jsp@sp7040.UUCP (John Peters) (06/19/88)
In article <6332@cup.portal.com>, Henry_Burdett_Messenger@cup.portal.com writes: > > Ugh. More UNIX weenies trying to determine our future. > > "I guess it's better than having them pump quarters in Pac-Man games... > " - John C. Dvorak > > Not always! Sometimes computer companies listen to them and lose their > shirts (e.g. Fortune Systems). > > It's 1988 and UNIX still S*cks. GEM ain't the greatest, and I'd rather > have X, but I have to have a brain-damaged operating system that's older > RT-11, for pity's sake! No thanks, I'll pass. > > Besides it usually isn't GEM; it's usually TOS. Yes, TOS is awful. Can > you say "CP/M with fender flares"? I knew you could. But UNIX is even > worse... (Hmm, you'd never know I'm a VMS person, would you :-) > "UNIX compatibility is snake oil." > - Ken H. Olson > > Henry B. Messenger (DEC can have its own opinions, I have mine) For one minute lets look at why UNIX is becoming popular. Did somebody say hundreds of utilites. And what is this compilers (C and Fortran) come standard with the operating system. And could it be that even from DEC UNIX is about a third the base price of VMS. Wow and VMS comes with what, golly gee an assembler and some system monitors. Geese if I want to use a compiler I have to pay how much more. You have obviously not been involved with a company that need to get alot out of little money. Now about using UNIX as a standard for the ST. I will admit that UNIX is not perfect (thats how I make my living). However, we need to start somewhere and GEM/TOS is not it. Also imagine trying to rewrite VMS for the ST. Talk about a system eats the system. UNIX, because of a basic simplicity runs 2 to 3 times as fast as VMS (my own bench marks ran as a user on both operating systems running on identically configured MicroVAX II's at 3 in the morning with nobody else on. So untill you can come up with VMS for the ST or write VMS utilites for the ST, please don't badmouth those people who are porting UNIX utilites to the ST. Don't use them if you don't want to but I use them often and really appreciate the hard work that have gone into them. -- Johnnie --
Henry_Burdett_Messenger@cup.portal.com (06/27/88)
> And could it be that even from DEC > UNIX is about a third the base price of VMS. I don't make marketing policy; if it were up to me, we wouldn't sell it at all. But if our customers want to shoot themselves in the foot, I guess we'll just have to help them. > Wow and VMS comes with what, > golly gee an assembler and some system monitors. Gosh, and when UN*X even gets a system monitor, let me know! > Geese if I want to use > a compiler I have to pay how much more. You have obviously not been involved > with a company that need to get alot out of little money. Know how much programmer time costs in relation to program development tools? > Also imagine trying to rewrite VMS for the > ST. I've thought about it quite often, actually. If the memory management unit had a little more guts... :-) > Talk about a system eats the system. UNIX, because of a basic > simplicity runs 2 to 3 times as fast as VMS (my own bench marks ran as a > user on both operating systems running on identically configured MicroVAX > II's at 3 in the morning with nobody else on. Sounds like a VERY naive use of VMS, to me. Actually UN*X generally runs about 10% slower than VMS on VAXen. Remember that the VAX and VMS were developed *simultaneously* to take advantage of each other's strengths. > please don't badmouth those people who are porting UNIX > utilites to the ST. Don't use them if you don't want to but I use them > often and really appreciate the hard work that have gone into them. I appreciate the work that goes into *any* software tool (I do _that_ for a living). My comments were merely directed at the 'if it isn't UN*X, it's junk' crowd. I personally avoid UN*X, since it's in the serious dark ages compared to VMS. And going from GEM/TOS -> MINIX/X11 isn't going to help performance much... Henry B. Messenger (DEC can have its own opinions; I have mine) ody else on. So untill you can come up with VMS for the ST or wri
rnss@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Ron Schreiner) (07/01/88)
In article <6915@cup.portal.com> Henry_Burdett_Messenger@cup.portal.com writes: ..... VMS, UNIX squable deleted. ..... >Gosh, and when UN*X even gets a system monitor, let me know! They do exsist. ... More squable deleted. ... on porting VMS to the ST >I've thought about it quite often, actually. If the memory management unit >had a little more guts... :-) What memory management unit ?? >I appreciate the work that goes into *any* software tool (I do _that_ for >a living). My comments were merely directed at the 'if it isn't UN*X, it's >junk' crowd. I personally avoid UN*X, since it's in the serious dark >ages compared to VMS. And going from GEM/TOS -> MINIX/X11 isn't going to >help performance much... VMS has a different name then RSX or RT11 or whatever, but that does not make it state-of-the-art. Lets face it, VMS has it's roots in OSs that predate UNIX. When I worked on a VMS system, there was a C compiler, guess what? it supported UNIX lib calls. In my oppinion, if you need to run a meat packing plant or a bank, get a VMS system. If you want to develop software, get a UNIX system. UNIX was never intended for many of the applications it has been streched to perform, but yet it survives because it has evolved considerably. Can we talk about STs now. -- Ron Schreiner AT&T Bell Labs ...ihnp4!ihuxy!rnss
exodus@mfgfoc.UUCP (Greg Onufer) (07/02/88)
From article <2568@ihuxy.ATT.COM>, by rnss@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Ron Schreiner): > In article <6915@cup.portal.com> Henry_Burdett_Messenger@cup.portal.com writes: >>I've thought about it quite often, actually. If the memory management unit >>had a little more guts... :-) > > What memory management unit ?? The one that has no guts.... actually an Address Management Unix??? >>I appreciate the work that goes into *any* software tool (I do _that_ for >>a living). My comments were merely directed at the 'if it isn't UN*X, it's >>junk' crowd. I personally avoid UN*X, since it's in the serious dark >>ages compared to VMS. And going from GEM/TOS -> MINIX/X11 isn't going to >>help performance much... > > VMS has a different name then RSX or RT11 or whatever, but that does not > make it state-of-the-art. Lets face it, VMS has it's roots in OSs that > predate UNIX. Unix has its roots in operating systems that predate Unix*. I hate VMS and my feelings are: VMS is an operating system too advanced for the hardware it runs on and by the time there is hardware that is good enough, it won't be advanced enough. That doesn't say anything about the philosophy behind it, just the kernel internals. The philosophy isn't worth mentioning (ever tried to _USE_ a VMS system? Can't.) * Multics, etc. (Don't know exact names or dates, but Unix wasn't born without parents :-) > -- > Ron Schreiner AT&T Bell Labs ...ihnp4!ihuxy!rnss --Greg Onufer -- Greg Onufer GEnie: G.ONUFER University of the Pacific UUCP: -= Focus Semiconductor =- exodus@mfgfoc ...!sun!daver!mfgfoc!exodus (and postmaster/exodus@uop.edu) AT&T: 415-965-0604 USMAIL: #901 1929 Crisanto Ave, Mtn View, CA 94040
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (07/07/88)
In article <2568@ihuxy.ATT.COM> rnss@ihuxy.UUCP (Ron Schreiner) writes: >In article <6915@cup.portal.com> Henry_Burdett_Messenger@cup.portal.com writes: [ deleted back and forth arguments about VMS vs. UNIX ] I guess it is about time for another VMS/UNIX flame war. But can you'all please move the discussion to comp.os.vms. Nobody ever convinces the other side that they're right in this you know. -- David Beckemeyer (david@bdt.uucp) | "Yea I've got medicine..." as the Beckemeyer Development Tools | cookie cocks a his Colt, "and if 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | you don't keep your mouth shut, I'm UUCP: {unisoft,sun}!hoptoad!bdt!david | gonna give you a big dose of it!"