On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 20:41, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
>
> > Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, Mar 04, 2003:
> > > You remind me what I knew about using Windows before I arrived to my
> > > current workplace. Outlook is not just a mail client but a (convenient!
> > > IMHO) address book + calendar + notes + mail organizer. You can say they
> > > don't belong together but the fact is that the integration is VERY
> > > convenient.
> >
> > Seen it. Not so convenient, and *really* doesn't belong
> > together. Nor do I see the point of having a mailer inside your
> > browser.
>
> This is a work around a *problem* of the system/UI.
>
> On my system I simply:
>
> cat file [|possible pipe] | {mail|mutt} whatever
>
> cat file [|possible pipe] | lpr
And you think it's more convenient than pressing the "Print" button?
I've been there and moved on.
(BTW, "cat file | program" is the most naive beginner mistake, if it's
only one file then you can run "program < file", RTFM :-).
>
> Mozilla, Explorer, and such are limited. They can't easily pipe their
> output. So they need to be bloated with all that functionality.
>
> They need all that functionality embedded inside them.
>
I disagree about your conclusion. Just like pipes can be used to move
streams of bytes between programs (unidirectionally!) so can
remote-procedure-calls be used to call "plug-ins" from "main" programs
(bidirectionally!).
I used, managed and programmed UNIX since 1986 until 2000. I still
like the power of scripting and such. But when it gets down to reading,
e.g., this very mailing list I find it much more convenient to click
buttons and have the right viewer used automatically embedded in my mail
window as well as the textual data in the right encoding than start
typing " " or "^X" and "Enter" and god knows what in a limited 80x40
text-only screen. I also like the ability to click a URL and have the
browser popped-up instead of having to copy-paste the address.
If MS are so wrong about their integration stuff (I'm not familiar with
MS jargon, but I think it's about COM and its descendants) then how come
GNOME and KDE invest so much in imitating this and Linux sites keep
showing off screen shots of these environments? (one claim against them
is that they stole good ideas and implemented them very badly, but still
I find their interface today more convenient to some tasks than the
ASCII-alone world of pipes and command line).
This elitist view that "if it's good enough for grandma then it's not
good enough for me" looks simply pathetic to me.
Just today someone who works on Mac OS X told me she has a great user
interface but underneath it she can always open a tcsh window and start
typing away (she's has a 2nd degree in CS from HUJI so she feels
comfortable with tcsh).
UNIX command line tools are great for some jobs, but the computer world
haven't frozen 30 years ago when these concepts where first invented.
The UNIX command line interface was invented within the limitations of
the hardware and software technologies of the time, these limitations
have been lifted long ago. I don't see the point of making this
interface sacred just because two decades ago only geeks could use it.
> >
> > > I think you are mixing Outlook Express with Outlook.
> >
> > Maybe.
> >
> > > > Why are people so obsessed with spreadsheets? What do you use
> > > > them for?
>
> Spreadsheets allow you to deal with *lots* of data.
>
> Unix scripts tend to be line-oriented, or record-oriented.
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
