From: peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:51:12 GMT
Organization: Global Village 1

rahardj@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Budi Rahardjo) writes:

>>in a similar way. Tell me, how do I do that with UNIX?
>Well just buy a pre-configured Unix machine. 

That'll cost extra because it takes a few hours to do that.

>The analogy to the above story is :
>Give Mr Joe User a machine with an unformatted harddrive (even the BIOS is
>not set) and a whole bunch of disks. Well, Mr. Joe User has to know how
>to set the BIOS and format the harddrive.

Good analogy. Well, that isn't really an rare situation, is it? And

>Oh, BTW, have you tried installing Linux (unix clone). You can install it
>by answering some questions.

Guess what I'm using right now. Too bad the partition program doesn't ask me
questions and that I have to start the install scripts by hand. Have you ever
tried to install OS/2 v1.3?

>>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.
>Well, how did he learn 'dir' then ?
>So if I know how to use 'ls', learning how to use 'dir' is difficult :-)

You know how people learn using computers. But for some it's 'logical' and
therefore easy and for others it's black magic and difficult. A good system
should support people with all levels of knowledge. The Mac is a bad example,
it only supports 'stupid' users. Most UNIXes only support advanced knowledgable
people (hackers, gurus, etc.). And there is no reason why there can't be a
system that supports both kinds of people at the same time. It only requires
that there are good defaults for everything. Expert types know how to turn off
the defaults if the default is 'stupid' user mode, it's only that 'stupid'
users don't know how to turn them on if the default is expert mode.

>Tell me, if I want to move a directory (and its sub dirs) into another
>directory. How would you do that with DOS (without commercial or other
>packages) ?

We're not talking about DOS, we're talking about usefullness of computer in
general and the usefullness of UNIX in particular. DOS is history, even DOS
advocats (if such an animal exists) know that. Anything is heaven compared to
DOS. Comparing UNIX to DOS only tells you that UNIX isn't the worst system
around, it doesn't tell you that it's the best system. Can't you compare UNIX
to something more challenging than DOS? Or are you afraid that UNIX can't 
survive such a comparison (which is what started this whole discussion)???

>>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
>I guess you haven't seen CRISP, eh ? It's a nice text editor.

No, I've not seen it. It was too much trouble getting it to compile under
NCR System V rel. 4... Besides, I prefer vi, because that's what I'm used to
now.

>What's wrong with :wq  .... It's  Write and Quit, that's what it does.

Because no other program than vi uses :wq. It's just that there are only a few
people who are used to that command. Under DOS I always use editors which know
the WordStar commands. Not that that is the best, but because I know those.
When I can choose between a computer with a QWERTY keyboard and one with a
Dvorak keyboard, I choose the QWERTY keyboard. Even though QWERTY is obviously
a backward standard.

>The problem with F3 approach is that F3 in one package is different with
>other package. F1 may be help in one program, but it's Exit in WordPerfect.

F1 is a de facto standard key under MS-DOS. I've used many programs and 90%
has help (if any) under the F1 key.

>Try CRISP.

I might, if I get it to compile...

>>>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?

>Ever run .EXE file compiled for 386 on 8086 ?

You mean that BSD/386 is to System V.4 what the 386 is to the 8086??? Or the
other way around??? It's obvious that a 386 executable does not run on a 8086,
but it really isn't that obvious that BSD/386 executables don't run under
Sys V.4. UNIX is UNIX right? And a 8086 is not a 386 right?

Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions