NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/os/coherent/5764

Text File | 1992-11-20 | 10.0 KB | 195 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent
Subject: Re: Tcl to replacement most of /bin & /usr/bin (was: Tcl on Linux
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!unixland!rmkhome!rmk
From: [e-mail] (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:18:34 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rick Kelly)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 183

In article <[e-mail]> "Coherent operating system" <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>> Every UNIX system has a single user mode, that runs without ttys, for
>> save administration of the system.
>> Under COHERENT change the "exit 0" to "exit 1" in /etc/brc and you
>> get what you want. But I'm sure you don't want this :-)
>>
>    The future is moving towards single-user multi-tasking computers
>running on networks.  That way each user gets maximum power because the
>machine isn't running with multi-user overhead.  I don't agree with that,
>but that is how things are headed.  It may stink, but, DOS is the world's
>most popular OS and that should show you that stinky things can still
>rule.  A little more logic and less butt-kissing in the corporate world
>would help of course...

You should tell this to makers of X terminals, who are doing a brisk
business.  Why buy 5 Sun workstations, when you can buy 1 and hang 4
X terminals off of it.  An X terminal can be had for $1000.

Another new trend is software that looks for unused cpu time on the
network, and allocates it to other machines.  Sort of like turning the
network into a big mainframe.

>> : >4) fast response for games (hey, games sell computers!)
>> :
>> : Get an Amiga.
>>
>> Why? There are lot of games which are running fine on a PC under DOS.
>> If COHERENT gets an GUI like MGR or X11 it's no problem to write or
>> port some games which uses graphics. There are some nice games available
>> which runs in text mode using curses. Of course nothing like Wing Commander,
>> but also interesting (try to solve all the D&D's:-).
>> Also if we get the device driver kit in our hands, it should be possible
>> to write a device driver for an soundblaster.
>
>    Why?  Because I don't want to have to get out of UNIX to enjoy
>a nice game!  I don't want to use DOS at *ALL*.  Right now, my hard drive,
>already too small, is divided in half because I have some DOS games and
>applications that I still need.  If there were some decent UNIX word
>processors and such, that wouldn't be a problem.  However, there just
>isn't much out there for UNIX (that I can afford anyway).  So, I end up
>switching back and forth.  That keeps me from effectively using a lot
>of UNIX's functionality like cron, news, email, etc.  I just can't leave
>it running long enough.  I guess what I need is to get a Macintosh for my
>grunt work and dedicate my PC to UNIX only.  But, Macs are still way
>overpriced and I still have a hard time liking them.

Notice that games are written for DOS, not for Windows or OS2.  Game
writers want to push the OS out of the way and go right to the hardware
for speed.  UNIX wouldn't stand for it.

>    X11 games are huge because X11 is huge.  But, I can live with
>that.  Yesterday I tried to get xtank and xtrek running under Linux but
>there are too many problems.  Porting xtank will be a major software
>project I'm afraid.  Might be easier to write my own :-).  But, I'll
>try it over the holidays.  If Coherent gets X, I should have a head
>start on proting for it too.  Xtrek is kinda strange, though much
>smaller than xtank.

From reading comp.os.linux, I thought xtank and xtrek were already ported.

>> : Dump Motif and right something new.
>>
>> Or take a look at MGR.
>    MGR isn't ported to Coherent yet.  It's sorta running under Linux
>but its not quite there yet.  UNIX needs a GUI built in to the kernel.
>Another nice thing to add would be a shell that is GUI from the ground up.
>Right now I load xterm (256k) and then run bash in it (another 200K).  That
>is way too much memory used for a shell.  I have thought about a shell that
>was actually a GUI application so you wouldn't be running one program on
>top of another.  Should be both smaller and faster.  If I can talk the
>school admin into paying for some of the cost (I need more hardware to
>tackle that) I may write such a beast.

UNIX does not need a GUI built into the kernel.  It is a multiuser OS
that can serve many different i/o devices.  I wouldn't want an OS with
some GUI that I never use stuck in the kernel taking up space.

>> : >6) A simplification of administration.  File permissions are a real big
>> : >   problem for most users.  Perhaps a new file system that would be real
>> : >   simple, like DOS but with long filenames and extended attributes.  The
>> : >   kernel would still support a standard FS but if you don't need it...
>> :
>> : Right.  Turn UNIX into DOSIX.  Bleah!
>>
>> Administration is _not_ a problem of the filesystem. Sit down and write
>> an administration program like SCO's sysadmin shell or like AIX's smit.
>    Yes it *IS* a file system problem.  No, we can't avoid it.  To
>have the power of an OS like UNIX, you need a robust file system.  However,
>it causes lots of admin problems because of its complexity.  You are right
>about some sysadmin utils but its hard to convince newbies about that.
>People are still afraid of simple computers, let alone a beast like a
>UNIX box.  Again, I'm trying to promote UNIX in a way that will allow
>*anybody* to use it.  Sysadmin utilities might do the job but they will
>have to be just about foolproof.  Know any like that?  I don't...

I would not trust a UNIX system that had a file system with the limited
attributes of the MSDOS file system.  For one thing, software would break
like crazy.

MSDOS admin systems like Norton Commmander and Xtree aren't foolproof
either.  I've seen foolish people wipe out MSDOS systems many times.

And I've taught secretaries and factory workers to do their work on UNIX
systems.

>> : In the Linux and BSD groups, I've seen a lot of new users who want to turn
>> : UNIX into MSDOS.  I will fight to keep this from happening.  I have a decade
>> : of experience with UNIX, and think it is the best OS that I ever used.  I
> used
>> : to have a PC/XT running MSDOS, and have written diagnostics for dedicated
>> : applications running on MSDOS machines to exercise and test commodity
> hardware
>> : in a factory setting.  I am about as interested in using DOS as I would be
> in
>> : programming on punched cards.
>>
>> If someone writes some user interfaces for UNIX, which makes it easyser
>> for DOS users to use the system, fine, do it. As long as everyone can
>> select how to use UNIX (at shell level or with an X11 user interface
>> or whatever) all is fine. But it's a very poor idea to reduce the
>> functionality of UNIX back to DOS.
>
>    Nothing I mentioned would reduce the functionality of UNIX, rather,
>it would increase it.  Plus, it would increase its acceptance.  As users
>in general become more sophisticaed (and they will, 15 years ago they didn't
>use computers at all!!!), it won't be necessary.  But it is for now.

Changing the file system to a DOS filesystem would reduce functionality.
And require hundreds of commands to be rewritten.

>    I think we mostly agree.  I just hate to see UNIX get killed
>simply because the UNIX camp refuses get off their behinds to make the
>system usuable by normal people.  Hey, I know how to use nroff to format
>documents and even LaTeX.  However, the output needs Postscript or some
>emulation thereof to really look nice.  I have a 24-pin printer that is
>largely unsupported by UNIX (save for the ghostscript interpreter) and
>its very hard to write with the vi/emacs and nroff/TeX combo prevelant
>in UNIX society.  Contrast that with, dare I say this, Windows.  With
>Windows I get super-fast document formatting, incredible looking output
>even on cruddy little 9-pin printers, and its all so easy.  I don't like
>Windows word processors, they are too big and ugly.  However, there is no
>reason why UNIX couldn't have a nice text-based WP like WordStar or something
>as well as a good graphical one for X.  I used IslandWrite on the Suns
>at school but do you know how much that package cost?  Its over $700!
>Hey, I got Word for Windows for $50 at a computer show!

You can get Word Perfect and Ami Pro for UNIX, among others.

>    UNIX is getting stomped on because people don't give a hang
>about technical merit.  Most are too dang stupid to know anything about
>an OS.  They *DO* know how well it works for them though.  The things
>against UNIX are documentation, cost, dearth of end-user apps, incompatiblity,
>and fear.  The last part will be conquered.  But, UNIX costs way too much.
>The documentations is great for programmers, horrible for everyone else.
>Incompatiblity is easing up now and I exepect it to get better and better
>but it is still a big issue.  When most people look at a computer system
>they want cheap, easy, lots, and pretty.  If it ain't got that it won't
>sell.  The don't realize that UNIX comes with so many things that will
>have to be added to other systems (like networking, email, software
>development tools, etc.).

When the average computer buyer goes shopping, he usually buys whatever
he uses at work, which is usually DOS.

>    Anyway, honestly believe that UNIX *WILL* survive.  It just gets
>scary once in awhile watching other OS's take off will UNIX remains more
>of a religion than a mainstream OS.  Surely if Windows can make it a
>real good OS like UNIX can.  It needs to get smaller, cheaper, faster,
>and it will do fine.  Mark Williams Company has at least made it
>smaller and cheaper.  I hope they get the rest out the door.

You should ask Mark Williams, Dell, SCO, Consesnsys, ESIX, HP, Sun, IBM,
MST, and hundreds of other UNIX vendors just how they are making their
money if they are not selling UNIX.

If I sat down in front of my Coherent machine tomorrow, and was presented
with an MSDOS like work environment, it would be time for "rm -rf /" and
go out and buy another UNIX package.

--

Rick Kelly    [e-mail]    unixland!rmkhome!rmk    [e-mail]