Re: Scripting Additions: Embracing the Horror of Unix
Re: Scripting Additions: Embracing the Horror of Unix
- Subject: Re: Scripting Additions: Embracing the Horror of Unix
- From: Olivier Destrebecq <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:37:13 -0600
Where do macs thrive? Primarily in industries where no other OS is
dominant, and in the homes and offices of a few people who are *very*
technically savvy and want the OS they prefer in spite of
interoperability hassles they put up with.
Macs are for geeks -- they are not for the "rest of us" unless that
means people who won't put with an inappropriate system just because
it's popular. Alas that's a small number of folk.
i do not agree with you. My mum uses a mac at home and she is not a
geek, far from that she simply bought a mac because she thought it was
easier.
The mac in my opinion is still the machine that is for the rest of us,
even though i'm not part of the rest of us, since i spend my day on my
mac...
olivier
On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 12:42 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
>
Ed Stockly,
>
>
> I'm saying the opposite, that's it crucial for Apple and developers
>
> to
>
> make all (or as much a practical and useful) of the Unix commands and
>
> scripting available to AppleScripters with a pure and true AppleScript
>
> syntax. Otherwise the only people scripting Mac OS X will be those
>
> comfortable with Unix and Frontier and Perl etc. and Apple will lose an
>
> important segment of it's market.
>
>
> I think they call that segment "The rest of us."
>
>
I don't think the description of mac users as "The rest of us" is
>
anywhere near accurate anymore, if it ever was. The use of a computer
>
system that's different in an environment where 80-90% of people are
>
using 1 system is an inherently techno-geeky thing to do. "The rest of
>
us" are using Windows, not because it's inherently easier for a
>
non-geek/programmer to use (IMO it's more difficult), but because
>
everyone else uses it and they don't know to do any differently.
>
>
Unfortunately, in a Windows world, it's *harder* to use a mac than a
>
Windows machine, despite it's more elegant interface.
>
>
Where do macs thrive? Primarily in industries where no other OS is
>
dominant, and in the homes and offices of a few people who are *very*
>
technically savvy and want the OS they prefer in spite of
>
interoperability hassles they put up with.
>
>
Macs are for geeks -- they are not for the "rest of us" unless that
>
means people who won't put with an inappropriate system just because
>
it's popular. Alas that's a small number of folk.
>
>
That said -- I notice the Apple isn't using the "rest of us" line
>
anymore, because whatever you say about Steve Jobs, he's got a nose for
>
where his bread is buttered, and right now his bread is buttered by
>
geeks. OS X primary appeal is to people who've been working on Unix and
>
waiting for a decent GUI without giving up the ability to run a CLI.
>
For the past 6 years people have been trying to design the killer unix,
>
a machine based on unix that has the option of a GUI that's at least as
>
easy to set up and use intuitively as Windows, and runs on inexpensive
>
hardware (read: not $20K+ per workstation like NeXT). Mac OSX is the
>
first example of this breed. Who knew that Apple would be the one to
>
finally do it?
>
>
So, it appears that Unix people are flocking to X, a sign that Apple has
>
finally figured out where it's market niche is -- not "the rest of us".
>
>
What I hope hasn't changed is the idea that we should drive our
>
computers and not the other way around. This got lost at times at
>
Apple, IMO, and the languishing of Applescript for years is a good
>
example.
>
>
Like Jon, I used Unix a long time ago before I got into commercial
>
graphics where macs are king. Though I'm not running X yet (switching
>
boots and environments all day long is not my thing, and much of the
>
workhorse software of publishing is not yet X-friendly), I'll be very
>
pleased when I can to be back in unix, where user customizability is
>
given a very high premium. Unix installations were all designed with
>
scripting in mind, not always by making applications drivable (but many
>
of the good ones are extraordinarily shell/perl scriptable), but also by
>
making file formats open and scripting languages with very intelligent
>
file access.
>
>
IMO, unix commands aren't so very hairy that a person can't figure out
>
shell scripting. The biggest issue is the syntax parsers. It would be
>
interesting and useful to see a shell written that eliminates some of
>
the escape sequence garbage that you have to know to make good use of
>
shell scripts. I think some AS handlers are trying to do something like
>
that from AS, and I think that's a worthy goal.
>
>
Anway, I've rambled long enough. When I go to X, I plan to learn Perl
>
or python and refamiliarize myself with the shell and not look back.
>
I'll use applescript to the extent that it's better or easier.
>
>
I can't believe it'll be any harder to learn the shell than learning all
>
the bullshit about the scriptable Finder and the many workarounds and
>
tricks necessary to get it to do what you really want. Applescript was
>
nothing like intuitive for me.
>
>
>
Michael
>
>
--
>
Michael Sullivan
>
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
>
Cheshire, CT email@hidden
>
_______________________________________________
>
applescript-users mailing list | email@hidden
>
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
>
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
>
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.