Before this turns into a full scale conflagration, it might help if we
all remember that Unix as an operating system is not new. It is
really, really old by computing standards.
In fact it is astounding to me that I can get Darwin, Linux and even
AIX to execute code I was running in high school back in 1970 which
originally ran on DEC PDPs and was stored on paper tape! There is the
very real possibility that Unix may be more reliable than arithmetic
and sturdier than the pyramids of Egypt or the ancient civilizations of
South America. And because Unix has been kicked around, tested,
modified and so on, it may be able to function under nearly any and all
conditions without failure. It just may be as fundamental a tool as
the stone ax or wheel; unlike them however it is not bound to physical
shape or limits.
Windows, as an OS is a pretty amazing piece of work; but it has not
approached yet the reliability or sturdiness of Unix. It may not be
able to do so just as a civilization whose experience and mathematics
predates another by a thousand years or more, could take some time to
comprehend in terms of what is known currently.
Conventions within Unix, and Linux and now OS X (and other other *IX)
will share similar functions, expectations and execution parameters.
The fact of the nature of the matter is that all the varieties of *IX
base systems are aimed at getting essential work done. The challenge
to all engineers is how to get that amount of essential processing done
within better interfaces regarding how humans naturally communicate
ideas. This is a completely different requirement regarding how any of
the *IX systems were initially designed as essentially responding to
explicitly typed commands at a console.
The other end of the problem is that human psychologists and
sociologists can't even figure out optimal structures of how children
communicate, let alone adults in societies. So how can engineers begin
to design a workable human interface? There is also the gap between
the appearance of successful communication because a job is executed
and actual comprehension as to whether the intended purpose of a task
is actually being met. If there is a system of processing which could
be the active core of a future system capable of making that leap; it
will probably be an extension of a version of one of the *IX systems.
Until then however, we have the inconveniences which come with living
and being bound in time with technologies which are astounding and
boring; amazingly flexible and impossibly intransigent ... we each need
to recall as our emotions ride with us along these perspectives or
views ... these tools we have — this software in *IX, can only go as
far as we see or have the insight to push these tools forward, as we
push ourselves forward along as well.
In this sense, we are very much in the struggles, if not the same one,
as Sysiphus found himself in. The difference is that we are struggling
to overcome our own limits of vision in developing and evolving the
technologies we have developed to date. Doing this collectively, is
truly a challenge; it is not clear that we can be successful. But it
will be the utmost failure of humanity if we do not work to overcome
the most difficult aspect of any technology, our own nature.
On Mar 17, 2006, at 2:28 PM, John C. Welch wrote:
On 3/17/06 11:12, "Kai Staats" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ever tried backing up your home dir on OSX, rebuilding, and
reinstalling? I
have yet to have it work properly. Permissions are messed up, app
preferences
are all over the place and usually lost --it's a pain.
How many times have you *had* to? I've yet to have to outside of actual
damage. Sometimes Linux gets trapped by its own "hard is cool" heritage
--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============
Mitakuye Oyasin -- A saying of the Lakota Sioux meaning "We are all
related".
_______________________________________________
yellowdog-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/mailman/listinfo/yellowdog-general
HINT: to Google archives, try '<keywords> site:terrasoftsolutions.com'
