Technology and Trends
 USENET Archives
  
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!
howland.reston.ans.net!
agate!msuinfo!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!
wabbit.cc.uow.edu.au!
wabbit.cc.uow.edu.au!not-for-mail
From: m...@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au (Van Dao Mai)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Future of Linux
Date: 15 Aug 1994 17:17:08 +1000
Organization: University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <32n4pk$b7d@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au

Guys,
   I read a debate on comp.os.linux.misc about some people thinking of
Linux as only a toy. I like it very much as it is free and smarter than
many commercial systems. It has faults that are common of all UNIXes.
   I suppse one has to be clear of the purpose of a system to see its
value. If UNIX is still targeted at education mainly then it is fine as 
it is. However if it is targeted at normal users then it is not.
   What Linux needs are a better graphical interface and editing tools.
Apart from this it has to have a better facility for printing so that
more printer drivers can be supported. The main problem is that it is a
free system without real money to support large scale integrated projects
aiming at these needs. Imagine how one would create a word processing
system like MSWord or Ami Pro?  There are brilliant programmers who
created nice utilities falling short of an integrated package that will do
a lot of things.
   It owuld be nice if people create large long term projects to give
Linux decent software that can be given out or sold for small profit to go
back to the development of more software. A limited commercialism in this
sense with the money to support programmers and the development of this
system. Provided that good projects are set up and co-ordinated, I think
volunteers can be found to contribute into the project rather than doing a
complete software utility, nice but too small to be significant. This will
also stop people re-inventing too many wheels.
   1- Companies selling Linux CDs and support. They should be asked to
      donate a part of their income back into Linux development.
   2- Projects should be started and co-ordinated by talented people so
      that programmers can contribute to this in an integrated manner.
   3- Linux users should be encouraged to become members of a Global 
      Linux Club and membership fee will beused to support programmers
      working on Linux Software Projects.

May be this will give us a good set of Linux software that will make it on
the same footing as Windows, OS/2 or DOS. The most urgent things to have t
for Linux is (1) a decent object-oriented filemanager for X windows and
(2) A powerful word processing with GUI interface for Linux. These two
would make the system a lot more useable for all people. 

This will make Linux a home UNIX system for many "better than average"
computer user.

Cheers,

Van Dao Mai
Wollongong Australia

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!pipex!swrinde!gatech!gt-news!
prism!cc.gatech.edu!
gemini.cc.gatech.edu!byron
From: b...@gemini.cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Future of Linux
Date: 15 Aug 1994 12:06:46 GMT
Organization: none
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <32nlom$p3p@solaria.cc.gatech.edu>
References: <32n4pk$b7d@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gemini.cc.gatech.edu
NNTP-Posting-User: byron

In article <32n4pk$...@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au>,
Van Dao Mai < m...@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au> wrote:
-Guys,
-   I read a debate on comp.os.linux.misc about some people thinking of
-Linux as only a toy. I like it very much as it is free and smarter than
-many commercial systems. It has faults that are common of all UNIXes.

Yes. That fault seems to be is that Unixes aren't DOS/Windows/Macs.

-   I suppse one has to be clear of the purpose of a system to see its
-value. If UNIX is still targeted at education mainly then it is fine as 
-it is. However if it is targeted at normal users then it is not.

Because normal users use DOS/Windows/MacOS.

-   What Linux needs are a better graphical interface and editing tools.

Like DOS/Windows/MacOS.

-Apart from this it has to have a better facility for printing so that
-more printer drivers can be supported. 

Like DOS/Windows/MacOS maybe?

-The main problem is that it is a
-free system without real money to support large scale integrated projects
-aiming at these needs. 

Like Microsoft/Apple (who developed DOS/Windows/MacOS)


-Imagine how one would create a word processing
-system like MSWord or Ami Pro?  

Like Microsoft did?

-There are brilliant programmers who
-created nice utilities falling short of an integrated package that will do
-a lot of things.

Like Microsoft/Novell/Lotus?

-   It owuld be nice if people create large long term projects to give
-Linux decent software that can be given out or sold for small profit to go
-back to the development of more software. 

Like the decent software for DOS/Windows/MacOS?

-A limited commercialism in this
-sense with the money to support programmers and the development of this
-system. Provided that good projects are set up and co-ordinated, I think
-volunteers can be found to contribute into the project rather than doing a
-complete software utility, nice but too small to be significant. This will
-also stop people re-inventing too many wheels.
-   1- Companies selling Linux CDs and support. They should be asked to
-      donate a part of their income back into Linux development.
-   2- Projects should be started and co-ordinated by talented people so
-      that programmers can contribute to this in an integrated manner.
-   3- Linux users should be encouraged to become members of a Global 
-      Linux Club and membership fee will beused to support programmers
-      working on Linux Software Projects.
-
-May be this will give us a good set of Linux software that will make it on
-the same footing as Windows, OS/2 or DOS. The most urgent things to have t
-for Linux is 
- (1) a decent object-oriented filemanager for X windows and

If none of the X file managers available can't do the job then why not
pick the best one and start working on it. Identify what needs to be
changed, soliclit some help, and get to work.

Personally I'm perfectly content with the X utilities menu and a shell.


-(2) A powerful word processing with GUI interface for Linux. 

If the EZ editor from the AUIS doesn't do the job then why not start working
on it. Identify what needs to be changed, solicit some help, and get to work.

Personally I'm much more effective using LaTeX or Quickscript, ghostview
and a PostScript Printer.

- These two would make the system a lot more useable for all people. 

To be honest it doens't make the system any more useable to me.

-
-This will make Linux a home UNIX system for many "better than average"
-computer user.

I'm tired of this argument. People just can seem to understand the amount
of people-hours, management, and money that it takes to develop the kinds
of software that you're talking about. Each one of the projects you're
referring to have hundreds of people working on it full-time. The reason
software companies can do that is because they know they'll get 15 million
units sold to a extremely loyal customer base. It's a lot easier to work
for years on a product when you know that even 2% of a 150 million
installed base will buy it.

But when you're essentially giving away the product and there's a small
customer base, it becomes very difficult to justify all that effort.
Especially when there are tools available to do the job.

The better way to support all this stuff is to provide the underlaying
OS services necessary to support such applications. DOSEMU is a champ at
this while Wine is moving into usefulness.

The big software companies have spoiled users into having these
"everything including the kitchen sink" applications that have been developed
and refined for 10 years or more. If you take a survey of applications
users you'll find that the 90/10 rule applies in that most (90%) of the
users use only a small (10%) of the available functions. But because the
customer is paying they can demand the other 90% of the functions even though
they are rarely used by any but the most rare user.

The challenge is to identify the 10% of functions that are most used and
implement them. Add hooks to that users can add anything they want. 

Face it Linux is useful and unique because it doesn't do the same things as
DOS/Windows/MacOS. If that's all you need then stay with DOS/Windows/MacOS.

Linux has no need to compete with DOS/Windows/MacOS. The user bases of the
others are so large and so entrenched that trying to make even the smallest
dent is impossible. All we really have to do is provide a high quality
product whose worth is easily identifiable to knowledgeable users.

I've stopped trying to get people to convert. For most Linux is unnecessary. 
I'll only push the point when I have some responsibility to supporting the 
machine.  I'm selfish because I'm no longer interested in supporting
DOS/Windows/MacOS boxes. There are enough other people/books/magazines
for those products. I do Linux. If I'm involved, Linux is involved. If
Linux isn't involved, then I'm not. 

I've brought Linux in its current form to everywhere I operate. People have
been impressed with it's strengths and not so worried about it's lack of
applications because of the DOS/Windows/MacOS environments that are
prevalent for doing the types of applications you describe.

Most average computer users have no understanding or need for Linux.

All you'll end up doing is emasculating the OS we know an love by chaining
more and more restrictions so that it'll look/feel like DOS/Windows/MacOS.

If that's all I needed I would've just stayed home.

Later,

BAJ
-- 
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: b...@cc.gatech.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Future of Linux
From: riku.saikko...@compart.fi (Riku Saikkonen)
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!
EU.net!news.eunet.fi!
gate.compart.fi!compart!riku.saikkonen
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1f.6509.1566.0NC90D7F@compart.fi>
References: <32n4pk$b7d@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 94 18:49:00 +0200
Organization: ComPart BBS - Helsinki, Finland - +358-0-506-3329 (V.32bis)
Lines: 68

>   What Linux needs are a better graphical interface and editing tools.
>Apart from this it has to have a better facility for printing so that
>more printer drivers can be supported. The main problem is that it is a

Huh? Ghostscript supports quite a lot of drivers (and can be made to
support others...), and almost any Unix printing program can print
PostScript. What's the problem?

>aiming at these needs. Imagine how one would create a word processing
>system like MSWord or Ami Pro?  There are brilliant programmers who
>created nice utilities falling short of an integrated package that will do
>a lot of things.

Emacs?

>   It owuld be nice if people create large long term projects to give
>Linux decent software that can be given out or sold for small profit to go
>back to the development of more software. A limited commercialism in this
>sense with the money to support programmers and the development of this

With even limited commercialism, there is the large problem of greed...
'Hey, I wrote this for 6 months, shouldn't I charge at least $200?!'

>   1- Companies selling Linux CDs and support. They should be asked to
>      donate a part of their income back into Linux development.

Which company would do such a thing? I.e. what is their gain? Linux is
free (and I sincerely hope that it will remain that way)...

>   2- Projects should be started and co-ordinated by talented people so
>      that programmers can contribute to this in an integrated manner.

This has been done many times on a smaller scale on the Net already...

>   3- Linux users should be encouraged to become members of a Global
>      Linux Club and membership fee will beused to support programmers
>      working on Linux Software Projects.

Hmm... This idea I might like. Just keep an option of a small membership
fee - for example, I think I would join the FSF if the fee wasn't so
high.

>for Linux is (1) a decent object-oriented filemanager for X windows and

Hmm... Never did like the MS-Windows file manager. I much prefer the
commandline - and in that any decent Unix shell wins over MS-DOS
anytime...

>(2) A powerful word processing with GUI interface for Linux. These two

Many would argue that the TeX/emacs combination is better than a GUI
word processor. It's just that the MS-Windows people are too used to
GUIs...

>This will make Linux a home UNIX system for many "better than average"
>computer user.

Hmm... What I think would be an important thing to get for Linux is a
bit better documentation. Now, the manpages aren't always applicable to
the current versions, some features aren't documented, ...

And, I think, a more simple setup facility than the current
edit-random_:)-files one.

-=- Rjs -=- riku.saikko...@compart.fi - IRC: Rjs
"In every meal, and in every word and song they found delight. The very
breathing of the air became a joy no less sweet because the time of their
stay was short." - J.R.R. Tolkien

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!yeshua.marcam.com!
MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!
centre.univ-orleans.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!
swidir.switch.ch!scsing.switch.ch!news.dfn.de!urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de!
rama!dak
From: d...@rama.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Future of Linux
Date: 16 Aug 1994 18:03:32 GMT
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik - RWTH Aachen
Lines: 148
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <32qv1k$dih@urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
References: <32n4pk$b7d@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au> <32nlom$p3p@solaria.cc.gatech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rama.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

b...@gemini.cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:

>In article <32n4pk$...@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au>,
>Van Dao Mai < m...@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au> wrote:
>-Guys,
>-   I read a debate on comp.os.linux.misc about some people thinking of
>-Linux as only a toy. I like it very much as it is free and smarter than
>-many commercial systems. It has faults that are common of all UNIXes.

>Yes. That fault seems to be is that Unixes aren't DOS/Windows/Macs.

>-   I suppse one has to be clear of the purpose of a system to see its
>-value. If UNIX is still targeted at education mainly then it is fine as 
>-it is. However if it is targeted at normal users then it is not.

>Because normal users use DOS/Windows/MacOS.
[...]
>-May be this will give us a good set of Linux software that will make it on
>-the same footing as Windows, OS/2 or DOS. The most urgent things to have t
>-for Linux is 
>- (1) a decent object-oriented filemanager for X windows and

>If none of the X file managers available can't do the job then why not
>pick the best one and start working on it. Identify what needs to be
>changed, soliclit some help, and get to work.

>Personally I'm perfectly content with the X utilities menu and a shell.


>-(2) A powerful word processing with GUI interface for Linux. 

>If the EZ editor from the AUIS doesn't do the job then why not start working
>on it. Identify what needs to be changed, solicit some help, and get to work.

>Personally I'm much more effective using LaTeX or Quickscript, ghostview
>and a PostScript Printer.

>- These two would make the system a lot more useable for all people. 

>To be honest it doens't make the system any more useable to me.

>-
>-This will make Linux a home UNIX system for many "better than average"
>-computer user.

>I'm tired of this argument. People just can seem to understand the amount
>of people-hours, management, and money that it takes to develop the kinds
>of software that you're talking about. Each one of the projects you're
>referring to have hundreds of people working on it full-time. The reason
>software companies can do that is because they know they'll get 15 million
>units sold to a extremely loyal customer base. It's a lot easier to work
>for years on a product when you know that even 2% of a 150 million
>installed base will buy it.

>But when you're essentially giving away the product and there's a small
>customer base, it becomes very difficult to justify all that effort.
>Especially when there are tools available to do the job.

>The better way to support all this stuff is to provide the underlaying
>OS services necessary to support such applications. DOSEMU is a champ at
>this while Wine is moving into usefulness.

>The big software companies have spoiled users into having these
>"everything including the kitchen sink" applications that have been developed
>and refined for 10 years or more. If you take a survey of applications
>users you'll find that the 90/10 rule applies in that most (90%) of the
>users use only a small (10%) of the available functions. But because the
>customer is paying they can demand the other 90% of the functions even though
>they are rarely used by any but the most rare user.

>The challenge is to identify the 10% of functions that are most used and
>implement them. Add hooks to that users can add anything they want. 

>Face it Linux is useful and unique because it doesn't do the same things as
>DOS/Windows/MacOS. If that's all you need then stay with DOS/Windows/MacOS.
Stop. Disagreement here. The problem is that more and more people become
dissatisfied with DOS/Windows at least, because they become more and more
a botch of unnecessary compatibility idiocies. What other 32-Bit-System
is on market, which feels it has to support FCBs (low-level file handling
structures for non-directory-tree-structured file systems imitated from
CP/M for compatibility reasons) and other BDOS calls from ancient OSses.
What operating system
(or combination) shoots its foot with memory management the same way
a DOS/Windows combination does? And not only its own foot, but that of
developpers as well. In integrated environments the user is shielded
(apart from slow disk access, idiotic file system restrictions, slow
OS interfaces, memory hassles, configuration wrestling...), but the
developper is not, and the user pays for the battle of the developper
in order to get spared the OS himself.

Now MacOS has lots less of compatibility problems, and so would be
ideal for the user base mentioned. Except that their long-time high-price
policy has narrowed the number of users, and consequently developpers.
Also, with the prevalence of C, Unix system calls (or their library
equivalents) and tools have become rather popular. But this is
somewhat coupled with the command line paradigm (what would Unix
be without pipes?) and this is somewhat neglected in MacOS.

For closed applications, use MacOS, if you need, as it is rather
properly done (apart, maybe, from TCP/IP support, but this is changing,
I believe).

For command line systems with toolbox philosophy, use Linux. Do not
expect free time developpers to make something like *ord/*ordperfect,
if they have emacs and vi. Programmers enjoy programming better
than writing books with a pampering, limited word processing package
with mediocre results.

>Linux has no need to compete with DOS/Windows/MacOS. The user bases of the
>others are so large and so entrenched that trying to make even the smallest
>dent is impossible. All we really have to do is provide a high quality
>product whose worth is easily identifiable to knowledgeable users.
Right. It is just that its interface is very alluring for those still
using the MSDOS dinosaur OSs, as they offer really nothing better apart
from dinosaur based applications.

>I've stopped trying to get people to convert. For most Linux is unnecessary. 
>I'll only push the point when I have some responsibility to supporting the 
>machine.  I'm selfish because I'm no longer interested in supporting
>DOS/Windows/MacOS boxes. There are enough other people/books/magazines
>for those products. I do Linux. If I'm involved, Linux is involved. If
>Linux isn't involved, then I'm not. 
But probably you might be convinced to develop for Unix, if you were
allowed using Linux for development?

>I've brought Linux in its current form to everywhere I operate. People have
>been impressed with it's strengths and not so worried about it's lack of
>applications because of the DOS/Windows/MacOS environments that are
>prevalent for doing the types of applications you describe.
Right. And I'd not worry too much. Linux is one hell of a developping
system, and has a very large potential user base in the private sector.
There will be times when corporate manpower will turn to Linux development
for efficiency's sake. Especially as your programs will compile on
almost every other Posix system.

>Most average computer users have no understanding or need for Linux.

>All you'll end up doing is emasculating the OS we know an love by chaining
>more and more restrictions so that it'll look/feel like DOS/Windows/MacOS.
Stop. The poster complained not about the OS, but about the applications
available.

Of course, I'd prefer custom programs to have file formats I can munge
with awk, if I so desire.
-- 
 David Kastrup        d...@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de          
 Tel: +49-241-72419 Fax: +49-241-79502
 Goethestr. 20, D-52064 Aachen

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!nwnexus!news.halcyon.com!usenet
From: mpdil...@halcyon.com (Michael Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Future of Linux
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 20:05:45 +0000
Organization: Memra Software Inc., Armstrong, B.C., Canada
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <9uGKkapDlvoV067yn@halcyon.com>
References: <32n4pk$b7d@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au> <32nlom$p3p@solaria.cc.gatech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chinook.halcyon.com

> The big software companies have spoiled users into having these
> "everything including the kitchen sink" applications that have been developed
> and refined for 10 years or more. If you take a survey of applications
> users you'll find that the 90/10 rule applies in that most (90%) of the
> users use only a small (10%) of the available functions. But because the
> customer is paying they can demand the other 90% of the functions even though
> they are rarely used by any but the most rare user.
> 
> The challenge is to identify the 10% of functions that are most used and
> implement them. Add hooks to that users can add anything they want. 

If you truly want USERS to add these additional features then you have to
provide an easier way for them to do so than writing  C code. One
way that has been proven to work is to use TCL as the glue that binds
together your application's features. That way, users can truly
reconstruct an application in their own image. Even the commercial
WP and spreadsheet companies include macro languages.

I would like to see a continuation of the UNIX "toolkit" approach
where people build tools that do a fairly specialised job but that
are easily combinable with other tools to do fairly complex jobs.
For the most part, such tools have been "filters" that are
connected together with pipes. 

I think that in order to create the possibility of sophisticated
desktop publishing systems like Word for Windows and Excel,
we have to take a slightly different approach that involves
building modules that can be glued together into applications
with something like TCL. This is very similar to the "widget"
concept in X-Windows, except that it does not require the end
user to do any C programming. The TCL approach also focusses
on functionality rather than "looks".

> Linux has no need to compete with DOS/Windows/MacOS. The user bases of the
> others are so large and so entrenched that trying to make even the smallest
> dent is impossible. All we really have to do is provide a high quality
> product whose worth is easily identifiable to knowledgeable users.

And one way to do this is to make something that can do stuff that
is very difficult to do with MacOs or Windows. Even the idea of
filters is very foreign to those OSes and if you think that OLE
will be accessible to any but the most skilled programmers, then
you haven't looked at MS's OLE 2 documentation.

> I've brought Linux in its current form to everywhere I operate. People have
> been impressed with it's strengths and not so worried about it's lack of
> applications because of the DOS/Windows/MacOS environments that are
> prevalent for doing the types of applications you describe.

To me one of the worst things you can do is to run an X server on your
primary Linux box. However, if you have a Windows box as well, you
can run a free demo X server for Windows and get the best of both
worlds.

cruisin' down the information highway, lookin' for a blast
breakin' all the speed limits as I come zoomin' past!
--
Michael Dillon                 Internet: mpdil...@halcyon.halcyon.com
C-4 Powerhouse                  Fidonet: 1:353/350
RR #2 Armstrong, BC  V0E 1B0      Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Canada                              BBS: +1-604-546-2705

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!news.moneng.mei.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
darwin.sura.net!cc.gatech.edu!gemini.cc.gatech.edu!byron
From: b...@gemini.cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Future of Linux
Date: 17 Aug 1994 12:10:55 GMT
Organization: none
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <32suof$j9t@solaria.cc.gatech.edu>
References: <32n4pk$b7d@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au> <32nlom$p3p@solaria.cc.gatech.edu> 
<9uGKkapDlvoV067yn@halcyon.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gemini.cc.gatech.edu
NNTP-Posting-User: byron

In article <9uGKkapDlvoV06...@halcyon.com>,
Michael Dillon < mpdil...@halcyon.com> wrote:
-> [These are Byron's original comments.]
-> The big software companies have spoiled users into having these
-> "everything including the kitchen sink" applications that have been developed
-> and refined for 10 years or more. If you take a survey of applications
-> users you'll find that the 90/10 rule applies in that most (90%) of the
-> users use only a small (10%) of the available functions. But because the
-> customer is paying they can demand the other 90% of the functions even though
-> they are rarely used by any but the most rare user.
-> 
-> The challenge is to identify the 10% of functions that are most used and
-> implement them. Add hooks to that users can add anything they want. 
-
-If you truly want USERS to add these additional features then you have to
-provide an easier way for them to do so than writing  C code. One
-way that has been proven to work is to use TCL as the glue that binds
-together your application's features. That way, users can truly
-reconstruct an application in their own image. Even the commercial
-WP and spreadsheet companies include macro languages.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Users can be more productive if they
are provided tools that allow them to exploit the power of the system.

-
-I would like to see a continuation of the UNIX "toolkit" approach
-where people build tools that do a fairly specialised job but that
-are easily combinable with other tools to do fairly complex jobs.
-For the most part, such tools have been "filters" that are
-connected together with pipes. 

The problem is that there is no easy modeling of this concept within
the current GUI frameworks so this power is lost.

-
-I think that in order to create the possibility of sophisticated
-desktop publishing systems like Word for Windows and Excel,
-we have to take a slightly different approach that involves
-building modules that can be glued together into applications
-with something like TCL. This is very similar to the "widget"
-concept in X-Windows, except that it does not require the end
-user to do any C programming. The TCL approach also focusses
-on functionality rather than "looks".

I like that idea. And since TCL is interpreted these changes can be done on
the fly.
-
-> Linux has no need to compete with DOS/Windows/MacOS. The user bases of the
-> others are so large and so entrenched that trying to make even the smallest
-> dent is impossible. All we really have to do is provide a high quality
-> product whose worth is easily identifiable to knowledgeable users.
-
-And one way to do this is to make something that can do stuff that
-is very difficult to do with MacOs or Windows. Even the idea of
-filters is very foreign to those OSes and if you think that OLE
-will be accessible to any but the most skilled programmers, then
-you haven't looked at MS's OLE 2 documentation.

I don't look at much MS stuff. Have no reason to. ;-)

-
-> I've brought Linux in its current form to everywhere I operate. People have
-> been impressed with it's strengths and not so worried about it's lack of
-> applications because of the DOS/Windows/MacOS environments that are
-> prevalent for doing the types of applications you describe.
-
-To me one of the worst things you can do is to run an X server on your
-primary Linux box. 

Why? If you have sufficient memory and a decent video/monitor combo X is
fine. It's primarily a memory hog.

-However, if you have a Windows box as well, you
-can run a free demo X server for Windows and get the best of both
-worlds.

Blech. I'd rather drop in one of those compressed floppies into a RAM drive
and use the real full featured XFree86 than one of those crappy demos
(which I can comment on because I've tested a couple.)

I like your ideas. This is the type of discussion I'm trying to generate:
how to provide GUI that can still exploit the power of the system.

BAJ
-- 
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: b...@cc.gatech.edu

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!mhv.net!metro.atlanta.com!spcuna!rutgers!koriel!
cs.utexas.edu!zilker.net!faustus
From: faus...@zilker.net (Bret Patterson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Future of Linux
Date: 20 Aug 1994 02:09:22 GMT
Organization: Zilker Internet Park, Inc.
Lines: 99
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <333oki$lkp@oak.zilker.net>
References: <32n4pk$b7d@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au> <1f.6509.1566.0NC90D7F@compart.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: oak.zilker.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Riku Saikkonen (riku.saikko...@compart.fi) wrote:
: >   What Linux needs are a better graphical interface and editing tools.
: >Apart from this it has to have a better facility for printing so that
: >more printer drivers can be supported. The main problem is that it is a

: Huh? Ghostscript supports quite a lot of drivers (and can be made to
: support others...), and almost any Unix printing program can print
: PostScript. What's the problem?

: >aiming at these needs. Imagine how one would create a word processing
: >system like MSWord or Ami Pro?  There are brilliant programmers who
: >created nice utilities falling short of an integrated package that will do
: >a lot of things.

