HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: CLI vs. GUI RIDICULOUSNESS!!!!Read/New/Followup
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 11:56:45 GMT

In article <6083.2ac8922a@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> Are there any OTHER qualities which would make a CLI preferable to a
> graphic user interface?

You mean apart from all the cool one-liners that people keep coming up with?

find /usr/spool/news -name '[0-9]*' -type 'f' -print |
	xargs grep -l -e 'Subject:.*CLI' -e '#!/bin/sh' | pr |
	mail 'bcoleman@hayes.com'
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:40:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.031751.18732@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> In article <8jmz05+@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
|> > In article <1992Oct01.113803.11359@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> > |> In article <ydkz3z#@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
|> > |> > IMHO, your subordinate doesn't speak English. He speaks a limited
|> > |> > pidgeon of swahili, with occasionaly English words thrown in. The
|> > |> > gramar is minimal, and primitive where it does exist, the vocabular
|> > |> > is near zilch. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to point the dude
|> > |> > in the right direction? [ie, gesture?] Perhaps if you happened,
|> > |> > just be chance, to have picture of a cup o' coffee lying around
|> > |> > (now how'd that get there?)....
|> 
|> > |> Fine, except he gets the coffee from room 221-A, and you'd rather have him g
|> > |> to the third floor machine in 332-G because they clean their coffee maker
|> > |> more often.
|> 
|> > No he don't. He knows a clean coffee maker from a dirty one. Where
|> > are you getting this?
|> 
|> OK, the one in 221-A is clean, but the regular secretary is on vacation
|> and it's got Folgers instead of fresh-ground. My subordinate doesn't know
|> Folgers from Hills Bros.

Well, on the Macintosh, you subordinate DOES. That's what I was
saying before. Creating more details of this sort wont help. Even
if your subordinate didnt, you can explicitly tell it what to do-
in GUIland, that means drag the document onto the application,
or launch the app and use a standard file box to do it.

|> > Learn Pidgin:	You can do this, but pidgin is limited and awkward.
|> 
|> It's less awkward than pictures and charades. And certainly less limited.

Don't forget you can mix words into the charades (commands into the
direct manipulation).

If you mean to assert that this doesn't do enough, I probably wont
believe you so throw out some examples or something.

|> > 		this seems to be what you hve done.
|> 
|> Yep. The learning curve is steeper, but you only have to climb it once.

one per app.

Assuming you never forget anything.
-- 
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:48:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.ewright.717785302
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Sep27.122822.22820@NeoSoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>In article <6051.2ac3aa51@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>> > Macs aren't suited for a lot of applications that PCs do today.  
                                                       ^^^
>> Name *ONE*.

>Non-critical embedded applications: point of sale units, for example (cash
>registers, coupon machines, automatic tellers, etc), or bulletin board
>systems. In both cases the user interface is irrelevant (you can't use a
>mouse at a terminal, and a bitmapped display over a modem is problematic)
>and price is the overriding concern.

Um, please notice that he said PCs, not embedded systems.

As far as bulletin-boards go, there are a number of them that
do use Macs, so that claim fails also.  Granted, the Mac is a
bit expensive as a if all you're using it as is a BBS server.  

"A bitmapped display over a modem is problematic?"  Nonsense.
America Online does it just fine.  XWindows does it not so fine.

"You can't use a mouse at a terminal?"  I guess all those companies
making X-terminals with mice attached must sure be silly!
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: flui@fraser.sfu.ca (Francis Wai Gee Lui)
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:33:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.122822.22820@NeoSoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <6051.2ac3aa51@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>> > Macs aren't suited for a lot of applications that PCs do today.  
>
>> Name *ONE*.
>
>Non-critical embedded applications: point of sale units, for example (cash
>registers, coupon machines, automatic tellers, etc), or bulletin board
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
To be fair, I've heard of at least one Mac-run BBS in Manitoba, Canada, that
runs on A/UX.

>systems. In both cases the user interface is irrelevant (you can't use a
>mouse at a terminal, and a bitmapped display over a modem is problematic)
>and price is the overriding concern.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, it seems to me that Mac and Amiga prices are similar for similar
configurations.  Apple's price-slashing and Commodore's slow price cutting
have put Macs and Amigas in similar price ranges.  The idea that Amigas are
cheap (they were, relative to the rest of the industry, 5 years ago) is a
myth, and has been a myth for a few years now.

  __   __
 / /\ /_/\__   Francis Lui
/_/ /\\ \ \/\  e-mail: flui@sfu.ca
\ \  / \ \  /
 \ \ \  \_\/   You know you're a techno-dweeb when
  \_\/         floppy drive applies more to your love life,
               and hard drive to your machines.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:07:48 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Sep29.122839.2626@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Marc VanHeyningen" <mvanheyn@apricot.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:

>It's refreshing to see such well-reasoned argumentation.  This one ranks
>up there with "Your shell script does exactly what you meant it to do,
>but not precisely what you said it did when describing it in an
>imprecise language like English.  Therefore, CLIs are evil."

Oh, the language was very precise -- precisely wrong.  You
have this fantasy image of the perfect Super User, able to
leap tall command-lines in a single bound and never make a
single typing error.  Unfortunately, outside of comic books,
there's no such critter.  Wishful thinking to the contrary.

People make mistakes.  CLIs make it easy to make mistakes.
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macs are the best!
Date: 27 Sep 92 01:17:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.UelLkH200VAtI9N5RP
	<1992Sep25.143802.21479@email.tuwien.ac.at>
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Peter Purgathofer <purgi@iguwnext.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> Not. A good GUI will beat every CLI. Give me an example of an
> application, that should have a CLI, because GUI isnt good.

emacs :-)

data manipulation
specifically, manipulation of data stored in large text files
find me a gui that will let me do what i can do with one alias in unix
that pipes data through several filters, and when i run it goes and
calculates while i go do my work, and hands me the data when i ask for
it
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:27:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.202130.27323@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood) writes:
>NOT!!!
>Where have you been?  (this group is such a fun flame-fest!)  Have you
>not heard of the "Apple Menu" on a macintosh?  With System 7, which has
>only been out for a year now (maybe more...) it's trivial to add an
>application to the apple menu, and once you do, it's a single menu
>selection that's _always_ available.  Easier than setting up a path,
>too!  Because if you move the folder in which the application resides,
>you don't have to do _anything_.  The apple menu still works.  It'll
>work even if the application is on a volume mounted over the network.

I have something more than 700 commands in my PATH (programs, utilities, scripts). 
How many commands can you add to a menu?

And yes, I added a few of them to the menu. But there is not enough many spots for
them all.

>Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw

Dariusz Bolski

-- 
Dariusz Bolski     Ohio Supercomputer Center, IBM POWER Visualization System
Systems Programmer Ohio State University , Columbus U.S.
                   The Advanced Computing Center For The Arts And Design
e-mail: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu  derek@osc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 02:53:46 GMT

In article <ddpzjd+@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
> Well, the short answer is that people!=applications. But that would
> be an obnoxious thing to say, now wouldn't it?

Well, my response to your response is that windows != applications. To be
precise:

> To be precise, w/ people if they all are recieving all your
> speach (ie they are all listening), they can figure out for themselves
> what is meant for them and what is not. Applications aren't so smart-
> if they were all in teh foreground, and you tyed "42",
> your spreadsheet and your calculator and your word processor and
> your File Manager would all thing it was for them,

No, only the application that happened to have the active window open.

You need to have a "current input stream", but it's not the same thing
as a "foreground application". The primary application of interest is
often not the one that owns the currently active window.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Kunt u mij de weg wijzen naar het dichtsbijzijnde intelligente zoogdier?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:32:20 GMT

Carl> == Carl B Jabido <Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu>> 

 Carl> BTW, I went to the Mac cluster today, for the first time this
 Carl> semester.  I still don't like the 640x480 graphics.  I say, go
 Carl> for 1024x768, or even better, 1280x1024!!!!

This still has nothing to do with anything; it's not our fault your
school only bought the small monitors.  We have everything from the
12/13" 640x480 monitors to the 1152x900 21" color and monochrome
monitors here, with a fair number of one-page portrait monitors and a
couple Pivots (one color, one mono).

Now, the Pivot, I bet OS/2 would have problems dealing with *that*...
--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Falcon information
Date: 4 Oct 92 03:55:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:

> The Falcon is a hobbiest niche machine similar to the Amiga.  Amigas/
> Falcons are both for music and sound.  They will never become mainstream
> because the mainstream software companies will never give them a
> second glance.
>
> Plus, all software on the machines is copy-protected.  I know a friend who is
> really in the doghouse because his copy-protected word processor disk failed,
> and the company that made it is out of business.  I do not advocate piracy,
> but I like to BACKUP my software once in awhile.

        Oh, so you've done a sample of the software products for the
Amiga lately? Copy protection on the Amiga is becoming rarer all the time.
It's mostly the big game programming houses who aren't changing their ways,
and with the latest release of both the new hardware and O/S, Commodore
has made it explicit that from now on, if programmers don't want to write
their software to use the O/S properly, don't bother writing it. Getting the
programmers to abide by this policy is another matter.

        As for piracy, as far as copying a copy protected disk is concerned
(it can be done), as long as it is as legitimate backup, and not for
illegitimate profiteering/distribution, there shouldn't be a problem. If
your legal system is so rigid that it would convict someone who made a
backup to protect their investment against equipment/media failure, you've
got more problems than you realise.

> I am not saying that Falcons/Amigas are junk, but the computers have no
> software base, and what it is out there is heavily copy-protected.

        Jumping to conclusions again?

> PS:  Amiga software that does not override the OS tends to crash on a dime
>      and leave seven cents change.

        That's the fault of the programmers. C= has been working for years
to make the O/S more resiliant to handle poorly programmed applications,
and has achieved a noticable level of success in this area. I'd say you're
info is a few years out of date. The Amiga O/S is very stable now, but I
won't try to say it's 100% "bulletproof".


           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: nazedgi@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Edgardo Nazario)
Subject: Mac Market
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: Public Macs, Academic Computing, Yale University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:16:03 GMT


Being a former PC user and now a Mac convert I've come to the following
conclusion:  The majority of Mac users just don't get it.  If Apple really
wants to lure a significant amount of PC users it will have to do something
more than proclaim the superiority of the Mac hardware and software. 
They'll have to enter a cut-throat competition:  Dell is doing it, Compaq
is doing it,  Big Blue is doing it.  And I'm not talking about
middle-of-the-road solutions like the Performa line,  I'm talking about
really powerful computer at cheap prices.  Right now, you can get Windows
workstations for less than $2000 (including a monitor) that would blow away
all but the fastest macs, the Quadra line. Now, I'm not saying that Windows
is even close to the MacOS (heck, it's not even an operating system), but
it will certainly give you a good run for your money.  For the average PC
user, Macs look pretty,  but incredibly overpriced. 

Apple computer is a financially healthy company with huge cash reserves. 
They can afford to cut their profit margins without sacrificing quality or
performance.  If they could offer competitive prices to PC users, many of
them would jump into the Mac bandwagon.  Apple would increase their
marketshare and hence would be able to keep their profit margins down. 
Apple must act quickly because soon another formidable competitor is going
to enter the race:  Windows NT.  Bill Gates already succeded in turning a
lemon like Windows into a hit.  God only knows what he'll do with a true
gem like Windows NT.  Bill Gates is the predator and Apple may well be one
of his most coveted preys.
From: Dale_Adams@gateway.qm.apple.com (Dale Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: New systems MacII LC or Falcon
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:56:37 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <NIGEL.92Sep22171736@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov> 
nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov writes (referring to the use of a Q950):
> For graphics?  I do too...and the box says SGI not Apple.  
> 
> For cheap broadcast quality* video the box says NewTek VideoToaster and
> Commodore Amiga and not Apple Quadra.

Ah, but I don't do video (well, not much, anyway, and certainly not 
professionally).  I need a machine to do engineering, DTP, relatively 
simple graphics (i.e., not 3D stuff), and many other misc. tasks 
(spreadsheet, word processing, comm., etc.....).   For my work, the Mac is 
the best choice.  If you do video, the Amiga may be the best machine for 
your work and your budget (the VideoToaster is certainly cost effective).  
Depending on the type of graphics work you do, an SGI machine may be best. 
It all really depends on your application.

- Dale Adams
  Apple Computer, Inc.
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs Mac
Date: 26 Sep 92 00:00:14 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Sep22.180535.788@dragon.acadiau.ca>, 890139w@dragon.acadiau.ca (John Weatherbie) writes:
> 
>>Compared to DOS and Windows, OS/2 is an awesome OS for the intel
>>processor line, but compared with a computer that was designed
>>with graphics in mind from the processor upward, OS/2 pales.
> 
> Why does OS/2 pale, it is much more configurable than System 7, it is easily 
> possible to make the screen look much nicer that a mac screen.

NOT! <grin>

OK, back to serious mode. When you say "look much nicer" I have no idea what
you mean. Certainly if we consider the screen as a static display, any
bitmap that you can display on your OS/2 machine can be displayed on a Mac,
and vice versa (assuming similar screen size and depth). So, that can't be
it.

A computer interface is much more than a static display. It involves a lot
of interaction with the user. Is this what you mean by "looks nicer"? Actually,
any subjective evaluation of interaction must certainly involve lots more
qualities than mere looks. 

I believe the original poster meant that this tenuous quality of user 
interaction via a graphics display comes off better in an architecture
where every element has been designed toward that goal, from the processor
on through the display hardware and the OS. OS/2 does not share this
quality.

> Well considering OS/2 only came out about 5.5 months ago, 

OS/2 has been out for years. OS/2 version 2.0 is only half a year or so old.

>>OS/2 is awesome
>>for its crash tolerance, but the major drawback is its lack
>>of market share.
> 
> Again it only came out 5.5 months ago.  Corel and Lotus are both releasing 
> products for OS/2 and I am sure many other companies will follow.

That remains to be seen. The NeXT was in the same boat a few years ago, and
we're still waiting for applications. And the NeXT has much nicer OS
technology than OS/2.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:18:24 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <patb.718240965@mcl> patb@mcl.ucsb.edu (Pat Breitenbach) writes:

>You couldn't love the NeXT that much. For a couple hundred dollars
>more you could get a pretty capable machine. Remember, color is
>nearly useless and will remain so for awhile.

Just saying that doesn't make it true.
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh emulation on Amiga
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:57:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.ibhan.717796628
   e.edu> <6026.2ac1ab01@hayes.com><1992Sep24.212630.8665@cgrg.ohio-state.edu> 
 <6043.2ac350eb@hayes.com> <NIGEL.92Sep29141250@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov>

RE: What the Amiga can't do with a Mac Emulator that a IIci can.
A good percentage of the software coming out for the Mac today is color
based, which means that your Amiga couldn't run it.  'NNuff said.
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:23:48 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <UelNxiW00VAt4Dqmhc@andrew.cmu.edu> Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Most of the following is only partially true.  It works for beginning
>users, while it is not true for someone who uses the software on a
>day-to-day basis.  It assumes that the person remembers
>commands as words, not character strings (which are rememberred
>differently, and are harder to misspell, 

Most CLUNKs do not use real words for commands.  ls, grep, DIR, etc.
are typical.  A few commands, such as cat and man, happen to be real
words, but the functions that they perform bear no similarity to the
normal meaning of the word, so there is no mental association.
(BTW, you misspelled "remembered," which is a real word and, therefore,
"much harder to misspell.")

>It assumes that users need to go through a
>relatively long length of time to remember a command, which is true
>for new users, but not experienced ones

No, it does not.  Every time someone sits down with a stopwatch
and times someone, they find that this is not true.  Regardless of
how experienced the user is.

> (it takes me a lot less time to type 'ESC x bat-ins TAB' than to 
>go to the message window, choose select all from the menu, change 
>to the editting window, and finally select 'paste excerpt' from the 
>edit menu).  

No, it does not.  You have the *internal perception* that it takes
less time because your brain does not record the time it took to
remember the command.  Human-factors engineers have actually *measured* 
the time and discovered that using the menu is always faster.  Always.

If you want to know how much time an event takes in physics, do you
time the event, or do you go out and ask an observer for his opinion
of how long it took?  Why is it that you attach more importance to
measurement than opinion in physics, but not in human engineering?

>It also assumes that it
>is easy to pick out one icon always, whcih is not true - when you have
>20 icons in a floder it can be a pain in the arse to find the right
>one, and there's no command completion when you're trying to find an
>icon (love that tcsh).

If you tried using a Mac before making foolish statements like this,
you'd have more credibility.  All you have to do to select an icon
is type the first few letters of its name -- a unique prefix.  That
*is* command completion.