4 ms·

"GUIs and "UX" are generally antithetical to making a computer do what it does best (automate things instead of creating more busywork)." Except for helping th

"GUIs and "UX" are generally antithetical to making a computer do what it does best (automate things instead of creating more busywork)." Except for helping the 6 or so billion people in their daily lives, but hey, the iPhone would be 'better' if it just had 'bash'? Read your email lately from bash? Didn't think so!

terminalcommand 10y ago
Bash is what I miss in iOS, I used to jailbreak just for getting a shell. Now, I use pythonista as a python-shell. Being able to chain a couple of commands and fix a good-enough solution saves a lot of time in many cases such as web scraping on-the-go. I know this may be an extreme use case, but if iPad is going to be a laptop replacement we need to be able to get a way to speak with it without immidiate access to a laptop.
croon 10y ago
False equivalence. We wouldn't have billions of users if there were no other agents than users. You can't create an iphone using an iphone.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "False equivalence. We wouldn't have billions of users if there were no other agents than users. You can't create an iphone using an iphone." It's not a false equivalence at all. The necessity of lower-level technology in the creation of higher-level technology does not imply that the lower-level technology is somehow 'better' or 'superior'. You are using a UX right now to read and respond to this. It's crazy to posit that 'UXs are inferior'. Positively wrong. In the vast majority of cases, UX's are superior to shells. Maps, news, social media, browsing/buying things, listening to music, making music, photo editing - there are actually very few use-cases wherein the shell is advantageous. Even emacs is a UX of sorts.
  - croon 10y ago
    Well, first off: I didn't claim that "UXs are inferior", whatever that means. Every interface is a UX. I assume from context you're talking about polished GUI:s. GUI:s are superior for the specific (limited) use cases they are designed for, inherently since they were designed to excel at those use cases. They are however less optimal when you want to diverge from those use cases and create something new. This is where malleability/modability comes in, and where CLI:s, bash, scripting, programming comes in, and you can't use limited-scope apps for that. All tools are best at what they were designed for, I agree with you there. I'm however not sure how I in your mind was wrong before. The two are intrinsically bound, but it's undeniable that apps can't exist without tools, but tools sure can exist without apps.
king_phil 10y ago
Not with bash but with less :-P

terminalcommand 10y ago

Bash is what I miss in iOS, I used to jailbreak just for getting a shell. Now, I use pythonista as a python-shell. Being able to chain a couple of commands and fix a good-enough solution saves a lot of time in many cases such as web scraping on-the-go. I know this may be an extreme use case, but if iPad is going to be a laptop replacement we need to be able to get a way to speak with it without immidiate access to a laptop.

croon 10y ago

False equivalence. We wouldn't have billions of users if there were no other agents than users. You can't create an iphone using an iphone.

jomamaxx 10y ago
"False equivalence. We wouldn't have billions of users if there were no other agents than users. You can't create an iphone using an iphone." It's not a false equivalence at all. The necessity of lower-level technology in the creation of higher-level technology does not imply that the lower-level technology is somehow 'better' or 'superior'. You are using a UX right now to read and respond to this. It's crazy to posit that 'UXs are inferior'. Positively wrong. In the vast majority of cases, UX's are superior to shells. Maps, news, social media, browsing/buying things, listening to music, making music, photo editing - there are actually very few use-cases wherein the shell is advantageous. Even emacs is a UX of sorts.
- croon 10y ago
  Well, first off: I didn't claim that "UXs are inferior", whatever that means. Every interface is a UX. I assume from context you're talking about polished GUI:s. GUI:s are superior for the specific (limited) use cases they are designed for, inherently since they were designed to excel at those use cases. They are however less optimal when you want to diverge from those use cases and create something new. This is where malleability/modability comes in, and where CLI:s, bash, scripting, programming comes in, and you can't use limited-scope apps for that. All tools are best at what they were designed for, I agree with you there. I'm however not sure how I in your mind was wrong before. The two are intrinsically bound, but it's undeniable that apps can't exist without tools, but tools sure can exist without apps.

king_phil 10y ago

Not with bash but with less :-P