NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/comp/unix/question/13170

Text File | 1992-11-09 | 12.2 KB | 245 lines

Path: sparky!uunet!ferkel.ucsb.edu!taco!gatech!destroyer!caen!spool.mu.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!dsbc!ozz!ppg
From: [e-mail] (Philippe Goujard)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:17:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: ICL, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 4SN, UK
Lines: 234


So far the comparaison dos/unix seemed pretty stupid to me, there is nothing
common between dos and unix, except maybe the shell which is similar but
different enough to make people angry when then switch from one environment
to the other.

I think in the all thread detractors of Unix forget one thing : Unix is a
multi-task AND  multi-user operating system. This is why comparing unix to
dos is silly. Compare unix to vms, vme, mvs if you want but not to a single
task single user o.s. Or if you insist in doing so remember that there are
really 2 different position : the user point of view and the administrator
point of view. On dos there are no such things : there is nothing to
administer.

[e-mail] (Peter Busser) writes:

>[e-mail] (Drew Eckhardt) writes:

>Suppose I am Mr. Joe User. I want to buy a computer to use at home. And of
>course I hear lots of good news from UNIX, so I decide that I want UNIX. Now,
>how do I get the 'whizzy GUI front end' or a 'menu driven interface'? I can
>install DOS with a few floppies by just inserting the first floppy, turning on
>the machine and answering a few questions. Often, applications are installed
>in a similar way. Tell me, how do I do that with UNIX?

Firstly since the quantity of information you are installing is more
important than on dos machines most unix machines come with a streamer and
you install your package from the tape as you do for dos : answer few
questions, stick the tape in and wait. Now I don't think this is a job for Mr
Joe User. This is a job for Mr Joe Administrator (which can be the same
person but not always the case).
I hope you will at least agree that on a multi-user machine not every user
needs/wants to install the system.

>>So?  ls is different from dir.  "ls" is a mnemonic for "list",
>>where as "dir" is a menmonic for directory.  Different does not
>>mean more difficult.

>Anything that a user has to learn about his system is considered 'difficult'.
>If a user knows how to use 'dir', then learning how to use 'ls' is difficult.

Yes, but if you have new users who migrate from dos to unix you can help
them by providing them with a 'dir' and by putting the path into the prompt
for them (the equivalent of prompt $p$g that many dos-users like). Now if you
have many users who come from a vms environment you may want to provide them
a shell with command completion etc...
Now we could argue endlessly on what should be the default, however is so
easy to set up those values that I think they should be set-up by the
administrator when creating the account.

>Yep, but that's a definition of "minimal fuzz" for programmers, not for users.
>Users want the system to do as much as it can for them. Every detail they have
>to remember is considered difficult.

Agreed, but I would say that you can do pretty much the same thing with unix
that you used to do with dos without too much difference.
One car argue why there are differences in the basic commands between dos and
unix, why for example "type" on dos displays the content of a file and "type"
under unix tells me where that executable is.
Well there are differences like tere are differences between Unix and VMS, it
was created by different people at different times which had different needs.
It is ennoying that there is no standard amongst shell interface but if there
is something such as the standard the unix shells seem to be the closest.

>>other shell scripts with the same syntax.  As you can see, with it's
>>orthagonality, Unix run from the command could well be easier than DOS
>>from the command line.

>Nice, but what does that help Joe and Jane User? A Boeing 747 may have a very
>orthogonal set of push buttons in the cockpit. I couldn't care less since I
>only want to fly from A to B without being bothered about the technicalities
>that are involved with flying. The user doesn't want to know how to get the
>computer to do his work, he wants the machine just to do it.

Wait a minute, we are talking on the differences between unix and dos shell
aren't we? So if you want to go from point A to point B with both shells I
certainly prefer the Unix one : You arrive to B faster and with pressing less
buttons.

You can argue that "Yes but in my dos airplaine I have less buttons so it is
easier to remember which one does what". I return you your own argument :
what Joe User wants is to be a passenger, not the pilot. Yes there are more
buttons on my UNIX plane but as a passenger you don't even see them, however
on your dos plane you have to be at the same time the pilot, the passenger
and the steward.


>>As a moded editor, vi is different from modeless fullscreen editors,
>>like emacs, and DOS wordprocessors.  However, this does not make it
>>inherently more difficult, merely different.

>Yep, but as I said, different means learning yet another thing unrelated to the
>user's need. Users don't like that.

Don't get me started on editors :-)
Editors are a religious subject, people think their editor is the best
whatever you try to convince them that not at all you editor is the best.

>Most DOS editors know the WordStar commands. Furthermore, there is helptext
>(just hit the F1 if you're lost). And learning another kind of editor

Yes, I've written my bbs so it is easy to use from people who come from dos
bbs. I've discovered that there is no real standard for editor however the
wordstar convention seems to be supported by most major editors (although,
users don't really use Ctrl K B and Ctrl K K now, they mark a bloc with the
mouse). So i've created a very simple editor for those people, an editor that
implements wordstar commands has also good cursor key movement.

The only thing that you have to be aware of is that the "F1=help" convention
is not really supported under unix. You have to remember that under unix you
can connect with loads of different terminals, and most of them don't support
function keys. Another thing about function keys : try to press f1 or even
PgUp or PgDn on your favourite comm software : yes on most of them the
function key is handled locally, and PgUp and PgDn bring you the Download &
Upload menus.

>>Under a shell like tcsh or bash, I can set up the command line editor
>>to use vi or emacs key bindings, depending on what I use.  Irregardless
>>of where I am, dw deletes a word, h and l or arrow l/r are forward
>>and backwards.

>Oh yes, it *CAN* be done. But how?

What I am missing from dos is the simplicity of command line editing (well
with dos extensions). Under unix you can do it far better than you do it
under dos, the only problem is that you are bound to vi or emacs commands
like : impossible to go back with cursor keys and edit the line with cursor
left cursor right and insert text simply. This is a drawback with unix : if
you don't know how to use vi or emacs you cant edit your command line.

>Most DOS editors have a help key, they often show which commands are availlable
>on the screen, have mouse support, pull-down menus or WordStar commands.

Mouse support is certainly tricky under unix if you are connected with a
vt100 and a modem :-)

>And emacs is easier to learn than vi? <grin> Besides that, the programs you
>mention are editors. A typical programmer's tool. What about a decent word
>processor? (Oh please, inform me about the 'user friendliness' of troff and
>(La)TeX... :)

I don't see your point here. Wordperfect and Microsoft word exist under unix,
amongst other. And as far as TeX is concerned, it IS old and it IS
un-friendly but so far it is the only standard for representing mathematic
notations.

>>Yes, Unix uses a different paradigm than do DOS and VMS.  This doesn't
>>make it any more difficult, only different.

>Difference = difficult.

I beg to disagree here, it is just different, it is if you prefer another way
of thinking, the difficulty reside in understanding that it is another way of
thinking but once you realised that, it may be easier to use.
I take an example in the dos world : for many time people have programmed
using sequential programmers. Now that windows arrives and we are told that
we have to think in terms of events and objects. Is it more difficult?
No, not really, it is another approach of programming.
Now I understand that it takes time to switch from one langage or one frame
of mind to another, this is what training is for. You don't learn another
langage in a night but if you understand the concepts you go faster than
trying to repeat your way of doing things with the previous langage.

>>Whatever you're used to seems easy to you.  Just because Unix isn't
>>DOS doesn't make it more difficult.

>Now you're talking. Let's face it, most users know DOS and not UNIX.

I wonder what you understand by the word "know". I agree that there are more
people who use programs on ms/dos machines that there are people who use
programs on  unix machines. But I wouldnt say that they have a knowledge of
ms/dos.

>Plus that you need to know that 'ls -l' shows you which files are executable.
>And you have to remember to set your $EDITOR environment variable to your
>favourit 'EaseyButPowerfullEditor(tm)'. Oh yeah, don't forget that that
>variable should be exported too!

"set -a" works fine for me.

Personally I don't think you have more hassle modifying your .profile than
modifying your AUTOEXEC.BAT. And for me CONFIG.SYS has always been very
confusing (what kind of memory do I use? Do I need smartdriv? What can I put
in high memory ? etc...).
And remember : when you set your AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS you are on your
own (well with a couple of manuals) under Unix, the system administrator
creates your account and if he isn't totally rude he will ask you what kind
of editor you like and help you set your profile.

>>I've compiled, and have run out-of-the-box several hundred megabytes of source
>>code under HP-9000/300 and 400 series machines running BSD, HP snakes
>>running HPUX, DECs running Ultrix, SGI's running IRIX, VAXen running
>>both Ultrix and BSD4.3-Reno, my PC running Linux, RS6000's running
>>Ultrix, etc.

>Without changing Makefiles??? Gee!

Major unixes have an option in many makefiles (there is always a make sco or
make sysv or make bsd). However I agree that executables could be made more
available, specially for people who don't have acompiler. But it is going in
the right direction, Sco for example has loads of binaries on its bbs and I
think dell is shipping puplic domains with it's unix as well.

>>You're saying that under DOS, I can send an .EXE to anyone running the
>>same processor family (i86) / operating system (DOS) combination.  The
>>same thing holds true under Unix.

>Yep, but the problem is that even on the same processor it's not always
>possible to exchange executables. Ever tried to run BSD/386 executables under
>System V.4?

Ever tried to run a windows programm under dos?

>>>don't need a system manager or need to be a system manager to
>>>get the thing to run.

>>What do you call CONFIG.SYS and TSR order mangling under DOS?
>>This looks suspiciously like system administration.

>You don't need to have a CONFIG.SYS or TSR's to run DOS applications.

Speaking of the administrator role, it is definitely an important role under
unix, and although products like Unix SVR4.2 try to make it easier it is
still complicated because you have to administer very different areas.
All those areas don't exist under dos (no uucp, no mail, to tcp/ip, no
terminals, no multi-user no security, no system load, no accounting
and even sometimes no backups). I think we go back to your airplane example :
under dos there is less to administer but the user is in charge of the whole
machine, under unix the user doesnt have the hassle to administrate and can
enjoy his programs fully.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippe GOUJARD                              Email : [e-mail]