From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:14:16 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <cxsnbpl.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1992Sep8.145449.26765@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
...
>
>If NT doesn't support dumb terminals, it's completely useless to me!

NT does support dumb terminals at the level of comm ports (the routines
are a different, much better set than that in Windows 3.X).
What I meant was that NT does not support login sessions via dumb terminals
by default.  For a specialized application, everything you need is
there (including separate "user ids" if that is what you require).
Send me e-mail if you need to know more.

...
>>If this survives AT&T's lawsuit against Berkeley and BSDI, then it
>>might become significant... at the moment, Berkeley Unix has less than
>>2% of the Unix market.  BSDI and Linux are still far smaller.
>
>Linux is not based on Berkeley code, and AT&T's lawsuit is based on the
>fact that they claim to be behind the Berkeley code in some obscure way.
>Even if they win, Linux will not be effected.

What code base does Linux come from?  Is it freely usable, or is it GNU?

>
>>Hmmmm.... name one "open" Unix vendor (not BSDI, somebody big) and how it is
>>that they are open, and you might just drag me into this mad-man's debate.
>
>All Unix systems have a compiler and a standard set of system calls.  NT
>may have these as well, but all Unix systems also have standard tools
>such as /bin/sh, /bin/sed, /bin/awk, etc., etc.  If NT has those
>(shipped in the box), I'll be impressed.

They do not ship these in the box, but as the POSIX.1 calls are there, all
of the GNU stuff will port with reasonable ease. Currently there is Hamilton
C-shell there already.  The company associated with the research group
I work for will also be marketing a POSIX.2 near-(actually under NT
possibly fully) compliant set of POSIX utilites.

>
>NT can have all the nifty futuristic features it wants.  If nobody uses
>'em, nobody will care.  DOS is adequate for a *lot* of people.  You
>think that these people are going to care about obscure advances in NT's
>kernel?  All that most people will see is that NT doesn't run their
>favorite obscure little DOS program...

I doubt DOS is adequate even now.  Windowing, Multimedia ... even games
need this sort of abilities... currently every DOS game has to roll their
own.  I'm not saying DOS is dead, but it's domination is finally waning.  The
question is what's next!

>
>Brian publishes his (in)famous NT vs. OS/2 list.  All I see there is
>some features I *need* on the OS/2 side, and a *whole lot* of obscure,
>incomprehensible gobbledegook that I have no interest in on the NT side.
>NT may have what the academics in their white towers want, but it sure
>doesn't seem to have what this working bum wants!

That "obscure...gobbledegook"  is quite imporant.  I'm sorry that you
see it has academic only, but in truth every modern system will have
approximately that feature set within 5 years.  The question of course
is who gets there first and is able to get and maintain ISV support.

>
>(BTW--a good one for the list:  OS/2 *can* be used with dumb terminals!)

So can NT in the same sense.

...
>Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
>xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)