HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmcurtin@bluemoon.rn.com (Matthew Curtin)
Subject: Re: Byte: Is Unix Dead ?
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:30:56 EDT

kocks@jessica.stanford.edu (Peter Kocks) writes:

> 
> In case it is not obvious.  Windows NT will be very buggy when it
> first comes out to the general public.  Anyone who does not believe
> this has not watched the development of OSs over the last decade.

I hate to put a damper on the fun of speculating a Microsoft failure, but 
a friend of mine who works for The Ohio State University Systems has a 
pre-beta release of NT. He says it is ("unfortunately") fast, not too 
obnoxiously huge, and solid. He and two other people tried to crash their 
PRE-BETA release, and could not. The only problem he reported was having 
trouble running an MS-DOS command line; they couldn't get EDLIN to work.

> All of this plays to NeXT's advantage.  NeXT is, and will be for some
> time, more stable than Windows NT.  The same can be said for OS 2.0;
> altough, I'm not sure I would characterize OS 2 as stable yet (much
> better than before though).  

I would completely disagree. The same friend of mine said OS/2 has more 
bugs than a bait store (see "Tron"), and is slow, takes too much of a 
machine to run for what you get, has trouble with DOS emulation, is not 
really have pre-emptive multi-tasking (when he has something going in one 
window, he can't go to another and do something else...the wait icon won't 
make way for a mouse pointer...) From what I've been reading on the net, 
the support from IBM is practically nonexistant.

> NeXT better come out with 3.0 soon and a RISC machine or this lead
> time will be lost.

I agree.

> --Peter Kocks
>   kocks@chemistry.stanford.edu


 ___________________________________________________________________________
| C. Matthew Curtin             ! "But I am the enlightened one, they are  |
| P.O. Box 27081                ! but mere sheep, following each other in  |
| Columbus, OH 43227-0081       ! the name of compatibility." -B. Heineman |
| cmcurtin@bluemoon.uucp        !              Apple II Forever!           |
|_cmcurtin%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com!_____________Support__Shareware!__________|
From: SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:28:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: orca.SXMRP.31.0
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

In article <1992Aug25.022738.2537@leland.Stanford.EDU> spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:
>From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
>Subject: Re: NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
>Date: 25 Aug 92 02:27:38 GMT

>Quite right.  So, just _why_ did you buy a 486?

Because, while Next is 'real neat-o' and a good price for what you get, it is
not the 'real world'.

Now, before I'm flamed to a crisp, let me explain.  I am a senior in EE and
in one year I have to leave this safe haven of academica and actually get
a real job somewhere.  I am interested in getting a job in the computer
industry, anywhere.  If I have a 486, I can run NT, DOS/Windows, OS/2, or
Unix off of this box.  I personally believe that NT will make a big impact
in the market and I believe that programming experience in this OS will
maximize my marketablity with the maximum number of employers.  And if I'm
wrong, I can allways get OS/2, Solaris, or even NS486.

Take a look through any computer magazine in the early 80's.  You will find
loads of computers that have superior price/performance ratios to the PC.
Most of those companies are no longer in business.  If I want to play with
Next machines, I can go up to our university computer center and program
there.  Currently, I simply don't have the money to take a risk on the Next.
It would be a cool machine to play with.

>--
>-
>Stefano Pagiola>Food Research Institute, Stanford University
>spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)

-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)
From: yikes@netcom.com (Jenny Doll)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: risc next & NS 3.0 & 486
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:05:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug27.011934.21894@csus.edu> eburk@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu  
(Eli Burk) writes:
> Opinions please - is NS 3.0 coming out in 92?

For the record: I have installed the shrink-wrapped, commercial, non-beta, for-sale, NS 3.0 CD-ROM - today!
Michael Brill
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: samurai@homer.cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy Brockbank)
Subject: Re: NeXT, WordPerfect, WriteNow, Nisus, etc.
Reply-To: samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:17:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.172016.21686@adobe.com> byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)  
writes:
> Only thing I'm missing is PhotoShop. :-(

Appsoft Image.

- db

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: jon@afs.com (Jonathan Hendry)
Subject: Re:  NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
Distribution: USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:42:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.114845.1@capd.jhuapl.edu> waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu writes:

>He will win the GUI wars by default if Apple and
>NeXT refuse to play on his OS (he may even win by having a
>superior GUI if his object-oriented GUI pans out--yet another
>case where his internal application developers will have it
>before the outside developers?).

a) Define "win"

If win means "the other guys go out of business" then I think you are too much  
in love with Billy G. Apple certainly isn't going to go out of business in this  
decade. There's lots of room out there for other companies than Microsoft. 4  
million copies of NextStep in 4 months would be nice, but realistically, it  
can't happen. How many people who bought Windows have 286's, or tiny laptops?

Microsoft knows they can sell s**t and people will buy it, smiling and showing  
it to their friends and telling them how great it is. If that friend is lucky  
enough to have a black box on his desk (or even a mac), he wrinkles his nose in  
sheer revulsion, seeing it for what it really is. Most poor DOS users don't  
know any better, so when they get an incremental advance in their software,  
they go dancing in the streets and praising undefeatable Bill.
--
Jonathan Hendry  Anderson Financial Systems
jon@afs.com  (Nextmail Welcome!) or hendryjw@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open Letter: Don't get rid of UNIX
Date: 31 Aug 1992 20:53:11 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

Glenn Reid pleads:

>My pleas is a simple one: don't abandon UNIX, and don't replace the file
>system with an object-oriented database unless it's invisible to UNIX.

>I don't think NeXT realizes how absolutely critical it is to have a highly
>conforming UNIX box as their underpinning. It's familiar ground for a huge
>number of programmers and users, even though it has its arcane sides.

NeXT is actually considering canning UNIX???  Absolutely unbelievable!

Maybe NeXT should sell three operating systems:  NeXTstep only,
the one we now have and a fast, efficient UNIX system.

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu  



Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: m@crito.stanford.edu (M Carling)
Subject: Re: Open Letter: Don't get rid of UNIX
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 03:52:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.031649.20074@ni.umd.edu> louie@sayshell.umd.edu  
(Louis A. Mamakos) writes:
> I know of no person that has bought a NeXT
> where it being a UNIX-based platform was not a requirement.

Well, I didn't buy it myself, but ordered that it be bought. UNIX was not  
only not a requirement, it was barely a consideration.

I do think it would be a grave mistake for NeXT to discontinue UNIX  
compatibility.

M Carling
Director, Bay Area NeXT Group
--
"High tech is potent, precise, and in the end, unbeatable. The truth is,  
it reminds a lot of people of the way I pitch horseshoes. Would you  
believe some of the people? Would you believe our dog? Look, I want to  
give the high-five signal to high tech."
                          George Bush, 4/25/89
From: pfkeb@kaon.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Paul Kunz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open Letter: Don't get rid of UNIX
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:51:59 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
In-reply-to: glenn@rightbrain.com's message of 31 Aug 92 02:58:22 GMT


   I whole heartly agree with Glenn that an important part of the NeXT
development environment is that it is UNIX.   I was going to post something
last night, but Glenn beat me to it.

   My first UNIX exposure was on a NeXT and I'm still not up to using 
tools like awk and sed.   But I do use a lot of other UNIX tools 
that NeXT or the NeXT community would have to reproduce the equivalent of
if NeXT was not UNIX.   Let me list a few...

- RCS (ships with the OS)
- CVS (ports fine to NeXT, and probably needed for NS 3.0)
- NFS (needed for multi-person development environment)
- make
- install
- strip
- emacs (when loging in from home)
- vi (when booting single user on a non-extended release machine)
- rsh, rlogin, rcp, suite
- indent 
- ctags (if you use them)
- perl, rexx, bash, or your favorite
- tar, gnutar, etc.
- dump, rdump, etc.
- netbooting (if you so choose)
- lpr, lprm, lpq, lpc suite
- diff
- grep
- sendmail and the infamous sendmail.cf files.

   I've probably left out many important items.  I've listed some of
the things I've used and as I say, my first UNIX box was a NeXT. But
you should be able to get the gist.  If NeXT were not a UNIX box,
there would tons of stuff that would need to be replicated for a
non-UNIX environment.

P.S.

   While I'm at it here's an interesting thought.   As far as a standard
UNIX environment goes, the next best thing to a SUN is a NeXT.   Many
people have reported that in porting software between flavors of
UNIX, the SUN is the easiest, and the NeXT is the second easiest.

   Now SUN is about to undergo a major upheaveal with Solaris 2.0
which has a strong AT&T Sys V flavor.  SUN may no longer be the
standard by which UNIX is measured. If that happens, the best "SUN"
might be a NeXT.  I know SUN advocates at my site that are sure that
this is going to be the case.


--
Paul F. Kunz	pfkeb@slac.stanford.edu (NeXT mail ok)
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University
Voice: (415) 926-2884   (NeXT) Fax: (415) 926-3587
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough)
Subject: Re: Open Letter: Don't get rid of UNIX
Organization: University of Toronto, Dept. of Statistics
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:32:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.233507.12849@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> kenny_leung@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca writes:
>Although I think that all of the posters so far have valid points, I think  
>that most of them are looking only from one point of view: That of the  
>UNIX weenie.  Until I bought my NeXT, I had never even heard of UNIX, and  
>the same goes for 99.9% of the world.  Although I like the utilities that  
>UNIX offers, I think that I could have lived without them.  (You never  
>miss something until it's gone.)

I bought a NeXT knowing that Unix was lurking there and hoping they would 
get rid of it. There's a small place for Unix, but in my opinion to hope
that it becomes a significant force is simply dreaming, as most Unix people
have been doing for years.
>
>Here at the University of Alberta, many NeXTs are sold to people with  
>absolutely no knowledge of UNIX, and they also will probably never use it.   
>In these terms, UNIX is only a burden, because if they even have a fairly  
>minor problem, it is impossible for them to fix.  Most of the time during  
>a consult, I find myself wishing that they had bought a Macintosh.

This is a very good point. Unix makes maintaining the computer difficult for
most people. It keeps campus consultants running ragged and a lot of people
from buying the NeXT.
>
>I think that NeXT *has* to keep UNIX on their systems for half of their  
>customers, and it also *has* to strip UNIX off their systems for the other  
>half.

It has to keep Unix on their systems for 1/2 of its current customer base.
NeXt should simply have it as an option for those who want it. The real
competition for NeXT comes from places other than Unix workstations. If
they don't come to grips with this issue they'll remain marginal forever.
Stuck in an OS that is really a dead end. What a shame.
 
Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave Griffiths)
Subject: Re: NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
Organization: Primitive Software Ltd.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 07:27:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.012133.19175@nic.umass.edu> a74k110@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Lloyd) writes:
>
>Ok, my guess on why NS '486 is high priced...
>
>NS '486 is priced at $1000 odd so that NeXT doesnt risk dropping off the
>face of the earth.  What would happen if they sold at $99 or $149?
>
>First thing that would happen is that their hardware sales would become
>non-existant, what reason is there to buy NeXT hardware when you can get
>a cheap PC with NS on it? (DSP, yea, right, ha ha ha) none.
>
>Second thing is that they dont know how well it will do, what if they
>sell it for $99 odd and the best it does is their current hardware sales #'s?
>Oh boy, 10-20,000 sales a year of a $99 product with little to none
>hardware sales. insta-doom.
>

I don't think your argument is logical. First you say that there is no
reason to buy the hardware _except_ to get the software. So the software is
the only thing that matters. Then you say that even if this software was
only $99 it may only sell 19-2000 copies. If that is the case, we are all
wasting our time, because the software is supposed to be the great thing
about NeXT. And you're implying that the only people interested are die-
hard NeXTStep fans prepared to subsidise NeXT as a hardware company by
paying way over $99 for no perceived added value.

In other words, the NeXT hardware must stand on it's own two feet, otherwise
it's a lame duck and will be recognized as such and NeXT will fail.

If you picture NeXTStep as a big helium balloon supporting a heavy elephant
(the hardware) with the pair of them bobbing along about six feet off the
ground, then you imagine the rope being cut, the elephant crashing to the
ground, but the balloon _still_ just floating at the same height...

Doesn't make sense. ;-)

Dave Griffiths
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Subject: Re: Is BSD dead? 
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:58:06 GMT

waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu writes

> 	I would guess that the lack of threads in AIX
> 	must have been a good part of IBM's trouble.

It was actually the lack of messaging build into the AIX
kernel that caused the most problems.  They tried to do
a Mach compatibility library *without* modifying the AIX
kernel at all to support it.  So messaging was "emulated"
by copying the message into named shared memory, then
copied by the recieving process into it's own address
space.

Also, missing memory mapped I/O in the kernel hurt, and
don't forget alpha channel stuff, plus poor hardware
bandwidth to video memory.  It all added up.

Even so, NS1.0 was plenty useable on the RS/6000.  It
just took too long to port 1.0 (it wouldn't have been
ready until *after* NS2.0 had been released on NeXT
machines), 2.0 would have been longer to port, and there
were too many politics going on from the beginning.

It was all started in the wrong direction to begin with.
Which is sad, because what did get finished hinted
strongly that done right, it would have been one bang-up
system.

Scott Byer                                   NeXTMail: byer@adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated               These are *my* opinions, and  
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900        do not necessarily reflect
Mountain View, CA 94039-7900             the opinions of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: isbell@cats.ucsc.edu (Art Isbell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is BSD dead? (Sorry, Avie)
Date: 27 Aug 1992 22:33:12 GMT
Organization: Cubic Solutions - NeXT software development and consulting
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Aug27.173723.11979@leland.Stanford.EDU> shiva@vega.Stanford.EDU (Marcos Javier Polanco) writes:
>
>OSF/1 seems to be dead in the water; even the hard-core members of the OSF  
>(IBM, HP, DEC) are cozying up to USL's SVR4.2, the one that uses the  
>french Chorus microkernel. So the question is, will NeXT continue to carry  

Although USL has announced licensing Chorus, I believe SysV.4 is still a
megakernel (correct me if I'm wrong).  I haven't heard any estimate of when a
Chorused SysV might be available and Mach has a several-year head start.  I'm
also not sure it's accurate to say that IBM, HP, and DEC are cozying up to
SysV.4.  On the contrary, they seem to be digging in their heels to avoid
leaving {AIX,HPUX,Ultrix}.
-- 

Art Isbell                                                      Cubic Solutions
NeXT Registered Developer #745         NeXT software development and consulting
Email: isbell@cats.UCSC.EDU                                Voice: (408)335-1154
USmail: 95018-9442                                           Fax: (408)335-2515
From: alex@cs.umd.edu (Alex Blakemore)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Object Oriented File System: Huh??
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:11:07 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1992Sep4.182618.28508@adobe.com> caro@adobe.UUCP  (Perry A. Caro) writes:

> I've used an "object oriented" file system.  It sucked.  Sure, it had all
> sorts of whiz-bang features, like arbitrarily complex access control,
> and arbitrarily typed and attributed contents, but the thing ran like a
> dog and was very fault intolerant.

> There is hope, though.  Hardware keeps getting faster, I/O bandwidth keeps increasing

another few data points against an OOFS are the complexity they demand of the user.

consider the underwhelming success of typed file systems and access control lists.
for example, VMS has acls and most users never figure out how to use them and
have all sorts of trouble just sharing files.

Apollo had typed files and acls and look where it got them.
there were some cool aspects of typed files, for example DSEE (cm) files
would get the latest version when read by any program but could
only be written via DSEE.  so editors and compilers, printers could read
directly from the CM library, no checking out error prone working copies.
and those tools didnt need to know there was anything special about the files.

but more often than not, it got in the way or confused users.

or look at the Mac, where if you write an ASCII file you can't read
it with another app have the time without hacking the file type.
type based on the creating app is a bad idea.

NeXT improved this by defining standard types independent of the
apps that manipulate them.  Using file extensions to denote the type
is certainly not elegant and can be error prone, but it is simple and
it works.

an OOFS (no matter how nice) may confuse more people than it helps,
could be slow and divert resources away from other pressing areas.

whose going to spend the time to learn and organize their info with the
OOFS?  I know lots of people that have a huge flat home directory
because they never organized files with directories.  Do you expect
them to learn to use an OODB to get to their files?

if anyone could make an OOFS usable and useful, NeXT could,
but I'ld put it far down the list
-- 
---------------------------------------------------
Alex Blakemore alex@cs.umd.edu   NeXT mail accepted
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re: Is BSD dead? (Sorry, Avie)
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 22:20:15 GMT

In article <35F9PB1w165w@erix.uucp>, julie%erix@uunet.uu.net (Julie Cafritz) 
writes:
	[...material deleted...]
> I agree.  If NeXT moves away from UNIX, I will definitely move away from 
> NeXT.  I would wager that most of us have more of a commitment to UNIX than
> to Steve Jobs.  I already feel marginal owning a NeXT:  if it weren't for 
> the UNIX, I would feel like (and probably would qualify as) a total klutz 
> for having bought one.
	For me, UNIX compatibility on the NeXT was insurance.  If Steve (to
	whom I had no commitment--didn't even use Macs unless I had to) failed,
	I could still run UNIX (and X).  If NeXTSTEP moved to some other OS,
	obviously a lot of toes would be stepped on.  I've had commitments to
	both VMS and UNIX--and have felt somewhat let down by both (price
	gauging and lack of vision by DEC; internecine feuding among UNIX
	camps).  But commitment to an application concept and a development
	environment are important factors as well.  If NeXTSTEP succeeds,
	maybe we'll all feel like winners (and, as Dan Quayle might say, "I
	knew Klutz and, Julie, you're no Klutz" 8^)


_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_ _/      _/      _/ _/     _/   _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  cfwaltrip     _/    _/_/    _/ _/_/    _/       _/     _/    _/ _/ _/    _/
_/       _/_/_/    _/  _/  _/  _/ _/_/_/   _/       _/     _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>  _/       _/     _/  _/   _/ _/
_/_/_/_/ _/          _/      _/ _/      _/ _/_/_/_/ _/     _/    _/ _/ _/
	Opinions expressed are my own.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos)
Subject: Re: Open Letter: Don't get rid of UNIX
Organization: University of Maryland College Park
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:16:49 GMT

In article <870@rtbrain.rightbrain.com> glenn@rightbrain.com writes:
>
>This is an open letter to NeXT that will hopefully engender a bit of
>discussion (this is the .advocacy group, after all).
>
>My pleas is a simple one: don't abandon UNIX, and don't replace the file
>system with an object-oriented database unless it's invisible to UNIX.

It has been expressed privately to me that my previous posting about
NeXT and the rumors of them moving away from UNIX are just that:
rumors.  I have no reason to believe that NeXT has any plans to move
from UNIX, despite my previous posting.  All I have heard are rumors.

I have no desire to precipitate yet another USENET flame war with no
basis in fact.  Then again, this is the .advocacy group, and I'm not
certain, but flame-content may be requirement for postings in this
group :-)

Of course a simple statement of direction from NeXT could clear all
this up.  I'm not expecting them to use this newsgroup or USENET as an
avenue to communicate policy and direction to their customers, but
they can always produce a press release.  I'm sure many customers are
interested in what goes on there in Redwood City on the other side of
the event horizon.

That said, I agree 100% with Glenn Reid's posting about the value of a
solid UNIX platform.  NeXT has done as good a job as any vendor hiding
UNIX from those that wish to avoid it.  Yet it is easy for those of us
that need to get real work done on a day-to-day basis.  I also stand
by my previous remarks: I know of no person that has bought a NeXT
where it being a UNIX-based platform was not a requirement.

Louis Mamakos