daleske@cbdkc1.UUCP ( John Daleske x4335 3E296 RAA) (12/18/85)
[This note was prepared for posting to the fledgling, flopping net.os and
is place here for lack of a better home. We can move it to whatever place
ends up being the home for this type of discussion. Note that I did NOT
cross-post to net.unix or net.unix-wizards as those places appear to be
homes for zealots. Note that I am presenting these as my own views and am
not intending this to be interpreted as representing my employer nor the
corporation to which I am currently consulting.]
A lot of "my OS is best" statements fly around. Relatively objective
discussions occur infrequently. Comparisons between more than a couple OSs
becomes difficult for a number of reasons.
- One's work generally tends to settle toward one environment.
- Experience (read "prejudices, opinions, etc.") is built over time. The OS
you once hated (read "MVS, VS1, etc." :-) ) likely has evolved somewhat
and possibly is now better than it was ten years ago.
- Benchmarks of OSs are difficult to compare. Benchmarks often enhance
particular features beneficial to one type of OS.
- Operating Systems are intended for certain environments. You wouldn't
want to do real-time applications on a batch system would you?
1. "OS-9 is just UNIX under a different name" (or is it?)
I recently heard the statement:
"If there is a feature of an operating system you want, there is likely a
version of UNIX around that supports that feature." (paraphrased)
The context of the statement was basically that I stated in response to the
question "What is OS-9 good for?" that OS-9 is good for and much used in
real-time processing applications, OS-9 is ROM-able, OS-9 is useful in
environments with limited resources (small RAM, diskless, etc.).
The retort was the above paraphrased statement and mention of UNIX versions
which were ROM-able (HP-UNIX?), small (mini-UNIX), and real-time (?).
In my head I had prepared the retort: "But then, are they "really" UNIX?!"
with a big a-hah! and told you so! and so's your sister! "Do you REALLY
want to have five hundred different versions, each with its own extensions
floating around?"
Instead I reconsidered and said "Uh huh." and left with a big question mark
resting on the cloud of thought floating above me.
Indeed, OS-9 is an off-spring of what UNIX was in the late 1970s with a
completely different implementation. Reference the following statement:
UNIX: An operating system similar to OS-9, but with less functionality
and special features designed to soak up excess memory, disk space and
CPU time on large, expensive computers.
-- OS-9/68000 Operating System Users Manual
In a sense, yes, OS-9 and UNIX are just different implementations of the
same general concepts. Applications can be ported between UNIX and OS-9
with about the same difficulty as between the major implementations of UNIX
(System V, 4.xBSD, System III).
One major deficit in OS-9 is in the shell. Sure, shells could also be
ported or new shells developed for OS-9, but comparing standard sh, csh,
and the standard OS-9 shell shows a major increase in functionality in sh
and csh.
"Standard UNIX versus Standard OS-9"
Which IS best? Both and neither. Each is best in certain applications.
Personally, I like the shells on standard UNIX (though, in reality, I'm
using ksh, which is NOT (yet) standard) and I LOVE the modularity of the
OS-9 implementation.
Ok, so now I'd like to see a reasonably objective discussion of OS-9 and
UNIX-like systems. Pick and other OS users feel free to throw in your
two cents. I'll go home this weekend and write up a beginning discussion
of features for OS-9 versus UNIX. Let's see some activity!
--
-- [NOTE: No one else would WANT to claim these statements!] --
John Daleske at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio. 614-860-4335
UUCP: {ihnp4,cbosgd,desoto}!cbdkc1!daleske
__________________________________
"Now," said the butterfly, "look closer and tell me what you see."
"I see a tiny horse with wings upon its back" said Flutterby. "Why that's
me I see! But what am I?"
"You are you. Just as I am me!" said the wise old butterfly. "Nothing more,
nothing less."