From: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent
Subject: Re: Priorities for Coherent 4.0 development features
Date: 13 Nov 92 21:45:18 GMT
Reply-To: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com
Distribution: comp
Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA

In article <9211110414.45@CSOFT.UUCP> gerald@CSOFT.UUCP (Gerald Abshez) writes:
#   In article <SJE.92Nov2182010@xylos.ma30.bull.com> sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com writes:
#> First, I have no doubt that nifty newsreader software and the ever
#> more sophisticated UUCP upgrades are popular topics.  In fact, they
#> seem to be getting the majority of the commentary.  But they are not
#> the items that are going to get Coherent more acceptance in its market
#> niche (low cost Unix style development and application systems).
#
# Well, as this seems to be the most popular topic, it seems most Users,
# on the net anyways, feel that it is important. The pure garbage I went
# through with cnews and rn, just to get them _running_, is way too much.
# The price is aimed at a hobbyist, IMO, and you have to address these
# needs first.

There is the problem of biased sampling.  MWC claims several tens of
thousands of copies of Coherent have been sold.  But how many of these
customers use network news facilities?  As a fraction of the whole, I
would be surprised if it were over five percent.  Maybe less.  After
all, there are only a couple of hundred with uucp accounts at mwcbbs.

#> Second, while having a sophisticated GUI and the like is interesting,
#> no one should delude themselves into thinking that they are going to
#> get a full blown SCO style X Window environment for either the current
#> size or price levels of Coherent 4.0.  Note that I do not doubt that
#> MWC could eventually produce an SCO clone, but what would be the
#> point?  By the time they got there, their price would probably be
#> pretty close to SCO itself while SCO functionality had moved forward
#> in the interim.
#
# Well, how about Linux? That is a _free_ *nix, and it does X. And before
# COH does. However, it is unsupported, and better suited (IMO) to true
# Unix hackers right now, whereas COH is good for an "intro" to Unix.
# Some things in SCO, COH will need to survive; however, I don't think
# that COH will ever be nearly as big as SCO, or as costly, because it
# is aimed at a lower end, cost conscious market. They don't mind dragging
# (a little) in functionality, as long as they aren't paying more in
# support and upgrades then they are in car payments a month.

If MWC tries to be an SCO, they would lose because SCO got there
first.  I think that Linux is a fine idea and I have stated that
before in this newsgroup.  However, even Linus Torvalds would say that
Linux is aimed at the noncommercial enthusiast.  It has plenty of
nonofficial support, but it too unfocussed for my project.  Also, the
issue of code size restraint (or constraint) is not that much of an
issue with Linux, but it is important to me.  Also, I am not involved
with Linux work because I barely have enough time to do my own spare
time research on my problem domain.

#> Third, most large vendors today have recognized that it's a
#> multiplayer commercial environment and interoperability is the
#> watchword of the day. 
#
# I mostly agree with this statement.
#
#> a three node AppleTalk network using TurboNET ST adaptors (US$15 each
#> including cabling) that has all kinds of third party software and
#> [...] but I can't use it
#> from Coherent because Coherent doesn't understand AppleTalk because
#> there's no driver for the card or the appropriate run time library
#> support.  The only cheaper network for multinode (more than two)
#> system is ol' Sneakernet, well known to Coherent users.  I think that
#> AppleTalk protocol and LocalTalk hardware support would be a big win
#> for Coherent users as it would support the needs for the various
#> network software services while also allowing the easy integration of
#> third party items (like AppleTalk laser printers).  Even IBM makes
#> LocalTalk peripherals!  Yes, 10 Mbps Ethernet is nice, but for those
#> with only US$100 budgets for oeprating systems, it's probably out of
#> reach.
#
# I have one comment on the above:
# If COH only does one kind of network, PLEASE don't let it be LocalTalk.
# LocalTalk is fine for sharing a few files or one printer cheaply between
# two MACs, But it is horrible as far as a "network" goes. Want to share
# exe's? FORGET it. Large Documents? SLOW! SLOW! Even some sort of serial
# network (bleh) at a decent speed is comparble. Even Apple has (sort of)
# admitted how bad it is. They want you to use ethernet too.

LocalTalk is just the physical and data link specification for a
particular implentation of the AppleTalk network protocol.  There are
other specifications that can connect, one way or the other, with
existing LocalTalk implementations is a well defined and standard
manner.  This includes EtherTalk and TokenTalk.  At least with
LocalTalk there are both a known bridge path and an advancement path.
Also, software on machines that use AppleTalk run time libraries in a
reasonable fashion won't even notice the difference when the LocalTalk
wiring is replaced by EtherTalk.

On of the PC magazines just did a big review of about low and medium
cost printers.  There were about a hundred of models reviewed ranging
from dot matrix though ink jets and up to Postscript Level 2 600 DPI
lasers.  Nearly all had LocalTalk ability built-in or as a simple
upgrade option.  There are plenty of similar units of the low cost
used market, too.  If and when MWC supports LocalTalk, all this will
become more attractive for the Coherent user.

Is LocalTalk slow?  Well, although the hardware costs only a little
more then the cabling it still supports 230,400 bps along plain old
phone wire.  Coherent has trouble with only 19,200 or even 9,600 bps
on some systems; how is your proposed serial link going to be faster?
You'll need special hardware for that and it's likely to cost more
than the US$100 or so for a LocalTalk ISA card.  Even a super duper
57,600 bps UART is slower than LocalTalk by a factor of four.
LocalTalk works fine as long as the load is not too great; many such
networks have twenty or more nodes with no real problems. It is
certainly faster and much more convenient than Sneakernet. Also, it
can be automated for overnight and other unattended work.

# I'd rather have TCP/IP, and some support for writing drivers. Then we
# can nag vendors to pitch in, and hook up enterprise wide, rather then
# just to MACs. Think... you could even hook up to the Internet with
# that support. 

There are already run time library interfaces that handle TCP/IP and
socket communication for the Mac environment; AppleTalk is at the
bottom of it and handles the gory details (as it should).  There have
been ways for several years to have an all-PC/MS-DOS network using
only LocalTalk.  The only missing piece is Coherent software support.

# [Comments about needing an ANSI C compiler, which I agree with,
#  left out for brevity]
#
# I think you have a point, in some cases; however, after admitting that
# COH is only a $100 operating system, you seem to want more out of it
# then we do. :-) 

An interesting question would be: "How much of an effort would it take
to make the existing MWC C compiler ANSI compliant?"  It may be the
case the both the 3.x and 4.x compilers could be made ANSI compliant
at the same time with an overlapped effort.  The MWC compiler already
handles enumerations and some of the void semantics.  I doubt if
adding a prototype facility would mean changing or adding code of more
than five percent of the current compiler source size.  I think MWC is
stalling on this because the gcc port is always "just around the
corner".  I don't want to sound cynical, but I wonder which priorities
are most important at MWC: getting out a new disk of games and stuff
or producing an OS that supports real floating point and has a real C
compiler.

 [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
      == Steven J. Edwards           Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
      == (508) 294-3484              300 Concord Road         MS 820A ==
      == sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com     Billerica, MA 01821          USA ==
"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent