[HN Gopher] In the Beginning was the Command Line (1999)
___________________________________________________________________
In the Beginning was the Command Line (1999)
Author : BerislavLopac
Score : 136 points
Date : 2020-11-05 14:08 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cristal.inria.fr)
(TXT) w3m dump (cristal.inria.fr)
| homarp wrote:
| per Wikipedia page: With Neal Stephenson's permission, Garrett
| Birkel responded to "In the Beginning...was the Command Line" in
| 2004, bringing it up to date and critically discussing
| Stephenson's argument. Birkel's response is interspersed
| throughout the original text, which remains untouched.
|
| http://garote.bdmonkeys.net/commandline/index.html
| rchase wrote:
| Great book. Little dated, but still worth a read.
|
| Love the HOLE HAWG analogy about tools that do what you tell them
| to, immediately and sometimes dangerously, regardless of whether
| what you told them to do was right.
| mds wrote:
| And here is the mandatory AvE Hole Hawg tear-down:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoR59rzqlxw
| vram22 wrote:
| That can describe Unix command-line tools. No "are you sure
| y/n?" except if explicitly asked for via a flag, unlike DOS.
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| Though he sang the praises of the Hole Hawg, it's worth noting
| that he later switched to OS X. Usability still matters.
|
| " _You guessed right: I embraced OS X as soon as it was
| available and have never looked back. So a lot of "In the
| beginning was the command line" is now obsolete. I keep meaning
| to update it, but if I'm honest with myself, I have to say this
| is unlikely._"
|
| From question #8 of an interview with him in 2004 at
| https://slashdot.org/story/04/10/20/1518217/neal-stephenson-...
| His responses to the other questions are entertaining and worth
| a read as well.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| hehe this has become my favorite saying lately for computers
| 'do what I want, not what I told you to do!' computers have a
| lovely way of merrily going along and breaking things at a
| fairly fast pace.
| prepend wrote:
| Lately I find myself saying "do what I told you to do, not
| what you think I want to do"
|
| Mainly this is due to the autocorrect, autocomplete on most
| devices nowawadys. I'm sure it's very helpful, but I seem to
| notice the mistakes more than the successes. (Eg, trying to
| type "nowadays," I had to break out of typing on my iPhone 3
| times to backspace and stop it from changing it to other
| words and expressions)
| sumtechguy wrote:
| hehe that is awesome it is opposite of mine but also so
| true! I turned off autocorrect on my phone. Suggest is
| fine, but just changing it... not so much.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Many CLI tools have a dry run option for expensive
| (time/resource wise) or risky commands (one way, irreversible
| or reversible only with a lot of effort). It would be
| interesting to see this become the default for some of them,
| with a separate flag `--now-i-mean-it` to actually execute.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| I wish more tools had the option of dry run. Been using it
| with ansible quite bit in the past few weeks. Look ma I can
| mess up 50 computers all at once!
| prepend wrote:
| I've spent so much time with rsync's -n (I think it
| supports ---dry-run as well).
| stainforth wrote:
| Shouldn't dry run be the default and the "prod" run be
| requiring adding the switch
| kmeisthax wrote:
| "In other words, the first thing that Apple's hackers had done
| when they'd got the MacOS up and running--probably even before
| they'd gotten it up and running--was to re-create the Unix
| interface, so that they would be able to get some useful work
| done. At the time, I simply couldn't get my mind around this,
| but: as far as Apple's hackers were concerned, the Mac's vaunted
| Graphical User Interface was an impediment, something to be
| circumvented before the little toaster even came out onto the
| market. "
|
| This is Unix revisionism. Most of the early development of the
| Macintosh is documented on folklore.org and they certainly didn't
| rebuild Unix to fit on a Mac. They bootstrapped the Macintosh
| using the Lisa development environment, which itself was
| bootstrapped with Apple ][s. Unix was far too large and unwieldy
| for microcomputer hardware of the time, and Apple didn't have a
| license for it anyway. There's plenty of stories of
| early/hobbyist Mac buyers realizing their $2k computer had no
| development tools, calling up Apple, and being told that they'd
| need to buy $10k Lisa machines if they wanted to do real app
| development. MPW didn't come out until 2 years later.
|
| (If you just wanted an easy-to-use development environment, Apple
| HAD worked on a GUI-capable BASIC for the Macintosh. But Bill
| Gates got wind of this and refused to renew their Apple ][ BASIC
| license unless they canned the project. Since no BASIC license
| meant no more Apple ][s, Apple caved, and the version of BASIC
| that Microsoft did ship on the Mac had no GUI support whatsoever.
| They would eventually ship Hypercard three years later, of
| course.)
| arexxbifs wrote:
| > This is Unix revisionism (...) they certainly didn't rebuild
| Unix to fit on a Mac
|
| I think you're reading too much into this.
|
| MPW, which was made and used by Apple developers and sold by
| Apple, featured a command line interface, which the Mac
| otherwise didn't have. They implemented this because a command
| line interface is a powerful tool when working with software
| development and most developers know this and will eventually
| want one. That's what Stephenson is saying here.
|
| The Lisa Workshop, which was used for software development on
| the Lisa, was also a text-based interface.
|
| > Unix was far too large and unwieldy for microcomputer
| hardware of the time
|
| No it wasn't. Xenix was released for the Lisa in 1984.
| okareaman wrote:
| I loved MPW back in the day but I was an outlier compared to
| my other Mac developer friends
| WalterBright wrote:
| I'm a bit surprised. BASIC is not that hard to implement. Apple
| could make their own.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| The folklore article in a sibling comment to yours clarifies
| it a bit. Apple did make their own, but it wasn't running on
| the Apple ][ or compatible with what was running on it. That
| was still their biggest revenue stream, and they couldn't
| afford MS withholding a license for BASIC on it or
| fragmenting the community (two versions of BASIC on the same
| platform depending on date of purchase). So they made a
| pragmatic choice to avoid getting screwed by MS, who went and
| did what they always did (especially back then): screwed them
| anyways.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Simply starting a credible project to do their own could
| have cause Microsoft to soften its terms.
|
| As for a different version of BASIC, nothing stopped Apple
| from making a work-a-like BASIC. After all, that's how the
| Compaq was made, and plenty of other work-a-likes.
|
| From a modern point of view, the software in those days
| looks pretty simple. I'm surprised there weren't a lot more
| clones.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| I can only take the folklore article as accurate here,
| but it seems that it boiled down to timing and cost. They
| probably could've done it, but their existing BASIC
| project had already taken a couple years. If they'd
| elected to replace MS's BASIC implementation with their
| own, they'd have had a year or so to get it done. And
| failure would've been very costly.
|
| Corporate risk tolerance comes into play at that point.
| jonsen wrote:
| > Unix was far too large and unwieldy for microcomputer
| hardware of the time
|
| "UniFLEX was very similar to Unix Version 7":
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UniFLEX
| enriquto wrote:
| > Unix was far too large and unwieldy for microcomputer
| hardware of the time,
|
| I think that the article means that they implemented a unix-
| like command line, but not a full, posixly-compliant unix.
| Justh a mock sh and a handful of text-based utilities to be
| able to work in. At least this is how I read this paragraph.
| isx726552 wrote:
| The story of Mac Basic getting canceled is indeed a terribly
| sad moment in Mac history, documented here:
|
| https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=MacBasic.txt
| Stierlitz wrote:
| "But around the same time, Bill Gates and Paul Allen came up with
| an idea even stranger and more fantastical: selling computer
| operating systems"
|
| This article must be coming from some parallel universe. As I
| recall how Micro-Soft got a contract from IBM to supply an OS for
| their low-spec personal computer. They didn't have one, so Micro-
| Soft bought-in 86-DOS from Seattle Computer Products, using the
| IBM money to pay for it up front. Rather than buy it outright,
| Microsoft persuaded IBM to license a copy of DOS for each IBM PC
| sold. Later on with 'Columbia Data Products', Compaq and other,
| figuring-out how to clone the PC without paying IBM, Microsoft
| was more than happy to license DOS to them.
|
| "Columbia_Data_Products"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Data_Products
|
| "Joint Development Agreement between International Business
| Machines Corporation and Microsoft Corporation"
|
| "With respect to Phase I Output, to the extent such joint
| ownership is prevented by operation of law each party hereby
| grants to the other a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide and
| irrevocable license to use, execute, perform, reproduce, prepare
| or have prepared Derivative Works based upon display, and sell,
| lease or otherwize transfer of posession or ownership of copies
| of, the Phase I Output and/or any Derivative Works thereof."
|
| http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/0000...
| fit2rule wrote:
| MS-BASIC was an operating system that predated DOS.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Mirosoft was selling software (licenses) way before the IBM
| deal happened. That phrase is about BASIC.
| Someone wrote:
| I think that refers to
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists. If you
| could say microcomputers in the '70s had an OS, Basic was it.
| prepend wrote:
| The novelty was in selling individual licenses of operating
| systems rather than bundling them only with hardware. Computers
| has OSes, and of course they were bought and sold among
| companies, but they were included with computer purchases.
|
| So while IBM licensed with Microsoft to provide the OS (and MS
| just bought DOS from someone else), Microsoft sold the same OS
| to lots of others as well. And even as retail for upgrades and
| changes that didn't come from the hardware vendor.
|
| This is the same universe we're all in.
| jecel wrote:
| CP/M and UCSD-Pascal, two operating systems available for the
| IBM PC besides DOS, had already been sold to individual users
| for many years.
|
| Microsoft itself launched Xenix a year before the PC (August
| 1980).
| prepend wrote:
| I think like pretty much all of Microsoft, they didn't
| innovate by doing it first, they innovated by popularizing
| it.
|
| I can't find sales of CP/M and UCSD-Pascal, but I imagine
| they aren't what Microsoft started generating from their
| OS.
| walshemj wrote:
| Actually not DEC PDP's had multiple OS's and not all of them
| where bundled RT-11 vs RSX-11 or RSTS/E.
|
| You brought the system that suited we (as a Lab) ran RT-11.
| kordlessagain wrote:
| > Reagan would describe the scene as he saw it in his mind's eye:
| "The brawny left-hander steps out of the batter's box to wipe the
| sweat from his brow. The umpire steps forward to sweep the dirt
| from home plate." and so on.
|
| This continues to "blow my mind" people can do this. What a gift
| and possibly curse!
| lqet wrote:
| > When the cryptogram on the paper tape announced a base hit,
| [Reagan] would whack the edge of the table with a pencil,
| creating a little sound effect, and describe the arc of the
| ball as if he could actually see it. His listeners, many of
| whom presumably thought that Reagan was actually at the
| ballpark watching the game, would reconstruct the scene in
| their minds according to his descriptions.
| ddingus wrote:
| That is telepathy. Amazing use of language.
|
| Story telling in real time. Love it.
| jll29 wrote:
| Wow, a ~38k words essay about the command line.
| thewakalix wrote:
| It's about more than just the command line.
| dgritsko wrote:
| I take it you've not read Neal Stephenson before. I often
| describe him as someone who uses 1000 words where others would
| use 500 - but I love him for it; he's probably my favorite
| author.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| 2004 commentary reflecting developments in computing between the
| original writing and then:
|
| http://garote.bdmonkeys.net/commandline/index.html
|
| Written with Neal Stephenson's permission.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| > There was a competing bicycle dealership next door (Apple) that
| one day began selling motorized vehicles--expensive but
| attractively styled cars with their innards hermetically sealed,
| so that how they worked was something of a mystery.
|
| In retrospect, I think Neal was referring to a specific aspect of
| Apple's products when writing 'hermetically sealed', but I view
| almost any Apple product, as a whole, that way. (Apple doesn't
| want you to service them yourself, or know how the software
| works.) Even after 20 years, some things never change.
| prepend wrote:
| I love this essay. I've been hoping that Stephenson would rewrite
| it with 20 years of updates.
|
| It describes the landscape better than anything else I've found
| as Stephenson is a user and a great writer, I think. Most other
| accounts are by people who make their living in journalism, or
| hardware, or software.
|
| Stephenson is also an example of someone who is really into
| computers, and programming I suspect, but has a primary goal of
| writing. I like when non-programmers program (eg Jake VanderPlas
| [0] wrote chunks of scypi even though he's an astronomer, even
| though he works as a programmer now).
|
| [0] http://vanderplas.com/media/pdfs/CV.pdf
| bityard wrote:
| If you like programmers who write fiction, you might also be
| interested to know that Mark Russinovich (of Windows
| Sysinternals fame) writes tech thriller novels.
|
| (I haven't read them but they have been well-received.)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-11-05 23:00 UTC)