davis@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun13.142906.28474@ni.umd.edu> louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes: > >Its too bad that they feel that way. *Everyone* that I know (including >myself) that has personally bought a NeXT platform for themselves has >done so because its a good UNIX platform FIRST, and a personal >workstation/GUI/whiz-bang box second. > Yes, in fact that's why I bought mine. Normally I avoid posting "me too" articles, but I've seen postings from people at next.com here occasionally so I assume that NeXT is reading this. I didn't buy my NeXTstation because of the cute NeXT GUI, I bought it because it's a better hardware deal than the SLC or IPC. A friend of mine bought an IPC through our school for about what my NeXT cost at the bookstore. I got 200 MB more disk space, marginally better performance (from the tests I've run), and a DSP chip. I almost *didn't* buy the NeXT because of its nonstandardness (having been working with X and C++ at the time), and I was planning to throw all the NeXTstep stuff away and just run X when I bought the thing. I didn't really take NeXT seriously as a UNIX workstation vendor because they don't convey the impression of being serious about being one, and many of my friends have the same attitude. So if you're listening, NeXT: you have a very serious image problem among people who know enough to be in the market for one of your machines. -- PTD -- -- Palmer Davis <davis@po.cwru.edu> I'm probably wrong, so don't blame INS. CWRU Information Network Services Life is short. "Delaware has 1.1 million corporations -- I mean chickens." (sct)
brian@umbc4.umbc.edu (Brian Cuthie) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun13.165313.10653@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> davis@po.CWRU.Edu writes: >In article <1991Jun13.142906.28474@ni.umd.edu> louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes: >> >>Its too bad that they feel that way. *Everyone* that I know (including >>myself) that has personally bought a NeXT platform for themselves has >>done so because its a good UNIX platform FIRST, and a personal >>workstation/GUI/whiz-bang box second. >I almost *didn't* buy the NeXT because of its nonstandardness (having been >working with X and C++ at the time), and I was planning to throw all the >NeXTstep stuff away and just run X when I bought the thing. I didn't really >take NeXT seriously as a UNIX workstation vendor because they don't convey >the impression of being serious about being one, and many of my friends have >the same attitude. So if you're listening, NeXT: you have a very serious >image problem among people who know enough to be in the market for one of >your machines. > Well, it's time for me to put my 2 cents in. I couldn't agree more with both of these postings. I too was very sceptical of the NeXT. When Louie bought his my first response was: "what !? Are you nuts?" Then, after months of bugging him about what a junky machine he bought, I actually sat down and tried one. Know what ?? I liked it so much that I owned one less than a week later. In that week, I examined the hardware and software costs of several other **UNIX** platforms. Afterall, I was looking for a UNIX platform first, GUI , et al. second. What I learned was that NeXT is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I have been developing applications, professionally, for the Macintosh for > 5 years now. I can't begin to tell you what a pleasure it is to work with NeXTStep. It is possible to build sphisticated apps on the NeXT in 1/100th the time necessary to build the same program on a Mac. In addition, it's fun. The thing that baffles my mind though, is where NeXT is heading with their marketing (what marketing they have). It's not clear, for one thing, whether they consider themselves a UNIX workstation or a PC. The problem is, currently they're neither. Unix is too complex, even with NeXTstep wrapped around it, for the average dolt to deal with. Let's face it, most business people are lucky to know where the on/off switch is on their PC. They are not likely to be able to deal with the sysadmin strangeness that exists even on the NeXT. Yet, NeXT seems not to be interrested at all in the UNIX workstation market place. If they are, why do they seem to shun all the real opportunities to show off their product ? If they believe that they will *create* a market, one that fits snugly between PC and workstation (the personal workstation, if you will), this is an extremely risky path. It is difficult enough to carve out a niche in a well established market, it is nearly impossible to define a new market *and* be in business 5 years from now. In most cases the sucker who creates the new market runs out of money about the time people start believing the market exists. It's usually the second guy in the market who wins. Anyway, the gist of all this is: WAKE UP NeXT !! You have a great UNIX platform. PEOPLE LIKE THE NeXT ONCE THEY HAVE SEEN ONE. Problem is there are very few places to actually see one. -brian
dmg@ssc-vax (David M Geary) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun13.195238.29697@umbc3.umbc.edu> brian@umbc4.umbc.edu (Brian Cuthie) writes: aIn article <1991Jun13.165313.10653@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> davis@po.CWRU.Edu writes: >Well, it's time for me to put my 2 cents in. > >Unix is too complex, even with NeXTstep wrapped around it, for the average dolt >to deal with. Let's face it, most business people are lucky to know >where the on/off switch is on their PC. They are not likely to be able >to deal with the sysadmin strangeness that exists even on the NeXT. > Are you kidding? If the average dolt can use DOS, they can use NeXTStep. >Yet, NeXT seems not to be interrested at all in the UNIX workstation market >place. If they are, why do they seem to shun all the real opportunities to >show off their product ? > >If they believe that they will *create* a market, one that fits >snugly between PC and workstation (the personal workstation, if you will), >this is an extremely risky path. It is difficult enough to carve out Especially since the "market" is closing quickly. Soon prices for PC's and workstations will be the same. In fact, right now the price of a 386 loaded to the gills is more than a NeXT. >a niche in a well established market, it is nearly impossible to define >a new market *and* be in business 5 years from now. In most cases ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >the sucker who creates the new market runs out of money about the time >people start believing the market exists. It's usually the second guy >in the market who wins. > >Anyway, the gist of all this is: WAKE UP NeXT !! You have a great UNIX >platform. PEOPLE LIKE THE NeXT ONCE THEY HAVE SEEN ONE. Problem is >there are very few places to actually see one. > >-brian I have seen quite a few postings where people are questioning whether NeXT will exist a few years from now. For me, this is Deja Vu. When I first bought my Amiga 1000 5 years ago there were many similar postings in comp.sys.amiga about the fate of Commodore. All I can say is that if a company like Commodore (whose marketing is rotten to the core), can take a work of creative genius like the Amiga and stand still for 5 years (the Amiga is basically the same machine it was when it came out), and still be in business, NeXT will be around for a long, long time. -- |~~~~~~~~~~ David Geary, Boeing Aerospace, Seattle, WA. ~~~~~~~~~~| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |~~~~~~ Seattle: America's most attractive city... to the *jetstream* ~~~~~~| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) (06/17/91)
In <4125@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> dmg@ssc-vax (David M Geary) writes: >In article <1991Jun13.195238.29697@umbc3.umbc.edu> brian@umbc4.umbc.edu (Brian Cuthie) writes: >aIn article <1991Jun13.165313.10653@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> davis@po.CWRU.Edu writes: >>Unix is too complex, even with NeXTstep wrapped around it, for the >>average dolt to deal with. Let's face it, most business people are >>lucky to know where the on/off switch is on their PC. They are not >>likely to be able to deal with the sysadmin strangeness that exists >>even on the NeXT. > Are you kidding? If the average dolt can use DOS, they can use > NeXTStep. Not really, because DOS was invented to keep dolts away from everything else... All kidding aside, there is a resistance in the DOS "power users" community to the notion of system administration. There is also an even stronger resistance to the idea of having to become a regular user again. And if you remember well, the DOS crowds were putting down the Mac for its mouse, its WYSIWYG, its windows, and its icones... guess what they have now? The real issue is a hang up about having an IBM, just like the grown ups... |8-) -- William "Alain" Simon UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP
BVAUGHAN@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Barbara Vaughan) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.113150.4890@elevia.UUCP>, alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes: >In <4125@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> dmg@ssc-vax (David M Geary) writes: >>In article <1991Jun13.195238.29697@umbc3.umbc.edu> brian@umbc4.umbc.edu (Brian Cuthie) writes: >>aIn article <1991Jun13.165313.10653@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> davis@po.CWRU.Edu writes: >>>Unix is too complex, even with NeXTstep wrapped around it, for the >>>average dolt to deal with... >> Are you kidding? If the average dolt can use DOS, they can use >> NeXTStep. > > Not really, because DOS was invented to keep dolts away > from everything else... I work with a group of high-powered statisticians. They are all happy users of IBM PC's. All they want is speed and power and a machine that does what THEY want to do, WHEN they want to do it. If they can find software that suits their purposes, they use it. Since they're often on the cutting edge, they often have to write their own. Some prefer Fortran, some prefer APL, some want their programs to interact and be object-oriented and they have learned Turbo-Pascal and C++. Do you call these people dolts? Lately a lot of them have been resisting the pressure to 'go Unix'. The plan is that there will be this big file-server somewhere and all of us will have diskless workstations on our desks and there will be a system operator who will be the only one who knows every- thing and who will say, 'I'll try to get your data up tomorrow after I do my backups.' and 'I'm taking the system down for maintenance at two o'clock. It shouldn't be down for more than a few hours.' And this sys op won't be happy here, because system-wise we'll be a really small potatoes operation, so as soon as something better turns up we'll be looking for a replacement. WE'VE BEEN THERE BEFORE! IT WAS CALLED MAINFRAME COMPUTING! Say what you will about DOS, it liberated us from the tyrants in the computer room. And if you call us dolts, we'll call you dorks! Barbara Vaughan
davis@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) (06/18/91)
In article <12851@pucc.Princeton.EDU> BVAUGHAN@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: > >>>aIn article <1991Jun13.165313.10653@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> davis@po.CWRU.Edu writes: >>>>Unix is too complex, even with NeXTstep wrapped around it, for the >>>>average dolt to deal with... > Just for the record, I did *not* write that. Somebody between my original posting and that last got a bit careless editing attributions.... -- PTD -- -- Palmer Davis <davis@po.cwru.edu> Life is short. And A is A. Somewhat Larger Systems Guy INS doesn't speak for me, so it's only CWRU Information Network Services fair that the reverse be true....
brian@umbc4.umbc.edu (Brian Cuthie) (06/19/91)
In article <12851@pucc.Princeton.EDU> BVAUGHAN@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: <all kinds of stuff about file servers deleted> >thing and who will say, 'I'll try to get your data up tomorrow after >I do my backups.' and 'I'm taking the system down for maintenance at >two o'clock. It shouldn't be down for more than a few hours.' And >this sys op won't be happy here, because system-wise we'll be a really >small potatoes operation, so as soon as something better turns up we'll >be looking for a replacement. WE'VE BEEN THERE BEFORE! IT WAS CALLED >MAINFRAME COMPUTING! Say what you will about DOS, it liberated us >from the tyrants in the computer room. And if you call us dolts, we'll >call you dorks! > >Barbara Vaughan Well, if you can't smell the coffee, that is that client/server based computing is the future, then: if the foo shits, wear it. (just kidding). I agree with your sentiments that it is difficult to work with an MIS department. This is especially true if you are a small department in a large organization. However, who said the file server/backup device has to be located outside the department. As for the sophistication of University professors: I have been around the university for many moons. A lot of these preople are great. A lot of them are very narrowly focused. They would just as soon use a toaster oven to do their computing if it worked. They like PC's because they are increadibly simple and do not require them to learn complicated JCL. They also like the fact that having a PC on one's desk is power. And in an environment where turf and power are supreme, this counts for a lot. My experience is that people tend to like their tools to be as simple to use as possible. Imagine the great market for a complicated hammer. People (and I include myself in this group) want tools that are extremely suited to the task and little else. The PC is so popular because it lacks, for all intents and purposes, any operating system. It is alot like a toaster computer. Pop your favorite program in, and viola: it's just like having a custom tool for the intended purpose. However, as time goes by, people are also learning that there is a need to integrate many independent functions. They are getting tired of having to deal with jotting down info from one program and then reentering it into another. So, they want more sophisticated behavior from their computer but they don't want to learn how to use it. This, to a large extent is, probably the single largest factor that segregates Macintosh (et. al.) users from PC/Clone users. PC's most often are used to run only one or two programs frequently. Mac users, on the other hand, tend to use many applications with great frequency. It is fundementally incorrect to assume that because a computer has a GUI that it is "simpler" or less powerfull. More often it is an indication of a vastly more complex and powerful system. One sophisticated enough to hide many of the system's administrivia from the user and able to provide a coherent user interface accross all applications. So much so, that IBM is said to be thinking of licensing the Mac operating system in exchange for Apple using IBM's RS-6000 architecture (why evades me, but that's not for this group). In short, people in all walks of life have avoided using computers ever since their inception, and they always will. To quote the head of a department on campus, who upon hearing of the impending replacement of the card punch machines with VDT's (this was 9 or 10 years ago): "You can't do that! How do you expect us to attract good faculty?" -brian of
cmac@next.com (Chris MacAskill) (06/20/91)
