ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (09/22/90)
cabbagehead@saturn.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Lloyd) writes: > Hey, anyone out there ever used NOS/VE? Ive been using and programming > on it for the last year and a half and have found it totally awesome. You mean *awesomely slow* surely ? > Any comments? Yeah, try comp.sys.cdc. NOS was *much* nicer. But that's a topic for alt.religion.computers, and I'm leaving that for now :-) -- my .signature is on holiday
steve@bat.lle.rochester.edu (Steve Swales) (09/23/90)
In article <1990Sep22.041629.4634@robobar.co.uk> ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: >cabbagehead@saturn.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Lloyd) writes: > >> Hey, anyone out there ever used NOS/VE? Ive been using and programming >> on it for the last year and a half and have found it totally awesome. > >You mean *awesomely slow* surely ? > >> Any comments? I'm afraid I have to agree with that reply. In fact, if there were a smiley face anywhere in the original post, I'd assume the person was making a joke. I've worked with a number of OS's over the years, and NOS/VE is, I'm afraid, near (if not at) the bottom of my list for good features. I'm pretty new to NOS/VE, and haven't beaten my brains out trying to fix any of this, but here is my list of BAD (and GOOD) points. BAD THINGS: 1) It is (as pointed out) 'awesomely' slow when used interactively. 2) The file naming scheme prevents using dots (e.g. for extensions) so virtually NOTHING is portable to/from other systems. 3) No wildcards... the local CYBERMEN tell me this is not strictly true, but I haven't seen evidence to substantiate their claim. I was able to toggle together reasonable copies of basic file maintenance commands quite quickly using Cybil (not sure about the spelling of that) and later using C, but these things should be build in. 4) All I/O seems to be geared exclusively for half duplex terminals or something. Specifically, nothing is accepted without a carriage return at the end. This makes writing things like 'more' impossible, and makes what would be a quite reasonable editor utterly bizarre from anything but a CDC terminal. 5) No 'SHOW USERS' or 'finger/who/w' type command that regular people have permission to run. I think this is build in, anyway. There is a command, but regular users cant run it. Maybe this is tunable, our CYBERMEN are rather conservative (they think MAIL is an unnecessary luxury!) That's enough for me... it's already worse than MS-DOS or RT11.... UGH! GOOD THINGS: 1) It DOES have a fairly straightforward hierarchical directory structure... better than VMS anyway...and (i'll really go out on a limb here...) as good as MS-DOS :-(. 2) It DOES have a really full command language... quite Algol-ish. But even this is a mixed blessing. Since you have to 'compile' it to do anything very interesting, you might as well have a 'dumber' command language, and use [insert favorite high- level language... C, in my case] for the more complex stuff, rather than inventing a whole new 'high-level' compiled language. 3) I rather like the editor, now that i've figured out how to make the thing work... those carriage returns I mentioned above had me really confused for a while. Still, I like EMACS better.... and that runs everywhere but on the Cyber. Now, I didn't use the Cyber until we switched to NOS/VE (from NOS), so I dont know which is better, or whether any or all of these bad/good points were there as well.... but, such as it is, this is my opinion of NOS/VE. -steve -- -------------------------------------------------------+"Come, Watson, come!" Steve Swales (716) 275-0265,-3857,-5101| he cried. "The game is steve@bat.lle.rochester.edu (128.151.32.111)| afoot. Not a word! {decvax,harvard,ames,rutgers}!rochester!ur-laser!steve| Into your clothes and University of Rochester 250 East River Road| come!" S.H. Laboratory for Laser Energetics Rochester, NY 14623| 'The Abbey Grange'
cabbagehead@saturn.ucc.umass.edu (09/24/90)
In article <9595@ur-cc.UUCP>, steve@bat.lle.rochester.edu (Steve Swales) writes: > In article <1990Sep22.041629.4634@robobar.co.uk> ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: > >cabbagehead@saturn.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Lloyd) writes: > > > >> Hey, anyone out there ever used NOS/VE? Ive been using and programming > >> on it for the last year and a half and have found it totally awesome. > > > >You mean *awesomely slow* surely ? > > > >> Any comments? > > BAD THINGS: > 1) It is (as pointed out) 'awesomely' slow when used interactively. I dunno, I use it on a Cyber 870 and can't complain a bit, and thats with 50 other people on.. The 830 gets pretty slow I have to admit, I've heard older versions of the OS were notoriously slow, but 1.5.1 is plenty quick. > 2) The file naming scheme prevents using dots (e.g. for extensions) > so virtually NOTHING is portable to/from other systems. ... Yea, well, all the worlds not a Unix system, but there is VX, a full Unix System V.3 subsystem that me and others have ported games (omega, hack etc..) to and can run them under NOS/VE with a little hacking. If you like porting stuff. > 3) No wildcards... the local CYBERMEN tell me this is not strictly .. The newer versions of SCL have wildcard support which I find very adequate. You just have to know how to use them. > 4) All I/O seems to be geared exclusively for half duplex terminals > or something. Specifically, nothing is accepted without ... Well, thats due to the fact all terminal IO is done by Device Interfaces (DI's) which offload the main cpu. Single character IO is Entirely possible, Ive written several programs that use it, you just have to know how. > 5) No 'SHOW USERS' or 'finger/who/w' type command that regular .. It's pretty easy to write such things, and have those who want to use it use it. I am constantly being pestered by bozo's on our Vax system because they see me on, I wish I could take myself out of the show users A LOT of the time. I have peace and quiet on the Cyber. > GOOD THINGS: > 1) It DOES have a fairly straightforward hierarchical directory > structure... > 2) It DOES have a really full command language... quite Algol-ish. > But even this is a mixed blessing. Since you have to 'compile' > it to do anything very interesting, you might as well have > a 'dumber' command language, and use [insert favorite high- > level language... C, in my case] for the more complex > stuff, rather than inventing a whole new 'high-level' > compiled language. Compile??? what the hell are you talking about..obviously you dont know what your talking about, there are several ways to run procs, attach them, put the catalog your using in you command list (Path), put them in object libraries (they get tokenized so they run faster), exetcute them as a task...all pretty easy. > 3) I rather like the editor, now that i've figured out how to make > the thing work... those carriage returns I mentioned above > had me really confused for a while. Still, I like EMACS > better.... and that runs everywhere but on the Cyber. The editor is really nice, I don't like emacs better. Utilities under NOS/VE are extremely nice. The common command language (SCL) is extremely integrated with utilities and the OS in general, the consistency in everything is *extremely*. Ive found that with new users the learning curve goes straight up then levels flat. Once you know how to get around it's a dream to use. > Steve Swales (716) 275-0265,-3857,-5101| he cried. "The game is If learn NOS/VE with an open mind you'll be a lot better off. Chris Lloyd - cabbagehead@saturn.ucc.umass.edu