tlt@ihldt.UUCP (08/26/83)
I would like to find out what people like/dislike
about their favorite/least favorite operating system.
What are some of the neat features/idiosyncrasies
of the OS you like/dislike the most. In particular I am
interested in the following:
UNIX
MVS
VMS
MSDOS
CP/M
I am trying to understand why my alma-mater just
bought a VAX 780 and has decided to run VMS instead
of UNIX. One of my old professors there told me
that the engineering students wouldn't understand
how to use UNIX (too complex for the engineering type
I guess). He also said that if UNIX did not
evolve into a more user friendly system that MSDOS
would become the default standard OS for micros/minis.
Not at all familiar with VMS or MSDOS I am puzzled.
I assume the only reason people run MVS is because
that's what they're used to. ie have used IBM for
many years, why change now. Similarly for CP/M,
that's all there is for the 8080/z80 machines.
If I missed your favorite/unfavorite OS don't be
shy. Send me mail anyway.
If I get enough responses I may summarize to the net.mat@hou5e.UUCP (08/26/83)
Why do I like UNIX? Let me see if I can put it into a few words. Many (most) systems work well if you are doing just exactly what the system designers though you might want to do. Some don't even do that without hassle. By hassle, I mean things like JCL, or like the horrible efficiency and response problems that HP's rather reliable IMAGE database system has. It IS possible to make IMAGE (a trademark of HP, I am sure) run well. You have to know how to do it, and what NOT to do. And IMAGE is built into the OS, and is another case of things being good if you use them just so. UNIX seems to be free of these problems. What is more, things like stty/ioctl give you almost as much control over your terminal (the device that you care about most) as you would have on a stand-alone real-time system. And you don't have to worry about garbage like blocking factors. And temporary vs. permanent file domains. You have indefinately extensible directory trees. How many systems give easy access to shell variables, exporting, etc. And to command line arguments? Some more modern, enlightened systems do. Finally. How many timesharing systems could support vi fully? While letting things run in the background? And how many systems have a command language as rich as even the first Shell? Much less the Bourne Shell?! DTSS, perhaps. But BASIC isn't as well suited as the shell to the things that the shell does for you. In short, the system gives a lot for the costs involved in using it. Mark Terribile Duke of deNet
mike.rice@rand-relay@sri-unix.UUCP (08/29/83)
From: Mike.Caplinger <mike.rice@rand-relay> NO! DON'T send "Why do you like your OS?" answers to the net! I really can't handle the ensuing religious arguments.