Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

unix is user-friendly

24 views
Skip to first unread message

Matt E. Thurston

unread,
Oct 6, 1993, 1:58:24 AM10/6/93
to
I find unix to be very easy to use after learning the basics.
I think the problem is that people as a whole have gotten lazy. they want
a mindless OS that will let them turn on the computer and go. i.e. macs
windows. After I learned about basic commands i found that the manpages
are better than any help I have seen for dos. and the macintosh systam 7
help is more annoying than helpful. Either you have help with
everything or nothing, nothing in between. I personally like the text
only format(although X windows is nice and xv is fun to play around with)
I think to make unix better all you need to do is add a dos like graphics
interface and the ability to use external disk drives on remote logins.


--
_____________________________________________
/ Matt Thurston Thur...@cab.mrs.umn.edu\============--=====--==========
| *OR* Thur...@cda.mrs.umn.edu|============-=-===-=-==========
\_____________________________________________/============-==-=-==-==-=-=-=-=
========/When God way up in heaven, for whatever it was \==-===-===-======-===
========|worth, thought he'd have a big old party, |==-=======-======-===
========|Thought he'd call it Planet earth. |=================-===
========\_______________________________________________/=================-===

Mike O'Connor

unread,
Oct 6, 1993, 7:49:34 AM10/6/93
to
In article <CEGoL...@cda.mrs.umn.edu> thur...@cda.mrs.umn.edu (Matt
E. Thurston ) writes:

:I find unix to be very easy to use after learning the basics.

If you would, list "the basics".

:I think the problem is that people as a whole have gotten lazy. they want


:a mindless OS that will let them turn on the computer and go. i.e. macs
:windows. After I learned about basic commands i found that the manpages
:are better than any help I have seen for dos. and the macintosh systam 7
:help is more annoying than helpful. Either you have help with
:everything or nothing, nothing in between. I personally like the text

Why should the users need "help" in the first place? Why shouldn't
the use be obvious? I certainly don't see MS-Windows as "turn on the
computer and go", particularly if you want to *do* something, like
installing a simple application. Damnit, I want a user-flirtatious
interface for my users, not something they have to learn/fight to use!

:only format(although X windows is nice and xv is fun to play around with)

:I think to make unix better all you need to do is add a dos like graphics
:interface and the ability to use external disk drives on remote logins.

A DOS-like graphics interface, eh? You mean something like ANSI which
Unix boxes can display already? The disk drive problem is something
that solutions exist for -- post to comp.unix.admin. :)

--
Mike O'Connor
<m...@msen.com>

"Do you think God lets you plea-bargain?" -Calvin

Mr. D.F. Hartley

unread,
Oct 6, 1993, 11:05:06 AM10/6/93
to
Mike O'Connor (m...@msen.com) wrote:
: In article <CEGoL...@cda.mrs.umn.edu> thur...@cda.mrs.umn.edu (Matt
: E. Thurston ) writes:

: :I find unix to be very easy to use after learning the basics.

Unix easy!!!!!!

God knows how it ever caught on!

I'm still convinced that it is a virus :-)

If it wanted try to be easy to use it could of at least used commands that
made sense instead of all these abrieviations. Who in their right mind would
think of using ls -al to get a directory listing, and to name a command after
a pet dog (biff) is just silly!

No, I'm sorry, I still think Unix is a big joke!

(Flame shield on)

Dennis.....

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/| Dennis Hartley |\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
| Telephone: | Languages Centre, University of Liverpool | Fax: |
| 051 794 2756 | P.O. Box 147, Liverpool L69 3BX | 051-794-2748 |
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\| dennis1@.liverpool.ac.uk |/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Due to the current financial restraint, |
|the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off until further notice|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Ken Pizzini

unread,
Oct 6, 1993, 6:33:44 PM10/6/93
to
In article <CEHDw...@liverpool.ac.uk>,

>If it wanted try to be easy to use it could of at least used commands that
>made sense instead of all these abrieviations.

Learning commands is learning commands; t'aint much different learning
"ls" than it is learning "dir", "list", or "files".


>Who in their right mind would think of using ls -al to get a directory listing

I don't -- I use "ls" to get a directory listing; "ls -l" is to get
a listing with lotsa extra information.


>and to name a command after a pet dog (biff) is just silly!

Agreed.


--Ken Pizzini

Budi Rahardjo

unread,
Oct 6, 1993, 10:16:00 PM10/6/93
to
den...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr. D.F. Hartley) writes:
...
>Unix easy!!!!!!

>God knows how it ever caught on!

>I'm still convinced that it is a virus :-)

>If it wanted try to be easy to use it could of at least used commands that
>made sense instead of all these abrieviations. Who in their right mind would
>think of using ls -al to get a directory listing, and to name a command after
>a pet dog (biff) is just silly!

>No, I'm sorry, I still think Unix is a big joke!

I bet you, you've never use OpenWindows or better yet NeXTStep.
If you want you can click the directory to get a directory listing.
No more `ls -al'. Of course if you preffer typing text (sometimes
it is faster to do certain things with command line) it is still there..

> D. Hartley

-- budi

Jonathon

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 3:56:20 AM10/7/93
to
In a previous article, den...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr. D.F. Hartley) writes:
: Unix easy!!!!!!

Very few things are easy until you get used to them. Riding a bike is not
easy the first time you try. Do you really expect to get the hang of a
powerful, multi-tasking operating system without a bit of time and a little
effort on your part?

: If it wanted try to be easy to use it could of at least used commands that


: made sense instead of all these abrieviations. Who in their right mind would

: think of using ls -al to get a directory listing,..

Have you heard of the alias command? If you need the comfort of familiarity,
try: alias dir 'ls -Fagl'
Make as many aliases as you like... stick them in your .cshrc, and customise
and rename commands to your heart's content.

: and to name a command after a pet dog (biff) is just silly!

It's short, and because it's so unusual you only have to be told what is
does once, and you remember it forever. That sounds quite practical to me.

: No, I'm sorry, I still think Unix is a big joke!

Got a better joke for you: MessyDOS 6.0.

: (Flame shield on)

Hmmmm.

David Covey

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 7:47:58 AM10/7/93
to

We've just got this newsgroup and I thought it might be somebody's idea
of a joke as Unix is one of, probably the, least friendly/intuitive systems
in the known universe.

In the past few years I've been faced with Sun, Mac, Various PCs, Vax, IBM
Mainframe, ICL Mainframe, CP/M prompts and Unix wins hands rivalling Word Perfect's blank opening screen for user-aggressiveness! The only time it does anything familiar is when somebody's taken the time to set up an MS-DOS like command.

It stinks.

Someone said in an earlier article that it takes only a couple of days to learn and that must rank as one of the single most crass statements in the history of
computing. I'm a fairly computer literate user (I work in software development
but I'm not a techie) who uses different computers and packages from site to
site.

I look forward to Back to the Future IV when they go back in time and slip a
birth pill to the mother of whoever wrote the damn thing. I've been using it
for a year now and I've learned very little. The help (Xman) is both
comprehensive and (almost) totally incomprehensible unless you know all about
the OS and the way it works. (It's great when you've taken the time to have
persuade someone to explain to you the ludicrously finickity way it wants a particular command typing in. Very powerful, but not for end-users.)

Unix is great for boring technical things like compiling and editing, it is
pretty much useless for anything else. The non-development related applications are mostly still in the dark ages compared with their PC cousins - sometimes its like going back to 64k CPM as regards functionality. Those same applications cost a fortune and you get a lot, lot less for a lot LOT more. It's crazy.

OK, so the front ends can be friendly, but let there be no doubt "comp.unix.
user-friendly" is about as contradictory a term as you can get. Ah, looks
like the server's working properly again now. Back to work, perchance to
dream of the day (a long way off) when we get a user friendly computer... In
the meantime I thank God that the hardware needed to run the thing is mainly
too expensive and/or obscure to ever take off in a big way. Mind you, they
thought that about the PC didn't they?

Have a nice day.

Uncle Dave

Mr. D.F. Hartley

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 7:26:25 AM10/7/93
to

: I bet you, you've never use OpenWindows or better yet NeXTStep.

: If you want you can click the directory to get a directory listing.
: No more `ls -al'. Of course if you prefer typing text (sometimes

: it is faster to do certain things with command line) it is still there..

Ok, I agree that using Unix under X-Windows is no doubt 'easy' and 'user-
friendly' but I am linked via a 9600 baud kermit line so it's text only for
me! :-(

It seems to me that in this day and age when a new computer language is
written the writer should look at past mistakes and come up with an interface
(after all that it what it is) that is straight forward. I mean, just {look}
include{at C} {end} for a really friendly language. :-)

John Hascall

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 9:03:11 AM10/7/93
to
den...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr. D.F. Hartley) writes:
}: I bet you, you've never use OpenWindows or better yet NeXTStep.
}: If you want you can click the directory to get a directory listing.
}: No more `ls -al'. Of course if you prefer typing text (sometimes
}: it is faster to do certain things with command line) it is still there..
}
}Ok, I agree that using Unix under X-Windows is no doubt 'easy' and 'user-
}friendly' but I am linked via a 9600 baud kermit line so it's text only for
}me! :-(

And how friendly is a MAC or PeeCee when so linked...
(you are comparing apples and oranges).

John
--
John Hascall ``An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger.''
Systems Software Engineer
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center + Ames, IA 50011 + 515/294-9551

John Hascall

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 9:13:03 AM10/7/93
to
co...@us-es.sel.de (David Covey) writes:
}In the past few years I've been faced with Sun, Mac, Various PCs, Vax, IBM
}Mainframe, ICL Mainframe, CP/M prompts and Unix wins hands rivalling Word Perfect's blank opening screen for user-aggressiveness! The only time it does anything familiar is when somebody's taken the time to set up an MS-DOS like command.

%
$
C:\>

none of these is exactly "friendly", but ...

}Someone said in an earlier article that it takes only a couple of days to learn and that must rank as one of the single most crass statements in the history of
}computing. I'm a fairly computer literate user (I work in software development
}but I'm not a techie) who uses different computers and packages from site to
}site.

I dunno, we manage to teach just about everyone here just about everything
they need to know in 3 hours...

Heck, lots of people don't even take the short course ...

If the Provost can figure it out, how hard can it be... ;-) ;-)

Budi Rahardjo

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 9:20:16 AM10/7/93
to
den...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr. D.F. Hartley) writes:


>: I bet you, you've never use OpenWindows or better yet NeXTStep.
>: If you want you can click the directory to get a directory listing.
>: No more `ls -al'. Of course if you prefer typing text (sometimes
>: it is faster to do certain things with command line) it is still there..

>Ok, I agree that using Unix under X-Windows is no doubt 'easy' and 'user-
>friendly' but I am linked via a 9600 baud kermit line so it's text only for
>me! :-(

What do you mean by `kermit line' ?. You mean 7 bit + parity ?. NO problem.
I've use linux (a FREE unix clone) on my PC at home. I have X windows running.
It is also linked to my University through 9600 baud modem.
Definitely not `text only'.

Ofcourse if you have a dumb terminal (or teletype), you can't run Xwindows.
But don't blame UNIX for this ... :-)

>It seems to me that in this day and age when a new computer language is
>written the writer should look at past mistakes and come up with an interface
>(after all that it what it is) that is straight forward. I mean, just {look}
>include{at C} {end} for a really friendly language. :-)

Have you looked at `oberon' ?. Nice system.
But what computer languages have got to do with interface ?

>Dennis.....

-- budi

Peter da Silva

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 11:26:23 AM10/7/93
to
In article <28ubce$7...@garnet.msen.com> Mike O'Connor <m...@msen.com> writes:
> Why should the users need "help" in the first place? Why shouldn't
> the use be obvious?

An ideal solution. Make things obvious.

I've picked up a bit of cash here and there setting up people's Macs for
them, and I've only ever used my old Mac 128. There's two lessons here:

1. Once you learn the Mac interface, it's pretty easy for
a sophisticated user to figure out any Mac program.

2. For a lot of people, the Mac interface *isn't* obvious.

Does anyone else remember the Canon Cat?
--
Peter da Silva `-_-'
Network Management Technology Incorporated 'U`
1601 Industrial Blvd. Sugar Land, TX 77478 USA
+1 713 274 5180 "Hast Du heute schon Deinen Wolf umarmt?"

Michael Lemke

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 2:25:15 PM10/7/93
to
In article <28vh48$a...@nwfocus.wa.com>, Ken Pizzini <k...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>In article <CEHDw...@liverpool.ac.uk>,
>>If it wanted try to be easy to use it could of at least used commands that
>>made sense instead of all these abrieviations.
>
>Learning commands is learning commands; t'aint much different learning
>"ls" than it is learning "dir", "list", or "files".
>

Learning commands is learning commands; t'aint much different learning

23 than it is learning "dir", "list", or "files". Did I miss
something?

Michael
--
Michael Lemke
Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge UK
(mic...@io.as.utexas.edu or UTSPAN::UTADNX::IO::MICHAEL [SPAN])

Michael Lemke

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 3:12:08 PM10/7/93
to
In article <290i34$f...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au>,

Jonathon <jshe...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> wrote:
>In a previous article, den...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr. D.F. Hartley) writes:
>
>: and to name a command after a pet dog (biff) is just silly!
>
>It's short, and because it's so unusual you only have to be told what is
>does once, and you remember it forever. That sounds quite practical to me.
>

Which contradicts everything else in Unix.

Jack Wasserman

unread,
Oct 8, 1993, 3:43:04 AM10/8/93
to
In article <CEJ3...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, rah...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
(Budi Rahardjo) wrote:

>Ok, I agree that using Unix under X-Windows [sic] is no doubt 'easy' and
>'user-friendly'...

I don't agree with that; X Window System-based UNIX utilities such as
Hewlett-Packard's VUE have only recently begun to give the end user common
functionality with the ease and grace of, say, a Macintosh; editing the
resource database is still a pain too. This is one of the failures of project
Athena that is discussed in the latest _X_Journal_.

Now that the UNIX community appears to be adopting Motif, this
situation is definitely improving, but it's a slow change.

>but I am linked via a 9600 baud kermit line so it's text only for
>me! :-(

UNIX' stone-age terminal handling was arguably flawed from the start.
Looking stuff up in the termcap and/or termio entries during the lifetime of
the process is inefficient, clumsy, and restrictive. Having distinct driver
processes acting as smart front ends would have been a step in the right
direction, but that's too late now -- termcap and terminfo are here to stay.

VMS' terminal handling is more graceful than that of termcap, and their
terminal database is better too -- certainly a lot more readable! VMS
applications tend to use function keys and various character-cell terminal
special features in a very effective, friendly manner (WordPerfect for VMS is
an excellent application for a character-cell interface). Can't say that for
UNIX.

On the other hand, support for foreign (non-DEC) terminals in VMS is
very limited, mostly because applications running SMG instead of assuming DEC
terminals only would tend to run very slowly. This isn't as big of a deal
anymore, with X being a resource hog in comparison. Still, applications such
as TPU and EDT assume that you are using a DEC vt-style terminal. However,
just like UNIX advocates love to point out about their OS, the SMG database is
user-extensible, so if you don't like it, modify it.

>I've use linux (a FREE unix clone) on my PC at home. I have X windows running.

1. "Free" does not necessarily imply "user-friendly", and thus the first
sentence above is irrelevant.
2. "X windows" is a misnomer.

>Ofcourse if you have a dumb terminal (or teletype), you can't run Xwindows.
>But don't blame UNIX for this ... :-)

Rather, one should blame UNIX for still having a very weak interface to
character cell terminals.

>But what computer languages have got to do with interface ?

For one thing, C was invented for UNIX.

--
+-------+ "Those of us who actually knew how to design practical software were
|John | laughing our heads off when the 'visionaries' started talking about
|Davison| coherence and all these other idealistic, foolish things." -- Dave
+-------+ Grubbs, "Project Athena: Ten Years After", _X_Journal_, Sep/Oct '93

torstein hansen

unread,
Oct 8, 1993, 10:52:44 AM10/8/93
to
In article <id.SC9...@nmti.com>, pe...@nmti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> In article <28ubce$7...@garnet.msen.com> Mike O'Connor <m...@msen.com> writes:
|> > Why should the users need "help" in the first place? Why shouldn't
|> > the use be obvious?
|>
|> An ideal solution. Make things obvious.
|>
|> I've picked up a bit of cash here and there setting up people's Macs for
|> them, and I've only ever used my old Mac 128. There's two lessons here:
|>
|> 1. Once you learn the Mac interface, it's pretty easy for
|> a sophisticated user to figure out any Mac program.
|>
|> 2. For a lot of people, the Mac interface *isn't* obvious.

This reminds me of the first time I used a Mac:

I quickly found out that to delete a file all I had to do was drag
and drop it into the bin. Cute...

Now, how to I eject that disk???
Of course, drag and drop it into the bin!

Try to do that for the first time with a disk of valuable data, and
do it without sweating :)

( But nonetheless, I actually like do like the Mac's )



|>
|> Does anyone else remember the Canon Cat?
|> --
|> Peter da Silva `-_-'
|> Network Management Technology Incorporated 'U`
|> 1601 Industrial Blvd. Sugar Land, TX 77478 USA
|> +1 713 274 5180 "Hast Du heute schon Deinen Wolf umarmt?"

--
Torstein Hansen
tors...@itekiris.kjemi.unit.no

Peter da Silva

unread,
Oct 8, 1993, 11:48:55 AM10/8/93
to
In article <2935m8$5...@crchh7ab.bnr.ca> davi...@ecn.purdue.edu (John Davison) writes:
> VMS' terminal handling is more graceful than that of termcap, and their
> terminal database is better too -- certainly a lot more readable!

It should be. It's copied from terminfo.

The big drawback is that few of the important utilities *use* it. In real
terms, you can't use VMS without a VT100 or descendant.

> On the other hand, support for foreign (non-DEC) terminals in VMS is
> very limited, mostly because applications running SMG instead of assuming DEC
> terminals only would tend to run very slowly.

I don't understand this. What's the point of having it then? You were just
complaining that termcap/terminfo was too inefficient, and then you bring
up this tool which is so slow it's not even *used*.

Think about what your point is, here. 'cos I can't see it. UNIX has a weak
interface for character cell terminals. VMS is better, and it's got a weaker
one?

John Lovell

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 7:40:24 PM10/7/93
to
In article a...@nwfocus.wa.com, k...@halcyon.com (Ken Pizzini) writes:
>In article <CEHDw...@liverpool.ac.uk>,
>>If it wanted try to be easy to use it could of at least used commands that
>>made sense instead of all these abrieviations.
>
>Learning commands is learning commands; t'aint much different learning
>"ls" than it is learning "dir", "list", or "files".
>
>
>>Who in their right mind would think of using ls -al to get a directory listing
>
>I don't -- I use "ls" to get a directory listing; "ls -l" is to get
>a listing with lotsa extra information.

but NOT all of the files in that directory...

My favourite is "ls -al |grep ^d" to get a listing of the subdirectories...

John

Lars Hallstr|m Eriksen

unread,
Oct 8, 1993, 10:34:33 PM10/8/93
to
In article <CEJ3D...@news.iastate.edu>, jo...@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
...

> %
> $
> C:\>
>
> none of these is exactly "friendly", but ...
...

Hey, DOS's C:\> sure is a lot more user-friendly than the standard UNIX shell
prompts, because it tells you which directory you're in (you're not always on the
root!). I included the following in my .login file:

alias cd 'cd \!*;set prompt="`hostname`: `pwd`> "'
cd

In theory, it slows down cd, but the milliseconds lost are saved many times over
by not making mistakes and not having to type pwd.

-Lars

Sourcerer

unread,
Oct 9, 1993, 4:11:41 AM10/9/93
to
Matt E. Thurston (thur...@cda.mrs.umn.edu) wrote:
: I find unix to be very easy to use after learning the basics.

: I think the problem is that people as a whole have gotten lazy. they want
: a mindless OS that will let them turn on the computer and go. i.e. macs
: windows.

What's wrong with turning on the computer and going? Nothing, if you're
into productivity and value for your dollars. Everything, if you're into
worshipping your text editor and related mumbo-jumbo.

Recently we had a new extern (from a business school) in the department,
who was lateralled to me for some hours. She was so computer illiterate
that she wasn't aware of the connection between the mouse and the pointer
on the screen. However, in less than an hour (no exageration) she was
creating forms & reports in Paradox for Windows, within a week she had
"hacked" a solution to creating reports for printing labels (if you're
familiar with Pdoxwin, you know what a coup that was).

The point here is that I got a very productive employee at virtually no
cost. After a month she is competent and even creative in word processing,
spreadsheets and databases. I shudder to think what the situation would be
if the computer environment were less user-friendly.

As a member of the technology committee reviewing our options in moving
from an old proprietary network to a LAN (our pc's are standalones now) my
advice is a constant "native windows environment" and "no UNIX". Native
Windows because it is easy for the users thereby eliminating the large
training costs and No UNIX because we don't want to be dependent on someone
else's expertise; there are enough of us here who know DOS that we can roll
our own in a crisis. The general attitude of the UNIX sysadmin types as
expressed in this newsgroup is precisely the reason why we will not adopt
UNIX.

--
(}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}})__
({{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ At the back of the blue bus{{} /(**)\
({dje...@telerama.pgh.pa.us{{{{Sourcerer{{{{{{{{{{) \../
(}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}) ||

John Hascall

unread,
Oct 9, 1993, 10:03:41 AM10/9/93
to
hall...@Siri.Unit.NO (Lars Hallstr|m Eriksen) writes:

}jo...@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
} > %
} > $
} > C:\>
} > none of these is exactly "friendly", but ...

}Hey, DOS's C:\> sure is a lot more user-friendly than the standard UNIX shell
}prompts, because it tells you which directory you're in ...

}I included the following in my .login file:
}
}alias cd 'cd \!*;set prompt="`hostname`: `pwd`> "'
}cd

Bleah! Get tcsh ...

12. NEW PROMPT FORMAT
The format for the prompt shell variable has been changed to include
many new things, such as the current time of day, current working direc-
tory, etc.. The new format uses "%<char>" to signal an expansion, much
like printf(3S). The available sequences are:

%/ Current working directory.
%~ cwd. If it starts with $HOME, that part is
replaced by a ~. In addition if a directory
name prefix matches a user's home directory,
that part of the directory will be substituted
with ~user. NOTE: The ~user substitution will
only happen if the shell has performed a ~
expansion for that user name in this session.
%c or %. Trailing component of cwd, may be
followed by by a digit to get more than one
component, if it starts with $HOME, that
part is replaced with a ~.
%C Trailing component of cwd, may be followed
by a digit to get more than one component, no
~ substitution.
%h, %!, ! Current history event number.
%M The full machine hostname.
%m The hostname up to the first ".".
%S (%s) Start (stop) standout mode.
%B (%b) Start (stop) boldfacing mode. (Only if
tcsh was compiled to be eight bit clean.)
%U (%u) Start (stop) underline mode. (Only if
tcsh was compiled to be eight bit clean.)
%t or %@ Current time of day, in 12-hour, am/pm format.
%T Current time of day, in 24-hour format.
(But see the ampm shell variable below.)
\c `c' is parsed the same way as in bindkey.
^c `c' is parsed the same way as in bindkey.
%% A single %.
%n The user name, contents of $user.
%d The weekday in <Day> format.
%D The day in dd format.
%w The month in <Mon> format.
%W The month in mm format.
%y The year in yy format.
%Y The year in yyyy format.
%l The line (tty) the user is logged on.
%L clear from prompt to end of display or end of line.
%# A `#' if tcsh is run as a root shell,
a `>' if not.
%{..%} Include string as a literal escape sequence.
Note that the enclosed escape sequence, should
only be used to change terminal attributes and
should not move the cursor location. Also, this
cannot be the last character in the prompt
string. (Available only if tcsh was compiled to
be eight bit clean.)
%? return code of the last command executed just
before the prompt.
%R In prompt3 this is the corrected string; in
prompt2 it is the status of the parser.

Peter A. Bidian

unread,
Oct 9, 1993, 10:58:19 AM10/9/93
to

>hall...@Siri.Unit.NO (Lars Hallstr|m Eriksen) writes:
>}jo...@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>} > %
>} > $
>} > C:\>
>} > none of these is exactly "friendly", but ...

>}Hey, DOS's C:\> sure is a lot more user-friendly than the standard UNIX shell
>}prompts, because it tells you which directory you're in ...
>}I included the following in my .login file:
>}
>}alias cd 'cd \!*;set prompt="`hostname`: `pwd`> "'
>}cd


Why would one have the whole pathname at each prompt. I hate this. I saw
on a friends computer a setup that used about 20% of the line. Isn't
that anoying? what is the big deal to type pwd if you are really uncertain.

A nice thing is the option to put the directory in the window title
if you use X or some other window system. It's nice that this feature
works also for MacLayers if you have a modem and login via a modem.

Some extra 2c...
Peter

John Hascall

unread,
Oct 9, 1993, 1:56:27 PM10/9/93
to
pe...@aem.umn.edu (Peter A. Bidian) writes:
}>}Hey, DOS's C:\> sure is a lot more user-friendly than the standard UNIX shell
}>}prompts, because it tells you which directory you're in ...
}>}I included the following in my .login file:

}>}alias cd 'cd \!*;set prompt="`hostname`: `pwd`> "'

}Why would one have the whole pathname at each prompt. I hate this. I saw


}on a friends computer a setup that used about 20% of the line. Isn't
}that anoying? what is the big deal to type pwd if you are really uncertain.

I agree, the "%c" option in tcsh is a nice compromise -- it
just prints the last level of the pathname. For example:

% cd ~/projects/print
% set prompt="%c> "
print>

}A nice thing is the option to put the directory in the window title
}if you use X or some other window system.

Another feature of tcsh, "alias cwdcmd", makes this easy.

Pratip K Banerji

unread,
Oct 9, 1993, 9:42:40 PM10/9/93
to
In article <1993Oct9.0...@ugle.unit.no> hall...@Siri.Unit.NO (Lars Hall

>
>Hey, DOS's C:\> sure is a lot more user-friendly than the standard UNIX shell
>prompts, because it tells you which directory you're in (you're not always on the
>root!). I included the following in my .login file:
>
>alias cd 'cd \!*;set prompt="`hostname`: `pwd`> "'
>cd
>

I'd just like to point that by default the DOS prompt doesn't tell
you what directory you're in.

It tells you what you're drive you're on.

This line in your AUTOEXEC.BAT tells you the directory:

PROMPT $P$G

Hmm. Haven't used DOS in a while. I hope this is right. :)

Scott D. Yelich

unread,
Oct 10, 1993, 12:56:23 AM10/10/93
to
>>>>> "Sourcerer" == Sourcerer <dje...@telerama.pgh.pa.us> writes:

Sourcerer> What's wrong with turning on the computer and going?

hey Tad, what was that quote?

think think, click click...

today I see a much greater growing population who tend to simply
``click click''


Sourcerer> As a member of the technology committee reviewing our
Sourcerer> options in moving from an old proprietary network to a LAN
Sourcerer> (our pc's are standalones now) my advice is a constant
Sourcerer> "native windows environment" and "no UNIX". Native Windows
Sourcerer> because it is easy for the users thereby eliminating the
Sourcerer> large training costs and No UNIX because we don't want to
Sourcerer> be dependent on someone else's expertise; there are enough
Sourcerer> of us here who know DOS that we can roll our own in a
Sourcerer> crisis. The general attitude of the UNIX sysadmin types as
Sourcerer> expressed in this newsgroup is precisely the reason why we
Sourcerer> will not adopt UNIX.

I understand your fear. I and I hope the rest of us wish you the
best. Good luck with surviving into the future...

Scott

Michael Lemke

unread,
Oct 10, 1993, 7:22:28 AM10/10/93
to
In article <pebi.75...@sirocco.aem.umn.edu>,

I have this in my .something:

if( $?TERM == 1 ) then
if( $TERM == "xterm" || `expr $TERM : '\(vt\).*'` == "vt" ) then
alias precmd 'echo -n "<ESC>=<ESC>7<ESC>[H<ESC>[7m${cwd}<ESC>[m<ESC>[K<ESC>8"'
setenv VT100 true
set prompt="%m> "
else
set prompt="%~ %m> "
endif
endif

Replace <ESC> with a real escape.

Sourcerer

unread,
Oct 10, 1993, 3:12:57 PM10/10/93
to
Scott D. Yelich (sc...@wijiji.santafe.edu) wrote:

: think think, click click...

: Scott

Sigh. It's probably hopeless. Fear is not the issue. The bottom line is
the issue. Good luck in finding a job when you graduate. Your attitue
should really impress at the interviews.

Peter da Silva

unread,
Oct 12, 1993, 12:02:43 PM10/12/93
to
In article <CEJwF...@sdr.slb.com> lov...@sdr.slb.com writes:
> My favourite is "ls -al |grep ^d" to get a listing of the subdirectories...

echo */.

Message has been deleted

Thomas A Fine

unread,
Oct 12, 1993, 5:26:57 PM10/12/93
to
In article <29f05i$n...@soc2.pop.psu.edu> ba...@pop.psu.edu (David Barr) writes:

>In article <id.CNE...@nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <pe...@nmti.com> wrote:
>>In article <CEJwF...@sdr.slb.com> lov...@sdr.slb.com writes:
>>> My favourite is "ls -al |grep ^d" to get a listing of the subdirectories...
>>
>>echo */.
>
>Doesn't behave under SunOS 4.1.3. :-(

Works great under SunOS 4.1.3. :-)

Umm, under sh, and tcsh, the period is required (that wasn't the end of
a sentence). Under ksh, csh, and cshe, the period isn't needed. At
least on my system, that is.

tom

David S. Fox

unread,
Oct 12, 1993, 5:45:05 PM10/12/93
to
In article <29f05i$n...@soc2.pop.psu.edu> ba...@pop.psu.edu (David Barr) writes:

In article <id.CNE...@nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <pe...@nmti.com> wrote:

>In article <CEJwF...@sdr.slb.com> lov...@sdr.slb.com writes:
>> My favourite is "ls -al |grep ^d" to get a listing of the subdirectories...
>
>echo */.

Doesn't behave under SunOS 4.1.3. :-(

This is shell behavior, and the particular Unix version doesn't really
affect it. It works under csh (and its derivatives.) It also works
in ksh. In bash it (oddly) echos all the files and appends "/" to
each. In the Bourne shell (sh) it just echos "*/" unless you have
files which actually end with a slash.
--
David S. Fox -- f...@graphics.cs.nyu.edu -- I have spoken. All depart.

Bernd Meyer

unread,
Oct 11, 1993, 10:38:35 AM10/11/93
to
mic...@mail.ast.cam.ac.uk (Michael Lemke) writes:

>In article <28vh48$a...@nwfocus.wa.com>, Ken Pizzini <k...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>>In article <CEHDw...@liverpool.ac.uk>,
>>>If it wanted try to be easy to use it could of at least used commands that
>>>made sense instead of all these abrieviations.
>>
>>Learning commands is learning commands; t'aint much different learning
>>"ls" than it is learning "dir", "list", or "files".
>>

>Learning commands is learning commands; t'aint much different learning
>23 than it is learning "dir", "list", or "files". Did I miss
>something?

You did! You just missed the best idea ever for command names that people
can SPEAK about without problems. No confusion anymore if the editor is call
VeeEye, Veye, six or whatever comes to mind. Let's just call it 17. Or
better, let's call emacs 17 and call vi 199464552445 :-)

Bernie
--
We both know that the earth is round | Bernd Meyer, EE-student
So we can't see the way before us to its end | "Nobody is a failure who has
We walk on this way, hand in hand, | friends" (from: "It's a
And I hope you are still with me behind the horizon| wonderful life")

Bernd Meyer

unread,
Oct 11, 1993, 10:47:24 AM10/11/93
to
dje...@telerama.pgh.pa.us (Sourcerer) writes:

>What's wrong with turning on the computer and going? Nothing, if you're
>into productivity and value for your dollars. Everything, if you're into
>worshipping your text editor and related mumbo-jumbo.

>Recently we had a new extern (from a business school) in the department,
>who was lateralled to me for some hours. She was so computer illiterate
>that she wasn't aware of the connection between the mouse and the pointer
>on the screen. However, in less than an hour (no exageration) she was
>creating forms & reports in Paradox for Windows, within a week she had
>"hacked" a solution to creating reports for printing labels (if you're
>familiar with Pdoxwin, you know what a coup that was).

And this is exactly the point - she may have been doing something after one
hour, which she couldn't have done under a real OS. But you obviously never
explained some of the basic concepts to her - so she was working with
inferior tools and only marginal knowledge. I bet that if you had taken the
first week to explain the basics of today's computing to her, as well as
to introduce her to the oh so user-hostile unix, the amount of work done
after one month would be at least equal, and after to months she would have
been much more productive.

THAT is the problem with "switch on and go". Like my father, who was rather
surprised that in Winword you could actually tell it to print n copies of
the document, or even better, only some of the pages. He has wasted a lot of
time and paper so far because he didn't read the manual - "there is a
printer icon on the screen, click it, and the document gets printed" (not
that he used this terms, of course....) was all he knew. Oh well....

Kjetil Torgrim Homme

unread,
Oct 13, 1993, 2:03:15 AM10/13/93
to
David S. Fox: [ about echo */ ]

> In bash it (oddly) echos all the files and appends "/" to each.

This has been fixed in bash-1.13cwru.

> In the Bourne shell (sh) it just echos "*/" unless you have files
> which actually end with a slash.

Oh no, the mythical filenames with slash in them! You know, you can
remove them by just quoting the -f option to rm. :-)


Kjetil T.
--
"Unix is not supposed to be user-friendly, it's supposed to be useful"
- Frank Greco

F. Scott Ophof

unread,
Oct 13, 1993, 4:54:24 AM10/13/93
to
On Mon, 11 Oct 1993 14:38:35 GMT Bernd Meyer said:
>mic...@mail.ast.cam.ac.uk (Michael Lemke) writes:
>>Learning commands is learning commands; t'aint much different learning
>>23 than it is learning "dir", "list", or "files". Did I miss
>>something?
>You did! You just missed the best idea ever for command names that people
>can SPEAK about without problems. No confusion anymore if the editor is call
>VeeEye, Veye, six or whatever comes to mind. Let's just call it 17. Or
>better, let's call emacs 17 and call vi 199464552445 :-)

Right on, Bernie! When I want to copy a file, it's so much easier
to type "copyfile", or any unique abbreviation (in the relevant
opsys that would be anthing from "copyfil" to "cop") than to
remember something like "cp"...
Note btw that "cp" is NOT really an abbreviation. And if the Unix
people are so fond of short commands, then I wonder why the
"(un)compress" command is so long... :-(
The fact that Unix doesn't seem to allow abbreviations by default,
and that one has to define one's own aliases has always been a thorn
in my side.


Regards.
$$\

F. Scott Ophof

unread,
Oct 13, 1993, 4:54:31 AM10/13/93
to
On 12 Oct 1993 17:26:57 -0400 Thomas A Fine said:
>In article <29f05i$n...@soc2.pop.psu.edu> ba...@pop.psu.edu (David Barr) writes:
>>In article <id.CNE...@nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <pe...@nmti.com> wrote:
>>>In article <CEJwF...@sdr.slb.com> lov...@sdr.slb.com writes:
>>>> My favourite is "ls -al |grep ^d" to get a listing of the subdirectories...
>>>echo */.
...

>Umm, under sh, and tcsh, the period is required (that wasn't the end of
>a sentence).

Why not make it easier for people in general to understand what one
is referring to, by always putting commands and such on separate,
indented lines? Like this:
ls -al |grep ^d
or:
echo */.

That way it's much clearer. Though in some cases the '^' character
may mean that one is implying a Control-D, in others simply a '^'
followed by a lower-case 'd'...
For those who *know* Unix it would mean the latter in this case,
because they know that Ctrl-D means:
logout

And we'd better start assuming that not everyone reading this group
is intimate (enough) with Unix...


Regards.
$$\

Peter da Silva

unread,
Oct 13, 1993, 11:09:54 AM10/13/93
to
I wrote:
> >echo */.

> In article <29f05i$n...@soc2.pop.psu.edu> ba...@pop.psu.edu (David Barr) writes:
> Doesn't behave under SunOS 4.1.3. :-(

In article <FOX.93Oc...@graphics.cs.nyu.edu> f...@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David S. Fox) writes:
> This is shell behavior, [...] In the Bourne shell (sh) it just echos "*/"

Amusing.

See, what I wrote was

echo */.

That is,

"echo */."

Davids Barr and Fox interpreted that as:

"echo */".

