HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone)
Subject: Why I "need" UNIX        
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:23:49 GMT

Perry A. Caro writes:
>
> ...list of utils deleted...
>
>
>With the exception of the lpr stuff, there is not a single thing on
>your list that is unique to UNIX!  Indeed, several of the things you
>list run on MS-DOS or VMS, neither of which could be considered even
>remotely similar to UNIX!  With respect to lpr, the other systems
>have equivalent functionality, which in most cases is SUPERIOR to
>the lpr stuff!
>
>All of which goes to the heart of my confusion about all this UNIX
>angst: what exactly do people mean when they say they need UNIX?
>See my other posting on this thread.

It's not any one thing, Perry, it't the sum total of these things 
out of the box.  In addition,  it's a very rich, reasonably standardized
API which *every* UNIX box has, to some degree.  (POSIX isn't enough)
It's the set of libraries you get, the set of includes, the networking
layers built-in and, more-or-less, configuration-free.  It's the
*accessibility* of the OS, the ability to port source from one UNIX to
another pretty much by munging the Makefile around, it's the somewhat
standardized filesystem, the software tools philosophy, it's a small
set of standardized shells (your choice!), it's a (well, somewhat)
consistant set of administration concepts, it's a TOTAL ENVIROMENT
AND WAY OF DOING THINGS, OUT OF THE BOX... shall I go on?  It's
all of these things.  IMHO, UNIX isn't the kernel, it's the env.

I *have* all those UNIX-y DOS utils you eluded to.  And the reason I
have them is that, well, DOS *hurts* me. ;)  I hate it.  Having the
UNIX-y DOS utils helps, but it DOES NOT make DOS == UNIX.

By my definition, lots of things count:  Mach, Sprite, Plan 9,
Chorus, Linux, BSD, SVR[34], etc etc.  NT won't count, because
Gates has to have his "\" instead of "/", his DOSsy shell, his
nonstandard filesytem, a different API, nonstandard networking,
etc. etc. etc.  Trivial points individually, but they add up.
Fact is, NT WILL NOT BE AS FUNTIONAL AS UNIX OUT OF THE BOX.
Gates simply doesn't care about open systems or building on the
strengths of the past.  NT will be quirky, "Gatesy", and non-
standard as all get out.


More of my $0.02...  AGAIN, MY OPINIONS ONLY.


jb



--
-- Jeff Bone ------------------------------------------------------------
      "Imagination is more important than knowledge."  - A. Einstein
------------------------------------------------------- jbone@dell.com --
                                                                       --
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re: Byte: Is Unix Dead ?
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:21:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.153520.10733@leland.Stanford.EDU>, 
kocks@jessica.stanford.edu (Peter Kocks) writes:
> 
> In case it is not obvious.  Windows NT will be very buggy when it
> first comes out to the general public.
	Any complex product is likely to have bugs.  Certainly Windows 3.0
	and 3.1 have plenty of bugs.  So does NeXTSTEP 2.1 and you can bet
	on 3.0 as well.  It's true of UNIX and VAX/VMS, etc.  The question
	about Window NT is:  will it be worth using?  Based on the
	developer's version, the answer is YES.  It is already more robust
	than Windows 3.0/3.1 (and if you say that ain't saying much, the
	millions of copies sold argues that they're usable, warts and all).
	Windows NT will be usable for the same people for whom Windows 3.x
	is usable.  That means a lot of boxes very soon.
> Anyone who does not believe
> this has not watched the development of OSs over the last decade.
> While Windows NT offers a lot of great things and promises even more,
> we are talking at least 2 years before people actually start using it
> on a large scale (AT LEAST).  I bet that 99% of the potential Windows
> NT users will stick with Windows 3.x for a long time.  
	I'll cover that bet.  (To the net police:  just kidding, heh, heh.)
> Us net heads
> may want Windows NT, but most users don't want a 16Meg RAM PC using
> windows NT, they want a 4 Meg Windows 3.x station.
	They want applications and native Windows NT will be easier to
	develop for than Windows on DOS.
> 
> All of this plays to NeXT's advantage.  NeXT is, and will be for some
> time, more stable than Windows NT.  
	I'd say they'll be about the same.  NeXT is constantly improving
	features and functionality and that works against stability.  NT
	has a lot of people working on improving it as well...and on
	adding new object-oriented layers.  As I've suggested in other
	posts, the best object-oriented layer to add would be NeXTSTEP.
	As things stand now, NeXT has to devote resources to both NeXTSTEP
	and Mach.  Porting to NT would let them devote full resources to
	NeXTSTEP.  And it would give NeXT developers a market of millions
	rather than thousands.

	I should point out that I previously advocated that NeXT should
	adopt OSF/1 version of Mach instead of devoting resources to
	maintaining their own version.  I feel that's still a good idea
	but porting to NT would be a bonanza for everyone.
> The same can be said for OS 2.0;
> altough, I'm not sure I would characterize OS 2 as stable yet (much
> better than before though).  
> 
> NeXT better come out with 3.0 soon and a RISC machine or this lead
> time will be lost.
	NT already supports symmetric multi-processing and will run on
	both MIPS (now) and DEC ALPHA (soon) RISC chips.  Both of these
	chips would look just great dressed in black.
> 
> --Peter Kocks
>   kocks@chemistry.stanford.edu

c.f.waltrip

Internet:	<waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>

Opinions expressed are my own.
From: wierda@ltb.ltb.bso.nl (Gerben Wierda)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Byte: Is Unix Dead ?
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:43:20 GMT
Organization: BSO/LT, Baarn, The Netherlands


There are several reasons for NeXT to to use OSF/1 Mach:
	- Licensing cost.
	- Maintenance will be a pain in the ass, since every change has to
		travel through a huge bureacracy, since every member has to
		agree. This will increase cost.
	- Their current version is pretty stable, but lacks a few specific
		things.
Their is also one reason why NeXTSTEP on /NT (if at all feasible) is a bad
idea: It would instantly kill the NeXT hardware operation.

Within the limits they have, I think NeXT is doing the right thing (just not
fast enough, they are loosing advantage, though very slowly). It's in
marketing and salse that their trouble is. Like for instance the lack of
direct sales force to get to large companies in Europe.

Just my worthless opinion.
-- 
wierda@ltb.bso.nl (Gerben Wierda) || I speak for myself and not for my employer.
(+31) 2154 84415/(+31) 35 833539  || Support the League for Programming Freedom!
	"If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there."
	(Almost from) Lewis Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland".
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT Developer Support... Should we dump NeXT?
From: poff@vax.sonoma.edu (Thomas Poff)
Date: 25 Aug 1992 19:20 PST  
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sonoma State University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

It is so important to all of us to have affordable Tech support.  I hope NeXT
wakes up in time to recognize this and other issues.  The competition is close
on their heels and I suspect that a lot of people are beginning to consider
ditching NeXT entirely.  Let's hope this doesn't happen.

--thomas--
poff@vax.sonoma.edu


In article <1992Aug23.221041.17671@dolphin.com>, zac@dolphin.com writes...
>Dave Griffiths writes
>> In article <22150@venera.isi.edu> woolf@isi.edu (Suzanne Woolf) writes:
>> >Furthermore, when there's no direct cost to customers for support, a
>> >problem tends to develop: Customers are casual about using the support
>> >service, so your highly trained support people with their nice
>> >workstations end up spending their time telling people to RTFM.
>> 
>> Fine, I can understand NeXT charging casual "customers", but what about
>> us registered developers who you can assume *have* RTFM? We are 
>> developing specifically for the NeXT platform and it's quite easy to 
>> reach the limit of public domain knowledge. A distinction should be 
>> made between end-user support and developer support.
> 
>All I can say is:  WordPerfect is number one in the word processing  
>market for the simple reason that they offer great support.  Compared  
>with half-a-dozen other packages on MSDOS, Windows, etc., (let's leave  
>the NeXT WP out of this), WordPerfect is a lousy word processor.  This  
>was particularly true when it first became popular several years ago.  So  
>why did they succeed big time?
> 
>Because... when you buy WP, you get support.  You get it free, seven days  
>a week.  You also get a free year long subscription to their newsletter.   
>You can go to the bookstore and buy WP for Windows, WP for DOS, WP for  
>Mac magazines.  Best of all, the support they offer is on an 800 number.   
>WordPerfect doesn't charge for their support because they know it sells  
>their product.  Too bad NeXT can't get the same idea through its  
>corporate mind.
> 
>$155 per question is too high; so is the annual fee.  Then there is the  
>question of NeXT support quality (or lack thereof).  NeXT needs to  
>recognize that they need good software, and that good software comes from  
>good development efforts.  NeXTSTEP is hard enough to understand without  
>having NeXT put up brick walls.
>-- 
> Zacharias J. Beckman - Dolphin Software - zac@dolphin.com (NeXTMail welcome!)
>         900 High School Way - Suite 2106 - Mountain View - CA - 94041
> To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy... and dull
> fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful. -- R. A. Heinlen
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: cjs1722@zeus.tamu.edu (STEPANIAN, CHRISTOPHER JOHN)
Subject: Are there to be back to school specials???
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:47:00 GMT

I'm more than willing to buy a NeXT, but are to be any sales or packages 
 offered? Perhaps I should look for demo's ...

Rumors ???
From: hardy@golem.ps.uci.edu (Meinhard E. Mayer (Hardy))
Subject: Re: Open Letter: Don't get rid of UNIX
In-reply-to: glenn@rightbrain.com's message of 31 Aug 92 02:58:22 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Organization: Department of Physics, UC Irvine, CA 92717-4575, USA
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:00:48 GMT

From another user at another golem:
Glenn is right --- how couldn't he -- hea has his brain in the "correct"
place ;-) --- if NeXT dumps UNIX many of us will dump NeXT. 
--
Hardy 
-----
Meinhard E. Mayer,  Department of Physics, UC Irvine 
e-mail: hardy@golem.ps.uci.edu (preferred) or MMAYER@UCI.BITNET
From: daugher@cs.tamu.edu(Walter C. Daugherity)
Subject: NS 2.0 on RS/6000 (was Re: Is BSD dead? )
Keywords: NS 2.0, RS/6000
Reply-To: daugher@cs.tamu.edu
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 22:47:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.185806.109@adobe.com> byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer) writes:
	[lines deleted]
| Even so, NS1.0 was plenty useable on the RS/6000.  It
| just took too long to port 1.0 (it wouldn't have been
| ready until *after* NS2.0 had been released on NeXT
| machines), 2.0 would have been longer to port, and there
| were too many politics going on from the beginning.
| 
| It was all started in the wrong direction to begin with.
| Which is sad, because what did get finished hinted
| strongly that done right, it would have been one bang-up
| system.

NS2.0 WAS ported to the IBM RS/6000.  You're right about the politics, though;  
Steve Jobs has been quoted as saying "There's this diamond [NS2.0] on  
somebody's desk at IBM but he thinks it's a clod of dirt because somebody  
dropped it in the mud.  One of these days its value will be discovered."

Unfortunately for RS/6000 owners that day may come too late.  The real  
potential of the RS/6000 line is that IBM already has chips in the lab running  
at significant multiples of the current high-end CPU's, which are no slouches  
themselves.
--
Walter C. Daugherity			Internet, NeXTmail: daugher@cs.tamu.edu
Texas A & M University			uucp: uunet!cs.tamu.edu!daugher
College Station, TX 77843-3112		BITNET: DAUGHER@TAMVENUS
	---Not an official document of Texas A&M---
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: frerk@informatik.uni-kl.de (Frerk Meyer)
Subject: NeXT vs. (MIDI) Sampler
Reply-To: frerk@informatik.uni-kl.de
Organization: AG Telematik
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:56:49 GMT

Is a NeXT (I don't have one) with his DSP Chip a full substitute for
an of-the-shelf MIDI-driven Sampler (Roland S-550)?
Do I have to buy additional Software for that use, or is it included?
Are there large libraries of digisized sounds for the NeXT?
-- 
Frerk Meyer                 Who was the most successful athlete    __o 
frerk@informatik.uni-kl.de  of the Olympic Games in Barcelona?   _`\<,_
IRCNICK = Portnoy           Ms. Anna Bolica !                   (_)/ (_)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re:  NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Distribution: USA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 22:58:00 GMT

Jonathan Hendry writes
> Microsoft knows they can sell s**t and people will buy it,
> smiling and showing it to their friends and telling them how
> great it is. If that friend is lucky enough to have a black
> box on his desk (or even a mac), he wrinkles his nose in
> sheer revulsion, seeing it for what it really is. Most poor
> DOS users don't know any better, so when they get an
> incremental advance in their software, they go dancing in
> the streets and praising undefeatable Bill.

Which is why NeXT needs to get their boxes out where people can see  
them.  Why raise the common denominator and then hide the result?

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Subject: Re: NeXT, WordPerfect, WriteNow, Nisus, etc.
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:20:16 GMT

Dayne Miller writes

> ...but what I'm most curious about is why some hungry
> Next-specific software firm ("Small. Fast. Ruthless. All
> Edge." -w. gibson) hasn't come up with anything that
> would focus on NeXT's unique OS and image as an exciting
> platform on which to work.

Oh, but there is one such firm!

They're called RightBrain, and their upcoming product,
PasteUp, is a lightning quick page layout / word
processing program.  The unique interface features and
excellent typographical controls make it great for the
beginner as well as the expert.  It's my first choice
from one-pagers to long documents.

Now I've got great presentation (Concurrence), graphics
(Illustrator), and word processing (PasteUp).  And they
all specialize, which is allowed by the drag-and-drop
environment of the NeXT.  (Why should Concurrence or
PasteUp have extensive graphics creation capabilities
when I can live-paste from Draw or Illustrator?)

Only thing I'm missing is PhotoShop. :-(

Scott Byer                                   NeXTMail: byer@adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated               These are *my* opinions, and  
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900        do not necessarily reflect
Mountain View, CA 94039-7900             the opinions of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: alberto@parsec.mixcom.com (Manuel Alberto Ricart)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open Letter: Don't get rid of UNIX
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:39:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: parsec.1992Aug31.233925.593
Organization: Is the act or process of organizing or of being organized.

In article <870@rtbrain.rightbrain.com> glenn@rightbrain.com writes:
>
>This is an open letter to NeXT that will hopefully engender a bit of
>discussion (this is the .advocacy group, after all).
>
>My pleas is a simple one: don't abandon UNIX, and don't replace the file
>system with an object-oriented database unless it's invisible to UNIX.
>
>I don't think NeXT realizes how absolutely critical it is to have a highly
>conforming UNIX box as their underpinning. It's familiar ground for a huge
>number of programmers and users, even though it has its arcane sides.

While NeXT computers are certainly one of the most innovative systems
in production, its UNIX side is perhaps one of its greatest [hidden?]
assets. A lot of work has gone into providing all of those wonderful and
not so wonderful little programs.

If NeXT were to commit suicide, this would be a good way to start.
I am sure that some greatly innovative, and wonderful stuff can come
out of it. But that would just continue to propagate the non-standardization
type flames that we are all too used to seeing in these groups.
Specially when a lot of people bought them because not only the boxes offered
NeXTstep, but also offered UNIX.

So as the proverbial saying goes:

If it ain't broken, DON'T FIX IT - find something that really needs work
other than that!

-- 
Manuel Alberto Ricart
alberto@parsec.mixcom.com <NeXTMail Welcome>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: kris@coyote.fdn.org (Christophe Janot)
Subject: Re: Next vs Macintosh for the Graphic Professional (rtf)
Reply-To: kris@coyote.fdn.org (Christophe Janot)
Organization: RNuG
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 19:40:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.173350.620@prim> prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave  
Griffiths) writes:
> In article <860@rtbrain.rightbrain.com> reynolds@rightbrain.com writes:
> [68,000 characters deleted, half of which was in RICH TEXT FORMAT] 
> I have to pay for my news feed. Please take your marketing elsewhere.
> 
> Dave Griffiths
I have too ! This is the second time Rightbrain do a such thing, this is really  
painful.

Kris
-- 
When will RightBrain stop filling the netnews with their advertising or marketing posts ?

kris@coyote.fdn.org
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re:  NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:50:43 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <dillon.0miu@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes:
>In article <SXMRP.35.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug26.081231.25228@coe.montana.edu> icsu8053@cs.montana.edu (Craig Pratt) writes:
>>
>>>I think that people will be disappointed when they see how NT performs.
>>>MicroSloth may be doing itself a disservice by claiming that it will run
>    Well, I don't know about his beef, but I can tell you my beef:
>
>    * Microsoft goes through a dozen incremental improvements to MS-DOS
>      charging you for each one, that do almost nothing different.
>
>    For example, Microsoft has purposefully made their programs
>    *incompatible* with the majority of memory managers out there... even 6
>    month old versions of Microsoft's OWN memory managers don't work!  And
>    microsoft's memory manager is incompatible with many third party
>    programs.  IT'S A MESS!

I wholeheartedly concur with Matt on this point.  It galls me that I can't boot
a PC from a different version of the operating system and expect to be
able to read the files on my hard-drive.  DOS 5.0 is little changed from
the DOS 3.3 that I am running on the PC in my office.  At least with the Amiga
and even my NeXT, I could boot from an older version of the OS and expect
to at least rummage around the files.  More importantly, I can boot a newer
OS and not lose my old files.  I quit buying MS products for programming
when they weren't ANSI compatible and cost more to upgrade than buying the
competitors product.  

One very good thing about NeXT and Commodore is that at least when their
OS makes a major change (1.0->2.0->3.0 versions), the OS reflects vast 
improvements over the previous version.  I didn't own my Amiga long enough
to experience 3.0 or 4.0, but I did get to try the beta software and liked
the potential increase in productivity.  I can't wait for NeXT's 3.0!

Bill Murphy               | The Call of the Norwegian Whipperwil:
			  | "I tink so, I tink so, probably."
murphy@physics.purdue.edu | "I dunno, I dunno, who can tell."
From: messina@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Byte: Is Unix Dead ?
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:09:38 GMT
Organization: Messina Software

cmcurtin@bluemoon.rn.com (Matthew Curtin) writes:

>kocks@jessica.stanford.edu (Peter Kocks) writes:
>> [...]
>I would completely disagree. The same friend of mine said OS/2 has more 
>bugs than a bait store (see "Tron"), and is slow, takes too much of a 
>machine to run for what you get, has trouble with DOS emulation, is not 
>really have pre-emptive multi-tasking (when he has something going in one 
>window, he can't go to another and do something else...the wait icon won't 
>make way for a mouse pointer...) From what I've been reading on the net, 
>the support from IBM is practically nonexistant.

Does your friend work for Microsoft?  The whole list is completely
nonsensical.  I've used it and it has *the best* DOS emulation I've
ever seen, great pre-emptive multitasking (he can't go to another
window???  The wait icon??  I don't think he ever even used OS/2, I
think he's talking about Windows), and the support from IBM has been
*excellent*.  The only think that is missing is any visible marketing
effort.

t.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au (James Uther)
Subject: Re: Is BSD dead? 
Reply-To: jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au (James Uther)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:07:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.225335.9995@cubetech.com>, andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
|> (I have heard that there are about 5 MILLION lines of code in NS 3.0).

What possible excuse do they have for this perversion? 

The 8 1/2 windowing system for Plan9 (Bell labs' new unix-like distributed OS)
is ~9436 lines of (almost) ANSI C. It is stable, functional, has a beautiful
programing abstraction, and is generaly a joy to use. (it does however look
quite spartan).
But then, I just had a look at the size of the Plan9 kernel for the 
nextstation (new os- no nextstep), and it is less than half a megabyte (4412
lines of C) which, while somewhat minimal, is stable, and quite extensible
through libraries. It already has full networking support beyond most UNIX
systems, and although threads are not explicitly supported (for some good 
reasons) it is easy to emulate them. Plan9 is also very efficent. 
It's a common joke around here that you could have two people on an old 
sun 3/60 before it became unusable, but running Plan9 you can fit 4 or 5 users.

	is NeXTstep too big? If so, why? I mean correct me if i'm wrong,
but even X is not that big!!

	james.		'Dickie-bird?'
			'Yes Sam'
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy