From: peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:41:54 GMT
Organization: Global Village 1

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

>	Unix flamers (and defenders) are somehow confused regarding the
>	difference between Unix and the command shell.

You tell Joe User that UNIX is a kernel and not a shell. Many DOS books deal
with programming batch files and doing things with COMMAND.COM. Alas, that's
not DOS. Well, for technically correct people you're right, but for most people
it doesn't matter.

>	'vi' is hard too hard to learn ? Well, so is 'edlin.' This has
>	nothing to do with Unix. Go buy Framemaker or Word for Unix.

So you imply that vi isn't supplied with UNIX? I cursed MS often enough for
not supplying a decent editor with DOS.

>d) But Windows is so easy to learn !

>	So's the Macintosh. People forget that Windows isn't the only
>	GUI around. Can people say X, motif, and x.desktop ? OpenLook
>	anyone ?

Ok. Pretend that I'm Joe User and I go to a shop. I leave the shop with a UNIX
tape. Now how do I install this tape without expertise? (s/tape/cd/g if you
want). Installing UNIX is simple? Forget it!

>	If the system administrator knows that people are going to 
>	have a background in DOS, no problemo. He/she can add configuration
>	files to make it a simple transition.

*IF* you have a sysadmin. What if it's your machine at home?

>	... and you get your work done in DOS ...

>	then why use Unix ? Go home. Take a nap. Forget Unix, it's just
>	not for you.

True, but sometimes things change.

>f) But Windows/NT, OS/2 will bury Unix Alive !

>	Yeah. Sure. How many platforms have Windows/NT running ?

Very short term reasoning.

>	Can you say "multiprocessor," "distributed processing", and 
>	"multiuser" with OS/2 ?

Not multiuser, but the other two: YES, definetly! And for NT, the same. UNIX
can't do multiprocessing (OS/2 can't do it yet, but it has everything to
support it though). Yes, there are SMP UNIXes, but those are extended UNIXes,
not the standard ones. Cytrix is an extended OS/2 which can handle multiple
users, but I don't claim that OS/2 is a multiuser OS.

>	Unix is not harder than DOS. Unix is more configurable than DOS,
>	so it has more potential to be easier on you.

More potential, but what do I buy for potential? It has to DO that, not just
promise it.

>	Unix is time tested. Newcomers like NT and OS/2 are still too
>	buggy to be really useful for the general audience. It'll take
>	some years to sort it out.

Probably, but does that stop people? No, people bought Windows 1.x, 2.x and
3.x and all three had many problems. Windows 3.x sold milions.

>	Unix is powerful. You can do everything from mailing a letter
>	to grandma to simulating a complex battle theater within NORAD.
>	Try that with DOS.

We're not talking about DOS, we're talking about current DOS users who are
potential future NT users as well as potential future UNIX users.

>	With standards like POSIX (source level) and iBCS (binary level)
>	Unix is becoming easier to the porting-developers too.

NT and OS/2 v2.0 are said to be POSIX compliant in the future. There goes
another advantage of UNIX...

>So, DOS whiners, be quiet. You're dreaming if you think Unix is any
>harder. To those who doom Unix at the hands of NT, well, not this
>decade, pal.

I'm NOT a DOS whiner and I'm definetly NOT a NT advocat. But I've taught
'stupid' users how to deal with computers and it is very difficult.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions