HELLER@cs.umass.edu.UUCP (02/20/87)
> From: Mike Horne <tektronix!tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM!mhorne@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU> > In a recent article, HELLER@cs.umass.edu writes: > > >...multi-user systems it is needed. It is doubtful > >that MMUs will ever be common on *little* home/office systems (i.e. ST's, > >Amiga's, Mac's etc.) - most of these system will be running well behaved > > Guess again. In the history of '*little* home/office systems', manufacturers > have always put the most up-to-date hardware in their machines at the time > of development. Since most new CPUs have built in MMUs, new computers will > obviously have OSs that take advantage of this. Atari, Apple, etc., aren't > going to put Z80s in their new machines with no MMU just because someone out > there can write a 'well behaved' program! It's called 'computer evolution'. > What I meant was I doubt the *LITTLE* machines will get the 68030 for some time yet. After all the Mega ST's still have 68000s. 68010's have been around for some time now, but how many < $1000 machines have them? Hell, I have a $7000+ Stride 440 that is only 1.5 years old and it only has a 68000. Stride does sell a MMU upgrade as an extra option. Maybe I should define "*LITTLE*" - I DON'T mean office/business systems I mean home machines - in the under $1000 class, used mostly for games, 1-page word-processing, and checkbook balancing! > >I really doubt that UNIX/MINIX will ever be the O/S of choice amongst home > >and office users: UNIX is just too "weird" (why is the directory command > >"ls"? why is the type command "cat"? what is an inode? - only UNIX hackers > >really understand UNIX). > > Obviously you haven't given it much thought. Gee, could "cat" possibly stand > for "concatenate?" Naaa... Pick up a book once in a while. > > Gosh, I wonder why UNIX is showing up so often as THE operating system in any > new, state-of-the-art computer? Even MS-DOS (yucko!) has some look/feel of > UNIX. > *I* know that "ls" means "list short" and "cat" means concatenate. What I meant was that computer novices are likey to have a harder time figuring out UNIX's command names. Yes messy-dos does have some UNIXisms, but still the directory command is "dir" and the file type command is "type" and the file copy command is "copy" and the file delete command is "del", etc. As opposed to "ls", "cat", "cp", "rm", etc. Haven't you ever encounted a novice user asking stupid questions like the examples I gave? And not be able to give an *intellegent* answer? Many of UNIX's commands are non-intuitive. Any there isn't even a *decent* on-line help facility (I know about the *nearly* useless man command - only usefull if you know what command you want help on - if you don't know about the man command or don't even know what command to even use, you are totally lost). > >Secondly, I have found that I have had little or no trouble with runaway > >pointers totally trashing the system, at worst it just trashes the current > >"process". Re-booting just that process is suffientent. I guess I tend to > >write good code. Also, I have little need to run jobs in the background > >much. I guess I am just a synchronious user. I suspect that if I had UNIX on > >my system it would just cause an *increase* in the system overhead, because > >I would not use enough of it to justify most of what it would supply me > >with. I just don't have much need of forks and pipes (or even virtual memory > >- I will be going to a 4-meg system soon, which will provide me with more than > > Gee, I'd never want a Jaguar XJS. What would I do with all that power? Boy, > it just doesn't make sense. I'd much rather drive my Edsel. Just the > right amount of power I need... > > I find it hard to believe that you are not just joking! You obviously like > the flavor of your foot, but I guess we all are entitled to an opinion. > I, too, had a small system, but I learned that a UNIX type system, with > memory managment, Vmem, process forking, etc., unleashes power one couldn't > dream of before. I suggest you send your messages about things you obviously > have no knowledge about to /dev/null. That is, type 'cat > /dev/null'... > > I use have been using VAXen (780s and 750s) running VMS on a daily basis for nearly 10 years (since VMS version 0.5). I have found that VMS is far more powerfull than UNIX. UNIX is not really a very powerfull O/S. I know that CP/M-68K is a *very* simple O/S. I don't deny it. I run it because it was the *least* of several "evils" in the available O/Ss for my system at the time I bought it: p-System (barf, retch), various obscure business O/Ss (BOS, RM/COS, Mirage, etc.), Idris (low grade UNIX), or UNIX (I would have had to get the MMU addon and a much bigger hard disk). At the time the $350 for CP/M-68K + $170 for MINCE was a much better (and affordable) choice than the $500+ (I don't remember exactly) MMU and the extra $1000 for a "big" (40-50 Meg) hard disk (I got a system with a 10Meg disk). This doesn't count the cost of UNIX (several grand) + $500 for UNIX EMACS. I probably would also have had a hard time running UNIX with only 1Meg of RAM. At the time I just couldn't afford it. This was 1.5 years ago. Hard disks and RAM chips were not as cheap as they are now. Even if I could afford it I don't think I would have gotten UNIX anyway (see below). I just think we (the computer science community) can really do better than UNIX. UNIX is not really user-friendly or easy learn *quickly*. I used a SUN3 for about 2 months (not steadily) and had a very hard time using it. It was a real pain to use. I found I could not use it for very long before getting *extreamly* frustrated and had to take a break. About the way I felt using the p-System (the worlds *worst* "O/S"). I'm sorry, but I just plain hate UNIX. I guess I am just a perverse hacker. Robert Heller ARPANet: Heller@UMass-CS.CSNET BITNET: Heller@UMass.BITNET BIX: Heller GEnie: RHeller FidoNet: 101/27 (Dave's Fido, Gardner, MA) or 101/147 (Orange Fido, Orange, MA) CompuServe 71450,3432 Local PV VAXen: COINS::HELLER UCC Cyber/DG: Heller@CS
sewilco@meccts.MECC.COM@hpda.UUCP (02/22/87)
[stuff about MMUs, whether personal computers/workstations need MMUs]
In response to a repetition of the claim about odd UNIX command names,
I started to give alternative meanings to all the poster's MS-DOS
examples (ie, "type" shows file type or language). Instead I'll just
point out that any terse command language requires training.
Icons and menus (a form of fill-in-the-blank) reduce the training. But
if a text command language is needed, it must be more verbose to reduce
ambiguity. Even natural English is too ambiguous. Let's not bring
COBOL into this. :-)
Interface discussions belong in another newsgroup anyway.
---
Scot E. Wilcoxon (guest account) {ihnp4,amdahl,dayton}!meccts!sewilco
(612)825-2607 sewilco@MECC.COM ihnp4!meccts!sewilco
"...it don't snow in Minneapolis when the winter comes..."m5d@bobkat.UUCP.UUCP (02/23/87)
In article <8702211138.AA05883@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> HELLER@cs.umass.edu (Stride 440 User) writes: > > [ ... parts of a debate on the merits of Unix and other stuff...] > >I just think we (the computer science community) can really do better than >UNIX. UNIX is not really user-friendly or easy learn *quickly*. I used a >SUN3 for about 2 months (not steadily) and had a very hard time using it. It >was a real pain to use. I found I could not use it for very long before >getting *extreamly* frustrated and had to take a break. About the way I felt >using the p-System (the worlds *worst* "O/S"). I'm sorry, but I just plain >hate UNIX. I guess I am just a perverse hacker. > > Robert Heller Whenever I read a note from someone who seems intelligent wherein the author claims to dislike Unix, I get a strange feeling inside. It occurs to me that this feeling is directly related to the feelings of strongly religious people who become violent when confronted with someone whose beliefs are different. In that context, I am always confused by such reactions; how can a person be so closed-minded about his religion? Well, here I find myself thinking "gee, what a fool -- he doesn't like Unix! How can he compare Unix and VMS like that!..." etc. etc. I don't like myself for thinking this way. Recently I posted a note about OS9 in which I implied that OS9 is not "real software". A response called me a Unix bigot. I suppose that's true; I really like Unix, and if I don't control myself I could easily argue for thousands of words on why most problems people describe are not really problems. I'm sure someone else would argue in reply just as vehemently. >From now on I won't argue about such things. My rational self feels that anyone should be allowed to use any software he likes (oh my init(8)! I mean "(s)he likes"!). I will try to suppress the Crusader instinct that makes me want to "liberate" people from MS-DOS. If you're happy, I'm happy. -- Mike McNally, mercifully employed at Digital Lynx --- Where Plano Road the Mighty Flood of Forest Lane doth meet, And Garland fair, whose perfumed air flows soft about my feet... uucp: {texsun,killer,infotel}!pollux!bobkat!m5d (214) 238-7474
bandy@amdcad.UUCP.UUCP (02/23/87)
>From: HELLER@cs.umass.edu >What I meant was I doubt the *LITTLE* machines will get the 68030 for some >time yet. After all the Mega ST's still have 68000s. Invalid. The mega-st is just a quickquick re-work of the st, which is a fairly old re-design. They probably did it to make up for the fact that the biggest st you could get was a meg. The *next* st to come out will probably have an 020. The next amiga probably will also. >68010's have been >around for some time now, but how many < $1000 machines have them? Well, how many machines at *all* have the 010? From what I remember, by the time we (a little almost dead computer company in new hampster) could get them, the 020 was just around the corner -- we made a few test boards with the 010 to check the design and then turned around and cranked out a 020 board. andy -- Andrew Scott Beals, {lll-crg,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!bandy +1 408 749 3683
mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (02/25/87)
>> Invalid. The mega-st is just a quickquick re-work of the st, which is a >> fairly old re-design. They probably did it to make up for the fact that the >> biggest st you could get was a meg. The *next* st to come out will probably >> have an 020. The next amiga probably will also. The next Amiga (the A2000) has the '020 as an expansion bus board, sorta like the '020 boards on the IBM-PC's. Of course, this one is from the manufacturer. It also has an '86 of some kind or another. >> Well, how many machines at *all* have the 010? Workstations. The real win with the '010 was being able to do VM. There wasn't enough performance gain (outside of special applications) over the '000 to make it worthwhile, unless you wanted to do VM. <mike