🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <rmcassid-0808951720080001@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmcassid@uci.edu (Robert Cassidy) writes:
:In article <DD0G75.8K6@news.cis.umn.edu>, Jeff Halverson
:<halv0019@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
:
:> jlp@cheeta.inesc.pt (Jaime Lares Rebelo Pinto) wrote:
:> >Chad Irby (cirby@news.gate.net) wrote:
:
:> 
:> Okay.  Fine.  Why doesn't your brother buy a Typerwriter?  (What?  You say a 
:> typewriter is not as flexible???  Yeah.  Thats my point.)
:
:But how much more flexible is UNIX over a Mac? A list, perhaps?

Memoryprotection and premptive multitasking gives each process an illusion of
running indepent of all the other. A processes never have to care about the
other. Therefor is the knowledge limited for each process. A system where you limit
the knowledge to only those who need it, it wellknown to be much more flexible
and expandible.
With cooperative multitasking do every process have to think of all the
others and leave the CPU by themselves.
Now, which one do you think is most flexible by definition, right from start?
To start with a list with things a flexible mac should handle, and unix already does:
* implement the OS on, let's say, 128 * PowerPC 601.
* change window manager.
* caching ethernet network data, to decrease network load.
* share one machine between 100 remote users at the same time.
Come on, you can't be serious asking this question? It isn't fair to compare
toys with professional tools...

:> My Linux box has _NEVER_ crashed due to misbehaving software.  Yes, I've had 
:> poorly written programs crash, but _NEVER_ has it taken down the system
:with it.  
:> The Mac IIsi at work, on the other hand, crashes under MacTCP at least once 
:> every day.
:
:Then it was not configured properly - same argument as a UNIX system. I've
:never had MacTCP crash. It's all configuration.

Please understand... MacOS have no memoryprotection, therefor can a program
go nuts and destroy whatevver it feels like with out any limitations.
Sure, nobody wants this and does everything to avoid it, but you can never
prove that any software is bugfree (if you can, would for sure thousands
of software producing companies like to hear how you did it).
Unix on the other hand, accepted that software might contain bugs, but
concentrated and limiting the effect of them by using memory protection.
Just like information hiding is one of the strongest features of
object oriented programming hides data from each other, does MP hide
processes from each other.
You only have took at the basic architecture of MacOS and Unix to understand
which one is the better.

:> I don't care for any of these marketing words (Preemtive Multitasking) created 
:> only to PROVE one system is better than the other (ie.  Preemtive Multitasking, 
:> RISC, etc.)  You can toy with syntax all you want.  When I concider my 
:> experience with MacOS, Linux, Windows, etc, I _know_ what does what I
:want it to 
:> do w/ the least pain.  I also know what system has the most potential to
:support 
:> future developments!  (Open systems and community built/designed
:freeware is a 
:> much faster development model!)   
:
:And most Mac users know what system does what they want to do with the
:least pain. I also know what system has the most potential to support
:future developments! (Primarily closed systems and systemwide support of
:technologies reduces redundent development and increases
:interoperability).

That's what Mac people often believe. It's ok for them to think so, it is just
that it's annoying when they try to convince people that a Mac Quadra should be
better than any Unix workstation, no matter the task is... It's like ignoring
the last decades discoveries in computer science.
Most mac people still think Unix is the same old system as it was in the 70's,
but things have changed. Unix is becomming a lot better each day. The complexity
of Unix is decreasing. It is no longer so difficult to learn is many people
think it is. With today's powerful computers is it avaible for most people,
so it DOES compete with MacOS.

/Henrik