docs/unix-phil: unix-phil.ms comparison

comparison unix-phil.ms @ 61:733f4fb03071

a huge bunch of improvements of my wordings by Andrew Antle

author	meillo@marmaro.de
date	Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:44:15 +0200
parents	840cbc667009
children

comparison

equal deleted inserted replaced

-:9934520e19af
+:733f4fb03071
 It offers guidelines to achieve good quality and high gain for the effort spent.
 .H 1 "The Unix Philosophy
 .LP
-The origins of the Unix Philosophy were already introduced.
+The origins of the Unix Philosophy have already been introduced.
 This chapter explains the philosophy, oriented on Gancarz,
 .[
 gancarz
 unix philosophy
 .]
 and shows concrete examples of its application.
 .H 2 Pipes
 .LP
-Following are some examples to demonstrate how applied Unix Philosophy feels like.
+The following examples demonstrate how the Unix Philosophy is applied.
 Knowledge of using the Unix shell is assumed.
 .PP
 Counting the number of files in the current directory:
 .DS
 ls | wc -l
 Here, the list of files is filtered by
 .CW grep
 to remove all lines that contain ``foo''.
 The rest equals the previous example.
 .PP
-Finding the five largest entries in the current directory.
+Finding the five largest entries in the current directory:
 .DS
 du -s * | sort -nr | sed 5q
 .DE
 .CW "du -s *
 returns the recursively summed sizes of all files in the current directory
 .CW "sed 5q
 quits after it has printed the fifth line.
 .PP
 The presented command lines are examples of what Unix people would use
 to get the desired output.
-There are also other ways to get the same output.
+There are other ways to get the same output;
-It's a user's decision which way to go.
+it is the user's decision which way to go.
 .PP
 The examples show that many tasks on a Unix system
 are accomplished by combining several small programs.
-The connection between the single programs is denoted by the pipe operator `|'.
+The connection between the programs is denoted by the pipe operator `|'.
 .PP
 Pipes, and their extensive and easy use, are one of the great
 achievements of the Unix system.
-Pipes between programs have been possible in earlier operating systems,
+Pipes were possible in earlier operating systems,
-but it has never been a so central part of the concept.
+but never before have they been such a central part of the concept.
-When, in the early seventies, Doug McIlroy introduced pipes into the
+In the early seventies when Doug McIlroy introduced pipes into the
 Unix system,
 ``it was this concept and notation for linking several programs together
 that transformed Unix from a basic file-sharing system to an entirely new way of computing.''
 .[
 aughenbaugh
 unix oral history
 .]
 .PP
 Being able to specify pipelines in an easy way is,
-however, not enough by itself.
+however, not enough by itself;
-It is only one half.
+it is only one half.
 The other is the design of the programs that are used in the pipeline.
-They need interfaces that allow them to be used in such a way.
+They need interfaces that allow them to be used in this way.
 .H 2 "Interface design
 .LP
-Unix is, first of all, simple \(en Everything is a file.
+Unix is, first of all, simple \(en everything is a file.
 Files are sequences of bytes, without any special structure.
 Programs should be filters, which read a stream of bytes from standard input (stdin)
 and write a stream of bytes to standard output (stdout).
 If the files \fIare\fP sequences of bytes,
 and the programs \fIare\fP filters on byte streams,
 and thus a large set of different functions.
 This is leverage!
 If the programs are orthogonal to each other \(en the best case \(en
 then the set of different functions is greatest.
 .PP
-Programs can also have a separate control interface,
+Programs can also have a separate control interface
-besides their data interface.
+in addition to their data interface.
-The control interface is often called ``user interface'',
+The control interface is often called the ``user interface'',
 because it is usually designed to be used by humans.
-The Unix Philosophy discourages to assume the user to be human.
+The Unix Philosophy discourages the assumption that the user will be human.
 Interactive use of software is slow use of software,
 because the program waits for user input most of the time.
-Interactive software requires the user to be in front of the computer.
+Interactive software also requires the user to be in front of the computer,
-Interactive software occupy the user's attention while they are running.
+occupying his attention during usage.
 .PP
-Now to come back to the idea of combining several small programs,
+Now, back to the idea of combining several small programs
-to have a more specific function.
+to perform a more specific function:
-If these single tools would all be interactive,
+If these single tools were all interactive,
 how would the user control them?
-It is not only a problem to control several programs at once,
+It is not only a problem to control several programs at once
-if they run at the same time,
+if they run at the same time;
-it also very inefficient to have to control each of the single programs
+it is also very inefficient to have to control each program
-that are intended to act as one large program.
+when they are intended to act in concert.
-Hence, the Unix Philosophy discourages programs to demand interactive use.
+Hence, the Unix Philosophy discourages designing programs which demand
+interactive use.
 The behavior of programs should be defined at invocation.
 This is done by specifying arguments to the program call
 (command line switches).
-Gancarz discusses this topic as ``avoid captive user interfaces''.
+Gancarz discusses this topic as ``avoid[ing] captive user interfaces''.
 .[ [
 gancarz unix philosophy
 .], page 88 ff.]
 .PP
-Non-interactive use is, during development, also an advantage for testing.
+Non-interactive use is also an advantage for testing during development.
-Testing of interactive programs is much more complicated,
+Testing interactive programs is much more complicated
-than testing of non-interactive programs.
+than testing non-interactive counterparts.
 .H 2 "The toolchest approach
 .LP
 A toolchest is a set of tools.
-Instead of having one big tool for all tasks, one has many small tools,
+Instead of one big tool for all tasks, there are many small tools,
 each for one task.
-Difficult tasks are solved by combining several of the small, simple tools.
+Difficult tasks are solved by combining several small, simple tools.
 .PP
 The Unix toolchest \fIis\fP a set of small, (mostly) non-interactive programs
 that are filters on byte streams.
 They are, to a large extent, unrelated in their function.
 Hence, the Unix toolchest provides a large set of functions
 that can be accessed by combining the programs in the desired way.
 .PP
-There are also advantages for developing small toolchest programs.
+The act of software development benefits from small toolchest programs, too.
-It is easier and less error-prone to write small programs.
+Writing small programs is generally easier and less error-prone
-It is also easier and less error-prone to write a large set of small programs,
+than writing large programs.
-than to write one large program with all the functionality included.
+Hence, writing a large set of small programs is still easier and
-If the small programs are combinable, then they offer even a larger set
+less error-prone than writing one large program with all the
-of functions than the single large program.
+functionality included.
+If the small programs are combinable, then they offer even an even larger set
+of functions than the single monolithic program.
 Hence, one gets two advantages out of writing small, combinable programs:
 They are easier to write and they offer a greater set of functions through
 combination.
 .PP
-But there are also two main drawbacks of the toolchest approach.
+There are also two main drawbacks of the toolchest approach.
 First, one simple, standardized interface has to be sufficient.
 If one feels the need for more ``logic'' than a stream of bytes,
-then a different approach might be of need.
+then a different approach might be required.
-But it is also possible, that he just can not imagine a design where
+Also, a design where a stream of bytes is sufficient,
-a stream of bytes is sufficient.
+might not be conceivable.
 By becoming more familiar with the ``Unix style of thinking'',
 developers will more often and easier find simple designs where
 a stream of bytes is a sufficient interface.
 .PP
-The second drawback of a toolchest affects the users.
+The second drawback of the toolchest approach concerns the users.
-A toolchest is often more difficult to use.
+A toolchest is often more difficult to use because
-It is necessary to become familiar with each of the tools,
+it is necessary to become familiar with each tool and
-to be able to use the right one in a given situation.
+be able to choose and use the right one in any given situation.
-Additionally, one needs to combine the tools in a sensible way himself.
+Additionally, one needs to know how to combine the tools in a sensible way.
-This is like a sharp knife \(en it is a powerful tool in the hand of a
+The issue is similar to having a sharp knife \(en
-master, but of no good value in the hand of an unskilled.
+it is a powerful tool in the hand of a master,
-However, learning single, small tools of a toolchest is easier than
+but of no value in the hand of an unskilled person.
+However, learning single, small tools of a toolchest is often easier than
 learning a complex tool.
-And the user will already have a basic understanding of a yet unknown tool,
+The user will already have a basic understanding of an as yet unknown tool
 if the tools of a toolchest have a common, consistent style.
-He will be able to transfer knowledge over from one tool to another.
+He will be able to transfer knowledge of one tool to another.
 .PP
-Moreover, the second drawback can be removed to a large extent
+This second drawback can be removed to a large extent
 by adding wrappers around the basic tools.
-Novice users do not need to learn several tools, if a professional wraps
+Novice users do not need to learn several tools if a professional wraps
 complete command lines into a higher-level script.
 Note that the wrapper script still calls the small tools;
 it is just like a skin around them.
-No complexity is added this way.
+No complexity is added this way,
-But new programs can get created out of existing one with very low effort.
+but new programs can be created out of existing one with very little effort.
 .PP
 A wrapper script for finding the five largest entries in the current directory
-could look like this:
+might look like this:
 .DS
 #!/bin/sh
 du -s * | sort -nr | sed 5q
 .DE
-The script itself is just a text file that calls the command line,
+The script itself is just a text file that calls the commands
-which a professional user would type in directly.
+that a professional user would type in directly.
-It is probably worth to make the program flexible on the number of
+It is probably beneficial to make the program flexible in regard to
-entries it prints:
+the number of entries it prints:
 .DS
 #!/bin/sh
 num=5
 [ $# -eq 1 ] && num="$1"
 du -sh * | sort -nr | sed "${num}q"
 .DE
-This script acts like the one before, when called without an argument.
+This script acts like the one before when called without an argument,
-But one can also specify a numerical argument to define the number of lines to print.
+but the user can also specify a numerical argument to define the number
-One can surely imagine even more flexible versions, however,
+of lines to print.
-they will still relay on the external programs,
+One can surely imagine even more flexible versions;
-which do the actual work.
+however, they will still rely on the external programs
+which actually do the work.
 .H 2 "A powerful shell
 .LP
-The Unix shell provides the possibility to combine small programs into large ones.
+The Unix shell provides the ability to combine small programs into large ones.
-But a powerful shell is a great feature in other ways, too.
+But a powerful shell is a great feature in other ways, too;
-For instance by being scriptable.
+for instance, by being scriptable.
-Control statements are built into the shell.
+Control statements are built into the shell
-The functions, however, are the normal programs of the system.
+and the functions are the normal programs of the system.
-Thus, as the programs are already known,
+As the programs are already known,
 learning to program in the shell becomes easy.
 Using normal programs as functions in the shell programming language
 is only possible because they are small and combinable tools in a toolchest style.
 .PP
-The Unix shell encourages to write small scripts,
+The Unix shell encourages writing small scripts,
-by combining existing programs, because it is so easy to do.
+by combining existing programs because it is so easy to do.
 This is a great step towards automation.
 It is wonderful if the effort to automate a task equals the effort
 to do the task a second time by hand.
 If this holds,
 then the user will be happy to automate everything he does more than once.
 .PP
 Small programs that do one job well, standardized interfaces between them,
-a mechanism to combine parts to larger parts, and an easy way to automate tasks,
+a mechanism to combine parts to larger parts, and an easy way to automate tasks
-this will inevitably produce software leverage.
+will inevitably produce software leverage,
-Getting multiple times the benefit of an investment is a great offer.
+achieving multiple times the benefit of the initial investment.
 .PP
 The shell also encourages rapid prototyping.
 Many well known programs started as quickly hacked shell scripts,
-and turned into ``real'' programs, written in C, later.
+and turned into ``real'' programs later written in C.
-Building a prototype first, is a way to avoid the biggest problems
+Building a prototype first is a way to avoid the biggest problems
 in application development.
 Fred Brooks explains in ``No Silver Bullet'':
 .[
 brooks
 no silver bullet
 .], page 28 f.]
 .PP
 Prototyping is often seen as a first step in building software.
 This is, of course, good.
 However, the Unix Philosophy has an \fIadditional\fP perspective on prototyping:
-After having built the prototype, one might notice, that the prototype is already
+After having built the prototype, one might notice that the prototype is already
 \fIgood enough\fP.
-Hence, no reimplementation, in a more sophisticated programming language,
+Hence, no reimplementation in a more sophisticated programming language
 might be of need, at least for the moment.
 Maybe later, it might be necessary to rewrite the software, but not now.
 By delaying further work, one keeps the flexibility to react on
 changing requirements.
 Software parts that are not written will not miss the requirements.
+Well known is Gordon Bell's classic saying:
+``The cheapest, fastest, and most reliable components are those
+that aren't there.''
+.\" FIXME: ref?
 .H 2 "Worse is better
 .LP
 The Unix Philosophy aims for the 90% solution;
 others call it the ``Worse is better'' approach.
 Experience from real life projects shows:
 .PP
-(1) It is almost never possible to define the
+(1) It is almost impossible to define the
 requirements completely and correctly the first time.
 Hence one should not try to; one will fail anyway.
 .PP
 (2) Requirements change during time.
 Hence it is best to delay requirement-based design decisions as long as possible.
-Software should be small and flexible as long as possible
+Software should be small and flexible as long as possible in order
-to react on changing requirements.
+to react to changing requirements.
-Shell scripts, for example, are more easily adjusted as C programs.
+Shell scripts, for example, are more easily adjusted than C programs.
 .PP
 (3) Maintenance work is hard work.
 Hence, one should keep the amount of code as small as possible;
-it should just fulfill the \fIcurrent\fP requirements.
+it should only fulfill the \fIcurrent\fP requirements.
-Software parts that will be written in future,
+Software parts that will be written in the future
-do not need maintenance till then.
+do not need maintenance until that time.
 .PP
 See Brooks' ``The Mythical Man-Month'' for reference.
 .[ [
 brooks
 mythical man-month
 .PP
 Starting with a prototype in a scripting language has several advantages:
 .IP \(bu
 As the initial effort is low, one will likely start right away.
 .IP \(bu
-As working parts are available soon, the real requirements can get identified soon.
+Real requirements can be identified quickly since working parts are
+available sooner.
 .IP \(bu
 When software is usable and valuable, it gets used, and thus tested.
-Hence problems will be found at early stages of the development.
+This ensures that problems will be found in the early stages of development.
 .IP \(bu
-The prototype might be enough for the moment,
+The prototype might be enough for the moment;
-thus further work can get delayed to a time
+thus, further work can be delayed until a time
-when one knows better about the requirements and problems,
+when one knows about the requirements and problems more thoroughly.
-than now.
+.IP \(bu
-.IP \(bu
+Implementing only the parts that are actually needed at the moment
-Implementing now only the parts that are actually needed at the moment,
+introduces less programming and maintenance work.
-introduces fewer programming and maintenance work.
+.IP \(bu
-.IP \(bu
+If the situation changes such that the software is not needed anymore,
-If the global situation changes so that the software is not needed anymore,
+then less effort was spent on the project than it would have been
-then less effort was spent into the project, than it would have be
+if a different approach had been taken.
-when a different approach had been used.
 .H 2 "Upgrowth and survival of software
 .LP
-So far it was talked about \fIwriting\fP or \fIbuilding\fP software.
+So far, \fIwriting\fP or \fIbuilding\fP software has been discussed.
-Although these are just verbs, they do imply a specific view on the work process
+Although ``writing'' and ``building'' are just verbs,
-they describe.
+they do imply a specific view on the work process they describe.
-The better verb, however, is to \fIgrow\fP.
+A better verb would be to \fI``grow''\fP.
 Creating software in the sense of the Unix Philosophy is an incremental process.
-It starts with a first prototype, which evolves as requirements change.
+It starts with an initial prototype, which evolves as requirements change.
 A quickly hacked shell script might become a large, sophisticated,
 compiled program this way.
 Its lifetime begins with the initial prototype and ends when the software is not used anymore.
-While being alive it will get extended, rearranged, rebuilt.
+While alive, it will be extended, rearranged, rebuilt.
 Growing software matches the view that ``software is never finished. It is only released.''
 .[ [
 gancarz
 unix philosophy
 .], page 26]
 .PP
 Software can be seen as being controlled by evolutionary processes.
 Successful software is software that is used by many for a long time.
-This implies that the software is needed, useful, and better than alternatives.
+This implies that the software is necessary, useful, and better than the alternatives.
-Darwin talks about: ``The survival of the fittest.''
+Darwin describes ``the survival of the fittest.''
 .[
 darwin
 origin of species
 .]
-Transferred to software: The most successful software, is the fittest,
+In relation to software, the most successful software is the fittest;
-is the one that survives.
+the one that survives.
 (This may be at the level of one creature, or at the level of one species.)
 The fitness of software is affected mainly by four properties:
 portability of code, portability of data, range of usability, and reusability of parts.
 .PP
 (1)
-.I "Portability of code
+.I "``Portability of code''
-means, using high-level programming languages,
+means using high-level programming languages,
 sticking to the standard,
 .[ [
 kernighan pike
 practice of programming
 .], chapter\|8]
 and avoiding optimizations that introduce dependencies on specific hardware.
-Hardware has a much lower lifetime than software.
+Hardware has a much shorter lifespan than software.
-By chaining software to a specific hardware,
+By chaining software to specific hardware,
-its lifetime gets shortened to that of this hardware.
+its lifetime is limited to that of this hardware.
 In contrast, software should be easy to port \(en
 adaptation is the key to success.
 .PP
 (2)
-.I "Portability of data
+.I "``Portability of data''
 is best achieved by avoiding binary representations
-to store data, because binary representations differ from machine to machine.
+to store data, since binary representations differ from machine to machine.
 Textual representation is favored.
-Historically, \s-1ASCII\s0 was the charset of choice.
+Historically, \s-1ASCII\s0 was the character set of choice;
-For the future, \s-1UTF\s0-8 might be the better choice.
+for the future, \s-1UTF\s0-8 might be the better way forward.
 Important is that it is a plain text representation in a
-very common charset encoding.
+very common character set encoding.
 Apart from being able to transfer data between machines,
-readable data has the great advantage, that humans are able to directly
+readable data has the great advantage that humans are able to directly
 read and edit it with text editors and other tools from the Unix toolchest.
 .[ [
 gancarz
 unix philosophy
 .], page 56 ff.]
 .PP
 (3)
 A large
-.I "range of usability
+.I "``range of usability''
 ensures good adaptation, and thus good survival.
-It is a special distinction if software becomes used in fields of action,
+It is a special distinction when software becomes used in fields of endeavor,
-the original authors did never imagine.
+the original authors never imagined.
 Software that solves problems in a general way will likely be used
 for many kinds of similar problems.
 Being too specific limits the range of usability.
 Requirements change through time, thus use cases change or even vanish.
-As a good example in this point,
+As a good example of this point,
 Allman identifies flexibility to be one major reason for sendmail's success:
 .[
 allman
 sendmail
 .]
 to a rapidly changing world [...].
 .LP
 Successful software adapts itself to the changing world.
 .PP
 (4)
-.I "Reuse of parts
+.I "``Reusability of parts''
-is even one step further.
+goes one step further.
-Software may completely lose its field of action,
+Software may become obsolete and completely lose its field of action,
-but parts of which the software is built may be general and independent enough
+but the constituent parts of the software may be general and independent enough
 to survive this death.
 If software is built by combining small independent programs,
 then these parts are readily available for reuse.
-Who cares if the large program is a failure,
+Who cares that the large program is a failure,
-but parts of it become successful instead?
+if parts of it become successful instead?
 .H 2 "Summary
 .LP
-This chapter explained central ideas of the Unix Philosophy.
+This chapter explained ideas central to the Unix Philosophy.
 For each of the ideas, the advantages they introduce were explained.
-The Unix Philosophy are guidelines that help to write more valuable software.
+The Unix Philosophy is a set of guidelines that help in the design of
-From the view point of a software developer or software designer,
+more valuable software.
-the Unix Philosophy provides answers to many software design problem.
+From the viewpoint of a software developer or software designer,
-.PP
+the Unix Philosophy provides answers to many software design problems.
-The various ideas of the Unix Philosophy are very interweaved
+.PP
+The various ideas comprising the Unix Philosophy are very interweaved
 and can hardly be applied independently.
-However, the probably most important messages are:
+The most important messages are:
 .I "``Keep it simple!''" ,
 .I "``Do one thing well!''" ,
 and
 .I "``Use software leverage!''
 .H 1 "Case study: \s-1MH\s0
 .LP
 The previous chapter introduced and explained the Unix Philosophy
 from a general point of view.
-The driving force were the guidelines; references to
+The driving force was that of the guidelines;
-existing software were given only sparsely.
+references to existing software were given only sparsely.
 In this and the next chapter, concrete software will be
 the driving force in the discussion.
 .PP
 This first case study is about the mail user agents (\s-1MUA\s0)
 \s-1MH\s0 (``mail handler'') and its descendant \fInmh\fP
 \s-1MH\s0 and nmh are described.
 .H 2 "Historical background
 .LP
-Electronic mail was available in Unix very early.
+Electronic mail was available in Unix from a very early stage.
 The first \s-1MUA\s0 on Unix was \f(CWmail\fP,
 which was already present in the First Edition.
 .[ [
 salus
 quarter century of unix
 This job was emailing, which was very simple then.
 .PP
 Later, emailing became more powerful, and thus more complex.
 The simple \f(CWmail\fP, which knew nothing of subjects,
 independent handling of single messages,
-and long-time email storage, was not powerful enough anymore.
+and long-term email storage, was not powerful enough anymore.
-In 1978 at Berkeley, Kurt Shoens wrote \fIMail\fP (with capital `M')
+In 1978 at Berkeley, Kurt Shoens wrote \fIMail\fP (with a capital `M')
 to provide additional functions for emailing.
-Mail was still one program, but now it was large and did
+Mail was still one program, but was large and did several jobs.
-several jobs.
+Its user interface was modeled after \fIed\fP.
-Its user interface is modeled after the one of \fIed\fP.
+Ed is designed for humans, but is still scriptable.
-It is designed for humans, but is still scriptable.
+\fImailx\fP is the adaptation of Berkeley Mail for System V.
-\fImailx\fP is the adaptation of Berkeley Mail into System V.
 .[
 ritter
 mailx history
 .]
-Elm, pine, mutt, and a whole bunch of graphical \s-1MUA\s0s
+Elm, pine, mutt, and a slew of graphical \s-1MUA\s0s
-followed Mail's direction.
+followed Mail's direction:
-They are large, monolithic programs which include all emailing functions.
+large, monolithic programs which included all emailing functions.
 .PP
 A different way was taken by the people of \s-1RAND\s0 Corporation.
-In the beginning, they also had used a monolithic mail system,
+Initially, they also had used a monolithic mail system
 called \s-1MS\s0 (for ``mail system'').
 But in 1977, Stockton Gaines and Norman Shapiro
-came up with a proposal of a new email system concept \(en
+came up with a proposal for a new email system concept \(en
 one that honored the Unix Philosophy.
 The concept was implemented by Bruce Borden in 1978 and 1979.
 This was the birth of \s-1MH\s0 \(en the ``mail handler''.
 .PP
 Since then, \s-1RAND\s0, the University of California at Irvine and
 at Berkeley, and several others have contributed to the software.
 However, it's core concepts remained the same.
 In the late 90s, when development of \s-1MH\s0 slowed down,
 Richard Coleman started with \fInmh\fP, the new mail handler.
-His goal was to improve \s-1MH\s0 especially in regard of
+His goal was to improve \s-1MH\s0 especially in regard to
 the requirements of modern emailing.
 Today, nmh is developed by various people on the Internet.
 .[
 ware
 rand history
 .]
 .H 2 "Contrasts to monolithic mail systems
 .LP
 All \s-1MUA\s0s are monolithic, except \s-1MH\s0.
-Although there might actually exist further, very little known,
+Although some very little known toolchest \s-1MUA\s0s might also exist,
-toolchest \s-1MUA\s0s, this statement reflects the situation pretty well.
+this statement reflects the situation pretty well.
 .PP
 Monolithic \s-1MUA\s0s gather all their functions in one program.
 In contrast, \s-1MH\s0 is a toolchest of many small tools \(en one for each job.
 Following is a list of important programs of \s-1MH\s0's toolchest
 and their function.
-It gives a feeling of how the toolchest looks like.
+It gives an indication of what the toolchest looks like.
 .IP \(bu
 .CW inc :
 incorporate new mail (this is how mail enters the system)
 .IP \(bu
 .CW scan :
 .IP \(bu
 .CW send :
 send prepared message (this is how mail leaves the system)
 .LP
 \s-1MH\s0 has no special user interface like monolithic \s-1MUA\s0s have.
-The user does not leave the shell to run \s-1MH\s0,
+The user does not leave the shell to run \s-1MH\s0;
 instead he uses the various \s-1MH\s0 programs within the shell.
 Using a monolithic program with a captive user interface
 means ``entering'' the program, using it, and ``exiting'' the program.
 Using toolchests like \s-1MH\s0 means running programs,
 alone or in combination with others, also from other toolchests,
 without leaving the shell.
 .H 2 "Data storage
 .LP
-\s-1MH\s0's mail storage is a directory tree under the user's
+\s-1MH\s0's mail storage consists of a hierarchy under the user's
 \s-1MH\s0 directory (usually \f(CW$HOME/Mail\fP),
 where mail folders are directories and mail messages are text files
 within them.
 Each mail folder contains a file \f(CW.mh_sequences\fP which lists
 the public message sequences of that folder,
-for instance the \fIunseen\fP sequence for new messages.
+for instance, the \fIunseen\fP sequence for new messages.
 Mail messages are text files located in a mail folder.
-The files contain the messages as they were received.
+The files contain the messages as they were received,
-They are named by ascending numbers in each folder.
+and they are named by ascending numbers in each folder.
 .PP
 This mailbox format is called ``\s-1MH\s0'' after the \s-1MUA\s0.
 Alternatives are \fImbox\fP and \fImaildir\fP.
-In the mbox format all messages are stored within one file.
+In the mbox format, all messages are stored within one file.
 This was a good solution in the early days, when messages
-were only a few lines of text and were deleted soon.
+were only a few lines of text deleted within a short period of time.
-Today, when single messages often include several megabytes
+Today, with single messages often including several megabytes
-of attachments, it is a bad solution.
+of attachments, this is a bad solution.
 Another disadvantage of the mbox format is that it is
 more difficult to write tools that work on mail messages,
 because it is always necessary to first find and extract
 the relevant message in the mbox file.
 With the \s-1MH\s0 mailbox format, each message is a separate file.
 \f(CWshow\fP is like \f(CWcat\fP,
 \f(CWfolder\fP is like \f(CWcd\fP and \f(CWpwd\fP,
 \f(CWrefile\fP is like \f(CWmv\fP,
 and \f(CWrmm\fP is like \f(CWrm\fP.
 .PP
-\s-1MH\s0 extends the context of processes in Unix by two more items,
+\s-1MH\s0 extends the context of processes in Unix by two more items
 for its tools:
 .IP \(bu
 The current mail folder, which is similar to the current working directory.
 For mail folders, \f(CWfolder\fP provides the corresponding functionality
 of \f(CWcd\fP and \f(CWpwd\fP for directories.
 .IP \(bu
 Sequences, which are named sets of messages in a mail folder.
 The current message, relative to a mail folder, is a special sequence.
 It enables commands like \f(CWnext\fP and \f(CWprev\fP.
 .LP
-In contrast to Unix' context, which is maintained by the kernel,
+In contrast to the general process context in Unix,
+which is maintained by the kernel,
 \s-1MH\s0's context must be maintained by the tools themselves.
 Usually there is one context per user, which resides in his
 \f(CWcontext\fP file in the \s-1MH\s0 directory,
 but a user can have several contexts, too.
 Public sequences are an exception, as they belong to a mail folder,
 .PP
 .B "Small is beautiful
 and
 .B "do one thing well
 are two design goals that are directly visible in \s-1MH\s0.
-Gancarz actually presents \s-1MH\s0 in his book as example under the
+Gancarz actually uses \s-1MH\s0 in his book as example under the
 headline ``Making \s-1UNIX\s0 Do One Thing Well'':
 .[ [
 gancarz
 unix philosophy
 .], page 125 ff.]
 A complex application, it shows that not only is it
 possible to build large applications from smaller
 components, but also that such designs are actually preferable.
 .LP
 The various programs of \s-1MH\s0 were relatively easy to write,
-because each of them is small, limited to one function,
+because each one was small, limited to one function,
-and has clear boundaries.
+and had clear boundaries.
-For the same reasons, they are also good to maintain.
+For the same reasons, they are also easy to maintain.
-Further more, the system can easily get extended.
+Further more, the system can easily get extended:
-One only needs to put a new program into the toolchest.
+One only needs to place a new program into the toolchest.
-This was done, for instance, when \s-1MIME\s0 support was added
+This was done when \s-1MIME\s0 support was added
 (e.g. \f(CWmhbuild\fP).
-Also, different programs can exist to do the basically same job
+Also, different programs can exist to do basically the same job
 in different ways (e.g. in nmh: \f(CWshow\fP and \f(CWmhshow\fP).
 .PP
-If someone needs a mail system with some additionally
+If someone needs a mail system with some additional
-functions that are not available anywhere yet, he best expands a
+functionality that is not available anywhere yet,
-toolchest system like \s-1MH\s0.
+it is beneficial to expand a toolchest system like \s-1MH\s0.
 There he can add new functionality by simply adding additional
-programs to the toolchest.
+programs to the toolchest;
-There he does not risk to break existing functionality by doing so.
+he does not risk to break existing functionality by doing so.
 .PP
-.B "Store data in flat text files
+.B "Store data in flat text files" ;
-is followed by \s-1MH\s0.
+this principle was followed by \s-1MH\s0.
 This is not surprising, because email messages are already plain text.
 \s-1MH\s0 stores the messages as it receives them,
-thus any other tool that works on \s-1RFC\s0\|2822 mail messages can operate
+thus any other tool that works on \s-1RFC\s0\|2822 compliant mail
+messages can operate
 on the messages in an \s-1MH\s0 mailbox.
-All other files \s-1MH\s0 uses are plain text, too.
+All other files \s-1MH\s0 uses are plain text as well.
 It is therefore possible and encouraged to use the text processing
 tools of Unix' toolchest to extend \s-1MH\s0's toolchest.
 .PP
 .B "Avoid captive user interfaces" .
 \s-1MH\s0 is perfectly suited for non-interactive use.
-It offers all functions directly and without captive user interfaces.
+It offers all functions directly, without captive user interfaces.
-If, nonetheless, users want a graphical user interface,
+If users want a graphical user interface,
 they can have it with \fIxmh\fP, \fIexmh\fP,
 or with the Emacs interface \fImh-e\fP.
 These are frontends for the \s-1MH\s0 toolchest.
-This means, all email-related work is still done by \s-1MH\s0 tools,
+This means all email-related work is still done by \s-1MH\s0 tools,
 but the frontend calls the appropriate commands when the user
 clicks on buttons or pushes a key.
 .PP
-Providing easy-to-use user interfaces in form of frontends is a good
+Providing additional user interfaces in form of frontends is a good
 approach, because it does not limit the power of the backend itself.
-The frontend will anyway only be able to make a subset of the
+The frontend will only be able to make a subset of the
-backend's power and flexibility available to the user.
+backend's power and flexibility available to the user,
-But if it is a separate program,
+but if it is a separate program,
 then the missing parts can still be accessed at the backend directly.
-If it is integrated, then this will hardly be possible.
+If it is integrated, then this will be much more difficult.
-An additional advantage is the possibility to have different frontends
+An additional advantage is the ability to have different frontends
 to the same backend.
 .PP
 .B "Choose portability over efficiency
 and
 bolsky korn
 korn shell
 .]
 Chapter\|18 of the book shows a basic implementation
 of a subset of \s-1MH\s0 in ksh scripts.
-Of course, this is just a demonstration, but a brilliant one.
+This is just a demonstration, but a brilliant one.
 It shows how quickly one can implement such a prototype with shell scripts,
 and how readable they are.
-The implementation in the scripting language may not be very fast,
+The implementation in scripting language may not be very fast,
-but it can be fast enough though, and this is all that matters.
+but it can be fast enough, and this is all that matters.
 By having the code in an interpreted language, like the shell,
-portability becomes a minor issue, if we assume the interpreter
+portability becomes a minor issue if we assume the interpreter
 to be widespread.
 .PP
 This demonstration also shows how easy it is to create single programs
-of a toolchest software.
+of toolchest software.
-Eight tools (two of them have multiple names) and 16 functions
+Eight tools (two of them having multiple names) and 16 functions
 with supporting code are presented to the reader.
 The tools comprise less than 40 lines of ksh each,
 in total about 200 lines.
 The functions comprise less than 80 lines of ksh each,
 in total about 450 lines.
 Such small software is easy to write, easy to understand,
 and thus easy to maintain.
-A toolchest improves the possibility to only write some parts
+A toolchest improves one's ability to only write some parts of a
-and though create a working result.
+program while still creating a working result.
 Expanding the toolchest, even without global changes,
 will likely be possible.
 .PP
 .B "Use software leverage to your advantage
 It is even possible to define different default options
 depending on the name under which a program is called.
 Software leverage is heavily encouraged by the ease of
 creating shell scripts that run a specific command line,
 built of several \s-1MH\s0 programs.
-There is few software that so much wants users to tailor their
+There are few pieces of software that encourages users to tailor their
-environment and to leverage the use of the software, like \s-1MH\s0.
+environment and to leverage the use of the software like \s-1MH\s0.
 .PP
-Just to make one example:
+Just to cite one example:
 One might prefer a different listing format for the \f(CWscan\fP
 program.
 It is possible to take one of the distributed format files
 or to write one yourself.
 To use the format as default for \f(CWscan\fP, a single line,
 reading
 .DS
 scan: -form FORMATFILE
 .DE
 must be added to \f(CW.mh_profile\fP.
-If one wants this different format as an additional command,
+If one wants this alternative format available as an additional command,
-instead of changing the default, he needs to create a link to
+instead of changing the default, he just needs to create a link to
 \f(CWscan\fP, for instance titled \f(CWscan2\fP.
 The line in \f(CW.mh_profile\fP would then start with \f(CWscan2\fP,
-as the option should only be in effect for a program that is called as
+as the option should only be in effect for a program that is invoked as
 \f(CWscan2\fP.
 .PP
 .B "Make every program a filter
-is hard to find in \s-1MH\s0.
+is hard to find implemented in \s-1MH\s0.
-The reason therefore is that most of \s-1MH\s0's tools provide
+The reason is that most of \s-1MH\s0's tools provide
 basic file system operations for mailboxes.
-It is the same reason because of which \f(CWls\fP, \f(CWcp\fP, \f(CWmv\fP,
+It is for the same reason because that \f(CWls\fP, \f(CWcp\fP, \f(CWmv\fP,
 and \f(CWrm\fP aren't filters neither.
-\s-1MH\s0 does not provide many filters itself, but it is a basis
+\s-1MH\s0 does not provide many filters itself,
-to write filters for.
+but it provides a basis upon which to write filters.
 An example would be a mail text highlighter,
-that means a program that makes use of a color terminal to display
+a program that makes use of a color terminal to display header lines,
-header lines, quotations, and signatures in distinct colors.
+quotations, and signatures in distinct colors.
 The author's version of such a program is an awk script with 25 lines.
 .PP
 .B "Build a prototype as soon as possible
 was again well followed by \s-1MH\s0.
-This tenet, of course, focuses on early development, which is
+This tenet, of course, focuses on early development, which is a
 long time ago for \s-1MH\s0.
 But without following this guideline at the very beginning,
 Bruce Borden may have not convinced the management of \s-1RAND\s0
 to ever create \s-1MH\s0.
 In Bruce' own words:
 With these three, I was able to convince people that the structure was viable.
 This took about three weeks.
 .H 2 "Problems
 .LP
-\s-1MH\s0 is not without problems.
+\s-1MH\s0 is not without its problems.
-There are two main problems: one is technical, the other is about human behavior.
+There are two main problems: one is technical, the other pertains to human behavior.
 .PP
-\s-1MH\s0 is old and email today is very different to email in the time
+\s-1MH\s0 is old and email today is quite different than it was in the time
 when \s-1MH\s0 was designed.
-\s-1MH\s0 adapted to the changes pretty well, but it is limited, though.
+\s-1MH\s0 adapted to the changes fairly well, but it has its limitations.
 \s-1MIME\s0 support and support for different character encodings
 is available, but only on a moderate level.
 This comes from limited development resources.
-More active developers could quickly change this.
+A larger and more active developer base could quickly remedy this.
 But \s-1MH\s0 is also limited by design, which is the larger problem.
 \s-1IMAP\s0, for example, conflicts with \s-1MH\s0's design to a large extent.
-These design conflicts are not easily solvable.
+These design conflicts are not easily solvable
-Possibly, they require a redesign.
+and may require a redesign.
-\s-1IMAP\s0 may be too different to the classic mail model,
+\s-1IMAP\s0 may be too incompatible with the classic mail model,
-which \s-1MH\s0 covers, so that \s-1MH\s0 may never support it well.
+which \s-1MH\s0 covers, so \s-1MH\s0 may never support it well.
-.PP
+(Using \s-1IMAP\s0 and a filesystem abstraction layer to only map
-The other kind of problem are human habits.
+a remote directory into the local filesystem, is a different topic.
+\s-1IMAP\s0 support is seen as being able to access the special
+mail features of the protocol.)
+.PP
+The other kind of problem relates to human habits.
 In this world, where almost all \s-1MUA\s0s are monolithic,
-it is very difficult to convince people to use a toolbox style \s-1MUA\s0
+it is very difficult to convince people to use a toolchest-style \s-1MUA\s0
 like \s-1MH\s0.
-The habits are so strong, that even people who understand the concept
+These habits are so strong, that even people who understand the concept
-and advantages of \s-1MH\s0 do not like to switch,
+and advantages of \s-1MH\s0 are reluctant to switch,
 simply because \s-1MH\s0 is different.
-Unfortunately, the frontends to \s-1MH\s0, which could provide familiar look'n'feel,
+Unfortunately, the frontends to \s-1MH\s0, which could provide familiar
-are quite outdated and thus not very appealing, compared to the modern interfaces
+look and feel, are quite outdated and thus not very appealing in comparison
-of many monolithic \s-1MUA\s0s.
+to the modern interfaces of many monolithic \s-1MUA\s0s.
 One notable exception is \fImh-e\fP which provides an Emacs interface
 to \s-1MH\s0.
 \fIMh-e\fP looks much like \fImutt\fP or \fIpine\fP,
 but it has buttons, menus, and graphical display capabilities.
 .H 2 "Summary
 .LP
 \s-1MH\s0 is an \s-1MUA\s0 that follows the Unix Philosophy in its design.
-It consists of a toolchest of small tools, each of them does one job well.
+It consists of a toolchest of small tools, each of which does one job well.
 The toolchest approach offers great flexibility to the user.
 It is possible to utilize the complete power of the Unix shell with \s-1MH\s0.
-This makes \s-1MH\s0 a very powerful mail system.
+This makes \s-1MH\s0 a very powerful mail system,
-Extending and customizing \s-1MH\s0 is easy and encouraged.
+and extending and customizing \s-1MH\s0 is easy and encouraged.
 .PP
 Apart from the user's perspective, \s-1MH\s0 is development-friendly.
 Its overall design follows clear rules.
-The single tools do only one job, thus they are easy to understand,
+The single tools do only one job; thus they are easy to understand,
-easy to write, and good to maintain.
+write, and maintain.
 They are all independent and do not interfere with the others.
-Automated testing of their function is a straight forward task.
+Automated testing of their function is a straightforward task.
 .PP
-It is sad, that \s-1MH\s0's differentness is its largest problem,
+It is sad, that \s-1MH\s0's dissimilarity to other \s-1MUA\s0s is its
-as its differentness is also its largest advantage.
+largest problem, as this dissimilarity is also its largest advantage.
-Unfortunately, for most people their habits are stronger
+Unfortunately, most people's habits are stronger
-than the attraction of the clear design and the power, \s-1MH\s0 offers.
+than the attraction of the clear design and the power \s-1MH\s0 offers.
 .H 1 "Case study: uzbl
 .LP
-The last chapter took a look on the \s-1MUA\s0 \s-1MH\s0,
+The last chapter focused on the \s-1MUA\s0 \s-1MH\s0,
-which is an old and established software.
+which is an old and established piece of software.
 This chapter covers uzbl, a fresh new project.
 Uzbl is a web browser that adheres to the Unix Philosophy.
 Its name comes from the \fILolspeak\fP word for ``usable'';
-it is pronounced identical.
+both are pronounced in the same way.
 .H 2 "Historical background
 .LP
 Uzbl was started by Dieter Plaetinck in April 2009.
-The idea was born in a thread in the Arch Linux Forums.
+The idea was born in a thread on the Arch Linux forums.
 .[
 arch linux forums
 browser
 .]
-After some discussion about failures of well known web browsers,
+After some discussion about the failures of well-known web browsers,
-Plaetinck (alias Dieter@be) came up with a very sketchy proposal
+Plaetinck (alias Dieter@be) came up with a rough proposal
-of how a better web browser could look like.
+of how a better web browser could look.
-To the question of another member, if Plaetinck would write that program,
+In response to another member who asked if Plaetinck would write this
-because it would sound fantastic, Plaetinck replied:
+program because it sounded fantastic, Plaetinck replied:
 ``Maybe, if I find the time ;-)''.
 .PP
 Fortunately, he found the time.
 One day later, the first prototype was out.
-One week later, uzbl had an own website.
+One week later, uzbl had its own website.
 .[
 uzbl website
 .]
-One month after the first code showed up,
+One month after the initial code was presented,
-a mailing list was installed to coordinate and discuss further development,
+a mailing list was set up to coordinate and discuss further development,
-and a wiki was added to store documentation and scripts that showed up on the
+and a wiki was added to store documentation and scripts that cropped up
-mailing list and elsewhere.
+on the mailing list and elsewhere.
 .PP
-In the, now, one year of uzbl's existence, it was heavily developed on various branches.
+In the first year of uzbl's existence, it was heavily developed on various branches.
 Plaetinck's task became more and more to only merge the best code from the
 different branches into his main branch, and to apply patches.
 .[
 lwn uzbl
 .]
 About once a month, Plaetinck released a new version.
 In September 2009, he presented several forks of uzbl.
 .[ [
 uzbl website
 .], news archive]
-Uzbl, actually, opened the field for a whole family of web browsers with similar shape.
+Uzbl actually opened the field for a whole family of web browsers with
-.PP
+a similar design.
-In July 2009, \fILinux Weekly News\fP published an interview with Plaetinck about uzbl.
+.PP
+In July 2009, \fILinux Weekly News\fP published an interview with
+Plaetinck about uzbl.
 .[
 lwn uzbl
 .]
 In September 2009, the uzbl web browser was on \fISlashdot\fP.
 .[
 .LP
 Like most \s-1MUA\s0s are monolithic, but \s-1MH\s0 is a toolchest,
 most web browsers are monolithic, but uzbl is a frontend to a toolchest.
 .PP
 Today, uzbl is divided into uzbl-core and uzbl-browser.
-Uzbl-core is, how its name already indicates, the core of uzbl.
+Uzbl-core is, as its name indicates, the core of uzbl.
-It handles commands and events to interface other programs,
+It handles commands and events to interface with other programs,
-and also displays webpages by using \fIwebkit\fP as render engine.
+and displays webpages by using \fIwebkit\fP as its rendering engine.
-Uzbl-browser combines uzbl-core with a bunch of handler scripts, a status bar,
+Uzbl-browser combines uzbl-core with a selection of handler scripts,
-an event manager, yanking, pasting, page searching, zooming, and more stuff,
+a status bar, an event manager, yanking, pasting, page searching,
-to form a ``complete'' web browser.
+zooming, and much more functionality, to form a ``complete'' web browser.
-In the following text, the term ``uzbl'' usually stands for uzbl-browser,
+In the following text, the term ``uzbl'' usually refers to uzbl-browser,
 so uzbl-core is included.
 .PP
-Unlike most other web browsers, uzbl is mainly the mediator between the
+Unlike most other web browsers, uzbl is mainly the mediator between
 various tools that cover single jobs.
-Therefore, uzbl listens for commands on a named pipe (fifo), a Unix socket,
+Uzbl listens for commands on a named pipe (fifo), a Unix socket,
 and on stdin, and it writes events to a Unix socket and to stdout.
 Loading a webpage in a running uzbl instance requires only:
 .DS
 echo 'uri http://example.org' >/path/to/uzbl-fifo
 .DE
-The graphical rendering of the webpage is done by webkit,
+The rendering of the webpage is done by libwebkit,
-a web content engine.
+around which uzbl-core is built.
-Uzbl-core is built around libwebkit.
 .PP
 Downloads, browsing history, bookmarks, and the like are not provided
-by the core itself, like they are in other web browsers.
+by the core itself like they are in other web browsers.
-Uzbl-browser also only provides, so called, handler scripts that wrap
+Uzbl-browser also only provides ``handler scripts'' which wrap
-external applications which provide the actual functionality.
+external applications to provide the actual functionality.
 For instance, \fIwget\fP is used to download files and uzbl-browser
 includes a script that calls wget with appropriate options in
 a prepared environment.
 .PP
-Modern web browsers are proud to have addons, plugins, and modules, instead.
+Modern web browsers are proud to have addons, plugins, modules,
+and so forth.
 This is their effort to achieve similar goals.
-But instead of using existing, external programs, modern web browsers
+But instead of using existing external programs, modern web browsers
 include these functions.
 .H 2 "Discussion of the design
 .LP
-This section discusses uzbl in regard of the Unix Philosophy,
+This section discusses uzbl in regard to the Unix Philosophy,
 as identified by Gancarz.
 .PP
 .B "Make each program do one thing well" .
 Uzbl tries to be a web browser and nothing else.
-The common definition of a web browser is, of course, highly influenced by
+The common definition of a web browser is highly influenced by
-existing implementations of web browsers, although they are degenerated.
+existing implementations of web browsers.
-Web browsers should be programs to browse the web, and nothing more.
+But a web browser should be a program to browse the web, and nothing more.
-This is the one thing they should do.
+This is the one thing it should do.
 .PP
-Web browsers should not, for instance, manage downloads.
+Web browsers should not, for instance, manage downloads;
-This is the job download managers exist for.
+this is the job of download managers.
-Download managers do primary care about being good in downloading files.
+A download manager is primary concerned with downloading files.
 Modern web browsers provide download management only as a secondary feature.
-How could they do this job better, than programs that exist only for
+How could they do this job better than programs that exist only for
 this very job?
-And how could anyone want less than the best download manager available?
+And why would anyone want less than the best download manager available?
 .PP
 A web browser's job is to let the user browse the web.
 This means, navigating through websites by following links.
 Rendering the \s-1HTML\s0 sources is a different job, too.
-It is covered by the webkit render engine, in uzbl's case.
+In uzbl's case, this is covered by the webkit rendering engine.
-Audio and video content and files like PostScript, \s-1PDF\s0,
+Handling audio and video content, PostScript, \s-1PDF\s0,
-and the like, are also not the job of a web browser.
+and other such files are also not the job of a web browser.
-Such content should be handled by external programs \(en
+Such content should be handled by external programs
-programs that were written to handle such data.
+that were written to handle such data.
 Uzbl strives to do it this way.
 .PP
-Remember Doug McIlroy:
+Remember Doug McIlroy's words:
 .I
 ``Write programs that do one thing and do it well.
 Write programs to work together.''
 .R
 .PP
 The lesser tenet
 .B "allow the user to tailor the environment
-matches good here.
+applies here as well.
-There was the question, how anyone could want anything less than the
+Previously, the question, ``Why would anyone want anything less than the
-best program for the job.
+best program for the job?'' was put forward.
-But as personal preferences matter, it is probably more important to ask:
+But as personal preferences matter, it might be more important to ask:
-How could anyone want something else than his preferred program for the job?
+``Why would anyone want something other than his preferred program for
-.PP
+the job?''
-Usually users want one program for a specific job.
+.PP
-Hence, whenever the task is, for instance, downloading,
+Users typically want one program for a specific job.
+Hence, whenever one wishes to download something,
 the same download manager should be used.
-More advanced users might want to have this download manager in this
+More advanced users might want to use one download manager in a certain
-situation and that one in that situation.
+situation and another in a different situation;
-They should be able to configure it this way.
+they should be able to configure it this way.
-With uzbl, one can use any download manager the user wants.
+With uzbl, any download manager can be used.
-To switch to a different one, only one line in a small handler script
+To switch to a different one, a single line in a small handler script
 needs to be changed.
-Alternatively it would be possible to query the program to use by
+Alternatively, it would be possible to query which download manager to use by
-reading a global file or an environment variable, in the handler script.
+reading a global file or an environment variable in the handler script.
-Of course, one can tell uzbl to use a different handler script, too.
+Of course, uzbl can use a different handler script as well.
-This requires a one line change in uzbl's config file.
+This simply requires a one line change in uzbl's configuration file.
 .PP
-Uzbl does neither have its own download manager nor depends on a
+Uzbl neither has its own download manager nor depends on a specific one;
-specific one, hence uzbl's browsing abilities will not be lowered by having
+hence, uzbl's browsing abilities will not be crippled by having
 a bad download manager.
-Uzbl's download capabilities will be just as good as the ones of the best
+Uzbl's download capabilities will be as good as the best
 download manager available on the system.
 Of course, this applies to all of the other supplementary tools, too.
 .PP
 .B "Use software leverage to your advantage" .
 Uzbl is designed to be extended by external tools.
 These external tools are usually wrapped by small handler shell scripts.
-Shell scripts are the glue in this approach.
+Shell scripts form the basis for the glue which holds the various
-They make the various parts fit together.
+parts together.
 .PP
 The history mechanism of uzbl shall be presented as an example.
 Uzbl is configured to spawn a script to append an entry to the history
 whenever the event of a fully loaded page occurs.
 The script to append the entry to the history is not much more than:
 .DS
 #!/bin/sh
 file=/path/to/uzbl-history
 echo `date +'%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S'`" $6 $7" >> $file
 .DE
-\f(CW$6\fP and \f(CW$7\fP expand to the \s-1URL\s0 and the page title.
+\f(CW$6\fP and \f(CW$7\fP expand to the \s-1URL\s0 and the page title,
+respectively.
 .PP
 For loading an entry, a key is bound to spawn a load-from-history script.
 The script reverses the history to have newer entries first,
-then displays \fIdmenu\fP to let the user select an item,
+displays \fIdmenu\fP to let the user select an item,
-and afterwards writes the selected \s-1URL\s0 into uzbl's command input pipe.
+and then writes the selected \s-1URL\s0 into uzbl's command input pipe.
 With error checking and corner case handling removed,
 the script looks like this:
 .DS
 #!/bin/sh
 file=/path/to/uzbl-history
 \f(CW$4\fP expands to the path of the command input pipe of the current
 uzbl instance.
 .PP
 .B "Avoid captive user interfaces" .
-One could say, that uzbl, to a large extent, actually \fIis\fP
+One could say that uzbl, to a large extent, actually \fIis\fP
 a captive user interface.
-But the difference to most other web browsers is, that uzbl is only
+But the difference from other web browsers is that uzbl is only
 the captive user interface frontend (and the core of the backend).
 Many parts of the backend are independent of uzbl.
-Some are distributed with uzbl, for some external programs,
+For some external programs, handler scripts are distributed with uzbl;
-handler scripts are distributed,
+but arbitrary additional functionality can always be added if desired.
-but arbitrary additional functionality can be added if desired.
 .PP
 The frontend is captive \(en that is true.
 This is okay for the task of browsing the web, as this task is only relevant
-for humans.
+to humans.
-Automated programs would \fIcrawl\fP the web.
+Automated programs would \fIcrawl\fP the web, that means,
-That means, they read the source directly.
+read the source directly, including all semantics.
-The source includes all the semantics.
+The graphical representation is just for humans to understand the semantics
-The graphical representation is just for humans to transfer the semantics
 more intuitively.
 .PP
 .B "Make every program a filter" .
 Graphical web browsers are almost dead ends in the chain of information flow.
 Thus it is difficult to see what graphical web browsers should filter.
-Graphical web browsers exist almost only to be interactively used by humans.
+Graphical web browsers exist almost exclusively to be interactively used
-The only case when one might want to automate the rendering function is
+by humans.
+The only case in which one might want to automate the rendering function is
 to generate images of rendered webpages.
 .PP
 .B "Small is beautiful"
-is not easy to apply to a web browser, because modern web technology
+is not easy to apply to a web browser because modern web technology
-is very complex, hence the rendering task is very complex.
+is very complex; hence, the rendering task is very complex.
-Modern web browsers have to consist of many thousand lines of code,
+Unfortunately, modern web browsers ``have'' to consist of many thousand
-unfortunately.
+lines of code,
-Using the toolchest approach and wrappers can split the browser into
+Using the toolchest approach and wrappers can help to split the browser
-several small parts, tough.
+into several small parts, though.
 .PP
 As of March 2010, uzbl-core consists of about 3\,500 lines of C code.
 The distribution includes another 3\,500 lines of Shell and Python code,
-which are the handler scripts and plugins like a modal interface.
+which are the handler scripts and plugins like one to provide a modal
-Further more, uzbl uses functionality of external tools like
+interface.
+Further more, uzbl makes use of external tools like
 \fIwget\fP and \fIsocat\fP.
 Up to this point, uzbl looks pretty neat and small.
-The ugly part of uzbl is the web content render engine, webkit.
+The ugly part of uzbl is the rendering engine, webkit.
 Webkit consists of roughly 400\,000 (!) lines of code.
-Unfortunately, small web render engines are not possible anymore
+Unfortunately, small rendering engines are not feasible anymore
-because of the modern web.
+due to the nature of the modern web.
 .PP
 .B "Build a prototype as soon as possible" .
-Plaetinck made his code public, right from the beginning.
+Plaetinck made his code public right from the beginning.
-Discussion and development was, and still is, open to everyone interested.
+Discussion and development was, and still is, open to everyone interested,
-Development versions of uzbl can be obtained very simply from the code
+and development versions of uzbl can be obtained very easily from the
-repository.
+code repository.
 Within the first year of uzbl's existence, a new version was released
 more often than once a month.
-Different forks and branches arose.
+Different forks and branches arose introducing new features which were
-They introduced new features, which were tested for suitability
+then considered for merging into the main branch.
-for the main branch.
+The experiences with using prototypes influenced further development.
-The experiences of using prototypes influenced further development.
 Actually, all development was community driven.
 Plaetinck says, three months after uzbl's birth:
 ``Right now I hardly code anything myself for Uzbl.
 I just merge in other people's code, ponder a lot, and lead the discussions.''
 .[
 .]
 .H 2 "Problems
 .LP
-Similar to \s-1MH\s0, uzbl, too suffers from being different.
+Similar to \s-1MH\s0, uzbl suffers from being different.
 It is sad, but people use what they know.
-Fortunately, uzbl's user interface can look and feel very much the
+Fortunately, uzbl's user interface can be made to look and feel very similar
-same as the one of the well known web browsers,
+to the one of the well known web browsers,
 hiding the internal differences.
 But uzbl has to provide this similar look and feel to be accepted
 as a ``normal'' browser by ``normal'' users.
 .PP
-Though, the more important problem is the modern web.
+The more important problem here is the modern web.
 The modern web is simply broken.
-It has state in a state-less protocol,
+It has state in a state-less protocol, misuses technologies,
-it misuses technologies,
+and is helplessly overloaded.
-and it is helplessly overloaded.
+This results in rendering engines that ``must'' consist
-The result are web content render engines that must consist
+of hundreds of thousands of lines of code.
-of hundreds of thousands lines of code.
+They also must combine and integrate many different technologies
-They also must combine and integrate many different technologies,
+to make our modern web accessible.
-only to make our modern web accessible.
+This results, however, in a failing attempt to provide good usability.
-Website to image converter are hardly possible to run without
+Website-to-image converters are almost impossible to run without
 human interaction because of state in sessions, impossible
-deep-linking, and unautomatable technologies.
+deep-linking, and ``unautomatable'' technologies.
 .PP
-The web was misused to provide all kinds of imaginable wishes.
+The web was misused in order to attempt to fulfill all kinds of wishes.
-Now web browsers, and eventually the users, suffer from it.
+Now web browsers, and ultimately users, suffer from it.
 .H 2 "Summary
 .LP
 ``Uzbl is a browser that adheres to the Unix Philosophy'',
-that is how uzbl is seen by its authors.
+is how uzbl is seen by its authors.
 Indeed, uzbl follows the Unix Philosophy in many ways.
 It consists of independent parts that work together,
 while its core is mainly a mediator which glues the parts together.
 .PP
-Software leverage can excellently be seen in uzbl.
+Software leverage is put to excellent use.
-External tools are used, independent tasks are separated
+External tools are used, independent tasks are separated out
-in independent parts and glued together with small handler scripts.
+to independent parts and glued together with small handler scripts.
 .PP
-As uzbl, more or less, consists of a set of tools and a bit
+Since uzbl roughly consists of a set of tools and a bit of glue,
-of glue, anyone can put the parts together and expand it
+anyone can put the parts together and expand it in any desired way.
-in any desired way.
+Flexibility and customization are properties that make it valuable
-Uzbl is very flexible and customizable.
+for advanced users, but may keep novice users from understanding
-These properties make it valuable for advanced users,
+and using it.
-but may keep novice users from using it.
+.PP
-.PP
+But uzbl's main problem is the modern web, which makes it very difficult
-But uzbl's main problem is the modern web, that makes it hard
 to design a sane web browser.
 Despite this bad situation, uzbl does a fairly good job.
 .H 1 "Final thoughts
 .LP
 This paper explained why good design is important.
-It introduced the Unix Philosophy as guidelines to good design,
+It introduced the Unix Philosophy as a set of guidelines that encourage
-in order to create good quality software.
+good design in order to create good quality software.
-Then, real life software, that was designed with the Unix Philosophy
+Then, real world software that was designed with the Unix Philosophy
-in mind, was discussed.
+in mind was discussed.
 .PP
-Throughout the paper, the aim was do explain \fIwhy\fP something
+Throughout this paper, the aim was do explain \fIwhy\fP something
 should be done the Unix way.
-It was tried to give reasons that expose that the Unix Philosophy
+Reasons were given to substantiate the claim that the Unix Philosophy
-is a preferable way for designing software.
+is a preferable way of designing software.
 .PP
 The Unix Philosophy is close to the software developer's point of view.
-Its main goal is taming the beast ``software complexity''.
+Its main goal is taming the beast known as ``software complexity''.
-Hence it strives first and foremost for simplicity, of software.
+Hence it strives first and foremost for simplicity of software.
-It might appear, that usability for people is a minor goal.
+It might appear that usability for humans is a minor goal,
-Actually, the Unix Philosophy sees usability as a result of sound design.
+but actually, the Unix Philosophy sees usability as a result of sound design.
-Sound design does not need to be most intuitive,
+Sound design does not need to be ultimately intuitive,
 but it will provide a consistent way to access the enormous power
 of software leverage.
 .PP
-Being able to solve some concrete problem becomes less and less important,
+Being able to solve some specific concrete problem becomes less and less
-as there is software available for nearly every possible task today.
+important as there is software available for nearly every possible task
+today.
 But the quality of software matters.
 It is important that we have \fIgood\fP software.
 .sp
 .LP
 .B "But why the Unix Philosophy?
 .PP
 The largest problem of software development is the complexity involved.
 It is the only part of the job that computers cannot take over.
-The Unix Philosophy fights complexity as main enemy.
+The Unix Philosophy fights complexity, as it is the main enemy.
 .PP
 On the other hand,
-the most unique gain of software is its ability to leverage.
+the most unique advantage of software is its ability to leverage.
 Current software still fails to make the best possible use of this ability.
-The Unix Philosophy concentrates much on exploiting this great opportunity.
+The Unix Philosophy concentrates on exploiting this great opportunity.
 .bp
 .TL
 References

Mercurial > docs > unix-phil

comparison unix-phil.ms @ 61:733f4fb03071