SUTTON@BRANDEIS.BITNET (03/16/88)
I think that it's time for Barry and Erland and any other
snobs out there to cool it a bit. There are a lot of
different operating systems (and editors) out there and every
one of them has at least one fanatic enthusiast. I often get
very weary of proclamations stating that operating system x,y
or z is the ultimate system for every one's needs, talents,
wishes, budgets, etc. And although the likes of Barry and
Erland might insist that their arguments are based on purely
empirical evidence, their choice of words and even the choice
of subject heading (Barry's choice, I believe) are clearly
packed with emotion.
There are strengths and weaknesses in both systems. The
general user who just wants to run a data base or graphics
program might find themselves confounded by the short, often
cryptic commands and error messages of the UNIX system. The
knowledgable computer hacker might find VMS to be too verbose
or too troublesome to customize to their likes. Operating
systems are meant to SERVE people and both UNIX and VMS do
this admirably although in different ways for different
needs.
I personally think that the more interesting innovations in
OS's have come about as a result of the Macintosh PC
revolution. Everyone seems to be jumping on the windows and
pull down menus bandwagon from micros to minis to mainframes,
even VMS and UNIX. I feel that this might well be the place
where not only these two OS's will meet, but many. I guess if
that time comes, we'll all be arguing whether a pull down menu
should pop open with or without a mouse click.
SUTTON@BRANDEIS.BITNETbzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (03/23/88)
Just to get back to reality a little... No, it was not me who "started" this discussion. A system administrator at a University (I have the original somewhere) sent a note to unix-wizards telling of how their administration was currently planning to make VMS the campus standard and he wanted to know what arguments he could use to convince them to give Unix a fair shake, so in fact the original issue was probably the exact opposite of what many people have read into this discussion (it was a defense of Unix against a plan to exclude it in favor of only VMS, not the other way around.) I think that alone should open some eyes on the tone of the messages. Somewhere into the discussion someone forwarded one of my notes to info-vax, so a lot of people here missed the original discussion I guess (although the forwarded note did have an extensive quote from that note which should have been sufficient.) I would also like to preach a little bit about e-mail, not UNIX/VMS, if you can suffer me another few lines... People often read a lot more emotion into e-mail, when they sense a disagreement going on, than really is there. Some will then react to the perceived emotions accusing one side or another of being rude or obnoxious etc, regardless of the issue at hand. That's usually the point a discussion gets out of hand, not when two people disagree on an issue in some perhaps lively manner, but when a few others begin sending notes accusing one or both sides of foaming at the mouth, and then this gets discussed and then, well, not much else gets done. The volume goes way up with little else being added except this one or that one or both should just shut up, or should continue, or the inevitable conciliatory attempts "gee, they're both right, but in different ways", which is very nice but hardly helpful at a factual level, just a way some people react to perceived emotionality (which, as I said, is not usually there, stop handing out the valium!) The term for this is generally "meta-discussion", discussing endlessly whether or not we should discuss this or that. Often if you look back over the ENTIRE discussion you'll find that it was only 8 or 10 notes (out of perhaps 200 or more posted in the same time frame) discussing the issue but an additional 50 or so meta-messages which is what actually tried people's patience. The moral is, refrain from meta-discussion, even trying to be conciliatory, these things go thru a few rounds and then die of their own inertia. Net veterans are usually not as sensitive to this "imagined emotionality effect" and don't see it anymore as they're more accustomed to reading opinions and disagreements on the net and see it as just that, discussions, even if sometimes colorful. Whether or not the original discussion was of value is of course for you to decide. I think it drew out a lot of interesting points on all sides even if some cannot be verified objectively. Remember, these are often multi-million dollar decisions for people on these lists, they really need to be armed with as much information as possible to sift thru and try to make intelligent judgement on (as they say, in the end, it's lonely at the top and you have to make up your own mind.) With that I would hope that, if nothing else, people begin to gain some insight into how disagreements tend to evolve on a computer network group and can get something more out of it than high blood pressure. Now *that* was a meta-discussion! -Barry Shein, Boston University