From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 07:34:31 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <9211170717.AA17293@PCS.CNU.EDU> "Coherent operating system" <COHERENT@indycms.bitnet> writes:
>>
>> Well, RMS doesn't write software for free.  And there's nothing to say
>> that you can't port GNU software to an OS and charge money for it.  The
>> computer user has the choice of getting the GNU sources and porting them,
>> or paying someone else for a supported port.
>>
>> The worst thing about the GNU license and the GNU library license are that
>> they have not been challenged in court, so it isn't perfectly clear just
>> how binding they are.
>
>	Looking at it that way, I suppose I can live with it.  Almost sems
>like I can ignore it for the most part.  The challenge in court will come
>from AT&T since they have patent on storing the data behind a window on
>the screen (backing store) and X, which infringes on that, is so very
>popular and distributed under the same precepts.c

AT&T seems to be ignoring this.  And they sell X with their products.

>> So don't distribute code that contains GNU library code or output from
>> BISON.  The license on GCC doesn't cover binaries compiled with GCC.  If
>> you develop code using GCC, you don't have to distribute the sources.
>>
>	Hmmmmm.  I have heard (read) people asking about that and I thought
>it covered the binaries created with gcc too.  If not, then there is not
>a problem.

If the binaries do't contain GNU libc.a code or bison output, then they
are not covered by the GPL.

>> UNIX V7.
>	UNIX V7 was the last worthwhile release from AT&T and was
>the last one they have a right to (IMHO, most of UNIX now was just not written
>by AT&T.  It was written by people all over the world)

Not true. 32V, V6, V7, and up to SVR3 are copyrighted AT&T code.  Anything
that they obtained from outside sources was under license agreements.

>> >2) built-in graphics support
>>
>> X11 or MGR.
>>
>	No.  X11 and MGR are kludged on top of UNIX.  Just like Windows runs
>on top of DOS.  I mean kernel support for graphics (not just drivers).
>Access to the frame buffer just like normal RAM.

But there will still have to be drivers for different video cards, or
massive bloat in the kernel.

>> >3) a single user mode that can run without ttys (what for with no other
> users?)
>>
>> UNIX is a multiuser operating system.  How would you use modems or serial
>> printers?
>>
>Mess-DOS is a single user operating system and its printers and modems work
>just fine.  What was your point?  With properly written graphics software
>you could run UNIX without a tty.  What UNIX w/X is right now is just a
>bunch of graphical Xterms.  We need graphics terminals not based on tty
>devices because it slows things down.  Perhaps a hybrid tty that doesn't
>run outside of X.

Of course.  MSDOS doesn't do multitasking.

If you want UNIX that comes up in X on the console buy SVR4.2.

Real graphics terminals are >$1000.

>> >4) fast response for games (hey, games sell computers!)
>>
>> Get an Amiga.
>	I rather have (and do have) a super nintendo.  What I mean is
>smoothness of motion and some decent timing that doesn't get killed by
>a heavy load.  Its too bad most computer motherboards don't have any
>extra timers.  Timers I have to program under MS-DOS eat up 10% of the
>CPU whereas an extra hardware timer wouldn't take anything.  Oh well, that
>is one I probably will never get.

UNIX is a general purpose operating system.

>> Dump Motif and right something new.
>	Something new will have to be developed by the industry because
>no matter how brilliant something I make might be, it would probably be
>ignored.  Most of X's features are not needed 99.9999% of the time.  A
>lot of it is pure research and support of non-mainstream ideas.  At least
>X should be modular enought to dump what you don't want (demand paging
>doesn't count!, though it helps...).
>
>>
>>
>> Right.  Turn UNIX into DOSIX.  Bleah!
>	Simplifying administration would hardly turn UNIX into DOSIX.  Most
>people don't need it.  I only use administrative ware when I need to and
>their is nothing in UNIX admin that couldn't be done either automatically
>or with a shell.  The reason its such a bitch is that UNIX users of the past
>have never cared and so nothing "nice" was ever written to handle admin
>tasks

Get SCO UNIX or SVR4.  Administrative menu systems are provided.

>> >7) Ability to choose more than one scheduler.  The basic UNIX scheduler is
>> >   geared toward multiple, interactive users.  That isn't what you need if
>> >   you are running Mathematica on your machine.  Perhaps a more dynamic
>> >   scheduling system or just different ones like I said.
>>
>> They exist.
>	Not in the stuff I get to use... thought now that I have a system
>with kernel services... Perhaps after I get a tape drive for my development
>machine since one would expect plenty of crashes for awhile...
>
>> All the code that is in AT&T is theirs under the law.  There are an awful lot
>> of people who are extremely pleased with SVR4.
>>
>	There are people that are extremely pleased with Windows and DOS too.
>So what does that mean?  Mostly, people are please with stuff because it
>does the job and they are ignorant about what is inside.  People that loved
>the Macintosh definitely didn't know much about programming it.  What a
>mess to program!  But, its cute and I guess programmers have to make the
>users happy.  Seems like its our job... like it or not...
>	Anyway, SVR4 just did some things wrong.  AT&T didn't do what
>people wanted.  They put some BSD-isms in but didn't make them totally
>compatible.  Seems like they created more of a mess than they claim to
>have solved.  But, if it does eventually end the UNIX wars, acceptance
>will lead to improvements and an easing of the hell surrounding UNIX
>for so long (I hope...).

Check out SVR4.2.

>> In the Linux and BSD groups, I've seen a lot of new users who want to turn
>> UNIX into MSDOS.  I will fight to keep this from happening.  I have a decade
>> of experience with UNIX, and think it is the best OS that I ever used.  I used
>> to have a PC/XT running MSDOS, and have written diagnostics for dedicated
>> applications running on MSDOS machines to exercise and test commodity hardware
>> in a factory setting.  I am about as interested in using DOS as I would be in
>> programming on punched cards.
>
>	I hate MS-DOS.  I came over from the Motorlla 68000 camp because I
>didn't have (could not afford) anything like UNIX and the programming tools
>for DOS are so good.  The support was (and still is) there and so on.
>	However, UNIX is my favorite OS.  I love it and I've championed
>it whenever I get the chance.  However, I know it has problems that will
>keep it from being accepted.  Non-acceptance will kill it.  I want to keep
>programming it but if things keep going the way they are now, I will not
>get to.  I am not a "new user* who want(s) to turn UNIX into MSDOS."
>Nothing I suggested would do that.  Nothing I suggested would affect you
>in the least.  But, it would help people who have killer administrative
>loads and people who just want to program and don't give a hang about
>admin tasks and low-level tedium.  Don't tell me that you enjoy fixing
>screwed up permissions on dozens of files and directories!  Or having a
>permissions mistake kill off your system.  UNIX needs good tools, not just
>for newbies but for those of us who might be too tired some nite to find
>a permissions error or some such thing.  There are going to be people
>using UNIX that won't know anything about it and you must provide for
>them.  End of line.

I don't seem to have the administrative problems that you describe, and
I have been an administrator for just about every UNIX platform.

>	I have worked in the corporate world and people are real stupid
>sometimes (and sometimes mostimes...).  They buy IBM just because its
>easy to spell or something.  Some actually think their stuff is better
>than anything else.  Even if you show them a screaming clone running UNIX
>that does everything now that IBM promises OS/2 will do "any day now" and
>costs 1/10th the price they will buy the IBM.  Or the Mac.  And so on.
>However, the UNIX world's continued arrogance towards users needs and
>their stupid infighting is just as dumb.  The operating system is only
>part of the system.  Windows may stink from the OS end but the applications
>are incredible.  UNIX needs that kind of thing (and is getting it now).

Windows 3.x applications are just retreaded DOS versions that require users
to have Windows installed.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP