No, I'm saying prove your counter claim. As in, define what you're saying. Because, at this point, I can't tell what you're trying to say. I'm smooshing consoles, ssh and terminals and they're unrelated, except, according to multiple sources online, they are all terminals. A VT100 was the most advance technology for it's time so it's not simple, but, by that logic, the bow I make with a stick and string is advanced because it was the pinnacle of technology for it's time. Terminals don't have to be simple if you use a fancy terminal emulator. Except by saying you NEED to use a fancy terminal emulator to make it NOT simple means that without the fancy terminal emulator, it's simple.

As for proving my claim. I did. I have been doing it. I've cited examples, pulled online sources. And so far your counter claims is "Nun-uh" and "educate yourself." So the ball is in your court. I've provided all that. Here's the thing. I don't need prove it to you. You're not the intended audience. I'm here trying to prove it to everyone else. Especially other readers that might be, like a younger version of me, trying to read slashdot to educate themselves. Haven't you noticed that no one else is running to your rescue or backing you up? On argumentative Slashdot comments? No one else is saying my statement is false? Rather the opposite, I got modded up for my statement. And you didn't.

I know I'll never be able prove anything to you. Anyone that says "No, I don't need to prove my statement. Everything I say is fact and you need to prove to me otherwise." Is a bad faith actor. Like, can you imagine that as a court argument? "My defendant is not a murderer. It's established fact. You're uneducated for thinking otherwise." Getting disbarred is the least of the punishment for that. But since you asked for yet more proof. Here they are:
Wikpedia:

So shells, like bash and console are terminals. Terminals can be dumb, aka, simple.

So, everything I've said so far about what makes a terminal is correct. I didn't confuse console with terminals because console ARE terminals. The first 3 searches on "what is a computer terminal"

https://ecomputertips.com/comp...

https://www.computerhope.com/j...

And here's the thing. I've said my statement and I've provided my proof to my claims already. It's literally your turn. Because I could very well take your stance and go. "no, that's your job. If you are going to have strong opinions about something, then you ought to educate yourself beforehand." Or "These things are pretty well defined already. I'm amused that you are prepared to hold forth at great length and high volume when have just admitted yuou don't even understand what you're talking about."(again, keep in mind. a) I have provided proof and argument, hence the great length and high volume, by your own admission. b) I DO know what I'm talking about and it looks like, according to the rest of the world, you don't.)

So, I'm LITERALLY cutting you some slack and extending the olive branch by asking, what is *your* definition of a terminal? (because it certainly doesn't fit the rest of the world's.) And what is your definition of "not simple"? (because that is a legitimate argument.)

I did. I double checked the definitions and I'm right and you're wrong. You're the one that came to my post and said I'm wrong. The burden of proof is on you.

Okay, so educate me. If they're so well defined, what is it? It should be a simple task to define what they are, right?

And you're moving the goal post.

Me:

You:

Are you saying a video terminal isn't a terminal?
Nothing you've written has proven that the point of a terminal isn't to be simple. Just "hey, things can be not be simple." But, as I've written before, just because something can be, doesn't mean that wasn't the point. I know serial lines still exist, but what I was talking about is that most routers have some sort of shell (zsh or ash or bash) installed. A lot of them you can turn on SSH. That's why some of them can be exploited and/or run *nix commands.

This literally proves my point. You can plug it into a complex terminal emulator, but you don't have to. You can do a simple, barebones terminal emulator and it still works because the point of it is to be simple.

I'm done. I've proven my point, you've proven my point. You're not even stating counter arguments or facts, just saying "things be not simple." Which, again, is like saying "Many people use cars to live in or have s*x in and some even have a bar inside! Therefore the car's point *isn't* transportation."

If you want to continue having this conversation, try setting some definitions as to what you consider a terminal vs. console vs. whatever else. Also what you consider complex and what you consider simple. Set some standards and boundaries instead of naming things within a topic range like an AI bot. And if you can't set those definitions then... well... I'm pretty sure you don't really have any expertise to say one way or another.

If I'm wrong, I'm eager to learn. But just by going "nuh-uh. Other things exist." doesn't help anyone.

So you've never ctrl+shift+F1 when your windowing system fails? Never ssh'ed or telnet into a remote box that you didn't have physical access? Never booted directly into a terminal interface when drivers failed?

Primarily usage doesn't change the purpose of it. Look at XHR.

What do you consider low-level that still involved an OS? Last I recall, when your system fails enough, it boots into bash. Anything past that isn't an usable OS. Recoverable or fixable, maybe, but not usable. Like, when was the last time you operated a computer for day-to-day use in the low-level way of accessing machines that you talked about? When was the last time you operated a router by pressing a keyboard that directly interfaced with the hardware rather than interpreting it through an input layer?

Color:
https://lwn.net/Articles/75198...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

2022-1978 = 44 years ago, 44 > 30.

I was glad when unicode was finally supported being bilingual. But I doubt that's the type of improvement that the article author was talking about.

Look, I'm young compared to some of you guys, but I'm not that young. Even I worked with a mouse as a kid during the DOS days and that was 1991~1992. Which is > 30 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That's less a terminal upgrade and more a terminal emulator upgrade. You can't drag and drop drop if you're in pure bash.

