🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <40p3tc$a79@student.anu.edu.au> Jason Stokes
<J.STOKES@student.anu.edu.au> writes:

>[...text reformatted to 80 columns...]

>UNIX, and I assume its counterpart LINUX, just totally fails to hide OS
>details from the user.  It seems I have to learn a whole new language (can
>anyone explain EMACSese, for example?) just to operate it.  What it needs
>is a really good OOUI/GUI that gives drag'n'drop functionality.  I've seen
>its windowing system, X-windows, and I don't think much of it.

UNIX does not attempt to "hide" OS details from the user.  The OS itself
provides the "more detailed and lower level manipulation," as you call
it.  You have obviously never seen a fully configured system running X.
The system could be configured to look and behave exactly like "OS/2,"
if that is what you 'really' want.

As for EMACs (which has nothing to do with the OS), the later X versions
are extremely powerful and fully configurable.  If you don't like how it
operates, it is possible to change every aspect (including all of the key-
strokes) to suit your needs.  If you like OS/2's Enhanced Editor, vi, or
whatever else, EMACS can be made to take on its look, feel, and
functionality.  For example, my emacs is set up with a comprehensive set
of pull-down menus and icons that change for every file type I edit.  The
text formatting and keystrokes also change on a file by file basis.  I can
read mail, net news, handle communication, compile, debug, etc. all from
inside emacs.  So far, I have found NO practical limitation to its
capabilities.

>Using a computer is going to be as basic a skill as literacy, if it isn't
>already, and that means people aren't going to be able to cope if they
>have to conform to some computer scientist's idea of a handy mnemonic
>command.  GREP?

Your comparison of computer use to literacy is invalid.  What you are
saying is that people should be able to read and write without having
to learn the language!  The mnemonics are there to facilitate typing a
command.  Would you prefer "search_a_file_for_a_string_or_regular_expression"?
Or did you want a little picture depicting this?

>My ideal OS would assume very little knowledge for the user get started
>(so kids can use it) but would allow progressively more detailed and lower
>level manipulation for the technically minded.  It would also have sound
>technical foundations incorporating all the latest OS technology, with a
>large capacity for expansion.  The closest thing to this ideal is,
>of course,  
>
>OS/2

OS/2?  You MUST be joking, so I won't touch that one.

UNIX falls right into your description of the ideal OS.  The difference
is that there is no automatic installation procedure to set it up to be
a child's toy on the outside, and detailed on the inside.

I prefer that it is NOT available this way.  I could just see something
like "UNIX-Warp! Look how we decided it should look now!"  I can make UNIX
look and feel any way I want (or hide anything I choose).

Your whole argument appears to focus on setup, not the OS.  The ideal
setup of an OS is as unique as each individual.  Ideally, the OS should
be completely open-ended.  Then a "technically minded" person can set
the OS up to work EXACTLY the way you want, and not be limited to a
canned set of options.

So, there appear to be two choices.  Accept someone's canned options of
how the system should work;  Or learn the language, choose a flexible OS,
and make your own decisions.
-- 

=======================================================================
Jeffrey W. Davis (317)451-0503   Domain: c23jwd@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Engineer                UUCP:   deaes!c23jwd