[208] in Humor
Shells vs. GUI's vs. Muhammed Ali
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Erik Nygren)
Thu Apr 14 12:56:49 1994
To: humor@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 12:52:29 EDT
From: Erik Nygren <nygren@MIT.EDU>
------- Forwarded Message
From: aviles@mimsy.mit.edu (Walter A. Aviles)
Subject: Forwarded: Shells vs. GUI's vs. Muhammed Ali
Thought this discussions on GUI's might be of interest.... ;-)
> I am getting TIRED of all you people comparing user interfaces,
>shells and GUI's, etc, when you all have absolutely NO IDEA what you are
>talking about!! I think you all need a lesson in user interface history.
>The following text should make it all PERFECTLY CLEAR and stop these
>POINTLESS "shell vs. GUI" arguments for good.
>
>
>A BRIEF HISTORY OF USER INTERFACES
>
> Thousands of years ago, back in Paleolithic times, user interfaces
>were very primitive. They essentially consisted of a thick, wooden club
>that was used to "access" your enemy's brains. Simple but effective, this
>interface has since been adopted by the famed BLAZEMONGER "Customer
>Service" Department.
>
> At first, there was little or no standardization; users had to
>learn entirely new methods of "access" for human enemies, mammoths,
>mastodons, Saber-C tigers, etc. But as time went on, people settled on two
>basic modes of use:
>
> (A) Run as fast as you can in a straight line, bashing
> everything in sight.
>
> (B) Stand in one place, swinging the club wildly in all
> directions.
>
>These 2 modes became so popular that they were given names that have
>survived to this day: "sequential access" and "random access."
>
> This went on for centuries, with users happily "accessing" each
>others' bodily parts with bigger and bigger clubs, until the 20th century,
>when the COMPUTER was invented. Tired of crushing each other's skulls,
>users flocked to the new invention, eager to put their talents to new uses,
>like playing video games and building "Star Wars" missile systems.
>
> The first computer user interface consisted of a large button on
>the front panel, labeled "0". By pressing this button repeatedly, users
>could "program" the computer to do all kinds of tasks. Sadly, none of
>these programs worked, and the scientists could not figure out why.
>Then, in 1962, some dweeb finally had the idea to add a "1" button,
>and the Computer Age officially began.
>
> But pressing "0" and "1" buttons was not anybody's favorite
>pastime, so some other dweeb invented the computer terminal. Thanks to
>this clever device, with over 50 different keys, users were able to
>create bugs and cause crashes dozens of times faster than before.
>But at least the hardware was now in place, so it was time to address the
>software issues of user interfaces.
>
> First, there was the command-line interface. This allowed users
>to type a line of text representing a "command", press the RETURN key, and
>receive a response like "0x38754: ERROR_NOTEXT_PETUNIA". Thanks to this
>handy software tool, the suicide rate rose almost overnight.
>
> But in the mid 1970's, the clever folks at AT&T invented the UNIX
>"shell". This was a SIGNIFICANT advance over ordinary command-line
>interfaces, as the following example shows:
>
> ORDINARY COMMAND-LINE INTERFACE:
>
> type myfile
> 0x9852: ERROR_FILE_LACTOSE_ANAL
>
> UNIX SHELL:
>
> $ cat myfile
> Segmentation fault - core dumped
>
> For many years, command-line interfaces dominated the computer
>market. Smart computer buyers began to compare the power of different
>operating systems by how much they let you tailor the command-line
>prompt. For example, my friend John would only use computers that let
>him set the prompt to:
>
> Suction?
>
>Nobody knew why. Eventually, John was given a job in the Federal
>Government.
>
> But these years of happy command-lining were fated to end. Behind
>the scenes, those clever folks at Xerox PARC (Palo Alto useR interfaCes)
>were creating a completely graphic user interface. We modern computer users
>are familiar with windows, icons, and clicking, but the first attempts at
>Xerox PARC were quite different from this. For example, the early version
>of the "mouse" was shaped more like a semi-automatic machine gun. To select
>an icon, users would point it at the screen, click the button, and blast the
>icon to pieces. This was great fun, and kept the Xerox programmers amused
>for months. Eventually, the Xerox hardware engineers developed a device
>more like the modern mouse, and the programmers used that instead -- point,
>click, and the icon blows up. Alternatively, you could drag the icon around
>the screen, smearing blood and guts all over the place.
>
> After a few years of fun and games, some dweeb at Xerox PARC finally
>had the idea that the icons could be used to represent FILES. WOW!!! The
>world had many responses to the Xerox breakthrough. Computer users
>congratulated Xerox for this brilliant manuever. The President of the
>United Nations pinned a medal right on the Xerox building! And Apple
>Computer stole the idea outright and created the Macintosh.
>
> The "Mac" truly brought computing power to the common people. Even
>the most naive, ignorant Mac user was able, with a simple mouseclick, to
>cause a spectacular crash. This same philosophy has stayed with the machine
>through the years. The most recent operating system version is called
>"System 7", which to me sounds like a bad science-fiction TV show, and it
>has many new and exciting features. One of the most novel features is the
>"Help Balloon" mode, which allows the user to see what anything on the
>screen is thinking to itself. Unfortunately, most computer icons and menu
>items are very boring thinkers, so the balloons usually say things like "I
>wonder when the user will click on me" or "Will you PLEASE move me away from
>the 'HyperMoose' icon -- it smells really bad!"
>
> In 1985, two new machines with GUI's appeared on the market:
>the Atari ST and the Commodore Amiga. The ST's graphic user interface
>is called "GEM", which stands for "Graphic User Interface". Although
>initially popular, the ST has died a slow death, partly due to operating
>system bugs, such as the infamous "40 folder limit". If the user tried
>to create more than 40 subdirectories inside a directory, Jack Tramiel
>would come to his house and whack him on the head with a thick, wooden
>club. This caused permanent braindamage in many ST users, and they can
>still be found to this day saying things on the Net like "Tramiel is God"
>and "Amigas can't multitask".
>
> The Commodore Amiga was introduced with version 1.0 of its
>system software. This combined a great CLI, a great GUI, and the
>awesome ability to crash 12 times per hour. Following this success,
>versions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 were released rapidly over a short period of
>only 25 years.
>
> But the real Amiga breakthrough came with the introduction of
>Amiga OS 2.04. Originally, this was available only on Amiga 3000's
>sold in Albania to certified developers who knew the secret password and
>Marc Barrett's social security number; but after a mere 400 years, it was
>made available to the public.
>
> OS 2.04 was the first version to make the GUI "Workbench" truly
>usable. In previous versions, dragging an icon with the mouse required the
>user to hold down seven or eight different keys simultaneously while dancing
>the "Funky Chicken". In addition, not all files had icons, meaning that the
>Workbench could not access them. But thanks to version 2.04, every file
>now has over FOUR HUNDRED different icons, for a totally streamlined
>and efficient interface.
>
>
>SHELLS VS. GUI'S
>
> With both shells and GUI's now in existence, each has its fans and
>enemies. Proponents of GUI's say they can do ANYTHING as well as shells
>can.
>In fact, street corners in major cities are often occupied by these people,
>stopping random folks as they pass by, and saying things like "I can do that
>in FEWER than THREE mouse-clicks!!" Currently, there is legislation pending
>that will make such comments punishable by heavy fines and/or death.
>
> On the other hand, proponents of shells say that GUI's are a waste
>of time. They commonly cite examples like the "delete wildcard" problem.
>>From birth, all shell users are able to type ridiculously complicated
>"delete" commands like the following:
>
> 1> delete #?.(a|A?)*&-2^5%%*.*vavoom!
>
>which says, of course, to delete all files named #?.(a|A?)*&-2^5%%*.*vavoom!
>"Let's see you do THAT with a GUI!" they cry. The GUI users are silent
>about this, mainly because they are all out doing useful work instead,
>like blowing up icons with a mouse.
>
> In any event, most people today admit that the ease-of-use of a
>shell FAR exceeds the "thick wooden club" interface of Paleolithic
>times. But designers haven't stopped working on the problem of
>friendlier and more useful interfaces. So we now have...
>
>
>MORE MODERN USER INTERFACES
>
> Extended keyboards. Touch screens. 5-button joysticks. Virtual
>reality. MIDI synthesizers. Light pens. Cardboard boxes. Hand grenades.
>Canned tuna. Vaginal warts. All of these concepts have affected the way
>people use computers. Thanks to modern research, many new and "hybrid"
>interfaces have been developed. The following is a brief description
>of some of the more interesting ones.
>
>(1) Point 'n hit-return
>
> Clicking on the icon inserts text into the command line,
> which can then be edited. Press RETURN when done.
>
>(2) Type 'n click
>
> The user types a command. Every key pressed on the keyboard
> causes an icon to be displayed on the screen. When finished
> typing, drag select or double-click the entire set of icons.
> Or just drag them into the trashcan... whichever is more
> efficient.
>
>(3) Point 'n spit
>
> Instead of a mouse, the user chews a large wad of tobacco
> or a small, dead animal. To activate an icon, merely
> spit at the screen.
>
>(4) The pepperoni pizza interface
>
> The screen contains an image of a large pizza. The crust
> represents the operating system, the cheese is the windowing
> system, and the toppings are the individual files. Using
> a digital pizza cutter, the user hacks off a piece of the
> pizza and deposits it into an onscreen "mouth" which
> then digests the information. A resounding belch comes
> from the internal disk drive, and it is ready for the
> next command.
>
>(5) The BLAZEMONGER interface
>
> This is, of course, the ULTIMATE interface. It consists of
> a hunk of raw meat that is hurled with high velocity at a
> "touch screen". If it hits the right icon, the user is
> rewarded by NOT having his/her nipples torn off with
> tweezers.
>
>CONCLUSIONS
>
> That ends our little tour of user interface history. This should
>clear up all the .advocacy arguments from the past 3 or 4 months.
>
> If you are interested in learning more about user interface history
>and comparisons, I suggest that you check out some of the following
>references:
>
> o "The History of User Interface Design", by Harold Dweeb,
> Linda Dweeb, and the Dweeb-ettes.
>
> o "Shell Design", by Ima Clam.
>
> o "I'm a User... I'm a Loser... I'm a Mac Plus Chooser", by
> The Steve Miller/Steve Jobs Band.
>
> o "Deleting Files: It's Not Just For Shells Anymore",
> by Peter Norton and Oliver North.
>
> o "Really, Really, REALLY Graphic User Interfaces", by Adolf
> Hitler and BLAZEMONGER INCORPORATED.
>
> o "UI's for U and I", by the cast of Sesame Street.
>
> Dan
>
> //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>| Dan Barrett -- Dept of Computer Science, Lederle Graduate Research Center
>|
>| University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 -- barrett@cs.umass.edu
>|
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
>
