swan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Joel Swan) (12/07/89)
Hiddin in the back pages of the January 1990 issue of AmigaWorld is an almost invisible column called "Ear to the Wall" (hot competition to Amazing's "roomers" column - hehe). Here is a small excerpt of this unforgetable drivel...... (the keyword is -- gangly) ------------ _Commodore Moves on Unix_ Look for Commodore to make some moves into the workstation market this Spring with 68030 machines running Unix, a gangly, overrated operating system developed by AT&T. The Unix market is currently divided into two camps, AT&T and Sun Microsystems pushing one brand, and IBM and DEC pushing another. Hedging its bets, Commodore reportedly plans to support both versions. ------------ I thought you would like it. Any thoughts? :-) Joel Swan
akcs.dfrancis@tronsbox.UUCP (Dennis Francis Heffernan) (12/09/89)
Honestly, I've never been impressed with AmigaWorld. This was the only
issue I've bought since the first one, and I only bought it to show an ad to
my folks. I figured it was the best place to look for an ad...:-) Anyway,
I'm told they've always been pro-Amiga to the point of being anti-everything
else.
Now, if UNIX had been invented on the Amiga, it'd be a whole 'nother
story...:-)brandonl@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM (Brandon G. Lovested) (12/12/89)
People who criticize Unix have never tried Chek cereals.... uhm, I mean haver never explored the general concept of Unix, nor have done much with it. It is NOT simply an operating system. That is but part of it. Would you prefer VMS? ================================================================================ | Brandon G. Lovested | "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, | indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! brandonl@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM | My life is my own." | ================================================================================
tjf@lanl.gov (Tom J Farish) (12/13/89)
The main problem those of use raised on VMS have with unix is the lack of easily remembered commands, I think. A few examples: want to do a DIRectory? Use 'ls' of course! Want to REName a file? Use 'mv' of course! Want to mave files from one unix machine to another? Hmmm can't use 'copy' or 'cp'....you have to use CFS or FILEM etc. Want to SET some terminal bit or password or file attribute etc etc. (USe 14 different unix commands, none of which are in the index of the local UNIX maual) I could go on, but I have to stude this %^&&^%$# unix manual to figure out whether I should use <esc> : x or ctrl-d to get out of this ^&&*%$# editor! Yours in flames, tjf
brandonl@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM (Brandon G. Lovested) (12/13/89)
In article <38703@lanl.gov>, tjf@lanl.gov (Tom J Farish) writes: > > The main problem those of use raised on VMS have with unix is the > lack of easily remembered commands, I think. A few examples: > > want to do a DIRectory? Use 'ls' of course! > Want to REName a file? Use 'mv' of course! > Very good points; I drev. (drev = agree, didn't you know that? ;-) ) If this really bugs you, and it does me, too, DO NOT APPROACH AN APOLLO WORKSTATION RUNNING _DOMAIN_. It is "Unix-like," but changes all those commands you had to memorize so that YOU can be Unix-like. > Want to mave files from one unix machine to another? Hmmm can't use > 'copy' or 'cp'....you have to use CFS or FILEM etc. > This depends on how the two Unix machines are connected (e.g.: LAN). > Want to SET some terminal bit or password or file attribute etc etc. > (USe 14 different unix commands, none of which are in the index of the > local UNIX maual) > Setting "terminal bit"s, as I understand you, is done within a device driver, in /dev, which accesses tables on info on "well known" terminal types. File attributes, such as write permissions, are changed easily with one command (chmod). Pass word change? => passwd The power in Unix is not in its operating system; that is heavily criticized. The power stems from the fact that Unix is an environment. It typically contains 250-500 little programs written as primitives, that when strung together, will create *very* powerful tools. Just read an introduction to a shell programming book. It can change your whole perspective. This flexibility can cause a little more work, if all you want to do is something *real* primitive, true. > I could go on, but I have to stude this %^&&^%$# unix manual to figure > out whether I should use <esc> : x or ctrl-d to get out of this ^&&*%$# > editor! > > Yours in flames, tjf Manual? You got a manual?! Lucky bum! AT&T manuals, as I have encountered them (pity me - I had to use a 3b2) *inhale with great force*, to put it politely. It would seem that in AT&T, like most big companies, the manual is written by people chosen for their total lack of involvement at any level with what the have too write about. This guarantees "freshness." - Just like those strips of paper over toilet seats, which is where most of those manuals should wind up. ================================================================================ | Brandon G. Lovested | "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, | indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! brandonl@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM | My life is my own." | ================================================================================
ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) (12/13/89)
In article <38703@lanl.gov> tjf@lanl.gov (Tom J Farish) writes: > >The main problem those of use raised on VMS have with unix is the >lack of easily remembered commands, I think. A few examples: > >want to do a DIRectory? Use 'ls' of course! >Want to REName a file? Use 'mv' of course! This is a main problem for anyone new to an operating system. It is just a lot more of a problem because most of the commands are abbreviations. aliases, shell scripts, and home directories are the best solution I can give. >Want to mave files from one unix machine to another? Hmmm can't use >'copy' or 'cp'....you have to use CFS or FILEM etc. rcp, ftp, remsh, uucp, mv/cp (over NFS/RFS), cpio, or cat: This list is by no means complete, but it does show you what happens when new parts of a system are hacked onto the top of an existing system which never took into account how to handle such problems. For instance, pathnames could be preceded by `//systemname' and any access to another system-root-name would do the right thing (whatever that may be). ITS got this right. It is a shame Unix lacks in this case. Although with NFS things can look a little better, but there are still problems. >Want to SET some terminal bit or password or file attribute etc etc. >(USe 14 different unix commands, none of which are in the index of the >local UNIX maual) They are in the index. You are not looking in the right place (because you probably don't know [*] that setting terminal bits is stty(1) and file atributes is chmod(1), chown(1), chgrp(1)). This is the same problem as above. Now, passwd(1), is just obvious :-). The fact that there are lots of little commands to do little things is part of the unix paradigm which, IMHO, is A Good Thing(Tm). find . -name '*.[ch]' -print | xargs egrep '^[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9_]*\(' The Power! The fact that this paradigm has not been carried over (by BSD, Sun, and/or AT&T -- which ever you wish to blame ... they are all somewhat guilty in my book) to later version of Unix is, IMHO, A Bad Thing(Tm). >I could go on, but I have to stude this %^&&^%$# unix manual to figure >out whether I should use <esc> : x or ctrl-d to get out of this ^&&*%$# >editor! If your using A Real Editor(Tm) it's Control-X Control-C :-). Pax, Keith -- ag@amix.commodore.com Keith Gabryelski ...!cbmvax!amix!ag
rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) (12/14/89)
In article <38703@lanl.gov> tjf@lanl.gov (Tom J Farish) writes: >The main problem those of use raised on VMS have with unix is the >lack of easily remembered commands, I think. I'll agree that on the surface, VMS is friendlier to new users. Certainly "SHOW this" and "SET that" seem more intuitive than the usual Unix equiv- alents. But VMS' command-language badly suffers from verbose syntax and excessive "slashism"; "SHOW this and that / except=blah / foo / bletch=45". I may know that I want to "SHOW" something, but arriving at the arcane sentence to do it isn't always trivial. Most of the experienced VMS people I know have a long list of abbrevs & symbols they setup at login, and what they type at the VMS "$" isn't usually much less obscure than the Unix commands you're complaining about. But it IS *SHORTER* than the stupid "raw" VMS commands, and that's why they do it! >want to do a DIRectory? Use 'ls' of course! I'm frankly surprised they didn't make it "SHOW DIR" in VMS. (No smileys.) Note that I'm *NOT* defending bizarre & arcane Unix syntax. I do my share of "&%#@$&^%@#$"ing at at it every day. ;-) I think the real point is that (truism warning!) people get used to what they get used to, and ANYTHING else often seems "brain-dead" by comparison. I've used VMS and Unix and MS-DOS and PRIMOS and a couple of others of lesser fame and they ALL have their flaws and saving graces, IMHO. -- >>"Aaiiyeeee! Death from above!"<< | Steve Rehrauer, rehrauer@apollo.hp.com "Flee, lest we be trod upon!" | The Apollo System Division of H.P.
ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) (12/14/89)
I was asleep when I posted this article, so I forgot to add some footnotes. Lemme see if I can cover my tracks. In article <203@amix.commodore.com> I (Keith Gabryelski) write: >In article <38703@lanl.gov> tjf@lanl.gov (Tom J Farish) writes: >>Want to SET some terminal bit or password or file attribute etc etc. >>(USe 14 different unix commands, none of which are in the index of the >>local UNIX maual) > >They are in the index. You are not looking in the right place >(because you probably don't know [*] that setting terminal bits is >stty(1) and file atributes is chmod(1), chown(1), chgrp(1)). This is >the same problem as above. Now, passwd(1), is just obvious :-). The [*] was meant to be a footnote in that I wasn't actually meaning to say that you, Mr. Farish, were totally to blame. The index in AT&T manuals does leave something to be desired. This has changed with SysVR4, though. >The fact that there are lots of little commands to do little things is >part of the unix paradigm which, IMHO, is A Good Thing(Tm). > > find . -name '*.[ch]' -print | xargs egrep '^[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9_]*\(' I meant to mention hear that I don't consider find(1) to be true Unix anymore. It has a -cpio option; something I just can't live with. `cat -v' didn't make it onto my top ten list either. Pax, Keith -- ag@amix.commodore.com Keith Gabryelski ...!cbmvax!amix!ag
tjf@lanl.gov (Tom J Farish) (12/14/89)
I would like to thank all who posted, helping me to learn ways of making the unix command set easier/more palatable. I am now in the process of writing a UNIX maual for people already used to another OS. My working title is 'Unix for Normal People (who don't have time for this Bullsh*t, but have to use UNIX anyway)'. My goal is to enable a newcomer to find the command he wants in less than 60 sec of flipping through (only one) volume. I'd appreciate lists of your most-used commands and aliases. I'm serious about this one folks. I'm losing my hair/patience/continence trying to use my local UNIX manuals. Thanks in advance...
rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) (12/14/89)
In article <1033@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM> brandonl@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM (Brandon G. Lovested) writes: >If this really bugs you, and it does me, too, DO NOT APPROACH AN APOLLO >WORKSTATION RUNNING _DOMAIN_. It is "Unix-like," but changes all those >commands you had to memorize so that YOU can be Unix-like. Eh? A DOMAIN shell isn't Unix, no. But you can have DOMAIN running concurrently on your workstation with your choice of (or both) BSD and SysV Unix. You can mix & match your choice of shells, and have access to features of all 3 OS flavors from any shell. I guess you weren't saying Apollos only run DOMAIN, but I could see how your choice of words (coupled with lingering "bad press" from an early product called "DOMAIN/IX") might have implied it, to some. Tain't so! -- >>"Aaiiyeeee! Death from above!"<< | Steve Rehrauer, rehrauer@apollo.hp.com "Flee, lest we be trod upon!" | The Apollo System Division of H.P.
filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) (12/15/89)
In article <476806de.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> Steve Rehrauer writes: >VMS' command-language badly suffers from verbose syntax and >excessive "slashism"; "SHOW this and that / except=blah / foo / bletch=45". >I may know that I want to "SHOW" something, but arriving at the arcane >sentence to do it isn't always trivial. Most of the experienced VMS people >I know have a long list of abbrevs & symbols they setup at login, and what >they type at the VMS "$" isn't usually much less obscure than the Unix >commands you're complaining about. But it IS *SHORTER* than the stupid >"raw" VMS commands, and that's why they do it! What's your point? [*] Most of the experienced UNIX people I know have a long list of aliases and shell scripts. If I want to "SHOW" something under UNIX I have to figure out what command to use; the search space is the entire (C) or (1) section of the manual, plus others. I might need ps, stty, who, vmstat, netstat, or any of a couple of dozen other commands. "SHOW" under VMS collects those things together. If you want short+cryptic, you can abbreviate most everything in VMS. 'pwd' under UNIX, or 'SHOW DIRECTORY' or 'SH DIR' under VMS. 'ls -l' or 'DIR/FULL', 'DIR/F' (which gives you waay more stuff than you ever wanted to see). Of course I haven't used VMS since version 3.7 so I may be a bit behind on this stuff... ;-} What about AmigaDOS? Keywords are implied rather than explicit -- UNIX uses '-', VMS uses '/', but AmigaDOS uses ' ' to signify keywords. This leads to ambiguity such as the recent thread on 'delete a' -- is 'a' a keyword (short for 'ask') or a filename? The command structure as a whole (meaning the set of commands in the standard OS distribution) is neither clear nor consistant, but I would rate it better than UNIX in that respect. It is probably clearer than VMS as well, if only because it doesn't try to cover as much ground. [*] Read my tone as 'discussion', not 'flame'; that's how it's intended... Bela Lubkin * * // filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us CI$: 73047,1112 (slow) @ * * // belal@sco.com ..ucbvax!ucscc!{gorn!filbo,sco!belal} R Pentomino * \X/ Filbo @ Pyrzqxgl +408-476-4633 and XBBS +408-476-4945
brandonl@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM (Brandon G. Lovested) (12/15/89)
Gee, if you need any more help, I'd be sure happy to help! ================================================================================ | Brandon G. Lovested | "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, | indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! brandonl@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM | My life is my own." | ================================================================================
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (12/15/89)
With all the banter about VMS vs. UNIX, thought I'd share a few gotchas.
All examples following are from a real VMS system (one that I am required
to use due to economic necessities :-)
One thing I need to do a LOT is verify a file hasn't been inadvertently
changed. On UNIX, I use the ``sum'' program; VMS has its ``checksum''
counterpart. Just try and find the VMS docs about checksum. Once you
discover that VMS does have ``checksum'', try to guess where it puts
its answer (no fair peeking ahead! :-) For all its otherwise babbling
verbosity, VMS' checksum is strangely silent. Watch:
$ cd srcx:
$ pwd
SE:[ACCENT.THAD.SOURCE]
$ checksum codgen.obj
$ show sym/local
_Symbol: *
CHECKSUM$CHECKSUM = "3058728097"
$
Neat, huh? Really obvious. Sheesh. Not even an "/OUTPUT=filename" option
available here. So much for consistency.
I also need to often compare files to see if they're different. ALL I want to
know is if they're different or not. If it CAN compare files, VMS's incessant
babbling quickly becomes annoying. Because VMS' routines CANNOT handle all of
its rotten RMS file types, I had to write my own ``dircmp'' program because
VMS' braindamaged ``diff'' doesn't handle all binary files too well:
$ diff srcx:accent.auc a$s:accent.auc
%DIFF-F-READERR, error reading SYS$USER1:[ACCENT.THAD.SOURCE]ACCENT.AUC;1
-RMS-W-RTB, 4056 byte record too large for user's buffer
$ v srcx:accent.auc,a$s:accent,a.auc
Directory SYS$USER1:[ACCENT.THAD.SOURCE]
ACCENT.AUC;1 8 9-DEC-1989 03:50 [THAD] (RWED,RWED,RWED,)
Total of 1 file, 8 blocks.
Directory SYS$USER1:[ACCENT.SOURCE]
ACCENT.AUC;1 8 20-NOV-1989 10:07 [RAFFA] (RWED,RWED,RWED,)
Total of 1 file, 8 blocks.
Grand total of 2 directories, 2 files, 16 blocks.
Yeah. :-( Not a very big file; the ``8'' means eight 512-byte blocks is the
file's size.. One thing one learns very quickly on VMS is that a file is NOT
a file is NOT a file. Its RMS file system is a rat's nest beyond belief. And
heaven help those who want to name a file "tt", "nl", etc. Guess what: VMS
does NOT insist one consistently suffix a device name with a ":" it and goes on
to make assumptions. Remember what Benny Hill says about "ASSUME" ? :-)
And the file system maintain 4 dates× for files, only two of which are
really useful and an important one is not even present:
$ dir/full accent.auc
Directory SYS$USER1:[ACCENT.THAD.SOURCE]
ACCENT.AUC;1 File ID: (213,134,0)
Size: 8/10 Owner: [THAD]
Created: 1-DEC-1989 16:08 Revised: 9-DEC-1989 03:50 (2)
Expires: <None specified> Backup: 11-DEC-1989 17:18
File organization: Sequential
File attributes: Allocation: 10, Extend: 0, Global buffer count: 0
No version limit
Record format: Stream_LF
Record attributes: Carriage return carriage control
Journaling enabled: None
File protection: System:RWED, Owner:RWED, Group:RWED, World:
Access Cntrl List: None
Total of 1 file, 8/10 blocks.
"Expires"???? Where's the date&time the file was last ACCESSED? (So that
one can check if a file has been used in awhile, or if someone was sneaking
a peek at it (like at MAIL files, etc.))? That "Stream_LF" file format is
the closest I can make VMS treat a file as simply a consecutive collection
of bytes; this is NOT that easy to do! Note also that even with my best
efforts, I'm unable to get the size of the file in BYTES!
In recent issues of DEC PROFESSIONAL, Dr. Bourne (he of the Bourne shell fame)
has authored a series of articles introducing ULTRIX (DEC's UNIX) to VMS users.
Sheesh, some of HIS comments about REAL UNIX (not DEC's bogosity) make me want
to puke. Perhaps this is why I see comments in GNU software about:
VMS = Vomit Making System
with which I heartily agree.
I've used the VMS OS (among others) for a l-o-n-g time now, and have used all
versions from the very first up to today's version 5.2, and it's my PERSONAL
opinion that VMS is, to be kind, NOT a software development environment. And
I consider myself VERY proficient with that OS working in assembler and C to
do things like remote file access across DECnet at the lowest layer, designing
and implementing the parsers, code generators and runtime support libraries
for major commercial products, implementing screen and job multi-tasking
utils just so I can do more than one thing at a time on the beast, etc etc etc.
Over the decades I've used over 50 operating systems and user command
environments (and designed and implemented a few), and the ones I consider to
be "good" are VERY few; VMS with its DCL is not one of them.
A modern UNIX with ksh and the other utils is very close to the top of my
list as an ideal system for system and software development.
The BEAUTY of UNIX is the extensibility of its command environment, and the
fact you can make it look like ANYTHING you want it to look like (similar to
how one can implement the vi or edt editors IN EMACS (but not vice versa :-) )
On my UNIX boxes, I have a number of "shells." One is "sh", another is "ksh".
There's also ``dsh'' for those who know MS-DOS commands and don't want to
learn the UNIX programs' syntax. There's the GNU ``bash'' (Bourne Again
SHell) and the ``UA'' (which is VERY reminiscient of the Amiga's WorkBench
with even a ``[?]'' gadget in the windows upon which one can click with the
mouse to get help; the UA is like FACE under SVR3.2 and SVR4).
If one doesn't like the abbreviated UNIX program ("command") names, one can
write shell-scripts as substitutes and/or use command aliases. Tidbits for
such purposes are widely available; one I use a lot is the ``rename'' script
from UNIX WORLD which invokes a lot of the do-one-thing-as-best-as-possible
"cryptic" UNIX programs to give infinitely more flexibilty with wildcards for
both the source AND the destination names (ref. January 1988 UNIX WORLD,
Wizard's GrabBag column).
In closing, I'll share with you a part of my LOGIN.COM (akin to UNIX' .profile)
which make VMS a bit more palatable at the command-line interface (for me):
$ type login.part
$ BEL[0,32] == 07
$ ESC[0,32] == 27
$
$ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT "Auto-inquiring your terminal type."
$ SET TERM /INQUIRE
$
$ TT_TYPE = F$GETDVI("TT:","DEVTYPE")
$
$ IF (TT_TYPE .EQ. 96) THEN GOTO SET_VT100
$ IF (TT_TYPE .EQ. 98) THEN GOTO SET_VT102
$ IF (TT_TYPE .EQ. 110) THEN GOTO SET_F240
$ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT "Your terminal is unknown to me."
$ SET TERM/UNKNOWN
$ GOTO SETUP_CONT
$ SET_VT100:
$ HOME_CLEAR == F$EXTRACT(0,1,ESC)+"[H"+F$EXTRACT(0,1,ESC)+"[J"
$ GOTO SETUP_CONT
$ SET_VT102:
$ HOME_CLEAR == F$EXTRACT(0,1,ESC)+"[H"+F$EXTRACT(0,1,ESC)+"[J"
$ GOTO SETUP_CONT_ADV
$ SET_F240:
$ SET TERM/VT100
$ RESET_VT100 == F$EXTRACT(0,1,ESC)+"[?2l"+F$EXTRACT(0,1,ESC)+"<"
$ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT RESET_VT100
$ HOME_CLEAR == F$EXTRACT(0,1,ESC)+"[H"+F$EXTRACT(0,1,ESC)+"[J"
$ GOTO SETUP_CONT
$ SETUP_CONT_ADV:
$ SET TERM/CRFILL=0/FORM/LFFILL=0/LOWERCASE/TAB/TTSYNC/NOWRAP/INSERT
$ SET TERM/ADVANCED/ANSI_CRT/DEC_CRT=1/EDIT_MODE/NOEIGHT
$ SET TER/PAGE=24/WIDTH=80
$ SETUP_CONT:
$
$ BL*ANK :== WRITE SYS$OUTPUT HOME_CLEAR
$ CD == "SET DEFAULT"
$ CP == "COPY"
$ DA*TE == "SHOW DAYTIME"
$ EXP*UNGE == "PURGE"
$ I*NFO == "SHOW"
$ PO*P == "LOGOUT"
$ PS == "SHOW PROCESS"
$ PUSH == "SPAWN"
$ PWD == "SHOW DEFAULT"
$ RM == "DELETE"
$ SY*STAT == "SHOW SYSTEM"
$ V*DIRECTORY == "DIREC/PROT/SIZE/TRAI/DATE=MODI/OWNE/WIDT=(FILE=15,OWNER=9)"
$ WHO == "SHOW USERS"
$
$ SET PROTECTION=(SYSTEM=RE,GROUP=RWED,OWNER=RWED,WORLD)/DEFAULT
$ SET CONTROL=(T,Y)
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) (12/16/89)
In article <101.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) writes: >In article <476806de.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> Steve Rehrauer writes: >>VMS' command-language badly suffers from verbose syntax and >>excessive "slashism" > >What's your point? [*] (You mean I have to have one to post something? Uh-oh... ;-) Simply that while VMS' "verb noun" structure is easier to learn, it soon becomes cumbersome, IMHO. (Similar, though to a lesser degree, to how I feel about point & click interfaces to an OS; they're wonderful hand-holders, but eventually, *for most tasks*, I much prefer a decent CLI.) Once again, I do *NOT* defend the level of obscurity in Unix commands. > If I want to "SHOW" something >under UNIX I have to figure out what command to use; the search space is >the entire (C) or (1) section of the manual, plus others. I might need >ps, stty, who, vmstat, netstat, or any of a couple of dozen other >commands. "SHOW" under VMS collects those things together. Point taken, but I still feel that's mostly a win when you're low on the learning curve. >[*] Read my tone as 'discussion', not 'flame'; that's how it's intended... What, why, *splutter*, *blood pressure*, *ancestor impugnations*, ... Oh. -- >>"Aaiiyeeee! Death from above!"<< | Steve Rehrauer, rehrauer@apollo.hp.com "Flee, lest we be trod upon!" | The Apollo System Division of H.P.
hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Anthony Adam Hill) (12/17/89)
Too all,
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! I don't want or like VMS but I am forced to use it. I
don't like not having a command line editor in Unix either, but I deal with
it. ALL operating systems have something missing. And before I get burnt off
the face of the Internet, I know that I CAN have it but it is up to my
system administation to support/find it. So effectively I dont have it.
Unix IS more than an O/S it is PHILOSOPHY of design. I can cat | sed | awk
| sort mondofile to my hearts contents. I can build commands if I so desire
People say that UNIX should be more graphically oriented (NEXT hides the
UNIX prompt) but the fact that Ken had to work with character streams is
UNIX's STRENGTHS. .
Amix will not replace Amiga O/S and I would not want Amiga's O/S to replace
Ultrix on my VAX 11/785. (talk about SLOWWWWWWW disk access) :-)
Don't worry there will be uses for both, and most people wont be able
to afford Amix anyway (030 + License)
----------------------
adam hill
.. I won't be stamped.. it hurts too much