From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:17:24 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <9211200253.AA28586@PCS.CNU.EDU> "Coherent operating system" <COHERENT@indycms.bitnet> writes:
>
>	Well, you and a few other missed the point.  For myself, I have no problem with
>the way UNIX is except that I tire of the details at times.  I was trying to
> give the
>point of view of someone who is daunted by it.  While I am comfortable with it I
> know
>that a lot of people aren't and I was just repeating what I have heard so many
> people
>say.  For a long time I laughed at people's reasons for not using UNIX but now I
> am
>trying to see things from their point of view.  Also, lately I have needed a
> system
>that simply worked and didn't require lots of fidling.  UNIX requires fiddling.

UNIX requires a lot of fiddling when somebody screws up.  This can also happen
with DOS.

I have a client that has a 386/33 with 6 terminals running SCO UNIX.  It is
running a database application that is used by 6 non-UNIX users all day long.

The machine has been up for a year and a half and has only been down twice.
Once when the power went out, and the UPS did it's job, and once when they
movee to a different office.  They don't have an administrator, and call me
when they need new software or have a problem.  I hardly ever hear from them.
They also have net mail, which runs flawlessly. 

In my experience, SCO UNIX is more reliable than DOS, Windows, or OS/2.

>	What you said about SVR4.2 is well taken.  It may very well be what is needed.
>I just wish it was cheaper.

When you install Univel UNIXWARE on a PC it comes up in X on the console with
a menu that allows installation by clicking with the mouse.  It has an 
integrated environment for running DOS and Windows apps.  And it has the 
Veritas filesystem that allows a secretary, for instance, to type in a letter,
save the file, and then just shut off the power switch, because it does a
sync() on last close.

You get what you pay for.

>	You didn't understand what I meant when I said that AT&T didn't have a right to
>UNIX anymore.  I am not talking about legal rights.  I mean ethical right.  So
> many
>people had a hand in the development of UNIX that I don't feel AT&T has the
> right to
>be the bully it is.  If you and ten other people wrote an OS based on my ideas
> and then
>I began selling it for an outrageous profit, forbid you to sell it or any part
> of it
>without making it prohibitively expensive, and sued the daylights out of anyone
> who
>even talked about competing, you and your buddies would'nt appreciate that would
> you?
>I want UNIX to be controlled by a company to better standardize it but I resent
> the
>restrictions that come along with it and the way it is priced.  Things like this
> will
>iron out eventually but I'm sure you would like to see some changes.

The contract that AT&T has with Berkeley allows them to use anything that
Berkeley develops as if it were their own.

>	SVR4.2 is OK.  You suggest trying it and I would but for two things.  It costs
>over $250 for a non-development version that allows only two users.  The cost
> alone is
>enough but a user limit is nuts to me.  How is that implemented?  On my system,
> I may
>have several users (or processes with user ID's) going at once.  Is this still
> possible
>under UNIX limited to a two-user license?

The 2 user limit is the number of users that can be logged in from a tty
port or a telnet session concurrently.  It is implemented in login.

>	Having graphics in the kernel would still require devide drivers for different
>graphics cards of course.  But, the graphics process could be made more
> efficient.  It
>could better interface to hardware too.  I realize that that would require more
>hardware dependent code in the kernel but the benefits would be worth it.  There
> is a
>lot of debate about that so this is just my opinion.

Can you say "kernel bloat".  SVR4 kernels can be bigger than 1.5 meg now.

>	Windows applications aren't just retreaded DOS versions.  If they are written
>properly, they are an entirely different breed.  My problem with Windows is
> mostly the
>underlying technology and the fact that so many people thing ALL programs need
> to be
>totally graphical.  I submit they do not.  Windows has also caused most
> applications
>to explode with features.  I guess that will happen with UNIX too if it hasn't
> already.

>	My administration problems are programs that don't install properly, versions
> of
>UNIX shipped with improper permissions, and such.  It would be nice to have a
> document
>listing standard permissions settings for various programs/setups.  Something to
> check
>a new system buy or help isolate a strange bug/problem.  Communications programs
> are real
>bad for permissions bugs.  Often they exit without resetting permissions and
> lock files
>properly leaving users to wonder why the modem isn't working and what-not.
> Again, I deal
>with it by fixing the programs and system setup.  I am trying to point out a
> pitfall for
>less experienced users.  I know the kinds of problems they have and they aren't
> that hard
>to solve.  Sysadmin menus just make easier something that most people shouldn't
> have to
>mess with at all.

Well, they are available on most commercial UNIX systems.

>	UNIX is being put on peoples' desktops.  You have loads of experience and that
>is fine for you.  What about the accountant that gets a new machine on his desk
> and wants
>to find out why his machine won't poll the company's cash registers?  With
> MessDOS the
>problem would be something turned off or a bad configuration file.  With UNIX,
> it could
>be a lot of different things.

Having worked in an environment where accountants, secretaries, and factory
workers with high school degrees used UNIX everyday, I just can't agree with
you.  And I'm talking 50 year old assembly line workers who had never seen a
computer before.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent