From: pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares)
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Organization: Amherst College
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:33:01 GMT

In article <BxD9vM.MAJ@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> papresco@lambert.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>>>2. It should have a powerful command line.
>>
>>	Are you really an idiot or do you just play one on Usenet?
>
>I'm not sure why you feel the need for personal attacks.

	I'm sorry, I didn't mean it to be taken too seriously, and it _was_
a stupid thing to say without explaining exactly what you meant...

>I was merely making the point that a poweful command line IS an important
>part of a good operating system, and that whatever the "operating system of
>the future" is, it will have one.  Unix already does, it needs to keep that
>lead.

	True.

>>>3.It should install from floppy as well as CD.
>>
>>	Ah, you _are_ an idiot.
>>	(Take a look at Linux.)
>
>NO, YOU are an idiot, if you see linux as the hope for the future.  

	Sheesh. I never said (as the clouds part and the music starts in) that
"Linux is the hope of mankind" or anything to that effect. I was pointing out
that your assertion that Unix doesn't install from floppy was wrong.

[I didn't bother to crrect the format of this next part]
>Imagine if PC-Magazine (or Pcworld etc.) said: LINUX is the best OS in the entire Universe,
>and it's got EVERYTHING you need to run...all you need is internet access to FTP it, or
>access to a BBS (what's a BBS says most people) to download it.  And then you have to
>learn to unzip or untar it (what is unzip?  What is untar?).  And then you have to make
>it.  (make it?  You mean write it from scratch?)  If you want a nice graphical interface
>like Windows or Os/2, you have to ftp and make that too.  And even so, most of the 
>software doesn't take advantage of it.  And that which does will have a nonstandard
>interface.

	Are you done? Quite a tangent considering I never said or implied
anything about Linux other than it installs from floppy, runs graphically in
less than 8meg of memory, and costs less than $300.

>>	Before you try to convince people of unix's flaws, I suggest you
>>first make sure you have a clue what you're talking about.
>
>[...] I've said it 100 times.  We need ONE Unixish operating system that
>does ALL of these things.  Telling users: Unix is great because Nextstetp
>is easy, and Solaris is graphical, and Linux is free will get Unix NOWHERE!!!

	The first good point you've made yet. It _would_ be nice to have all
that in one OS. Since I doubt Next or Solaris are going to be free anytime
soon, let's try to make a better GUI shell for Linux...

>It's like saying Microsoft products are perfect because Excel is powerful, DOS is popular
>and Windows is easy to use.  The one product has NO effect on the rest!!!
>
>Excel is expensive, DOS is crap and Windows (well I guess that's crap too!)

	I never ever said Unix was perfect. I never even said it was good or
bad. I just chimed in to correct you on a bunch of incorrect points. You're
lumping me with everyone you're arguing with because I disagreed with a few
things you said (and admittedly, flamed you for it).

-Peter

pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter Couvares)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions