🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BzGn32.37C@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>I disagree. It passed it's sell by date years ago. 
>
Well, no one said you had to buy it, then.  The free unix OSes for the
386, for example, are very modern, very powerful.  You could go with
DOS, but it's crippleware by comparison.  

>The kernel is a major factor in determining how useful the system is. Only AT&T
>had the capability to introduce a shell to replace the standard ones that could
>have achieved a degree of acceptance. 

What about GNU?  They wrote BASH, not AT&T.  And BASH is a lot better in
my opinion than the other shells out there.  
>
>If UNIX was ever allowed to become the sole O/S it would halt O/S deelopment
>completely. The only effort UNIX has ever made is in catching up.
>
How could it possibly, when *source code* is freely available to anyone
for 386BSD and Linux? 

>There were other choices. PICK for instance was a very highly regarded system
>but was killed through over agressive attempts to control it. Imagine a world in
PICK didn't use EBCDIC, and it's not a bad OS.

I can imagine a world with EBCDIC as opposed to ASCII is prominent.  I
realize EBCDIC does have some problems that ASCII doesn't have, and
ASCII is of course more prevalent. In and of themselves, a machine
using an EBCDIC character set isn't really better or worse than a
machine using an ASCII character set.  But the traditional EBCDIC
machines, of course, have been IBM mainframes running (pick one)
DOS/VSE, OS, OS/MVS, etc.  They are horribly patched together operating
systems, IMHO.  They don't hold a candle to Unix in terms of
user-friendlyness, simplicity, and sheer power.