From: shendrix@PCS.CNU.EDU ("", Shannon Hendrix)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent
Subject: Re: Tcl to replacement most of /bin & /usr/bin (was: Tcl on Linux
Date: 17 Nov 92 07:17:58 GMT
Reply-To: "Coherent operating system" <COHERENT@indycms.bitnet>

>
> Well, RMS doesn't write software for free.  And there's nothing to say
> that you can't port GNU software to an OS and charge money for it.  The
> computer user has the choice of getting the GNU sources and porting them,
> or paying someone else for a supported port.
>
> The worst thing about the GNU license and the GNU library license are that
> they have not been challenged in court, so it isn't perfectly clear just
> how binding they are.

	Looking at it that way, I suppose I can live with it.  Almost sems
like I can ignore it for the most part.  The challenge in court will come
from AT&T since they have patent on storing the data behind a window on
the screen (backing store) and X, which infringes on that, is so very
popular and distributed under the same precepts.c

> So don't distribute code that contains GNU library code or output from
> BISON.  The license on GCC doesn't cover binaries compiled with GCC.  If
> you develop code using GCC, you don't have to distribute the sources.
>
	Hmmmmm.  I have heard (read) people asking about that and I thought
it covered the binaries created with gcc too.  If not, then there is not
a problem.

> UNIX V7.
	UNIX V7 was the last worthwhile release from AT&T and was
the last one they have a right to (IMHO, most of UNIX now was just not written
by AT&T.  It was written by people all over the world)
>
> >2) built-in graphics support
>
> X11 or MGR.
>
	No.  X11 and MGR are kludged on top of UNIX.  Just like Windows runs
on top of DOS.  I mean kernel support for graphics (not just drivers).
Access to the frame buffer just like normal RAM.

> >3) a single user mode that can run without ttys (what for with no other
 users?)
>
> UNIX is a multiuser operating system.  How would you use modems or serial
> printers?
>
Mess-DOS is a single user operating system and its printers and modems work
just fine.  What was your point?  With properly written graphics software
you could run UNIX without a tty.  What UNIX w/X is right now is just a
bunch of graphical Xterms.  We need graphics terminals not based on tty
devices because it slows things down.  Perhaps a hybrid tty that doesn't
run outside of X.

> >4) fast response for games (hey, games sell computers!)
>
> Get an Amiga.
	I rather have (and do have) a super nintendo.  What I mean is
smoothness of motion and some decent timing that doesn't get killed by
a heavy load.  Its too bad most computer motherboards don't have any
extra timers.  Timers I have to program under MS-DOS eat up 10% of the
CPU whereas an extra hardware timer wouldn't take anything.  Oh well, that
is one I probably will never get.

> Dump Motif and right something new.
	Something new will have to be developed by the industry because
no matter how brilliant something I make might be, it would probably be
ignored.  Most of X's features are not needed 99.9999% of the time.  A
lot of it is pure research and support of non-mainstream ideas.  At least
X should be modular enought to dump what you don't want (demand paging
doesn't count!, though it helps...).

>
>
> Right.  Turn UNIX into DOSIX.  Bleah!
	Simplifying administration would hardly turn UNIX into DOSIX.  Most
people don't need it.  I only use administrative ware when I need to and
their is nothing in UNIX admin that couldn't be done either automatically
or with a shell.  The reason its such a bitch is that UNIX users of the past
have never cared and so nothing "nice" was ever written to handle admin
tasks

> >7) Ability to choose more than one scheduler.  The basic UNIX scheduler is
> >   geared toward multiple, interactive users.  That isn't what you need if
> >   you are running Mathematica on your machine.  Perhaps a more dynamic
> >   scheduling system or just different ones like I said.
>
> They exist.
	Not in the stuff I get to use... thought now that I have a system
with kernel services... Perhaps after I get a tape drive for my development
machine since one would expect plenty of crashes for awhile...

> All the code that is in AT&T is theirs under the law.  There are an awful lot
> of people who are extremely pleased with SVR4.
>
	There are people that are extremely pleased with Windows and DOS too.
So what does that mean?  Mostly, people are please with stuff because it
does the job and they are ignorant about what is inside.  People that loved
the Macintosh definitely didn't know much about programming it.  What a
mess to program!  But, its cute and I guess programmers have to make the
users happy.  Seems like its our job... like it or not...
	Anyway, SVR4 just did some things wrong.  AT&T didn't do what
people wanted.  They put some BSD-isms in but didn't make them totally
compatible.  Seems like they created more of a mess than they claim to
have solved.  But, if it does eventually end the UNIX wars, acceptance
will lead to improvements and an easing of the hell surrounding UNIX
for so long (I hope...).

>
> In the Linux and BSD groups, I've seen a lot of new users who want to turn
> UNIX into MSDOS.  I will fight to keep this from happening.  I have a decade
> of experience with UNIX, and think it is the best OS that I ever used.  I used
> to have a PC/XT running MSDOS, and have written diagnostics for dedicated
> applications running on MSDOS machines to exercise and test commodity hardware
> in a factory setting.  I am about as interested in using DOS as I would be in
> programming on punched cards.

	I hate MS-DOS.  I came over from the Motorlla 68000 camp because I
didn't have (could not afford) anything like UNIX and the programming tools
for DOS are so good.  The support was (and still is) there and so on.
	However, UNIX is my favorite OS.  I love it and I've championed
it whenever I get the chance.  However, I know it has problems that will
keep it from being accepted.  Non-acceptance will kill it.  I want to keep
programming it but if things keep going the way they are now, I will not
get to.  I am not a "new user* who want(s) to turn UNIX into MSDOS."
Nothing I suggested would do that.  Nothing I suggested would affect you
in the least.  But, it would help people who have killer administrative
loads and people who just want to program and don't give a hang about
admin tasks and low-level tedium.  Don't tell me that you enjoy fixing
screwed up permissions on dozens of files and directories!  Or having a
permissions mistake kill off your system.  UNIX needs good tools, not just
for newbies but for those of us who might be too tired some nite to find
a permissions error or some such thing.  There are going to be people
using UNIX that won't know anything about it and you must provide for
them.  End of line.
	I have worked in the corporate world and people are real stupid
sometimes (and sometimes mostimes...).  They buy IBM just because its
easy to spell or something.  Some actually think their stuff is better
than anything else.  Even if you show them a screaming clone running UNIX
that does everything now that IBM promises OS/2 will do "any day now" and
costs 1/10th the price they will buy the IBM.  Or the Mac.  And so on.
However, the UNIX world's continued arrogance towards users needs and
their stupid infighting is just as dumb.  The operating system is only
part of the system.  Windows may stink from the OS end but the applications
are incredible.  UNIX needs that kind of thing (and is getting it now).


>
> --
>
> Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
>


=====================================================
Shannon Hendrix                |shendrix@pcs.cnu.edu
Christopher Newport University |---------------------
Newport News, VA               |** space for rent **
=====================================================