Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!purdue!haven!mimsy!dftsrv!steve From: steve@endgame.gsfc.nasa.gov (Steve Rezsutek) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: readline bashing (was POSIX bashing) Message-ID: Date: 17 Apr 91 17:27:12 GMT References: <70319@brunix.UUCP> <27F43DE6.4B53@wilbur.coyote.trw.com> <564@bria> <1991Apr04.025733.18462@decuac.dec.com> <1991Apr17.153508.28645@eng.umd.edu> Sender: news@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov Organization: none Lines: 45 In article <1991Apr17.153508.28645@eng.umd.edu> stripes@eng.umd.edu (Joshua Osborne) writes: > A good friend of mine has this theory that computers today > are really no more useful than the woefully "obsolete" ones we see > in the computer museum - by the time you factor in the amount of > sheer gunk they're wasting their time doing (painting nifty-keen 3-d > widgets, etc, etc, etc) and the sheer human cost of *understanding* > all that gunk, they are no faster, no more cost effective, and no > more capable at doing "real work" than they used to be. Of course, > that's an utterly insane argument, isn't it? Well I can tell you that I get alot more done today on a X terminal running off a Sun 4/60 (SS1) then I did a few years ago with an Ataris ST, and I got more done on that then I got done on a C=64, I got less done on the 64 then I got done on a IBM 370, I did get more done on the ST then the 370. So for me I get more done on a "modern" computer then the old ones. However I don't use fake 3D, it doesn't work real well on a mono system. (and I don't on color ones, I do like color better, I can find my mouse quicker on them). This is perhaps a silly comparison, but it will [hopefully] illustrate my point. Let's assume (dangerous, I know ;-) that in comparing MS-DOS to Unix, that Unix fits the description of software that has all the bloated ``gunk'' while MS-DOS is the ``lean. mean computin' machine''. [I've heard this opinion expressed by not just a few DOS die-hards.] On the *same* hardware, I'd venture to guess that Unix will "eat up" maybe 15% of the available computes, but I certainly get a *lot* more done using Unix, than I ever did/will with MS-DOS (unless getting frustrated and having to reboot constitute "getting things done"). Now to carry this further, I think that if I want to illustrate a paper I'm working on, I would get a lot more done using X and something like Tgif than hacking straight Postscript over a dialup. On the other hand, if I'm reading news/mail, then I'll stick to emacs on a terminal (xterm or otherwise). Mice et al just don't seem to be as efficient when coping with textual things like composing mail or writing code as a good [and perhaps a bit overweight ;-)] text editor. My point is that how effective something is at "getting things done" might well change in relation to what one is trying to get done. ``When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.'' Just my 20 milli-dollars worth. Steve