jmiller@vxbio.span.nasa.gov (02/19/91)
I finally have to say something in the debate about the merits of unix vs. the type of OS on micros. I agree with Brian Smith that most of the power of unix is not necessary for the average user. Most users don't think in the way that unix wants you to think. It makes good sense AFTER you have spent SEVERAL MONTHS working with it. The point is that doing the basics in unix is just as hard as doing the advanced things. Furthermore, its model for data manipulation is not the one molecular biologists use. I think the recent release of GeneWorks by IG gives us an idea of how an OS which thinks like users might look (the programs is more of an operating system than an application). About departments hiring software adminstrators. The biggest thing this shows is the nearly complete failure of AI to live up to its promise. 20 years ago we expected that complex systems would be able to police themselves and adapt to the user. Now it isn't happening, and the solution being touted is to bring users up to speed in OS environments like unix. One final note. I've used computers with virtually every OS around for several years, so I'm not a novice. But I still had to SWEAT BLOOD to setup and run a copy of MacImDat (molecular modeling). This program runs on the mac, but its interface is pure unix workstation. Is this the future? -Peter Markiewicz
gunnell@FCRFV1.NCIFCRF.GOV ("Gunnell, Mark") (02/20/91)
Peter Markiewicz writes: > ...Most users don't > think in the way that unix wants you to think. It makes good sense AFTER > you have spent SEVERAL MONTHS working with it. The point is that doing > the basics in unix is just as hard as doing the advanced things. I couldn't agree with you more. I speak from the perspective of someone who provides support and training for a variety of molecular biology software on a variety of systems. The majority of the researchers I assist are challenged by the task of understanding any operating system. The task of understanding unix can be so demanding that it will prevent many users from attempting to use even excellent software. Because of this it seems necessary (IMHO), that the unix interface must be hidden from view. X Windows applications seem to be one way to accomplish this. > One final note. I've used computers with virtually every OS around for > several years, so I'm not a novice. But I still had to SWEAT BLOOD to > setup and run a copy of MacImDat (molecular modeling). This program runs > on the mac, but its interface is pure unix workstation. Is this the > future? > -Peter Markiewicz Heaven help us, but the economics of marketing unix platforms make this a very likely scenario. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark A. Gunnell | Internet: gunnell@ncifcrf.gov Sci. Applications Analyst | Bitnet: gunnell%ncifcrf.gov@cunyvm.bitnet Advanced Scientific Computing Lab.| Phone: (301) 846-5779 PRI/DynCorp | NCI-FCRDC | PO Box B, Bldg 430 | Frederick, MD 21702-1201 USA | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hartzell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (George Hartzell) (02/22/91)
In article <9102201516.AA24037@genbank.bio.net> gunnell@FCRFV1.NCIFCRF.GOV ("Gunnell, Mark") writes: Peter Markiewicz writes: > ...Most users don't > think in the way that unix wants you to think. It makes good sense AFTER > you have spent SEVERAL MONTHS working with it. The point is that doing > the basics in unix is just as hard as doing the advanced things. [...] Because of this it seems necessary (IMHO), that the unix interface must be hidden from view. X Windows applications seem to be one way to accomplish this. I hope that the people who design such applications don't make the power of a UNIX platform inaccessible to those of us who have invested the time to learn to use it. How would most "wet" biologists react to only being able to do bench work using little "black boxes" that various companies sold them, rather than being able to design their own protocols/approaches. My job is to provide computational support to a department full of molecular biologists, and I PRAY [and work] for better interfaces to tools so that my users can use my tools without getting degrees in computer hacking. On the other hand, I don't think that someone who sits down, picks up a tool, and starts trying to use it can expect to be as successful with it as someone who takes the time to learn about how the tool works, and how it fits into a bigger framework. I think that this is true of hammers and nails, enzymes and substrates, and computers. Flame away... g. -- George Hartzell (303) 492-4535 MCD Biology, University of Colorado-Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309 hartzell@Boulder.Colorado.EDU ..!ncar!boulder!hartzell