nospam
In article <87k3fpl6cb.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>wrote:

J. Clarke
(1) Since a Mac is a unix box, shell scripts should work fine on it. (2) Powershell on Windows gives just as much control as any Unix shell, possibly more so.

Floyd L. Davidson
That would be true if the tradition UNIX interface had been maintained.

nospam
it has. what ever gave you the idea it wasn't????

Floyd L. Davidson
But an icon based desktop requires a very different arrangement for user files and projects.

nospam
nope. where do you come up with this shit?

Floyd L. Davidson
While the shell is there, it is not nearly as effective to use.

nospam
nonsense. you can do the exact same stuff in a shell and even in the exact same way with the same scripts.

in fact, you can even boot directly into a shell, skipping the gui entirely.

maybe if you weren't so ignorant about things you've never used, you'd not say such stupid things.

Floyd L. Davidson
And example would be that if you click on the desktop icon to invoke a text editor (or an image editor), it comes up with the same working directory every single time.

nospam
nope.

gui apps don't actually have a working directory at all. it's not needed.

they create a temporary document which can be saved wherever the user wants, assuming the app is document based. not all are. some manage storage automatically so the user doesn't have to.

Floyd L. Davidson
It reads and writes to the same set of directories every time.

nospam
nope.

Floyd L. Davidson
And any subshell invoked will inherit the same environment.

nospam
nope. shells work the same way in mac os x as they do in linux.

Floyd L. Davidson
Chaining filters together with pipes requires effort to use correctly.

nospam
no more than on any other unix system.

gui apps can also be linked with minimal effort (although there's rarely any need to do so).

Floyd L. Davidson
The problems are just downright inconvenient. While the simplified icon interface is then attractive, even if it is not particularly efficient.

nospam
the problems are purely a fabrication of your own imagination. they do not exist.

J. Clarke
But the fact is that most photographers want to take and process pictures, not develop programming proficiency.

Floyd L. Davidson
Most, yes... but those who are determined to do what it takes to produce a better work product either learn programming or hire programmers. That may seem odd, but I'll point out that for at least 50 years every engineer has been taking programming courses.

You want to be an architech, you learn programming. You want to design bridges, you learn programming.

nospam
architects take programming courses??

what apps have they written?

Floyd L. Davidson
I'll give you a hint: if you really want to learn photography today, and in particular digital photography, you need to learn at least some programming. And the more programming you learn the better your work product will be.

nospam
not if your work has little to nothing to do with programming.

the best thing someone can do to learn photography is work with an accomplished photographer and/or shoot lots of photos and practice.

knowing how to program won't make any difference in making more compelling images.

Floyd L. Davidson
It isn't for everyone, or maybe even most. It's a requirement for the best.

nospam
nonsense.

those producing the best work are using macs or windows systems because that's where the best tools are.