From: peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:56:02 GMT
Organization: Global Village 1

drew@ladymacb.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) writes:

>>However, users don't care about the power fo UNIX, they want
>>a system they can easily use.  Originally, we had a VAX

>When Unix is configured so that the user is "protected" from the
>underlying operating system via a shell that just runs his application,
>a whizzy GUI front end onto his programs, or some menu driven
>interface, how is this any different from DOS, VMS, etc configured in
>this way?

>It isn't.  Unix doesn't "need" to be hard to use.

Suppose I am Mr. Joe User. I want to buy a computer to use at home. And of
course I hear lots of good news from UNIX, so I decide that I want UNIX. Now,
how do I get the 'whizzy GUI front end' or a 'menu driven interface'? I can
install DOS with a few floppies by just inserting the first floppy, turning on
the machine and answering a few questions. Often, applications are installed
in a similar way. Tell me, how do I do that with UNIX?

>>system here (dir is not only used by DOS) and the users 

>So?  ls is different from dir.  "ls" is a mnemonic for "list",
>where as "dir" is a menmonic for directory.  Different does not 
>mean more difficult.  

Anything that a user has to learn about his system is considered 'difficult'.
If a user knows how to use 'dir', then learning how to use 'ls' is difficult.

>You calim that people want to get their work done "with the minimum of
>fuss."  Under unix, the commands are fairly orthagonal.  Almost any 
>non-interactive command will take stdin as input, and write output 
>to stdout if no files are specified on the command line.

Yep, but that's a definition of "minimal fuzz" for programmers, not for users.
Users want the system to do as much as it can for them. Every detail they have
to remember is considered difficult.

>other shell scripts with the same syntax.  As you can see, with it's
>orthagonality, Unix run from the command could well be easier than DOS
>from the command line.

Nice, but what does that help Joe and Jane User? A Boeing 747 may have a very
orthogonal set of push buttons in the cockpit. I couldn't care less since I
only want to fly from A to B without being bothered about the technicalities
that are involved with flying. The user doesn't want to know how to get the
computer to do his work, he wants the machine just to do it.

>As a moded editor, vi is different from modeless fullscreen editors, 
>like emacs, and DOS wordprocessors.  However, this does not make it 
>inherently more difficult, merely different.  

Yep, but as I said, different means learning yet another thing unrelated to the
user's need. Users don't like that.

>Let's go back to the subject of orthagonality.  Under Unix, most
>programs will respect the $EDITOR environment variable.  So, you use
>and know one editor with your mailer, news reader, etc.  With DOS,
>you know one editor for QuickBASIC, one for word processing, another 
>for the 'C' compiler, etc.  

Most DOS editors know the WordStar commands. Furthermore, there is helptext
(just hit the F1 if you're lost). And learning another kind of editor

>Beyond programs that 'use' a real editor, many will use EMACS or VI
>key bindings for their command line editors.  Under DOS, I need to 
>remember F3 for last line, and all sorts of other odd commands.

Ha! What you say is that you have to remember 'F3 for last line' and such, but
the other way around, the user has to remember ':wq' and all sorts of other
odd commands. Just because you grew up with UNIX doesn't mean that it's normal
for everyone. Many people grew up with MooSe-DOS and they think that DOS is
normal and UNIX is odd. If *you* don't want to remember 'F3 for last line',
then how can you ever expect an inocent user to remember vi or emacs key
combinations?

>Under a shell like tcsh or bash, I can set up the command line editor
>to use vi or emacs key bindings, depending on what I use.  Irregardless
>of where I am, dw deletes a word, h and l or arrow l/r are forward 
>and backwards.  

Oh yes, it *CAN* be done. But how?

>How is DOS, where you need to know multiple editors, easier to learn
>than Unix where you need to know only one editor?

Most DOS editors have a help key, they often show which commands are availlable
on the screen, have mouse support, pull-down menus or WordStar commands.

