🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <1992Sep13.053045.25655@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> halpin@vsg1.dsg.dec.com (Stephen E. Halpin) writes:
>>In article <jbone.716346951@splat> jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:
>  <<stuff deleted>>
>>I don't think that argument is refutable --- it's merely one
>>...
>
>UNIX is hell on wheels for your average user.	Would you have your
>secretary writing up printcaps?  True UNIX has a pathetic file system
>(fsck? BAHAHAHA!!!), doesnt support a standard uniform model for threads,

    Oh this is really funny... so you would rather use CHKDSK on a PC?

    Item: UNIX filesystems are very careful about the order they write
	  things out to disk so if you crash in the middle of a write
	  you don't generally loose your entire partition

    Item: big surprise, PC filesystems are not.  Want to know how many
	  times I've corrupted my PC filesystem because some program
	  quietly went beserk or due to a system crash in the middle of
	  a COPY ?

    Item: UNIX filesystem formats are more recoverable then PC filesystems.
	  One bad program can blow a way your PC filesystem.  While you can
	  screw more then a few files on a UNIX filesystem due to a crash,
	  it's very hard to destroy the whole filesystem.  Besides, UNIX
	  machines crash a hellofalot less then MSDOS or WinBlows.

    Item: FSCK does a hellofaalot more then anything you can find on a PC.
	  It may appear to be technical mumbo jumbo to you but that's why
	  it works and why CHKDSK doesn't.  The best PC recovery programs
	  tend to be even more complex then FSCK so I'm not sure what you
	  are talking about...	would you rather not have a disk
	  recovery program?

>multiprocessing, etc...  Splines in X?  24-bit color for under $5,000?
>These are NOT things you find in the UNIX world.  Besides, if UNIX was
>so great, why did NeXT choose MACH instead? :->  I didnt see them jumping

    First you are talking about user level complexity, now you are
    lambasting UNIX internals that only programmers see... I'll change
    subjects and follow along.

    People like different things... Many people can't stand WinBlows
    enforced uniformity.  UNIX has been around a long time, and believe you
    me, if MicroCruft Winblows survives as long as UNIX has it's NOT going
    to be running the same old uniform user interface it's running now. In
    fact, it will fall into the same pit baseline UNIX has and MSDOS has,
    and being single sourced it will not ever get out of that pit. 5-10
    years from now Microsoft is going to pull another OS out of its hat and
    throw windows away in the same manner its doing with MSDOS, and make a
    huge amount of money in the process.

    What's your definition of UNIX?  BSD and SysV compatibility?  Mach with
    a basic BSD compatibility server falls into my definition of UNIX,
    maybe next-generation UNIX because BSD compatibility is no longer the
    center of the domain.  AT&T can f*ckoff for all I care, they may own
    the name as a trademark, and think they are cute suing Berkeley who
    pretty much gave them GIGABYTES of free enhancements to SysV, but they
    don't own public perception of the name 'UNIX'.

>the X bandwagon either, which is the "open" standard for UNIX GUI.  SCO
>UNIX runs over $1,000, NeXTstep in its most basic form is ~$1,000, and
>Id expect Solaris to be priced likewise.  One uses the MOTIF GUI, one
>the NeXTstep GUI, one the OpenLook GUI.  Each OS has a different API,
>different behavior for the same calls, and a host of other incompatable
>anomolies.

    Welcome to the world of choice.  Do you want Beef for dinner every day
    of your life?  Sorry, that's being unfair.  Actually I agree with you
    here as far as NeXTSTEP pricing goes, NeXT is going to have to sell
    NeXTSTEP 486 in the range $50-$250 to build a real user base for it.
    They don't have to beat out microsoft, just build enough of a base that
    PC software houses will start making their programs compatible.  Once
    that happens microsoft will be shoved out of the market as people
    realize how really aweful MS Windows is.

>Windows 3.1 and Macintosh are still the only systems selling at >1 million/yr.
>NeXT may have the best engineered system out there, but with a small installled
>base, low sales volume, small "aftermarket" business (ie no third party graphics
>cards/accelerators, etc...) and other factors dont change the current market
>reality that Microsoft is ALREADY the volume leader.  Toss in one (relatively)

    Yes I know... Microsoft is good at marketting, and good at making
    money, but don't try to equate quantity with quality... Previously I
    listed my perception of Microsofts priorities and I stick to that list,
    they are more interested in making money then producing good software.

    can 50 million PC users be wrong?

    Well, yes, they can.

					    -Matt

>>-- Jeff Bone ------------------------------------------------------------
>>	  NT...  Just say N0T.	 Skate UN*X!   Standard disclaimer.
>>------------------------------------------------------- jbone@dell.com --
>>									 --
>
>-Steve, a regular user of every common UNIX (as well as a few uncommon ones),
>	 Macintosh, Windows, Windows NT, VMS, NOS/VE, and a few homegrown OSs.

--

    Matthew Dillon		dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US
    1005 Apollo Way		uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon
    Incline Village, NV. 89451	ham: KC6LVW (no mail drop)
    USA 			Sandel-Avery Engineering (702)831-8000