Alan Grimes wrote:

> >> From sphere.txt
> 
> U know, I have two completely different versions of that file on my
> drive I just discovered last night... The older one reveales much of my
> former ignorance.

Which is the "right" one?

> 
> >>>>
> > "People say that the Graphical User Interface is the solution to all
> > usability problems. But what if the user is blind? Or what if the user
> > merely has better or more important things to look at?"
> <<
> > Yes, the triumph of the GUI is often over-trumpeted. The best
> > discussion of the limitations of the GUI I've seen recently is at
> > http://www.antipope.org/charlie/linux/shopper/155.html
> > (Warning! Charlie is a Perl and Linux man. You won't like some of
> > this!)
> 
> I'm not a hard-core command-liner either...
> my memory is not that good... =\

My guess is that most *nix people get by with 20 commands and pick up a
reference for the rest. Still, you can always use your DOS commands, you
know, although I've forgotten completely which package you need to
enable this. (Personally I find DOS syntax harder than *nix!)


> 
> > I think Operating Systems are rapidly approaching the point where they
> > are simply commodities. You'll just load an OS (or buy something with
> > an OS pre-loaded) and that's that. We can already see it on the desktop
> > and the plug-in server market. The user will simply have a nice front
> > end and won't have to do more than download the odd update and install
> > a new application. At that point, price, reliability, security and
> > bangs for hardware buck will be all that counts.
> 
> Interesting paragraph.
> I think I can do you one better. I want to not only make the OS choice
> irrelevant I want to destroy the concept of an OS alltogeather. There
> should be computers and there should be programs. Taken togeather,
> several programs will constitute what is currently called an
> application.
> 
> Computers should be judged by how efficiently they execute programs. Any
> computer should run any program. G4 based computers do it with ONE TENTH
> the electricity of the P4.

But the big draw is still the monitor. Still, I'd very much like a G4
(or a SPARC) to play with ;-)

> 
> Heck, way back to Kubrick's classic in '68...
> 
> Can you even immagine HAL annoying you with stupid PPP configuration
> issues?
> 
> It would limply load the protocol software, negotiate with the remote
> host and that would be that. The user wouldn't... er SHOULDN'T have to
> know jack.


That would be good!

Oddly, thinking of HAL and sci fi, NASA are playing with a device which
looks very much like the laser sabre trainer in Star Wars (you know, a
floating sphere) 

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23jul_1.htm?list108331

apparently powered by embeded Linux and no doubt paid for by the money
they saved by ditching Oracle and going with MySQL. It's called a
Personal Satellite Assistant. I want a terrestrial version!


Cheers

John
-- 
******************************************************************************
Marx: "Why do Anarchists only drink herbal tea?"
Proudhon: "Because all proper tea is theft."
******************************************************************************