Moore's Law, Interlude: On computers not bought
I graduated in grad school in ‘91, and was making real money. So why did I go five more years with a 386 DOS box?
Well, what would I have gotten? And why?
A Windows 3.1 box? Yuck. Amigas were pretty nice machines, but the platform was pretty clearly not going anywhere. A Linux box could have been fun, but I was somewhat soured on it by prior installation attempts.
By now, I’m sure there’s someone on the edge of his or her seat, waving a hand and shouting “I know! I know!” All right. Yes? Yes, you.
“The correct answer is a Macintosh!”
I have a strong verbal bias. I like command lines. I feel hamstrung by a system that forces use of a GUI to do everything.
And I don’t like being protected from myself.
The Hole Hawg is a drill made by the Milwaukee Tool Company. If you look in a typical hardware store you may find smaller Milwaukee drills but not the Hole Hawg, which is too powerful and too expensive for homeowners. The Hole Hawg does not have the pistol-like design of a cheap homeowner’s drill. It is a cube of solid metal with a handle sticking out of one face and a chuck mounted in another. The cube contains a disconcertingly potent electric motor. You can hold the handle and operate the trigger with your index finger, but unless you are exceptionally strong you cannot control the weight of the Hole Hawg with one hand; it is a two-hander all the way. In order to fight off the counter-torque of the Hole Hawg you use a separate handle (provided), which you screw into one side of the iron cube or the other depending on whether you are using your left or right hand to operate the trigger. This handle is not a sleek, ergonomically designed item as it would be in a homeowner’s drill. It is simply a foot-long chunk of regular galvanized pipe, threaded on one end, with a black rubber handle on the other. If you lose it, you just go to the local plumbing supply store and buy another chunk of pipe.During the Eighties I did some construction work. One day, another worker leaned a ladder against the outside of the building that we were putting up, climbed up to the second-story level, and used the Hole Hawg to drill a hole through the exterior wall. At some point, the drill bit caught in the wall. The Hole Hawg, following its one and only imperative, kept going. It spun the worker’s body around like a rag doll, causing him to knock his own ladder down. Fortunately he kept his grip on the Hole Hawg, which remained lodged in the wall, and he simply dangled from it and shouted for help until someone came along and reinstated the ladder.
I myself used a Hole Hawg to drill many holes through studs, which it did as a blender chops cabbage. I also used it to cut a few six-inch-diameter holes through an old lath-and-plaster ceiling. I chucked in a new hole saw, went up to the second story, reached down between the newly installed floor joists, and began to cut through the first-floor ceiling below. Where my homeowner’s drill had labored and whined to spin the huge bit around, and had stalled at the slightest obstruction, the Hole Hawg rotated with the stupid consistency of a spinning planet. When the hole saw seized up, the Hole Hawg spun itself and me around, and crushed one of my hands between the steel pipe handle and a joist, producing a few lacerations, each surrounded by a wide corona of deeply bruised flesh. It also bent the hole saw itself, though not so badly that I couldn’t use it. After a few such run-ins, when I got ready to use the Hole Hawg my heart actually began to pound with atavistic terror.
But I never blamed the Hole Hawg; I blamed myself. The Hole Hawg is dangerous because it does exactly what you tell it to. It is not bound by the physical limitations that are inherent in a cheap drill, and neither is it limited by safety interlocks that might be built into a homeowner’s product by a liability-conscious manufacturer. The danger lies not in the machine itself but in the user’s failure to envision the full consequences of the instructions he gives to it.
A smaller tool is dangerous too, but for a completely different reason: it tries to do what you tell it to, and fails in some way that is unpredictable and almost always undesirable. But the Hole Hawg is like the genie of the ancient fairy tales, who carries out his master’s instructions literally and precisely and with unlimited power, often with disastrous, unforeseen consequences.
Pre-Hole Hawg, I used to examine the drill selection in hardware stores with what I thought was a judicious eye, scorning the smaller low-end models and hefting the big expensive ones appreciatively, wishing I could afford one of them babies. Now I view them all with such contempt that I do not even consider them to be real drills—merely scaled-up toys designed to exploit the self-delusional tendencies of soft-handed homeowners who want to believe that they have purchased an actual tool. Their plastic casings, carefully designed and focus-group-tested to convey a feeling of solidity and power, seem disgustingly flimsy and cheap to me, and I am ashamed that I was ever bamboozled into buying such knicknacks.
It is not hard to imagine what the world would look like to someone who had been raised by contractors and who had never used any drill other than a Hole Hawg. Such a person, presented with the best and most expensive hardware-store drill, would not even recognize it as such. He might instead misidentify it as a child’s toy, or some kind of motorized screwdriver. If a salesperson or a deluded homeowner referred to it as a drill, he would laugh and tell them that they were mistaken—they simply had their terminology wrong. His interlocutor would go away irritated, and probably feeling rather defensive about his basement full of cheap, dangerous, flashy, colorful tools.
