Article View: comp.sys.dec
Article #2779Re: CISC vs. RISC, VMS vs. UNIX (Kinda Long)
From: David E. Cowley
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:42
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:42
74 lines
4747 bytes
4747 bytes
In article <61209@mimsy.umd.edu>, hoel@umiacs.umd.edu (Erik Hoel) writes: |> I recently had a very heated discussion with a peer concerning the relative |> strengths and weaknesses of VAXes and workstations, as well as VMS and UNIX. |> each must offer various advantages relative to each other otherwise they |> would have died off long ago. My friend on the other hand was vehament in |> his assertions that both workstations and unix were clearly superior... |> Gads. I'm going to consider myself qualified to comment on this; I started my career as a VAX system manager just in time to watch Unix/RISC begin to take over the world. I manage VMS and Unix systems; I have CISC platforms downstairs in the lab, and a RISC on my desk. I've *never* understood the mentality that dictates that any O.S. other than somebody's pet favorite can't have *anything* good going for it. I agree with Erik. Both Unix and VMS have their strengths and weaknesses. I think Unix is a nifty little beast. I love the power that it gives a knowledgeable user at the command line, what with piping and redirection and a bazillion little utilities for slicing and dicing information. Its programming and file system interface is nice and simple, which is its greatest strength and greatest weakness. Security? Enough holes to leave anyone responsible for security quivering in the corner. VMS, on the other hand simply has more features in the O.S. Security is much more robust. Privileges are not an all-or-nothing affair. The Filesystem is nowhere near as limited -- file structures can be more complicated than a stream of bytes with an EOF. File and resource access can be controlled on an individual user basis. Ever try under Unix to give only Joe and Fred and Mary access to a file? Without creating a group and sticking them in it? Remember a user can only be in 16 groups under Unix. But programming VMS is relatively complicated if you want to make use of the features. The VMS programming manual set has 9 or 10 binders. The Unix programming manual sets I have are 2 binders. And DCL simply won't do some things as nicely as one of the Unix shells. VAXes got a bad name in the last several years because they didn't keep getting faster at the same pace as the RISC boxes. That's DEC's fault. VMS, I think, got a bad name because it's associated with VAXes. Unix got a good name because it was running on fast, sexy new RISC processors that people were plonking on their desktops. (Unix Fast. VMS Slow. Ugh. Unix good. VMS Bad.) Tried running on one of the newer 6000 or 4000 series machines? They perform quite well anymore. DEC has made big, big improvements with the VAX processors since the late 80's. We'll see how Alpha does for them. IMHO, Unix is *not* as prolific as it is because it's the easiest to learn, or the most suited for business environments, or somehow "the best" operating system out there. It's so prevalent becuase it was (Captain, sensors indicate flames approaching!) expedient. Unix was designed from the get-go to make very few assumptions about the platform it's running on, and the source code was easily obtainable. So in the mid-late eighties, it was easy for the vendors to get a license from AT&T, a source tape from Berkeley, munge a few thousand lines of C and/or assembly. Poof! Instant operating system for your blazing new 15-mip RISC processor. Also IMHO, RISC will not continue to dominate the processor field the way it has. As stuff like caching and superpipelining that started with RISC works its way into CISC and other processor technology, the lines between them will blur until they are meaningless. Reducing the size of the instruction set was a cute trick that got MIPS up, and helped produce some good new technologies, but a reduced instruction set will not continue to be key to increasing performance. My $0.02 worth. ------------ David Cowley, Unix/VMS System Manager, Pacific Northwest Laboratories PO Box 999 MSIN K7-53 Voice: (509) 375-2260 Richland, WA 99352 Internet: de_cowley@pnl.gov
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Oct16.194224.29028@oracle.pnl.gov>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!know!cass.ma02.bull.com!think.com!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!pnl-oracle!d3c724References:
<61209@mimsy.umd.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!know!cass.ma02.bull.com!think.com!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!pnl-oracle!d3c724 From: David E. Cowley Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec Subject: Re: CISC vs. RISC, VMS vs. UNIX (Kinda Long) Message-ID: <1992Oct16.194224.29028@oracle.pnl.gov> Date: 16 Oct 92 19:42:24 GMT References: <61209@mimsy.umd.edu> Sender: news@oracle.pnl.gov Followup-To: comp.sys.dec Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs, Richland, WA Lines: 74 Originator: d3c724@baldrick.pnl.gov