hsv@lanl.gov (Henry S Vaccaro) (05/04/90)
In article <11111@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, mseidle@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Mike Seidle) writes: > I'd like to gather some opinions on the RS/6000. Please clarify which > model(s) you have experience with, and just what that experience has been > (good,bad). From what I've read in c.s.i.pc.rt, I would be led to believe Any comments you get on AIX releases prior to 9013 will probably be rather misleading. 9013 fixes many problems, and adds a lot of missing functionality. The kernel in 9013 is supposed to be "near gold", tho I have been told that there are still later revisions in house at IBM. Hank Vaccaro hsv@lanl.gov
moore@betelgeuse.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) (05/05/90)
In article <50279@lanl.gov>, hsv@lanl.gov (Henry S Vaccaro) writes: > Any comments you get on AIX releases prior to 9013 will probably be rather > misleading. 9013 fixes many problems, and adds a lot of missing functionality. > The kernel in 9013 is supposed to be "near gold", tho I have been told that > there are still later revisions in house at IBM. > > Hank Vaccaro > hsv@lanl.gov While release 9013 (+ n) might fix some bugs, it can do nothing about design flaws (they call them "enhancements"), and there are lots of them. IBM has yet to understand that they don't understand. AIX v3 is NOT UNIX. Ask anyone who has managed to use it for more than an hour. I've only spent a few hours trying to port various pieces of software to this box, but by now I start screaming after trying to use it for more than a few minutes. Pray you never actually have to use this system. Keith Moore Internet: moore@cs.utk.edu University of Tenn. CS Dept. BITNET: moore@utkvx 107 Ayres Hall, UT Campus UT Decnet: utkcs::moore Knoxville Tennessee 37996-1301 Telephone: +1 615 974 0822 Disclaimer: UT is actually thinking about *buying* some of these. Obviously I don't speak for them.
tom@stiatl.UUCP (Tom Wiencko) (05/06/90)
moore@betelgeuse.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) writes: >In article <50279@lanl.gov>, hsv@lanl.gov (Henry S Vaccaro) writes: >> Any comments you get on AIX releases prior to 9013 will probably be rather >> misleading. 9013 fixes many problems, and adds a lot of missing >functionality. >> The kernel in 9013 is supposed to be "near gold", tho I have been told that >> there are still later revisions in house at IBM. >> >> Hank Vaccaro >> hsv@lanl.gov >While release 9013 (+ n) might fix some bugs, it can do nothing about >design flaws (they call them "enhancements"), and there are lots of them. >IBM has yet to understand that they don't understand. >AIX v3 is NOT UNIX. Ask anyone who has managed to use it for more >than an hour. I've only spent a few hours trying to port various >pieces of software to this box, but by now I start screaming after >trying to use it for more than a few minutes. >Pray you never actually have to use this system. That is awfully funny ... I have ported a pretty good bit of code to the RS/6000 and the only problems I have had are compiler and library bugs. I have yet to run into any design flaws. None. Not one. Perhaps you can be a little more specific about exactly what it is that IBM does not understand. I do not have to use the system, but I really like it so far. It also seems more "compatible" (that is, runs more things without messing around) than most other flavors of UNIX I have run into. Perhaps you just hate IBM and would like to take it out on this box? Tom Disclamer: I work for me, and my opinions are not influenced by anybody, most especially not IBM. -- Tom Wiencko (w) (404) 977-4515 gatech!stiatl!tom Wiencko & Associates, Inc.
moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) (05/07/90)
In article <10036@stiatl.UUCP> tom@stiatl.UUCP (Tom Wiencko) writes: >moore@betelgeuse.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) writes: > >>While release 9013 (+ n) might fix some bugs, it can do nothing about >>design flaws (they call them "enhancements"), and there are lots of them. > >>IBM has yet to understand that they don't understand. > >>AIX v3 is NOT UNIX. Ask anyone who has managed to use it for more >>than an hour. I've only spent a few hours trying to port various >>pieces of software to this box, but by now I start screaming after >>trying to use it for more than a few minutes. > >>Pray you never actually have to use this system. > >That is awfully funny ... I have ported a pretty good bit of code to the >RS/6000 and the only problems I have had are compiler and library bugs. >I have yet to run into any design flaws. None. Not one. Some kinds of bugs are evidence of poor coding or accidents. These are easily fixed. Others are evidence of design flaws. I know that something is seriously wrong, for example, when I do an "stty erase ^h", change shells, type "stty" again, and find that I have no erase character...from poking around it a appears that they have several parallel tty drivers to accomodate BSD/POSIX/SYSV/whatever, but have done so in such a way as to make a real mess. I'm sure it will get "fixed" eventually, but if the implementation were done right in the first place, these kinds of bugs would never happen. Or how about the fact that nearly all of the utilities now have verbose error messages, even when the old terse message was sufficient? After seeing a few *incorrect* verbose error messages, I started to form the opinion that the effort to change every message in the entire Unix software suite was misdirected. Of course they will fix the messages eventually...all someone has to do is submit a bug report for every incorrect or misleading message. Or how about that at sometimes one of our AIX machines lets you log in as "root" from a telnet connection without a password, even though one *has* been assigned with "passwd root"? (I'm sure IBM will fix this one soon, and I'm also sure that we somehow "caused" this problem because we tried to add a user to the system without understanding how the new security features of AIX break things that work in traditional UNIX.) What bothers me most is that all of the above, and nearly every bug I've seen, is the result of changes that have been made to software that *already works* as distributed by AT&T, UCB, or whoever...at least the copies on our source tapes work reasonably well. I've been using Unix systems for ten years...not as long as many, but enough to feel at home. When more than half of the commands I type on an AIX box don't do what I expect, I start to suspect there's more than just a few bugs that need fixing... >Perhaps you can be a little more specific about exactly what it is that >IBM does not understand. How about the Unix design philosophy? How about simplicity and elegance? How about "if it works, don't fix it"? >I do not have to use the system, but I really like it so far. It also >seems more "compatible" (that is, runs more things without messing around) >than most other flavors of UNIX I have run into. It's obvious that the AIX v3 developers tried very hard to make the system "compatible" from both the shell-command level and the C-callable-function-library level. But in doing so, they made the system far more complex than it needs to be, and introduced lots of failure modes that confuse experienced unix programmers. >Perhaps you just hate IBM and would like to take it out on this box? An easy shot, but it misses entirely. I have an RT (running 4.3) on my desk, even though I was offered a SparcStation. I like the RS/6000 hardware -- a far as I can tell, the box is well designed, and a lot of cycles/second/buck. But the operating system loses. The above is entirely my opinion. -- Keith Moore Internet: moore@cs.utk.edu University of Tenn. CS Dept. BITNET: moore@utkvx 107 Ayres Hall, UT Campus UT Decnet: utkcs::moore Knoxville Tennessee 37996-1301 Telephone: +1 615 974 0822
drake@drake (05/08/90)
Opinions expressed below are my own, not necessarily my employer's. In article <1990May6.212646.20580@cs.utk.edu> moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) writes: > Or how about the >fact that nearly all of the utilities now have verbose error messages, >even when the old terse message was sufficient? 1. If you want to see old terse messages, issue: export LANG=C The new design allows old hands such as yourself to be happy, while making a system that real people can use as well. This is bad? 2. Who decides when an "old terse message is sufficient"? Were they sufficient to secretaries? Or just to hackers? 