Unix is the Hole Hawg of operating systems, and Unix hackers, like Doug Barnes and the guy in the Dilbert cartoon and many of the other people who populate Silicon Valley, are like contractor’s sons who grew up using only Hole Hawgs. They might use Apple/Microsoft OSes to write letters, play video games, or balance their checkbooks, but they cannot really bring themselves to take these operating systems seriously.
And just about every experience I had with old MacOSes made Windows 95 or 98 look like paragons of stability. Particularly fun was the Mac I had on my desk for a while at work, that would routinely freeze up during system shutdown. Now, since the Mac designers were so thoughtful as to not include something so un-user-friendly as an off-switch, my choices were to either do a hardware reset, and reboot the system so that I could shut it down, or to pull the power plug.
Mac devotees have insisted that I only dealt with badly configured Macs or especially bad programs such that they crashed the OS. And unless Apple truly perfected brainwashing, or these people were all in deep denial due to their need to justify using a Mac, maybe this was the case. But my experience was consistent, and it was mine.
The current OS X machines, on the other hand, look very nice, and if I had money to burn, I’d probably have a G4 Powerbook .
On the other hand, most people have no need for a Hole Hawg. To say that anyone who has the need for a drill also has the need for a Hole Hawg would be fallacious. Think of how ridiculous it would be for most people to be carrying around too much gun like that. They would be a lot like people who own SUVs and Hummers but who live in the city- never using the vehicle on the terrain intended. A judicious contractor wouldn't expect people outside the trade to use a tool which went beyond their purposes (or fault them for their choice of alternate, more appropriate-to-their-need tools). Likewise, if most people have no use for a Unix operating system, it would be unfair to elevate Unix and its users at the expense of "lesser" OS's and those who use them. It seems to me that Mr. Stephenson has committed an act of pointless self-glorification.
Posted by K. on October 22 2003 05:03
Not that I disagree with YOU about old versions of the Mac OS. Disgraceful.
Posted by K. on October 22 2003 05:09
In response to K.'s comments: my opinion, at least back in the 80's and even a good way into the 90's, was that people who couldn't handle command-line operating systems shouldn't be using computers at all. The Macintosh was "The computer for the rest of us", but "the rest of them" really didn't need computers for anything until the Internet became more widespread.
Now, I acknowledge that the Internet boom of the late 90's, to which I owe a lot of my own prosperity, would never have happened if the rabble hadn't been computer-capable (I'll stop short of the term "literate"). But it also ruined the Internet for those of us who were using it back when some brainpower was necessary to participate. Usenet became clogged with spam by the mid-90's, and less than ten years later, even e-mail isn't safe.
I'll freely admit that, when it comes to technology, I'm no democrat. I'm a hard core elitist reactionary who believes strongly in keeping power out of the hands of idiots.
Posted by Jimcat on October 22 2003 05:54
I don't think it's Stephenson's intention to suggest that the Hole Hawg is universally better than a power drill or that Unix is universally better than the MacOS or Windows, but, rather, to explain how people who cut their teeth on the one can have difficulty accepting the other as being much more than a toy... despite that a power drill would make a lot more sense than a Hole Hawg for any number of applications.
This comes out more in the essay as a whole -- it's not about comparing OSes so much as comparing the feelings of users of different OSes.
Posted by Zed on October 22 2003 08:19
Well, I cut my teeth typing Basic into an Atari 800XL, but I'm sure I don't have the chops to join Jimcat's club. I must confess I don't understand his philosophy that well. Many, if not most, technologies are developed to be sold. If you sell them, idiots will buy the resulting products alongside everyone else. In fact, since idiots outnumber non-idiots by a shocking factor, one has to admit that the technologies we revel in are mostly made FOR the consumption of idiots. Who would pay for their development without public, commercial applications in mind? Only the military. Or maybe I'm taking all of this too seriously.
Posted by K. on October 22 2003 09:25
I just finished reading the whole Stephenson article. Quite well written and makes a lot of good points, although my eyes glazed over in a couple of sections. But it was a good examination of the relative philosophies of Microsoft, Apple, and the Linux community, and as a bonus, I now understand just what BeOS is.
Once again in response to K., if I'm being intellectually honest I know that my techno-elitism is an unrealizable ideal. All technology becomes cheap only when it's salable to the mass market. And I actually rank myself near the bottom of the knowledge ladder in computing. I'm a long way from being a Unix guru, and to call myself a programmer would be nothing short of lying. If it weren't for all the yahoos who've been shelling out scads of money on computer hardware and software for the past three decades, then my nice high-paying job either wouldn't exist, or would be filled by someone with a lot more expertise than I have.
But that doesn't stop me from complaining about how the yahoos have ruined the Internet at the same time that they made it possible in the first place. (For that matter, little short of total cessation of biological function could stop me from complaining about something.) It's like the mass-production of automobiles. Sure, it was wonderful that every working Joe could afford one, and it got rid of all the horse manure in the streets. But when every working Joe (and Jane) did have one, they all wound up stuck in traffic jams and breathing carbon monoxide. And the few folks who had cars before the highways filled up couldn't go on the solitary, uninterrupted drives they'd been used to.
Now you're getting the idea, but isn't it fun anyway?
Posted by Jimcat on October 22 2003 11:03