gyuri@cvl.UUCP (Gyorgy Fekete) (01/06/86)
In a recent article about whether or not the ST is good enough to UNIX, a topic which is getting boring, Mark Crispin <MRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA> concludes his posting with an appropriate post scriptum (?): > * Unix (TM) is a trademark of Bell Labs to describe the > absolutely terrible operating system they have conned large > segments of the computer industry to adopt simply because there > is no other portable operating system with the necessary > facilities. It also describes the philsophy of those individuals > who wish to make computers mysterious to the general public again > after 20 years of effort to make computers understandable. But if they were not so mysterios, then consultants wouldn't be able to get away with charging for ten hours what can be done in two. :-) -- USPS: Gyorgy Fekete | ARPA: gyuri@cvl.umd.edu Center for Automation Research | ATT: (301) 454-5858 University of Maryland | UUCP: ..{seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}\ College Park, MD 20742 | !umcp-cs!cvl!gyuri ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (01/08/86)
* Unix (TM) is a trademark of Bell Labs to describe the
absolutely wonderful operating system for programmers that
large segments of the computer industry have adopted not because
it is what they want but because it is portable. It also
describes the philosophy of those programmers whose goals in
designing Unix were to make a an operating system that would be
efficient and flexible to meet the needs of sophisticated users.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or
915 Patterson Office Tower {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA
Lexington, Ky. 40506-0027 BITNET: sean@UKMA.BITNETMRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA (Mark Crispin) (01/08/86)
An operating system that is "not...what [large segments of
the computer industry] want" is not "absolutely wonderful." Nor
is it "efficient", since Unix systems typically spend about 50%
of the CPU in the operating system. One questions the flexibility
of an operating system which lacks file locking, record structure,
and shared writeable pages -- granted these are now being shoehorned
into Unix, but they should have been in there from the beginning.
Are you aware that Dennis Ritchie once said that if he had
known about Tenex, he never would have invented Unix? The goal in
designing Unix were to create an quick and dirty operating system
on a discarded PDP-7 so a group in Bell Labs (which had been denied
their purchase request for a newer and large CPU) could get some work
done.
-------info-atari@ucbvax.UUCP (01/09/86)
In article <12173670725.8.MRC@PANDA> you write: > > An operating system that is "not...what [large segments of >the computer industry] want" is not "absolutely wonderful." Nor >is it "efficient", since Unix systems typically spend about 50% >of the CPU in the operating system. Who cares? CPU time is cheap, programmer time is not. >One questions the flexibility >of an operating system which lacks file locking, record structure, >and shared writeable pages -- granted these are now being shoehorned >into Unix, but they should have been in there from the beginning. Why should they have been in there since the beginning? Some of the most powerful database systems in existence run under UNIX. They seem to get by just fine. What type of record system would you like? One like VMS, one like RSX, one like MACE? And what happens when you want to move software between the systems? Some people feel that these type of things do not belong in an operating system; I am one of them. > > Are you aware that Dennis Ritchie once said that if he had >known about Tenex, he never would have invented Unix? So? >The goal in >designing Unix were to create an quick and dirty operating system >on a discarded PDP-7 so a group in Bell Labs (which had been denied >their purchase request for a newer and large CPU) could get some work >done. And the Greeks invention of geometry was so that they could settle land disputes. That doesn't make the invention of geometry any less significant: "Necessity is the mother of invention." That's not original, but it is relevant.
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (01/16/86)
In article <8601091624.AA03662@pc.Purdue.EDU> info-atari@ucbvax.UUCP writes: >In article <12173670725.8.MRC@PANDA> you write: >> >> An operating system that is "not...what [large segments of >>the computer industry] want" is not "absolutely wonderful." Nor >>is it "efficient", since Unix systems typically spend about 50% >>of the CPU in the operating system. > > Who cares? CPU time is cheap, programmer time is not. > Actually, you should look at the actual overhead on a UNIX system before coming up with that 50% figure. On a loaded VAX I can believe 20-40% average over ten minutes or more, but not 50%. On a single user PC-based UNIX system, such as XENIX or PC/IX, that number might change, but I would normally expect it to be lower, and it is on the systems on which I've been able to measure.. CPU time is a lousy measure, since systems such as MSDOS and CP/M spend 100% of their time in a CPU loop while waiting for keyboard or disk input. Your program doesn't run at all! No one could deny that these systems are widely used and useful. Who decided that large segments of the industry don't want it? I have the feeling that the reason IBM and Cray are now offering UNIX is not because they love AT&T, but rather that people *do* want it. Sperry offers UNIX from its PC's to its top mainframes... same reason! >> One questions the flexibility >>of an operating system which lacks file locking, record structure, >>and shared writeable pages -- granted these are now being shoehorned >>into Unix, but they should have been in there from the beginning. > > Why should they have been in there since the beginning? Some of the > most powerful database systems in existence run under UNIX. They seem > to get by just fine. What type of record system would you like? One > like VMS, one like RSX, one like MACE? And what happens when you > want to move software between the systems? Some people feel that these > type of things do not belong in an operating system; I am one of them. > SystemV UNIX has the ability to do locking. Records structure is an application concept and has no business in the o/s. To complain about the lack of locking in an older version of the o/s is like bitching about the lack of smog control on the model T Ford. It wasn't there because it wasn't needed at that time. UNIX was not originally a business o/s. >> >> Are you aware that Dennis Ritchie once said that if he had >>known about Tenex, he never would have invented Unix? I don't dispute it, but (a) I would like to know the source of the quote (published paper, informal net note, remark at a party, you heard about from a friend, etc), and (b) I'm not sure I believe it. It wouldn't have solved the problem of a multitasking o/s on *cheap* hardware. > >The goal in >>designing Unix were to create an quick and dirty operating system >>on a discarded PDP-7 so a group in Bell Labs (which had been denied >>their purchase request for a newer and large CPU) could get some work >>done. > > And the Greeks invention of geometry was so that they could settle > land disputes. That doesn't make the invention of geometry any less > significant: "Necessity is the mother of invention." That's not > original, but it is relevant. Exactly the point I was making about locking. It wasn't a goal, it is now, we have it now. -- -bill davidsen seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\ / \ ihnp4! unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen \ / chinet! ---------------------/ (davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA) "It seemed like a good idea at the time..."