jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) (06/16/91)
I'll still try to forward this to comp.os.misc. The last time I had an OS argument on this newsgroup, I defended it on the grounds that this was the newsgroup where the issue came up - and everyone kept flaming me for that position. This time, I try to forward it to some other group, and UNIX _supporters_ keep switching it back here. Can't win for losing. In article <1991Jun15.143436.5574@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) writes: |> [...] |> The reason UNIX has become so popular is not because it's efficient and |> not because it's user-friendly, but because it is the first hardware-independent |> operating system, modulo SysV vs. BSD. [...] Nope. That's an after effect. The _reason_ UNIX became popular was for no _technical_ advantage at all. It became popular because, at a critical time in the 70's, it was _free_ and _open_ and avalable on the _cheapest_ useful hardware: PDP-8/11 and VAXen. Since, in that time frame, many universities were starting up CS departments for the first time and many other schools were expanding their CS curriculum, the choice many of them faced was between the vendor's system (not open, so they couldn't teach internals), developing as system themselves (incompatible with everyone and not immediately available), or UNIX. I was at school in the mid 70's when this very debate came up. No one at the time thought UNIX was even remotely well designed or appropriate for any _real_ applications - but the _price_ (essentially free) won the day. The system is _almost_ (but not quite) worth that price. |> [... long argument about the desireability of a common environment ...] I would agree _if_ the common environment showed _any_ quality in its design or implementation. However, the present situation is rather like telling everyone to stop driving fuel efficient, fast, modern cars because the commonality of Model-T parts makes them easier to use and maintain. |> [...] Taking the long |> view, hardware has been moving so fast that transportability of my skills |> is far more important to me than getting the most out of my machine; in |> two years I can buy another machine which will be faster, even with UNIX's |> inefficiency, than my present machine would be with an optimal OS -- and it |> will cost me less than my existing machine as well. [...] The _same_ argument could be advanced in favor of _any_ portable system. So why do we have to stick with the _first_ one that became portable? Why not insist on a truly well designed, efficient, easy to use system - and then insist that _it_ be made portable. We are the consumers after all. Again, the _first_ mass produced cars were Model-Ts and Model-As (I always forget which came first) - should we still be driving those? As for expense: it is becoming clear (from my experience anyway) that UNIX is one of the most expensive systems to install and maintain of any that I've seen. This is true of both mainframes and smaller machines like workstations. I'm not aware of any other system on micros which requires full-time employees - one per few-dozen machines or so - to be "system administrators" like UNIX does. (I don't know what these people do, and I don't want to know. They always seem to be overworked and the only time I see _any_ effect of their activities is when they accidentally break something and bring my workstation down.) If you "administer" your own machine, it takes a higher percentage of your time than any other micro system I've seen (or, so I understand from friends of mine that do so). How is this an advantage? J. Giles