🚀 go-pugleaf

Travis Marlatte writes:

> The basic idea is that if the computer fits my personality, then it 
> is personal. A computer - no matter what size or how portable - that 
> behaves the same for everyone that uses it, is not personal.  Even 
> the minor customizing that can be done with most command shells 
> still leaves the computer a far cry from fitting my personality.

The Penguin English Dictionary defines personal as:

"adj of, by or for a particular person, individual; private, intimate ..."

If you want a name to describe a computer environment (which can be
multi user) which 'fit's your personality' and is *highly* customizable
then I don't think it should be 'personal'. For as long as the computer
is interacting with more than one user, it is not personal.

Think of a login on a multi-user system as an automobile on the road
network. Your login = your personal transport (ie your personal
automobile). However the machine = the road network, and there's no way
you can say you use a personal road network - it's shared with other
users (automobile drivers)!

On a side issue:-

> What's the use of having a small computer that only I use? When I use
> the large multi-user computers at work, I am not aware of the other 200
> users logged on. I have my own files, commands, work space, etc. I can
> customize my environment just as much as on a small IBM.

I find it *very* hard to believe you are unaware of other users. I've used
PRIME, DEC, SUN and ICL multi-user computers, and the common element
with them all is the constant battle with other users/departments for
disk space/resources. Not forgetting of course the depths to which the
responce time plummets as more users log on. A PERSONAL computer has
only you as it's user, and consequently gives you ALL it's attention. I
would much rather use a small personal (only me on it!) computer to work
with, networked to some sort of file server.

Conclusion: A Personal computer CAN ONLY HAVE ONE user.

Ian Macey