>As far as users not liking vi : nothing's stopping them from using
>EMACS, xedit, etc.

And emacs is easier to learn than vi? <grin> Besides that, the programs you
mention are editors. A typical programmer's tool. What about a decent word
processor? (Oh please, inform me about the 'user friendliness' of troff and
(La)TeX... :)

>Obviously, vi and emacs are decent editors.  You have multiple
>cut-paste buffers, can do regex searches and replaces, pipe an edit
>buffer or portion thereof through a unix command, etc.  

Again, that are things that programmers and hackers like. I know users how find
that saving a file is a scary experience, let alone piping parts of the edit
buffer to a UNIX command.

>Let's put someone who's never seen a car behind the wheel of a stick
>shift car.  Chances are, it's not going to go anywhere.  How can you
>expect the same thing to be any different from using a computer?  

There are automatic gears, but why can't UNIX have both an automatic gear and
a 'stick shift'?

>Yes, Unix uses a different paradigm than do DOS and VMS.  This doesn't
>make it any more difficult, only different.

Difference = difficult.

>You know, I have problems when I use DOS.  I type ls, and it gives me 
>command not found.  Rm won't remove a file, and <ESC>:/foo won't jump
>to foo in my word processor or Turbo 'C' editor.  

And you expect users to be happy when they press F7 to find out that vi doesn't
save their document?

>Whatever you're used to seems easy to you.  Just because Unix isn't 
>DOS doesn't make it more difficult.

Now you're talking. Let's face it, most users know DOS and not UNIX. So because
UNIX isn't DOS makes it more difficult. Of course this is relatively speaking,
but everything is relative and I'm looking from the user's viewpoint. I don't
give a damn about brain dead command lines. I have learned several different
command line versions and I'm still alive... <grin>

>Under DOS, generally files that end in .EXE, .COM, or .BAT are 
>executable. That's THREE names to remember.  Under Unix, 
>anything that has an executable bit set is executable.  That's 
>one thing to remember.

Plus that you need to know that 'ls -l' shows you which files are executable.
And you have to remember to set your $EDITOR environment variable to your 
favourit 'EaseyButPowerfullEditor(tm)'. Oh yeah, don't forget that that
variable should be exported too! But to relieve the user from the burden of
typing it in everytime he starts a shell, he has to know which shell he is
using, to know which shell startup file he should edit (hopefully, the
EasyButPowerfullEditor(tm)) executable is already installed...).

>  Think about it.  Now, how is the 
>DOS way, with three things to remember, easier than the Unix way with
>one thing to remember?

But you forgot other important details.

>I've compiled, and have run out-of-the-box several hundred megabytes of source
>code under HP-9000/300 and 400 series machines running BSD, HP snakes
>running HPUX, DECs running Ultrix, SGI's running IRIX, VAXen running
>both Ultrix and BSD4.3-Reno, my PC running Linux, RS6000's running
>Ultrix, etc.

Without changing Makefiles??? Gee!

>You're saying that under DOS, I can send an .EXE to anyone running the
>same processor family (i86) / operating system (DOS) combination.  The
>same thing holds true under Unix.

Yep, but the problem is that even on the same processor it's not always
possible to exchange executables. Ever tried to run BSD/386 executables under
System V.4?

>On the otherhand, how well will my SGI run your DOS .EXE?

Well when you have an emulator.

>>don't need a system manager or need to be a system manager to
>>get the thing to run.  

>What do you call CONFIG.SYS and TSR order mangling under DOS?  
>This looks suspiciously like system administration.

You don't need to have a CONFIG.SYS or TSR's to run DOS applications.

>Unix is obiously fairly different from VMS, DOS, MacOS, etc, but this 
>doesn't make it inherently more difficult.  It's quite easy to argue
>that because of Unix's orthagonality, it's even easier to use than
>DOS, etc.

The last sentence is true, but the first isn't. At least, not for users.

Organization: Junior, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA