ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) (02/04/91)
In article <2467@beguine.UUCP> Gerben.Wierda@samba.acs.unc.edu (Gerben Wierda) writes: > >Two reports I have seen so far on Microsoft "dropping" OS/2. Someone over >here told me that they were *not* dropping OS/2, but they*are* dropping >the Presentation Manager and are taking the Windows interface instead. >They also told me that Microsoft just invested $10M in OS/2 Lan Manager... > >So, does anyone has something that is more than rumour (NeXT telling that >Microsoft quits OS/2) but fact (Microsoft telling it quits OS/2)? Microsoft knows OS/2 is a disaster and is definitely not doing any more 386-assembly work on OS/2. Work on OS/2 in C is also on back burner; the major software efforts are on Windows 3 and it's children. IBM is continuing work on OS/2 in 386-assembly; there is some news about IBM-Novell deals on that front. Many vendors have stuck their necks out by doing products for OS/2 (especially database and LAN types) so everyone is being discreet about it. -------Start_of_Speculation---------- In the long run, I suppose Microsoft understands Intel processors are a dead end and would want to migrate to SPARC/MIPS/88k. The only way to do that is to rewrite in C. The best they can hope for in that project is 100% source compatibility between Windows 4 applications and OS/2 written in C for (say) SPARC. I assume that will be their target next. Unix grew up over more than a decade, using the best minds of Bell Labs, UCBerkeley and Sun Microsystems. In my understanding, the quality of people at Microsoft is not good enough to do a good OS -- starting from scratch in C -- within a few years. They're good at writing word processors, Bill Gates knows how to write a Basic Interpreter. Writing an OS is a different kettle of fish! Hence, personally, I consider that line of thought to be a dead-end. I'm more interested in the way SysVR4 will evolve esp. in the influence of Mach (multiprocessing dreams). All this is my understanding, not fact. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Ajay Shah, (213)734-3930, ajayshah@usc.edu The more things change, the more they stay insane. _______________________________________________________________________________
gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) (02/05/91)
In article <29814@usc>, ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: > > In my understanding, > the quality of people at Microsoft is not good enough to do a > good OS -- starting from scratch in C -- within a few years. > They're good at writing word processors, Bill Gates knows how to > write a Basic Interpreter. Writing an OS is a different kettle > of fish! And folks like to complain that Microsoft people are arrogant! Say, Ajay, if you're so smart.... how come you're not working at Microsoft? Also, Ajay, who is the single biggest provider of Unix software? A silly little toy-software company called "Microsoft". I've encountered hostility from "the real world" since day one, when I started the Microsoft OS group. Our first product, even though we're such pathetic excuses for programmers, was an operating system. It was called "UNIX". I don't pay much attention to UNIX these days, but I seem to recall a few years ago that "the best minds" at AT&T bought some UNIX technology from an outside vendor - a company by the name of "Microsoft". Because we have some products which self described "computer hot shots" like to sneer at, hostile types like to pretend that we're just a bunch of duffers who "got lucky". Most of our products - even those beneath the dignity of a guru - require a lot of skill and effort. The quality of our talent is at least as good - and often better - than any other place you might be able to name. Come interview us and find out. And by the way, if UNIX is the result of the smartest OS minds in the field, how come it bites the big one? It has no standard GUI, and it's disk performance is at least 5 times worse then even pathetic old DOS... And HPFS runs rings around the BSD improved file system. Gordon Letwin Microsoft p.s.: re bill gates: - a few years ago, as a publicity stunt, Bill Gates challenged a buncha other big name industry types - all programmers - to a public programming contest. He won. Perhaps you should meet the man, Ajay, before you sneer so publicly.
edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) (02/05/91)
In article <29814@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: >Microsoft knows OS/2 is a disaster and is definitely not doing >any more 386-assembly work on OS/2. Work on OS/2 in C is also on >back burner; the major software efforts are on Windows 3 and it's >children. IBM is continuing work on OS/2 in 386-assembly; there >is some news about IBM-Novell deals on that front. Although you had a line "Start_of_Speculation", you put it *after* the above paragraph when it should have come *before*! This is speculative (and would come as a surprise to people working on such things). Microsoft has previously announced that it gave IBM primary control over the development of OS/2 2.0, but retained primary control over OS/2 3.0. As far as work on C being on the back-burner, well, that's partly true since alot of the work is actually in C++. Although OS/2 hasn't sold "well" in the marketplace, developers seem to like it better than Unix (an independent survey of companies developing for both), and "not selling well" is still more copies than any given version of Unix is selling (mod sales and marketing reworking of figures). >-------Start_of_Speculation---------- > >In the long run, I suppose Microsoft understands Intel processors >are a dead end and would want to migrate to SPARC/MIPS/88k. The >only way to do that is to rewrite in C. The best they can hope >for in that project is 100% source compatibility between Windows 4 >applications and OS/2 written in C for (say) SPARC. I assume >that will be their target next. I don't know what you mean by "dead end". The major advantage to a portable OS (which is what OS/2 3.0 is) is that is does not depend upon the vagaries of chip economies. Currently a RISC processor is attractive not because it blows the doors off a CISC processor (indeed it doesn't by all that much), but because the RISC processors that are multiply sourced are very cheap (e.g. SPARC, MIPS are cheap compared to 68k and Intel). If you are looking to a 100MIPS workstation for under $5k, then you are probably looking at a RISC machine. >Writing an OS is a different kettle >of fish! Very well put. Microsoft has spent alot of time and money finding this out. The market will tell us if future OS Microsoft produces "better meet the needs of the user" or not. Don't be surprised to find our future OS to be "object oriented", micro-kernel, and low-overhead multiprocessing; in short, everything that Mach promised to be but isn't (yet) unless you rewrite it yourself. But more importantly, the OS will support applications and end-user needs (like information retrieval and categorization), which is, after all, what an OS is for. If you want POSIX compliance, PM or Windows compatibility, or security, then you'll want OS/2. A long time ago, people postulated that Apple should deliver a secure pre-emptive multiprocessing portable object-oriented protected client-server distributed OS with a "Mac compatibility" layer (eg virtual machine). This is how we are positioning OS/2. -- Edward Jung Microsoft Corp. My opinions do not reflect any policy of my employer.
pavlov@canisius.UUCP (Greg Pavlov) (02/08/91)
In article <29814@usc>, ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: > -------Start_of_Speculation---------- > > In the long run, I suppose Microsoft understands Intel processors > are a dead end and would want to migrate to SPARC/MIPS/88k. .... Oh boy. I am not a "fan" of the 80nnnnnnnn.... architecture and I certainly have no interest in acquiring/using OS/2. But I think that it's going to be a VERY long time before sales of SPARC+MIPS+88k overtake 80nnn.....
wjs@milton.u.washington.edu (William Jon Shipley) (02/11/91)
Arthur Ogawa writes: >I'm casting about in my mind for any recollection of a MicroSoft trademark >on any of the software on my Unix system. I see AT&T, I see Sun, I even >see HP. But MicroSoft? Would somebody clue me in? Can I buy MS Word for >Unix? Excel? C compiler? What have I been missing? Both MS Word and Multiplan are available for the AT&T 3b2 (a Unix box that really redefines slow). It was my understanding that these two products were licensed to AT&T, Microsoft didn't actually have much to do with them. For those curious, they both are incredibly ugly and slow, but, they do work, sort of. (Scrolling was totally un-optimised, so on a 9600 baud dedicated line it would take seconds to scroll down by a screen.) Yes, some pretty high technology Microsoft was licensing to AT&T. Maybe next they'll license the incredible memory manager they've written into Windows, so that we Unix dolts don't have to do memory management in the operating system. -william "Just-because-I-love-Seattle-doesn't-mean-I-like-Microsoft" shipley
scott@erick.gac.edu (Scott Hess) (02/11/91)
In article <70471@microsoft.UUCP> edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) writes: Don't be surprised to find our future OS to be "object oriented", micro-kernel, and low-overhead multiprocessing; in short, everything that Mach promised to be but isn't (yet) unless you rewrite it yourself. But more importantly, the OS will support applications and end-user needs (like information retrieval and categorization), which is, after all, what an OS is for. If you want POSIX compliance, PM or Windows compatibility, or security, then you'll want OS/2. A long time ago, people postulated that Apple should deliver a secure pre-emptive multiprocessing portable object-oriented protected client-server distributed OS with a "Mac compatibility" layer (eg virtual machine). This is how we are positioning OS/2. [I certainly don't want to get in a flame war - Edward almost always posts decent posts. Just had to comment, though -scott] I think that Apple would have liked to have out a "secure pre-emptive object-oriented protected" [I'm not sure about other parts] already. They are working on it. I believe it's called System 7.0. I believe they've been working on it for, oh, 2 or 3 years now (though it's surely been in progress since before the announcement). Mach isn't too bad. And it is moving, though slowly. It's fairly portable (well, it runs on at least two architectures, Intel i386 and Motorola '030/'040). Most importantly, it's fairly free, and there will be a Unix on top of it eventually. On the one hand, I just want to point out that before damning Mach in favor of Microsoft, we might want to wait until Microsoft has a product which can damn Mach itself, eh? (_How_ long has OS/2 been going to blow away DOS? :-) On another post: gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) writes: Also, Ajay, who is the single biggest provider of Unix software? A silly little toy-software company called "Microsoft". I would like to point out that this is Xenix, and while Xenix is like Unix, Xenix is not Unix. called "UNIX". I don't pay much attention to UNIX these days, but I seem to recall a few years ago that "the best minds" at AT&T bought some UNIX technology from an outside vendor - a company by the name of "Microsoft". Though AT&T and Microsoft are working together to combine Xenix and Unix. of duffers who "got lucky". Most of our products - even those beneath the dignity of a guru - require a lot of skill and effort. The quality of our talent is at least as good - and often better - than any other place you might be able to name. Come interview us and find out. All products require skill and effort. Else, they seldom are called products . . . And by the way, if UNIX is the result of the smartest OS minds in the field, how come it bites the big one? It has no standard GUI, and it's disk performance is at least 5 times worse then even pathetic old DOS... And HPFS runs rings around the BSD improved file system. DOS is pathetic - that's why it's so efficient. But you might note that DOS doesn't have multitasking, it doesn't have a standard GUI, etc. Of course, the GUI is seldom part of the OS (the Mac is an exception, here). DOS isn't exactly my idea of a fun operating system to work under, regardless of it's speed and all. And the speed advantage becomes less and less as it constrains bigger and bigger processors to run in smaller and smaller memories (relatively, of course). From all the tech stuff I've read about HPFS, it looks to be 80% the same as BSD FFS. It has inodes, it has superblocks, it has amazing allocation to make the interleave nice, indirect blocks, the works. The main problems FFS has is that it has to be flexible enough to handle multiple architectures (CPU, memory, interrupt handling, you get the picture) while HPFS has to handle only one well- defined architecture. An FFS which was specifically tuned to a particular architecture would more than likely have the same performance within a couple percentage points either way. Of course, most companies don't have the resources to do this tuning - Microsoft does. Comes tell me more when OS/2 runs HPFS on Motorola's, eh? p.s.: re bill gates: - a few years ago, as a publicity stunt, Bill Gates challenged a buncha other big name industry types - all programmers - to a public programming contest. He won. Perhaps you should meet the man, Ajay, before you sneer so publicly. Hmm. I think it'd be sort of fun to put Gates in the arena with Richard Stallman. Though I'm sure Stallman would refuse, we can still imagine how it would go . . . But, before saying that Gates is awesome because he beat some "big name industry types", please let us know the names? I personally think Gates is alright - I certainly don't agree with all of his decisions, but that's besides the point. But it would be nice to know who he beat, what were the rules, what they had to write, etc. Saying he "won" is sort of like quoting Dhrystones without giving the source code to the compiler . . . Later, -- scott hess scott@gac.edu Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad <I still speak for nobody> "Tried anarchy, once. Found it had too many constraints . . ." "Buy `Sweat 'n wit '2 Live Crew'`, a new weight loss program by Richard Simmons . . ."
greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) (02/11/91)
gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) writes: >And folks like to complain that Microsoft people are arrogant! >Say, Ajay, if you're so smart.... how come you're not working >at Microsoft? Perhaps he likes to sleep at night. >Also, Ajay, who is the single biggest provider of Unix software? >A silly little toy-software company called "Microsoft". >I've encountered hostility from "the real world" since day one, when >I started the Microsoft OS group. Our first product, even though we're >such pathetic excuses for programmers, was an operating system. It was >called "UNIX". I don't pay much attention to UNIX these days, but I >seem to recall a few years ago that "the best minds" at AT&T bought some >UNIX technology from an outside vendor - a company by the name of "Microsoft". Would you please elaborate on this one Gordon? I've only been working on UNIX systems for well over a decade. How did AT&T get their names on all those manuals? Gee, I wish you guys still turned out systems like the old days. >Because we have some products which self described "computer hot shots" >like to sneer at, hostile types like to pretend that we're just a bunch >of duffers who "got lucky". Most of our products - even those beneath >the dignity of a guru - require a lot of skill and effort. The quality >of our talent is at least as good - and often better - than any other >place you might be able to name. Come interview us and find out. Why would anyone want to interview with a pack of liars. Face it Gordon, you lost. >And by the way, if UNIX is the result of the smartest OS minds in the >field, how come it bites the big one? It has no standard GUI, and >it's disk performance is at least 5 times worse then even pathetic old >DOS... And HPFS runs rings around the BSD improved file system. I remember when I used to hit the fish in the boat with a big old rock. I felt sorry 'cause they were just flapping all over the place. I don't feel sorry this time. > Gordon Letwin > Microsoft >p.s.: re bill gates: - a few years ago, as a publicity stunt, Bill Gates >challenged a buncha other big name industry types - all programmers - to >a public programming contest. He won. Perhaps you should meet the man, >Ajay, before you sneer so publicly. What size tires can he run? -- Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 greg@cica.cica.indiana.edu Center for Innovative Computer Applications Card-carrying member of the Usenet Civil Liberties Union
edwardm@hpcuhd.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan) (02/11/91)
Greg Pavlov writes: > In article <29814@usc>, ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: > > -------Start_of_Speculation---------- > > > > In the long run, I suppose Microsoft understands Intel processors > > are a dead end and would want to migrate to SPARC/MIPS/88k. .... > > Oh boy. I am not a "fan" of the 80nnnnnnnn.... architecture and > I certainly have no interest in acquiring/using OS/2. But I think > that it's going to be a VERY long time before sales of SPARC+MIPS+88k > overtake 80nnn..... Actually, I read an interesting article in the Business section of the San Jose Mercury News the other day which announced that Microsoft, Compaq, and Dec (and perhaps SCO, partially owned by Microsoft) were teaming together to define "the next PC" based on (perhaps a MIPS) new RISC chip. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Edward McClanahan Hewlett Packard Company -or- edwardm@cup.hp.com Mail Stop 42UN 11000 Wolfe Road Phone: (480)447-5651 Cupertino, CA 95014 Fax: (408)447-5039
waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (02/12/91)
In article <70471@microsoft.UUCP>, edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) writes:
[...some very interesting stuff deleted...]
Well, I guess this is one of the few times a flame resulted in
something worthwhile...namely, a couple of very informative responses
from Microsoft.
Thanks, guys.
BTW, some of what I've seen about OS/2 looks damned good. My greatest
reservation about it has been lack of multi-user support but some of
this seems to be addressed by network security. I've heard rumors of
some approaches to such issues by having people "log on to the
network". Do you have any comments?
c.f.waltrip
Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>
Opinions expressed are my own.amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) (02/12/91)
What the <expletive deleted> is this <expletive deleted> doing in comp.sys.next? I, for one, could not care less about OS/2, Microsoft, or any of the rest of this! Get a grip, folks, and take this discussion elsewhere. Quickly. -- Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda -- At least congress doesn't make death worse every year.
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (02/12/91)
>>>>> edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) writes: Edward> p.s.: re bill gates: - a few years ago, as a publicity stunt, Edward> Bill Gates challenged a buncha other big name industry types - Edward> all programmers - to a public programming contest. He won. Edward> Perhaps you should meet the man, Ajay, before you sneer so Edward> publicly. >>>>> On 11 Feb 91 00:30:18 GMT, scott@erick.gac.edu (Scott Hess) said: Scott> Hmm. I think it'd be sort of fun to put Gates in the arena with Scott> Richard Stallman. Though I'm sure Stallman would refuse, we can Scott> still imagine how it would go . . . Yup. And let's have, say, Gosling and Wall in there, too. Come on, Edward. We all know Gates must be good at something. He wouldn't have made it that far if not. But it wasn't his programing skill that made him a gazillion dollars. (What's this doing in comp.sys.next? I have redirected followup's). /Lars -- Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | Beauty is a French phonetic corruption CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | - FZ
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (02/12/91)
>>>>> edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) writes:
Edward> p.s.: re bill gates: - ...
In a previous posting, I mistakenly attributed comments made by Gordon
Letwin to Edward Jung. Sorry about that. Foot-in-mouth. Stage exit.
/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | Beauty is a French phonetic corruption
CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | - FZscheng@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Boles) (02/12/91)
In article <SCOTT.91Feb10163018@erick.gac.edu> scott@erick.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes: > >I think that Apple would have liked to have out a "secure pre-emptive >object-oriented protected" [I'm not sure about other parts] already. >They are working on it. I believe it's called System 7.0. I believe >they've been working on it for, oh, 2 or 3 years now (though it's Well, I've got System 7.0 for my mac at work and although I like it better than System 6.0.[1 2 3 4 5 6 7] :), It is certainly _not_ secure or protected. Nor does it possess preemptive multitasking. If anyone thinks this doesn't matter, try up/downloading a file at 20k baud while running a compile and writing a letter. Windows can't do it and neither can the mac, but OS/2 and UNIX make it easy. --db
mingo@well.sf.ca.us (Charles Hawkins Mingo) (02/12/91)
>>Also, Ajay, who is the single biggest provider of Unix software? >>A silly little toy-software company called "Microsoft". > >I'm casting about in my mind for any recollection of a MicroSoft trademark >on any of the software on my Unix system. I see AT&T, I see Sun, I even >see HP. But MicroSoft? Would somebody clue me in? Can I buy MS Word for >Unix? Excel? C compiler? What have I been missing? According to the Wall Street Journal, MS owns an operation called (I believe) The San Jose Project (I'm sorry I can't remember the city) which just happens to be the largest single producer of Unix packages. San Jose makes Unix for 386/486 types of machines. Not NeXT's or Suns (which I presume you are using now). (Perhaps you've heard of the new joint venture between MIPS, DEC and Microsoft to produce a Unix-based RISC desktop system by 1995? Microsoft's contribution would be the Unix courtesy San Jose Project.) -- ______________________________________________________________________________ Charlie Mingo Internet: mingo@well.sf.ca.us 2209 Washington Circle #2 mingo@cup.portal.com Washington, DC 20037 CI$: 71340,2152 AT&T: 202/785-2089
greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) (02/12/91)
-Well, I've got System 7.0 for my mac at work and although I like it -better than System 6.0.[1 2 3 4 5 6 7] :), It is certainly _not_ -secure or protected. Nor does it possess preemptive multitasking. -If anyone thinks this doesn't matter, try up/downloading a file at -20k baud while running a compile and writing a letter. Windows -can't do it and neither can the mac, but OS/2 and UNIX make it easy. Why not try an Amiga? This is the kind of thing we do all the time. -- Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 greg@cica.cica.indiana.edu Center for Innovative Computer Applications This signature intentionally left blank.
bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) (02/13/91)
In article <70447@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) writes: >In article <29814@usc>, ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: >> >> In my understanding, >> the quality of people at Microsoft is not good enough to do a >> good OS -- starting from scratch in C -- within a few years. Ajay, since you started this, whence come you by this "under- standing"? Also, I certainly hope you aren't requiring that an operating system be written in C for it to be a good one because that would certainly be narrow minded at best and ignorant otherwise. >> They're good at writing word processors, Bill Gates knows how to >> write a Basic Interpreter. Writing an OS is a different kettle >> of fish! > >And folks like to complain that Microsoft people are arrogant! >Say, Ajay, if you're so smart.... how come you're not working >at Microsoft? Without making any comment of my own regarding the competence or lack of same of the Microsoft programming staff, I'd say that Ajay's self-image probably requires that he work with people that he feels are competent. What others think of those same people may well be unimportant to him. > >Also, Ajay, who is the single biggest provider of Unix software? >A silly little toy-software company called "Microsoft". Surprise! And all this time I had thought it was the Computer Systems Research Group (and its friendly helpers) of the University of California at Berkeley, or possibly (though less likely) even the crowd at AT&T. :-) I would certainly never have guessed that it was Microsoft... > >I've encountered hostility from "the real world" since day one, when >I started the Microsoft OS group. Our first product, even though we're >such pathetic excuses for programmers, was an operating system. It was >called "UNIX". I don't pay much attention to UNIX these days, but I Hmmm...I guess I missed that one. I only knew about the one called XENIX that was loaded with gratuitous incompatibilities (e.g. lx instead of ls) and has grown into one of the doggiest and most expensive versions around. However, your implication that UNIX was written by Microsoft, rather than merely ported/adapted by Microsoft, would certainly interest AT&T if it were explicitly stated and carried any weight. >seem to recall a few years ago that "the best minds" at AT&T bought some >UNIX technology from an outside vendor - a company by the name of "Microsoft". I didn't think that Ritchie et al. were involved or even interested in such activities. Well, we learn something new every day. :-] > > [some ruffled feathers deleted --SJB] > >And by the way, if UNIX is the result of the smartest OS minds in the >field, how come it bites the big one? It has no standard GUI, and I don't know of any operating system that has a standard GUI. GUI's are new enough that most have happened more recently than any of the major operating systems. >it's disk performance is at least 5 times worse then[sic] even pathetic old >DOS... And HPFS runs rings around the BSD improved file system. If you're refering to the original DOS (as in DOS/360 or DOS/370), then the comparison is hardly meaningful. If, as is more probable, you're refering to {PC,MS}-DOS, which is a monitor system and *not* an operating system, then the comparison needs to point out that the "DOS" file system maintains relatively little information about its contents, has a vulnerable FAT without backups, has no security features, doesn't understand disk addresses beyond 32MB, allows a file to have only one name, etc. One can make this kind of performance comparison in many other situations (e.g. echo(1) is faster than awk(1)) as well, but the usefulness of doing so is questionable at best. > > Gordon Letwin > Microsoft > > [adulation of Fearless Leader deleted --SJB] My comments above should not be construed as any particular sort of support for Ajay Shah. I have no idea who he is. However, they *are* intended to highlight some of the things I noticed in Gordon Letwin's posting that give the public (in this case, us) insight into the calibre of people that Mr. Gates employs. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG Systems Programming Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 60115 ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett@cs.niu.edu * * BITNET: A01SJB1@NIU * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "WAR is the HEALTH of the STATE" --Albert Jay Nock (I think:-) * **********************************************************************
lacsap@plethora.media.mit.edu (Pascal Chesnais) (02/13/91)
Yo dudes this thread is getting out of hand, please move it to email. mudslinging is not a nice thing to watch. pasc
cbenda@unccvax.uncc.edu (carl m benda) (02/13/91)
Please Gordon, I don't even know why you even bother reading this news group's postings. But if you must reply to a note, do so off line unless it has something to do with the NeXT machine or its OS. This brings me to this posting. PLEASE folks, do NOT let Gordon Letwin fool anyone into believing that MS LOSS uh dos, is anything BUT a control program which gets out of the way the minute an application is run. Hint, if you can't log into it.. its NOT an operating system. Ask Gordon why the most stable version of DOS 3.3 only can access 32Megabytes of disk at a time? Myself, I write OS/2 programs at IBM for a living, and Microsoft couldn't pay me enough to go work for them. Our systems run UNIX from the 390 ES/9000 systems all the way down to my home computer running AIX on a 10 Megabyte 386 system with 8514 display. The default standard GUI lowest common denominator is X. Even the NeXT machine can run it. I will say, though that even X can learn from some of what IBM and Microsoft have put into OS/2. The NeXT operating system, and OSF desparately need to have Dynamic Link Libraries with reentrant code. When an X example that puts "hello World" into a window takes up 273K of disk space, something is wrong. With OS/2 alot of the PM code is in Dynamic Link Libraries which can be used by all of the currently running applications. The code is reentrant. I am told that OSF plans to add this to one of their upcomming releases. Sorry for the mildly incoherent posting... Can we PLEASE move onto real NeXT issues? (he says after throwing in his 2 bits :) The point being that Bill Gates need not be mentioned in this news group unless something happens like a cube falls on his foot preventing him from driving his 959 or whatever his Porsche of the Day is... /Carl
barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) (02/13/91)
bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes: >gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) writes: >>jayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: Enough flaming, ok? I don't really care if UNIX is better than OS/2, if AT&T licenses UNIX from Microsoft, or if Bill Gates is the illegitimate offspring of Kernighan and Ritchie. I've opted for NeXT for the forseeable future. There is only one question about Microsoft that has any real import to this news group: What NeXTStep apps are they working on? Answer that and/or forever hold your piece. -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (02/14/91)
In article <1075@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU>, barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: > bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes: >>gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) writes: >>>jayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: [...material deleted...] > There is only one question about Microsoft that has any real import > to this news group: > > What NeXTStep apps are they working on? > Hmmm. Now THERE'S an interesting thought. Maybe Microsoft could sort of incorporate NeXTstep into Windows the same way they promise they will incorporate PostScript into Truetype (or is it TrueType? True Type?). Last I looked, it was impossible to find a reasonably-priced but powerful (relative to NeXTstep) Windows development environment. Maybe incorporating NeXTstep wouldn't be a bad idea for them. And maybe pigs can fly. c.f.waltrip Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu> Opinions expressed are my own.
dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) (02/14/91)
Gee, I thought all the flames towards MicroSoft were to insure that Gordon et al at MicroSoft would keep to NOT developing anything on the NeXT product line. ;) ;) ;) Although Insignia (SoftPC) has muddied the waters a bit. David Williams "Buy a NeXT machine, its MicroSoft free!"
edwardm@hpcuhd.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan) (02/14/91)
Charles Hawkins Mingo writes: > According to the Wall Street Journal, MS owns an operation called > (I believe) The San Jose Project (I'm sorry I can't remember the city) which > just happens to be the largest single producer of Unix packages. > San Jose makes Unix for 386/486 types of machines. Not NeXT's > or Suns (which I presume you are using now). I'm sure WSJ was referring to Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) which I believe is partially (10%) owned by MicroSoft. Together, MS and SCO support Xenix and SCO Unix (as well as other popular products). Between these two unix-es (some object to Xenix being called a unix), they certainly supply an enourmous percentage (>80%) of the installed unix operating systems. I don't know the breakdown between the two, however. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Edward McClanahan Hewlett Packard Company -or- edwardm@cup.hp.com Mail Stop 42UN 11000 Wolfe Road Phone: (480)447-5651 Cupertino, CA 95014 Fax: (408)447-5039
glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) (02/15/91)
Of course, Gordon forgets that at the OS/2 "Masterbuilders" rollout (seems so long ago, 4 years and still no takers) he gave a lunch talk in which he said "Um, this stuff is actually not all that revolutionary. Unix has had it for years". He couldn't see Jon Shirley rolling his eyes behind him at the podium. But Gordon, with all due respect, if MS wanted to give Unix a standard GUI, it could do so. And if your new OS is POSIX-compliant as the noise from Redmond is starting to get out, you're basically building YAU so why not fess up to it? What was so fabulous about an operating system based on the architecture of the 286 that didn't even have a new file system? Were the licensing fees really that bad? If Windows32 ends up running on OS/3 or whatever you call it and OS/3 is POSIX compliant, I'd say you solved the problem. The divergent GUI nonsense in the Unix world has nothing to do with Unix per se. BTW, I think MS developers are incredibly talented, and just want it clear that the person who said that is just talking nonsense. -g -- Gary T. Lang (415)332-2344 x2702 Autodesk, Inc. Sausalito, CA. MCI: 370-0730
glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) (02/15/91)
Mr. Ogawa asks:
> Can I buy MS Word for Unix?
and then infers that Unix came from Bell Labs and so what could MS
have to do with it?
MS developed Xenix several years ago. SCO took hold of it and sold and
extended it. SCO is 20% owned by MS. SCO ships more Unix licenses
than anybody. Xenix became an official Unix a few years ago.
MSWord 5.0 is available for this Unix, and Multiplan has been available
for years as well.
If MS does do a new OS, I hope it's a superset of what Unix has these
days; the stuff Edward talked about sounds a little more interesting
than anything I've heard out of Redmond. to date. On the other hand, although
an "independent survey" showed that developers "prefer" OS/2, I would
have to see what exact choices were laid out in front of them.
They really preferred LAN Manager to NFS? They really preferred
the DOS file system to the Unix one? They really preferred managing
segments and sub-segments of memory to flat address spaces and simple
pointers? I have never met these people before.
Say what you will, but if developers really "preferred" OS/2 as you said
the survey showed, then where did all the applications for OS/2 and PM
in particular wind up? There are more shipping shrink-wrapped NeXTStep apps
than there ever were PM applications. I'm missing something here.
Boy you must have gotten a hell of a salary when you were lured away
from your cube to work at MS, (smiles, grins, and so on) Edward!
My real beef with MS has nothing to do with technology. It's more
stuff like Steve Baumer speaking at a Windows Dev. Conference in late
'86 and telling us that we Windows developers were "developing OS/2
apps today" and that when OS/2 finally shipped, we'd just recompile
our programs. Yes, he actually said this 6 months before OS/2 shipped.
It's not likely that GDDM was slipped into the API for PM in 6 months.
Also, I asked him myself if by developing Windows/PM applications
if my company wasn't opening itself up for a look and feel lawsuit.
His answer? "Microsoft is the largest developer of Macintosh applications
in the market. Apple is not about to sue us or any of our developers".
This was at the OS/2 Masterbuilders conference in early 1987. A year
later, whammo.
Then the support for OS/2 in its initial incarnation wavered as
momentum for Windows grew, and folks like SPC and Lotus are left standing
around going "what happenned" while MS merrily sells Excel, Word,
PowerPoint and so on to the burgeoning Windows market that they pushed
in preference to the one that everyone else tried to get going in, at
their direction( and they are the OS company so Lotus and SPC weren't dumb.
This is why Apple and NeXT will always have a market. They are
predictable and directionally reliable. Apple will do the next Macintosh
OS and NeXT will continue to improve their product, which in terms of
programmability for neat programs is years ahead of the rumors that
are being dropped here from MS.
Hopefully, so will MS. Unless they wait too long to release the neat
stuff they're discussing here. Good luck to Gordon and the gang up there.
luck to everybody there.
I shudder to think about all of the small frys who got screwed in this
situation).
--
Gary T. Lang (415)332-2344 x2702
Autodesk, Inc.
Sausalito, CA.
MCI: 370-0730glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) (02/15/91)
Scott Hess says:
>Xenix is not Unix.
Yes it most certainly is.
--
Gary T. Lang (415)332-2344 x2702
Autodesk, Inc.
Sausalito, CA.
MCI: 370-0730slfields@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Scott L Fields) (02/16/91)
In article <2775@autodesk.COM> glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) writes: > >Scott Hess says: > >>Xenix is not Unix. > >Yes it most certainly is. Err, well, a few people could debate this by defining "What is UNIX" Eventually you have to say is BSD, XENIX, SYS V , or any other variant truly UNIX? It has to fall to standards, and so far the only standard I see people compare everything to is AT+T. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Fields slfields@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu University of Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (02/17/91)
In article <2773@autodesk.COM> glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) writes: >And if your new OS is POSIX-compliant as the noise >from Redmond is starting to get out, you're basically building YAU so >why not fess up to it? Just because an OS is posix-compliant doesn't make it YAU. The goal of posix (and ansi, mind you) was to be able to have a set of routines, and a language, such that people could write portable programs for that set. In ANSI's case, a portable program can't do a whole lot that most people would find interesting; currently, even a POSIX-portable program can't be too much fun, as there is not fun user interface (not even curses, let alone a GUI). A posix-compliant system is entitled to have all of the extensions and nicities it wants, provided portable posix-compliant programs still compile and run properly (using the 'c89' command). -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.