🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Dec20.014855.2204@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.UUCP (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
| In article <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
| >One big reason for DOS over Unix is that DOS is friendly to the 
| >non-computer whiz.  (And that's saying a lot, since DOS has its
| >problems.)  For example, to display a file under DOS, I use
| >'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots
| >easier to remember than 'cat.'
| >
| That's your opinion.  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 wrote a baby interface in shell functions, and so far everyone has
guessed 'list' without prompting in no more than two tries.

| 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.
-- 
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