From: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Future Amiga chipsets
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:02:01 GMT
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: hemi.msi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Mr. Mike" Passaretti (mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com) wrote:
:
: First, my apologies if I misread your posting on your
: programming experience.  I meant no disrespect.
:

No problem!

:
: [long car analogy deleted]
:

Mike, you said that you are a developer of real-time embedded systems.
I agree that this makes you uniquely qualified to compare such systems
and judge which one is the most well-designed.  But does it mean that you
have any more right than I to say what is an OS and what is not?  Or even
what is a good OS?

Suppose I am not interested in real-time embedded systems.  Let's say I
need an OS which supports the most varying hardware, can handle the largest,
most feature-packed commercial applications, and has an easy-to-use GUI.
Does your real-time embedded OS qualify as a good OS in my case?  No, it
doesn't, but Windows certainly does.

During all these OS discussions, I've noticed that most people here
consider some OS features more "noble" than others.  More often than not,
the features that Amiga users praise are those which AmigaOS happens to have,
and the features that they consider worthless are conveniently those which
AmigaOS lacks.  For example, the preemptive multitasking and fast context
switch.  Amiga users seem to believe that because AmigaOS has these, it's OK
that it doesn't have VM, MP, or DIG.  This is precisely what I disagree with.
I'm not saying that it's the other way around; I'm just saying that it depends
on what you use your computer for.  Just like there is room in the marketplace
for several different classes of automobile, there is room (and justification)
for several different OS designs.

:
: jerry> OS's don't exist for OS developers; they exist for
: jerry> application programmers and users; *they* are the ones
: jerry> who define what goes into an OS, not you.
:
: ** Bzzzzt ** Thank you for playing.  The OS developer, by
: definition, decides what goes in his OS.  The API is all that
: matters to the applications programmer, and the applications
: are all that matter to the user.
:

I strongly disagree on this point.  Why is it that a GUI is now part of Unix?
Because the *users* demanded it.  Why were scalable fonts finally added to
MacOS?  For the same reason.  You say that the OS developer decides what goes
into his OS?  That's absurd!  Certainly, you have the final decision, but if
you don't listen to your market (users and app developers), you won't be an
OS developer for long.  Ever heard of market research?  No product exists
without there being some need for it in the marketplace.

And believe me, only in dreamland does the implementation of the API not
concern the application programmer, and only in dreamland does the OS's
ease-of-use not concern the user.

:                                                         - MM
: passaretti@crd.ge.com           {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!passaret
:
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
| Drummers do it... |     Burlington, MA USA     | in my book of memories.   |
|    ... In rhythm! |        jerry@msi.com       |         -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+