> 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.