3. The AIX 3 enhancements in this area were primarily dictated by (a) usability and (b) national language support requirements. The new system is much more flexible in that it can be marketed in languages other than English ... a legal requirement in a growing number of countries. >What bothers me most is that all of the above, and nearly every bug >I've seen, is the result of changes that have been made to software >that *already works* as distributed by AT&T, UCB, or whoever...at >least the copies on our source tapes work reasonably well. But then you're a native English speaker, used to hacker-ese, and are quite happy with software whose limitations are therefore not apparent to you. Nor, apparently, does your installation want C2 security in it's operating system, which neither UCB nor AT&T ship today. It's easy to say "this used to work and they broke it...they're morons". It's harder to look at the increased value versus the increased complexity and make a fair assessment. If the UCB tapes contain all the function you need and desire, then AIX 3 will look overly complex. But most folks can't live with such a system. National language support, standards compliance, DoD security, improved DASD management, etc are all legitimate requirements that the UCB tapes ignore, and that EVERY vendor is working on adding to their systems. Sam Drake / IBM Almaden Research Center Internet: drake@ibm.com BITNET: DRAKE at ALMADEN Usenet: ...!uunet!ibmarc!drake Phone: (408) 927-1861
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (05/08/90)
In article <1698@ks.UUCP> drake@ibmarc.uucp (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >1. If you want to see old terse messages, issue: > > export LANG=C > > The new design allows old hands such as yourself to be happy, > while making a system that real people can use as well. This is > bad? this is far from universally true. if you look in /usr/lpp/msg/C you won't find many messages, and many of the developers removed the standard messages from the source code while changing the code to support NLS. so you have a mix of old-style "terse" messages, and newer NLS-ified messages from the message catalogs. many of the commands, however, have exactly one set of messages - the built in messages have the same text as the ones in the catalogs. >2. Who decides when an "old terse message is sufficient"? Were they > sufficient to secretaries? Or just to hackers? most secretaries run vertical applications or integrated packages such as uniplex or q-office or some other application on top of raw unix. i don't think making unix more friendly is going to help the unix illiterate. how many ibm'ers still rely heavily on profs and don't both with vm or cms directly? >3. The AIX 3 enhancements in this area were primarily dictated by > (a) usability and (b) national language support requirements. > The new system is much more flexible in that it can be marketed in > languages other than English ... a legal requirement in a growing > number of countries. absolute agreement here. and anyone looking to start a new business in the s/6000 market should consider third party message translation as an oppurtunity. if someone can come up with a tool with undoes a "gencat" command, you could un-gencat the catalogs and come up with new text messages. >But then you're a native English speaker, used to hacker-ese, and >are quite happy with software whose limitations are therefore not apparent to >you. yes, this is a big win, and the architecture is well done. but this is the first approximation and there are some problems. but every language needs a verbose message set and a terse message set, not just english. i predict there will be abundant oppurtunities in other countries for unix hackers to create concise message sets. there is value in being concise, you know ... > Nor, apparently, does your installation want C2 security in it's >operating system, which neither UCB nor AT&T ship today. yes, you're quite correct. but sun ships B2 and AT&T ships B1. ibm ships security as well, but 3.1 isn't rated just yet. i read the AT&T System V/MLS evaluation and wasn't impressed. i've yet to see Sun's [ and in fact, didn't see them listed in the catalog of final evaluation reports - are they final yet? ] anyone who is interested in security will have a level in mind - just being B2 or B3 does not imply one is better than all C2 or B1 systems. it just means the system is B2 or B3. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
staff@cadlab.sublink.ORG (Alex Martelli) (05/09/90)
> AIX v3 is NOT UNIX. Ask anyone who has managed to use it for more > than an hour. I've only spent a few hours trying to port various Used it for about 3 days. Ported low-level libraries, with lots of system-call-level interfaces, which already live on many platforms, both Sys-V and BSD oriented. No sweat at all. The IBM porting center had no docs yet, so I used manuals from HP and Sun boxes which I had brought with me (the manuals, not the boxes). Worked like a charm. Some problems with the Xl-Fortran compiler, which is definitely NOT f77-like. So, I really don't know what you're talking about, and would highly appreciate more specific and detailed info. (Flames right here on the net, please - news I get just about for free, but I have to PAY real heavy-liras for the e-mail I get!-) -- Alex Martelli - CAD.LAB s.p.a., v. Stalingrado 45, Bologna, Italia Email: (work:) staff@cadlab.sublink.org, (home:) alex@am.sublink.org Phone: (work:) ++39 (51) 371099, (home:) ++39 (51) 250434; Fax: ++39 (51) 366964 (work only; any time of day or night).