HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hinds@cmgm.Stanford (Alexander Scott Hinds)
Subject: Re: Is BSD dead? (Sorry, Avie)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:26:22 GMT

In article <kwtygaa@rpi.edu> gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn)  
writes:
> louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:
> > Take a survey of people that you know that bought
> > NeXT platforms, and see how many bought because they were a good (BSD)
> > UNIX platform *first*, with a whizzy application enviroment.  Everyone
> > that I know bought a NeXT because it was a UNIX platform.
> 
> Well, I work with the campus store that sells NeXTs.  I don't think unix  
is  
> anywhere near as critical to the sales of NeXTs as you make it out to  
be.   
> It is a nice insurance policy (to quiet those who chant Unix as if it  
was  
> some mantra), but most people who buy NeXT machines what the NeXTSTEP  
> applicaitons, or the Interface Builder programming environment.  People  
who  
> *want* unix machines (ie, nothing else will do) are buying Suns.
> --
> Garance Alistair Drosehn     =     gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
> ITS Systems Programmer            (handles NeXT-type mail)
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute;           Troy NY    USA

That's exactly right, at least in my case.  I bought a NeXT ONLY because  
of what IB offerred.  UNIX was value added;  moreover, without IB, I most  
likely wouldn't have bought the NeXT.  Heck, I probably would have gotten  
a IIci.  Of course, every time I turn it (my color station) on, I thank  
the heavens that I didn't....

I suspect (oh boy!) that whether the underlying OS is Unix or not matters  
little to the average computer user.  It is the bonuses that come with  
Unix that matter:  large file systems, multitasking, totally easy  
networking (on the NeXT at least), etc.  If Mr. Jobs had substituted a  
different OS (with all the functionalities listed above) but kept IB I  
would certainly still have bought a NeXT.  And yes, of course I realize  
that there are those people who bought nexts because it offered BSD, plus  
an acceptable GUI...

Just my 2 cents,

--X
From: rpomeroy@aunext3.cam.amd.com (Ron Pomeroy x(Coop))
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Kudos to NeXT service
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:23:17 GMT
Reply-To: rpomeroy@aunext3.cam.amd.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas

Well,  Last Thursday (08/27/92) my megapixel went south (far south !).  I  
called NeXT service Friday.  She asked for the serial#.  I gave it to her.  She  
said "your warranty has been extended to 2 years, expect a new this week...free  
of charge.

Waaaayyyy kooool!

--
Ronald Pomeroy
Advanced Micro Devices
CAM/EIS Applications Group
Austin, Texas
rpomeroy@aunext3.amd.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: songer@lexmark.com (Christopher Songer)
Subject: Re: NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
X-Disclaimer: These views are the poster's and not necessarily those of Lexmark
Organization: Lexington, KY
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:30:24 GMT

In article <SXMRP.27.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>For the last 5 years (at least) the PC market has been a price war
>blood bath and at  $1000, NS486 will not even register on the scale.

I have to agree with this. The pricing of NS 486 should be a soul searcher
for Next. If they price it competitively they probably aren't going to
sell alot of hardware. (Unless their hardware gets alot better soon...
Just who is committed to 88110 anyway? Didn't Ford give up on it for
controllers?) If they don't price it competitively, who is going to buy
it? 

-Chris

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: kenny_leung@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Kenny Leung)
Subject: Re: Open Letter: Don't get rid of UNIX
Reply-To: kenny_leung@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:35:07 GMT

Although I think that all of the posters so far have valid points, I think  
that most of them are looking only from one point of view: That of the  
UNIX weenie.  Until I bought my NeXT, I had never even heard of UNIX, and  
the same goes for 99.9% of the world.  Although I like the utilities that  
UNIX offers, I think that I could have lived without them.  (You never  
miss something until it's gone.)

Here at the University of Alberta, many NeXTs are sold to people with  
absolutely no knowledge of UNIX, and they also will probably never use it.   
In these terms, UNIX is only a burden, because if they even have a fairly  
minor problem, it is impossible for them to fix.  Most of the time during  
a consult, I find myself wishing that they had bought a Macintosh.

I think that NeXT *has* to keep UNIX on their systems for half of their  
customers, and it also *has* to strip UNIX off their systems for the other  
half.

--
--------------------------------------------------
Kenny Leung                      |  \ ------|   | Windows:       
Campus Consultant                |  \    /  |   | "It Just Dies"
University of Alberta            |  /   X  \/   | 
kenny_leung@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca  | -----T-----  |
audix x5537                      |   /  |  \    |
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: songer@lexmark.com (Christopher Songer)
Subject: Re: Is BSD dead? 
X-Disclaimer: These views are the poster's and not necessarily those of Lexmark
Keywords: Not quite
Organization: Lexington, KY
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:39:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.130609.7045@nestroy.wu-wien.ac.at> ddean@risc.uni-linz.ac.at writes:
>
>	Uh, I think the original poster was right.  If you haven't used  
>CMU Mach 2.5, you might think NeXT is running a 2.5/6ish system, but it's  
>not.  Where's the external pager ????  [And yes, that matters; for some  
>applications, it matters a lot.]
...

Acutally, it is my understanding that the mach kernel used by Next is
2.5 with external pagers removed. They were removed for performance
reasons. Since the mach core seems not to have changed much since the
030 days -- I can see performance concerns. :)

-Chris
From: david@postman.gr.osf.org (David George)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open Letter: Don't get rid of UNIX
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:03:54 GMT
Organization: OSF RI Grenoble

If NeXT do move to Mach 3.0 then you could see them offering a NeXTSTEP server
with (only) an OOFS, however they need to maintain the BSD/POSIX system call
interface - whether this maintains the current directory/file paradigm is
another matter, it may be difficult mapping this to an underlying OOFS.

They could also offer a traditional U*NIX server which ran on top of the same
Mach 3.0 microkernel.

More fuel for the fire,

David.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: todd@liveware.com
Subject: Re: PasteUp (was RE: NeXT, WordPerfect ...)
Keywords: BassoMatic
Reply-To: todd@liveware.com
Organization: Liveware Corporation   Fort Collins, CO.  USA.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:29:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.153702.1699@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van  
Huizen) writes:
> In article <871@rtbrain.rightbrain.com> glenn@rightbrain.com (Glenn Reid)  
> writes:
> > patrick carnahan phillips writes
> > 
> > > Is PasteUp really a word processor, or more of a page layout
> > > program with some word processing capabilities 
> > 
> > It's more and more difficult to draw the boundaries any more, but
> > I'd say that PasteUp makes a very fine word processor. 
> > [...]
> > You also get much better
> > control over graphic elements on the page than a word processor,
> > because it is, after all, a page layout application.
> 
> "It's a floor wax!"    "It's a dessert topping!"    :-)
> 
> Sorry - somebody had to do it...
> 
> Gordon
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
> Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------

It also looks and handles like the SNL bassomatic blender,
which you can alternately use to toss electronic images into,
turn on high speed and Wammo ;') [or is that Remco] you have
a gray sludge to spread on your toast in the morning.  What
more can we get out of our NeXT's.  What I have always wanted
was an electronic blender.  ;')

Todd
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re: NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:37:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.081231.25228@coe.montana.edu>, icsu8053@cs.montana.edu 
(Craig Pratt) writes:
	[...material deleted...]
> 
> Windows NT and OS/2 are not multiuser, however.
	NT is a multiuser system rated at C2 security level.  It's rather
	confusing, though.  Only one user can "log on" in the traditional
	sense.  However, other users can have processes running in the
	background.  This makes a certain amount of sense for a GUI
	environment.  Consider that PCs cost less than most X terminals
	and are generally so inexpensive that the difference between a
	basic PC and a character cell terminal isn't that great.  Which
	I think partly addresses your next point (but see below).
>  I think the big attraction
> to SCO and Xenix is it's multiuser capabilities.  PCs with either of these
> has a very low cost/user ratio when you hang a bunch of terminals on it.
> I can't see how it's going to displace this advantage.
> 
> BTW, I'm curious about how Windows NT handles file security in a networked
> environment without a multiuser file system.
	They support the old (unsecure, non-multi-user) filesystems but
	have a new filesystem for which they support multi-user security
	features.
> How does OS/2 handle it?
	I don't know either.  I believe OS/2 will die soon, however (it's
	not bad but I don't believe it will be able to compete with NT).
	[...material deleted...]
> I think that people will be disappointed when they see how NT performs.
> MicroSloth may be doing itself a disservice by claiming that it will run
> acceptably on any system slower that a 486/33 EISA w/16M RAM & 400MB hard
> drive.  This has been many people's reaction to OS/2 - "OS/2 is too slow 
> compared with DOS and it takes up all of my 120MB hard drive."
	I can't say what NT's performance on lesser machines will be--
	haven't seen it on anything less than a 486/33 w/16M.  It's
	certainly good enough on that...it could be worse and still be
	quite usable.  Certainly NeXTSTEP on a NeXTSTATION mono with only
	8 Mb leaves much to be desired but is usable if you don't have
	too much going on at once.  Which takes me back to the point above
	about PCs vs. terminals.  A minimal NT configuration will probably
	be usable in exactly the same situation where character cell
	terminals are usable; i.e., each user doing one thing at a time.
	I am referring to a situation where you will have an NT server
	serving multiple, minimal PCs (possibly running NT as well).  I
	suspect you'll also see 'Windows NT terminals' before long.

	Consider that NT is (finally) a REAL OS for hardware that's at
	least affordable today and getting faster and cheaper all the
	time.  
	[...material deleted...]

c.f.waltrip

Internet:	<waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>

Opinions expressed are my own.
From: dhg@sinix.UUCP (David Griffith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:51:56 GMT
Organization: Primitive Software Ltd.

In article <1992Aug25.170813.21133@adobe.com> byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer) writes:
>
>At this point, what I understand is that it'll be
>$300-$500 for the base system.  Oh, you want networking?
>Oh, you want multi-user?  Oh, you want X support?
>Remember who the king of nickel-and-diming is...
>

But at least that allows users who don't require networking, multi-user,
bells and whistles to buy a cheap entry level system. Why should users
be forced to pay a high price for the full works? This is an argument that
has been used many times to support NeXT's relatively high pricing - "sure
it may be expensive, but it's still excellent value because you get all
this other stuff for free". It doesn't wash. Imagine if a car manafacturer 
took that line and tried to compete against similar models but would only 
sell you the top of the range model with all the extras...

Dave Griffiths
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: john@nextdoor.com (John McCracken)
Subject: Re: WANTED: Summary of Crandall's presentation at BANG Meeting
Reply-To: john@nextdoor.com
Organization: Nextdoor Software, San Jose, CA, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 17:55:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.182206.20587@leland.Stanford.EDU> m@crito.stanford.edu (M  
Carling) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.171349.13077@leland.Stanford.EDU>  
> shiva@vega.Stanford.EDU (Marcos Javier Polanco) writes:
> > 
> > 
> > Quite unfortunately I was unable to attend the BANG meeting (Stanford)
> > last night. Did Dr. Crandall have anything interesting to say about
> > "Fractal Boundaries Between Disciplines"?
> 
> Questions about BANG should be directed to info@BANG.org.
> 

Why?  I missed it too and am very interested in what went on.  This sounds
like subject matter for an interesting discussion.

