I agree. To me, success is measured by how easily I can make my box into a fully functional system. More distributions is evidence that there are a significant number of people working on it.
All right, you have convinced me: You have good enough reasons to support your opinion that I can't refute them. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.
However, when you say: "MacOS does not scale well to uncommon cases or large filesystems, but Windows does." -- As a Mac user for 12+ years, Unix for more, and Windows for less, I simply do not find anything in my experience to support your claim that MacOS scales less well than the alternatives; nor do I find the other systems' default behavior preferable. Windows works okay, but I still wouldn't call it better.
Just to be clear, as I've said before, I'm not arguing file extensions as the Right Way - just better than Creator/Type.
I still don't buy it. I can accept your argument that a better method than Creator/Type exists, but just extensions coded into the file name ain't it.
I prefer a system where immutable metadata is separated from mutable metadata.
Okay, and extensions are mutable metadata that do not separate file type from favored application (your mutable metametadata). I fail to see how this statement supports your argument.
how do I tell MacOS that Explorer.app, Omniweb.app and TextEdit.app are all appropriate applications for all HTML files?
You don't need to; they tell MacOS what they can do. If you care which of them opens the file on double-click, use a utility to set the creator code (you don't need to know the code, just pick the app). Use drag-and-drop to override that choice. (*.app, ugh! Damn Apple for screwing up a previously excellent system!)
How do I tell MacOS that, universally, Explorer.app is no longer appropriate for any HTML file, except this one over here?
Remove Explorer from your system.:-) Or use a drag-and-drop utility to change the creator of selected HTML files to something other than Explorer, or write a 5-line AppleScript to do it across whatever subset of your filesystem you wish. How do you do it in Windows or Unix? Bonus question: Can you cleanly remove an app from OS/2, Windows, or Unix by dragging its folder into the trash?
OS/2. OS/2 also supported storing this information in a metadata field (the file extension overrode this, so if you used
metadata fields you didn't use extensions), and let you assign multiple applications (with one default, the rest available
through a context menu) to each type (as well as set exceptions for an individual file).
It looks to me like OS/2 lets the user muck with immutable metadata (by changing the extension). I thought this was supposed to be bad. The only thing that I see OS/2 do that MacOS doesn't is give the user a menu of apps to open a document. It's a perfectly valid human interface decision to conclude that most users don't want that. If you do, you can whip up a 15-line AppleScript to do it -- or, just wipe the Creator field of your documents; then MacOS will offer you a menu every time.
Extension overrides metadata (OS/2). Metadata overrides extension (MacOS). Extension is the only metadata (Windows/Unix). I fail to see how you can maintain that extension-only is better; it looks to me like the Mac way and the OS/2 way you prefer are nearly identical; only the Windows/Unix way is clearly deficient.
Creator/Type violates the principle that immutable metadata and mutable metametadata be stored separately (the
metametadata is "the kind of application(s) appropriate for this metadata type");
They are stored separately. One is the Creator code, and the other is Type; both are quasi-mutable. You apparently want to separate Creator from "Favored viewer". Show me a system that records both. Extensions don't separate these metadata at all, which sounds clearly inferior to me.
that multiple applications should be able to operate on the same file easily;
Drag-to-open is extremely easy. If you insist on a menu, use the methods described above.
that any sort of data intended to be immutable be sufficiently robust that the user doesn't need to try to change it.
As opposed to file extensions, which the user can change by accident. You are doing an excellent job supporting my case that Creator/Type is the better of these two alternatives.
But it fails to support the entire range of what users want to do.
You are being unreasonable. It is impossible to support the entire range of what users want to do. I want my OS to represent the file system as a Venn diagram of metadata types. I want to add my own metadata types. (I note that MacOS does allow me one use-defined mutable metadata field.)
It is not the job of the OS designers to present all users with a bewildering array of choices by default; that is the result of lack of design, not good design. It is the job of the OS designers to make the common case as easy as possible, while still providing flexibility for special cases. Creator/Type does this quite well, and in my judgment provides more alternatives than does any purely extension-based system. That is why I don't accept your proposition that extensions-only is superior.
Amazingly, PERL tries to follow a principle relevant to this:
"easy things should be easy, and hard things should be possible."
Now you're speaking my language. Of course, Perl also has this characteristic: One typo, and you're screwed. Not only do you want the default case to be easy, you want it to be safe too. The default file extension system is not safe. At least, over the years, it has begun to approach easy.
This discussion was never about whether an augmented extension-plus-metadata system (like MacOS X or OS/2) is best; it seems we both agree that it's better than extensions-only. The question is whether an extensions-only system (Windows or Unix) is superior to a system with, effectively, two hidden-but-changeable extensions (MacOS Classic). I don't think you have come close to showing that it is.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with almost everything you said.
His rants on metadata are way off. Although file extensions for typing violate the basic rule of metadata, they still work better
than Type/Creator codes.
No way. Type/Creator codes rock. They absolutely devastate file extensions in user-friendliness. Besides, there's nothing to stop you from using extensions. OS X supports either or both.
2 sets of 4 alphanumeric characters is fine for developers, who only have to remember their own Creator and Type
codes, but it is inappropriate for the user - the 4 character Type is worse than the the 3 character extension, because at
least the extension is common across all applications (compare.jpg with the variety of jpeg Types used in MacOS).
Let me get this straight: You prefer a system with only one axis for categorizing files, where the user can change the type of a file (leaving behind no trace of what it used to be) by accident; where one application on installation hijacks all documents sharing an extension type it recognizes, by default. You cite as an example a file type that Windows bastardized. It's not.JPG, dammit, it's.jpeg -- at least, it universally was, until Windows-based web servers started to gain popularity and screwed everything up. Sorry, I'm not nibbing on that hook. Using visible extensions to establish data types is one of the biggest PITAs about the Web. That information should be coded into the file.
Hard-coded applications for documents is the wrong way to go, and it is built into Creator/Type. The best way I've seen
so far is a simple database of applications appropriate for each type, with the ability to modify that list on a file-by-file
basis. This can be accomplished with file extensions and a filesystem supported metadata (yes as a hack), but it can't be
done with explicitly coded Creator types.
Other than the simple circumstance that I disagree with your unsupported opinion, MacOS does do pretty much exactly what you request (with some tasks facilitated by a simple freeware utility, which doesn't count as a hack in my book); no extension-based system that I've ever heard of does. Besides, there are plenty of ways around that. If you don't have the creator application on your system, you get a list of compatible alternative applications. There also are ways to open a document in an application other than the default (in most cases, the creator); anyone with enough expertise to wish to do so can probably list several of them.
I am sick and tired of hearing the rants about the inherently wrong nature of file extensions, versus the 'good enough' nature
of Creator/Types. No. Both violate important principles, but file extensions can work well, and Creator/Type can not.
Creator/Type advocates emphasize one virtue (the metadata nature of the typing system) and ignore the gross failures of
Creator/Type to actually support what users need to do.
I'm sick and tired of critiqes that don't even identify what they criticise. What are these heretofore-unnamed important principles that these data typing systems violate? Creator/Type can work, does work, and for 17 years has worked extremely well. It is less prone to user error than file extensions. Its default behavior supports what users want to do most of the time. It isn't less capable than extensions; it's more capable. It degenerates to extension-based functionality when better methods fail.
Let's embark on a little thought experiment. When you create a document in a given application, in which application are you most likely going to want to open the document thereafter? If your answer is anything other than the creator, well, I don't believe you.
Even if you can't be persuaded that extensions are an inferior way to classify files, the Creator/Type system can be made into a pure extension-based system if that's what you want it to do. Is the reverse true?
Creator/Type is not merely "good enough"; it is excellent. The 3-character file extension is a horrible kludge that even Microsoft has been trying for the last 6 years to get the world to forget.
Nothing stirs my affection like a blond-haired, blue-eyed, halter-topped sylph who can, expertly tossing her hair as she looks over her shoulder, exclaim to me, "Like, fer sure! My Linux kernel doesn't have the right driver fer my new DVD writer! Now I have to, like, hack my CD driver and build a new kernel! Gag me with a spoon!"
I have worked at both at large and small Windows-based companies that were agressively replacing their Unix servers (and all desktops) with NT, so I was definitely swimming upstream. But I did manage to put Free software to good use.
No developer's desktop should be without Emacs or Vim. You can write code using Notepad, but it sucks. Even worse is NT's command line and scripting capability. CygWin and Perl are absolutely essential.
One key advantage of Free software is that you never have to wait for the license before you can use it. In one project, I had a large part of our application prototyped in Tomcat/Jakarta before our BEA discs even arrived. In another, we needed to provide our customer with an industrial-grade C compiler as part of the deliverable, so I put GCC on the box. Since we were a small integrator working on a fixed-price contract, that translated into about $5000 that stayed in our pocket.
I don't know if I ever convinced any of my bosses of the value of Free software, but I do know that when I offered to take Linux off my machine at that small integrator and put NT back on it, they said, "No thanks, we'd rather have it run Linux."
I took the test, and three of my answers were incorrect according to the answer key. However, based on my knowledge of grammar and the reasons underlying my decisions, in each case I overruled the answer key. I presumes this means I may eventually out-earn whoever wrote the test.;-)
I agree with the writer who objected to earning capacity as a measure of self-worth. Nobody likes a rich, stupid guy. On the other hand, a strong command of grammar is an intrinsically worthwhile skill.
The score-to-income correlation table is ludicrous. Few of the engineers with whom I work could achieve a score better than -12, yet as far as I know, none earns less than $25,000 per annum. My SO, on the other hand, would have earned a perfect score, yet earns less than $25000/yr.
Finally, I want to know what the writers of the test were smoking and if they brought enough for everyone. They think key personnel earn $90K and upper management $150K. Ha! Maybe they do on Lanulos, in the Andromeda galaxy, but no executive in my neighborhood would work for so little.:-P
I don't have a cell phone. I've been tempted on a number of occasions, but haven't succumbed yet.:-) What does a cell phone do that nothing else does? Only one thing, really: It lets other people contact you immediately when you are away from your habitual locations. All other telecommunication needs can be met by using email/IM, answering machines, telephones, pay phones, etc. In the end, it boils down to a question of how often you want to be contacted when you're away from your fixed bases, and how much you're willing to pay for the convenience of not using a pay phone or borrowing someone else's phone. In my case, not often and not $300/year.
"does anyone know of any politicians that are using web enabled opinion polls to help them understand the thoughts of their constituants?"
Yes, I do. Try visiting your congressional representatives' web sites. All three of mine had web forms to send email, and I think one had a web poll.
Re:But what can mortals achive?
on
Biking @ 80 MPH
·
· Score: 1
I was a soft and flabby engineer who worked too many hours, ate too much, and got no exercise at all. About 2 months ago, I bought a decent recumbent (invested around $800 in it so far), that I ride 3-4 miles each way to/from work. Now I'm a soft and flabby engineer who works too many hours, eats too much, and has great legs. Not a bad substitute for a second car if you ask me.
How fast can I go? Good question; I don't have a cycle computer. However, after coming down an overpass, I estimate (based on cars passing me) that I can hold 35 mph for a couple of blocks. I think I could do the 3-mile commute in about 20 minutes if I tried, including stopping at red lights -- but I'd be completely sweaty and disgusting all day at work if I did. Usually I take 30 minutes and arrive unruffled.
How far can I go? My longest day so far is about 16 miles. I had sore legs the next day, but no saddle sores. The 'bent has a very comfy seat. I rode noticeably slower to work the rest of that week.
Ask me again in a year, maybe I'll have some real stories to tell.
It's not a general fix for all files, but Internet Config (formerly freeware, now part of MacOS) lets you select which apps to use to view all common WWW and MIME file types.
I for one am grateful that "one of the faithful" was the first to coin a catchy phrase describing (essentially) the Internet. Imagine where we'd be today if some shadowy-faced Washington czar had gotten to the public first -- we'd have the mainstream press and Joe Sixpack all thinking of the 'Net as "Debbie Does Digital", or worse.
A few years back, a computer magazine solicited its readers to help it settle on a single term to describe the Internet. Their favorites included such albatrosses as "NII (National Information Infrastructure)", "I-way" and "Info-bahn" -- thank goodness the masses spoke and forced them to choose "the Net"!
CS professors would never say "just make it work." But they wouldn't want you to strive for
elegance, either. The job of CS professors is to churn out immeasurable numbers of the mindless Java programmers that the industry wants,
solely so that the school can claim "Look! 94% of our graduates got a job!" and lure in more future drones.
No university I ever went to did that. In my CS classes, elegance was highly valued. Students were taught problem-solving techniques that could be applied to any language. Students were encouraged to develop a deep understanding of algorithms and data structures and orders of complexity. Projects were implemented in languages with greater pedagogical than commercial value. Many students bitched about this, but it pays off big when someone wants to hire them to program in a language nobody has ever heard of before.
I don't know where you draw your examples from; the hypothetical recent grad you described never would have passed any of my CS classes, and would never have been hired by any of my employers.
You can also run your mouse up to the "Files" menu and select "Exit Emacs".
Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
on
VIM 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
Of course, that comes from the days when a mainframe typically had 16 MB of memory.
vi is a pretty sophisticated text editor.
emacs is an operating system thinly disguised as a text editor.
Out of the box, any system with emacs has pretty darn near to the same feature set as a new PC with a full install of Windows and MS Office. More, really. Windows doesn't ship with Zork, and Eliza carries a much better conversation than that damn paperclip.
vi is the only text editor you will ever need.
emacs is the only program you will ever need.
I felt that this letter was too long and too confrontational. Not only do you ask the reader to go to additional effort to pull up a web page, but you also insult the reader and all of his/her friends. You are calling them inferior, ignorant, corrupt, and untrustworthy.
Just something you might want to think about before printing and mailing.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. To me, success is measured by how easily I can make my box into a fully functional system. More distributions is evidence that there are a significant number of people working on it.
I assumed the writer was referring to Yellow Dog, SuSE, Mandrake, and Debian. Adding LinuxPPC and MkLinux brings the tally up to six, and Linux-m68k makes seven. Linux on the Mac is flourishing.
All right, you have convinced me: You have good enough reasons to support your opinion that I can't refute them. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.
However, when you say: "MacOS does not scale well to uncommon cases or large filesystems, but Windows does." -- As a Mac user for 12+ years, Unix for more, and Windows for less, I simply do not find anything in my experience to support your claim that MacOS scales less well than the alternatives; nor do I find the other systems' default behavior preferable. Windows works okay, but I still wouldn't call it better.
Just to be clear, as I've said before, I'm not arguing file extensions as the Right Way - just better than Creator/Type.
I still don't buy it. I can accept your argument that a better method than Creator/Type exists, but just extensions coded into the file name ain't it.
I prefer a system where immutable metadata is separated from mutable metadata.
Okay, and extensions are mutable metadata that do not separate file type from favored application (your mutable metametadata). I fail to see how this statement supports your argument.
how do I tell MacOS that Explorer.app, Omniweb.app and TextEdit.app are all appropriate applications for all HTML files?
You don't need to; they tell MacOS what they can do. If you care which of them opens the file on double-click, use a utility to set the creator code (you don't need to know the code, just pick the app). Use drag-and-drop to override that choice. (*.app, ugh! Damn Apple for screwing up a previously excellent system!)
How do I tell MacOS that, universally, Explorer.app is no longer appropriate for any HTML file, except this one over here?
Remove Explorer from your system. :-) Or use a drag-and-drop utility to change the creator of selected HTML files to something other than Explorer, or write a 5-line AppleScript to do it across whatever subset of your filesystem you wish. How do you do it in Windows or Unix? Bonus question: Can you cleanly remove an app from OS/2, Windows, or Unix by dragging its folder into the trash?
OS/2. OS/2 also supported storing this information in a metadata field (the file extension overrode this, so if you used metadata fields you didn't use extensions), and let you assign multiple applications (with one default, the rest available through a context menu) to each type (as well as set exceptions for an individual file).
It looks to me like OS/2 lets the user muck with immutable metadata (by changing the extension). I thought this was supposed to be bad. The only thing that I see OS/2 do that MacOS doesn't is give the user a menu of apps to open a document. It's a perfectly valid human interface decision to conclude that most users don't want that. If you do, you can whip up a 15-line AppleScript to do it -- or, just wipe the Creator field of your documents; then MacOS will offer you a menu every time.
Extension overrides metadata (OS/2). Metadata overrides extension (MacOS). Extension is the only metadata (Windows/Unix). I fail to see how you can maintain that extension-only is better; it looks to me like the Mac way and the OS/2 way you prefer are nearly identical; only the Windows/Unix way is clearly deficient.
Creator/Type violates the principle that immutable metadata and mutable metametadata be stored separately (the metametadata is "the kind of application(s) appropriate for this metadata type");
They are stored separately. One is the Creator code, and the other is Type; both are quasi-mutable. You apparently want to separate Creator from "Favored viewer". Show me a system that records both. Extensions don't separate these metadata at all, which sounds clearly inferior to me.
that multiple applications should be able to operate on the same file easily;
Drag-to-open is extremely easy. If you insist on a menu, use the methods described above.
that any sort of data intended to be immutable be sufficiently robust that the user doesn't need to try to change it.
As opposed to file extensions, which the user can change by accident. You are doing an excellent job supporting my case that Creator/Type is the better of these two alternatives.
But it fails to support the entire range of what users want to do.
You are being unreasonable. It is impossible to support the entire range of what users want to do. I want my OS to represent the file system as a Venn diagram of metadata types. I want to add my own metadata types. (I note that MacOS does allow me one use-defined mutable metadata field.)
It is not the job of the OS designers to present all users with a bewildering array of choices by default; that is the result of lack of design, not good design. It is the job of the OS designers to make the common case as easy as possible, while still providing flexibility for special cases. Creator/Type does this quite well, and in my judgment provides more alternatives than does any purely extension-based system. That is why I don't accept your proposition that extensions-only is superior.
Amazingly, PERL tries to follow a principle relevant to this: "easy things should be easy, and hard things should be possible."
Now you're speaking my language. Of course, Perl also has this characteristic: One typo, and you're screwed. Not only do you want the default case to be easy, you want it to be safe too. The default file extension system is not safe. At least, over the years, it has begun to approach easy.
This discussion was never about whether an augmented extension-plus-metadata system (like MacOS X or OS/2) is best; it seems we both agree that it's better than extensions-only. The question is whether an extensions-only system (Windows or Unix) is superior to a system with, effectively, two hidden-but-changeable extensions (MacOS Classic). I don't think you have come close to showing that it is.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with almost everything you said.
His rants on metadata are way off. Although file extensions for typing violate the basic rule of metadata, they still work better than Type/Creator codes.
No way. Type/Creator codes rock. They absolutely devastate file extensions in user-friendliness. Besides, there's nothing to stop you from using extensions. OS X supports either or both.
Let me get this straight: You prefer a system with only one axis for categorizing files, where the user can change the type of a file (leaving behind no trace of what it used to be) by accident; where one application on installation hijacks all documents sharing an extension type it recognizes, by default. You cite as an example a file type that Windows bastardized. It's not
Other than the simple circumstance that I disagree with your unsupported opinion, MacOS does do pretty much exactly what you request (with some tasks facilitated by a simple freeware utility, which doesn't count as a hack in my book); no extension-based system that I've ever heard of does. Besides, there are plenty of ways around that. If you don't have the creator application on your system, you get a list of compatible alternative applications. There also are ways to open a document in an application other than the default (in most cases, the creator); anyone with enough expertise to wish to do so can probably list several of them.
I am sick and tired of hearing the rants about the inherently wrong nature of file extensions, versus the 'good enough' nature of Creator/Types. No. Both violate important principles, but file extensions can work well, and Creator/Type can not. Creator/Type advocates emphasize one virtue (the metadata nature of the typing system) and ignore the gross failures of Creator/Type to actually support what users need to do.
I'm sick and tired of critiqes that don't even identify what they criticise. What are these heretofore-unnamed important principles that these data typing systems violate? Creator/Type can work, does work, and for 17 years has worked extremely well. It is less prone to user error than file extensions. Its default behavior supports what users want to do most of the time. It isn't less capable than extensions; it's more capable. It degenerates to extension-based functionality when better methods fail.
Let's embark on a little thought experiment. When you create a document in a given application, in which application are you most likely going to want to open the document thereafter? If your answer is anything other than the creator, well, I don't believe you.
Even if you can't be persuaded that extensions are an inferior way to classify files, the Creator/Type system can be made into a pure extension-based system if that's what you want it to do. Is the reverse true?
Creator/Type is not merely "good enough"; it is excellent. The 3-character file extension is a horrible kludge that even Microsoft has been trying for the last 6 years to get the world to forget.
Either we embrace it and secure our future, or don't and remain forever vulnerable.
Nothing stirs my affection like a blond-haired, blue-eyed, halter-topped sylph who can, expertly tossing her hair as she looks over her shoulder, exclaim to me, "Like, fer sure! My Linux kernel doesn't have the right driver fer my new DVD writer! Now I have to, like, hack my CD driver and build a new kernel! Gag me with a spoon!"
I have worked at both at large and small Windows-based companies that were agressively replacing their Unix servers (and all desktops) with NT, so I was definitely swimming upstream. But I did manage to put Free software to good use.
No developer's desktop should be without Emacs or Vim. You can write code using Notepad, but it sucks. Even worse is NT's command line and scripting capability. CygWin and Perl are absolutely essential.
One key advantage of Free software is that you never have to wait for the license before you can use it. In one project, I had a large part of our application prototyped in Tomcat/Jakarta before our BEA discs even arrived. In another, we needed to provide our customer with an industrial-grade C compiler as part of the deliverable, so I put GCC on the box. Since we were a small integrator working on a fixed-price contract, that translated into about $5000 that stayed in our pocket.
I don't know if I ever convinced any of my bosses of the value of Free software, but I do know that when I offered to take Linux off my machine at that small integrator and put NT back on it, they said, "No thanks, we'd rather have it run Linux."
I took the test, and three of my answers were incorrect according to the answer key. However, based on my knowledge of grammar and the reasons underlying my decisions, in each case I overruled the answer key. I presumes this means I may eventually out-earn whoever wrote the test. ;-)
:-P
I agree with the writer who objected to earning capacity as a measure of self-worth. Nobody likes a rich, stupid guy. On the other hand, a strong command of grammar is an intrinsically worthwhile skill.
The score-to-income correlation table is ludicrous. Few of the engineers with whom I work could achieve a score better than -12, yet as far as I know, none earns less than $25,000 per annum. My SO, on the other hand, would have earned a perfect score, yet earns less than $25000/yr.
Finally, I want to know what the writers of the test were smoking and if they brought enough for everyone. They think key personnel earn $90K and upper management $150K. Ha! Maybe they do on Lanulos, in the Andromeda galaxy, but no executive in my neighborhood would work for so little.
I don't have a cell phone. I've been tempted on a number of occasions, but haven't succumbed yet. :-) What does a cell phone do that nothing else does? Only one thing, really: It lets other people contact you immediately when you are away from your habitual locations. All other telecommunication needs can be met by using email/IM, answering machines, telephones, pay phones, etc. In the end, it boils down to a question of how often you want to be contacted when you're away from your fixed bases, and how much you're willing to pay for the convenience of not using a pay phone or borrowing someone else's phone. In my case, not often and not $300/year.
If you don't make a stand, eventually there will be no place for you to run to. The only real solution is to get the idiocy stopped.
Read this article for more information about the UN building.
"does anyone know of any politicians that are using web enabled opinion polls to help them understand the thoughts of their constituants?"
Yes, I do. Try visiting your congressional representatives' web sites. All three of mine had web forms to send email, and I think one had a web poll.
I was a soft and flabby engineer who worked too many hours, ate too much, and got no exercise at all. About 2 months ago, I bought a decent recumbent (invested around $800 in it so far), that I ride 3-4 miles each way to/from work. Now I'm a soft and flabby engineer who works too many hours, eats too much, and has great legs. Not a bad substitute for a second car if you ask me.
How fast can I go? Good question; I don't have a cycle computer. However, after coming down an overpass, I estimate (based on cars passing me) that I can hold 35 mph for a couple of blocks. I think I could do the 3-mile commute in about 20 minutes if I tried, including stopping at red lights -- but I'd be completely sweaty and disgusting all day at work if I did. Usually I take 30 minutes and arrive unruffled.
How far can I go? My longest day so far is about 16 miles. I had sore legs the next day, but no saddle sores. The 'bent has a very comfy seat. I rode noticeably slower to work the rest of that week.
Ask me again in a year, maybe I'll have some real stories to tell.
It's not a general fix for all files, but Internet Config (formerly freeware, now part of MacOS) lets you select which apps to use to view all common WWW and MIME file types.
... I'd have moved to a new house long since.
I for one am grateful that "one of the faithful" was the first to coin a catchy phrase describing (essentially) the Internet. Imagine where we'd be today if some shadowy-faced Washington czar had gotten to the public first -- we'd have the mainstream press and Joe Sixpack all thinking of the 'Net as "Debbie Does Digital", or worse.
A few years back, a computer magazine solicited its readers to help it settle on a single term to describe the Internet. Their favorites included such albatrosses as "NII (National Information Infrastructure)", "I-way" and "Info-bahn" -- thank goodness the masses spoke and forced them to choose "the Net"!
CS professors would never say "just make it work." But they wouldn't want you to strive for elegance, either. The job of CS professors is to churn out immeasurable numbers of the mindless Java programmers that the industry wants, solely so that the school can claim "Look! 94% of our graduates got a job!" and lure in more future drones.
No university I ever went to did that. In my CS classes, elegance was highly valued. Students were taught problem-solving techniques that could be applied to any language. Students were encouraged to develop a deep understanding of algorithms and data structures and orders of complexity. Projects were implemented in languages with greater pedagogical than commercial value. Many students bitched about this, but it pays off big when someone wants to hire them to program in a language nobody has ever heard of before.
I don't know where you draw your examples from; the hypothetical recent grad you described never would have passed any of my CS classes, and would never have been hired by any of my employers.
... I really did buy a Mac because it looked nice. Not just nice, but Schweeeet. Love me, love my TAM.
You can also run your mouse up to the "Files" menu and select "Exit Emacs".
Of course, that comes from the days when a mainframe typically had 16 MB of memory.
vi is a pretty sophisticated text editor.
emacs is an operating system thinly disguised as a text editor.
Out of the box, any system with emacs has pretty darn near to the same feature set as a new PC with a full install of Windows and MS Office. More, really. Windows doesn't ship with Zork, and Eliza carries a much better conversation than that damn paperclip.
vi is the only text editor you will ever need.
emacs is the only program you will ever need.
That's 'lying'.
Those are the odds I give it. And don't think it's "only in America."
I felt that this letter was too long and too confrontational. Not only do you ask the reader to go to additional effort to pull up a web page, but you also insult the reader and all of his/her friends. You are calling them inferior, ignorant, corrupt, and untrustworthy.
Just something you might want to think about before printing and mailing.
Their tech steps away from the keyboard, and you log in.