Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!nebulus!druid!darcy
From: darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix
Keywords: Invitation for opinions/flames...
Message-ID: <1989Dec22.134950.3936@druid.uucp>
Date: 22 Dec 89 13:49:50 GMT
References: <1989Dec20.014855.2204@druid.uucp> <1945@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Reply-To: darcy@druid.UUCP (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Organization: D'Arcy Cain Consulting, West Hill, Ontario
Lines: 57

In article <1945@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes:
>In article <1989Dec20.014855.2204@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.UUCP (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
>| I am always typing "cat" on DOS machines but I 
>| never use "type" on my UNIX box.  Easy to remember is what you use most.
>
>  I hate to say this, but if you were choosing an intuitive command you
>would choose 'list', or 2nd choice 'show'. I guess type is a bit easier
>to remember than cat, but I doubt that either would be in the first five
>guesses of a non-computer user. What you're arguing about is which is
>LEAST unintuitive, and I think type wins that dubious distinction.
>
I wasn't trying to say that 'cat' was good, bad or indifferent as a file
listing command.  I was only trying to point out to the previous poster
that 'type' was no better if you use 'cat' all the time.  I have a hard
time getting my father to use 'list' because he is so used to 'type'.  He
is closer to your 'non-computer user' (You mean non computer-user I think :-))
than many but he is used to one word and that is the one he remembers.  When
I first started using MS-DOS boxes I kept typing 'pip' and there is 
nothing particularly intuitive about that.

>  I wrote a baby interface in shell functions, and so far everyone has
>guessed 'list' without prompting in no more than two tries.
>
And when they sit down at another system they will have trouble remembering
to use whatever that system uses.  That isn't necessarily bad of course.  It
isn't the complete answer for people who have to use different systems.

>| Considering where OS/2 is coming from I guess it is safer not to make it
>| multi-user.  DOS programs can crash a system all by themselves without
>| having others running more programs behind your back.  At least if you
>| run a program that crashes the system you only hurt yourself.
>
>  I don't think you can fault OS/2 for not being suited for multi-user
>operation. It was not designed to be used as such, and not marketed as
>such. Let's concentrate on its actual faults as a single user
>multitasking system, and not set inappropriate goals for the purpose of
>noting that it can't meet them.
I wasn't faulting OS/2 for not being multi-user.  That was just a weak
attempt at humour.  I was merely suggesting that an OS from the same
company that gave us MS-DOS, MSC 5.1 and the "Perma-hold Support System"
is probably safer if it isn't multi-user.  :-)  :-)

>-- 
>bill davidsen	(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
>"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called
>'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see
>that the world is flat!" - anon

BTW:  I'm not necessarily arguing with you or disputing your ideas.  I just
think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make however keep trying,
I'm sure we can disagree on something.  :-) :-)

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid)     |   Thank goodness we don't get all 
D'Arcy Cain Consulting             |   the government we pay for.
West Hill, Ontario, Canada         |
No disclaimers.  I agree with me   |