readline bashing (was POSIX bashing)

[Steve Rezsutek]

In article <1991Apr17.153508.28645 at eng.umd.edu> stripes at eng.umd.edu (Joshua Osborne) writes:

   > 	A good friend of mine has this theory that computers today
   > are really no more useful than the woefully "obsolete" ones we see
   > in the computer museum - by the time you factor in the amount of
   > sheer gunk they're wasting their time doing (painting nifty-keen 3-d
   > widgets, etc, etc, etc) and the sheer human cost of *understanding*
   > all that gunk, they are no faster, no more cost effective, and no
   > more capable at doing "real work" than they used to be. Of course,
   > that's an utterly insane argument, isn't it?

   Well I can tell you  that I get alot  more  done today on a  X  terminal
   running off a Sun 4/60 (SS1) then I did  a few years  ago with an Ataris
   ST, and I got more done on  that then I got done  on a C=64,  I got less
   done on the 64 then I got done on a IBM 370, I did get  more done on the
   ST then the 370.  So for me I get more done  on a "modern" computer then
   the old ones.  However I don't use fake 3D, it doesn't work real well on
   a mono system.  (and I don't  on color ones,  I do like color  better, I
   can find my mouse quicker on them).

This is perhaps a silly comparison, but it will [hopefully] illustrate my
point. Let's assume (dangerous, I know ;-) that in comparing MS-DOS to 
Unix, that Unix fits the description of software that has all the bloated
``gunk'' while MS-DOS is the ``lean. mean computin' machine''. [I've heard
this opinion expressed by not just a few DOS die-hards.] On the *same*
hardware, I'd venture to guess that Unix will "eat up" maybe 15% of the 
available computes, but I certainly get a *lot* more done using Unix, than
I ever did/will with MS-DOS (unless getting frustrated and having to reboot
constitute "getting things done").

Now to carry this further, I think that if I want to illustrate a paper
I'm working on, I would get a lot more done using X and something like
Tgif than hacking straight Postscript over a dialup. On the other hand, 
if I'm reading news/mail, then I'll stick to emacs on a terminal (xterm 
or otherwise). Mice et al just don't seem to be as efficient when coping 
with textual things like composing mail or writing code as a good [and 
perhaps a bit overweight ;-)] text editor.

My point is that how effective something is at "getting things done" might
well change in relation to what one is trying to get done. ``When all you 
have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.''

Just my 20 milli-dollars worth.

Steve