mckeeman@wivax.UUCP (02/14/84)
I think the discussion is off the point. Unix is the "machine language" of operating systems. Nobody sane would claim humaneness for the interface. That humans can learn to use it efficiently is a compliment to the Maker, not BTL. But there also does not seem to be much complaint about the things Unix allows internally; it is enough functionality to get a lot done. So, however much of that functionality can be stuffed into system X is about what you will get. More importantly, what kinds of nice interfaces are going to be put between the user and Unix? Like, after ls it would be nice to curse to an interesting file name and hit RETURN, and have it run if it was a program, and be in the editor editing it if it is a text file, and so on. The book-size TRS-80 model 100 can do this! There are just a lot of things that can be done on top of the sound basis of unix. The Wang PC MSDOS interface is a good example. There is a menu-driven menu maker into which it is very convenient to put your favorite arcane functions. %mumble -fo *.ugly\grumble needs only be figured out and typed once. Thereafter it is mercifully hidden from view, even of its inventor.
grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP (02/17/84)
#R:wivax:-1921000:uiuccsb:4400041:000:552 uiuccsb!grunwald Feb 16 17:53:00 1984 In a lot of ways, you are correct in that the shell syntax is a little arcane -- any sane end-user system would provide menu-oriented systems. However, I think that if you compare UNIX with NOS or OS/360, you'll find the same problems. Arcane, insane and, at times, profane. I wager that in those operating environments, a customized interface is used for the end user (e.g. the teller at your local bank). Saying that UNIX won't fly in the buisness world because of sh or csh is flatly wrong. Dirk Grunwald U of Illinois ihnp4 ! uiucdcs ! grunwald
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (02/20/84)
> All our applications were written in COBOL (ugh), and they were of the > block-mode transaction screen type. The only exposure the users had to > the OS was the login and logout. FYI, under the USG UNIX releases (System III, System V, etc.) it's easy to eliminate even the exposure to the OS that logging in gives; you can just tell UNIX to run a program other than the standard "/etc/getty" on some or all terminal ports (in fact, I'm in the middle of writing a screen-oriented "getty/login" at this very minute). (It's possible to do so on other UNIXes, but you either have to tweak "init" to run a different program based on information in the "/etc/ttys" configuration file (the USG releases have already so tweaked "init"), have *every* terminal, including your console DECWriter if that's what you've got, run a replacement "getty", or tweak "getty" to do funny things on selected terminals.) A good reason to wire as little software down in the kernel as you can get away with... Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
jph@whuxle.UUCP (02/21/84)
#R:wivax:-1921000:whuxle:21300003:000:1 whuxle!jph Feb 20 15:51:00 1984
flamer@omsvax.UUCP (Jim Trethewey) (02/25/84)
> uiuccsb!grunwald Feb 16 17:53:00 1984 > > However, I think that if you compare UNIX with NOS or OS/360, you'll find > the same problems. Arcane, insane and, at times, profane. I wager that in > those operating environments, a customized interface is used for the end > user (e.g. the teller at your local bank). Saying that UNIX won't fly in > the buisness world because of sh or csh is flatly wrong. I can personally vouch for this. I worked for a year and a half for the State of Oregon, developing programs for non-computer types. Our machine was a CDC Cyber 170/720 running NOS. All our applications were written in COBOL (ugh), and they were of the block-mode transaction screen type. The only exposure the users had to the OS was the login and logout. Inflicting something like NOS even on your friends would be punishable in a court of law. REWIND,*. Side note: I was favorably impressed by the menu driven Unix shell found on the Fortune 32:16. Jim Trethewey, Intel Oregon.