From: papresco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Paul Prescod)
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (very long)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:30:43 GMT

>Mine popped up after 45 seconds (cheap Korean brand).  In the same
>vein, my microwave doesn't ask for confirmation, my light switches
>don't ask for confirmation, and my toilet definitely does not ask
>"are you sure? (y/n)".

All of these are considerably easier to use then a text editor.  Many cars
will (rightly) make a sound if you leave your keys in.  They will also
(rightly) make a sound if you leave your lights on when the engine is
off.  It would be (and perhaps is, in some cars) nice if you could turn
these off.  But for my, girlfriend, who is very intelligent, but occasionally
forgets her lights and keys, the buzzers are a Godsend.  And for me, 
who can forget and type qw instead of wq, a prompt "haven't saved yet"
would be nice.  BTW, this is not asking for superflurous time wasting
prompting.  VI will NOT LET YOU QUIT with a Q.  It must be wq or Q!.  So
if I type Q, why not ask me if I meant WQ?  Easier for the user, easeir
for the power user that forgets.

>But then, we're arguing apples and oranges, as I said before.  You can't
>do anything useful with a Microsoft Write file except print it, as far
>as I can tell, and I haven't printed anything out in about a month.

Or compile it?  write can write ascii as well as VI!

>No, assembly is a low level language, C is my favorite programming language,
>and control-c is the de facto standard for process interruption on Unix
>systems.  The bit about kill %1 was facetious, but everyone who intends to
>use Unix seriously should have control-c pretty firmly imbedded in their
>minds.

process interruption is different from exit.  Exit implies "update setup
files etc., and perhaps prompt me if I want to save"  Process interruption
implies "quit unconditionally."

>Definitely not.  My keyboard doesn't have an F1 key.  If it did, there
>would be no guarantee that it would produce what your F1 key does.
>There are good reasons why nobody uses F-keys -- their original purpose
>was to be bindable to whatever the user felt appropriate.

That's fine...your keyboard doesn't have an F1 key and you don't want help.
My keyboard DOES have an F1 key, and unix doesn't have a standard F1 key.
If I want to bind F1 on my computer, having help on it doesn't matter.  Think
about it...it would be intercepted before it gets sent, and translated,
wouldn't it?  And for those of us that don't know how to bind keys yet,
it would go through to help.

>You mean one character left, but you're still terminally unconscious.

Yes...I keep saying right because I'm thinking about what hand I use to 
type it.

>Little bumps on the keyboard don't mandate any sort of cursor control
>arrangement whatsoever.  It makes perfect sense to not use ; for a
>control key -- it's not right of l on all keyboards, for one thing.

Non standard QWERTY-incompliant keyboards are certainly not my problem.
99.9% of qwerty keyboards (and every one I have seen) has a semicolon beside
the l.  The other .1% are so nonstandard that perhaps their hjkl aren't
in a row either.

>It does NOT make perfect sense to have an unshifted help key in the
>middle of the goddamn keyboard in an editor people are supposed to use.
>Why don't you take some courses on human-computer interaction and
>ergonomics and try to get back to Unix later?

Thus the beauty of the (till now) unused F1 key.  Besides, one would
assume that VI would be configurable enough that you could change the
key mappings of the keys!  Or at least turn off help if you wanted to.

>I assume that you meant "if you launch an editor from RN."  Pray tell,
>how does vi figure out from where it was launched, and whether or not
>that program would necessarily need word-wrap on?  Please go on to
>inform me how you've determined that I want word-wrap when I write news --
>I don't -- and how you've managed to instantiate artificial intelligence
>on any other competing system that you're now comparing with Unix?

Well, in the PC world (blaspheme!!!!) you tell programs what editor you
want to use and what command line options to send to them.  And guess what
if you want to change that information, you don't have to edit some 
invisible file that the computer has (annoyingly) placed in your work
directory.  The program updates it's OWN config file.  (although you could
do it manually if you're into that kind of thing)

>For you, it's a flaw.  For enough other people, it's not.  Your systems
>administrator has decided not to add a file that does something at the
>prompt.  Contact him for further information.

I see.  For other people it is a benefit?  Can you explain how it is to 
their benefit to have help do nothing?

>If they were, then it would be.

They are.

>Programs do not decay.  vi is unchallenged as a small, powerful text editor;
>that it was originally written years ago is just not important.

B
A
A
A
yes programs DO decay.  See that crap above this line?  That's what
happens when I try to use my arrow keys.  Let's see what happens when
I try to use my f1 key?  Beep.  Where is built in help?  It's not there.

VI is decaying.  It is not keeping up with the hardware.  It is not keeping
up with competing software.  Anyone in their right mind given a choice
would not use vi unless they are already familiar with it (or the only
choice is emacs).  

Let's not let this decay happen to unix.