Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ptsfa!hoptoad!farren
From: farren@hoptoad.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: A different View of the value of OS/2 - it's better than UNIX
Message-ID: <2944@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Sat, 12-Sep-87 18:25:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.2944
Posted: Sat Sep 12 18:25:41 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Sep-87 10:02:05 EDT
References: <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM>
Reply-To: farren@hoptoad.UUCP (Mike Farren)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 55
Keywords: market acceptance of UNIX lacking

In article <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM> burton@parcvax.Xerox.COM writes:
>
>Now, for the average user who is terrified of installing Wordstar or backing
>up files, or who uses a hard disk without any subdirectories [too much trouble
>to get them to work right], let's tell that person about UNIX. Any version.
>
>Let's tell them about logins, logouts, and supersers.  Let's tell them about
>the hassles in using a floppy with a UNIX system.  Compare the simplicity of
>typing A: to get to the floppy with the RTFM-type syntax of UNIX.  
>
>Now, let's tell them that the filesystem can easily be corrupted, and that
>there are stringent requirements for getting it back up.  You've lost that
>person as a paying customer.  What's a filesystem?  Corruption?  (Is that
>like politics in Boston or Chicago, or is that like AIDS??)  
>
No, you don't tell them any of those things.  You set up a system, as a
shell, which is as easy to use as MS-DOS (and probably a lot easier), but
which also allows access to deeper, more cryptic levels of Unix if they 
want them.  You provide, within that system, the tools which are necessary
to let them do their work, and you make sure that the tools are easy-to-use.
You provide, within your Unix implementation, as much protection as possible
against the types of file corruption that you cite (it isn't easy, but it's
possible).  Then, you let them go.

Unix, in its history, has been viewed as an OS for the computer sophisticate.
In part, this is true, in that to use all of its capabilities requires a
fairly large amount of knowledge of its structure.  The "normal" user,
however, doesn't need to do this type of access at all, and Unix is very
nicely set up to allow differing types of access for differing types of
needs.  All it takes is a little work, and, unfortunately, few people seem
to be very interested in doing this work.  "Well, *I* understand it, so
why can't they?" seems to be a prevalent attitude, and it is WRONG.

For an example of how Unix can make things easier, rather than more complex,
I recommend looking at some of Larry Wall's shell Configure scripts, where
he has automated the process of installing some of his very complex pieces
of software to the point where it is rather difficult to make it NOT work
right.  Within his scripts, he determines the type of Unix you are running,
the capabilities of your system, where some standard utilities live, and more,
all without requiring the person running the script to understand a thing
about any of it.  A similar capability can, and probably should, be applied
at the shell level; sadly, noone has done it yet.


In my opinion, the whole concept of "Unix is a complex, difficult, and
cryptic OS, which ordinary mortals cannot possibly understand" is a crock.
If ordinary mortals can't understand it, then it is the fault of us
extra-ordinary mortals.  We can, and should, make it possible to use 
Unix as easily as using MS-DOS, or even as easily as using the Mac.

-- 
----------------
                 "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness
Mike Farren      that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..."
hoptoad!farren       Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"