From: peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:37:15 GMT
Organization: Global Village 1

mbarkah@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Ade Barkah) writes:

>Uhm, I know it's a small point, but one people seem to forget: Most People
>in the World speak Chinese, so, why don't we insist on writing in English ?

One world standard language wouldn't be a bad thing, even if it were Chinese.

>Or, why is it good to learn some french when you're travelling to France ?

Gee, that's why we learn French at school. But I wonder why all those
foreigners never speak Dutch... Oh wel... <grin>

>My point is, Unix offer many advantages (and some disadvantages) than more
>simpler systems such as DOS and OS/2.

OS/2 ain't a simple system. It's much like DOS from the outside but completely
different from the inside.

>Should users want to use those
>advantages, they should expect to learn and think the way Unix does.

I agree, but you can't expect a traveller to go to, say, China and have a
nice holiday when he doesn't speak Chinese and the Chinese don't speak
English. What I mean that if he says "I want to rent a boat" in Chinese,
but he can't remember the translation of boat, it would be nice if he could
say that word in English and still have the Chinese understand him, right?

>If they find Unix is too complex, and don't want to bother with asking
>someone for help, or paying someone for help, then probably Unix wasn't
>meant for them in the first place.

That's just a matter of viewpoint, IMHO. I think that UNIX was designed to be
flexible. The user interface was left out of the kernel and that means that
we can choose our own UI without changing the system. So why not use that
power so that an unknowledgable user can use the system too?

>The 'dir to ls' comparison is ridiculous. It's like saying since most

The comparison isn't rediculous, you're trying to make it rediculous.

>Today Unix and most of its variants are large and complex operating
>systems, designed for the use of large and serious tasks and systems.

UNIX is a large OS, but so is OS/2 and so will be NT. What's the matter with
that? A car is a complex piece of machinery too. Ever heard complaints by
ordinary drivers about the complexity of their car?

>Moreover, I will also say that Unix today is meant to be run and
>managed by system administrators who know what they're doing.

Sure, for today's UNIX systems you're right. But things change. Ten years
ago, UNIX was meant for large computers, not for micro's. It was not meant
for graphics. Now most UNIX systems run on small micro's and many have
graphics.

>People to forget that most Unix systems are *not* home systems.

I would swear that this Linux system is at home. I know many more people who
run Linux or 386BSD at their home machine. Not all (including me) are wizards
and none are realy the typical end-user.

>But really, most Unix packages today are easy to install.

Not the UNIX packages I had to install!

>Heck, I had fewer problems than installing OS/2 2.0 !

I've never installed OS/2 v2.0. I did install v1.3 and that was as easy as
could be. No technical questions, well chosen defaults and with enough on-line
help.

>Why do people who find Unix too hard want Unix at home anyhow ?

I don't know. And in fact, that has nothing to do with this thread. The point
is, that the home market is THE market for the comming years. In volume that
is. An OS that is successful in large market will get the most support. The
most space in the magazines, the most applications, the most books, the most
companies behind it (third party software/hardware/support/etc.). If NT gets
all, then UNIX will live a small life in the shadow. I.e. it will die.

>Well, I think those people need to wake 
>up, smell the coffee, and realize that Unix wasn't meant to be a
>single-user-system without a dedicated sysadmin person.

It doesn't matter for who it was meant. The question is: *CAN* it be a suitable
single user system? The answer is YES! Remember, it's a flexible system.
Flexible in contrast to static. You think UNIX is a static system: it's multi
user and complex and it's going to stay that way. That's shortsighted. UNIX
has never been a static system. It has evolved from day 1 and it hasn't stopped
and never will. If there is money in an easy to install, easy to adminster and
easy to use UNIX system, then someone will jump in that market. And since most
people don't care whether they run system X or system Y, as long as they can
do their job at a minimal effort, then that automatically means that they are
potential UNIX users. It's just that the effort is too high at this moment.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions