C.R.US.T.Y.a.k.a. 'Consoles 'r us- thank you!'Tools for Travelers to the TextyverseThere are many excellent console-based tools and CRUSTY packages lots of them together into one convenient make file that includes config files, installers, tools
... [More]
and tips to make best use of:
svn w3m screen snownews midnight commander emacs, vim, or even nano (if you are so inclined) bash On install, CRUSTY's files are placed under $(DESTDIR)/opt/crusty/xyz
so its easy to uninstall CRUSTY. Not currently included, but coming soon, is support for:
script-based XML tools dot mutt latex gnuplot procmail Good old-fashioned UNIX text processing languages like m4, gawk, etc And all those other neat tools for text mode.
Why CRUSTY?But why travel to the textyverse? Well, maybe you never left it:
Despite decades of construction of more elaborate tools, 80% of the documents in most organizations aren't organized any better than plain old text files. So, reality check, we already live in the textyverse. And that's a very good thing:
text is configurable : automation is possible as per your requirements (use of Perl/ Ruby/ Rexx/ Python/ Gawk/ shell scripting/ etc/ etc) text is inter-operable : look at the amazing success of XML and RSS; text works anywhere : with an xterm or putty, you can rule the world from at any coffee shop or trailer park; text is accessible : to folks with visual impairment. text tools are mature : midnight commander, emacs, vim, screen, all those wonderful UNIX version control tools, etc etc etc; text is fast : using commands from command line is faster than gui-ing. low bandwidth, roars down those internet pipes into, say, PDAs- which can be crucial in crisis situations; best of all, text looks so dull : so no one pollutes the textyverse with garish eye-candy (read pop-up ads) so no brain decay (but it may cause cancer of the semi-colon).
Too Many MetaphorsAnd we aren't the only ones to sing the praises of the textyverse. Neil Stephenson argues in 'In the beginning was the command line' that:
By doing everything with GUIs rather than simply words, we are limiting ourselves. Working at command line level --working with words -- is completely different from working with GUIs, and Stephenson is concerned with what is lost in the transition. When we are buying a GUI-focussed operating system: What we're really buying is a system of metaphors. And -- much more important -- what we're buying into is the underlying assumption that metaphors are a good way to deal with the world.
To be sure, there are limits to Stephenson's argument:
Ultimately, there is no escape from metaphors. What we see and do is constrained by the tools used to look and touch. And those tools have their own ghosts: e.g. The UNIX textyverse is governed but its own metaphors in particular: pipe-and-filter. From a usability perspective, many users would thank you for... Building them a simple environment that succinctly supports their standard work cliches.
Of course our GUI metaphors are more restrictive than the textyverse... We've only been using them for a decade or three. We should not stop research into fledging ideas like the guiverse... ...Merely because other paradigms are centuries older and have more productive tools The Dizzy Heights of TextyverseWhat is true is that it is much harder to program the guiverse than the textyverse.
Sure, the textyverse learning curve can be shallow (takes a long time to reach a high level of expertise) But the learning curve goes much higher in the textyverse than the guiverse And don't give me no grief about intensive visual environments being inherently more productive than the textyverse. Bah! Humbug! Yes, the guiverse is more motivating for beginers. But the guiverse isn't necessarily more productive for power users. For example,
The UNIX metaphors encourage the rapid construction of ensembles of tools not monolithic packages but large libraries of tiny tools that can be quickly wired together to perform novel tasks And those ensembles can create a different user environment that support a very different style of inter-action So the UNIX metaphors let you quickly define and deploy new metaphaors Something that is very hard to do given the strict rules and restrictions of the guiverse's padded playground. For another example,
In the guiverse we can only see specific instances (e.g. a directory called 'home'). But in the textyverse we can build abstractions (e.g. replace a specific concept like 'tim' with 'x of type person'). Then we can write functions that work for all 'person's, not just 'tim'. So in textyverse we can reason about abstractions, and abstractions about abstractions and abstractions about abstractions about... (Help! Blacking out! Not enough oxygen up here!)
Its time for my pill now
Sure, the above is a little close to the edge and OTT and but, heh, it was fun to write.
And what would have happened, I wonder, if Jobs and Gates had taken that wrong turn at Albuquerque, missed Xerox PARC, and ended up in Bell Labs in the 1990s. Would everyone be using Acme instead of the guiverse?
Anyway...
Getting CRUSTY Install Get a gmail address; e.g. your.name@gmail.com mkdir $HOME/svns cd $HOME/svns svn checkout https://crusty.googlecode.com/svn/ crusty --username your.name cd crusty/trunk && make && make install . ~/.bash_profile . ~/.bashrc Enter screen and enjoy your travels to the textyverse.
,:
,' |
/ :
--' /
\/ />/
/ [Less]
emacs (1)
svn (1)
unix (1)
vi (1)
programming (1)
syntax_highlighting (1)
nano (1)
midnightcommander (1)
text_editors (1)
screen (1)
w3m (1)
text_editor (1)
