OSNews

I was impressed that Kevin Adams picked up our early release of THE within a day.

I have some replies for the questions and comments:

Better than the screenshots that tantalic asks for is to find a freind with a Mac and just try it. Static screenshots look like a bunch of text, with perhaps some letters highlighted.

Reading the manual or the spec gives a better idea, but trying it is best.

Zan Lynx says that the editor seems to be a lot like vi. That's a nice complimenet; when dealing with text you should not have to live a hand-to-mouse existence. But Lynx credits our design with having "separate editiong and command modes?" No way. We don't have modes. That's one of many details that makes THE more humane than vi (or emacs, which also has an incremental, though unfortunately modal, search).

I don't want to sound like I'm selling my book, but a lot of Lynx's (and others') comments would be answered if they'd read the spec, the manual, (those two are free) and my book (which states the principles behind the design. It _really_ helps to understand *why* and *how* earlier designs have failed us as humans.

Lynx's wish to have the undo log saved is a good one, and is exactly what our present system does. But Lynx says that every application should save and be able to view the Undo log. Check, except that we don't have applications (the idea of applications is a mistake inherited from the punch-card days).

Jeffery comments that THE is for geeks. It was the non-geeks who loved the Canon Cat, which had a partial and earlier version of this interface, so the evidence says otherwise. He also notes that standard GUIs will be around for a long time. That is also true, they'll hang on forever (we still have FORTRAN!). But fortunately it's not an either/or situation. There's room and need for both.

Calroth is right: you do need to get used to a new interface. Readers of this list are _very_ experienced with present methods, which makes you the hardest audience. And, as Calroth suspects, it works a lot more smoothly with the recommended keyboard. But it's not a "very smart typewriter...". Well, it depends on just how smart you mean, but you can program (so far, in Python, even changing the behavior of THE from inside THE), include pictures in documents, and do anything that any other OS can do. That's a pretty zippy typewriter.

rajan r points out a key property of THE: it is "far more productive." No known editor is as fast to use as the editing portions of THE.

m wants it on PCs. So do we. This is a volunteer effort, and we have a crew from around the world helping. Nobody is yet working on the PC port. Any takers out there?

Some correspondents confuse input media with the kind of interface details that THE embodies. Asking for voice input is one thing, asking exactly what you will say and how the system will respond is another. The design of THE applies to voice (or even direct mind) input.

With regard to patents, there is no restriction on using THE in any non-commercial way. But if you are making money using something I invented (as established by the existence of a patent and historical evidence), we should share the rewards. I think that's fair. The software is open source, and will remain so. Unlike Apple, it is my intent to license at reasonable rates, which for a penniless start up might be very cheap indeed (I _don't_ want to stifle creativity).

I appreciate the many supportive comments that were posted.

As for the history (what came from Xerox, what did I invent, what did others invent), that is a different matter. My website has an essay or two that discusses some of that. But I am far more interested in the future than in the past. I can say that the posted comments about what I wanted for the Mac and who did what are only partially correct.

Don Cox asks if the environment is just for text editing. No. It is for any use, including photoshop, CAD, and all. Even games. My book (sorry to mention it again) talks about how Photoshop could be made easier to learn and use via our approach, as Mr. Cox asks me to consider (that is, I already have).

The documents on the site have some substantial errors (such as saying that I was hired by Apple from Xerox PARC: I never worked at Xerox PARC) but in general are pretty accurate and worth reading. There is a detailed comparison of how PARC's products worked and what I invented for the Mac in an appendix to my book (maybe it _is_ worth reading -- if only to get some facts straight :-).

Stew asks about the Zooming portion of THE: it's coming along. Development takes time, unfortunately.

seaslug's comments are right on. Thanks. He or she groks THE.

Steven Smith asks, "Am I missing something, or is this just another text editor." I'd have to say that he's missing the whole thing. We started with text editing commands because we need them to write software. As we go along, we (and others) are adding commands that do other things computers are used for.

Jefferey claims that I hate mice. No, I hate having to reach for a mouse when I'm typing. Graphic input devices, such as the mouse, are *essential* for graphics. When you are using one, you should not have to reach for the keyboard. Each tool has its proper place. Using a mouse in text is as dumb as trying to do graphics from a keyboard.

As Calroth and Dissapointed note, many comments are from people who have not taken the time to understand THE and therefore attack their own guesses as to why and how it works.

I have taken the time to write specs, manuals, and a book to explain this work. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask people to look at the available material and maybe even try the software before commenting.

This note was written in THE, by the way. We eat our own dogfood. I gotta get back to building software...