Macs Suck..

0 views
Skip to first unread message

John William Chambless

unread,
Nov 4, 1994, 11:36:22 PM11/4/94
to
In article <39a20g$o...@griffin.phoenix.net>,
Bryan Shelton <br...@phoenix.phoenix.net> wrote:


[ 40 lines of "Macs are great 'cause ya don't gotta be able to type" ]

>(I wish my Mac were a woman so I could make love to it)

That would probably be about your only chance.

PS: Please stop posting your childish MAC-mongering in misc.test.

>
>


--
/* you are not expected to understand this */

John William Chambless

unread,
Nov 5, 1994, 8:14:31 PM11/5/94
to
In article <39a20g$o...@griffin.phoenix.net>,
Bryan Shelton <br...@phoenix.phoenix.net> wrote:

> What is it with you clowns who like your operating systems to be as
>difficult to use as possible? What's wrong with having a useless keyboard

Some of us like to type words on a computer, Bryan. There's life
beyond the JPEG viewer, bud.

>if YOU DON'T NEED THE GODDAMN THING to do the vast majority of daily
>house-keeping chores on the computer, or, for that matter, select options
>whithin an application? Do I have to point out the obvious, that doing
>things like moving files around from one folder/directory to another on
>the Mac is an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE FASTER compared to the antiquated DOS?!

Assuming, for the moment, that you actually understand the phrase
"order of magnitude", tell me how the Mac interface is faster.
I've used the Mac, the Winblows file manager and various X file
managers, and NONE are as fast and easy as the command line.

>Oh, yes, this is where DOS users like to point out the few exceptions to
>the rule: yes, del *.* is actually faster than on the Mac. Big damn deal.
>Let's compare ALL the commands from top to bottom; the Mac is the winner
>hands down.

Could you tell me where the icon for "Copy all the files more than
a day old to the backup directory" is in the Finder? I'm so clueless...

How about "find all the files with the word 'reorganization' in them"?

>You guys draw a masochistic pleasure from memorizing umpteen
>different cryptic commands

It's not as hard as it seems to the ignorant. Once you know
how the thing works, it's easy to find how to do things. Especially
if you can read.

>and loboriously typing them out (and frequently
^^^^^^^^^^^--- /* no comment */
>RE-typing them because of the inevitable mistakes). WINDOWS is a lame
>imitation of the Mac that I won't even dignify with further comment. Hey,

I'll agree with that. But what's your point? Neither Winhoze, System 7,
or Xfm offer anything to match the power of the command line.

A generation of marketdroids decided that if computers were easy
for total imbeciles to use, they'd sell more of them. So what?

> Wise up and face the facts: the Mac is a work of genius that
>has caused vast repercussions in this industry. Get with the program!
>
I guess that's why the new PowerMac(tm) commercial is built around
the wonderful fact that you can run Windows programs on it, eh?

What a concept: a toy emulating a turd!

R. Patrick Dockrey

unread,
Nov 5, 1994, 10:31:01 PM11/5/94
to
John William Chambless (cham...@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: In article <39a20g$o...@griffin.phoenix.net>,
: Bryan Shelton <br...@phoenix.phoenix.net> wrote:


: [ 40 lines of "Macs are great 'cause ya don't gotta be able to type" ]

: >(I wish my Mac were a woman so I could make love to it)

: That would probably be about your only chance

Sort of gives a whole new meaning to the term "point and click" doesn't it?

Speaker For The Dead
________
| SPQR |
~~~~~~~~
rdoc...@comtch.iea.com

!Productions

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 1:46:20 AM11/6/94
to
In article <39haln$28...@whale.st.usm.edu>,

John William Chambless <cham...@whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>In article <39a20g$o...@griffin.phoenix.net>,
>Bryan Shelton <br...@phoenix.phoenix.net> wrote:
>>Oh, yes, this is where DOS users like to point out the few exceptions to
>>the rule: yes, del *.* is actually faster than on the Mac. Big damn deal.
>>Let's compare ALL the commands from top to bottom; the Mac is the winner
>>hands down.
>
>Could you tell me where the icon for "Copy all the files more than
>a day old to the backup directory" is in the Finder? I'm so clueless...
>
>How about "find all the files with the word 'reorganization' in them"?

As much as I hate the Mac, I have to defend it here. Select "Find",
select "More options", "Date", "greater than" and then the date.

Or "Find", "Contains" (the default) and type it in. (Unless you mean
files that have the word "reorganisation" actually embedded in the file,
which isn't all that easy in DOS, either.)

Having said that, they still suck! :)

--
!Productions 1994

GCS -d+ H+ s++:- g+ p? !au a- w+++ v* C+++ UB+++A++++ P++ L++ E+ N+++ K+ !W---
M-- V po- Y+ t++ 5+ jx R G? tv++ D- B--- e+ u** h f r++ !n y+

Ray Cathcart

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 4:00:29 AM11/6/94
to
In article <39haln$28...@whale.st.usm.edu>, cham...@whale.st.usm.edu (John
William Chambless) wrote:

> Some of us like to type words on a computer, Bryan. There's life
> beyond the JPEG viewer, bud.

Okay, so use your cli. I don't have to use my brain, though. I know that
sounds funny, but it IS harder to make a mistake on a Mac then in a CLI.
And if you goof in a CLI with something like "del *.*", you've just made
life hard.

> Assuming, for the moment, that you actually understand the phrase
> "order of magnitude", tell me how the Mac interface is faster.
> I've used the Mac, the Winblows file manager and various X file
> managers, and NONE are as fast and easy as the command line.

PLEASE don't compare File Manager to the Mac's Finder. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!

> Could you tell me where the icon for "Copy all the files more than
> a day old to the backup directory" is in the Finder? I'm so clueless...

Ever hear of Apple Script?

> How about "find all the files with the word 'reorganization' in them"?

Cmd-F, type "reorganization", hit enter.



> >You guys draw a masochistic pleasure from memorizing umpteen
> >different cryptic commands
>
> It's not as hard as it seems to the ignorant. Once you know
> how the thing works, it's easy to find how to do things. Especially
> if you can read.

I think his point isn't that it's HARD, but that it's unnecessary and
archaic, not to mention unintuitive. While you are reading manuals, I am
preparing a presentation for a major client. You see?



> I'll agree with that. But what's your point? Neither Winhoze, System 7,
> or Xfm offer anything to match the power of the command line.

How about a command-line emulation? Not that you need it, but it IS there.
Just what is it that you can do with the CLI that makes it so powerful,
anyway? Hell, I'd switch back to DOS for a good reason...

> A generation of marketdroids decided that if computers were easy
> for total imbeciles to use, they'd sell more of them. So what?
>
> > Wise up and face the facts: the Mac is a work of genius that
> >has caused vast repercussions in this industry. Get with the program!
> >
> I guess that's why the new PowerMac(tm) commercial is built around
> the wonderful fact that you can run Windows programs on it, eh?
>
> What a concept: a toy emulating a turd!

Actually, it would be a toy emulating a turd emulating a toy on top of
another turd...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ray Cathcart
Drexel University
st93...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Russ Allbery

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 6:53:31 AM11/6/94
to
!Productions <men...@sefl.satelnet.org> writes:
>John William Chambless <cham...@whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Could you tell me where the icon for "Copy all the files more than
>>a day old to the backup directory" is in the Finder? I'm so clueless...
>>
>>How about "find all the files with the word 'reorganization' in them"?
>
>As much as I hate the Mac, I have to defend it here. Select "Find",
>select "More options", "Date", "greater than" and then the date.

Ah, but we want to copy them into the backup directory too. And on my
system, that's on a different computer 8-). Admittedly, DOS doesn't do very
good with rcp or AFS mounts either.

>Or "Find", "Contains" (the default) and type it in. (Unless you mean
>files that have the word "reorganisation" actually embedded in the file,
>which isn't all that easy in DOS, either.)

I'm pretty sure he meant embedded in the file, and in DOS you use a little
public domain utility called grep. DOS as a base operating system sucks,
but there is such a ridiculous amount of freeware available, it becomes
almost useable.

--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/

When aiming for the common denominator, be prepared for the occasional
division by zero. [Anonymous]

DOMINIC TRISTRAM

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 10:25:33 AM11/6/94
to
My computer is lovely. It has an intuitive GUI interface, as well as a decent
shell. It has real pre-emptive multi-tasking (hey you Windows users, I can
format floppies AND do other things at once!). It can run DOS and Windows
(if you really want it to). It can run Mac software - faster than a more expensive
Mac. It has software that is reasonably priced and easy to find. It has
millions of satisfied users who swear by it. It costs just less than 250 pounds
for the basic model, and above-all, it's had all of this since 1985 (when PC's
were lucky to have CGA and Macs were.. well... absent.)

I own, of course, an Amiga.

Dominic

--
______________________________________________
Dominic Tristram - These opinions are
mine, and mine alone. So there.
Read my Mosaic page - www.dcs.aber.ac.uk/~dbt3
----------------------------------------------

Darin Johnson

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 7:11:09 PM11/6/94
to
> Okay, so use your cli. I don't have to use my brain, though. I know that
> sounds funny, but it IS harder to make a mistake on a Mac then in a CLI.

It's also harder to make a mistake if you just leave the Mac turned off.
--
Darin Johnson
djoh...@ucsd.edu
Caution! Under no circumstances confuse the mesh with the
interleave operator, except under confusing circumstances!

Miguel Carrasquer

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 7:28:33 PM11/6/94
to
In article <39ishd$9...@fileserv.aber.ac.uk>,

DOMINIC TRISTRAM <db...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
>My computer is lovely. It has an intuitive GUI interface, as well as a decent
>shell. It has real pre-emptive multi-tasking (hey you Windows users, I can
>format floppies AND do other things at once!). It can run DOS and Windows
>(if you really want it to). It can run Mac software - faster than a more
>expensive
>Mac. It has software that is reasonably priced and easy to find. It has
>millions of satisfied users who swear by it. It costs just less than 250
>pounds
>for the basic model, and above-all, it's had all of this since 1985 (when PC's
>were lucky to have CGA and Macs were.. well... absent.)

Well, actually they weren't... 1984. (Lisas before that).

>
>I own, of course, an Amiga.
>

--
Miguel Carrasquer ____________________ ~~~
Amsterdam [ ||]~
m...@inter.NL.net ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

Robert Watkins

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 12:43:31 PM11/6/94
to
Russ Allbery (r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

: !Productions <men...@sefl.satelnet.org> writes:
: >John William Chambless <cham...@whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
: >>
: >>Could you tell me where the icon for "Copy all the files more than
: >>a day old to the backup directory" is in the Finder? I'm so clueless...
: >>
: >>How about "find all the files with the word 'reorganization' in them"?
: >
: >As much as I hate the Mac, I have to defend it here. Select "Find",
: >select "More options", "Date", "greater than" and then the date.

: Ah, but we want to copy them into the backup directory too. And on my
: system, that's on a different computer 8-). Admittedly, DOS doesn't do very
: good with rcp or AFS mounts either.

So, having selected all the files using find, you drag them over to the
backup directory on the remotely mounted server. What's the problem?

: >Or "Find", "Contains" (the default) and type it in. (Unless you mean

: >files that have the word "reorganisation" actually embedded in the file,
: >which isn't all that easy in DOS, either.)

: I'm pretty sure he meant embedded in the file, and in DOS you use a little
: public domain utility called grep. DOS as a base operating system sucks,
: but there is such a ridiculous amount of freeware available, it becomes
: almost useable.

Doesn't AppleScript have a grep-like ability?

--
Robert Watkins b...@it.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.

Jeff Obik Epler

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 2:04:24 PM11/6/94
to
men...@sefl.satelnet.org (!Productions) writes:
>>Could you tell me where the icon for "Copy all the files more than
>>a day old to the backup directory" is in the Finder? I'm so clueless...
>>
>>How about "find all the files with the word 'reorganization' in them"?

>As much as I hate the Mac, I have to defend it here. Select "Find",
>select "More options", "Date", "greater than" and then the date.

>Or "Find", "Contains" (the default) and type it in. (Unless you mean
>files that have the word "reorganisation" actually embedded in the file,
>which isn't all that easy in DOS, either.)

I think he was talking about the files containing the word in their
body, not their filename. But we're talking about real OSs here...
find / -print | xargs grep -l reorganization | xargs <whatever>

Of course, this will run the disk a little bit...

>Having said that, they still suck! :)

Well yeah. In Our Humble Opinions. All the same, I still end up
typing a letter or short paper on them sometimes..

Jeff
--
____ "And if I smile please tell me some bad news
\BI/ before I laugh and act like a fool"
\/ -The Who "Behind Blue Eyes"
grep -vi obik Running Linux 1.1 -- Free Unix for 386+ machines

Peter Seebach

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 9:09:58 PM11/6/94
to
In article <st93z5dw-061...@sn207030.resnet.drexel.edu> st93...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Ray Cathcart) writes:
>Ever hear of Apple Script?

Oh, yeah, and it's much less likely that you'll typo on a point-and-click
keyboard, but either this is no longer point-n-click (killing your point),
or it's pretty ugly.


>> How about "find all the files with the word 'reorganization' in them"?

>Cmd-F, type "reorganization", hit enter.

No, he meant the result of 'find . -type f -print | xargs grep -l
reorganization'
(where -l is applicable), i.e., find all files where the *file* contains
'reorganization'

>I think his point isn't that it's HARD, but that it's unnecessary and
>archaic, not to mention unintuitive. While you are reading manuals, I am
>preparing a presentation for a major client. You see?

Yup. And while you are still preparing your presentation, and moving the
mouse, and letting go of the mouse to type a word, and moving the mouse,
and moving the mouse, and moving the mouse, and clicking occasionally, I've
finished my first two.

We benchmarked it in college; the first document takes longer in nroff/tex/
whatever you use/ than in MS WORD for the Mac. The seocnd takes much much
less time. By about three documents, for simple work, the tex style
is faster.

It's faster long before the end of a reasonable-sized work, such as a 50+
page paper with figures, diagrams, and an index.

Admittedly, you can learn arithmetic much more quickly than I learned
calculus. Care to do physics using only standard issue arithmetic?
Didn't think so.

>How about a command-line emulation? Not that you need it, but it IS there.
>Just what is it that you can do with the CLI that makes it so powerful,
>anyway? Hell, I'd switch back to DOS for a good reason...

You can't under DOS; it's broken. What you can do:
1. Specify behaviors*. I can say '-f' to mean do this *NOW*, dammit.
I can say '-r' to mean 'and everything under it'. You can't easily
specify behavior with a Mac. It's just given that it behaves the way
it does.

2. Automate tasks. Come up with a sane *point and click only* way to
move every file named *.foo to *.bar in a tree. Very very difficult.
In unix, for instance:
for i in `find . -name "*.foo" -print`
do mv $i ${i%.foo}.bar
done

Neat, eh?

3. Filter. Not every application has to be able to sort. Not every
every application needs to be able to count lines. Not every application
needs to be able to match patterns.


Those are the obvious ones. There's many more. And, once you've discovered
how nice it is to be able to perform vast, sweeping things quickly, you'll
love command line editing.

Assume, on a mac, you have a fifteen-step sequence of points and clicks to
move one file deeply nested to another file deeply nested. Let's assume
you click wrong, and select '102694' instead of '101994' - five levels up.

In a CLI environment, you edit your previous line, and you're done.
In a point-and-click environment, you close N windows and open N other
windows. Fun.

> Ray Cathcart
> Drexel University
> st93...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu

-seebs
--
Peter Seebach - se...@solutions.solon.com -- se...@intran.xerox.com
C/Unix proto-wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help.

!Productions

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 4:55:14 PM11/6/94
to
In article <st93z5dw-061...@sn207030.resnet.drexel.edu>,

Ray Cathcart <st93...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> wrote:
>In article <39haln$28...@whale.st.usm.edu>, cham...@whale.st.usm.edu (John
>How about a command-line emulation? Not that you need it, but it IS there.
>Just what is it that you can do with the CLI that makes it so powerful,
>anyway? Hell, I'd switch back to DOS for a good reason...

How about this?

cat $* | tr -sc A-Za-z '\012' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n | tail

Can Finder do that? (If you don't know what it does, look it up! :)

Russ Allbery

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 9:46:37 PM11/6/94
to
Robert Watkins <b...@morinda.it.ntu.edu.au> writes:

>Russ Allbery (r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: Ah, but we want to copy them into the backup directory too. And on my
>: system, that's on a different computer 8-). Admittedly, DOS doesn't do very
>: good with rcp or AFS mounts either.
>
>So, having selected all the files using find, you drag them over to the
>backup directory on the remotely mounted server. What's the problem?

The Mac can't mount the remote server. Unless, of course, you're aware of
an AFS client for a Mac; if you are, there are a lot of people who would
love to know about it.

Admittedly, if we're talking about a Mac vs. DOS argument, this is rather
irrelevant, since DOS can't do it either. Unix, however, can...Mac's
have a real problem with connectivity compared to Unix systems. Linux now
has an AFS client, at least in beta-test, so the Intel architecture can do
it. It isn't precisely easy, but it's at least possible.

>: I'm pretty sure he meant embedded in the file, and in DOS you use a little
>: public domain utility called grep. DOS as a base operating system sucks,
>: but there is such a ridiculous amount of freeware available, it becomes
>: almost useable.
>
>Doesn't AppleScript have a grep-like ability?

I don't have any idea. Does that mean that I would have to do some
programming in order to do something on a Mac that I can do with a simple
command in DOS and Unix?

Look, as I've said in other threads (I'm reading this from
alt.folklore.computers, so they may not be threads on your newsgroup of
choice), I consider the whole "which operating system is better" debate to
be rather pointless, since so much of it depends on exactly what you're
trying to do. I'm just trying to point out that the Mac isn't some kind of
universal cure-all, or is necessarily the best interface in existance for
all users. There are things that you can do on other platforms that are
either impossible or extremely difficult on a Mac. For users, unlike me,
who don't have to do those things, the Mac may be a great interface.

It can be very dangerous to see things from somebody else's point of view
without the proper training. [Douglas Adams]

Ray Cathcart

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 10:41:05 PM11/6/94
to
In article <39jjc2$3...@sefl.satelnet.org>, men...@sefl.satelnet.org
(!Productions) wrote:

> How about this?
>
> cat $* | tr -sc A-Za-z '\012' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n | tail
>
> Can Finder do that? (If you don't know what it does, look it up! :)
>

You know very well I have no clue what that means :-) Tell me, and maybe I
can send back the equivelant Finder command...

Robert Watkins

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 5:14:25 AM11/7/94
to
!Productions (men...@sefl.satelnet.org) wrote:
: In article <st93z5dw-061...@sn207030.resnet.drexel.edu>,

: Ray Cathcart <st93...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> wrote:
: >In article <39haln$28...@whale.st.usm.edu>, cham...@whale.st.usm.edu (John
: >How about a command-line emulation? Not that you need it, but it IS there.
: >Just what is it that you can do with the CLI that makes it so powerful,
: >anyway? Hell, I'd switch back to DOS for a good reason...

: How about this?

: cat $* | tr -sc A-Za-z '\012' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n | tail

: Can Finder do that? (If you don't know what it does, look it up! :)

A) Yep, Finder can do that. Okay, it's not built in, but you could write a
program to do it. (And that's all that the above are, are programs).

B) How often do you need a list of the 5 or so most common words in the
input files with the number of occurences, anyway? I mean, it doesn't even
tell you which files they came from! (Okay, so you could do them one at a
time...)


: --
: !Productions 1994

: GCS -d+ H+ s++:- g+ p? !au a- w+++ v* C+++ UB+++A++++ P++ L++ E+ N+++ K+ !W---
: M-- V po- Y+ t++ 5+ jx R G? tv++ D- B--- e+ u** h f r++ !n y+

--

D.Young

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 6:27:20 AM11/7/94
to
In article <39ishd$9...@fileserv.aber.ac.uk> db...@aber.ac.uk (DOMINIC TRISTRAM) writes:
>My computer is lovely. It has an intuitive GUI interface, as well as a decent
>shell. It has real pre-emptive multi-tasking (hey you Windows users, I can
>format floppies AND do other things at once!). It can run DOS and Windows
>(if you really want it to). It can run Mac software - faster than a more expensive
>Mac. It has software that is reasonably priced and easy to find. It has
>millions of satisfied users who swear by it. It costs just less than 250 pounds
>for the basic model, and above-all, it's had all of this since 1985 (when PC's
>were lucky to have CGA and Macs were.. well... absent.)
>
>I own, of course, an Amiga.
>
>Dominic
>

It just such a crying shame that your power supply goes fritz on you every time
you try to add a new nit of hardware.

Flames will be used to warm marshmallows.

Jeff Robertson

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 11:56:36 PM11/6/94
to
Ray Cathcart (st93...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu) wrote:
> In article <39haln$28...@whale.st.usm.edu>, cham...@whale.st.usm.edu (John
> William Chambless) wrote:
[...stuff deleted...]

> > Assuming, for the moment, that you actually understand the phrase
> > "order of magnitude", tell me how the Mac interface is faster.
> > I've used the Mac, the Winblows file manager and various X file
> > managers, and NONE are as fast and easy as the command line.

> PLEASE don't compare File Manager to the Mac's Finder. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!
> >

> > It's not as hard as it seems to the ignorant. Once you know
> > how the thing works, it's easy to find how to do things. Especially
> > if you can read.

[....]


> How about a command-line emulation? Not that you need it, but it IS there.
> Just what is it that you can do with the CLI that makes it so powerful,
> anyway? Hell, I'd switch back to DOS for a good reason...

PLEASE don't take DOS as the representative example of all CLI's.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!

--
Jeff Robertson <jrob...@ua1ix.ua.edu>, <jrob...@job.cba.ua.edu>
http://www.cba.ua.edu/people/jroberts/jroberts.html
GCS/MU/O -d+ H++ -p+ C++ U+ e+ E u* s+/-- n--- h-- f+ g@ w+ t++ y-(*)

John William Chambless

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 4:27:55 PM11/6/94
to

]>> I guess that's why the new PowerMac(tm) commercial is built around


]>> the wonderful fact that you can run Windows programs on it, eh?

]>> What a concept: a toy emulating a turd!

>Actually, it would be a toy emulating a turd emulating a toy on top of
>another turd...
>

I stand corrected.

Your characterization is more accurate and fair than mine was.

Stuart Van Onselen

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 7:46:39 AM11/7/94
to
My gripe is that *both* the PC *and* the Mac have massive drawbacks. And,
since these two computers dominate the home computer market rather
convinvingly, this whole market becomes dreary.

PC's are hampered by 15-20 YEARS of backward compatibility - to a degree,
their CPU's are compatible with the 8080! For crying out loud - let's not
turn this into a RISC/CISC debate, but the Pentium does carry a ludicrous
amount of useless baggage around with it.

Let's not even talk about the principle operating systems for PC's - if I
start bitching about Microsoft, I'll soon have you all falling asleep due to
the boring length of my tirade. And OS/2 also makes quite a few compromises
in the name of backward compatibility.

Mac's are tyrannical - programming them is diffficult (hard to get info and
tools) and using them imaginatively is difficult (restrictive OS). Their
architectures are inefficient, and they lack proper multitasking. At least
they use Motorola CPU's! I must say, though, that all my info on Mac's is
second hand - I couldn't afford one!

Alternatives on the home computer front?

UNIX - Usually runs on PC's anyway, and, while VERY powerful, is also very
complex, resource hungry and unfriendly (still prefer it over DOS, no
question!)

AMIGA - GREAT machine, but underappreciated, poorly marketed, and run into
the ground by incompetent marketers. Sigh!

So you see, I am more than a little disillusioned by the whole scene. I am
sure that a zillion happy PC and Mac owners will promptly try to make me see
the error of my beliefs, but they'll have try REALLY hard.

--
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Stuart van Onselen g91v...@cs.ru.ac.za Rhodes U, South Africa |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT out to get me! |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| As my views are clearly superior to those of my institution, they |
| cannot be assumed to coincide in any way. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|

John William Chambless

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 11:34:25 AM11/7/94
to
In article <1994Nov07.0...@ua1ix.ua.edu>,
Jeff Robertson <jrob...@ua1ix.ua.edu> wrote:

]>> Just what is it that you can do with the CLI that makes it so powerful,


]>> anyway? Hell, I'd switch back to DOS for a good reason...

>PLEASE don't take DOS as the representative example of all CLI's.
>PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!
>

Indeed. When I do data analysis at work, I find that I can do a lot
of it from the Unix prompt without even starting an application.
With nothing more than csh, grep, and awk, you can do a lot.

The situation is even better since I have grep and [g]awk on my DOS
machine, and have my Unix home directory NFS-mounted to my PC.

...which brings us back to the topic:
GUIs are great for the limited subset of functions that they
present, but a lot of us have to do a lot of adhockery. A CLI offers
the use of a carefully-designed set of tools, which, along with
pipes and redirection, let me do whatever is needed with a minimum
of hassle. A GUI is faster when what you want to do is a menu choice,
but they don't cope well with the unusual.

Alexander John Batyi

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 7:54:02 AM11/7/94
to
In article <39k4ed$3...@Radon.Stanford.EDU> r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Russ Allbery) writes:
>Robert Watkins <b...@morinda.it.ntu.edu.au> writes:
>>Russ Allbery (r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>>Doesn't AppleScript have a grep-like ability?
>I don't have any idea. Does that mean that I would have to do some
>programming in order to do something on a Mac that I can do with a simple
>command in DOS and Unix?

I have all three and I can't even find the Command Line Interface on
my Mac IIci! You all can keep your meeses and such. I find it much
more valuable to be able to type in multi-line commands with pipes and
loops to accomplish complex tasks on the fly. If I find the task
is repetetive, it is MUCH easier to enter the multi-liner into a text
editor, chmod +x the file and stick it in a bin dir in my PATH. Then
I can tap a few keys and viola! Faster than you can grab your mouse...
To even get a program in my HandsOff menu is a tougher job. That is
if I could learn how to put something into program form on the Mac!
What do you need? So far by asking around I have found out you need
something called a toolbox or some shit. I think that that even costs
extra! Geez, love my mac huh? These nuts obviously don't do any
real work other than application work on their machines. If someone
out there wants to let me in on the secret and tell me how to actually
use this preprogrammed piece of crap please do. X-windows is easier to
program!

If only they had ProTools and Midi Timepiece II for Unix...
Oh, and why do all the manuals keep warning me to save things
often? The Mac locks up alot, that's why! My Linux box
(and every Unix I have ever run) needs a reason to lock up.
This thing doesn't according to my manuals. They just lose
it every once and a while. DUH! Don't tell me Ye Old Init
Conflict either.

Thank you Mr. Ed Wells for turning me onto Unix and C in the early 80's
when I was still writing with assembler and TI Basic on my TI-99/4a.
Gee, said all that and didn't even have to mention MessyDOS. :-)
The only reason I even know how to use DOS is because of all my
sheeplike friends who fell into place behind Big Blue. What would
the world be like if the CP/M guy DIDN'T have a previous engagement
unlike Mr. Gates or if they had the sense to allow him a life and
schedule a different meeting time/date? WOW and imagine if they
picked Motorola instead of Intel! Cheap 680x0 hardware and expensive
*86 parts? Would there even be a 286? How could so few idiots screw
so many people for a couple of billion lousy bucks?

A OGRE

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 7:16:06 PM11/7/94
to
David Barr (ba...@pop.psu.edu) wrote:
>In article <39khcc$o...@sefl.satelnet.org>,
>!Productions <men...@sefl.satelnet.org> wrote:
>> [og...@netcom.com wrote]:
>>>grep reorganisation *
>>
>>But all that will do is display a bunch of lines with "reorganisation" in
>>them somewhere. It won't tell you what file it was in, which was the
>>original point of the exercise...

>Wrong.

It will show you the name of each file that contains reorganisation,
plus each line that contains the phrase. If you also want line
NUMBERS, you merely have to add the -n flag.

>Sheesh I wish people would bother to do research on the topic before
>bothering to argue about something.

What he said.

--
Oh? grrrr!

Alistair James Robert Young

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 3:10:18 PM11/7/94
to
In article <39lkuh$1j...@whale.st.usm.edu>,

John William Chambless <cham...@whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>...which brings us back to the topic:
>GUIs are great for the limited subset of functions that they
>present, but a lot of us have to do a lot of adhockery. A CLI offers
>the use of a carefully-designed set of tools, which, along with
>pipes and redirection, let me do whatever is needed with a minimum
>of hassle. A GUI is faster when what you want to do is a menu choice,
>but they don't cope well with the unusual.
>

So why not do what I do under OS/2 ... USE BOTH! Use the GUI for simple
things (run my wordprocessor on this document, delete this file, copy
this other file, format this floppy), and then when you need to do
a lot of assorted piping, redirection, et al ad naus., start up a command
line window and type away! Advantages of both, problems of neither...

Well, *I* think it makes sense...

Alistair

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alistair Young -- Arkane Systems Software Development & PC Consultancy
The opinions above are my company's, because I OWN it!
[Development for OS/2 only!] Contact: aj...@st-and.ac.uk
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana" - Anonymous
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A OGRE

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 8:38:43 PM11/6/94
to
!Productions (men...@sefl.satelnet.org) wrote:
>Or "Find", "Contains" (the default) and type it in. (Unless you mean
>files that have the word "reorganisation" actually embedded in the file,
>which isn't all that easy in DOS, either.)

uhh,

grep reorganisation *

A unix command, I'm sure there's grep for DOS too...(probably have to
use *.* for the silly thing to work right)

I think there's a sweep command for DOS if you want to do it
recursively, something like

sweep grep reorganisation *

to check all the files in every sub-directory of the current one.
I most likely have the syntax wrong, I don't actually use DOS.

--
Joe Rumsey <og...@netcom.com> ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ogre/home.html

Ray Cathcart

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 6:05:41 PM11/7/94
to
In article <1994Nov07.0...@ua1ix.ua.edu>, jrob...@ua1ix.ua.edu
(Jeff Robertson) wrote:

> PLEASE don't take DOS as the representative example of all CLI's.
> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!

I guess you got me there...

Ray Cathcart

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 6:12:00 PM11/7/94
to
In article <39lkuh$1j...@whale.st.usm.edu>, cham...@whale.st.usm.edu (John
William Chambless) wrote:

> Indeed. When I do data analysis at work, I find that I can do a lot
> of it from the Unix prompt without even starting an application.
> With nothing more than csh, grep, and awk, you can do a lot.

> The situation is even better since I have grep and [g]awk on my DOS
> machine, and have my Unix home directory NFS-mounted to my PC.

> ...which brings us back to the topic:
> GUIs are great for the limited subset of functions that they
> present, but a lot of us have to do a lot of adhockery. A CLI offers
> the use of a carefully-designed set of tools, which, along with
> pipes and redirection, let me do whatever is needed with a minimum
> of hassle. A GUI is faster when what you want to do is a menu choice,
> but they don't cope well with the unusual.

There are AT LEAST three grep-like utilities for the Mac.

Ray Cathcart

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 10:42:15 PM11/6/94
to
In article <DJOHNSON.9...@arnold.ucsd.edu>,
djoh...@arnold.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) wrote:

> > Okay, so use your cli. I don't have to use my brain, though. I know that
> > sounds funny, but it IS harder to make a mistake on a Mac then in a CLI.
>
> It's also harder to make a mistake if you just leave the Mac turned off.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Funny, but not a good point...

Karl A. Krueger

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 6:21:48 PM11/7/94
to
In article <39haln$28...@whale.st.usm.edu>,

John William Chambless <cham...@whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>Could you tell me where the icon for "Copy all the files more than
>a day old to the backup directory" is in the Finder? I'm so clueless...

Command-F, select "date modified", select "is before", enter yesterday's
date, click "all at once", and click "OK". Command-D to make copies,
then drag them (all at once!) to the backup folder. Not hard.

>How about "find all the files with the word 'reorganization' in them"?

Command-F, "name", "contains", enter "reorganization"


>I guess that's why the new PowerMac(tm) commercial is built around
>the wonderful fact that you can run Windows programs on it, eh?

Sure ... to move the DOS/Windorks to Mac.

Mac has many levels ... you can run it like a moron, always do the "easy
install", then just run your applications ... or you can run it like an
expert, reconfigure it to Do What I Mean, get new utilities, patches, and
the like ... tell me, what was that patch for Linux or MSDOG called that
does idle-time recompression -- WITHOUT changing the structure of the whole
filesystem? What was that program that lets you edit almost the *entire
interface* of nearly any program? For that matter, how many good word
processors are shipping for Linux?

How about your sound support? Or multimedia? I can run Mosaic on my
Mac; can you run Hypercard on your UNIX machine? I can use TCP/IP; can
you use AppleTalk? How many MSDOG/Windork machines can parse both
TrueType *and* PostScript fonts?

Expandability: my PowerBook Blackbird can be expanded to PowerPC; can
your IBM PC-compatible be expanded to an RS/6000?

Face it: MSDOS/Windows and the '86 architecture are obsolete; it's only
a matter of time until they die out. UNIX is too obscure for real users;
it's a sysadmin's system -- job security through snob obscurity.

--
--
-><- Karl A. Krueger -><- ka...@simons-rock.edu -><- 413/528-7675 -><-
-><- -> The opinions expressed in this message are mine alone <- -><-
-> Society, Macintosh, Internet Culture, Liberty, Insanity, Fnord! <-

!Productions

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 1:27:24 AM11/7/94
to
In article <ogreCyv...@netcom.com>, A OGRE <og...@netcom.com> wrote:
>!Productions (men...@sefl.satelnet.org) wrote:
>>Or "Find", "Contains" (the default) and type it in. (Unless you mean
>>files that have the word "reorganisation" actually embedded in the file,
>>which isn't all that easy in DOS, either.)
>
>uhh,
>
>grep reorganisation *

But all that will do is display a bunch of lines with "reorganisation" in

them somewhere. It won't tell you what file it was in, which was the
original point of the exercise...

>A unix command, I'm sure there's grep for DOS too...(probably have to


>use *.* for the silly thing to work right)

There's grep for everything except the Mac. :)

John William Chambless

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 1:46:05 AM11/8/94
to
In article <39khcc$o...@sefl.satelnet.org>,
!Productions <men...@sefl.satelnet.org> wrote:
]>In article <ogreCyv...@netcom.com>, A OGRE <og...@netcom.com> wrote:

]>>grep reorganisation *

>But all that will do is display a bunch of lines with "reorganisation" in
>them somewhere. It won't tell you what file it was in, which was the
>original point of the exercise...

Wrong. The example ogre gives will, in fact return filenames associated
with the lines it finds. The only time grep doesn't give the filename
is if it's only searching one file, as in:

grep foo bar.c


Otherwise it gives each filename with the lines it selects. This is true
at least on SunOS, AIX, and with Borland's grep.

I don't have a Mac handy right now; does FIND let you search for
lines (or files) NOT containing a given string? How about regular
expressions?

Of course, with Unix, you can use pipes, backquoting, etc to say
"delete every file containing the word 'Microsoft' from this file system"
in about a line of code. Just as an example, mind you....

--
"Obviously unlike you people, I don't have time to edit the newsgroups line
for every single article I post." -- ma...@cs.yale.edu

Eric Remy

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 9:09:11 PM11/7/94
to
Please tell me this is a troll, please, please...

In article <1994Nov7.1...@rescon.wells.com>,


Alexander John Batyi <b...@rescon.wells.com> wrote:
>In article <39k4ed$3...@Radon.Stanford.EDU> r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Russ Allbery) writes:
>>Robert Watkins <b...@morinda.it.ntu.edu.au> writes:
>>>Russ Allbery (r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>>>Doesn't AppleScript have a grep-like ability?
>>I don't have any idea. Does that mean that I would have to do some
>>programming in order to do something on a Mac that I can do with a simple
>>command in DOS and Unix?
>
>I have all three and I can't even find the Command Line Interface on
>my Mac IIci! You all can keep your meeses and such. I find it much
>more valuable to be able to type in multi-line commands with pipes and
>loops to accomplish complex tasks on the fly. If I find the task
>is repetetive, it is MUCH easier to enter the multi-liner into a text
>editor, chmod +x the file and stick it in a bin dir in my PATH. Then
>I can tap a few keys and viola! Faster than you can grab your
mouse...

How is this different from using Applescript? Gee: enter a
multi-liner in an editor and execute it. Must be missing something
here. (Yes, I use Unix a lot- I do like the command line.)

>To even get a program in my HandsOff menu is a tougher job. That is
>if I could learn how to put something into program form on the Mac!
>What do you need? So far by asking around I have found out you need
>something called a toolbox or some shit. I think that that even costs
>extra! Geez, love my mac huh?

Do you even have the tiniest piece of a clue? Obviously not. The
toolbox is the set of routines in the Mac ROMs which can be accessed
via most programming languages. Applescript comes with 7.5.

> These nuts obviously don't do any
>real work other than application work on their machines. If someone
>out there wants to let me in on the secret and tell me how to actually
>use this preprogrammed piece of crap please do. X-windows is easier to
>program!

Obviously, if you don't know what the Mac toolbox is, you've never
programmed a Mac.

As a matter of fact, I do do application work on my Mac: I do most of
my programming in Unix. The applications I use on the Mac are nicer
than their Unix equivalents. What's wrong with using a machine to do
work on?

>
>If only they had ProTools and Midi Timepiece II for Unix...
>Oh, and why do all the manuals keep warning me to save things
>often? The Mac locks up alot, that's why! My Linux box
>(and every Unix I have ever run) needs a reason to lock up.
>This thing doesn't according to my manuals. They just lose
>it every once and a while. DUH! Don't tell me Ye Old Init
>Conflict either.

No, the Mac lacks protected memory. This is (IMHO) the Mac's single
biggest flaw. Unix is quite a bit more stable because of it, but
nowhere near crashproof. Ever had NFS server problems?

> WOW and imagine if they
>picked Motorola instead of Intel! Cheap 680x0 hardware and expensive
>*86 parts?

No, wouldn't have happened. The 68000 was available in 1979, but the
glue chips weren't.

> Would there even be a 286? How could so few idiots screw
>so many people for a couple of billion lousy bucks?


--
Eric R. edr...@fermion.Stanford.EDU Department of Chemistry
"Any desired property can be calculated from the Schrodinger equation of the
system. The solution is left as an exercise for the reader." JIR, 3rd ed.

Bruce Ediger

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 10:27:51 PM11/7/94
to
ka...@simons-rock.edu wrote:
>Command-F, select "date modified", select "is before", enter yesterday's
>date, click "all at once", and click "OK". Command-D to make copies,
>then drag them (all at once!) to the backup folder. Not hard.

Maybe not, but it's sure as hell not very intuitive, either. Maybe
even less intuitive than the "grep" command line posted earlier.
In fact, isn't the explicit use of some many "keyboard shortcuts" a
tacit admission of the inadequacy of the point-n-click way of doing things?

Best regards,
Bruce Ediger

Message has been deleted

DoN. Nichols

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 12:06:51 AM11/8/94
to
In article <39k4ed$3...@Radon.Stanford.EDU> r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Russ Allbery) writes:
>Robert Watkins <b...@morinda.it.ntu.edu.au> writes:

[ ... ]

>>So, having selected all the files using find, you drag them over to the
>>backup directory on the remotely mounted server. What's the problem?
>
>The Mac can't mount the remote server. Unless, of course, you're aware of
>an AFS client for a Mac; if you are, there are a lot of people who would
>love to know about it.

>
>Admittedly, if we're talking about a Mac vs. DOS argument, this is rather
>irrelevant, since DOS can't do it either. Unix, however, can...Mac's
>have a real problem with connectivity compared to Unix systems. Linux now
>has an AFS client, at least in beta-test, so the Intel architecture can do
>it. It isn't precisely easy, but it's at least possible.

Well ... I don't know about the point and drag bit on MS-DOS, but at
least the remotely mounted filesystems are a possibility. I have PC-NFS
(though I have an antique version of DOS, and am not about to bother
upgrading it for the three times per year (average) that it's turned on),
and it allows me to NFS-mount filesystems from my several Sun (and clones)
boxen.

Believe me - I don't normally make a point of defending MS-DOS, but
with the right software assistance, it can do a bit more.

Now, we wait for someone to point out a similar package for the Mac.
--
Email: <dnic...@d-and-d.com> | ...!uunet!ceilidh!dnichols
Donald Nichols (DoN.) | Voice (Days): (703) 704-2280 (Eves): (703) 938-4564
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

!Productions

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 1:16:52 AM11/8/94
to
In article <39m1ja$g...@calvin.st-and.ac.uk>,

Alistair James Robert Young <aj...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote:
>So why not do what I do under OS/2 ... USE BOTH! Use the GUI for simple
>things (run my wordprocessor on this document, delete this file, copy
>this other file, format this floppy), and then when you need to do
>a lot of assorted piping, redirection, et al ad naus., start up a command
>line window and type away! Advantages of both, problems of neither...
>
>Well, *I* think it makes sense...

Just thought I'd butt in here and shout AMIGA! :) (The Amiga's CLI/GUI
combo is even better than running a DOS window under OS/2 - you can
launch the same programs with either method, etc. etc. - the two are
completely integrated rather than one sitting on top of the other.)
AMIGA! :)

Russ Allbery

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 4:35:19 AM11/8/94
to
Disclaimer: I do not agree with the subject line. But they aren't
cure-alls either.

Karl A. Krueger <ka...@simons-rock.edu> writes:

[ Lots of things that the Mac is better at. ]

I could argue with a couple of those, but let's take the opposite approach:

What are the anonymous ftp servers like for a Mac? How about true AFS
mounts (not through AppleShare)? Can you access your Mac remotely? What
about displaying applications from other systems on your screen, or
displaying your Mac screen on another computer? How about receiving mail on
your Mac so that you can have it on your own computer (and be notified when
incoming mail arrives)?

How good is the newsreader? Does it do true threading? What if I want to
save a newsgroup post, stripping off the headers and compressing it, and
dumping it into the anonymous ftp directory. Can I do that with a three
line script like I can under Linux?

How about the software development environment? What are the system
libraries for networking like? Are there the equivalent of lex and yacc
available? Can I compile the *huge* amount of available free software on
the Net, like MUSH clients, nethack, etc., on my Mac? Can I easily write
programs that accept incoming network connections and serve data, like I can
on Linux with inetd?

And, to top it all off, can I get *all* of the system software, *all* of the
application software, and *all* of the bells and whistles for absolutely
*no* money *whatsoever*?

(You will notice that I, like most people on this thread, are not trying to
argue DOS/Windows. But you decided to pick on Linux too, so.... 8-) )

Again, different operating systems for different tasks. You like the Mac
for what you use your computer for; I prefer Linux for what I use my
computer for.

>Face it: MSDOS/Windows and the '86 architecture are obsolete; it's only
>a matter of time until they die out.

The x86 architecture is not limited to DOS/Windows. I can't stand
DOS/Windows, but my 386 serves me well; it handles multiple users and an
anonymous ftp site, has been running for almost a month without a single
problem, I can access it from anywhere I want, and all my favorite software
runs on it. And yes, I use Macs for word processing (which is a very small
part of what I do with computers).

>UNIX is too obscure for real users;
>it's a sysadmin's system -- job security through snob obscurity.

Define "real". Unix is too obscure for casual users, for users who aren't
heavily into networking and network applications, and for users who aren't
comfortable maintaining their computer. Unix, however, does exactly what
you tell it to, does it quickly and efficiently, handles networking without
a seam, and is as stable as a rock (as long as you aren't using Solaris
8-)).

A story must be told or there'll be no story, yet it is the untold stories
that are most moving. [J.R.R. Tolkien]

Robert Watkins

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 7:10:51 AM11/8/94
to
!Productions (men...@sefl.satelnet.org) wrote:
: In article <ogreCyv...@netcom.com>, A OGRE <og...@netcom.com> wrote:

: >A unix command, I'm sure there's grep for DOS too...(probably have to


: >use *.* for the silly thing to work right)

: There's grep for everything except the Mac. :)

Not so... I have a copy of grep on my Mac.

Miguel Farah F.

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 7:36:43 AM11/8/94
to
I'll just say what the Geek Code says about the Macintrashes in the only
acceptable M cathegory (M-):

Macs suck. All real geeks have a character prompt.

--
MIGUEL FARAH * GCS/O -d+ H s++:+>s++: !g p2+ au-
mfa...@ing.puc.cl * a23 w v++ C++ UL+>++++ P+ L>L++
mfa...@lascar.puc.cl (mail only) * 3- E--- N+++ K+++ W--(+) M- V--
http://torvalds.ing.puc.cl/~mfarah * po+ Y+ t++@ !5 !j R G? tv b+ D++
#include <disclaimer.h> * B- e+* u+ h! f+ r-- n---(+) y?
-----------------------------------*----------------------------------
"Trust me - I know what I'm doing."
- Sledge Hammer

Robert Watkins

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 7:13:01 AM11/8/94
to
DoN. Nichols (dnic...@d-and-d.com) wrote:

[ Chomp ]

: Well ... I don't know about the point and drag bit on MS-DOS, but at


: least the remotely mounted filesystems are a possibility. I have PC-NFS
: (though I have an antique version of DOS, and am not about to bother
: upgrading it for the three times per year (average) that it's turned on),
: and it allows me to NFS-mount filesystems from my several Sun (and clones)
: boxen.

: Believe me - I don't normally make a point of defending MS-DOS, but
: with the right software assistance, it can do a bit more.

: Now, we wait for someone to point out a similar package for the Mac.

Okay, I will. NFS is available on Macs as well. (Matter of fact, is there
any platform it isn't available for?)

Alistair James Robert Young

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 8:33:42 AM11/8/94
to
In article <39n54k$f...@sefl.satelnet.org>,

!Productions <men...@sefl.satelnet.org> wrote:
>In article <39m1ja$g...@calvin.st-and.ac.uk>,
>Alistair James Robert Young <aj...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote:
>>So why not do what I do under OS/2 ... USE BOTH! Use the GUI for simple
>>things (run my wordprocessor on this document, delete this file, copy
>>this other file, format this floppy), and then when you need to do
>>a lot of assorted piping, redirection, et al ad naus., start up a command
>>line window and type away! Advantages of both, problems of neither...
>>
>>Well, *I* think it makes sense...
>
>Just thought I'd butt in here and shout AMIGA! :) (The Amiga's CLI/GUI
>combo is even better than running a DOS window under OS/2 - you can
>launch the same programs with either method, etc. etc. - the two are
>completely integrated rather than one sitting on top of the other.)
>AMIGA! :)
>
Hate to tell you this, but you can do that under OS/2 as well. Run an OS/2
window, type the name of a GUI program - it runs! :-). And with a little
bit of help from 4OS/2 (an addon which just about everyone has), just type
the name of the data file at the CLI prompt and it runs the fancy windowed
wordprocessor with the data file loaded. A waste of time, to be sure (long
filenames and a CLI do not get along well, IMHO), but IT CAN BE DONE!!

Steven D. Marcotte

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 3:17:55 PM11/7/94
to
b...@rescon.wells.com (Alexander John Batyi) writes:

>I have all three and I can't even find the Command Line Interface on
>my Mac IIci! You all can keep your meeses and such. I find it much
>more valuable to be able to type in multi-line commands with pipes and
>loops to accomplish complex tasks on the fly. If I find the task
>is repetetive, it is MUCH easier to enter the multi-liner into a text
>editor, chmod +x the file and stick it in a bin dir in my PATH. Then
>I can tap a few keys and viola! Faster than you can grab your mouse...
>To even get a program in my HandsOff menu is a tougher job

>That is


>if I could learn how to put something into program form on the Mac!
>What do you need?

A compiler, Symantec C++ or Codewarrior, either one will do.

>So far by asking around I have found out you need something called a
>toolbox or some shit.

The toolbox is in the ROMs, so you'll need those.

>I think that that even costs extra!

Not unless Apple started selling computers peice by peice like PCs.

>Geez, love my mac huh? These nuts obviously don't do any
>real work other than application work on their machines.

obviously
--

Steven Marcotte
sdo...@cis.ksu.edu

Karl Thomas

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 10:33:09 AM11/8/94
to
men...@sefl.satelnet.org (!Productions) writes:

>In article <39m1ja$g...@calvin.st-and.ac.uk>,
>Alistair James Robert Young <aj...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote:

>Just thought I'd butt in here and shout AMIGA! :) (The Amiga's CLI/GUI
>combo is even better than running a DOS window under OS/2 - you can
>launch the same programs with either method, etc. etc. - the two are
>completely integrated rather than one sitting on top of the other.)
>AMIGA! :)

Two little problems -- First, where can I buy one of these and if I can
buy one, will it be as fast as a 6100/60. Second, where can I find
programs such as Xpress, FrameMaker, Excel, PhotoShop....

Karl Thomas

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 10:44:09 AM11/8/94
to
r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Russ Allbery) writes:

>Disclaimer: I do not agree with the subject line. But they aren't
>cure-alls either.

>Karl A. Krueger <ka...@simons-rock.edu> writes:


>What are the anonymous ftp servers like for a Mac? How about true AFS
>mounts (not through AppleShare)? Can you access your Mac remotely? What
>about displaying applications from other systems on your screen, or
>displaying your Mac screen on another computer? How about receiving mail on
>your Mac so that you can have it on your own computer (and be notified when
>incoming mail arrives)?

You can use ARA (Apple Remote Access) to access the Mac and the programs
remotely. Eudora is an excellent mail-reader that does all you said.

>How good is the newsreader? Does it do true threading? What if I want to
>save a newsgroup post, stripping off the headers and compressing it, and
>dumping it into the anonymous ftp directory. Can I do that with a three
>line script like I can under Linux?

I'm not sure but I think there is a newsreader for the Mac that supports
threads. Using Applescript the above script should be simple.


>And, to top it all off, can I get *all* of the system software, *all* of the
>application software, and *all* of the bells and whistles for absolutely
>*no* money *whatsoever*?

You mean you can get freeware spreadsheets, WYSIWYG word processors, DTP
apps, etc. for Linux? Sure you can get all of your apps free as long as you
can settle for non-commercial quality software. How are those Unix
games, btw?


Pete Gontier

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 3:51:31 PM11/8/94
to
In article <39n6rd$p...@whale.st.usm.edu>,

cham...@whale.st.usm.edu (John William Chambless) wrote:

> I don't have a Mac handy right now; does FIND let you search for
> lines (or files) NOT containing a given string? How about regular
> expressions?

It does none of those things; it doesn't even search the contents of
files; it only searches the file names.

> Of course, with Unix, you can use pipes, backquoting, etc to say
> "delete every file containing the word 'Microsoft' from this file system"
> in about a line of code. Just as an example, mind you....

With Macintosh Programmer's Workshop, you can use pipes, backquoting, etc...

You can even search the contents of text files.

Do you have to pay extra for it? Yes.

--
The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Justin Murdock

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 4:49:41 PM11/8/94
to
On a completely different note,

error -43 Can't save the file, because the file doesn't exist

Go figure.

--
~ o - There is nothing a vulture hates more than a glass eye.
| -
\_/ - Justin Murdock, +44 (0)1203 337865. This man is strange

Troy Daniels

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 6:17:24 PM11/8/94
to
In article <CyyrK...@freenet.carleton.ca> ab...@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Tomblin) writes:

Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,alt.folklore.computers
From: ab...@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Tomblin)
Organization: Tomblin Computer Consulting, Akron, Ohio and Ottawa, Ontario
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 19:31:42 GMT

In a previous article, justin@physics20 (Justin R. Bendich) said:

>In article <39k29m$j...@blackice.winternet.com>,
>Peter Seebach <se...@solutions.solon.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>Come up with a sane *point and click only* way to
>>move every file named *.foo to *.bar in a tree. Very very difficult.
>>In unix, for instance:
>>for i in `find . -name "*.foo" -print`
>>do mv $i ${i%.foo}.bar
>>done

This is probably not the most optimal way of doing it - but then that's the
beauty of unix: finding yet another way of doing the same thing.

>Much as i prefer unix, this is something VMS makes MUCH easier:
>
>$ rename *.foo .bar

Don't you have to say rename/recursive or something like that?

That works just fine. However, the following UNIX command is almost impossible
on VMS:

% mv finger.pln .plan

The obvious ( $ rename finger.pln .plan ) creates finger.plan, not .plan.
A friends was trying to do this a few weeks ago. I eventually figured out
a complicated way that I can't remember anymore. I know that it involved
redefining sys$input and/or sys$output. (Loading into an editor and saving
it under a new name was much quicker in any case.)

>manually. It's not ALWAYS a disadvantage...) Now, WHY is the find command
>so goddamn cumbersome? I doubt that i've seen a single example that didn't
>use the -name and -print options, so why does find make me type them?

Because if you use it that way, you can create an alias or function, and not
interfere with me, who almost NEVER uses '-name'. But I do have an alias
that does a 'find . -type f -print | xargs', because I do that all the time.

--
Paul Tomblin, Freenet News Administrator. Currently living in Akron, Ohio.
<a href=http://watt.oedison.com:8080/~tomblinp/>My home page</a>
"There. I have wasted a lot of bandwidth and probably not answered your
question." - dino the dinosaur (di...@euclid.colorado.edu) on alt.folklore.urban

Troy Daniels
tdan...@fnald.fnal.gov
We don't need no stinkin' .sig

Dik T. Winter

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 6:50:56 PM11/8/94
to
In article <39o428$t...@agate.berkeley.edu> justin@physics20 (Justin R. Bendich) writes:
> Much as i prefer unix, this is something VMS makes MUCH easier:
>
> $ rename *.foo .bar
>
> Ta-daa! (In VMS, the shell does not expand globs; the program must do it

> manually. It's not ALWAYS a disadvantage...)

Indeed, not always. But I do not trust all application programmers to
properly and consistently expand globs.

> Now, WHY is the find command
> so goddamn cumbersome? I doubt that i've seen a single example that didn't
> use the -name and -print options, so why does find make me type them?

find . -type f -exec grep foo {} /dev/null \;

No -name and -print. (And /dev/null is present so that grep will print
filenames. A bit of a wart, it ought to be an option for grep to print
or not print filenames. There are also instances that I do
grep foo * | sed -e 's/^[^:]*://'
to remove the filenames.) But, yes, find is cumbersome; but try dd one
of these days.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924098
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: d...@cwi.nl

Alistair James Robert Young

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 2:21:27 PM11/8/94
to
In article <39o5nl$t...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>,

Hang on a sec...I didn't write that! :-) I'm the OS/2 advocate, not the
Amiga one!

But I'd be willing to bet that OS/2 for SMP could be as fast as a 6100/60...

DarkStar

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 2:08:43 AM11/8/94
to
st93...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Ray Cathcart) writes:

> > I guess that's why the new PowerMac(tm) commercial is built around
> > the wonderful fact that you can run Windows programs on it, eh?

That's not really fair. It's a basic concept that to get widespread
acceptance you need to hook into something that's familiar to people.
-- Tieing Christmas into a pagan holiday;
-- Early radio emulated productions of the live theatre stage;
-- Early TV emulated radio and movies.

It's easier to get people to use their familiar programs on a new system
than to force them to leap into a whole new way. The original Windows
would have been better off without backwards-DOS compatibility from a
technical, nextstep viewpoint; but definately NOT from a marketing
viewpoint. That's just the human nature is.

(I know that's not your message, Ray, but I couldn't find the orig
*grin*)


--
DarkStar <dark...@fred.com> is too lazy to make h{is,er} own sigfile.
The SYSTEM 0PERATOR is too lazy to change this one terribly often.
Radio Free Fredbox, where entropy reigns supreme -- +1 907 344 8437

Russ Allbery

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 7:34:16 PM11/8/94
to
Pete Gontier <pgon...@novell.com> writes:
>> >Can you access your Mac remotely?
>
>In what capacity? Over the network? Sure. Do the rest of the remote access
>layers run over the network? Sure.

So you're telling me I can connect to my Mac from a Unix or DOS system, over
a TCP/IP network, and run applications, modify my files, and so on. I'm
very rarely at the console of my computer; I'm all over campus, and I want
to be able to sit down at some arbitrary computer and get to my files.

>> >What about displaying applications from other systems on your screen, or
>> >displaying your Mac screen on another computer?
>

>What about it? It works. Yawn.

On a Unix X windows system?

>> >How about receiving mail on
>> >your Mac so that you can have it on your own computer (and be notified when
>> >incoming mail arrives)?
>

>Eudora? Mailstrom? POPmail? LeeMail? This is probably about half of them.

That receive mail locally, and that I can run mail servers off of?

>If you have more time than money, then I can see why Linux might look
>attractive.

I'm a college student at Stanford. Of course I have more time than money.
8-)

>Well, the games are actually quite good, or at least a half-dozen of them
>are. I think, though, that what he was talking about as applications is a
>little different from what you and I consider apps. This guy sounds like a
>net access freak (hey, I'm one, too, so "freak" is no insult coming from
>me), so he wants software that enables his net access. Too bad he's simply
>unaware that Macintosh provides him with many if not all of the same
>options in a much nicer package.

You might not want to make too many assumptions like that. I'm not a Mac
expert, but I am reasonably familiar with them (for those who don't know
Stanford, the campus is 95% Macs). I use them on a daily basis, and I've
used most of the programs you're talking about. None of them do what I want
them to do easily (pipe e-mail through filters for example). All of them
require large amounts of mouse movement to do what I can do in other
applications with a few keystrokes; they are, therefore, slower for me.

The Mac is very nice for some people, not so nice for others. It isn't the
cure-all and end-all of operating systems.

Variables won't, constants aren't. [Osborn's Law]

Mark D. Roth

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 8:56:07 PM11/8/94
to
d...@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) writes:

>In article <39o428$t...@agate.berkeley.edu> justin@physics20 (Justin R. Bendich) writes:

<SNIP!>

> > Now, WHY is the find command
> > so goddamn cumbersome? I doubt that i've seen a single example that didn't
> > use the -name and -print options, so why does find make me type them?

> find . -type f -exec grep foo {} /dev/null \;

>No -name and -print. (And /dev/null is present so that grep will print
>filenames. A bit of a wart, it ought to be an option for grep to print
>or not print filenames. There are also instances that I do
> grep foo * | sed -e 's/^[^:]*://'
>to remove the filenames.) But, yes, find is cumbersome; but try dd one
>of these days.

If I recall correctly, there's a note in the BUGS section of the BSD
find(1) manpage that says, "The syntax is painful." :)

--
ro...@uiuc.edu | Mark D. Roth | http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~mr4342/
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GCS d-- H+ s++:- g+ p1>4+ !au a-- w++@ v-(*)
C++>$ UL+>++++ P--- L++>+++ 3 E(-) N++ K++ W--- M-- V-
po Y+ t++@ 5+ !j R-- G tv b+ D+ B--- e+(*) u+@ h>++ f+ r@ n+@ y?

Pete Gontier

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 3:41:49 PM11/8/94
to
Finally, a flame war worthy of alt.religion.computers! Too bad it had to
originate in comp.sys.mac.advocacy, but we old-time fans of a.r.c take
what we can get these days.

Russ Allbery

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 3:40:55 PM11/8/94
to
Karl Thomas <kath...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> writes:
>r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Russ Allbery) writes:
>
>>Disclaimer: I do not agree with the subject line. But they aren't
>>cure-alls either.
>
>>What are the anonymous ftp servers like for a Mac? How about true AFS
>>mounts (not through AppleShare)? Can you access your Mac remotely? What
>>about displaying applications from other systems on your screen, or
>>displaying your Mac screen on another computer? How about receiving mail on
>>your Mac so that you can have it on your own computer (and be notified when
>>incoming mail arrives)?
>
>You can use ARA (Apple Remote Access) to access the Mac and the programs
>remotely.

Only from another Mac. Not easily from a Unix system or a PC.

> Eudora is an excellent mail-reader that does all you said.

It receives mail on your Mac? (ie, telnet name.of.mac 25 and I can talk to
some equivalent of sendmail?)

>>How good is the newsreader? Does it do true threading? What if I want to
>>save a newsgroup post, stripping off the headers and compressing it, and
>>dumping it into the anonymous ftp directory. Can I do that with a three
>>line script like I can under Linux?
>
>I'm not sure but I think there is a newsreader for the Mac that supports
>threads. Using Applescript the above script should be simple.

With gzip compression (the rest of the world doesn't speak StuffIt) and with
true anonymous ftp (not AppleShare -- people in New Hampshire can't get to
my AppleShare)?

>>And, to top it all off, can I get *all* of the system software, *all* of the
>>application software, and *all* of the bells and whistles for absolutely
>>*no* money *whatsoever*?
>
>You mean you can get freeware spreadsheets, WYSIWYG word processors, DTP
>apps, etc. for Linux? Sure you can get all of your apps free as long as you
>can settle for non-commercial quality software. How are those Unix
>games, btw?

Well, that's my point. The games are far better than the Mac games for me,
because the games I enjoy are text adventure games. Linux also runs Doom.
Yes, I can get spreadsheets. As I said, I use Macs for word processing in
general; that's easier for papers. For something long and technical, I'd
use LaTeX anyway. And, in the department of networking and e-mail software
which is what I do most of the time, the free stuff for Unix is superior to
*any* commerical software for the Mac available for *any* price.

It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. [Albert Einstein]

Pete Gontier

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 4:06:36 PM11/8/94
to
In article <39o6c9$3...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>,
kath...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Karl Thomas) wrote:

> r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Russ Allbery) writes:
>
> >What are the anonymous ftp servers like for a Mac?

Just fine. They even have fairly standard names. The one in widest use is
called FTPd.

> >How about true AFS mounts (not through AppleShare)?

How about them? They're pretty nice, eh? Talk to the people at UMich for
more details.

> >Can you access your Mac remotely?

In what capacity? Over the network? Sure. Do the rest of the remote access


layers run over the network? Sure.

> >What about displaying applications from other systems on your screen, or


> >displaying your Mac screen on another computer?

What about it? It works. Yawn.

> >How about receiving mail on


> >your Mac so that you can have it on your own computer (and be notified when
> >incoming mail arrives)?

Eudora? Mailstrom? POPmail? LeeMail? This is probably about half of them.

> >How good is the newsreader? Does it do true threading?

Depends on your definition of true threading, I guess. The one I use does
subject line threading. There are a half dozen other freely available
readers. One of them may do reference threading, if that's what you're
talking about.

> >What if I want to
> >save a newsgroup post, stripping off the headers and compressing it, and
> >dumping it into the anonymous ftp directory. Can I do that with a three
> >line script like I can under Linux?

Why bother with a script? What a hassle. Just have DropStuff sit in the
background and compress anything that appears in a folder served by FTPd,
and drag and drop the article from NewsWatcher to that folder.

> Using Applescript the above script should be simple.

Oh, that. Yuck. I hate scripts when there's no need.

> >And, to top it all off, can I get *all* of the system software, *all* of the
> >application software, and *all* of the bells and whistles for absolutely
> >*no* money *whatsoever*?

If you have more time than money, then I can see why Linux might look
attractive.

> You mean you can get freeware spreadsheets, WYSIWYG word processors, DTP

> apps, etc. for Linux? Sure you can get all of your apps free as long as you
> can settle for non-commercial quality software. How are those Unix
> games, btw?

Well, the games are actually quite good, or at least a half-dozen of them


are. I think, though, that what he was talking about as applications is a
little different from what you and I consider apps. This guy sounds like a
net access freak (hey, I'm one, too, so "freak" is no insult coming from
me), so he wants software that enables his net access. Too bad he's simply
unaware that Macintosh provides him with many if not all of the same
options in a much nicer package.

--

Alexander John Batyi

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 10:28:13 AM11/8/94
to
In article <39mmk7$a...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> edr...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Remy) writes:
=Please tell me this is a troll, please, please...

Maybe.

=In article <1994Nov7.1...@rescon.wells.com>,
=Alexander John Batyi <b...@rescon.wells.com> wrote:
=>In article <39k4ed$3...@Radon.Stanford.EDU> r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Russ Allbery) writes:
=>>Robert Watkins <b...@morinda.it.ntu.edu.au> writes:
=>>>Russ Allbery (r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
=>>>Doesn't AppleScript have a grep-like ability?
=>>I don't have any idea. Does that mean that I would have to do some
=>>programming in order to do something on a Mac that I can do with a simple
=>>command in DOS and Unix?

=>I have all three and I can't even find the Command Line Interface on
=>my Mac IIci! You all can keep your meeses and such. I find it much
=>more valuable to be able to type in multi-line commands with pipes and
=>loops to accomplish complex tasks on the fly. If I find the task
=>is repetetive, it is MUCH easier to enter the multi-liner into a text
=>editor, chmod +x the file and stick it in a bin dir in my PATH. Then
=>I can tap a few keys and viola! Faster than you can grab your
=>mouse...

=How is this different from using Applescript? Gee: enter a
=multi-liner in an editor and execute it. Must be missing something
=here. (Yes, I use Unix a lot- I do like the command line.)

What is Apple script? I DID say I couldn't find the CLI, right?
No mention of anything called *script in any of MY manuals.

=>To even get a program in my HandsOff menu is a tougher job. That is
=>if I could learn how to put something into program form on the Mac!
=>What do you need? So far by asking around I have found out you need
=>something called a toolbox or some shit. I think that that even costs
=>extra! Geez, love my mac huh?

=Do you even have the tiniest piece of a clue? Obviously not. The

That is my point! Thousands of dollars don't even buy you a clue!

=toolbox is the set of routines in the Mac ROMs which can be accessed
=via most programming languages. Applescript comes with 7.5.

Ok, that makes sense. I have 7.1 or 2 or something. I read every
book that came with every piece of software including the OS and
didn't see anything that would let me type in a command or any
reference to any command languages. This was about a year ago and
I have been using Unix w/ C for ... wow I don't even know! Over a
decade. I type (from a prompt :-) man clue and have all the info
I need on clue and references to all related clues. The Mac has
a little thing up top called balloon help and when I click on it
it tells me about balloon help. No help at all.

=>If someone
=>out there wants to let me in on the secret and tell me how to actually
=>use this preprogrammed piece of crap please do. X-windows is easier to
=>program!
=
=Obviously, if you don't know what the Mac toolbox is, you've never
=programmed a Mac.

I guess I don't know the secrets? Like I spend many thousand dollars
and they don't tell you these secrets in the friggin manuals? Linux
is free and has more FAQs and HowTo documents than I have ever seen.
They are in easy to store binary and available from any terminal in my
home. :-)

=As a matter of fact, I do do application work on my Mac: I do most of
=my programming in Unix. The applications I use on the Mac are nicer
=than their Unix equivalents. What's wrong with using a machine to do
=work on?

Nothing! I like the applications on the Mac. The whole reason for
this machine's existance is applications. It is the center of a
digital recording studio.

I would just like a prompt. ... a list of commands. ... a command
language. Maybe I'm soft in the head but I can't see how they can
think they thought of every possible thing I'd like to do with this
data. I cannot at this time read a file into a homemade filter and save
the resultant output in another file. I did receive mail as a result
of my posting pointing me to Inside Mac CDROM tools and information.
So the problem isn't with the Mac as much as what comes as standard
equipment. Since this as you say is not the case with 7.5 I'll have
to start looking for info on how to do that. Where do they keep the
clues?

=>If only they had ProTools and Midi Timepiece II for Unix...
=>Oh, and why do all the manuals keep warning me to save things
=>often? The Mac locks up alot, that's why! My Linux box
=>(and every Unix I have ever run) needs a reason to lock up.
=>This thing doesn't according to my manuals. They just lose
=>it every once and a while. DUH! Don't tell me Ye Old Init
=>Conflict either.
=
=No, the Mac lacks protected memory. This is (IMHO) the Mac's single
=biggest flaw. Unix is quite a bit more stable because of it, but
=nowhere near crashproof. Ever had NFS server problems?

Is there a proven way of preventing memory conflicts? Does it
only affect applications that grow their memory usage like an
editor?

=> WOW and imagine if they
=>picked Motorola instead of Intel! Cheap 680x0 hardware and expensive
=>*86 parts?
=
=No, wouldn't have happened. The 68000 was available in 1979, but the
=glue chips weren't.

I thought the glue chips were there but expensive.
Oh well. Great conversation and I am learning alot about the
ways to actually shape the usability of this Macbox. After being
used to versatility, this ease of use thing is VERY confining.

Woody Weaver

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 11:59:11 PM11/8/94
to
Russ Allbery (r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

: >You can use ARA (Apple Remote Access) to access the Mac and the programs
: >remotely.

: Only from another Mac. Not easily from a Unix system or a PC.

So find another mac? I traveled 500 miles to a conference at UCSD, and the
library had a fleet of macs available for use. More problematic are issues
of security and speed.

: > Eudora is an excellent mail-reader that does all you said.

: It receives mail on your Mac? (ie, telnet name.of.mac 25 and I can talk to
: some equivalent of sendmail?)

No, its a popd client. No reason that a sendmail couldn't exist; its just
simpler to have Eudora, since that doesn't assume the mac will be on 24
hours.

: >I'm not sure but I think there is a newsreader for the Mac that supports
: >threads. Using Applescript the above [news article into ftp site] script
>should be simple.

: With gzip compression (the rest of the world doesn't speak StuffIt) and with
: true anonymous ftp (not AppleShare -- people in New Hampshire can't get to
: my AppleShare)?

Not all the world speaks gzip, either. But that is hardly the point. There
exist newsreaders for the mac, ftpd's for the mac, scripting servers for the
mac, etc. Anything really useful gets ported fairly rapidly. There are an
awful lot of macs around to sell software to, after all. The difference is
that the mac is intended to be a graphically based individually used
machine. DOS is intended to be a character based individually used
machine. Unix is intended to be a character based multiuser machine, and
Unix/X intended to be a graphic based multiuser machine.

One can argue issues of speed, but then the answer to that is to buy a
faster chip. One can argue issues of elegance, and those do have merit, but
as with any artistic measure, there is no accounting for taste. One can
argue issues of ease of use, but then that only applies to users who are
either slow or merely casual.

: >>And, to top it all off, can I get *all* of the system software, *all* of the


: >>application software, and *all* of the bells and whistles for absolutely
: >>*no* money *whatsoever*?

Ack! Many is the time I'd be happy to throw money at a problem rather than
pull hair trying to understand someone's sloppy distribution or code...

: >You mean you can get freeware spreadsheets, WYSIWYG word processors, DTP

: >apps, etc. for Linux? Sure you can get all of your apps free as long as you
: >can settle for non-commercial quality software. How are those Unix
: >games, btw?

sc and xspread are fairly useful. I'd still rather have quattro pro, but to
be honest being able to access my spreadsheet and local data while traveling
makes sc a notch above qpro in my book. With WYSIWYG, what you see is all
you get, so that isn't terribly exciting -- what's wrong with a decent text
editor anyways? DTP? I do rather miss MacDraw, but XFig is rather
pleasant, and will export to LaTeX, so that is clearly a plus on its side.
And in LaTeX not only can I include images (everybody supports encapsulated
postscript nowadays) it means that I can take my desktop publishing and use
them whether I'm sitting at a dos box (like my laptop under desqview) or a
windows box (like my desktop pre linux) or a mac (like my officemate's
quadra, or that library fleet I mentioned -- such are the joys of OzTeX
locally and MacX remotely) or... and my book publisher will pay extra
because they can swap in their own style sheets and the text is ready for
camera-ready copy.

: Well, that's my point. The games are far better than the Mac games for me,


: because the games I enjoy are text adventure games. Linux also runs Doom.

My favorite game of all time has got to be (Peter Langston's) Empire. Text
based, multi-player -- just wouldn't run under something as
single-user-minded as a mac (or a dos box or even the darling amiga I'm
afraid). Ran on a Sequent under Dynix, last time I got a hold of it. Runs
on a rather wide range of architectures... if you are running a character
based multiuser system...

: Yes, I can get spreadsheets. As I said, I use Macs for word processing in


: general; that's easier for papers. For something long and technical, I'd
: use LaTeX anyway. And, in the department of networking and e-mail software

I think LaTeX is much easier for papers as well; not only can you use
standard templates for memos or articles, you can then index them
automagically.

: which is what I do most of the time, the free stuff for Unix is superior to


: *any* commerical software for the Mac available for *any* price.

Rather excessive hyperbole. Macs network, macs have email, and in fact I
have yet to find a good quicktime server, and it appears that there are a
lot of video out there in that format. Ah, if only I had a sun box, and
were running Solaris! (grin)

--woody

James Derr

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 6:09:21 PM11/8/94
to
In article <39n54k$f...@sefl.satelnet.org> men...@sefl.satelnet.org
(!Productions) writes:
>Just thought I'd butt in here and shout AMIGA! :)

Just thought you'd shout what? What was that you're shouting? Must be
just a lot of gibberish because I don't know what AM-I-GA means when
translated into the vocabulary of English speaking countries.

Is it a slang thing?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James B. Derr de...@essex.hsc.colorado .edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Dickson

unread,
Nov 9, 1994, 1:19:07 AM11/9/94
to
John William Chambless writes:

|I don't have a Mac handy right now; does FIND let you search for
|lines (or files) NOT containing a given string? How about regular
|expressions?

Surely you jest. Regular expressions, as I have been assured by many who
take the Mac more seriously than I do, "aren't intuitive". Therefore, the
standard Mac software (i.e. what you get with the machine) has no concept
of regular expressions. Hell, it doesn't even support wildcards for
filename matching. I guess that's not intuitive either.
--
Craig Dickson <c...@crl.com>
alt.usenet.kooks archives on the Web: ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/ro/cd/auk.html
To receive the a.u.k FAQ, send me email with Subject: send alt.usenet.kooks FAQ

Karl A. Krueger

unread,
Nov 9, 1994, 1:29:32 AM11/9/94
to
In article <39k4ed$3...@Radon.Stanford.EDU>,

Russ Allbery <r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>The Mac can't mount the remote server. Unless, of course, you're aware of
>an AFS client for a Mac; if you are, there are a lot of people who would
>love to know about it.

"AFS client"? Whazzat? You don't need an "AFS client" to do
file-sharing on a Mac. You need ... let's see ... networking extensions,
protocol extensions (EtherTalk/AppleTalk/TokenTalk/TCP-IP), and file
sharing extensions.

And you don't have to recompile your kernel to add them -- just drop them
in the System Folder and reboot.


>Admittedly, if we're talking about a Mac vs. DOS argument, this is rather
>irrelevant, since DOS can't do it either. Unix, however, can...Mac's
>have a real problem with connectivity compared to Unix systems. Linux now
>has an AFS client, at least in beta-test, so the Intel architecture can do
>it. It isn't precisely easy, but it's at least possible.

MSDOS does not have networking support. Well, if you put it on, say,
Novell NetWare it does quite nicely ...


>>Doesn't AppleScript have a grep-like ability?

>I don't have any idea. Does that mean that I would have to do some

>programming in order to do something on a Mac that I can do with a simple

>command in DOS and Unix?

There's grep for Mac. Why shouldn't there be? The question is, what is
a "text file"? Unlike UNIX, which is a "stream-oriented" OS, MacOS is an
"object-oriented" OS -- and NOT in the sense of C++. An object -- be
that a file on disk, a desktop printer, a resource, whatever -- has an
owner, a type, and certain other properties. There is a "Generic Text
File" format, but nobody uses it; people use SimpleText files because
they support more.


>Look, as I've said in other threads (I'm reading this from
>alt.folklore.computers, so they may not be threads on