From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Suggestions for the free Unix projects
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 22:05:17 GMT

In article <1akqadINN76c@almaak.usc.edu> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>I have watched the Linux/BSD/GNU projects with much joy.
>I have a few suggestions.
>
>
>0. Packaging
>------------
>
>I think the Most important constraint impeding relatively novice users
>from using Linux (I don't know about 386BSD) is the difficulty of
>installation.  I can think of lots of university folk who have used a
>Unix account at school with much ease, but are intimidated by the
>problems of installation.
>
>Packages like MCC interim, SLS, etc. are steps in the right direction.
>I think they are important, and need to be done better.  They
>certainly need better documentation.
>
>There may be a role for a profit-making company to make a $50
>shrink-wrapped free Unix with a manual and limited support.
>
>
>1. Binary compatibility
>-----------------------
>
>From the end-users perspective, I think binary compatibility is
>incredibly important.  I mean binary compatibility across versions of
>the OS and across the three major free Unixes.
>
>In my ideal world, I would be able to:
>a) pick a OS -- any OS -- of the three
>b) grab binaries for programs I plan to run, without regard for my
>   choice at step a
>c) be able to move versions of the OS or to a different OS without
>   needing to get (say) TeX binaries afresh
>d) Ideally, be able to run commercial software for 386-Unix too.
>
>When Linux was younger there were Major kernel changes being done
>every month.  But maybe it's now possible to talk about ways to ensure
>that all future kernel releases will be able to run binaries which
>conform with definition X.
>
>Intel has a binary compatibility standard for x86 Unix.  Is that too
>hard to support?  A important payoff of supporting it would be easy
>access to commercial Unix software.  The other path to getting access
>to commercial software would be to write a emulation box (that already
>exists for Linux, to run Xenix binaries).
>
>Talking about commercial software brings me to the next point:
>
>
>2. Xbase
>--------
>
>The GNU project is already working on such anti-hacker objectives as a
>Fortran and a spreadsheet.  :-)   (I completely agree with the
>proposition that these need to be done).  In that spirit, I think we
>also need a Xbase clone.
>
>Ideally it should be a Xbase compiler, but an interpretor would also
>be good.  It should certainly open .dbf files from out there.  (Would
>it be the ugliest frontend to gcc ever?  Or would Fortran still take
>that prize?).
>
>I'm not claiming Xbase has anything to offer to someone who knows
>Unix.  Personally I would not use it ever.  I suspect it's the Most
>important single piece of commercial software out there with a
>well-defined standard (fileformat and language specn).  A good free
>Xbase implementation would make free Unixes more attractive to the
>end-user (as would GNU Fortran and Oleo).
>-- 
>Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@usc.edu


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
 Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd