From: jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone)
Subject: New idea:  forget Open Systems.  N(o)T! (was Re: Open...)
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:50:05 GMT


DISCLAIMER:  My opinions, not Dell's, Dell's are diametrically opposed
I'm sure...

FLAME/INFO CONTENT:  est. 45% / 55%

NOTE: Sprinkle smileys liberally on this posting, to taste.


songer@lexmark.com (Christopher Songer) writes:

>
>>  ..my comments about "Why buy NT if you want UNIX" deleted
>
>    NT is a clean slate. UNIX has the baggage of it's past to carry along.
> UNIX has alot of good ideas and NT has taken many of them. Never-the-less
> since NT is new, it can both solve the problems of UNIX incompatibilties
> and it can throw out the old UNIX baggage. 
>

Foul!  NT is no clean slate!  Rather, it's a questionable microkernel
architecture with a bunch of backward-compatible Windows and DOS baggage
slathered on top!  Me, I'd rather inherit my baggage from something that
AT LEAST was decent to begin with (UNIX) than from a poorly hacked
abortion (Windows, DOS).

If we *REALLY* wanted to go gung-ho on this "clean slate" thing, we'd
all be doing PenPoint.  (Okay, it *did* inherit the vomitus DOS fs,
but beyond that it's pretty okay)

And what kind of a solution to the problem of UNIX incompatibilities
is tossing the whole problem altogether?  I wish I'd thought of
that back in school, say calculus:  Yup, finished the test, solved
all the problems --- I just tossed the whole thing in the trash.  "A",
right? ;)


> For example, UNIX command line options are a nightmare. There is absolutely
> no consistency, yet no one wants to change it for "historical" reasons. (ie
> for backward compatibility reasons.) It carries the baggage of it's history
> and can never be rid of it.

I offer the reverse perspective.  Given some UNIX experience, one aquires
a "feel" for what command line options are going to be and which are going
to make sense.  I'd say *DOS* command line options are not just a nightmare,
but a *NIGHTMARE FROM HELL*. ;)  In any case, at least you've got pretty
standard usage messages and (last resort) *man pages* under UNIX.  


> It also carries old, out dated utilities. Consider cu, and tip.
> Both accomplish basically the same purpose, yet both must be retained
> in the OS.

Can anyone truly be this !clue?  tip and cu, usually, are the SAME
DAMN EXECUTABLE!

Okay, UNIX Utilities 101.  *Most* reasonable implementations of these
actually put both interfaces into the same executable -w- symlinks in
the fs pointing to that executable.  The prog then figures out which
name it was called with and interprets its command line args as apropos.
This versatility accounts for, MAYBE, 1-2% of the code.  Having this
flexibility is called "backwards compatibility".  You *REALLY* think
MicroSoft is going to NOT be as ABSOLUTELY backwards compatible with
Windows and DOS as possible?  If so, what've you been smoking? 

Apply your arguments against UNIX to "your" OS, why dont you?  Sheesh.

In any case, if having a few utilities in your OS distribution which
you don't need bothers you, and you think that won't be the case -w- NT,
go ahead.  Knock yourself out.  Buy a million copies of NT.  Send
MicroSoft a P.O.  for them today --- but be sure and ask when you'll 
receive them.  Oh --- and if you *do* decide you're going to need that
utility, what're you going to do?  YOU'RE GOING TO SHELL OUT SOME CLAMS
FOR IT, OKAY? :)


> Finally, NT need not suffer from diverging enchancements. Consider
> threads. These were not included in the early UNIX and hence various
> camps have arrived at different solutions to the same problem. Solutions
> from Sun's light weight processes to NeXT's use of cthreads all provide
> basically the same functionality with different interface. NT threads will
> be NT threads without the various implementations.

Sure.  Going with one vendor frees you from all such concerns.  "One
vendor to rule them all, one vendor to bind them, one vendor to bring
them all and make them deal with whatever crap that vendor decides to
throw out on the shelf."  Sorry, thanks for playing.

Let's just toss this ridiculous idea called "Open Systems" we've
all been toying with for the last decade, okay?  What say?  N(o)T.

I'm going to totally ignore the issue of threads, as comparing UNIXy
thread mechanisms -w- NT threads is like comparing apples and oranges.
Suffice to say that I'd rather use a UNIXy heavyweight process type
of environment, with or without a lighter-weight thread mechanism,
than this bizarre thing MicroSoft has cooked up.  But yeah, UNIX in
'71 had no threads.  But it had processes...

;)


> So I think NT has great room for improvement over UNIX while only 
> marginally enhancing the functionality. If NT can take the best of UNIX, 
> remove the redundancy and inconsistencies then MicroSoft has produced a
> superior product -- A product people might choose over UNIX.

How do you improve a software product without enhancing it?  And remove
*what* inconsistancies and redundancies?  Generally, when I hear someone
make comments like this, it's a DOS user who's been forced to use UNIX
occasionally and has never gotten over that learning curve.  Once you
get over that hill, you find that UNIX is "glued together" with a few
basic ideas and principles, and that in a very fundamental way it's the
most consistant OS around.  Even its inconsistancies have a certain
a consistant quality. ;)  Betcha you prolly have "alias del rm" in
your .dotfiles, hmmm? ;)  <-- this is a tease

I think NT has great room for stealing a few good concepts from UNIX
while offering reduced functionality out-of-the-box, all the while
slathering them over with this sludgey Windows- and DOS-derived interface.
Now, if what I really want is multitasking, threads, networking, and
a few other UNIXy things, why wouldn't I buy UNIX instead?  I still
can't see a compelling reason.


jb


PS - LOADHI this, buddy. ;)  And what the hell is a "far pointer"? :P


--
-- Jeff Bone ------------------------------------------------------------
      "Imagination is more important than knowledge."  - A. Einstein
------------------------------------------------------- jbone@dell.com --
                                                                       --