PGOETZ@LOYVAX.BITNET (06/03/88)
The possible introduction of the IIgs+ poses a grave danger to
consumers. It lies in the well-known inverse relationship between computers
and owners: that the most ignorant users own the most powerful personal
computers, while the most experienced hackers often own systems that would
have been laughed at eight years ago. (Low-end machines such as the Timex
Sinclair are actually highly evolved calculators and hence correspond to
lowly-evolved users.)
The relation between users and machines is evident in the history of the
Apple II line. Owners of the original Apple II were hobbyists who often got
their Apple with the specific intentions of rewiring the motherboard to see
what would happen. Owners of the II+ were on the whole not as deeply
into electronics, but were not afraid to install various proven hacks
on their motherboard, or at least to do the shift-key mod and video EPROM
installation themselves.
The regression of the users became more visibly apparent with the large
crop of IIe owners. Not only are most of them afraid to so much as change
ROMs, an unknown number of them have no programming ability at all.
Then came the IIc, which Apple specifically designed for the anticipated
next generation of users who would quake at the prospect of inserting a
card into a slot themselves.
Data on IIgs owners is not available to this author, as I have never
met any. I can only say that I fear the worst.
It is generally assumed that less capable users have a higher chance of
buying more powerful machines for various reasons: they don't rush out and
get a machine because it excites them, they are business executives & hence
make more money, etc. But I propose that the machines themselves may
cause brain-damage to their owners. I bring forth this proposal after
repeated observation of rational people who, upon buying IIes or IIcs,
lose this rationality for a kind of pseudoreligon in which the computer
is treated as a holy object which is meant only to run precanned software,
and whose lid may be opened only by members of the Priesthood of Dealers
who have proved their right to work on the machines by successfuly charging
$40 to open the lid.
I also support this assertion with the observation that Apple Computer
itself has supplied its management with new machines as they became
available, giving them the maximum exposure to powerful new machines.
I must therefore caution anyone against buying a IIgs+ before data is
in on its effects on the user. I repeat: The IIgs+ is potentially DANGEROUS.
Due to its great power, even a test drive at a dealership may be hazardous.
Phil Goetz
PGOETZ@LOVAX.bitnettsouth@pro-pac.cts.COM (Todd South) (06/06/88)
In Article: <8806052321.aa19345@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> PGOETZ@LOYVAX.BITNET (Phil Goetz) writes: > The possible introduction of the IIgs+ poses a grave danger to > consumers. It lies in the well-known inverse relationship between computers > and owners: that the most ignorant users own the most powerful personal > computers, while the most experienced hackers often own systems that would > have been laughed at eight years ago. [Dribble about Timex computers] _|_ __ |_ In the interest of the world Apple community I feel that \ \____/ \_________________________________ this misguided perception \, ___ / / /\ truly needs to have a ) / \((((((______A.C.M.E._Flame_Gun___(/\) long and windy rebuttal. / < ON (((((( (\/) So, you have been warned ( o \___/ \____\___________________________\/ and if you wish to continue \ .......\ with this message I certainly )....... > hope that you consider the implications of some of the /....... / opinions, and the implications of the opinions from /....... / Phil. This is what a number of people at Apple, who control /....... / the marketting of the Apple //gs actually think is true. This <________/ *may* be one of the reasons that //gs owners are running at 2.8 Mhz! Read on. . . > The relation between users and machines is evident in the history of the > Apple II line. Owners of the original Apple II were hobbyists who often got > their Apple with the specific intentions of rewiring the motherboard to see > what would happen. Owners of the II+ were on the whole not as deeply > into electronics, but were not afraid to install various proven hacks > on their motherboard, or at least to do the shift-key mod and video EPROM > installation themselves. They still are hobbyist, but now they want something better than 1 Mhz. Unfortunately, they are not a couple of things though: - They are not rich, and since new motherboards do not come cheaply and are neither socketed nor have schematics published freely, it is rather hard to play with them in this fashion. But, there are a number of things that one can still do -- I like to play with the VGC a lot, but most would people don't want to screw with things which can screw up $2000+ systems that they have saved up for with long hard hours of work. - They are not people that have time to devote to large projects which will take over their lives. Unfortunately, unless you are in the 'business' of selling computers, or writing software for the computers, then you have a rather limited time scale to work with today. I truly feel that one of the worst things about society is growing up. When you are young (well most of us -- this doesn't include rich folks) you do not have a large amount of capital to work with. When you are older, you get the capital, but the time disappears. - Hacking? Well, I guess that all defines what you feel hacking is all about. I program on my system, figure out neat ways to do things faster and more efficiently, and sometimes even do a number of hardware projects with others. Contrary to magazines, A/D and visa versa are still very popular. At least five people I know are currently working on ways to control remote devices through their //gs's. I think this type of activity would constitute electronic hacking, since they are building the interfaces themselves. But, these individuals are unique. Two of them are full-time programmers (and both insane :-) who live to play with electronics and computer concepts. The other three are trying to do something that involves scientific research. The point is, they *are* using the //gs because it has more memory available and a large speedup increase over the previous Apple ][ models. If they could, I'm sure they would have done the same thing with Apple //e's, or ][+'s, or ]['s. But now that they are grown up and have jobs they can afford *better* equipment that runs faster and does more activities! Also, it would have been rather stupid not to buy a //gs since they are the same price (locally) as a //e, and include so much more in the system. > The regression of the users became more visibly apparent with the large > crop of IIe owners. Not only are most of them afraid to so much as change > ROMs, an unknown number of them have no programming ability at all. > Then came the IIc, which Apple specifically designed for the anticipated > next generation of users who would quake at the prospect of inserting a > card into a slot themselves. You are contradicting terms here, Phil. "USERS" are people that use a computer for games, management, and education. Hackers are people that play with computer guts, program on them, and generally stay up till 3 o' clock in the morning to post to the net! :-) :-) What is this regression crap? What is this programming requirement? Why can't people have laptops? That's what the //c was basically made for in the first place! People want laptops for portability. It is rather hard to carry a fully loaded Apple ][ on an airplane, or to a press session. The idea is to get computers to the masses, not keep them as yours or my private toy. Communications between the masses is something that has been lacking in the modern world (read since man has been able to speak). The fact that you and I and everyone else on this network has the ability to speak without someone intercepting our communications and altering them to their own purpose proves the point. The computer revolution will not make us all hackers, programmers, or nerds. But it will bring us all a lot closer and finally prove that we can be human, and not puppets. [Anyone in Russia that might be reading this? Hmmm!?!?!] > Data on IIgs owners is not available to this author, as I have never > met any. I can only say that I fear the worst. Thanks! Now I know that at least you can't demean the Apple ][ people that want a better system with some more theories on hacker ethics and/or lifestyles. > It is generally assumed that less capable users have a higher chance of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --- By whom? > buying more powerful machines for various reasons: they don't rush out and > get a machine because it excites them, they are business executives & hence > make more money, etc. But I propose that the machines themselves may > cause brain-damage to their owners. I bring forth this proposal after > repeated observation of rational people who, upon buying IIes or IIcs, > lose this rationality for a kind of pseudoreligon in which the computer > is treated as a holy object which is meant only to run precanned software, > and whose lid may be opened only by members of the Priesthood of Dealers > who have proved their right to work on the machines by successfuly charging > $40 to open the lid. If someone isn't going to install new ROMs on their Apple //gs or //e, it is most likely because most Apple dealers will not sell you the ROMs to install! Brain damage? Did you come over from talk-bizzare or what? Face facts, not everyone is cut out to be a hobbyist, but that doesn't mean that this precludes them from using computers in their everyday lives to help their education, business, and management of personal personal resources Although I don't like to see people go to dealers for simple things, I can't help every Apple ][ owner install something in their system. So, they go to their local dealer, who MAKES A LIVING doing this. What's funny is that your whole idea could be applied to almost any viable personal service market. (e.g., Travel Agents, Accountants, etc...) > I also support this assertion with the observation that Apple Computer > itself has supplied its management with new machines as they became > available, giving them the maximum exposure to powerful new machines. Well hells bells man! Don't you think that Apple deserves to make some money!?! If they can do this by seeding a market then more power to them! But if you are talking about Apple //gs's, I personally would like to see a list of people that Apple gave computers to on a seeding frenzy! > I must therefore caution anyone against buying a IIgs+ before data is > in on its effects on the user. I repeat:The IIgs+ is potentially DANGEROUS. > Due to its great power, even a test drive at a dealership may be hazardous. > Phil Goetz > PGOETZ@LOVAX.bitnet You really blow me away. This is just ridiculous. How can you assert that making a machine better, and selling it openly to the public is going to be dangerous? You sound like a member of a facist group of hackers who believe that if the logic circuit isn't made with full-scale resistors that it will eradicate the hackers of the world. Danger to consumers? A consumer is considered someone who buys a product. How can selling a better computer that does MORE WORK in LESS TIME be a danger? If you are taking the stance that consumers and hackers are in the same definition, then you are definitely somewhere in the stratosphere and I certainly am unable to follow your point. The Apple computer still is the best personal system for my money. It does every- thing I want, and more. But the one thing it definitely lacks is the speed which is standard in open-end computers of comparable value. Not to mention the fact that it has a very silly limitation of graphics modes, drive sizes, and a lack of multitasking capabilty. All in all, I think Apple could have done much better on the //gs than what was released. The problem (IMHO) is hidden in the fact that people want to keep it in a certain market instead of letting it grow into whatever needs it. This is why IBM has the corner on certain markets that Apple will never touch. At THAT critical time, IBM got down off of its pedistal and worked to craft a flexible system which would please both hackers, users, and business people. Apple? Well, they had to create a completely different system (Macs) and start all over again. If not for the services of MicroSoft and a lot of other people that liked the innovation, the Mac would have followed the Apple /// and the Lisa into history (or the trash can). Did you know that the Apple //gs was the best selling computer in 1987 in America? Pretty good, I would think, but Apple still keeps doing neat little things like making netwworking systems for Apple ][ computers which require Macs to facilitate fileserving. Apple still makes things like 1200 baud modems which cost $350 to $400 and do not do anything special (besides taking three months to repair). And now? Well, after looking at dollar signs it appears that the //gs may get an upgrade which should have been in the initial release. And you're bitching? If you truly feel that the //gs is the death of the Apple ][ then you just sit back and play with that original Apple ][ all day long while I am compiling newspapers, financial projections, 3 dimensional molecular models, animated presentations, and more. I (and others I hope) want an Apple ][ which can do all these things and more, while still keeping the hacker in the picture. But face facts, 1 and 2.8 Mhz system just don't hack the growing workload. Todd South -- UUCP: {nosc, ihnp4, cacilj, sdcsvax, hplabs!hp-sdd, sun!ihnp4} ...!crash!pnet01!pro-simasd!pro-pac!tsouth ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-simasd!pro-pac!tsouth@nosc.MIL INET: tsouth@pro-pac.CTS.COM - BITNET: pro-pac.UUCP!tsouth@PSUVAX1
jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Jeremy G. Mereness") (06/07/88)
A moderate's point of view..... After reading both Phil Goetz's and Todd South's comments on the "Danger of the //gs+," I feel I have to respond at least a little bit to make a few things a little clearer from a historical perspective... Phil Goetz wrote that the evolution of the computer has suggested that the smarter the computers have become, the less curious the people who use them areto explore the machines' possibilities beyond that of published software. He further points out that the // line, esp. with the GS, has started on a similar path. Well.... lessee. > The regression of the users became more visibly apparent with the large >crop of IIe owners. Not only are most of them afraid to so much as change >ROMs, an unknown number of them have no programming ability at all. >Then came the IIc, which Apple specifically designed for the anticipated >next generation of users who would quake at the prospect of inserting a >card into a slot themselves. You know why? Listen.... As far as the //e is concerned, and all computers in the // line following it, (or maybe in the computer world at large) Apple has had to come to grips with the fact that there are a great many more people out there who will buy computers but are afraid to fiddle with them than there are hobbiests and hackers, and perhaps more to the point, these people generally have more money to throw around. Let me use K-12 schools as an example. High school teachers are typical techno-phobics that have absolutely no intention of opening their //e's unless the installation manual expressly tells them to. These people will never, ever see the true potential of the machines that the hackers will discover, but a school system will buy //e's in BULK! Apple Computer Co., as much as I hate to admit it, had to begin catering to this market of more ignorant, single-purpose, software dependent users. Hell! If Apple didn't, IBM certainly would fill the gap. The same analagy can be drawn to the business user. I clearly remember businessmen complaining about how computers were simply too difficult to learn how to use way back in 1978. Sure, Apples could be programmed to do many of the easy, simple things that mainframes were being forced to do at the time, but corporations had full-time programmers to configure mainframes; I don't think they could see fit to hiring a similar position to likewise maintain an Apple ][. Therefore, business declared that it was up to the computer manufacturer to see to it that the machines were as as refined and easy to use as possible before it was placed on the desktop (Visicalc proved that this was possible) and in order to fulfill this wish, personal computers had to be made faster. User-friendly Interfaces take memory and speed. Thus, much of the power of new machines is dedicated to an easy, user-oriented interface; not, as programming and hardware hackers alike would prefer, toward an effective programming envirnment. The pinacle of this evolution, of course, is the Macintosh, where one can never break through to the machine-code without special programs like the Mac Programmer's Workshop. >I propose that the machines themselves may >cause brain-damage to their owners. I bring forth this proposal after >repeated observation of rational people who, upon buying IIes or IIcs, >lose this rationality for a kind of pseudoreligon in which the computer >is treated as a holy object which is meant only to run precanned software, >and whose lid may be opened only by members of the Priesthood of Dealers >who have proved their right to work on the machines by successfuly charging >$40 to open the lid. It is true that this is more common, but that is because the //e is more common. It is a pity that so many common people are like this but how many people pay $40 bucks to get their stereo's repaired? or kitchen appliances? or even cars? People are certainly not getting brain damaged, and any hacker who has gladly traded in his //+ for a more capable //e will tell you that the increased power does NOTHING to discourage his continued interest in the machine. What examples are necessary? Double hires graphics on the //e and hacking with extended memory? Howzabout the fact that game hackers like Lord British now require 64K machines for their programs instead of 48K? Believe it or not, the hacker is going to be the first person to realize the limits of a machine and start wishing for more (I mean, who would know better?) >I must therefore caution anyone against buying a IIgs+ before data is >in on its effects on the user. I repeat: The IIgs+ is potentially DANGEROUS. >Due to its great power, even a test drive at a dealership may be hazardous. Number one, you can't stop technology. Face it. Even Reagan's SDI "Star Wars" is inevitable, because you can't stop people from figuring new things out and expanding human and machine capability. So, accept the fact that computers will continue to get faster and more capable. Number two, power never stopped creativity. You are confusing power with closed architecture, which means the Mac has no ctrl-reset that pops you into applesoft, or even the monitor. You have to learn C and buy MPW from Apple to program on it, or atleast buy Miscrosoft Basic and ResEdit. It is too bad that the GS seems to be taking this road with APW, but it can still be hacked upon, and if I ever see a GS+, you know I am going to do some jury-rigging with its synthesizer port. Besides, you can still ctrl-reset into the monitor on a GS and can program it w/o a disk drive. APW just makes it easier. As for more power, my final argument is this; go to a major research university like MIT, Berkeley, or Canegie-Mellon and take a look at X-Windows and file-sharing. These machines are powerful as @#$^% and have user friendly, window interfaces. The difference is, one of the windows is a UNIX shell, through which you can take anything and EVERYTHING apart and put it back together again, including the window manager your running on. Try and tell me the hackers here rely on "canned software." Even computer-shy novices do some "hacking"; they hack there own preference file.... Capt. Albatross jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu ============ disclaimer: These opinions are mine and will remain so until more intelligent or insightful or informed people are kind enough to show me the error of my ways. Remember: A mind is a terrible thing to baste.
rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. rupp) (06/09/88)
I think some people may be missing an important point in this discussion. The "hackers" seem to feel that if a computer is easy (We should say "realatively easy") to use, it is somehow less fun or rewarding, or something, than a computer that is more difficult to use. This is nonsense. Ease of use is, in and of itself, *always* a virtue. Would you prefer to enter hex code with front panel switches instead of entering English language commands on a keyboard? I think not. Ease of use is not the most important question. What really matters is this: what can be done with the computer (or camera, or drill, or any other tool)? I don't think we would sneer at today's Air Force pilots just because taking off and landing an F-15 is not the uncertain adventure that was experienced with a World War I biplane. I don't think we would laugh at a concert violinist just because he or she doesn't not know how to build and modify violins for greater performance. Let's keep our eye on the ball. Namely, what the tool can do for the user. And also what the user needs to bring to the task, no matter how user-friendly the computer. The friendliest spread sheet in the world will not help a user who cannot conceptualize a matrix of data. Bill (This is just my own opinion; I do not claim to speak for anyone else.)
forde@EGLIN-VAX.ARPA ("MAJ ERIC S. FORD") (06/10/88)
After reading and chuckling over Phil Goetz write-up on the IIgs+ I was amazed to see his warning borne out by the response subsequently posted by Todd South. Obviously a new IIgs owner, Mr. South fit the description given by Phil as evidenced by his total lack of a grasp on the obvious... what Phil posted was clearly of humorous and satirical intent. That anyone should take personal umbrage is beyond belief. Could it be that Phil hit the nail on the head with his whimsy? For at least one case it would appear so. From "The Society for the Preservation of the Sense of Humor" Eric S. Ford ------
jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Jeremy G. Mereness") (06/10/88)
>After reading and chuckling over Phil Goetz write-up on the IIgs+ I was >amazed to see his warning borne out by the response subsequently posted >by Todd South. >what Phil posted was clearly of humorous and satirical intent. That anyone >should take personal umbrage is beyond belief. Could it be that Phil hit >the nail on the head with his whimsy? I don't know... I also responded to Paul's "satire," and upon rereading his post the first paragraph or two does have the taste of good, healthy sarcasm. However, dig this... > The relation between users and machines is evident in the history of the >Apple II line. Owners of the original Apple II were hobbyists who often got t>heir Apple with the specific intentions of rewiring the motherboard to see >what would happen. Owners of the II+ were on the whole not as deeply >into electronics, but were not afraid to install various proven hacks >on their motherboard, or at least to do the shift-key mod and video EPROM >installation themselves. This is true. He might as well have mentioned that the Apple 1 was orginally designed for electronics hackers; it wasn't powerful enough for anything else. >Then came the IIc, which Apple specifically designed for the anticipated >next generation of users who would quake at the prospect of inserting a >card into a slot themselves. This also is true. Take a look at your local high school and explore how the teachers and librarians view the idea of opening up a computer and fiddling with the insides. >people who, upon buying IIes or IIcs, >lose this rationality for a kind of pseudoreligon in which the computer >is treated as a holy object which is meant only to run precanned software, >and whose lid may be opened only by members of the Priesthood of Dealers >who have proved their right to work on the machines by successfuly charging >$40 to open the lid. This is true as well. You see, I responded because Mr. Paul touched on some issues in his article that are a little too true as computers become more powerful. As computers can more handily perform the work we don't want to, programmers have become lazier, code has become fatter and more inefficient, and now, Macintoshes and even //GS's aren't practical w/o a hard disk and require programming environments (avail. for another $100 or more) to program on them. There is an arcane elegance to the old ]['s of yesteryear that made us work a little harder and encouraged us to understand the inner workings of the machines instead of trusting a compiler and figuring the damned thing is so fast that no-one will know the difference between good programming and a heaping mess. Luckily, the GS may still be programmed and understood in this manner. Not the Mac, nor the IBM's, and probably not any other system to ever appear on the market again. Nope, Paul started off with a farce, but then got a little serious. When he implied that the GS+ would be another closed-system machine such as the Mac or IBM, he touched upon some truth; enough to have made the article credible. Thus, my response. Capt. Albatross jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu ============ disclaimer: These opinions are mine and will remain so until more intelligent or insightful or informed people are kind enough to show me the error of my ways. Remember: A mind is a terrible thing to baste.
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (06/10/88)
> > Both Todd South and Capt. Albatross seem to be missing a very > fundamental point in Phil's original post. To quote Foghorn Leghorn, > > "IT'S, I SAY, IT'S A JOKE, SON!!" > When I first saw that message I couldn't BELIEVE it could be taken seriously even by a sterotype computer gnome. Wasn't Todd's response also satirical (maybe I'm cynical, I was SURE it was)? I resisted temptation earlier, but now that there's been other comment, I can no longer resist noting that the original "The IIgs+ causes brain damage" post reminded me of an article published a decade or so ago in a regional economics journal. In that article someone had run a correlation analysis comparing the geographic distribution of mobile homes against the incidence of tornados. The result supported the hypothesis that mobile home parks attract tornados (at the 99% confidence interval). But of course, those of you in Oklahoma and Missouri already knew that. --------------------- Disclaimer: The "look and feel" of this message is exclusively MINE! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ARPA: sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Murphy A. Sewall BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM School of Business Admin. UUCP: ...ihnp4!psuvax1!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL University of Connecticut
jon@cisunx.UUCP (Jon M Pearsall) (06/10/88)
In article <8806052321.aa19345@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> PGOETZ@LOYVAX.BITNET writes: > > The possible introduction of the IIgs+ poses a grave danger to >consumers. It lies in the well-known inverse relationship between computers >and owners: that the most ignorant users own the most powerful personal >computers, while the most experienced hackers often own systems that would >have been laughed at eight years ago..... >[much babble about people who buy computers but have never seen a motherboard deleted.] All I have to say about this drivel is this.... Why don't you just by a Heathkit? You can hack to your heart's content putting the thing together and re-wiring it. And they give you lots of spec sheets! Plus, that way, you won't get your pretty, platinum white computer case scuffed up when you change those ROM chips next time.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (06/10/88)
In article <1891@pt.cs.cmu.edu> ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) writes: >Apple is ignoring or forgetting its origins. I have to disagree with your point about IIGS documentation. This is the first time in YEARS that Apple has made such an effort to publish complete technical information about a product. I think they should be encouraged for it, not dumped upon. I haven't looked up the SmartPort protocols, but documentation for Apple's SCSI interface is available. Why would you want to put the protocol converter between your SCSI interface and the processor?
TMURPHY@WPI.BITNET (06/10/88)
The recent bunch of messages has been amusing, to say the least. Face it folks,
the computer industry is growing up, and the majority of computer users now
work WITH them, as tools, rather than ON them. All technologies go through
an infancy stage, and computers are leaving theirs now. Apple is trying
hard to keep up with this, and maybe they aren't quite with it, but they
are trying. Maybe this displeases some people, but me, I can hardly
wait.
________________________________________________________
Thomas C. Murphy Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Electrical Engineering Dept.
BITNET: TMURPHY@WPI
Arpanet: tmurphy%wpi.bitnet@talcott.harvard.edukamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) (06/11/88)
It seems to me that the original post was a satire.
But anyway (:-)):
A) *ANY* machine can be a hobby machine. You should *see* some of tha hacks
on old 128K macs I've seen. That's not really the point.
B) The GS, especially with it's "maclike interface" is much more geared
towards the novice user. However, it has been shown that while the learning
curve on macs (and their like) is very steep at first, it tapers of *very*
rapidly. The IBM, on the other hand, can take years to get to know. But
when you start being a "power" user (Ug!), you find it get's easier and
easier, not harder and harder, to become more advanced.
C) The future will undoubtably hold more "friendly" interfaces. Also, the
wall between user and programmer will get higher, not lower. Power, while
increased, will be wasted. Do you see then counting byte on a mac? No.
You just say "You need more memory to run this desk accessory." Sure, the GS
has got a faster clock speed. But it's bogged down with trying to imitate a
mac! "memory is cheap", my friend says. And it is. Power is cheap, too.
The computer industry is coming out of the daring days of invention. It's a
business now. A real business. Just like cars. Think about is.
D) For all you power users out there! Let's try not to cast so much scorn
on our fellow computer users. Believe me, I really get enough of "You still
using *TEN YEAR OLD* architecture? Why don't you get a mac ][?". I don't
need to hear things like "You use *DOS 3.3*? You ninny." Trust me, I have
my reasons. So you post from a VMS machine? Ha! I know I have done my
fair share of this sort of thing, but I've tapered off lately, coming to
greatr enlightenment, so to speak. Just remember, no matter how great a
*user* you are, there's the person who *wrote* the program. And if you are
a great *programmer*, there's the guy (or group) that *designed* the
computer you program on. I could go on, but the point is, there's almost
always someone who's more "powerful" than you. I consider myself a "good"
programmer, in that I feel I am competent, but I'm nothing compared to some
folks I know. I may have contempt for "mere users", but I try not to bandy
it about too much. I know I can figure out how to use just about any
program on the market, but to use it as well as some folks (who don't have a
clue about programming) it might take me a few years.
Ok, so it's long. I'm sorry. But come on, folks! Can we get back to
talking about the computers?
Sean Kamath
--
UUCP: {decvax allegra ucbcad ucbvax hplabs ihnp4}!tektronix!reed!kamath
CSNET: reed!kamath@Tektronix.CSNET || BITNET: reed!kamath@PSUVAX1.BITNET
ARPA: reed!kamath@PSUVAX1.CS.PSU.EDU
US Snail: 3934 SE Boise, Portland, OR 97202-3126 (I hate 4 line .sigs!)spike@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Spike) (06/11/88)
In article <8060@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: <I haven't looked up the SmartPort protocols, but documentation >for Apple's SCSI interface is available. Why would you want to <put the protocol converter between your SCSI interface and the >processor? Why, I'd love one, seeing that it is a little difficult to find hard disks for the //c. If I had the time and inclination, I think I could make quite a bit of money selling them. "You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss 3 bucks goodbye." UUCP: ...!harvard!bu-cs!bu-it!spike INTERNET: spike@bu-it.bu.edu CSNET: spike%bu-it@bu-cs BITNET: spike%bu-it.bu.edu@bostonu "VPS sucks"
rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. rupp) (06/16/88)
In article <8806091250.aa17392@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> "MAJ ERIC S. FORD" <forde@eglin-vax.arpa> writes: >After reading and chuckling over Phil Goetz write-up on the IIgs+ I was >amazed to see his warning borne out by the response subsequently posted ........ >what Phil posted was clearly of humorous and satirical intent. That anyone >should take personal umbrage is beyond belief. > >From "The Society for the Preservation of the Sense of Humor" >Eric S. Ford >------ Well, I beg to differ. Phil's article was just rational enough (or perhaps I should say not too irrational -:) that it could be taken as literal. But the other thing is that this attitude (i.e., it's better to program down to the bare metal and to Hell with user-friendly interfaces) *has* been voiced a number of times over the last feww years. The arguments of many MS-DOS users against the Macintosh are in a similar vein. I'm glad to hear it was all a joke. If it was a joke, however, I have to question the wisdom of posting the article in the first place. At least I have to question its posting in this newsgroup. Bill (Just me expressing my own individual opinion, again. )