one thing I find cool about *nix os's is their command structure hasn't changed in the 30 or so years it's been around. I recently obtained v1 unix for the pdp11 and 2.79bsd also for the pdp11, fired up a pdp11 emulator and found that I could use these unices with not many differences. the only major difference in commands I saw was in v1 unix the command to change directories is chdir not cd. On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 06:14:40AM -0500, Janina Sajka wrote: > I agree with Geoff. In fact, not only do I think console apps won't go > away, I'm quite sure that the competition from the northwest corner of > the U.S. is going to help make the command line sexy again in its next > major release, currently named Longhorn (or was that Leghorn?)! Yes, my > friends, I have it on very good authority that Microsoft is "bringing > back the command line." I put that in quotes because it is a quotation, > and because it's a strange statement--as if CLI ever really went away. > But then Microsoft people tend to see the universe only in their own > terms. > > I'll even go one better. It's going to become easier to create different > interfaces to the same underlying application. Much of the > standardization activity currently underway in groups like FSG and the > W3C is about facilitating middle layers to make it easier to repurpose > interfaces for different devices. We can already see some of the early > efforts in this direction with apps like charva and the textual > interface to GNOME whose name I'm forgetting at the moment. > > Geoff Shang writes: > > From: Geoff Shang <gshang at pacific.net.au> > > > > Hi: > > > > I don't think we really have much to worry about. Yes, console-mode aps do > > tend to lag a little, particularly in some areas (can anyone say audio > > editing?), but a lot of people who write applications prefer to use the > > text console and, as long as that continues to be the case, applications > > will continue to be written for it. The big difference between the > > DOS/Windows comparison and the console/X comparison under Linux, is the > > fact that in LInux, it really is just a matter of a different interface. > > With windows, DOS had fairly severe limits which were difficult to > > overcome. It also had no fascility for multitasking (many would say that > > Windows doesn't either, but it at least looks as if it does). It's also > > not easy to use the same or similar code for both. In Linux, the > > underlying code can be the same, you just slap a new interface on it. > > People who do this often write their functionality into libs, which makes > > it completely UI independent. > > > > I think the main problem with web browsers in particular is that most of > > them have their origins bak in the days when the web was simple and > > client-side processing wasn't even thought of. I think if anyone was to > > write a text-mode web browser these days, they'd do it in such a way that > > it would incorporate a document object model and allow for client-side > > applications such as scripting and applets. The UI is more an indicator of > > the age of some of these aps than anything else. I first saw lynx in 1994 > > and it was version 2.3 then. And I know PIne was at 3.89 in 1994, so it's > > not exactly new either. > > > > Geoff. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Speakup mailing list > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > -- > > Janina Sajka > Email: janina at rednote.net > Phone: (202) 408-8175 > > Director, Technology Research and Development > American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) > http://www.afb.org > > Chair, Accessibility Work Group > Free Standards Group > http://accessibility.freestandards.org > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup -- Always borrow money from a pessimist; he doesn't expect to be paid back.