It's not just computers that fail to correctly interpret context-dependant
information. People do it too. I have a lot of trouble with this in the
USA, since I don't have an American accent. (then there's the cases that
still happen when I'm referred to as 'Peter' and people think they're talking
to a British fellow also named Peter who used to work here. Had quite a few
conversations with folks that made NO sense to me until I twigged to what
was going on)

I think a fair amount of the 'UNIX is/isn't user friendly' messages here are
related to this. What people are saying is 'UNIX is/isn't what I'm used to'.
Same thing with VMS. I hate VMS. To me, it's always getting in my way... but
I generally know where I'm going. For people who don't having that sort of
guidance is useful.

Sourcerer

unread,
Oct 13, 1993, 11:57:50 AM10/13/93
to
Bernd Meyer (ro...@umibox.hanse.de) wrote:
: dje...@telerama.pgh.pa.us (Sourcerer) writes:

Bernie, that's the point. Given the tools that easily produced
sophisticated results, she was encouraged by her success and moved off on her
own and did in fact RTFM and is in fact on her way to competence on three
systems as a user, and can assess her situation when she has a problem and
can ask intelligent questions.

Success is both rewarding and encouraging and confidence building.
Business is not an academic environment. You don't have until next week to
turn in the project. Every day is one goddam pop quiz after another...

Message has been deleted

Tim Smith

unread,
Oct 13, 1993, 9:51:14 PM10/13/93
to
F. Scott Ophof <Op...@CS.UWindsor.Ca> wrote:
>Why not make it easier for people in general to understand what one
>is referring to, by always putting commands and such on separate,
>indented lines? Like this:
> ls -al |grep ^d
>or:
> echo */.
>
>That way it's much clearer. Though in some cases the '^' character

If you really want to be clear, don't forget to say what shell you are
using. "ls -al |grep ^d" will execute two programs in some shells
(ls and grep) and *three* in some other shells (ls and grep and d). :-)

--Tim Smith

Teng-Kiat Lee

unread,
Oct 14, 1993, 9:41:22 PM10/14/93
to
David Barr (ba...@pop.psu.edu) wrote:
: In article <id.CNE...@nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <pe...@nmti.com> wrote:

: >In article <CEJwF...@sdr.slb.com> lov...@sdr.slb.com writes:
: >> My favourite is "ls -al |grep ^d" to get a listing of the subdirectories...
: >
: >echo */.

: Doesn't behave under SunOS 4.1.3. :-(

Did you check if your 'ls' has not already been aliased like most of
us? I better way is to go straight to the source and do:
/usr/bin/ls -la | grep "^d"

Kiat
----------------
Teng-Kiat Lee VLSI CAD & Design Lab
Internet: elel...@nuscc.nus.sg Dept. of Electrical Engineering
t....@ieee.org National University of Singapore
Voice: (65)-772-6319 10 Kent Ridge Crescent
(65)-467-1518 Singapore 0511
----------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Scott Ophof

unread,
Oct 16, 1993, 2:32:13 AM10/16/93
to
On Wed, 13 Oct 1993 15:09:54 GMT Peter da Silva said:
...

>It's not just computers that fail to correctly interpret context-dependant
>information. People do it too.

Exactly. Which is why I posted my request that people put commands
on separate lines. I failed to request that posters would be
advised to assume that readers might need some hints about non-
obvious things (but are obvious to the poster).

>I think a fair amount of the 'UNIX is/isn't user friendly' messages here are
>related to this. What people are saying is 'UNIX is/isn't what I'm used to'.
>Same thing with VMS. I hate VMS. To me, it's always getting in my way... but
>I generally know where I'm going. For people who don't having that sort of
>guidance is useful.

Or "what KIND of mindset I'm used to". The following is mainly
related to the face a system presents to its users, and is a
rather chronological review of my computer background:
I hate the predecessor of VMS (RSX/11-M). (9 months sys-op)
I don't mind Sperry's editor (but little chance to play with it)
I hate Cyber's NOS-BE. (part-time user during 1 year)
I hate Modcomp's Max IV. (same as NOS-BE)
I *love* IBM's VM/CMS. (7 yrs, from sys-op & up)
I hate MS/PC-DOS. (lo these past 5-6 years...)
A few play sessions with the Mac. (unimpressed (by its flashiness))
I hate Unix (any flavour I've seen). (user-only, past 3 years)

Notice a pattern?
- Most of the systems I feel negative about have rather hard links
between functions and keys.
- All of those use a lot of "oddball" characters in their commands
and syntax.

Anything else?


Regards.
$$\

Budi Rahardjo

unread,
Oct 17, 1993, 12:43:03 AM10/17/93
to
In <931013.04...@MReXX-0.20> Op...@CS.UWindsor.Ca (F. Scott Ophof) writes:
...

>Right on, Bernie! When I want to copy a file, it's so much easier
>to type "copyfile", or any unique abbreviation (in the relevant
>opsys that would be anthing from "copyfil" to "cop") than to
>remember something like "cp"...
>Note btw that "cp" is NOT really an abbreviation. And if the Unix
>people are so fond of short commands, then I wonder why the
>"(un)compress" command is so long... :-(
>The fact that Unix doesn't seem to allow abbreviations by default,
>and that one has to define one's own aliases has always been a thorn
>in my side.

Why use "dir", then. Why noy "directory" or "catalog" (reminds me of
my ][). or why 'rmdir' instead of "removedirectory" ?.

Re: (un)compress, well use `gzip' :-)

-- budi

David Nicodemus

unread,
Oct 16, 1993, 10:47:11 PM10/16/93
to
In article <295rnt$j...@telerama.pgh.pa.us> dje...@telerama.pgh.pa.us (Sourcerer) writes:


>> What's wrong with turning on the computer and going? Nothing, if you're
>> into productivity and value for your dollars. Everything, if you're into
>> worshipping your text editor and related mumbo-jumbo.

A good point, if you are looking to crank out a document or slide presentation
there is no need to make the task any more complicated than it needs to be.

>> Recently we had a new extern (from a business school) in the department,
>> who was lateralled to me for some hours. She was so computer illiterate
>> that she wasn't aware of the connection between the mouse and the pointer
>> on the screen. However, in less than an hour (no exageration) she was
>> creating forms & reports in Paradox for Windows, within a week she had
>> "hacked" a solution to creating reports for printing labels (if you're
>> familiar with Pdoxwin, you know what a coup that was).

From your story, I would say that you were luck enough to have been "lateralled"
a very intelligent women who was able to compensate for her lack of knowledge
with an ability to sit down and work out a problem. I belive that such a person
would do just fine on a UNIX machine given a reasonable time investment.

>> The point here is that I got a very productive employee at virtually no
>> cost. After a month she is competent and even creative in word processing,
>> spreadsheets and databases. I shudder to think what the situation would be
>> if the computer environment were less user-friendly.

I belive that there is one very important point that needs to be taken into
consideration in these user-friendly VS user-notso-friendly debates. One being
that no matter how hard we try, there is now and never will be one operating
system for all people. My girlfriend is not going to start using UNIX to do
magazine design, and I am not going to start using a Mac to develop apps in c/c++.
The two operating systems were developed for different jobs, and in nearly all cases
it is best to use them for what they are designed to do best.

The one thing that bothers me about what you said above is that you seem to think
that you got something for nothing, when what you really got is what you paid for.
Your company has invested money into windows apps that are easy to use, and that
is what you got, nothing more and nothing less. The women is not a technical
wizard now any more than she was before, she is simply an intelligent, creative person
who can read directions. If she never needs to be any more than fine, I dont think
that even the biggest fans of UNIX want to shove it down some ones throat if they do
not need to know it. The days of one operating system for everyone are long
since over (if they were ever here to start with). There are alot of neet apps
written for windows that are easy to use, so hey why not use them, but do not
delude yourself into thinking that you really get a feel for how a computer
works from them. But if you never need to know that stuff then thats fine.

>> As a member of the technology committee reviewing our options in moving
>> from an old proprietary network to a LAN (our pc's are standalones now) my
>> advice is a constant "native windows environment" and "no UNIX". Native
>> Windows because it is easy for the users thereby eliminating the large
>> training costs and No UNIX because we don't want to be dependent on someone
>> else's expertise; there are enough of us here who know DOS that we can roll
>> our own in a crisis. The general attitude of the UNIX sysadmin types as
>> expressed in this newsgroup is precisely the reason why we will not adopt
>> UNIX.

Well, the entire world does not revolve around DOS, I am not saying that it's
not the fave operating system of PC users across the land, but you cannot
say that it is as powerful as UNIX. If your company does not need that power
then fine. As far as knowing DOS well enough to "roll your own"? I guess
that some group of people must know DOS better than others, which makes your
company dependent on their expertise.


In closing, I think that by going to such great efforts to shield people
from anything "too complicated" you perpetuate the very thing that you complain
about. No matter how wiz-bang easy to use something is, there will always have
to be some one who knows what to do when it breaks. Now this notion cannot be
ever be completely avoided, as no one person can know everything about how
ever tool they use works (but it would be nice). We can however limit the number
of trips to the mechanic so to speak. The more an employee knows about there
tools, the less they will have to go bug some else every time something unexpexted
happens. I think I may have gotten off the UNIX-user-friendly track a bit, but
it al relates to the same idea. No matter what operating system you are using,
knowledge is the most powerful tool you can have.

F. Scott Ophof

unread,
Oct 18, 1993, 4:48:05 AM10/18/93
to
You miss the point.

But OK, as to your questions, the full-word:
directory
(or:
catalog
or any everyday full-word meaning the same thing) should be the
default, but any subset starting from the left of the full word (ie.
abbreviation) should be allowed, down to the shortest unique subset.

BTW, a directory is actually nothing else than the name of a file,
so why the heck should they be treated differently from files?


>Re: (un)compress, well use `gzip' :-)

Is the command:
gzip
the current default on all Unix flavours (hard/software), at
whatever level the opsys may be? Methinks "no"...
And what if I were to define an alias "gzip" to invoke that long
word, and after some time the sysadmin installs the real software
but for some reason I don't know of it happening? Can you figure
what can happen at some time or another? What if this happens to
someone who simply doesn't know what it's all about?


Regards.
$$\

F. Scott Ophof

unread,
Oct 18, 1993, 4:48:07 AM10/18/93
to
On 17 Oct 93 02:47:11 David Nicodemus said:
>In article <295rnt$j...@telerama.pgh.pa.us> dje...@telerama.pgh.pa.us (Sourcerer) writes:
>... I belive

>that such a person would do just fine on a UNIX machine given a reasonable
>time investment.

What may be a "reasonable time investment" in the academic or
research envir may be (way) too much for the business world...


>>> The point here is that I got a very productive employee at virtually no
>>> cost. After a month she is competent and even creative in word processing,
>>> spreadsheets and databases. I shudder to think what the situation would be
>>> if the computer environment were less user-friendly.

>I belive that there is one very important point that needs to be taken into
>consideration in these user-friendly VS user-notso-friendly debates. One
>being that no matter how hard we try, there is now and never will be one
>operating system for all people.

A one-&-only doesn't seem to be necessary, if only because not only
the goals are different, but also the users have differing mindsets.
But more opsyses and applications could be designed, modified, and
enhanced to allow for easier use by more different types of users.
Of course not only applications and help files need to be updated to
reflect this change, but also the mindset of those people who need
to provide assistance to the users.


>>> As a member of the technology committee reviewing our options in moving
>>> from an old proprietary network to a LAN (our pc's are standalones now) my
>>> advice is a constant "native windows environment" and "no UNIX".
>>> [..] The general attitude of the UNIX sysadmin types as

>>> expressed in this newsgroup is precisely the reason why we will not adopt
>>> UNIX.

Ie. any environment where the users can get on with their work
without needing to spend a lot of time in first *learning* the
environment.


>Well, the entire world does not revolve around DOS, I am not saying that it's
>not the fave operating system of PC users across the land, but you cannot
>say that it is as powerful as UNIX.

The issue doesn't seem to be "as/more powerful as/than Unix".
And even if it were, do you have any idea what a network of REALLY
closely interconnected PCs can do, especially if/when a machine can
shift some of its load onto other machines in the network? Such a
setup is sure to be implemented in the future.


>In closing, I think that by going to such great efforts to shield people from
>anything "too complicated" you perpetuate the very thing that you complain
>about.

The idea is to provide the possibility of a shield for those who (at
the level they are at) do not need that "complicated stuff". But as
they progress, they will themselves lower those shields bit by bit,
and become more what is called "power-users".
This can be done in the Unix envir, that I'm sure of. What is much
needed is a change in the mindset of the current Unix users, they
could stop seeing themselves as the elite and all others as less of
stature, ie. no more "If you can't cut it, scram".


Regards.
$$\
0 new messages