I found this thread to be fascinating. It rekindled The Great Debate, at least at my end of the hall here at NeXT. Many of our dealers and customers passionately argue that we're what the Mac III would be if there was one; a Mac with more power that's easy to program, has good networking, and doesn't crash as often. Other customers, including some of our biggest and most recent commercial ones, say no way; they never compared us to Apple, only to Sun. They view us as an easy to use Sun with a good development environment and shrink-wrap software. In any case, our identity certainly isn't clear out there. I sometimes think we've combined the planet's best products with less-than-the-best marketing :-). If it helps, Steve is going to be keynote speaker (he's awesome at that) at UnixExpo and I'm going to chair a session (okay, so I'm less-than-awesome) on professional workstations. Thanks, Chris MacAskill cmac@next.com
waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (06/21/91)
In article <998@rosie.NeXT.COM>, cmac@next.com (Chris MacAskill) writes: > I found this thread to be fascinating. It rekindled The Great Debate, at least > at my end of the hall here at NeXT. > > Many of our dealers and customers passionately argue that we're what the > Mac III would be if there was one; a Mac with more power that's easy to > program, has good networking, and doesn't crash as often. > > Other customers, including some of our biggest and most recent commercial ones, > say no way; they never compared us to Apple, only to Sun. They view us as an > easy to use Sun with a good development environment and shrink-wrap software. > Since the customer is always right, I'm sure you all realize that they're both right. You've done a good job in both customer areas. I believe that you aimed at the Mac market more than the UNIX market, however, and that the UNIX side suffers a bit. Not integrating SLIP and X Windows puts your UNIX customers to a bit more trouble than some of the other vendors. You might consider entering into arrangements with NeXT third party software providers that would permit you to sell their products as extra-cost options integrated into the workstation already. Certainly your install application is a great example of an easy-to-use package that can only be beaten by software that's already installed;^) I believe that customers for "easy to use" Suns probably don't have to be courted with anything like the effort (they'll find you in many cases) that is required to define a new market such as professional workstations. The company that is in the best position to serve that market, in fact, is DEC. Since their chairman, Ken Olson, doesn't use a computer, they could probably take the professional workstation market by storm if they could just design a computer that Ken Olson would use. On the other hand, NeXT has a terrible handicap to overcome--it's no challenge at all to get Steve Jobs to use a computer. In the final analysis, that could be your downfall. But suppose we try to imagine the computer that Ken Olson (or do you prefer Jean-Louis Gasee's mother?) would use. I believe that computer would have to be one you could talk to. NeXT's built-in microphone seems to suggest the vision...but where's the reality? Coming soon? Or is this just another manifestation of the multi-media vision? If so, too bad. I suspect neither Mr. Olson nor Mrs. Gasee would find multi-media much of an incentive to use a computer. Nor would most doctors, lawyers or other professionals who find that a secretary addresses their professional needs much more nicely than any computer. A computer that they can dictate a letter to, ask about their schedule, about the status of their projects, etc., whether they are at their desk or talking over a telephone is a true professional's workstation. Will we be seeing a NeXT on Ken Olson's desk any day soon?^) > In any case, our identity certainly isn't clear out there. I sometimes think > we've combined the planet's best products with less-than-the-best marketing > :-). > > If it helps, Steve is going to be keynote speaker (he's awesome at that) at > UnixExpo and I'm going to chair a session (okay, so I'm less-than-awesome) on > professional workstations. > > Thanks, > Chris MacAskill > cmac@next.com > >
glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) (06/21/91)
In article <998@rosie.NeXT.COM>, cmac@next.com (Chris MacAskill) writes: > I found this thread to be fascinating. It rekindled The Great Debate, at least > at my end of the hall here at NeXT. Long before I knew I would end up doing software development for the NeXT, I bought mine as a UNIX box. UNIX hasn't gone out of style in 15 years, and I figure that if everything else goes to hell in a handbasket, I can still read netnews and write UNIX programs and live happily ever after. I can't say that about my Mac, on the other hand, which sits in the corner with the power off most of the time. Of course, NeXT also has Display PostScript, without which it wouldn't have been very interesting (to me, at least). Just another data point for the Great Debate. -- Glenn Reid NeXTMail: glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us RightBrain Software ..{adobe,next}!heaven!glenn NeXT/PostScript developers 415-326-2974 (NeXTfax 326-2977)
gn@orbus (06/23/91)
In article <998@rosie.NeXT.COM> cmac@next.com (Chris MacAskill) writes: > I found this thread to be fascinating. It rekindled The Great Debate, at > least at my end of the hall here at NeXT. > ... > > In any case, our identity certainly isn't clear out there. I sometimes think > we've combined the planet's best products with less-than-the-best marketing I guess I just gotta get some stuff out of my system. We (Rathe, inc.) paid for a NeXT in January to develop a major railroad shipment tracking application. I personally spent alot of time convincing our client that NeXT was the platform to use. After seven weeks I had to go back to the client and reconvince them that the best platform for development was Sun. I had to do this because we had project time constraints, and contrary to several promises from NeXT we did not receive our order until the end of April. Necessary technical documentation until the first week in June. I knew things were bad at NeXT when three days after receiving the machine, I get a call from NeXT order processing informing me the system should ship at the beginning of the next week. The NeXT Rathe bought is now relegated to my home machine, and I've come to the conclusion this is for the best (for Rathe not NeXT, our client is the largest RR in the world, and NeXT could of sold alot machines into this market.) I believe this for several reasons: Documentation: The Documentation for the NeXT is at best sparse, incomplete, and in several case just plain wrong. They do not include printed Unix documentation. The calls section of the on-line doc is missing at least twenty system calls/ subroutines, there are commands included in the distribution that are not documented anywhere. There are nice features of Mach and NeXTstep that are also completely undocumented (shared libraries, class usage). Documentation, to me, is NeXT's biggest short coming. Unix: UUCP is broken. Signals are not quite right. Shipped Sendmail is brain dead. Security is weak. The worst, I feel is, dump/restore doesn't work, and neither does tar when dealing with multi-volumes (dump/restore has additional problems) The Mach implementation is also weak, missing several key features, like shared memory, and multi-processing. Hardware: Since receiving my NeXT I have had problems with: The Printer (flaky). The Disk Drive (replaced). and next week Motorola is coming out to replace the processor board (Panicking at least a couple times a week). Even the 2.8 meg floppy disk shipped with the NeXT has gone bad. The response I've most often received when speaking to others of my problems is that, indeed NeXT has problems, but who doesn't (horrors stories about HP & Sun follow) Doesn't Next sell itself, though, as better, and outside the circle of unix workstations? Better then those other guys. There are lots of things that are wonderful about the NeXT (price/performance, the user interface, Motorola repair, one of the best 'out of the box' bases of software and hardware features). This only waters down what are critical, major oversights and failures on the part of NeXT. -- Greg Noel, Rathe, inc. umn-cs!rathe!orbus!gn "Once performance is assumed, style is everything" -A. Noctor
gn@rathe.cs.umn.edu (Greg Noel) (06/25/91)
In article <998@rosie.NeXT.COM> cmac@next.com (Chris MacAskill) writes: > I found this thread to be fascinating. It rekindled The Great Debate, at > least at my end of the hall here at NeXT. > ... > > In any case, our identity certainly isn't clear out there. I sometimes think > we've combined the planet's best products with less-than-the-best marketing I guess I just gotta get some stuff out of my system. We (Rathe, inc.) paid for a NeXT in January to develop a major railroad shipment tracking application. I personally spent alot of time convincing our client that NeXT was the platform to use. After seven weeks I had to go back to the client and reconvince them that the best platform for development was Sun. I had to do this because we had project time constraints, and contrary to several promises from NeXT we did not receive our order until the end of April. Necessary technical documentation until the first week in June. I knew things were bad at NeXT when three days after receiving the machine, I get a call from NeXT order processing informing me the system should ship at the beginning of the next week. The NeXT Rathe bought is now relegated to my home machine, and I've come to the conclusion this is for the best (for Rathe not NeXT, our client is the largest RR in the world, and NeXT could of sold alot machines into this market.) I believe this for several reasons: Documentation: The Documentation for the NeXT is at best sparse, incomplete, and in several case just plain wrong. They do not include printed Unix documentation. The calls section of the on-line doc is missing at least twenty system calls/ subroutines, there are commands included in the distribution that are not documented anywhere. There are nice features of Mach and NeXTstep that are also completely undocumented (shared libraries, class usage). Documentation, to me, is NeXT's biggest short coming. Unix: UUCP is broken. Signals are not quite right. Shipped Sendmail is brain dead. Security is weak. The worst, I feel is, dump/restore doesn't work, and neither does tar when dealing with multi-volumes (dump/restore has additional problems) The Mach implementation is also weak, missing several key features, like shared memory, and multi-processing. Hardware: Since receiving my NeXT I have had problems with: The Printer (flaky). The Disk Drive (replaced). and next week Motorola is coming out to replace the processor board (Panicking at least a couple times a week). Even the 2.8 meg floppy disk shipped with the NeXT has gone bad. The response I've most often received when speaking to others of my problems is that, indeed NeXT has problems, but who doesn't (horrors stories about HP & Sun follow) Doesn't Next sell itself, though, as better, and outside the circle of unix workstations? Better then those other guys. There are lots of things that are wonderful about the NeXT (price/performance, the user interface, Motorola repair, one of the best 'out of the box' bases of software and hardware features). This only waters down what are critical, major oversights and failures on the part of NeXT. -- Greg Noel, Rathe, inc. umn-cs!rathe!orbus!gn "Once performance is assumed, style is everything" -A. Noctor
windemut@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu (Andreas Windemuth) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun23.001024.171@orbus.uucp> gn@orbus writes: > > The NeXT Rathe bought is now relegated to my home machine, and I've come to > the conclusion this is for the best (for Rathe not NeXT, our client is the > largest RR in the world, and NeXT could of sold alot machines into this > market.) I believe this for several reasons: > I believe that you were just very unlucky in what happened to you My experiences (with 4 old cubes, 4 NeXTstations and one Color station in different configurations) are quite different. In particular (some points deleted): > Documentation: > > The Documentation for the NeXT is at best sparse, incomplete, and in several > case just plain wrong. They do not include printed Unix documentation. The That may be right. However, even if I had perfect printed documentation, I would hardly use it. I am completely spoiled by Librarian. And the on-line documentation in 2.1extended seems at least reasonably complete. > > Unix: > > Security is weak. The worst, I feel is, dump/restore doesn't work, and > I feel security is as good or better than on any other Unix machine. Dump/restore have been working flawlessly for me. I use them often to make backups on Optical and a remote sgi's exabyte tape. The only problems I had where with the sgi. > Hardware: > > Since receiving my NeXT I have had problems with: > > The Printer (flaky). I found it very dependable and an order of magnitude better than Laserwriters. However, there seems to be a problem with the lpd and/or npd daemons, which have to be restarted sometimes. > The Disk Drive (replaced). No problems on any of 8 drives. > and next week Motorola is coming out to replace the processor board (Panicking > at least a couple times a week). This happened to us too, with 2.0. Since 2.1, no more. Seems to be software after all. > Even the 2.8 meg floppy disk shipped with the NeXT has gone bad. None of ours has done that. Just to give a more balanced picture ... -- Andreas Windemuth +-------------------------------------------------------------------- |Theoretical Biophysics windemut@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu |University of Illinois Tel: (217)-244-1612 |3121 Beckman Institute Fax: (217)-244-8371 |405 N Mathews, Urbana, IL61801 NeXTmail Ok +--------------------------------------------------------------------
ggood@css.itd.umich.edu (Gordon Good) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.030530.7056@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> windemut@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu (Andreas Windemuth) writes: >In article <1991Jun23.001024.171@orbus.uucp> gn@orbus writes: >> >> Security is weak. The worst, I feel is, dump/restore doesn't work, and > > >I feel security is as good or better than on any other Unix machine. >Dump/restore have been working flawlessly for me. I use them often to >make backups on Optical and a remote sgi's exabyte tape. The only >problems I had where with the sgi. NeXT broke rdump in getting it to work with ODs - multivolume dumps don't work. As son as one tape is filled up and rewound, rdump immediately starts writing the second tape volume's data over top of the first tape, without waiting for you to switch tapes. You aren't seeing any problems because you're either rdumping to a NeXT OD (which works fine) or a tape device which has more capacity than the device you're dumping (which also works). However, for those of us who need to dump, say, a 200mb partition to a 60mb tape drive, we're SOL. From the dump(8) man page: "Because of the interworkings of rmt and rdump, it is only possible to run rdump from one NeXT machine to another." Bummer. I really wish this weren't the case. It means I have to walk to another building to dump one of our cube servers. -- -Gordon Good -University of Michigan Information Technology Division -Consulting and Support Services -ggood@css.itd.umich.edu