> I submit to you that if our command-line environment weren't
> still using 1980s technology to emulate 1970s hardware, we
> would have more graphical and unified documentation.
I think two factors are responsible for that:
1. In the sixties and seventies, computing was largely
experimental. There were no penalties for trying
something different. (Take a look at termcap/terminfo
to see how many different terminals alone existed.)
Now it's different. We have much more invested in
workflows/training/programs. Companies *depend* on that.
It's not easy to switch anymore. (You see how much flak
Microsoft is getting for having the guts to redesign the
interface in a more fundamental way than simply adding
eye candy.)
2. What we have works well enough. Combined with the above,
there's no *need* to change much. Fashions change,
but the overall structure stays. Cars mostly have four
wheels, just like they did fifty years ago. It's simply an
adequate design that's a good compromise between technical
and economic constraints.
>In other words, the terminal is the problem.
I disagree. The terminal does what is was designed for,
and does it well. If that is sufficient for the task, then
is not a problem. Problems (real or perceived) bring about
new solutions, e.g., the web/hypertext or PDF.
