From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 18:26:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1992Sep8.145449.26765@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>>For some reason Unix people (and I was one) always seem to grossly
>>over estimate how many systems run it.  All Unix systems on all machines
>>ever delivered (whether it is still in use or not) is well under
>>10 million. (DOS I believe has an installed base of around 80 million.)
>
>[...]
>Each of those copies of Unix probably represents several users.
>For example, Netcom here has over 2000 entries in /etc/passwd.  :-)

>NT is a multiuser system... 

I didn't say anything about NT.  I was just pointing out that a
comparison of the number of units of DOS sold to the number of units of
Unix sold is pretty silly.

>it is true that it doesn't support dumb
>terminals... but at 2,000 a set who cares?  

Me, for one.

>You're aware that several
>X terminal vendors are headed for NT?

My interest in X is about as high as my interest in NT.  Virtually nil. 
I'm writing point-of-sale systems, designed to be used on countertops by
clerks who wouldn't know what to do with a mouse if it bit them on the
ass, and stole their cheese.  :-)  We sell barcode scanners, and barcode
printing software, and the clerks rarely even have to touch the
keyboard, let alone a mouse.

If NT doesn't support dumb terminals, it's completely useless to me!

>>But even if we assume that the average Unix system has 8 users (not too
>>unreasonable, I don't think), then Unix still matches DOS in userbase.

>Why do you assume that each of the 80 million copies of DOS is used
>by only one user?

Why do you assume that each Unix system only has 8 users?  My point is
that these statistics are *meaningless*!!

>>And then there's systems like Linux.  [...]

>If this survives AT&T's lawsuit against Berkeley and BSDI, then it
>might become significant... at the moment, Berkeley Unix has less than
>2% of the Unix market.  BSDI and Linux are still far smaller.

Linux is not based on Berkeley code, and AT&T's lawsuit is based on the
fact that they claim to be behind the Berkeley code in some obscure way.
Even if they win, Linux will not be effected.

>Hmmmm.... name one "open" Unix vendor (not BSDI, somebody big) and how it is
>that they are open, and you might just drag me into this mad-man's debate.

All Unix systems have a compiler and a standard set of system calls.  NT
may have these as well, but all Unix systems also have standard tools
such as /bin/sh, /bin/sed, /bin/awk, etc., etc.  If NT has those
(shipped in the box), I'll be impressed.

NT can have all the nifty futuristic features it wants.  If nobody uses
'em, nobody will care.  DOS is adequate for a *lot* of people.  You
think that these people are going to care about obscure advances in NT's
kernel?  All that most people will see is that NT doesn't run their
favorite obscure little DOS program...

Brian publishes his (in)famous NT vs. OS/2 list.  All I see there is
some features I *need* on the OS/2 side, and a *whole lot* of obscure,
incomprehensible gobbledegook that I have no interest in on the NT side.
NT may have what the academics in their white towers want, but it sure
doesn't seem to have what this working bum wants!

(BTW--a good one for the list:  OS/2 *can* be used with dumb terminals!)

But I am NOT (repeat NOT) an OS/2 or Unix fanatic.  I don't *care* what
OS I use, as long as it lets me get my job done.  NT *certainly* won't
at the moment.  Perhaps someday.  I'll evaluate NT when that day comes.

At the moment, CP/M (or MP/M) seems to be closer to filling my needs
than NT.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!