From: Jeremy_Reimer@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer)
Subject: CLI/GUI wars (was Re: Apple IIGS being discontinued...)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 10:40:15 GMT

> P. J. Remner writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <1i05i0INNmu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
> Posted: 1 Jan 1993 01:08:16 GMT
>
> Org.  : Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
>
>
> In a previous article, cheryl@gallant.apple.com (Cheryl Lins) says:
>
> >In article <9212162327.54@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
> writes:
> >>
> >>When the Mac ships with a real command line shell, then maybe some people
> >>will look on it more favorably.
> >
> >Ha-ha-ha!!! You make a funny, no?
> >
> >Only those brought up on dinosaur derived systems and mentalities. And i'm
> so
> >very certain that Mom and Pop want to be programmers (even in the very
> limited
> >form of writing shell commands). But that's a discussion best suited for
> the
> >'famous flame wars' thread (GUI vs command line). And I have better things
> to
> >do than spend time trying to convince you otherwise or start a new flame
> war.
> >


Ah, but nothing can stop an old flame war from becoming a new flame war.  Why
not just admit that you DO have too much time on your hands and were very
obviously baiting everyone?

But, for a change of pace, why not rate some of the various GUIs and CLIs in
use, and note which systems can use both?  Why not waste some net.bandwidth
in a slightly different way than mere flame wars?

Apologies for any mis-information to follow...

I guess this being Usenet we should start with Unix (or *nix?)

CLI: Highly powerful and flexible, still cryptic enough to discourage anyone
who doesn't have a REALLY good reason to learn Unix..

GUI: Too many to count, and my experience with X-Windows is too limited to
discuss accurately...

NeXT:

CLI: See Unix.

GUI: Nice.  Flexible, fairly powerful.  Too monochrome for my taste :)  Still
too slow on anything but the fastest model IMO.  Takes a while to get used
to, but urge to use CLI instead minimal when doing ordinary tasks.

Mac:

CLI: None (standard System only)

GUI: Useable but boring (except for the times when it gets too cute, but this
is more to do with strange terminology built into the OS than the GUI itself)

Windows (or Windoze)

CLI: DOS window (see DOS)

GUI: Useless.  Whole industries have sprung up trying to replace it.  I
personally refuse to work on a Windoze machine until they at least install
NDW.

OS/2 2.0

CLI: DOS or OS/2 window, without 4OS2 the differences are minimal.  Plus REXX
command interpreter, which is pretty cool.

GUI:  Seems pretty Mac-like to me, but is burdened with supporting the DOS
world.  Still manages to come out alright and I find myself using it more and
more.  Good thing they sped it up a bit in 2.1!

DOS

CLI: Like Unix without the commands.  :)  Not very useful without replacement
command interpreters like 4DOS.
GUI: None.

Amiga

CLI: Looked pretty DOS-like to me.  AREXX helps.

GUI: Looks ugly.  Not as intuitive or useable as it should be (haven't seen
the latest incarnation of the OS)  Can't do much without the CLI.


Which leads to my final question: Which system offers the best of both worlds
(besides Patrick Stewart's personal OS) of the GUI and CLI?

My choice would be OS/2 or the NeXT, nothing else comes close.  Personally I
use OS/2 and love it, so this may explain any bias.  I liked the NeXT but I
still find it too slow, too expensive and too MONOCHROME (unless you are
doing photo manipulation on a colour NeXT box, everything looks pretty drab)
for my own personal use.

Well?  Whaddya think?  Enough flame bait for everyone???






--
Jeremy_Reimer@ |"It turned out, as N-Man discovered later, that the black
mindlink.bc.ca | boat hadn't been after him at all.  It was full of riotous,
---------------| unemployed former James Bond villains enraged at the fall
aka THE JAGUAR!| of Communism in the Soviet Union."
---------------|
Stealth Sig#69 |  --From "N-Man #3: N-Man on Holiday"