[comp.unix.ultrix] always the same troubles with DEC: curses vs. cursesX

hueni@.iam.unibe.ch (Hermann Hueni) (02/08/91)

I'm very unhappy with the philosophy DEC takes with their ULTRIX line of
UNIX.

It takes me always a long time to find out how to make work something on
the ULTRIX machine as I expect it to work. The problem with DEC seems to be
their willingness to create propriatary variants of otherwise established
defacto standards.

	* when I expect to get a bourne shell like I get it on any of the
	  other machines that I'm working on (HP,SUN,IX,NCR,...), I only get
	  a partial solution and I have to figure out myself, that there is
	  in fact a beast called 'sh5' that would be more standard.

	* When preparing a small curses demonstration program for my
	  students, I run it successfully on 5 different machines in
	  sysV & BSD derived environments with no problems at all.
	  When I finally took it onto the Decstation (where the students
	  have to work), it ran out of control or dumped core after some
	  reproducible input sequences.

	  Then, after a too long period of testing, I discovered that
	  there was a library called "cursesX", supposed to be X-Open
	  compatible. This library is basically sysV-curses but instead of
	  performing correctly, I got another misbehaviour.

	  There is no man page for "cursesX" as there is for "curses".
	  But whoever searches long enough, discovers in section "3cur"
	  a man page "intro". NOBODY ELSE HAS THIS SECTION!


The specific problem with cursesX seems to be in the routine "overwrite".

hermann

_____________
Hermann Hueni					Physiological Institute
Seidenweg 40					University of Berne
CH-3012 Bern					CH-3012 Bern - Switzerland
phone : +(41 31) [p:] 234-607			[b:] 658-726
e-mail: hueni@iam.unibe.ch			fax   : +(41 31) 654-611

hubcap@hubcap.clemson.edu (System Janitor) (02/08/91)

 *  I'm very unhappy with the philosophy DEC takes with their ULTRIX line of
 *  UNIX...     The problem with DEC seems to be their willingness to create 
 *  propriatary variants of otherwise established defacto standards.

I feel this way too sometimes (mail11's SMTP ``enhancements'', arrrgggghhhh),
but...

 *  	* when I expect to get a bourne shell like I get it on any of the
 *  	  other machines that I'm working on (HP,SUN,IX,NCR,...), I only get
 *  	  a partial solution and I have to figure out myself, that there is
 *  	  in fact a beast called 'sh5' that would be more standard.

... the comments in the source to /bin/sh indicate that it is indeed 
Steven Bourne's. So while it may be fair to say that /bin/sh is not as 
up-to-date as some other sh's you are used to, it doesn't look to me
as if DEC has spooged on it much.

-Mike

treese@crl.dec.com (Win Treese) (02/09/91)

This isn't an official Digital statement, and I'm not out to defend all of
Digital's decisions -- just to point out a couple of things.

- /bin/sh is essentially the Bourne shell from BSD.  ULTRIX grew out of
	BSD 4.2 and has a lot of System V-isms now.  One of the decisions was
	to stay with the BSD /bin/sh and add the System V one as /bin/sh5.
	The same is true with make and a few other utilities as well.

- there are at least 3 varieties of curses now -- BSD, System V, and X/Open.
	While it's unfortunate that there is some difficulty in understanding
	how ULTRIX tries to deal with these, especially given unclear
	documentation, it is also hard to engineer a system where they coexist
	to everyone's satisfaction, just as it is with /bin/sh.

I don't really think that Digital is trying to make them "propietary."
The market is an interesting place right now -- customers want the
"best" version of something, yet it must be compatible with everyone
else's versions.  New features (and sometimes bug fixes!) are often
viewed as attempts to make something "proprietary."

I am sometimes astonished at reactions of the form "Company A is a
leader in innovating in open systems" versus "Company B is trying to
sucker us into a proprietary system" versus "Why doesn't company C do
something better?"

I'd be interested in discussion on what an "open system" really is --
and whether or not you'd buy one.  Of course, I don't make any
marketing decions; I'm in research.

Win Treese						Cambridge Research Lab
treese@crl.dec.com					Digital Equipment Corp.