While browsing today, I found this. This has nothing to do with Perl and may not even apply to today's world, but I think that some Monks may find it at least slightly amusing:

The Holy War: Mac vs. DOS

By Umberto Eco

The following excerpts are from an English translation of Umberto Eco's back-page column, La bustina di Minerva, in the Italian news weekly Espresso, September 30, 1994.

Insufficient consideration has been given to the new underground religious war which is modifying the modern world. It's an old idea of mine, but I find that whenever I tell people about it they immediately agree with me.

The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers. I am firmly of the opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant. Indeed, the Macintosh is counter-reformist and has been influenced by the 'ratio studiorum' of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory, it tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to reach--if not the Kingdom of Heaven--the moment in which their document is printed. It is catechistic: the essence of revelation is dealt with via simple formulae and sumptuous icons. Everyone has a right to salvation.

DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free interpretation of scripture, demands difficult personal decisions, imposes a subtle hermeneutics upon the user, and takes for granted the idea that not all can reach salvation. To make the system work you need to interpret the program yourself: a long way from the baroque community of revellers, the user is closed within the loneliness of his own inner torment.

You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe has come to resemble more closely the counter-reformist tolerance of the Macintosh. It's true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism, big ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre decisions; when it comes down to it, you can decide to allow women and gays to be ministers if you want to.

And machine code, which lies beneath both systems (or environments, if you prefer)? Ah, that is to do with the Old Testament, and is talmudic and cabalistic.

I my opinion, just stick to Linux.

Zenon Zabinski | zdog | zdog7@hotmail.com

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: The Holy War
by maverick (Curate) on Aug 09, 2000 at 19:35 UTC
    So, that makes those who use BSD 'daemon' worshipers? :)

    /\/\averick

[reply]
RE: The Holy War
by grackle (Acolyte) on Aug 10, 2000 at 04:59 UTC
    Now that I'm a Linux/Unix user the idea of a DOS vs. Mac war strikes me as odd, but my memory belies this reaction. I was a kid in the eighties and talked my parents into buying a personal computer. My mother had taken a few CS classes in which she had used Apple II's and IIe's, which she simply thought of as a step up from punch cards. Apple II computers were the educational standard, she was getting a teaching degree, and I was a child (and hence more in need of education than other folks); therefore, we got an Apple IIgs. We spent many years reading Apple magazines, using Apple software, and reading books written for Apple users. I even programmed in Applesoft BASIC, so I can trace my programming problems to early childhood. (Unfortunately, all of my other problems seem to be my own fault :-)

    Anyway, I read over and over again -- over and over and over and over . ('and over')x$ad_nauseam that IBM's (aka PCs or IBM-compatibles) were difficult to use, poorly designed, and slow, and the software available for these machines was bug-ridden, all for business, and much more difficult to use than the available software for the Apple II. If you didn't count the thousands of redundant accounting and business programs, there was supposedly a much wider array of software available for the Apple II. The biggest point, an article of faith in the Apple II community, was that PCs were Difficult to Use.

    Nobody one person said all that; it was a tag team job. I never looked for any information about MS-DOS systems and software; the magazines devoted to Apple II systems and software teemed with little digs against "IBM-compatibles," framed as sober advice for the normal, plain-folks people who ought to accept a helping hand from the Apple II community instead of getting screwed by the heartless, sophisticated, and arrogant PC world. It sounded exactly like the advice Auntie Em would have given Dorothy if she had announced she was going to elope to New York City with a pimp.

    Later I discovered that the biggest difference between a so-called PC and an Apple II was that instead of swapping disks and rebooting to switch programs, you were supposed to "quit" one and "run" the other from the "command line."

    I always wondered what the "IBM" (i.e., MS-DOS) people said about the Apple II. I bet it sounded like a New Yorker talking about life in the Midwest. At least, that's the impression I got from a high-school pal who grew up with MS-DOS: "Oh, yeah, we knew the Apple II's existed and we knew they sucked. We didn't really care, though."

    All exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation.
    -- Bertrand Russell

[reply]
      Not that long ago, 6 or 7 years, my school computer lab was using AppleII's and at home I had an old IBM which was running MS-DOS (Both a little out of date). Anyway, I always preferred IBM's over AppleII's for the reason you mentioned above, that you had to reboot AppleII's.

      Later, with MacOS and Windows, I preferred Windows since you always had the option of using the DOS prompt (command line) instead of Windows itself, unlike with MacOS.

      Zenon Zabinski | zdog | zdog7@hotmail.com

[reply]
RE: The Holy War
by ivory (Pilgrim) on Aug 10, 2000 at 01:10 UTC
    Hmm...A bit off topic, but have you all seen the new G4 Cubes? They are really cool...but I really just can't own a Mac. Check them out

    Ivory

[reply]

Back to Meditations