From: bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Question for net.views column in UNIX Today!
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:06:34 GMT
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden

In article <BAECHLER.92Apr13151951@liasun6.epfl.ch> baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch (Emmanuel Baechler) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.091752.22334@lth.se> bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) writes:
>>    Emacs isn't free, and neither is elvis. You have to get them, configure
>>    them and compile them. A non-hacker can't do this. And how about support?
>
>GNU Emacs is absolutely free. It is not as good as sophisticated than the Zmacs
>I use for software developpment, but it comes for free. Our system manager has
>never been any problem with it. 

That was really my point, since you have a system manager handling it for
you.

>Finally, it allows you to do things (like 
>reading, News, your mail, or using a lisp window to do the developpment for
>which you are paid) that very few other editor can do.

True, but in my opinion it's also important what a certain application
shouldn't do. Emacs tries to do everything.

Today with GUIs etc. I think it's a good approach to use several
programs, and link them together with something like OLE. 

>>    What you are saying is that Unix absolutely needs a wizard. That's no
>>    news. But neither is it really desirable.
>
>It may not be desirable, but it appears that if you have a big L.A.N.
>you can't avoid them, whatever the OS you are using.

Yes, but there are degrees of wizards. Mac Sys 7 has simple networking
built in, for example. 

>And cars are indeed hard to service. One can't ask for a very complex
>program like a multi-task multi-user OS (or an ATMS based logistics
>system for an air company) and expect that the result will be simple
>and easy to maintain.

I don't see why a single-user oriented, multi-user capable system
needs to be hard to service. 

Imagine Windows NT booting up (this in invented. I have no idea if it
looks like this) with a login box pre-filled in with "user" for a user
name. No password to begin with. There is a note that says "Press
Enter to log in". This is understandable for anyone, and the system
itself is protected from rogue programs during normal use. 

When you need to do upgrades etc., the docs will tell you to fill in
the username "admin" instead and follow the instructions.

If you type some undefined username at the login box (or you request
help), you are brought into a help session which explains how a "user"
can have its own name and folder etc.

Compare this with a traditional multi-user approach like "login: ". 

I think an approach like this could "sneak" multi-user awareness (and
protection) upon the heretofore unknowing public. Later, the public
may even think that MicroSoft invented multi-user systems with
protection.  For their purposes, they may think that with a
certain amount of justification. 

>You may have some serious problems with Unix, but, when I see the
>nightmares that PC users encounter, especially when they are put
>in a real lan (anything different from a pure star achitecture, where
>they exclusively communicate with a single server), you can see
>that Unix is not only livable, but good, reliable and efficient,
>compared to the PC world.

What I mean is that I would like to have a more usable interface to
the Unix core, instead of having to edit shell scripts and configuration
files etc. A standard interface, preferrably. If Windows NT will bring
nothing else, it may bring that.

Bengt Larsson.
-- 
Bengt Larsson - bengtl@maths.lth.se