From: shendrix@PCS.CNU.EDU ("", Shannon Hendrix)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent
Subject: Re: Priorities for Coherent 4.0 development features
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:16:34 GMT
Reply-To: "Coherent operating system" <COHERENT@indycms.bitnet>

>
> Yikes!  I read this and wondered...
>
> , Shannon Hendrix (shendrix@PCS.CNU.EDU) wrote:
> :
> : for it.  Plus, no one hides information about Linux as MWC seems to do
> : about the internals of Coherent.  No better way to alienate developers
> : than to limit information about your OS.  Sucessful OS's have almost always
> : had lots of detailed information available to programmers.  If the device
>
> Tell that to microsoft about DOS, to Sun for SunOS, to AT&T and USL for
> Unix, to IBM for OS/2, etc.

	There are loads of detail on DOS, dubious help that it is.
I also did not say that the other did.  Only that it would help MWC.

>
> You don't need kernel source to be a developer.  Plus, source licenses
> run in the thousands of dollars.  On top of it, you were complaining
> before about the GNU policy that you had to distribute source with
> the binaries.  Linux is the same way --- which way do you want it?

	I was not complaining.  I also said that most of the time I
didn't care.  Just once in awhile I would like to send something out
with no source and I don't want to get in trouble for that.  If I do
something, I want to share it with everyone.  I also didn't say you needed
kernel source (or didn't mean to).  I just would like to know things like
process-table structure, utmp/wtmp file structure, that kind of thing.  I
don't see it in the manual.  And, using books on both BSD and SysV does
not always help because there are differences.  I guess I should buy a
book on V7 UNIX but where do I get that?  Modern publishers dump anything
that isn't "Top-40" material now days (except maybe for PH and such).
I need to find someone with some older UNIX books I guess.
>
> : driver kit for Coh 4.x.x had been release (for free) with Coh this past
> : summer Coherent might have really taken off.  As it was, MWC shipped us
> : an incomplete kernel, a lot of 16-bit binaries, bugs, missing functions,
> : and no device driver kit.  I'm not saying it was malicious or anything but
> : it has hurt them for sure.  They have a nice product which will sell itself.
>
> It's called "development".  MWC is no Sun or USL or whatever.  Have some
> patience, sheesh!  OS/2 has had plenty of problems, and that comes from
> a giant corporation.  So has ms-windows.  OS's are full of bugs.  I dare
> you to find one that isn't.

	I have loads of patience.  Try having some understanding.  I know
there are bugs in Windows et all.  But, the Suns I use at school are not
missing documented functions that I need.  Coherent was.  My solution
has been to temporarily switch to Linux until MWC releases the next
version of Coherent 4.x.x and jump back.  I don't have any problems now,
even thought Linux is pretty doggone rough.  All I can say is it works.
Coherent didn't (on my machine, a friend can't use Linux on his and Coh
is faster on his than mine... go figure...).

> As for device drivers, why should they give the kit for free?  I wanted
> to write a device driver for my SCSI card in my PS/2 microchannel machine,
> so I called the vendor and bought the tech manual.  $30 for 15 pages.

	I was thinking they might have really stired up the development
community by giving it away.  That was a mistake.  However, I still think
students should get it and for a discount.  Right now, you have to talk
the school into teaching classes with Coherent.  At least that is what
MWC told one of my professors.
>
> Call IBM and ask them how much their tech manuals are.  Make sure
> you're sitting down when you do.  They are selling you proprietary
> information when companies sell you internals and stuff.  You will bne
> sure to pay $$$$$'s for it.  If you want a source license from MWC, call
> them and ask.  Maybe they'll sell you one.

	Yeah, IBM's books are costly.  You have great exagerated my points.
UNIX has always been so open.  There are difference between Coherent and
other UNIX and while you can get dox on other UNIX's internals you can't
get that from MWC.  So, maybe I will ask them.  I've tried to get my
school too but they aren't interested.  They just bought two 66mhz 486 machines
and they are running Windows on them....(sigh)
>
> : They just need to advertise it more, provide *VERY* detailed and generous
> : information about it, and get that device driver kit out.  Heavy duty
> : courting of universities and companies would help too.  Copies to students
> : and professors with device driver kit and some development stuff for around
> : half price would help too.  If a student can get Linux (which is almost
> : good enought to give to a newbie now, I have) for free with great compilers,
> : X11R5, networking, etc. or Coherent with none of that for $100 what do you
> : think he/she will do?  Plus, MWC would be buying votes later on when that
> : student gets a job and his boss says "What OS do you recommend?"  If MWC
> : gives a little when he is a student, he might be more inclined to use it
> : at work.  Apple is doing this now (although they are still too dang much...)
> : and UNIX owes its rising popularity to the fact that students used it for
> : free in college and now work in influential positions throughout
> : corporate america.  IBM and Msoft would like to kill UNIX but I wonder if
> : they can...
>
> Er, I'm confused.  Microsoft makes Xenix, and IBM makes AIX.  Why would
> they want to kill Unix?  In fact OS/2 is supposed to run on Mach which
> is licensed (I believe) partly by USL (Unix Systems Laboratories - a
> division of AT&T).

	The whole world is confused!  You must not read magazines or you
would know that.  IBM supports UNIX and tries to bury it at the same time.
They try to kill Microsoft and feed them money at the same time.  Microsoft
says OS/2 stinks and spend mega-time trying to get NT to run OS/2.  None of
it makes any sense.  Microsoft says quite openly that they are trying to
best UNIX.  I realize that is a contradiction but if you will just read
a little bit here and there you will see what I mean.  OS/2 is supposed to
be release on top of a mach kernel pretty soon that will support UNIX
along with Windows and OS/2.  Its a very confusing world indeed.
>
> Also, if I were to tell my boss to use Linux, and there was a problem,
> and he said "give me the tech support number" what am I supposed to
> give him, "ftp.uu.net"?  Tell him "I'll post it and we'll have the
> answer in a week"?  You try it and let me know how it turns out....

	I know what you mean.  However, all my questions about Linux
are answered pretty quickly.  Linux could easily be used in an office.
Its just that business people have a problem with that.  They think that
nothing free can work.  Most don't even like Coherent because it doesn't
cost enough for them to believe its for real.  I hate it but one must
deal with it anyway.  Its unfortunate that Linux, even when it reaches
stability, will be an unsupported OS.  If it gets to be fully SysV and
Posix compatible and runs stable (all the parts are at version 1 so to
speak) it will be just fine for a business platform.  UNIX started out
that way, remember?  I don't think it will matter though.  I believe
that UNIX prices will come down (or UNIX will die) and Coherent will be
pretty well filled out in another year or so.
>
> I agree, Linux is great.  When it is used properly.  I would never use
> it in a business environment.  I would definitely use it at home or in
> school if I had the time to fiddle with it and FTP/news access to
> patch it.
>
> I don't mean to bash you, but I think some of your criticisms are unfounded.

	Unorganized yes, but not unfounded.  I found some things frustrating
and told how I felt.  Excuse the hech out of me for being honest about my
frustration and the trouble I had.

>
> In fact, I'm getting sick of reading Coherent bashing here.  I don't
> think that's the purpose of comp.os.coherent.  I come here to get support,
> help people, and, yes, criticize, but constructively and not say "XXXX is
> better because it has ZZZZZ".

	I am not bashing Coherent.  If I was bashing it I would say that
it was a piece of crud or something like that.  I didn't.  Fact is, I
mentioned that I like it and how I planned to start using it again after
some things are fixed.  I just switched because Linux ran better on my
machine and already had everything I needed.  It was more of a matter of
necessity than choice.  Linux was my only way out because I can't afford
something like SCO (Open Deathtrap...) or one of the SVR4 flavors.  I'd
like to have one (and the hardware to run it) but I don't.  And, if XXX
is better because it has something that ZZZ doesn't, how else do you
say it?  If that is the reason, you *SHOULD* say that!  How else will
anyone know to make improvements.  Citing examples gives you a target
to shoot for.  I'll be more "nice" next time.  As a matter of fact,
my demos of Coherent have probably sold a few copies.  I KNOW it sold
at least four at a local UNIX user's group.  I've pushed both it an
Linux..

> You don't see us coherent people bashing Linux over there, and even
> Linus doesn't exactly "bash" but correct misconceptions about Linux
> and kind of just stick a thorn in once in a while.
>
> I would ask that the anti-Coherent comments be restricted to
> comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit or wherever.  Anyone second this motion?
>
> -Louis
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>  Louis J. Giliberto, Jr.   ! magus@drktowr.chi.il.us
>    -sysadmin drktowr       ! lgilibe@orion.it.luc.edu
>   Chicago, IL  USA         !
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>


=====================================================
Shannon Hendrix                |shendrix@pcs.cnu.edu
Christopher Newport University |---------------------
Newport News, VA               |** space for rent **
=====================================================