[ale] Object Model on Linux

[charlie]

On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Dan Newcombe wrote:

> To sleep...perchance to dream...
> 
> > I would really like to also start a discussion on the linux user
> > interface, or lack thereof. Do you like it how it is, or what would you
> > do different? Let's dream a little.
> 
> Linux has a wonderfully simple user interface.  It looks like
> #

I'm going to completely side track the 'this web that web' discussion 
completely.

I think that largest problem with ALL desktops is the island like nature of
them.  And there is no reason for it either.  'All' systems support pipes,
sockets, named pipes, etc for IPC however as I know it only the command line
interface is the only that readily makes it available to users via 
redirection.  Like Dan said " wonderfully simple".  He's right is it simple
*in idea*, but the windowing systems have seemed to forgotten about the
redirection and focused on HUGE programs with features out the butt.  Look
at Micro$oft Word, EMACS, and the latest Netscape/Internet Explorer.  There
all apart of the feature war.  I think what is the problem with Unix, 
Windows, and MAC is they all are sucked into the bigger is better mentality.
Wasn't Unix's motto 'Unix applications do one thing and do it good.'  
Unix has lost this in X, and are even loosing more as it seems from all of 
your messages.  The OS/2 Object Model interface is something similiar to the
CORBA/ILU/JAVA RMT idea.  We have programs/executables all over the net and
can access them and use them much like in Smalltalk.  Inherrit from them, use
them.  It's there for developers, but not for users.  Sounds a little 
ridiculous, but how many versions of grep are there?  How many of Awk?  How 
many applications do you own that implement their own search engine?  How 
many apps have their own calculator implemented?

  "Can I draw a picture in this spread sheet?  
   You can in the next version.  We're working with Adobe on that."

Why not redirect your information thru smaller applications much like we 
did in the days of the command line?  It might sound as if I want to walk
backwards, but the current direction scares me, and we all know everyone
is talking about taking this across the net and it will be.  However, under
the browser mentallity I don't think that's what we want.  The web is a
terrible tool for REAL interaction.  I've always used the web as an information
tool.  How many times have you come back from the web and said look what I
directly created from the web.  You can't!  It's doesn't provide that sort of
workspace.  It is really just a pool of information.  I'm not saying let's
trash it either, because if I want to do something then I get the information
on how to do it from the Web more likely, but when it comes time to actually
do it then I'm not on the web at all.  I tried working and developing in the
web and it was the worst expirience I've had in a long time.  All I could
do was HACK.  The desktop is where we DO things.  It's where we've done things
forever, and I'm not saying that because we've done it one way forever 
predicates my idea.  However, what we want to do is interact like we've been
doing on a solitary basis with everyone else.  We don't want to communicate
to each other through the tiny little hole of hypertext for all of our
lives.  It's as if we were networked, but all we could do is talk.  We couldn't
interact and change things.  Now we want to interact like I'm talking and we're
tearing at the microphone were we were talking to shove a hand through.
It just won't work.  'It looks like it will fit :)'
I've been playing around with the Newtons and PDA technology for a week or
more, and I've found out that those areas are implementing these ideas more
because they're constrained by space.  From "Programming For The Newton":
  'Do one task extremely well, avoid creaping featurisms'
  "There is a perception among personal computer application designers that 
   for a software application to be successful it must offer not only a few
   innovative features, but every other feature found in similar applications
   (a perception fueled by the press with their bullet chart reviews, no
   doubt).  This has resulted in software that can help with a variety of
   tasks, but requires extensive training to user."

The Newtons are already supporting the Object Model.  Hell look at their FS.  
All the apps "share" data.  I think with the proper operating system and 
shell on a Newton we could do just as much on a desktop with a better 
interface.  Now if we extended this idea to the desktop we have more power 
and more computational power do things like huge math, databases, compute 
Bill Gates salary thus far, compile programs, Quake, and 3d modelling.  
let's not piddle around with desktop calendars and alarm clocks. 

"God save the web
 We really mean it man
 There is no future
 And England's dreamin'"



flame retardant vest up.
							        Charles Hubbard
	   		 	          Internet: charlie at felix.cc.gatech.edu
 ". . .the pope talks a lot about sex, of which he knows nothing. . ."  
	- Robert Anton Wilson