-- 
 John McCracken                   White Computers
 john@nextdoor.com                  Can't Jump
 NeXTMail welcome
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: justin@mik.uky.edu (Justin Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Open Letter: Don't get rid of UNIX
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:40:37 GMT

Philip McDunnough writes
> It has to keep Unix on their systems for 1/2 of its current customer base.
> NeXt should simply have it as an option for those who want it. The real
> competition for NeXT comes from places other than Unix workstations. If
> they don't come to grips with this issue they'll remain marginal forever.
> Stuck in an OS that is really a dead end. What a shame.

Only half? I'd wager that more of us use NeXTs and UNIX (in tandem) then just  
'half.' In fact, I've often wondered (and maybe it's time to discuss it?)  
just where NeXT would be if it DIDN'T have UNIX.. It would not be any fun,  
I'm sure (no multitasking on this beast would be a real drag)..
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark Thomsen)
Subject: Re: Why many hate MicroSoft (was Re: NextStep 486 and misc)
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 04:07:10 GMT

Craig Pratt writes
> I think the think what bothers me is that Microsoft is like the IBM of 
> software; and in more ways than one.  They don't really deserve to control
> the software market, yet they do.  They own it through marketing and glitz -
> not innovation.  The thing that *really* bothers me is the 
> it-hasn't-been-done-'till-Microsoft-has-done-it mentality that many people
> have.  I don't know whether to blame this on Microsoft or the idiots who
> believe it.

Microsoft plays to win. Not to be innovative (they are occasionally/rarely).
Not to be user friendly. Not to be champion of software glasnost.

They do good enough software (they execute pretty well on eventually making
satisfactory software) and they market extremely well. They target crushing
people - they want to dominate to the extent one company can.

Most want the underdog to win. MS has lots of enemies because of this
(either people wanting to see them lose or people who lost to them or
people that are in competition with them). Knowing that MS will kill
competitors makes it hard to buy other software --- "It may be superior
but MS will eventially blow them away and I will be left with MS as the
only stable choise". I don't think it is necessarily stupid to observe that
MS is out to win and does win. Backing the long term winner that is producing
satisfactory software is not stupid. Conservative, dull, and likely to
kill a lot of innovative software - but not stupid.

My two cents --- replies are not necessary?

Mark R. Thomsen
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough)
Subject: Re: PasteUp (was RE: NeXT, WordPerfect ...)
Organization: University of Toronto, Dept. of Statistics
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:39:55 GMT

In article <871@rtbrain.rightbrain.com> glenn@rightbrain.com writes:

[ ]
>
>It's more and more difficult to draw the boundaries any more, but
>I'd say that PasteUp makes a very fine word processor. It's very
>straightforward, supports the font panel and other obvious means
>of word processing, and is fast as lightning. You also get much better
>control over graphic elements on the page than a word processor,
>because it is, after all, a page layout application.

Would PasteUp and Equation Buider do for writing mathematical articles?
FrameMaker requires learning about irrelevant features, and in any case
its editor (for equations) is not as good as one would like.
 
On the other hand WriteNow 3.0 will support the baseline information that
is required for inline equations, and Appsoft has a great academic (students
and faculty) price. PasteUp may be very powerful, but it is very expensive
for use as a simple word processor. I don't know re numbers here, but 
WriteNow3.0 ( get 2.1 and free upgrade to 3.0) is closer to $100 while 
PasteUp is closer to $600 (i.e. like FrameMaker). 
 
[ ]

Philip McDunnough
philip@utstat.toronto.edu

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Is BSD dead?
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:47:36 GMT

jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au (James Uther) writes:
>	is NeXTstep too big? If so, why? I mean correct me if i'm wrong,
>but even X is not that big!!
>
>	james.		'Dickie-bird?'
>			'Yes Sam'

