mwm@Okc-Unix@sri-unix (09/10/82)
From: Mike Meyer <mwm@Okc-Unix>
The first copy of this apparently got lost, so here we go again:
The Fortune 32:16 is not a hackers machine? That's great, but then why is
it running a hackers operating system?
That is what Unix ultimately is: a hackers operating system; or, as a local
IBM systems hacker put it `a diddlers operating system.' It provides lots
of tools for getting things done, and you can probably get 90% of any job
done using the available shell tools in a very short amount of time. After
that, you can spend a lot of time on the other 10%, and have it be perfect.
This is actually an advantage of some monolithic systems that run on blue
boxes: with those, the problem is finding the one way that will get more
than 50% of the job done, and then being able to live with that.
None of the above OS's are suitable for turnkey computer systems. With
any of them, the naive (and even reasonably experienced) user will need
a wizard standing around to help them. On the monoliths to point out the one
way to do the job, and on Unix to decide which funny glyph to type on the screen
to get the most out of the system.
Unix most especially has a problem with funny glyphs. Before I would even
consider turning a new user loose on a Unix system untutored, I would change
the command names from their current, highly mnemonic flavors: cat, rm, mv,
cd, etc. Also, the high information content in the flags -a, -v and -l would
have to be fixed.
[Sorry 'bout the long flame, but I think I needed it for the below]
>From what I saw of the 32:16, Fortune hasn't done anything about fixing the
commands. Admitedly, I couldn't look at many of the commands, as the system
I saw didn't have the `extra commands' package that had things like ps in it.
It is possible to fix these problems on Unix, as somebody (The Naval
Postgraduate School?) mentioned having done this to the 400+ commands on
their system. A cursory inspection of the CRDS Unos system indicates that
they have done the same thing.
The 32:16 was running some kind of menu system when I first got to it, which
somebody had worked very hard on so that you could not get from it to the shell
accidentally. If this is the shell the system runs by default when you first
buy it, then the good folks at Fortune have found a reasonably solution to the
problem with the command set. As a matter of fact, they have found the only
feasable one I know of. Would somebody out there let me know if this is true
or not?
For some minor points:
The 32:16 is nowhere near being the first turnkey system. I think the IBM PC
was out a little bit earlier. I don't know if it is a turnkey system or not,
so let's discount it. That leave Radio Shack. They have been selling turnkey
systems for four years (that long already?) now. That this is a good idea is
shown by how many TRS-80's have been sold. Obviously, the 32:16 is a completely
different class of machine from Radio Shack's.
On comparing the 32:16 to the IBM PC. First, my comment was not that they were
comparable, but that buying an IBM PC with coherent was probably the best way
to get a Unix system on a desktop. This should not imply that said machine
would be the best Unix system you could put on your desk. Something tells me
that the 11/730 would have to be given that title (so far - the newer 68000's
could change that).
As for pure speed, the IBM PC w/ coherent is faster than an 11/23. This makes
it a quite adaquate single user system. I think that the IBM PC and the 32:16
are both in the range where memory will be the bottleneck, not pure
processor speed. Also, the speed of the two machines seem to be close enough
that you will be able to hang more users off the machine you can put more memory
in. I think the IBM PC wins that race, but I'm not sure. Once again, would
somebody out there give me the missing info?
Lastly, for micro computer unix systems, if you are worried about processor
speed, you have to consider Zenix. Said z8000 system is faster than an 11/44.
share and enjoy,
mike