid 70s).
Mouse
Doug Englebart@SRI (trackball upside down?)
Cursor changes to show system mode
William Newman@Xerox PARC
Cursor changes to show context
David Tilbrook (Newswhole) (1975)
Menus
LRG@Xerox PARC (?)
Popup Menus
Ingalls(LRG)@Xerox PARC
Pulldown menus
Lisa@Apple
Menu bar
Lisa@Apple
Hierarchical menus
Paeth(SSL)@Xerox PARC (Smalltalk)
Disabling of menu items
Lisa@Apple or Ed Anson (1980 or earlier) or Xerox PARC (1982 or earlier)
Command keys for menu items
Lisa@Apple or Ed Anson (1980) or earlier
Check marks on menu items
Lisa@Apple
Overlapped windows
Ingalls(LRG)@Xerox PARC
Tiled windows
CSL@Xerox PARC
Event queues
Simula@NCC, then Lisa@Apple or Ed Anson(GPGS) - > CORE, GKS (1975)
Icons
David Smith(SDD)@Xerox (Star->Mac->Lisa)
Scroll bars
LRG@Xerox PARC
Push Buttons
LRG@Xerox PARC
Radio Buttons
Kaehler(LRG)@Xerox PARC
Check Boxes
LRG@Xerox PARC (?)
Dimming of inactive buttons
David Tilbrook (Newswhole) (1975)
Dialog Boxes
Star@Xerox PARC (property sheets)
Concept of resources
Horn(Mac)@Apple
Multiple fonts & styles in text
CSL@Xerox PARC (Bravo) or Wang word processors (1978 or earlier)
Modeless Interaction
Tesler(SSL)@Xerox PARC
Move/Copy/Delete
Xerox PARC
Cut/Copy/Paste with a mouse
Tesler(SSL)@Xerox PARC (Gypsy, Smalltalk)
Selection point between characters
Tesler(SSL)@Xerox PARC (Gypsy & Smalltalk) (TECO had this earlier than
PARC, it is claimed; also Stanford's TVEDIT running on DEC timesharing
systems, Brian Tolliver, 1963
Bruce Horn noted that:
I think it is unrealistic to attribute many of these concepts to a single
person. Many folks in LRG (Learning Research Group) & SSL (Systems
Science Laboratory), CSL (Computer Science Laboratory), and SDD (Systems
Development Division) at Xerox PARC, and the Lisa and Mac groups at
Apple were involved in creating these ideas.
Ed Anson pointed out that menus have been around longer than pointing
devices, i.e., the first menus were keyboard-based menus. In the list
above "Menu" without modifier means a mouse-driven one. Josh
Littlefield, Peter Schachte, and Jack Campin pointed out that some
systems allow the user to copy/move text in ways other than
cut/copy/paste. And David Tilbrook described a number of unusual cursor
shapes used in some systems to indicate what the system was doing, or
waiting for:
Symbol Meaning
Buddha System not ready for input
Oy_Vey! Invalid selection
Tracker Used when dragging borders on page
Eh_Wot? Puck not on tablet or button depressed redundantly
No_Room Trying to place object without enough space
KeyBoard Awaiting user input at keyboard
OK? Action needs to be confirmed
Standard Anything else
Robert Rhode
>The beginner can use the vanilla configuration without even
>being aware that a configuration file exists or that it can be copied
>to the home directory and customized. Later, s/he can start playing
>with it, customizing it to his own tastes, or even replace it with
>another window manager.
Congratulation, you have just described literally every GUI, and nearly
every OS or application of nontrivial complexity, in existence. No
OS has a monopoly on configurability, and none lacks it. If you doubt
for even a moment that the Mac's interface is extensively user customiz-
able, just FTP over to your favorite Sumex mirror and look at the list
of extensions and control panels.
>The computer literate user will be frustrated by
>the current limitations of the MacOS.
The truly computer-literate user will recognize that this is poppycock.
MacOS was neither the first nor the last OS I learned, but it is by FAR
the most pleasing to use. And unless, like me, you live with these so-
called "limitations" every single day, you probably do not have the
perspective to make such a claim. It's really, really easy to make
value judgements from afar, since it is clearly impractical to actually
take the trouble to leave the safety your cozy ivory tower and dredge
up some facts.
- Bob
Mark Decker
> >The computer literate user will be frustrated by
> >the current limitations of the MacOS.
I am a computer literate. In my ealier years I loved learning about
processor instruction sets, various addressing modes and the nitty gritty
dealings with OS (this was with DOS 3.3 and apple system 3.3),... however,
now I my love is physics and math. I need a computer as a tool. I have
not found the MacOS limiting compared to other OS's on the tasks that I
need to complete. Basically, the mac has made my old knowledge useless,...
fine by me.
1) The less I *needed* a computer the more I wanted to learn about them.
(jr.high, highschool days)
2) The more I *needed* a computer the less I wanted to learn about them.
(undergrad, grad school days)
This means...
1) I enjoyed learning about the PC and old single board computers.(early
days)
2) I appreciated the Mac (time and product became valuable). (later days)
__________________________________
/ \
| Mark Decker |
| made...@tyrell.net |
| Physics |
| "Zeds dead baby... Zeds dead." |
\__________________________________/
Bootstrap1
>The following history of computer interface advances was posted several
Thanks for the list, that was a big help. There are a few notable
innovations missing, which I'm curious about. What about the invention of
"drag & drop"; did that originate with the Lisa/Mac or did it come
earlier? Also, while the list mentions the use of icons, it didn't
mention what the icons were used for. Were the icons used to represent
files and directories, as in the Macintosh Finder, or were they used for
other things?
Also, I'd still love to see screen shots or videos of some of the pre-Mac,
pre-Lisa work that was done. Anyone know where these can be found?
Nathan Tennies
Dave Stevens
>You're missing the point. A system can be easy to learn and sofisticated
>at the same time, as long as the sofistication is not visible to the
>beginner. The best example is the configuration file for an X window
>manager. The beginner can use the vanilla configuration without even
>being aware that a configuration file exists or that it can be copied
>to the home directory and customized. Later, s/he can start playing
>with it, customizing it to his own tastes, or even replace it with
>another window manager.
The typical new computer user would have a very hard time configuring and
installing X. I repect the fact you speak from CERN, but *any* Unix/X is bad
news for new computer users. The Macintosh is a far better choice for new
users. FWIW, I use both a Mac and a Pentium with Xfree86. For doing any
real world, small business work , the Mac wins hands down. To say
an X distribution is as easy to install, use and maintain as a Mac system
install or even a Windows install, is just not accurate. More poerful, yes,
easier, no way.
Dan Pop
>In article <danpop.795277889@rscernix> dan...@cernapo.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>
>>You're missing the point. A system can be easy to learn and sofisticated
>>at the same time, as long as the sofistication is not visible to the
>>beginner. The best example is the configuration file for an X window
>>manager. The beginner can use the vanilla configuration without even
>>being aware that a configuration file exists or that it can be copied
>>to the home directory and customized. Later, s/he can start playing
>>with it, customizing it to his own tastes, or even replace it with
>>another window manager.
>
>The typical new computer user would have a very hard time configuring and
>installing X.
The typical new computer user neither installs nor configures X. He _uses_
X, and this is not particularly difficult.
> I repect the fact you speak from CERN, but *any* Unix/X is bad
>news for new computer users. The Macintosh is a far better choice for new
Unix/X is not bad news for new computer users. It is bad news for Mac
and Windows users, because it is _different_ from the environments they're
already familiar with. I've seen many non-technical X/Unix users, simply
getting their jobs done, whithout caring about anything else.
>users. FWIW, I use both a Mac and a Pentium with Xfree86. For doing any
^^^^^^^
Last time I checked, Xfree86 was an X server, something a user never
"sees". The user is interacting with the OS (which you didn't specify),
with the window manager (which you didn't specify) and with the
applications themselves.
>real world, small business work , the Mac wins hands down. To say
This is nonsense. It depends on the application, not on the underlying
OS. If you're running a free Unix version, the problem is that you can't
find too many commercial applications. The same application is more
effective under Unix than it is under MacOS or Windows, because Unix doesn't
crash and supports true multitasking.
HP VUE can make an HP workstation look very much like a Macintosh, BTW.
Except that it still has memory protection and true multitasking :-)
>an X distribution is as easy to install, use and maintain as a Mac system
>install or even a Windows install, is just not accurate. More poerful, yes,
>easier, no way.
>
Have you ever tried to _install_ a Mac system? I.e. after a disk crash,
install a virgin disk, convince MacOS to recognize it as a Mac volume
and install all the stuff from scratch? Do you expect Joe User to be able
to do this, himself. Joe User buys his computer with everything
preinstalled, whether he's buying a MacOS, Windows or Linux box. It's
as easy for Linux as it is for MacOS, all you have to do is pay some $$$.
If you want the same ease of configuration, use the right window manager.
Some of them are configurable a la Mac: with the mouse only. Try HP VUE,
COSE CDE (available for some workstations) or GREAT (an HP VUE clone, for
Linux).
A Unix box is easier to maintain, because Joe User can't break it. No
system files to be accidentally deleted or corrupted since Joe User doesn't
have enough privileges to do it. No viruses for Unix, something that many
people forget to mention when comparing the "user hostile" Unix environment
with the "user friendly" MacOS or Windows.
In the long run the Unix user tends to become more computer literate than
the Mac user (MacOS tries very hard to preserve the user cluelessness :-)
which is not such a bad thing.
Robert Rhode
> The typical new computer user neither installs nor configures X. He _uses_
> X, and this is not particularly difficult.
When I was a new X user back in 1988, I found it to be extremely difficult.
TWM made things a lot easier, though. Even today, X is not easy. The lack
of standardization in the way things work is very perplexing. A fellow
grad student here who is very savvy and knows some extremely sophisticated
software was asking me how to use xfig!
> I've seen many non-technical X/Unix users, simply
> getting their jobs done, whithout caring about anything else.
I've seen Ph.D. students in electrical engineering who can't figure
out how to quit OpenWindows. I've seen ones who can't figure out
how to get X programs to run. It's a great mystery trying to find
the right tool to get the job done if it's not spoon-fed to you.
> The same application is more
> effective under Unix than it is under MacOS or Windows, because Unix doesn't
> crash and supports true multitasking.
That's garbage. A) The same application is highly unlikely to exist
under Unix. B) Unix equivalents rarely work as nicely as Mac versions.
Sure, Emacs is awesome and g++ is a great compiler. But g++ isn't
anywhere near as nice to work with as CodeWarrior C++, and Alpha beats
Emacs for some functions. C) MY Mac applications don't crash. I have
Unix applications crash more often than Mac ones. D) Not having Unix
crash is damned meager consolation when the application crashes and
takes your data with it. Application stability is TONS more important
than OS stability. E) True multitasking my foot. Every job I run
screeches to a halt when X wants me to place a new window onscreen.
This is a red herring in the worst way. True multitasking would make
only the slightest of marginal differences in my work habits. I know
this for a fact, because I use Unix/X most of the time.
> HP VUE can make an HP workstation look very much like a Macintosh, BTW.
> Except that it still has memory protection and true multitasking :-)
Mazel tov. OpenWindows has a File Manager, and a lot of Mac-like GUI
elements; that sure as shootin' don't make it usable.
> Have you ever tried to _install_ a Mac system? I.e. after a disk crash,
> install a virgin disk, convince MacOS to recognize it as a Mac volume
> and install all the stuff from scratch?
Oh, yes. I've had several Macs pass through my hands, including one
with a flaky disk drive or controller, and I've bought new hard drives,
and I've done quite a few OS upgrades for me, my mom, my sister, my
mother-in-law... I know EXACTLY what's involved in getting a Mac system
installed on a virgin hard disk. And I'm telling you right now, it's
a piece of cake. I have more complications doing a clean install of
a system than with a bare drive, and even that is less complicated than
installing many software packages. If I was Joe User, it'd be a no-
brainer. It's only because I have so many custom aliases and prefs
files and extensions that my system installs are any trouble at all.
> If you want the same ease of configuration, use the right window manager.
That won't let me configure my applications! What's the Unix equivalent
of QuicKeys? I want scriptable control of GUI elements in every X app,
whether or not they were programmed for it, like I can do on the Mac.
Where's the X doohickey extension that will change the appearance or
behavior of ALL scroll-bars or ALL dialog buttons or ALL application
menus in X? I've got such extensions on the Mac. Near as I can tell, the
X applications themselves are either not configurable at all, or config-
urable in a strictly limited sense on a program-by-program basis. All
the window-manager customization in the world doesn't do jack for my
applications. Am I wrong? Please tell me I'm wrong! I want to make
my X-windows applications more productive!
> A Unix box is easier to maintain, because Joe User can't break it.
Ha!
> No system files to be accidentally deleted or corrupted since Joe User
> doesn't have enough privileges to do it.
cp .Xdefaults .login bak^H^H^H<CR> OOPS!
rm -fr /bin OOPS! Damn, I mean ~/bin!
You're advocating Linux as a pre-packaged OS for home Joe Users,
who are entirely likely to do something like this. Isn't it true
that the base Linux configuration gives you root privileges by default?
> In the long run the Unix user tends to become more computer literate than
> the Mac user
That's because in Unix you have to be a guru to be efficient! ;-)
- Bob
Dan Pop
>In article <danpop.795458080@rscernix>, dan...@cernapo.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>> The typical new computer user neither installs nor configures X. He _uses_
>> X, and this is not particularly difficult.
>
>When I was a new X user back in 1988, I found it to be extremely difficult.
>TWM made things a lot easier, though. Even today, X is not easy. The lack
Yeah. Using X without a window manager is extremely difficult, I agree :-)
>of standardization in the way things work is very perplexing. A fellow
>grad student here who is very savvy and knows some extremely sophisticated
>software was asking me how to use xfig!
xfig is not X. How much did you pay for xfig?
>
>> I've seen many non-technical X/Unix users, simply
>> getting their jobs done, whithout caring about anything else.
>
>I've seen Ph.D. students in electrical engineering who can't figure
>out how to quit OpenWindows. I've seen ones who can't figure out
>how to get X programs to run. It's a great mystery trying to find
>the right tool to get the job done if it's not spoon-fed to you.
Is it that different from a Mac? How do you find the right tool if it's
not spoon-fed to you? Sorry, nobody is a born experienced computer user.
>
>> The same application is more
>> effective under Unix than it is under MacOS or Windows, because Unix doesn't
>> crash and supports true multitasking.
>
>That's garbage. A) The same application is highly unlikely to exist
>under Unix. B) Unix equivalents rarely work as nicely as Mac versions.
First, the same applications are "highly unlikely to exist" (bullshit).
Then we find out that those applications which are "highly unlikely to
exist", "rarely work as nicely as Mac versions" :-) If they don't
exist, they certainly don't work as nicely as Mac versions :-)
How is Mosaic or Netscape for Mac running nicer than the Unix version?
>Sure, Emacs is awesome and g++ is a great compiler. But g++ isn't
>anywhere near as nice to work with as CodeWarrior C++, and Alpha beats
Brilliant. Comparing free Unix software with commercial Mac software.
What about a commercial C++ development environment for Unix?
>Emacs for some functions. C) MY Mac applications don't crash. I have
They don't crash. They crash your Mac :-)
>Unix applications crash more often than Mac ones. D) Not having Unix
I don't. Maybe you're running free software, but haven't compiled/installed
it properly.
>crash is damned meager consolation when the application crashes and
>takes your data with it. Application stability is TONS more important
>than OS stability. E) True multitasking my foot. Every job I run
My applications _never_ crash. If I was editing a file on a remote
machine and that machine was rebooted, or a network failure killed my
session, I was _always_ able to recover the data file, missing the last
few typed characters, at worst.
>screeches to a halt when X wants me to place a new window onscreen.
>This is a red herring in the worst way. True multitasking would make
>only the slightest of marginal differences in my work habits. I know
>this for a fact, because I use Unix/X most of the time.
I use Unix/X all the time and I know this is bullshit.
>> HP VUE can make an HP workstation look very much like a Macintosh, BTW.
>> Except that it still has memory protection and true multitasking :-)
>
>Mazel tov. OpenWindows has a File Manager, and a lot of Mac-like GUI
>elements; that sure as shootin' don't make it usable.
>
Then get something better. Or learn how to use it.
>applications. Am I wrong? Please tell me I'm wrong! I want to make
>my X-windows applications more productive!
Then learn how to use them. I've seen people taking lessons about how
to use Word on a Mac, because they couldn't figure out how to do _anything_
with it. Is this Mac's fault?
>
>> A Unix box is easier to maintain, because Joe User can't break it.
>
>Ha!
Ha!
>
>> No system files to be accidentally deleted or corrupted since Joe User
>> doesn't have enough privileges to do it.
>
>cp .Xdefaults .login bak^H^H^H<CR> OOPS!
So what? You can still login. Is there any computing system where
you can't shoot yourself in the foot? If yes, is anybody using it?
>rm -fr /bin OOPS! Damn, I mean ~/bin!
>
ues4:~ 36> rm -fr /bin
rm: /bin/rmail: Permission denied
rm: /bin/sh: Permission denied
rm: /bin/dialog: Permission denied
rm: /bin/ls: Permission denied
rm: /bin/chgrp: Permission denied
...
>You're advocating Linux as a pre-packaged OS for home Joe Users,
>who are entirely likely to do something like this. Isn't it true
Nope. Joe Users aren't expected to use the CLI before learning and
understanding it. Until then, there are plenty of file managers.
I don't expect Joe User to know anything about .Xdefaults or .login.
Once you figure out what they are and how to use them, you aren't a
Joe User any longer.
>that the base Linux configuration gives you root privileges by default?
It's false, of course. If you login as root, you have root privileges.
If you login as yourself, you don't. Linux comes with a number of
preconfigured accounts, so that Joe User doesn't have to figure out how
to create one for himself. Although using useradd is not rocket science.
>
>> In the long run the Unix user tends to become more computer literate than
>> the Mac user
>
>That's because in Unix you have to be a guru to be efficient! ;-)
Tell this to the thousands of Unix users here, who certainly aren't gurus,
yet they do all their work on Unix.
David Smith at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
basic idea from PARC.
Then sued Digital Research for creating a similar look on non Apple machines.
Being small they (Digital Research)
backed off, and made changes to their GEM interface. Apple then sued
Microsoft and HP for a similar look. Being rich and large they did not back
off, and got judges to side with them. Then Xerox sees Apple's look and
feel lawsuits, and decides to sue them. It gets thrown out due to it being
to late in the game.
Lotus copied the "look and feel" of a spreadsheet from the Visicalc folks.
Then anyone who copied their look and feel (and these spreadsheet competitors
were not exact mirror images of Lotus 1-2-3) was sued, (the Twin folks,
Osborne's company, and later Borland for adding a 1-2-3 compatible menuing
system for macros to Quattro). And they were only copying as closely as they did
due to customer demand for compatibility.
Then if I'm not mistaken, whatever remains of
the Visicalc rights/company, tried to sue Lotus for "look and feel"
infringement. It went nowhere. It seems that financtial clout is very important
in the corporate legal arena. This is very clear when you see no attempt to
break the monopoly Microsoft has in the PC operating system arena. The amount
of market share they enjoy is well above what General Motors, Standard Oil,
etc, had, when the government sought to break up their near monopolies.
David A. Kurtz
(Bootstrap1) wrote:
> sie...@ee.stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman) writes:
>
> >The following history of computer interface advances was posted several
>
> Thanks for the list, that was a big help. There are a few notable
> innovations missing, which I'm curious about. What about the invention of
> "drag & drop"; did that originate with the Lisa/Mac or did it come
> earlier?
The first production computer to have drag and drop (I guess) must have
been the Lisa. However, not knowing a whole lot about the computer
industry prior to 1983, what sort of filing system did the PARC projects
use? Did they have the concept of folders and the ability to manipulate
files in that manner?
--
dku...@lightside.com
David A. Kurtz
http://www.lightside.com/ (Lightside, Inc.)
http://www.lightside.com/~dkurtz (Me)
Howard Free
dan...@cernapo.cern.ch writes:
>Have you ever tried to _install_ a Mac system? I.e.
>after a disk crash, install a virgin disk, convince
>MacOS to recognize it as a Mac volume and install all
>the stuff from scratch? Do you expect Joe User to be
>able to do this, himself. Joe User buys his computer
>with everything preinstalled, whether he's buying a
>MacOS, Windows or Linux box. It's as easy for Linux as
>it is for MacOS, all you have to do is pay some $$$.
Well, yes, I have installed many Mac Systems from virgin
disks (and/or reformatted disks). It's not too tough.
Stick the install disk in, wait for the computer to boot
and click on the "Easy Install" button. Feed disks.
Reboot. Done. It can be a bit tricky to install a SCSI
drive that isn't blessed by Apple, but it isn't that
difficult.
Can the average user do it? Yes, provided they bother to
RTFM.
[Munch]
>A Unix box is easier to maintain, because Joe User
>can't break it. No system files to be accidentally
>deleted or corrupted since Joe User doesn't have enough
>privileges to do it. No viruses for Unix, something
>that many people forget to mention when comparing the
>"user hostile" Unix environment with the "user
>friendly" MacOS or Windows.
Hmmm, UNIX is easier to maintain? Tell me, what planet
are you living on?
If UNIX is so easy to maintain why does my department
have four people managing 24 UNIX workstations while
they have 1 person managing about 50 Macintoshes (me)
and one person managing about 50 IBM/PC's?
UNIX may be harder to crash, but it is also MUCH harder
to fix.
UNIX is not for your average secretary to use. While you
can set up window managers to be friendly, someone must
set them up to begin with. That setup time takes skill.
Skill costs money. If the user doesn't like how the
person who set it up did things they must have someone
else fix it because it is probably beyond their
capabilities.
UNIX was designed for programmers by programmers. For
programmers it ain't bad. For average users, it sucks.
The Macintosh was designed for users. For users it ain't
bad. For programmers life is a bit harder.
I've got a little philosophy. It is: Someone pays
sometime. (basically TANSTAAFL) In my opinion it is
better for the programmer to have a hard time ONCE than
it is for the user to have a hard time _EVERY TIME_ he
uses a program (or machine).
>In the long run the Unix user tends to become more
>computer literate than the Mac user (MacOS tries very
>hard to preserve the user cluelessness :-) which is not
>such a bad thing.
And may not be such a good thing. Can you design a car
from the ground up? Can you design a microprocessor? Do
you drive a car? Do you use a microprocessor? How
foolish of you to use something you don't know
everything about.
The computer is a tool. While you may be able to use the
tool better if you understand how it works, it should
not be necessary to know all of the details of the tool
to use it very effectively.
Many areas of life are becoming extremely complex. You
can't learn everything. Many experts don't have the time
to learn their area of expertise AND learn how to be a
computer jock.
Again the computer is a tool. While you may enjoy
playing around with computers most people just want to
get their job done. The less people have to think about
using the tool and the more they can think about getting
the job done the better.
Howard Free
#include <disclaimer.h>
Karl A. Krueger
"Ring, ring, it's the clue phone!"
Apple *paid* Xerox for the GUI technology. Paid with 100,000 shares of
Apple Computer -- worth quite a bit then, and several times more now.
DR and MS ripped it off.
--
-- Karl
Eric van Bezooijen
: > doesn't have enough privileges to do it.
: cp .Xdefaults .login bak^H^H^H<CR> OOPS!
The system is still working just fine. Joe Users account might be screwed,
but that's his problem.
: rm -fr /bin OOPS! Damn, I mean ~/bin!
rm -r /bin
rm: /bin not removed: Permission denied
That didn't seem to harm anything, but....
If you are stoopid enough to run rm -fr /bin as root running the csh shell,
then that's your problem. Name a commonly used OS that doesn't allow you
to screw it up. Take note that DOS's "are you sure you want to kill all
files in this directory [yn]" doesn't count. It's a trivial exercise to
modify rm to behave like that (add -i to an alias of rm).
-Eric
--
"I'm a smarty everyday!"- Beanie the Cerebrally-challenged bison, Animaniacs
Eric van Bezooijen | "Faboo!"- Wakko Warner, Animaniacs [Warlord *THIS*]
er...@csua.berkeley.edu | "Oh joy of Joys!"- Stimpson J. Cat, Ren & Stimpy
eric.van...@sun.com | "Spoon!"- The Tick [Pixies and Talking Heads rule!]
Nevin Liber
Eric van Bezooijen <eri...@Sun.COM> wrote:
>If you are stoopid enough to run rm -fr /bin as root running the csh shell,
>then that's your problem. Name a commonly used OS that doesn't allow you
>to screw it up.
That may be true (and I dispute that also), but does it have to be so
darn easy to screw up? I mean, a one-character typo, such as (yes,
this is from experience):
rm -f * .o
instead of
rm -f *.o
really ought not be as damaging as it is under Unix.
> Take note that DOS's "are you sure you want to kill all
>files in this directory [yn]" doesn't count. It's a trivial exercise to
>modify rm to behave like that (add -i to an alias of rm).
And it doesn't work. What happens is that people just start hitting
'y' all the time without reading the messages. What one would like to
be able to do, and this is very, very difficult under Unix, is to have
that message only come up when one is interactively using wildcards with rm.
So, how the heck can I do that (without breaking anything else)?? And if I
can't, then why do you believe that Unix is so much more darn configurable
than things like MacOS??
--
Nevin ":-)" Liber ne...@cs.arizona.edu (520) 293-2799
office: (520) 621-1815
Eric van Bezooijen
: In article <3kl24r$1...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>,
: rm -f * .o
: instead of
: rm -f *.o
It is not "very, very difficult under Unix". Here are two small changes
you can make to have this work:
First, write a little program that checks to see if its arguments contain
* or ?, and which will ask the user for confirmation if they do. I wrote it
in perl (about 10 minutes of work) because that's the language I like to
use for these types of things:
##############
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
foreach $index (0 .. $#ARGV)
{
$_ = $ARGV[$index];
if (/\*/ || /\?/) { $wildcards = 1; }
push (@args,<@ARGV[$index]>);
}
if ($wildcards)
{
print "You used wildcards, continue ? [yn]\n";
$response = <STDIN>;
}
if (substr($response,0,1) eq "y")
{
`/usr/bin/rm @args\n`;
exit 0;
}
else
{
print "Operation aborted\n";
exit 0;
}
##############
Second, define an alias like this:
alias srm 'set noglob; /usr/local/bin/perl /usr/local/bin/srm \!:* ; unset noglob
(srm stands for "safe rm", you could of course alias rm to this)
Make sure the perl script is called /usr/local/bin/srm, and type "rehash".
If you don't have perl installed, then you will have to write the program
in C or in korn or bourne shell or something. But perl *is* free, and runs
on lots of Unixen, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Note that I am not a UNIX genius or anything, and I didn't use any weird
UNIX "hacks" to make this work. And I could make the script much more
intelligent if I wanted too (like ignore *.o in the list of arguments as
a contender for a dangerous command).
This fix works on my (solaris) system under tcsh, and it isn't guaranteed to
work for every UNIX or shell on the planet. The purpose of this post is
to show that this can be done easily in UNIX, not to start a "it doesn't
work on my Banana Jr. 9000 running DLOOMIX 6.66" flame war.
There you go, now your "rm" behaves just like you want it to.
Bob Noel
(Nevin Liber) wrote:
[snip]
> That may be true (and I dispute that also), but does it have to be so
> darn easy to screw up? I mean, a one-character typo, such as (yes,
> this is from experience):
>
> rm -f * .o
>
> instead of
>
> rm -f *.o
>
> really ought not be as damaging as it is under Unix.
you DO perform regular backups, right?
>
> > Take note that DOS's "are you sure you want to kill all
> >files in this directory [yn]" doesn't count. It's a trivial exercise to
> >modify rm to behave like that (add -i to an alias of rm).
>
> And it doesn't work. What happens is that people just start hitting
> 'y' all the time without reading the messages.
Sure it works, unless you have confirmation dialogs for everything
silly thing. Of course, if the user is an idiot, then nothing
will save him/her except maybe regular backups...you do perform
regular backups, right?
Bob Noel aka Kobyashi Maru
WARNING: my email name may not work
My views are my own, not MITRE's
(why use a disclaimer when people are
too ---------- to understand it?)
Tom Halter
eri...@Sun.COM writes:
>: >If you are stoopid enough to run rm -fr /bin as root running the csh shell,
>: >then that's your problem. Name a commonly used OS that doesn't allow you
>: >to screw it up.
>
and see what happens. If you turn on System Folder protection on
in the General Controls (the default setting, I believe), the
entire System Folder is protected from deletion.
>: That may be true (and I dispute that also), but does it have to be so
>: darn easy to screw up? I mean, a one-character typo, such as (yes,
>: this is from experience):
>
>: rm -f * .o
>
>: instead of
>
>: rm -f *.o
>
>: really ought not be as damaging as it is under Unix.
>
>
>It is not "very, very difficult under Unix". Here are two small changes
>you can make to have this work:
* Bunches of technical crap deleted *
Well, of course, the solution is so obvious, any user could have
thought of it.
* Yawn, more perl script deleted *
>
>There you go, now your "rm" behaves just like you want it to.
>
What is this, a fucking joke? Not one user in 1000 could have
come up with your solution. I've been a UNIX system administrator
for five years, and I had a hard time following some of your post!
J Scott Peter
> That won't let me configure my applications! What's the Unix equivalent
> of QuicKeys? I want scriptable control of GUI elements in every X app,
> whether or not they were programmed for it, like I can do on the Mac.
> Where's the X doohickey extension that will change the appearance or
> behavior of ALL scroll-bars or ALL dialog buttons or ALL application
> menus in X? I've got such extensions on the Mac. Near as I can tell, the
> X applications themselves are either not configurable at all, or config-
> urable in a strictly limited sense on a program-by-program basis. All
> the window-manager customization in the world doesn't do jack for my
> applications. Am I wrong? Please tell me I'm wrong! I want to make
> my X-windows applications more productive!
You're wrong. Find out about the ~/.Xdefaults file. It lets you specify
settings for any widget `resources' (attributes), either on a global
or program-specific basis. Example lines:
! Set all buttons white on purple
*XmPushButton.background: Purple
*XmPushButton.foreground: White
! Set XTerm's background Green
XTerm*background: Green
--
J Scott Peter XXXIII // Wrong thinking is punishable.
sco...@netcom.com // Right thinking is as quickly rewarded.
Los Angeles // You will find it an effective combination.
Chad Irby
: Sure it works, unless you have confirmation dialogs for everything
: silly thing. Of course, if the user is an idiot, then nothing
: will save him/her except maybe regular backups...you do perform
: regular backups, right?
Let's see... assume the confirmation dialog takes an extra two seconds
out of the transaction. If you have 100 times a day (this is extreme- I
save about every fifteen minutes on the average), then you "waste" 200
seconds per day. 1000 seconds a week. Call it 20 minutes.
On the other hand, if you accidentally delete the file you've been
working on for the last hour and have to restore to the last version of
the file, you've wasted 3600 seconds.
So if you only screw up once out of 500 times (a failure rate for your
brain of 1/5 of one percent), you're saving about 2600 seconds a week.
About 40 minutes. And that's not even a worst case scenario. What do
you do if you accidentally type in that
rm -f * .txt
...and nuke that directory at about four in the afternoon when the
deadline's at five? You're *dead*.
Leaving out confirmation dialogs is like driving across country without a
spare tire. You might get away with it, but one little thing goes wrong
and you have a long walk home.
Dan Pop
>In article <3kl24r$1...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>,
>Eric van Bezooijen <eri...@Sun.COM> wrote:
>
>>If you are stoopid enough to run rm -fr /bin as root running the csh shell,
>>then that's your problem. Name a commonly used OS that doesn't allow you
>>to screw it up.
>
>That may be true (and I dispute that also), but does it have to be so
>darn easy to screw up? I mean, a one-character typo, such as (yes,
>this is from experience):
>
> rm -f * .o
>
>instead of
>
> rm -f *.o
>
>really ought not be as damaging as it is under Unix.
>
You can always protect your directory against this stupid mistake:
touch ./-i
Try now "rm -f *" in the "protected" directory and see what happens.
Anyway, people who don't triple check their rm commands get exactly what
they deserve.
Shawn V. Hernan
dan...@cernapo.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
> You can always protect your directory against this stupid mistake:
>
> touch ./-i
>
> Try now "rm -f *" in the "protected" directory and see what happens.
>
Oh ferchrisssake! The bullshit that Unix people come up with to
circumvent their own OS. I knew someone would suggest this as a "fix."
What happens, pray tell, when I do this:
cat *
file *
touch *
ln * ....
more *
ls *
I'm sure there are others, but this is what comes to me off the top of
my head. With that "fix" you've broken the behavior of most of the
other file management utils.
> Anyway, people who don't triple check their rm commands get exactly what
> they deserve.
I take it you've never accidentally deleted a file then? Either you're
perfect, or you haven't been working with Unix long enough. Or both.
:-)
Shawn
Shawn Valentine Hernan |
The University of Pittsburgh | Dump the RICO Laws
vale...@pitt.edu |
412-624-6425 |
Bob Noel
> Bob Noel (r...@mitre.org) wrote:
>
> : Sure it works, unless you have confirmation dialogs for everything
> : silly thing. Of course, if the user is an idiot, then nothing
> : will save him/her except maybe regular backups...you do perform
> : regular backups, right?
>
["analysis" about time taken for confirmation dialogs deleted]
The time taken for confirmation dialogs isn't relevant. What I
was referring to is that users learn to ignore confirmation
dialogs when they see them for EVERYTHING.
Bob Noel aka Kobyashi Maru
Dan Pop
>Robert Rhode (rh...@ee.rochester.edu) says:
>> That won't let me configure my applications! What's the Unix equivalent
>> of QuicKeys? I want scriptable control of GUI elements in every X app,
>> whether or not they were programmed for it, like I can do on the Mac.
>> Where's the X doohickey extension that will change the appearance or
>> behavior of ALL scroll-bars or ALL dialog buttons or ALL application
>> menus in X? I've got such extensions on the Mac. Near as I can tell, the
>> X applications themselves are either not configurable at all, or config-
>> urable in a strictly limited sense on a program-by-program basis. All
>> the window-manager customization in the world doesn't do jack for my
>> applications. Am I wrong? Please tell me I'm wrong! I want to make
>> my X-windows applications more productive!
>
>You're wrong. Find out about the ~/.Xdefaults file. It lets you specify
>settings for any widget `resources' (attributes), either on a global
>or program-specific basis. Example lines:
>
> ! Set all buttons white on purple
> *XmPushButton.background: Purple
> *XmPushButton.foreground: White
>
> ! Set XTerm's background Green
> XTerm*background: Green
>
With the additional advantage that the next user of the same application
will automatically get his preferences, not yours.
Even MS realized that a multiuser OS for a personal computer makes
sense (although it took them quite a while :-) When will Apple wake
up? Why didn't they push A/UX a little bit harder?
Alex Stephens
> In article <3ko4kf$i...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> Eric van Bezooijen,
> eri...@Sun.COM writes:
> >: >If you are stoopid enough to run rm -fr /bin as root running the csh
shell,
> >: >then that's your problem. Name a commonly used OS that doesn't allow you
> >: >to screw it up.
> >
> Try dragging your System and Finder to the trash and emptying it,
> and see what happens. If you turn on System Folder protection on
> in the General Controls (the default setting, I believe), the
> entire System Folder is protected from deletion.
Actually, System Folder Protection is used to protect files within the
System Folder. With it turned on, System Folder items can'd be removed or
renamed. But, even with it turned off, MacOS won't let the active System
Folder be dragged to the trash. The way around it is to drag the System
file to the trash separately (which can only be done if System Folder
Protection is off), and then drag the rest to the trash. Even then,
however, MacOS won't allow items which are in use to be emptied from the
trash, so the user would have to install a replacement System Folder or
start up from another disk in order to empty the trash. All in all, the
protection of vital files under MacOS is excellent. making it _very_
difficult to 'screw it up'.
--
Alex Stephens
e-mail - ale...@ccnet.com
WWW - http://ccnet.com/~alex900/
Robert Rhode
J Scott Peter <sco...@netcom.com> wrote:
>You're wrong. Find out about the ~/.Xdefaults file. It lets you specify
>settings for any widget `resources' (attributes), either on a global
>or program-specific basis.
I know all about that. Great! I can set application-specific attributes
or even global attributes for all applications that use Xt. Yay! Now
what about the 90% that don't? Editing my .Xdefaults isn't going to do
jack for my OpenWindows applications (which I run under TWM).
- Bob
Bob Noel
rh...@henry.ee.rochester.edu (Robert Rhode) wrote:
then you are no worse off than you would have been without
.Xdefaults. What's your complaint?
Nathan Hand
: >It is not "very, very difficult under Unix". Here are two small changes
: >you can make to have this work:
: * Bunches of technical crap deleted *
: Well, of course, the solution is so obvious, any user could have
: thought of it.
Any user isnt supposed to think of it. The administrator is
supposed to think of it. Then the administrator changes the
system so the users can use the new "rm" command.
: * Yawn, more perl script deleted *
: >
: >There you go, now your "rm" behaves just like you want it to.
: >
: What is this, a fucking joke? Not one user in 1000 could have
: come up with your solution. I've been a UNIX system administrator
: for five years, and I had a hard time following some of your post!
Hells bells... 5 years unix adminstrator and you cant follow
perl yet? Looks like your company needs a new adminstrator.
--
When I use a word it means just what I choose it +------------------
to mean - neither more nor less +----------------+ ... logic is only
--------------------------------+ a way of being ignorant by numbers
Bill Kearney
: dan...@cernapo.cern.ch writes:
: >Have you ever tried to _install_ a Mac system? I.e.
: >after a disk crash, install a virgin disk, convince
: >MacOS to recognize it as a Mac volume and install all
: >the stuff from scratch? Do you expect Joe User to be
: >able to do this, himself. Joe User buys his computer
: >with everything preinstalled, whether he's buying a
: >MacOS, Windows or Linux box. It's as easy for Linux as
: >it is for MacOS, all you have to do is pay some $$$.
Are you out of your fucking mind? Have you ever set up a unix box
totally from scratch? You practically have to sacrifice a live animal to
get it to work. You have to reconfigure so damned many text files you
might as well be WRITING the OS yourself!
To set up a totally dead Mac you need nothing more than the OS disks.
Boot the disk called Disk Tools. Launch the Apple HD Setup application
or your drive vendors formatted (I like FWB ToolKit). Wait for it to
format and request standard partitions. Restart the computer with the
Install 1 disk. Select Easy Install. Insert the requested disks (as
many as 8) and restart when done. Voila, that's IT! If you want to
install more drives, just format them.
You do NOTHING with any text files. You get nowhere near /dev/whatever.
For one of Apple's Performa Macintoshes, you can just boot the CD and
reinstall from there. (Just ask me about booting a god-damned Sun from CD)
A unix machine is nigh IMPOSSIBLE to compare to a Mac for setup ease.
As for routine maintenance, the Mac is again quite a bit simpler. No
rogue log files, core dumps and what not to hunt down. Want to network
to another Mac? Click ONE button in the Sharing Setup panel. I'd like
to see a novice configure an NFS (no file system) connection. Again, get
out that handy editor (pray you remember how to use emacs) and hack away.
The Macintosh is easy because Apple worked HARD. Meanwhile Mac users
work HARD on their JOBS not on maintaining some near religious devotion
to an operating system.
I know from whence I speak, I own several Macintosh AND Sun
Workstations. As for Linux, you haven't heard anguished cries until
you've heard a new Linux user setting up some cluster-fuck of a clone
system to run Linux. You don't see them posting to the net because they
have NO free time anymore.
Hey, don't get me wrong, unix is a great thing. It's just not for the
masses. Ask yourself, how long did it take for Sun to sell a million
workstations? It took Apple one year to sell that many Power
Macintoshes. They may not be doing what YOU want, but they're making an
awful lot of other folks happy. (and making $6 billion a year as well)
Bill
: >In the long run the Unix user tends to become more
: >computer literate than the Mac user (MacOS tries very
: >hard to preserve the user cluelessness :-) which is not
: >such a bad thing.
You gotta be kidding. Just how smart do you figure the populace-at-large
is for anything, let alone a computer? If they're hired to do WORK and
not fiddle endlessly with the machinery they don't NEED to be clued-into
the OS; that's NOT their JOB!
--
| Bill Kearney | wkea...@access.digex.net | copyright 1995
| Butler, MD | http://access.digex.net/~wkearney/ | W.G.Kearney
| 410-235-4574 | ftp://ftp.digex.net/pub/access/wkearney |
This random quote brought to you by the fortune program:
Please, won't somebody tell me what diddie-wa-diddie means?
M. Wade Heninger
Kearney) wrote:
> It took Apple one year to sell that many Power
> Macintoshes. They may not be doing what YOU want, but they're making an
> awful lot of other folks happy. (and making $6 billion a year as well)
>
It actually took only 10 months, they beat their goal by 2 whole months.
Rock on!
Wade
_____________________________________________________________________
M. Wade Heninger | Another 100% Microsoft free Macintosh
benn...@yvax.byu.edu | ...and it goes to 11
_____________________________________________________________________