NextStep does a lot more than plain X. Think of X with many, many
toolkits on top and a workspace environment and you get somwhere near
it. This of course doesn't excuse the bloat apparent in a lot of
modern systems.
-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)		"int - God's own type"
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re: Is U*IX dead ?
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:05:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.104717.27904@osf.org>, david@postman.gr.osf.org 
(David George) writes:
	[...stuff deleted...]
> 
>> From a technical standpoint,would NeXTstep be just as capable running on  
>> top of NT or Chorus rather than Mach?
> 
> NeXTSTEP could run on Chorus or NT.  Both are microkernels and capable of
> supporting various OS personalities.  Mach 3.0 would better support NeXTSTEP
> than either NT or Chorus.
	Does "better" in this case mean it would be easier to port to Mach
	3.0 than to NT?  Chorus?  What about performance?  I note that later
	on in your post you note that you don't expect to see desktop UNIX on
	top of Chorus or Mach 3.0 because of performance issues.  Is this
	because of the microkernels or because of the UNIX server?  Or the
	combination?  Would a NeXTSTEP server be in the same boat?  Have
	I asked enough questions ?^)

_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_ _/      _/      _/ _/     _/   _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  cfwaltrip     _/    _/_/    _/ _/_/    _/       _/     _/    _/ _/ _/    _/
_/       _/_/_/    _/  _/  _/  _/ _/_/_/   _/       _/     _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>  _/       _/     _/  _/   _/ _/
_/_/_/_/ _/          _/      _/ _/      _/ _/_/_/_/ _/     _/    _/ _/ _/
From: alex@fiskville.mc.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backhanded NeXTSTEP compliment in the trade rag medium
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:11:16 GMT

Art Isbell writes
> 
> 
> On p. 36 of the Sept. issue of Workstation News, an article about a  
startup
> that will "address the problem of poor integration that has plagued UNIX
> software development tools" quotes their VP of Marketing:
> 
> "Think of [our environment] as a NeXTstep (sic) environment but done  
under the
> standards of C++ and object orientation, with database layers."
> 
> Then why bother; just get NeXTSTEP :-)  It offers C++, but features a  
purer
> object-oriented language, Objective-C, and offers DBKit "database  
layers"(?).
> -- 


I have noticed on several occasions articles comparing some "new and  
exciting" software development with NeXTStep i.e. "feature, feature,  
innovation, just like NeXTStep." to which I reply just get NeXTStep.
They refer to it like it was the measure of a great operating system but  
nobody actually mentions that it *is* a great OS and you should actually  
buy it rather than just try to get something like it. Humph.

Alex
From: shiva@vega.Stanford.EDU (Marcos Javier Polanco)
Subject: Is BSD dead? (Sorry, Avie)
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 17:37:23 GMT


The latest issue of UnixWorld states that the group at Berkeley  
responsible for BSD will disband after BSD4.4 is released. In other news,  
OSF/1 seems to be dead in the water; even the hard-core members of the OSF  
(IBM, HP, DEC) are cozying up to USL's SVR4.2, the one that uses the  
french Chorus microkernel. So the question is, will NeXT continue to carry  
the banner of Mach/BSD when the rest of the Unix community has gone SVR4  
and the PC community has gone NT?

From a technical standpoint,would NeXTstep be just as capable running on  
top of NT or Chorus rather than Mach?

-Marcos J. Polanco
-shiva@vega.stanford.edu
From: eburk@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Eli Burk)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: risc next & NS 3.0 & 486
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:19:34 GMT
Organization: San Francisco State University
Originator: eburk@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu

I am interested in learning about the rumored risc box. Has 
Next made an offical announcements as of yet? Is it at this
point *just* a rumor? 
Opinions please - is NS 3.0 coming out in 92? Or if not when in 93?
Has Next made a new offical announcement that NS 3.0 is coming 
out on xx/xx/9x date?
How about NS 486 is that due in 93? What are the enduser/developer/
educational prices? Will NS 486 be able to run on Dell laptop?

** email please **


-- 
..out in the street, with your cheap fur on, or maybe your plastic raincoat
and your plastic shoes, they look good too, standing in the snow you're young-
er than you look, {fall in love with me} 2X, how i wish you would...[Iggy Pop]
eburk@futon.sfsu.edu -or- eburk@sutro.sfsu.edu -or- eburk@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy