ram@lscvax.UUCP (Ric Messier) (03/11/88)
Just for the sheer enjoyment of starting another argument, I thought I
might throw my two cents worth in. I have worked on what are supposed to
be the fastest VAXen around running both Unix and VMS. Though they both
seem to have their uses, I haven't seen one yet that can run faster than
and IBM (even if the IBM had 300 logins and the VAXen were running
single user). I realize that to most of you IBM is an evil word and I
will grant you that they are expensive and sometimes a little arrogant
but I will also state that I haven't seen a more user-friendly system
that still manages to be great for experts as well than VM/CMS. Sure, if
all you have seen is DOS/VS, VSE, MVS, MVT, CICS or other of IBM's batch
oriented OS's than you would certainly be justified in thinking that
most IBM machines are brain dead. To me at least, an IBM (4341, 3081,
3090, etc) running VM/CMS blows away any of Digital's machines, running
ANY operating system.
Now, you can all go to your corners and start flaming me if you like but
I haven't seen anything in UNIX yet (particularly its speed) that would
convert me. As for its documentation, which I have seen others talk
about, it is absolutely ATROCIOUS. And there is almost NO online help,
unlike IBM's FULL-SCREEN online help about anything you could possibly
need to know. As of yet, I haven't had much chance to play with anything
serious in the way of scripts or command languages on Unix or VMS but I
can tell you that what I have seen endears me even more to IBM's Rexx.
One last thought before I go. A friend of mine works for AT&T as a
programmer and he is using a lot of AT&T 3B machines running Unix and HE
still would take VM/CMS anyday of the week. Perhaps if there was a
machine that was sufficiently fast to handle Unix, I would think about
switching my alignment, but I doubt it. Too many other problems with it
that I see.
--
- Kilroy ram@lscvax.UUCP
'Just what cowpatch is Lyndonville, Vermont in anyway?'
*** Can't deal, &CRASHschwartz@psuvax1.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) (03/14/88)
In article <397@lscvax.UUCP> ram@lscvax.UUCP (Ric Messier) writes: >Just for the sheer enjoyment of starting another argument, I thought I >might throw my two cents worth in. An offer we can't refuse. :-) :-) >seem to have their uses, I haven't seen one yet that can run faster than >and IBM (even if the IBM had 300 logins and the VAXen were running >single user). Well, IBM makes much larger machines than DEC. When the 3090 around here has 300 users on it, I laugh all the way to the nearest Sun. >but I will also state that I haven't seen a more user-friendly system >that still manages to be great for experts as well than VM/CMS. My first impression of VM/CMS (and I still hold this impression) is that it's the biggest and best implementation of CP/M ever. :-) Do you really like not having subdirectories, and having your environment pretend to be a small machine with a card reader, paper punch, and a few "minidisks"? > To me at least, an IBM (4341, 3081, >3090, etc) running VM/CMS blows away any of Digital's machines, running >ANY operating system. >Now, you can all go to your corners and start flaming me if you like but >I haven't seen anything in UNIX yet (particularly its speed) that would >convert me. Try a Sun4. In terms of interactive response (roughly, how long it takes the machine to respond to a carrage return) the Sun4 blows an IBM 3090/200 away. > As for its documentation, which I have seen others talk >about, it is absolutely ATROCIOUS. And there is almost NO online help, >unlike IBM's FULL-SCREEN online help about anything you could possibly >need to know. Really? At PSU the computer center felt the need to rewrite almost all of the IBM help screens to make them usable. FULL-SCREEN? What kind of output does unix or vms help give you? (Hmmm, looks like a full screen to me :-) At least under unix, when you hit return at the bottom line the screen SCROLLS, rather than sending the cursor to the top for another go round. CMS: Now which function key is it to get the next screen? F8? Gads, I'm on an HDS rather than a 3270, so it's...ummm....f10! no... uh... > As of yet, I haven't had much chance to play with anything >serious in the way of scripts or command languages on Unix or VMS but I >can tell you that what I have seen endears me even more to IBM's Rexx. Rexx is not bad. Try ksh and get back to us. >One last thought before I go. A friend of mine works for AT&T as a >programmer and he is using a lot of AT&T 3B machines running Unix and HE >still would take VM/CMS anyday of the week. Perhaps if there was a >machine that was sufficiently fast to handle Unix, I would think about >switching my alignment, but I doubt it. Too many other problems with it >that I see. 3B? How about, say, Amdahl? Or Cray? They make mainframe-and-bigger machines, and they run unix.
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (03/14/88)
Kilroy extols the virtues of VM/CMS over Unix or VMS... The claim that CMS is fast is a red herring being as Unix runs on the same hardware as CMS (even concurrently with CMS, you can be logged into both), unless you're referring to something you're not explaining. CMS has its virtues and its vices. One vice has been IBM's insistence on treating VM and CMS as a second-class product, this has been getting better recently I hear. One can't really argue with things like not introducing SNA/VM until years after the MVS version was available. Then again, not too many of us probably have any use for SNA, so it may not be that important except as a symbol of IBM's relative priorities internally. I think anyone who deals with IBM knows that VM/CMS has always been a "nuisance" product to them. Sort of like CMS is to MVS in IBM what Ultrix has been to VMS in DEC. System administration under CMS can be a nightmare. For example, disk space is allocated in a fixed manner to each user account when the account is created. This means, for example, if you get 10MB of space you get all of it committed to your account immediately and to get more they have to re-format your mini-disk (back up your files, build a new mini-disk, restore them.) In Unix parlance it would be like having a separate disk partition for each user, no sharing, no dynamic allocation. They don't have any directory structure of disk files, the closest you can do is have access to more than one mini-disk at once which again is more like mounting flat partitions than a directory systems, more like a bunch of MS/DOS floppies. To share files across user mini-disks you need the READ and/or WRITE password to the disk. There's no per-file permissions, either you give away everything or nothing. Not an ideal situation from a security point of view. There are public mini-disks where software images are kept and these are set up so everyone can mount them. If any other user on the system does use write access to your home mini-disk then you won't be able to mount it for yourself, basically you won't be able to login. XEDIT has its features, it's not terrible to use, nothing to crow about, sort of like VI basically tho not really because IBM terminals aren't full duplex so commands aren't interpreted until you hit ENTER. It's interesting to make a bunch of changes and then hit ENTER only to have them rejected because you typoed somewhere, even tho some of them showed up on your screen up till then, then were undone, maybe partially depending on where the error was detected. REXX is like DCL or Unix shell programming, I guess whichever bizarre one you figure out you tend to defend. I wouldn't particularly defend any against the other, the mysteries of REXX are no less arcane than the other two (stack stack where's my stack?) They're all very handy for simple usage. As far as the wonderful CMS documentation, yes, IBM does a very professional job, I'm not sure if we're talking about style or content really, some folks can be wow'ed by style. IBM's documentation makes VMS's look small and compact, I'm talking perhaps 100 shelf feet for a basic doc set, real handy. And again UNIX is the only O/S of the three which has generated any popular press titles in bookstores. Students generally just have to suffer w/o documentation or use centrally located copies. The on-line CMS stuff isn't bad at all, it can get you thru even w/o documentation, at least basic stuff like using the editor. I'm not sure it's enough to support a programmer however, that's where these vendor help facilities always are weak although I can't say I've used the on-line programming help much. I don't think CMS is the wave of the future, so what's the point really? -Barry Shein, Boston University
ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) (03/14/88)
In article <397@lscvax.UUCP> ram@lscvax.UUCP writes: >Perhaps if there was a >machine that was sufficiently fast to handle Unix, I would think about >switching my alignment, but I doubt it. Too many other problems with it >that I see. Is a Cray fast enough? it does run Unix. The Cray is faster than any IBM mainframe, therefore Unix is better than VM/CMS, right? (I'm using your own rationale). The speed of the machine has nothing to do with whether you prefer Unix or IBM's VM/CMS. You should be comparing an IBM mainframe running VM/CMS with the SAME machine running Unix. And yes, you can run Unix on IBM mainframes. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell ARPA: ekrell@ulysses.att.com
friedl@vsi.UUCP (Stephen J. Friedl) (03/14/88)
In article <10157@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>, ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) writes: > In article <397@lscvax.UUCP> ram@lscvax.UUCP writes: > > >Perhaps if there was a > >machine that was sufficiently fast to handle Unix, I would think about > >switching my alignment, but I doubt it. Too many other problems with it > >that I see. > > Is a Cray fast enough? it does run Unix. The Cray is faster than any > IBM mainframe, therefore Unix is better than VM/CMS, right? (I'm using your > own rationale). One of my professors had a great quote when the topic of operating system "speed" or "efficiency" came up: "How do you measure efficiency? For some it how much gets done per CPU cycle, but for others it is how much you get done in a week." He liked Unix a lot. -- Steve Friedl, KA8CMY ARPA/CSNet: friedl@vsi.uu.net *Hi Mom* uucp email : { kentvax, uunet, attmail, ihnp4!amdcad!uport }!vsi!friedl "Too bad we judge others by their actions and ourselves by our motives"
reeder@ut-emx.UUCP (William P. Reeder) (03/15/88)
In article <10157@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>, ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) writes: > Is a Cray fast enough? it does run Unix. The Cray is faster than any > IBM mainframe, therefore Unix is better than VM/CMS, right? (I'm using your > I heard a rumor (so it must be right, right? :-) that an IBM 3090-400 will outrun a Cray X-MP or Cray 2 on scalar programs. (Crays really shine on code that will vectorize.) Another thing I've heard is that UNICOS (Cray's UNIX) is HUGE and SLOW (compared to COS); besides, are you really going to run a program that takes 5 hours (of CPU time) to run interactively? We have a Cray X-MP/24 running COS at the UT System CHPC (Center for High Impedance Computing) that is backed up for WEEKS on some of the larger job classes. There are some jobs which *couldn't* be run under UNICOS (on this machine) bacause UNICOS would take up more memory than COS. As for IBM's VM/CMS -- I don't happen to be graced with a 32xx terminal so doing some things are a little more painful for me, I get to do *character I/O*... oh boy! Where is PA1 on my keyboard anyway? But seriously, you's got to learn some obscure stuff on any system, right? OK, so why does it take 2 (or is it 3) commands to print a file on a different printer from the last one? Why does FORTVS not know where to find the basic FORTRAN libraries? Why is it that if I want to use a graphics library for this run, I have to give a command (GLOBAL?, I forget) which include ALL libraries (inluding the ones I think should be defaults and I shouldn't even have to know the names of) instead of being able to just add to the list? I don't use our IBM much, and as a novice on that system I find it quite frustrating. I guess the same could be said for other systems I don't use much, like TOPS-20 (but wait, that's the most user friendly system in the world, isn't it?). I do get along with COS (although requiring periods at the end of the command seems a *bit* old fashioned) and UT-2D (anyone know what that is?) and, of course UNIX. > Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ -- William {Wills,Card,Weekly,Virtual} Reeder reeder@emx.utexas.edu Scholars who study dinosaurs say there were some smart dinosaurs and lots of stupid dinosaurs. Those smart dinosaurs came along early, but in the survival wars, please note, the stupid dinosaurs won. DISCLAIMER: I speak only for myself, and usually only to myself.
kennedy@asuvax.UUCP (Ralph Kennedy) (03/16/88)
In article <397@lscvax.UUCP>, ram@lscvax.UUCP (Ric Messier) writes: > I realize that to most of you IBM is an evil word and I will grant > you that they are expensive and sometimes a little arrogant but I > will also state that I haven't seen a more user-friendly system that > still manages to be great for experts as well than VM/CMS. Oh no! Who left the door to the Beamer cage open? Ralph Kennedy {hplabs,husc6,rutgers}!hao!noao!asuvax!kennedy Engineering Comp. Serv. {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}!--^ Arizona St. Univ. (through hao is fastest) Tempe, AZ 85287 csnet: kennedy@asu.csnet
jfh@killer.UUCP (The Beach Bum) (03/17/88)
In article <10157@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> ekrell@hector (Eduardo Krell) writes: >In article <397@lscvax.UUCP> ram@lscvax.UUCP writes: > >>Perhaps if there was a >>machine that was sufficiently fast to handle Unix, I would think about >>switching my alignment, but I doubt it. Too many other problems with it >>that I see. > >The speed of the machine has nothing to do with whether you prefer Unix >or IBM's VM/CMS. You should be comparing an IBM mainframe running VM/CMS >with the SAME machine running Unix. And yes, you can run Unix on IBM >mainframes. > > Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ [ this is not pertaining to the version of unix which runs native-mode on a 370, but rather the mixed-breed product IBM is currently pushing out the door. your mileage may vary ;-) ] i recently had the misfortune to have to deal with 370/ix on a 9370. aside from the size of the system, about 800MB of software and such for 370/ix and VM underneath it, the ASCII terminal subsystem leaves much to desire. for starters, the console (and terminals also i believe) run in line mode, as oppossed to character mode. the <SEND> key must be pressed for each batch of input to be sent. i/o is fast, as is the case with most IBM mainframes i've run on. the commands are fairly complete, and the software seems to work. but that infernal line mode makes using simple things, like vi, next to impossible. at last i heard, IBM had shipped about 40 systems with 370/ix and was not able to support them for spit. big blue obviously is not too willing to jump on the Unix bandwagon just yet. - john. -- John F. Haugh II SNAIL: HECI Exploration Co. Inc. UUCP: ...!ihnp4!killer!jfh 11910 Greenville Ave, Suite 600 "You can't threaten us, we're Dallas, TX. 75243 the Oil Company!" (214) 231-0993 Ext 260
ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) (03/18/88)
In article <3718@killer.UUCP> jfh@killer.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes: >at last i heard, IBM had shipped about 40 systems with 370/ix and was >not able to support them for spit. big blue obviously is not too willing >to jump on the Unix bandwagon just yet. Well, IBM just announced a few days ago AIX (Unix) for a variety of their hardware: 3090s, 4381s, 9370s and PS/2-386s. AIX includes the so-called Transparent Computing Facility (TCF), which is really Locus (distributed, transparent processing, process migration, etc.). I think IBM said this was a strategic program product I would call that a first step toward jumping on the Unix bandwagon... Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell ARPA: ekrell@ulysses.att.com
dave@sdeggo.UUCP (David L. Smith) (03/18/88)
In article <397@lscvax.UUCP>, ram@lscvax.UUCP (Ric Messier) writes: > I realize that to most of you IBM is an evil word and I will grant > you that they are expensive and sometimes a little arrogant but I > will also state that I haven't seen a more user-friendly system that > still manages to be great for experts as well than VM/CMS. Oh yeah? Well, if it's so great, how come you're posting news from a Unix machine? :-) -- David L. Smith {sdcsvax!jack,ihnp4!jack, hp-sdd!crash, pyramid, uport}!sdeggo!dave sdeggo!dave@amos.ling.edu Sinners can repent, but stupid is forever.
louie@trantor.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) (03/18/88)
This discussion reminds me of a memorable quote that I saw in Unix Review a few months ago: "IBM supports UNIX the same way rope supports a hanging man." Hmmm.. Louis A. Mamakos WA3YMH Internet: louie@TRANTOR.UMD.EDU University of Maryland, Computer Science Center - Systems Programming
stpeters@dawn.steinmetz (Dick St.Peters) (03/19/88)
In article <10168@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> ekrell@hector (Eduardo Krell) writes: >Well, IBM just announced a few days ago AIX (Unix) for a variety of >their hardware: 3090s, 4381s, 9370s and PS/2-386s. AIX includes the >so-called Transparent Computing Facility (TCF), which is really Locus >(distributed, transparent processing, process migration, etc.). So that's what happened to Locus? Swallowed by IBM. Now that it's emerging again, will it still run different vendor's machines? Or is it now an IBM-only system? -- Dick St.Peters GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@ge-crd.arpa uunet!steinmetz!stpeters
jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) (03/21/88)
In article <20596@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > Kilroy extols the virtues of VM/CMS over Unix or VMS... > > To share files across user mini-disks you need the READ and/or WRITE > password to the disk. There's no per-file permissions, either you give > away everything or nothing. Not an ideal situation from a security > point of view. You missed pointing some major problems with shared CMS mini-disks. Each user's CMS caches the directories of all attached mini-disks. This means that if you attach my disk, and I re-compile a program, you will for some time continue to get the old copy. I once saw a case where a friend asked when I was going to correct a bug he had reported; I was surprised because I'd done so a week earlier. But he had remained logged in for the entire week, and his CMS was still using the old copy. This isn't nearly as much fun what happens to you when my changes reach the point that a disk compaction occurs. Your in-memory copy of my directory is now totally bogus. The result is often a crash of your CMS (which at least has the effect of forcing you to login all over, thus refreshing your copy of my directory :-). There's another gotcha that bit me on several occasions. CMS has knowledge of record formatting of files, and you must declare the format (record size, and whether it's fixed or variable) when you create a file. There is a 'feature' of CMS that causes the attributes of a file to be ignored if there is already a file with the same name in ANY attached mini-disk. Instead of your chosen attributes, those of the existing file are used. For an example, suppose you ask to create a file with 136-byte records, but there is already an identically-named file in a system library with 132-byte records. You won't get any error; your records will just be silently truncated to 132 bytes. Furthermore, there is a 'feature' that causes a seek followed by a write to a variable-record-length file to silently discard the rest of the file. Every record written is followed by an EOF. Suppose you create a fixed-record-length file (in which random seeks and writes work properly), but there is a variable-record-length file with the same name in a system library. Your file will be silently created as variable-record-length. Seeks and writes will appear to work, but file truncation will occur after every such write. The solution is to write a creation routine that generates names until it finds one that doesn't exist in any attached mini-disk, creates the file with that name, and renames it to the desired name. IBM people will suggest this with a straight face, as if it were a reasonable way to use the programmer's and the computer's time. Another good 'feature': If you create, say, a variable-record-length file of 200-byte (max) records, you can then write records of any length from 1 to 200 bytes. When the creating program closes the file, the close routine replaces the record length with the length of the longest actual record. Suppose that was 140 bytes. If you then run a program that seeks to the EOF and tries to append a record of 150 bytes, the record is silently truncated to 140 bytes. The solution to this one is to make sure that you pad at least one record to the full 200 bytes. This may be your idea of a well-designed system; it isn't mine. BTW, note that IBM hasn't yet discovered the uses of the number zero. You aren't allowed to create records of 0 bytes. At least you get an error from that one, but it means occasional silly code to test for empty records, and append a space. Not a big deal, perhaps, but it's one more gotcha to slow down your job and your program. You also get an error if you create a file and try to close it before writing any data. If you exit anyway, the file won't exist. A null file is as illegal as a null record. Unix, of course, has its share of such sillinesses. But compared to CMS, it is a paragon of mathematical reasonableness. Most trivial cases actually work correctly. On the other hand, recent releases have been getting more clever about trying to prevent you from saying things like "rm *", so given enough time, Unix will probably come closer to CMS in the gotcha competition. Consider that csh disallows null commands, so you can't create an empty file any more by just saying ">foo", you need to type "echo>foo". A future release will probably disallow echo without args. Sigh. -- John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)
karish@denali.UUCP (karish) (03/23/88)
In article <10012@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> dawn!stpeters@steinmetz.UUCP (Dick St.Peters) writes: >In article <10168@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> ekrell@hector (Eduardo Krell) writes: >>Well, IBM just announced a few days ago AIX (Unix) for a variety of >>their hardware: 3090s, 4381s, 9370s and PS/2-386s. AIX includes the >>so-called Transparent Computing Facility (TCF), which is really Locus >>(distributed, transparent processing, process migration, etc.). > >So that's what happened to Locus? Swallowed by IBM. Now that it's >emerging again, will it still run different vendor's machines? Or is >it now an IBM-only system? >-- I went to an IBM presentation for this software on Friday, March 18, in Palo Alto. The IBM representative (Alex Rosen) indicated that IBM would leave the door open to providing source if the circumstances warrant, so that other vendors can provide TCF ports. Some of his foils showed hosts labeled 'OEM' connected to the TCF network. He said that IBM would like to see TCF and Distributed Services become industry standard utilities. Chuck Disclaimer: No opinions are expressed in this posting.
ram@lscvax.UUCP (Ric Messier) (03/28/88)
In article <180@sdeggo.UUCP> dave@sdeggo.UUCP (David L. Smith) writes: >In article <397@lscvax.UUCP>, ram@lscvax.UUCP (Ric Messier) writes: > [stuff about IBM] >Oh yeah? Well, if it's so great, how come you're posting news from a >Unix machine? :-) > Oh no, you caught me. You must be just TOO smart for me. I am posting on a UNIX machine because that happens to be the only one that I can get my hands on at the moment. It is not a matter of CHOICE, believe me. But I also don't believe in ignoring ANY machine just because it isn't running the software of choice. If it is there, I use it. Hell, I worked on 4 Prime machines at one point, all running Primos. THAT operating system is truly braindead! (Okay, now all the Prime lovers out there can hate me too.) -- - Kilroy ram@lscvax.UUCP 'Just what cowpatch is Lyndonville, Vermont in anyway?' *** Can't deal, &CRASH