: Emacs?

Don't make me laugh. Emacs is an excellent editor. But the reason it
will never be as dominating as Microsoft word or WordPerfect is one
thing. The incredibly large learning curve. With MSWord an idiot can
walk in the room and immediatly start typing away and pushing buttons
to do the desired functions. With emacs you have to spend hours and
hours learning how to use it. If you already know lisp then sure you
can pick it up real fast, but most users don't know lisp. The problem
with all the brilliant programmers is they assume the users are
brilliant and/or are willing to spend hours learning a new utility.
Its not cost effective for a company to  spend hours training their
employees how to use emacs for something as simple as word processing. 


: >   It owuld be nice if people create large long term projects to give
: >Linux decent software that can be given out or sold for small profit to go
: >back to the development of more software. A limited commercialism in this
: >sense with the money to support programmers and the development of this

: With even limited commercialism, there is the large problem of greed...
: 'Hey, I wrote this for 6 months, shouldn't I charge at least $200?!'

: >   1- Companies selling Linux CDs and support. They should be asked to
: >      donate a part of their income back into Linux development.

: Which company would do such a thing? I.e. what is their gain? Linux is
: free (and I sincerely hope that it will remain that way)...

: >   2- Projects should be started and co-ordinated by talented people so
: >      that programmers can contribute to this in an integrated manner.

: This has been done many times on a smaller scale on the Net already...

: >   3- Linux users should be encouraged to become members of a Global
: >      Linux Club and membership fee will beused to support programmers
: >      working on Linux Software Projects.

: Hmm... This idea I might like. Just keep an option of a small membership
: fee - for example, I think I would join the FSF if the fee wasn't so
: high.

: >for Linux is (1) a decent object-oriented filemanager for X windows and

: Hmm... Never did like the MS-Windows file manager. I much prefer the
: commandline - and in that any decent Unix shell wins over MS-DOS
: anytime...

This is optional. Just as windows is for dos. Let the user decide what
he wants to use and not the programmer.

: >(2) A powerful word processing with GUI interface for Linux. These two

: Many would argue that the TeX/emacs combination is better than a GUI
: word processor. It's just that the MS-Windows people are too used to
: GUIs...

No emacs takes too much time to learn for your average user. 

: >This will make Linux a home UNIX system for many "better than average"
: >computer user.

: Hmm... What I think would be an important thing to get for Linux is a
: bit better documentation. Now, the manpages aren't always applicable to
: the current versions, some features aren't documented, ...

: And, I think, a more simple setup facility than the current
: edit-random_:)-files one.

This is an excellent suggestion. Unfortunently the program would have
be done very well because most unix users are interested in security.

: -=- Rjs -=- riku.saikko...@compart.fi - IRC: Rjs
: "In every meal, and in every word and song they found delight. The very
: breathing of the air became a joy no less sweet because the time of their
: stay was short." - J.R.R. Tolkien

Bret Patterson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Bret Patterson < faus...@zilker.net>  
         For general information requests on Zilker Internet Park:
             i...@zilker.net  [automated information response]
      Anonymous FTP from ftp.zilker.net       Voice line: (512)206-3850
Specific information requests can be mailed to: supp...@zilker.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
library.ucla.edu!whirlwind!newsserver!michel
From: mic...@whirlwind.seas.ucla.edu (Scott Michel)
Subject: Re: Future of Linux
Sender: n...@seas.ucla.edu (News Daemon)
Message-ID: < MICHEL.94Aug20190858@whirlwind.seas.ucla.edu>
In-Reply-To: riku.saikkonen@compart.fi's message of Tue, 16 Aug 94 18:49:00 +0200
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 02:08:57 GMT
Reply-To: sco...@intime.com
References: <32n4pk$b7d@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au> <1f.6509.1566.0NC90D7F@compart.fi>
Organization: School of Engineering & Applied Science, UCLA.
Lines: 57

>>>>> "Riku" == Riku Saikkonen < riku.saikko...@compart.fi> writes:
In article <1f.6509.1566.0NC90...@compart.fi> riku.saikko...@compart.fi 
(Riku Saikkonen) writes:

Riku> Huh? Ghostscript supports quite a lot of drivers (and can be
Riku> made to support others...), and almost any Unix printing program
Riku> can print PostScript. What's the problem?

Think from a user's mentality, not a programmer's. You'll get burned
every time. As if we all have enough time to create yet another
driver...

>> aiming at these needs. Imagine how one would create a word
>> processing system like MSWord or Ami Pro?  There are brilliant
>> programmers who created nice utilities falling short of an
>> integrated package that will do a lot of things.

Riku> Emacs?

Emacs edits text documents quite nicely, but it doesn't have any
support for RTF or non-text formats, per se. Emacs is an integrated
package assuming that you're a programmer. Quite possibly the Andrew
tools are a better solution.

Riku> With even limited commercialism, there is the large problem of
Riku> greed...  'Hey, I wrote this for 6 months, shouldn't I charge at
Riku> least $200?!'

You have a problem with people making money? Based on 
comments, you need to read the GPL a little more carefully -- "free"
means freedom to distribute the source code and little else. What's
wrong if I charge $200.00 for a year support contract on a product I
develop? You need the maintenance and the quick bug fix, and I supply
it. Pure and simple capitalism in a service economy.

>> (2) A powerful word processing with GUI interface for Linux. These
>> two

Riku> Many would argue that the TeX/emacs combination is better than a
Riku> GUI word processor. It's just that the MS-Windows people are too
Riku> used to GUIs...

Not really. I've found that I can format a document a lot better w/o
the edit/recompile methodology of TeX/Emacs. And I'm far from being a
MS-Windows person, even if I do have to write my documentation with
it.

>> This will make Linux a home UNIX system for many "better than
>> average" computer user.

You're *absolutely* right -- end-user'ize Linux a bit. The one massive
advantage that MS-LOSS has over Linux is that it takes little care and
feeding. The industry is moving in the direction of additional
complexity that require a little more care and feeding, but not much.
There's a really good reason why MicroSquash spends millions on human
factors research -- this is precisely why.

-scottm

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Future of Linux
From: riku.saikko...@compart.fi (Riku Saikkonen)
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!
news.eunet.fi!gate.compart.fi!compart!riku.saikkonen
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1f.6790.1566.0NC919E9@compart.fi>
References: <333oki$lkp@oak.zilker.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 15:52:00 +0200
Organization: ComPart BBS - Helsinki, Finland - +358-0-506-3329 (V.32bis)
Lines: 44

>: Emacs?
>Don't make me laugh. Emacs is an excellent editor. But the reason it
>will never be as dominating as Microsoft word or WordPerfect is one
>thing. The incredibly large learning curve. With MSWord an idiot can

Hmm... Secretaries do go through extensive training just to use an
MS-Windows word processor...

>: Many would argue that the TeX/emacs combination is better than a GUI
>: word processor. It's just that the MS-Windows people are too used to
>: GUIs...
>No emacs takes too much time to learn for your average user.

What do you need to learn? C-x s, C-x c, the arrow keys,
home/end/pageup/pagedown. Perhaps the mark/cut/copy keys (C-space, C-w,
...).

Then, for the graphical features, some TeX commands. It isn't that hard
to just enter a (La)TeX command for, say, changing the paragraph width,
instead of browsing through 3+ menus...

Of course, someone would need to make the interface between emacs and
TeX (i.e. a 'print' command and a 'preview' command). But the secretary
needn't do that...

(As you might notice, I myself cannot use either emacs or TeX very much.
I know the basics, and browse through a manual / the online help when
needed. I'll get to learning more some day...)

>: And, I think, a more simple setup facility than the current
>: edit-random_:)-files one.
>This is an excellent suggestion. Unfortunently the program would have
>be done very well because most unix users are interested in security.

Just use one program that can only be run as root (rootsetup or
something) that changes the files in /etc and other system-wide stuff
(no need for concerns about security here since only root runs this),
and another that is run as a normal user (non-setuid) that changes
only user-specific things, namely .* in the home directory...

-=- Rjs -=- riku.saikko...@compart.fi - IRC: Rjs
"In every meal, and in every word and song they found delight. The very
breathing of the air became a joy no less sweet because the time of their
stay was short." - J.R.R. Tolkien

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Future of Linux
From: riku.saikko...@compart.fi (Riku Saikkonen)
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!
gate.compart.fi!compart!riku.saikkonen
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1f.6799.1566.0NC91B34@compart.fi>
References: < MICHEL.94Aug20190858@whirlwind.seas.ucla.edu>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 20:29:00 +0200
Organization: ComPart BBS - Helsinki, Finland - +358-0-506-3329 (V.32bis)
Lines: 70

>Riku> Huh? Ghostscript supports quite a lot of drivers (and can be
>Riku> made to support others...), and almost any Unix printing program
>Riku> can print PostScript. What's the problem?
>Think from a user's mentality, not a programmer's. You'll get burned
>every time. As if we all have enough time to create yet another
>driver...

But with MS-DOS programs (and, to an extent, MS-Windows), we can only
try to persuade the manufacturer to create a driver...

Anyway, ghostscript supports most common printers (HP Laserjet/Deskjet
and compatibles seem to be the most common at least in my view). If you
have an odd printer, you have to create a driver for it. It's the same
problem with MS-Windows... (With some MS-DOS programs it's worse - you
_can't_ create a driver.)

>You have a problem with people making money? Based on 
>comments, you need to read the GPL a little more carefully -- "free"
>means freedom to distribute the source code and little else. What's
>wrong if I charge $200.00 for a year support contract on a product I
>develop? You need the maintenance and the quick bug fix, and I supply
>it. Pure and simple capitalism in a service economy.

Nothing, but I do not like the way the large software companies charge
$$$ for their programs. I much prefer a free program (free in the sense
that you can copy it around, and have the source code if you would like
to try to e.g. add a feature). Good support is a good thing to charge
for, yes.

('good support': I don't have had very good experiences of large
companies' technical support lines...)

>Riku> Many would argue that the TeX/emacs combination is better than a
>Riku> GUI word processor. It's just that the MS-Windows people are too
>Riku> used to GUIs...
>Not really. I've found that I can format a document a lot better w/o
>the edit/recompile methodology of TeX/Emacs. And I'm far from being a
>MS-Windows person, even if I do have to write my documentation with
>it.

Hmm... I don't know. I have to admit that I too use a MS-Windows word
processor for that kind of thing. It's because I have taken the time to
learn it, but have not yet had the time to learn emacs or TeX seriously.

But I've thought about it on a fundamental scale. What makes it
different? Fundamentally, selecting from a menu is not too much
different from writing a TeX command. A TeX command requires more
keystrokes, a menu command requires looking at the screen (and perhaps
mouse movement). A shortcut key can be used in both, if someone takes
the time to put some shortcut keys in emacs.

So, the only difference seems to be the lack of WYSIWYG. Yes, I do admit
that typesetting and similar stuff (including, I think, tables) is
faster done in WYSIWYG.

But just normal writing; I've found that in a WYSIWYG word processor I
tend to start looking at what a piece of text looks like, not what it
says. Sometimes I even go so far as to add or delete words just to make
the text fit on a line or making the last line of a paragraph contain
more than one word.

I don't know. Both WYSIWYG and non-WYSIWYG have their own advantages.
It's hard to select. But, in any case, they are equally difficult to
learn.

-=- Rjs -=- riku.saikko...@compart.fi - IRC: Rjs
GCS/L/M/TW/S -d+>++ H(+) s:- !g !p?>1+ !au a17 w+ v+(---)*>+++ C++>$
UL++++(A)>$ P+ L++>+++ 3 E>++ N+++>++ K- W+(++) M- !V po Y+>++ t/Tolkien+++
!5 !j R>+ G' tv-() b++(+) D++ B? e>+++ u+++@ h--! f+ !r>++ n+ !y+(*)

Path: bga.com!chinacat!cs.utexas.edu!zilker.net!faustus
From: faus...@zilker.net (Bret Patterson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Future of Linux
Date: 24 Aug 1994 01:44:08 GMT
Organization: Zilker Internet Park, Inc.
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <33e8l8$od3@oak.zilker.net>
References: <32n4pk$b7d@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au> <1f.6509.1566.0NC90D7F@compart.fi> 
<333oki$lkp@oak.zilker.net> < CuttBA.C8I@pe1chl.ampr.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: oak.zilker.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Rob Janssen (r...@pe1chl.ampr.org) wrote:
: In <333oki$...@oak.zilker.net> faus...@zilker.net (Bret Patterson) writes:

: >Don't make me laugh. Emacs is an excellent editor. But the reason it
: >will never be as dominating as Microsoft word or WordPerfect is one
: >thing. The incredibly large learning curve. With MSWord an idiot can
: >walk in the room and immediatly start typing away and pushing buttons
: >to do the desired functions. With emacs you have to spend hours and
: >hours learning how to use it. If you already know lisp then sure you
: >can pick it up real fast, but most users don't know lisp. The problem
: >with all the brilliant programmers is they assume the users are
: >brilliant and/or are willing to spend hours learning a new utility.
: >Its not cost effective for a company to  spend hours training their
: >employees how to use emacs for something as simple as word processing. 

: You don't need to know list to *use* emacs, only to program in it.

The whole point of emacs is to provide you with an editor you can
customize. In order to customize it you need to have some familiarity
with lisp. At least to use the functions that are not typical to 
most word processors. Sure anyone can open emacs and start typing
but if you want to do a search. Well look it up in help.. but well you
have to know the command to load help, then which type of help to load
etc. Basically sure its easy to learn the basic stuff, but the
functions that make emacs worthwhile to use take a while to figure out.

: Your average idiot won't be able to program in word basic either!  And
: still he can use the program.

Well to use the MS Word functions you point and click, no memorizing
300 key combinations to do the desired functions.  I

: Rob
: -- 
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
: | Rob Janssen                | AMPRnet:   r...@pe1chl.ampr.org           |
: | e-mail: pe1...@rabo.nl     | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8UTR.#UTR.NLD.EU     |
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Bret Patterson < faus...@zilker.net>  
         For general information requests on Zilker Internet Park:
             i...@zilker.net  [automated information response]
      Anonymous FTP from ftp.zilker.net       Voice line: (512)206-3850
Specific information requests can be mailed to: supp...@zilker.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!usc!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!
zib-berlin.de!
gs.dfn.de!tubsibr!news.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de!mike
From: m...@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de (Mike Dowling)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Future of Linux
Date: 25 Aug 1994 09:34:44 GMT
Organization: Institut fuer Angewandte Mathematik, TU Braunschweig
Lines: 46
Distribution: world
Message-ID: < MIKE.94Aug25113445@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de>
References: <33ft88$60v@signal.dra.hmg.gb>
Reply-To: on.dowl...@zib-berlin.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de
In-reply-to: vchui@dra.hmg.gb's message of 24 Aug 1994 16:41:44 GMT

Frankly, I have been wishing that this thread would just go away.  I've
interpreted much of is as a mere flame war between DOS/Windows and Linux.  I
would have thought that most of us on this news group are already convinced as
to which OS is the best for them.

There have been a considerable number of posting by people wanting the "point
and click" so called GUI interfaces.  Enough people have said this to cause me
concern.  It is perhaps far fetched to think that the Linux product as we know
it will be turned on its head to look like some kind of a Macintosh clone, but
I nevertheless think that the counter argument should be presented.

If somebody wants to create a special programs with a GUI interface for Linux,
then that is the better for Linux, because it means that there will be more
satisfied users.  God forbid that Linux will ever look like a Macintosh or
OS/2, where the user either cannot or is not supposed to use a command line.
Command lines are powerful and fast.  To obtain the same power from a GUI, you
need sub-menus of sub-menus of sub-menus.  You have to aim your mouse
carefully each time, and that takes time.  What is more, despite what most
people say about the ease with which a GUI can be used, the reality is that the
menus are counter intuitive.  This is not a basic flaw in the concept of a GUI,
but rather a statement about the psychological incompetence of those that
design them.  (E.g. How do you quit the program?  Look for a "Quit" button or
an "Exit" button in vain!  Experienced users won't think twice; aim the mouse
carefully at the "File" button, of all things, and there you will usually find
a "Quit" button.  There are far better examples that this with OS/2!)

One of the nicest features of Linux is that you don't need to run X11 if you
don't want to.  The text mode, in contrast to most workstations, is comfortable
to read, and, let's face it, why have a graphical interface when you don't use
graphics?  I only turn X11 on when using TeX or Ghostview.  X11 usurps memory,
leaving little left for my own programs, and I have 16MB.

In short,  GUI special applications for those that want them is good.  A change
in the current philosophy of Linux towards a Macintosh like interface would
cause me for one to freeze my Linux and not update.  Somehow, I am not very
worried, as I think most readers of this news group are likely to agree.

May this thread die a sudden and quick death.
--
P.D. Dr. Michael L. Dowling		  (__)       on.dowl...@zib-berlin.de
Abteilung fuer Mathematische Optimierung  (oo)
Institut fuer Angewandte Mathematik 	   \/-------\
TU Braunschweig				    ||     | \
Pockelsstr. 14				    ||---W||  *
38106 Braunschweig, Germany		    ^^    ^^	Ph.: +49 (531) 391-7553

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!
news.kei.com!MathWorks.Com!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!
tiamat.umd.umich.edu!msuzio
From: msu...@tiamat.umd.umich.edu (Mike Suzio)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Future of Linux
Date: 25 Aug 1994 10:39:04 -0400
Organization: Univerisity of Michigan - Dearborn
Lines: 60
Message-ID: < msuzio.777824710@tiamat.umd.umich.edu>
References: <33ft88$60v@signal.dra.hmg.gb> 
< MIKE.94Aug25113445@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cerberus.umd.umich.edu

m...@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de (Mike Dowling) writes:

>In short,  GUI special applications for those that want them is good.  A change
>in the current philosophy of Linux towards a Macintosh like interface would
>cause me for one to freeze my Linux and not update.  Somehow, I am not very
>worried, as I think most readers of this news group are likely to agree.

>May this thread die a sudden and quick death.

No.
This thread is (potentially) important, if people would get off the emacs
proselytizing and get savvy to the real issues.  No one is trying to turn
Linux into a Mac clone, because Macs are dumb.  No one who knows the power
of Unix is going to dispute the usefulness of a CLI.  The real issue is
integrating in the power (and advantages) of a GUI, too.

Take a look at NextStep.  It's an interesting lesson in a different way of
thinking, an object-oriented system from the ground up.  Coudln't hurt to
steal a few good ideas from that (things like seamless integration of
"widgets" that perform often used functions).   Wouldn't it be nice to be
able to build a "fax widget" and add that in to any application that needed
to do faxing of it's data?

Unix was built from the power of the good old CLI, but why shouldn't we
feel free to aim a little higher now?  Machines have come a long way in
power since then, and users have gotten used to much more sophisticated
methods of interfacing with the machines.  I love Unix, but I'm not a
brainless slave to it; we could do a *lot* better in a lot of areas, and
why is there such resistance to even *trying* to make inroads here?

#FLAME ON
God forbid someone should post on here and suggest that Linux could use a
nicer interface or nicer installation routines.  Oh no, that would mean
taking our nice little hacker OS and denigrating it, letting *users* have
access to it.  Nope, if you can't toggle in the machine code on a row of
LEDs, you don't *deserve* to run Linux.
ANd don't even *think* of proposing that Linux could use a nice native
spreadsheet or word processor (yes, I know there are some alternatives out
there now - I still think there are better solutions).  Oh no, thou must
use the holy Emacs and sc, or thou wilt surely be cast into the very pits
of hell!

Give me a break.  No one is trying to "steal" your precious OS and give it
to the Mac weenies.  They are just trying to make the most of this
innovative movement and encourage people to keep pushing the envelope.  If
Silicon Graphics and HP can come up with nice interfaces like Indigo Magic
and VUE, why can't we hackers try to pursue similar goals and end up with a
system that is easier to use and lets us devote more brain-power to the
*next* break-through.
#FLAME OFF

Sorry if anyone out there feels the preceding was a personal attack.  It's
not.  I'm just sick and tired of Unix elitists who feel like Unix is
already perfect and doesn't need to change.  Change is good, it's what kept
us all from still being COBOL programmers...

		- Mike

PS: Sorry if that insulted any COBOL programmers out there, you have my
sympathy... ;-)

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!news.moneng.mei.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!ncar!uchinews!kimbark!goer
From: g...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Unix, Unicode, and internationalization
Message-ID: <1994Aug25.212924.3202@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: n...@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Reply-To: g...@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
References: <1f.6509.1566.0NC90D7F@compart.fi> <333oki$lkp@oak.zilker.net> 
<1994Aug23.192707.5718@desaster.student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 21:29:24 GMT
Lines: 59


In comp.software.international there was an announcement of a conference
that might be of interest to people thinking about how Unix kernels and
related interfaces need to be redesigned to "keep up."

Unfortunately, it appears that NT, and to some extent Windows (and
of course the Mac's Word Script), are way, way ahead of anything we find
in the Unix world - at least when it comes to internationalization.

Here are some snippets.  Check comp.software.international for details:

>Program Migration to Unicode
>
>Revising existing software to use Unicode has been seen as a daunting task.
>Dr. Freytag will share a plan for easing the transition from single-byte
>and double-byte code to Unicode-aware programs.
>
>The Role of Unicode in the Win32 API
>
>The influence of Unicode is pervasive in the National Language Support
>Applications Programming Interface (NLS API) of Win32 based systems such as
>Windows NT and Chicago, even though in Chicago, Unicode is never intended
>to be rendered.  In this presentation, we examine the Win32 NLS API in some
>detail including character sets and code pages, language and locale, user
>interface storage and retrieval, and keyboard support, showing how Unicode
>affects each of these areas.

>Software Unlocalization
>
>A developer of software that targets multiple languages will benefit
>greatly by understanding and planning for the broad nature of multi-lingual
>computing rather than merely targeting a narrow scope of only a few
>specific languages.
>
>Unicode Tutorial
>
>A 3 hour presentation on the basics of the Unicode Standard.
>
>Bidirectional Text Processing
>
>This talk is of particular interest to those working with text written with
>Arabic, Hebrew, and other right-to-left scripts.  In general, these
>right-to-left scripts must interoperate with text written from
>left-to-right, such as texts written with the Latin (Roman) script.
>
>Indic Script Processing
>
>Indic scripts form the largest group of scripts which share similar
>features.  Fifteen primary Indic scripts are in common use today (in
>addition to a number of less-used scripts): Devanagari, Bengali, Gujarati,
>Gurmukhi, Oriya, Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Sinhalese, Tibetan,
>Burmese, Khmer, Thai, and Lao.

(and lots, lots more)

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%mid...@uchicago.bitnet
   g...@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!
news.kei.com!MathWorks.Com!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Unix, Unicode, and internationalization
Message-ID: < CvCLEs.1vK@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <333oki$lkp@oak.zilker.net> 
<1994Aug23.192707.5718@desaster.student.uni-tuebingen.de> 
<1994Aug25.212924.3202@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 12:30:27 GMT
Lines: 14

In article <1994Aug25.212924.3...@midway.uchicago.edu> g...@midway.uchicago.edu 
writes:
>Unfortunately, it appears that NT, and to some extent Windows (and
>of course the Mac's Word Script), are way, way ahead of anything we find
>in the Unix world - at least when it comes to internationalization.

Not really. There is a lot less publicity for the fact Unix supports 
multiple language catalogs (and Linux does this now). But you'll find plenty
of tools for Unix that are multilingual or foreign language - MULE, kterm etc...

Alan
-- 
  ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
 // Alan Cox  //  iia...@www.linux.org.uk   //  GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU  //
 ``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!
MathWorks.Com!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Future of Linux
Message-ID: < CvCLyE.22D@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <33ft88$60v@signal.dra.hmg.gb> 
< MIKE.94Aug25113445@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de> 
< msuzio.777824710@tiamat.umd.umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 12:42:14 GMT
Lines: 19

In article < msuzio.777824...@tiamat.umd.umich.edu> 
msu...@tiamat.umd.umich.edu (Mike Suzio) writes:
>This thread is (potentially) important, if people would get off the emacs
>proselytizing and get savvy to the real issues.  No one is trying to turn
>Linux into a Mac clone, because Macs are dumb.  No one who knows the power
>of Unix is going to dispute the usefulness of a CLI.  The real issue is
>integrating in the power (and advantages) of a GUI, too.

Or at the very least providing a plug and play environment for novices. It
doesn't matter if smart users hate it - they can install a smart environment
of which their are no shortages. MAC's drive me up the wall but for some
people its great. Unix/X has the power to have both at once according to
user preference.. Thats good

Alan

-- 
  ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
 // Alan Cox  //  iia...@www.linux.org.uk   //  GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU  //
 ``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''