Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Initial Opinion of Amiga
Message-ID: <8611200749.AA08587@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thu, 20-Nov-86 02:49:31 EST
Article-I.D.: cory.8611200749.AA08587
Posted: Thu Nov 20 02:49:31 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Nov-86 08:50:35 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 49


	I don't like something, I change it.  If somebody else doesn't like
something and changes it, there is no guarentee that I won't like his 
modification.  We could admit that it makes sense to keep with one way,
but if we did that 20 years ago, where would we be now?  If we do it now
where would we be in another 20 years?   I'll tell you where... in the
stone age. 

Thus, things that were both well conceived and applicable to today's world
are still around and being used (ASCII).  Other things are going out (short
filenames).  Some new things will die (Crazy #? of AmigaDos, I hope).

	I actually agree with you in many of the examples you listed below.
The only way your going to get what you want is if you bitch and moan, hack
up 'fixes'... Effecting the change could be a simple matter of terminology.
If you start CALLING something by the 'proper' name, the people who agree
with your name will also start calling it by that name.  If enough people
start agreeing with you, you have a standard.  Just apply a little
Psychology (I don't want to give away too many of my secrets!)!

				-Matt Dillon

P.S. I think I'll go back to signing my name 'Matt'


your message:

>John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu   jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa
>Synopsis: Why be deliberately different?
>
>Jon Forrest brought up a lot of good nits about the Amiga.
>Sure, if you are a raving wild lunatic hacker like many of us,
>you can adjust to the idiot-syncracies of any system, and even
>vehemently defend them against the infidels on inferior systems.
>
>But among ourselves, couldn't we admit that Yet Another Way to name
>files in a hierarchical file system is one more way too many?  Couldn't
>we (except RMS) admit that while ^S and ^Q flow control has its vices,
>it does have many virtues and is universally known?  Couldn't we, who
>all think regular expresions are great, settle on ONE form of regular
>expressions?  (Admittedly, Unix has two, but AmigaDos could aspire
>to be better than Unix, instead of just different.)  Could we agree
>that a file system design which makes file opens fast at the expense of
>slow directory reads might benefit from a redesign?  Can we recognize
>that having no clean way to kill a task without crashing the system is
>something that requires attention?  And could we stop calling a command
>language of typed commands which start up programs from a file system
>an "advanced user interface"?
>--