Reply to UNIX Objections

[utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!whuxlb!ech]

At last, I see someone object to UNIX in a way which might actually be
MEASURABLE:  that UNIX fails to supply a sufficiently strong development
environment, so the gurus have to repeatedly "roll their own," so (aha:
the bottom line) everybody else has to put up with widely varying options,
formats, etc.

OK, now let's calm down a bit, and try to be scientists (as opposed to
evangelists) for a moment.  A couple of observations: first, I find no
particular problem with having a manual by my side at my terminal.  The
things I use every day I rarely have to consult the manual for; the things
I use rarely I DO consult the manual for.  I submit that this is an entirely
reasonable way to do business and that, moreover, when dealing with any
complex artifact (like a programming environment), this is a reasonable way
to do business.  My lawyer keeps his law library close at hand, my mechanic
keeps Chilton close at hand, and so on for anyone who deals with complex
artifacts in a professional manner.

Second, at the risk of sounding obsessive and/or defensive, the only example
of an environment that I have encountered which truly held my hand and led
me through the steps was TENEX (or TOPS-20, very nearly the same thing from
the user's point of view).  Even there, the more complex programs (compilers,
editors, etc.) require fairly heavy ARCHIVAL documentation, including
reference manuals, tutorials, etc.  There is simply no way yet devised for
ANY computer system to simply read my mind and perform what I want performed;
I must necessarily LEARN TO USE THE TOOL, and using the tool well necessarily
includes reference on an on-going basis to archival information.

Third, as Milton Friedman is fond of saying (oh, gosh, I just revealed that
I am a compulsive/obsessive/reactionary/defensive capitalist lackey, too!),
you cannot compare something real with something ideal.  I will stipulate
that the UNIX environment is on a par with the seventh circle of hell;
what would you LIKE TO SEE short of the telepathic natural language computer?

Sorry, sarcasm a little thick in places...now let me be constructive:
I work with Human Factors people (mostly Experimental Psychologists) every day;
they are scientists who manage to formulate and conduct REAL experiments with
REAL subjects and analyze the results with REAL statistics to reach USABLE
conclusions.  Note that this kind of real SCIENCE has very little to do with
broadsides like the now-infamous Norman article in Datamation.  Such
broadsides are fine publicity and may bring in lots of grant money, but they
are hardly constructive.

Why not?  Again: how would you change UNIX?  Or would you chuck it entirely?
But that is the same question: hell, I am one of those damn professionals
who can (and has) used environments that make the ninth circle look good;
I don't CARE what the interface looks like, cuz I will find SOME way to cut
out a niche I can be comfortable in.  I know what is comfortable for ME,
and that happens to be what was comfortable for Ken Thompson, so...

SO TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT.  But that is NOT the same as telling me what you
DON'T want.  And I am no more telepathic than the machine.  Give me
MEASURES.  Give me TOOLS.  I really AM obsessive about wanting the stuff I
build to be of maximal benefit to the maximal number of people, so I try
to keep interfaces clean and documentation clear.  Show me how to do a better
job and I will do it.

End of flame.  Obviously, UNIX serves a certain group of people well.
Obviously, it could serve other people better.  The really silly thing is
that the flexibility is there to do the very experiment that need to be done
to find out how to do better.  Let's use it.
	=Ned Horvath=