You talked about many people. Define many. Because many is not most. Because if we're talking about purpose/point, then I'm right. If you're talking about niche things that some people use, then you're right and the article's wrong. In which, congrats, tell the author that. But most people that I know of doesn't download terminology. They just use whatever terminal emulator that comes stock with their OS. Because it's simple and it's all they need. It's like saying "Many people use cars to live in or have s*x in and some even have a bar inside! Therefore the car's point *isn't* transportation."

My point still stands. The point of terminals is to be simple. Yes, "simple" is relative. But I can confidently say that anything modernly graphical would be many times more complex than a terminal. And just because one can, doesn't mean one changes the initial purpose nor that one should.

You mean besides the fact that the article complains about it not being updated in 30 years, the myriads of comments here stating as such, my mentor teaching me *nix back in the day stating as such, it being a low-level tool if sh*t gets hairy and you don't have a lot of resources and/or the GUI/windowing system goes to sh*t and that you can run a terminal on the tiny OS's like the ones embedded into routers, raspberry pi's and/or arduino's and it's a lot less work to implement/create a terminal than a GUI or that if your machine fails?

I'm not a doctor, but I've often had to tell people "I know 3 languages and I write badly in all 3 of them." I'd like to see how it fares against my bad handwriting.

Isn't the point of terminals to be simple? Aren't all those features things you have GUI for? Because taking it one step further. Why bother typing lt? Why not just just click to show what's in a folder? Why cat an image file to see it? Why not just that popup to open the image to see it? Why type a filename when you can see it and click on it?
On the opposite side, try working with our hands on the keyboard and then having to move your hand away just to click on something instead of just typing a simple command for every command you do. It gets annoying very quickly and gains you very little.

Who is SoftwareArtist and why is that person trying to reinvent the GUI?

Fun fact, they didn't just steal from taxpayers during covid, they also frequently steal from their property renters regularly and then use that money to lobber the government to allow them to screw renters more!
Days like this makes me wonders why people in the US haven't brought out the guillotines yet.

I know these guys! They're the company founded by the person that help created the company that did that subprime mortgage thing in 2008 and then left to create Black Rock, which, when the subprime mortgage bubble burst, they bought up a bunch of cheap real estate so they can try to establish a monopoly. And then they created software to help their own and other land lords to fix rent prices and, in turn is also artificially inflating housing prices! I just heard about them in a podcast!
What did they say about the recession? (to which ridiculous rent prices might be a major contributing factor)

Except, in your example, it's the choice of A that causes the loss of B. Not B itself. Like let's replace A with steak and B with Pizza. You wouldn't say "Getting steak for dinner cost me pizza for dinner." You would say, "I chose steak over pizza for dinner." Now if A was "punching a your manager in the face" and B was "getting a promotion", you can say "Punching my manager in the face cost me my promotion." But even that's an oversimplification. because a) punching someone in the face doesn't automatically deny someone a promotion. And b) it's the burning of a bridge or the manager getting pissed off that cost you the promotion.
Merriam-webster has the top two definition as :
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
the amount or equivalent paid or charged for something
to require expenditure or payment

So unless B is an explicit requirement for A or direct relation to A where B has to be sacrificed (not just lost access to) in order for A to be obtained for exist, it's not really a cost.

Which brings in the context of the article. Nothing was paid or sacrificed because that something didn't and doesn't exist.

Again, I understand that this is vernacular. But my exact plead that we stop this type of saying/thinking. Losing one opportunity just because a choice is made is not a cost, unless somehow one opportunity sustains, maintains, is required of the other. A choice can require a cost, but it doesn't have to. So choices can be considered superset of things that require a cost, which, by definition is not the cost itself.

This is literally enticing FOMO. The point of the phrase is not to give up the current bird in your current hand for 2 in the bush. Unless the bush contains something that can kill you, which is out of scope for the phrase, yes, ignore the bush. That's the very point of the phrase.

s/ maintaining the company/ maintaining the building/
Sorry, I do have slight dyslexia.

Agreed. It can turn into overall loss or cost. But it itself is not. Like, in your example with uber, no one would say "The lack of riders in downtown has cost ex-uber drivers X amount of money this year!" They would say "The loans ex-uber drivers took to buy their cars costs X amount of money each year." In this case, any loans these real estate companies has taken out and/or the cost of maintaining the company cost them money. Not the potential lost revenue. You gain revenue to cover the costs. Whether the revenue is there or not, the cost still exists. So the lost revenue itself isn't costing something, it's the cost because... it's cost.

Can we collectively stop referring to lost potential revenue as "cost"? It seems like summary is saying that commercial real estate companies will lose estimated potential profit and the city will collect less taxes. But neither is, explicitly a "cost", as in, someone needs to pay something for something. As someone that learned English as a second language, I understood someone would say "cost" instead of "lost revenue" as a way to emphasize or exaggerate a point. But, realistically, not gaining something is not the same as a paying to gain or maintain something. Like if I bought a lottery ticket and didn't win, I wouldn't say, "Not winning the lottery cost me 10 million dollars." And industry not being able to gain as much profit is not as much a cause for concern as a city actively having to pay a large amount.

Okay. Just making sure you weren't posting it under the wrong post.