On Tuesday 15 June 2004 07:48, SER wrote:
> >So in your mind, the reason so much software is
> > hard for people to use is because programmers
> > don't have time to do any more than just get the
> > software working, and ease of use simply isn't
> > going to put food on the table.
> >
> > That's really laughable. Steve Jobs and Bill
> > Gates might have something to say about that
> > particular position.
>
> Ironically, NeXTSTEP -- the most user friendly OS that has ever existed
> -- didn't touch the shell.  Well, they added a registry, rather than
> relying as heavily on environment variables, but they were all still
> Unix commands.  Maybe the shell is as perfect as it can get, until we
> get computers that can understand natural languages?

I think the shell is good at what it does.  It could probably be made better 
and more user friendly, but like I said, that might kill its overall 
functionality.  I think it's about as perfect as it can get.  I think what 
some people need are like "newbie" shells.  A lot of people don't really 
understand the full function of the shell, and they see it as a place where 
you type commands and read the results.  A lot of people use the shell that 
way.  They would probably do well with a shell that's just a friendly, happy 
place to type commands and watch the programs do their thing, with really 
easy to remember commands, and maybe even help popping out at them at every 
turn.  Like for general office people; non-technical types that still need to 
work at the computer for certain things and, for whatever reason, still need 
to get to a shell.

	Sean O'Dell