spiffy terminals

[T. William Wells]

In article <9357 at smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn at brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
: This line of argumentation has been refuted already, but let's try
: again:  Why not supply your office workers with packing crates or
: even cardboard boxes instead of real office furniture?  Just think
: of the savings!

Why not provide them with packing crates if that will do the job and
they don't mind sitting on the crates?

Not everyone needs graphics. Or windows.  And if these cost more
then, for those who don't need them, the cost is not justifiable.
And may, by consuming resources that could be better spent elsewhere,
actually do damage.

For example, I have some back problems. They already cut into my
productivity; they may well cost me work time or prevent me from
working altogether.  For the difference in price between the cheapest
text terminals and the cheapest graphics terminals one can buy a very
good office chair.  Since money doesn't grow on trees, we must make
choices about what we buy.  What would you say about the office
manager who chose to buy me a spiffy new graphics terminal instead of
a spiffy new office chair?

---

This has been a most stupid discussion: the question of what kind of
terminal is appropriate hasn't got a damn thing to do with either C
or Unix and many of the arguments that have been brought forth have
been a discredit to their proponents.

Can we go back to hearing said proponents being their usual
informative and interesting selves? Or at least move the discussion
over to some more appropriate newsgroup? Like alt.flame?

---
Bill
{ uunet!proxftl | novavax } !twwells!bill