tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) (07/16/90)
In article <783@digi.lonestar.org>, cfoughty@digi.lonestar.org (Cy Foughty) writes: > > Please don't flame me to hard. OS/2 1.2 provides a much > better solution. Costs less, easier to ADMIN, and needs a > lot less iron. All UNIX needs more of than OS/2 is memory, and that race is mighty close. If you're the average OS/2 user, you'll have a couple of native apps running alongside one or more DOS tasks. That eats memory fast, and threads won't help much. I know of very few OS/2 users who get by on less than 4MB of memory. I can get the UNIX kernel, core utilities, X Window, Motif and TCP/IP on a system with 4MB of memory and a 40MB hard disk. Up the memory to 8MB, and you've got a very respectable workstation. What frosts me is that no UNIX vendor has come up with a runtime configuration that includes only these parts. Open Desktop comes close, very close, but it costs too much and is too feature-laden for the consumers I have in mind. We need a $299 UNIX OS/networking/GUI bundle. I've been preaching this for years now, but nobody's listening. > A much richer programming environment and soooo > much easier to connect to a network. Connecting most UNIX systems to a network involves creating a list of hosts and throwing a menu-option switch. What OS/2 connects easily to is networks of DOS and OS/2 systems. I have to rely on third-party products to connect to machines networked by TCP/IP. SCO's Open Desktop UNIX connects to NETBIOS and Lan Manager servers. > I know this is a Unix > based network, but if one evaluates OBJECTIVELY, OS/2 vs. Unix > OS/2 wins in most of the categories, not all, but most. The most important > ones. There are lots of other types of systems on the Usenet. Everything from Amigas to DOS to CP/M is represented here. We aren't necessarily bigots, but your claim that "OS/2 wins in most of the categories" has to be backed up by facts. If you've done your homework, show us. I'd be pleased to hear from someone who has studied the facts, made extensive use of both systems and placed OS/2 in front. > I am an old Unix man from the v.7 days and most > of my projects have been in Unix. But have you driven it lately? If you've been using UNIX since V7, maybe you got bored with it, fell into a rut. You might try looking at some of the more recent implementations. Play with X Window and Motif or Open Look. Read up on the coming System V.4 and OSF/1. There's lots of new stuff out there to get you interested again if you look. Programming in Motif got me excited about UNIX again. > I now have been working on a major OS/2 project for almost > a year; Unix has it's place, but not in the general business world. Balderdash. All anyone NEEDS in the "general business world" is a program loader--the continued dominance of DOS proves that. Beyond that, users are coming to WANT what OS/2 and UNIX have to offer. Right now, they're struggling with layers like Desqview and other DOS multitaskers because they want to do several things at once. They're buying up Windows by the score because they like the eye-pleasing effects of color and graphics. OS/2 gives them what they need, and what they want. What you seem to be overlooking is that UNIX has nearly all of the qualities of OS/2. The only significant difference that comes to my mind is threads, and UNIX will have those in V.4 (before the end of the year). OSF/1 will have them, too. > Unix is simply not designed for the everyday business user. Do not > just compare programs when looking at OS/2 vs. Unix. For that fact it > shouldn't be "OS/2 vs. Unix". OS/2 is meant for general business and > Unix for scientific and acadamic. I think you're doing both operating systems a disservice by pigeonholing them like that. There's nothing, absolutely nothing about UNIX that makes it better suited for academic and scientific use. It has its roots in these communities because years ago, it was one of a handful of OSes that met those needs. By the same token, nothing about OS/2 makes it unsuitable for scientific or educational use. You're right when you say that "UNIX is not designed for the everyday business user." Current implementations are designed to be what UNIX should be: A solid, general-purpose OS. What's the big deal? A business user loads programs with it. A developer writes code. A scientist crunches numbers. Is there something about UNIX that makes any of these tasks more or less difficult? I think it balances out in the end. > The only reason that Unix ever > started becoming popular in general business is that it offered low > cost multi-tasking and networking. It did not offer user friendly-ness. You've got that right, but, again, you need to look at how far UNIX has come. Practically every leading UNIX vendor offers a graphical environment with a point-and-click shell. Motif is designed after OS/2's Presentation Manager-- you can't claim that's too hard for general users to handle. The reason UNIX is enjoying its current surge in popularity is that it gives the public what it wants. Low cost has naught to do with it--it costs me much more to build a proper UNIX system than it does to get OS/2 running. That I'll grant you. UNIX's rise to commercial success was partly due to OS/2's unfulfilled promise. Now that OS/2 is finally where Microsoft and IBM said it would be, UNIX is still going strong. People aren't stupid. They go with what works. UNIX is working as a platform for business software. > OS/2 was designed with the general business user in mind. Let Unix > have it's market and let OS/2 take it's place in the general business > world. This controversy only comes up when emotions are involved; look > from a logical standpoint and everyone will have a working system. What you're saying is, "you stay out of my yard, and I'll stay out of yours." Never! If I think OS/2 is better suited for something I've a mind to do, I'll use it, and to hell with Microsoft's marketing hype about its business roots. Same with UNIX. If I want to run my cash registers or my shoe store inventory, and desire the flexibility to distribute either $3000 X Terminals/DOS workstations or $300 serial terminals, I'll use UNIX. I don't have to wear a lab coat or a propeller beanie to recognize that a multiuser, multitasking system can be a win for business users. Being logical means considering all sides of an issue. I think you have one point, and that is that all UNIX users should sit down and work with OS/2. It isn't the evil enemy at all. In fact, it's quite nice. But so are Windows 3.0, QNX, THEOS, and lots of other OSes out there. The field is hardly limited to two or three. When it comes time to make a decision about platforms, the old rule still applies: Pick your application, then your OS, then your hardware. Now, here's your chance to jump on my head for "commercial use of the net." Starting soon, BYTE will be running a series of feature articles on alternative operating systems. We'll be looking at some of the ones I mentioned above, and others you've never heard of. Each one brings something different to the party. Each has its own special talents. Now that users are more demanding, and better educated, it might be time to step back and shed some of the silly notions under which we've been operating. If giving the users what they want is the key (I know it used to be), then perhaps there's something out there that provides a better platform than what you're currently using. I'm sharing this feature series with my learned UNIX colleague, Ben Smith, and we've both been surprised how capable and useful many of these other operating systems are. I wasn't going to plug this series, but Mr. Foughty's posting brought to light the bitter divisions that have been plaguing the ranks of developers and integrators. Users are the ones who are losing, because they are at our mercy to point them in the right direction. If that direction is based on "OS racism," then no one's interests are being served. > > Cy Foughty > Bell:214.519.4237 -- +--Tom Yager, Technical Editor, BYTE----Reviewer, UNIX World---------------+ | NET: decvax!maxx!tyager -or- uunet!bytepb!maxx!tyager | | I speak only for myself "UNIX: It's not a job, | +-------------------------------------it's a Jihad!" -co-worker------------+