anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) (09/06/90)
I recently unwillingly got invloved in a Mac vs IBM argument, and I left with an interesting question in mind... The person I was discussing this with said "the world is going UNIX" and the IBM was more UNIX like. Now, I feel the world is going toward a graphically-based approach to computing (Mac, Sun, NeXT, Windows 3.0 and OS/2), so I didn't think much of the argument. But, I began to wonder how UNIX would fit into such a world.... It would seem UNIX would be in direct opposition to a "GUI" (Graphical User Interface) world since it is completely character-based and also very cryptic. However, we do see UNIX appearing on many mainframes, workstations, and even as A/UX on the Mac, which doesn't seem to be very popular (price being one reason). UNIX also I think is considered the (or one of the) most "powerful" operating systems in existance. So, if the world is indeed going GUI, will UNIX fade away, or will there try to be some kind of combination of the two? Also, why have we seen very little GUI in the mainframe world? It seems vector-based graphics and/or smarter terminals could make that possible. Or is GUI simply a personal computer thing? I would be interested in hearing what people have to say about this. I'm sorry if this group would seem inappropriate to some, but I am interested in people who use the Mac and who use or have used UNIX, since they would see the fruits of both. Thanx! __________________________________________________________________ Jason W. Anthony anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu //// /| Computer Engineering / / | Clarkson University, Potsdam N.Y. / / /--| ____________________________________________________ ///. / |.
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (09/06/90)
anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: >I began to wonder how UNIX would fit into [a mainly-GUI] >world.... >It would seem UNIX would be in direct opposition to a "GUI" (Graphical >User Interface) world since it is completely character-based and also >very cryptic. However, we do see UNIX appearing on many mainframes, >workstations, and even as A/UX on the Mac, which doesn't seem to be >very popular (price being one reason). UNIX also I think is considered >the (or one of the) most "powerful" operating systems in existance. >So, if the world is indeed going GUI, will UNIX fade away, or will >there try to be some kind of combination of the two? UNIX is not in direct opposition to a GUI. Xwindows and its various toolbox sets (such as Motif and Open Look) is rapidly gaining popularity, and the only thing that stands in the way the acceptance of machines running it in the mainstream personal-computing world is their lack of general-purpose ("productivity") applications (also, it would help if the prices dropped some more, because although Sun, Apollo and HP machines offer a much better price/performance ratio than the Mac, your average business user doesn't need 12 MIPS and doesn't want to pay for it). I believe both these problems will gradually disappear in the coming years. Then everything will depend on HP's and Sun's marketing (that might be quite a snag). Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
dhiman@motcid.UUCP (Ravinder Dhiman) (09/06/90)
anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: [...deleted..] >It would seem UNIX would be in direct opposition to a "GUI" (Graphical >User Interface) world since it is completely character-based and also >very cryptic. However, we do see UNIX appearing on many mainframes, >workstations, and even as A/UX on the Mac, which doesn't seem to be >very popular (price being one reason). UNIX also I think is considered >the (or one of the) most "powerful" operating systems in existance. Unix is not inherently "in opposition" to GUIs. Unix has until "recently" been character-based because it was developed at a time when GUIs did not exist (at least not comercially). Also, whether software (aplication program, OS, etc.) is cryptic has little bearing on its suitability to a GUI (Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a little :)). Unix is in an excellent position (or soon will be) to become the dominant OS for micros, be they Macs, Intel uP types, etc. PCs are at or near workstation level performance and there are numerous GUI based Unix packages available (A/UX, SCO Desktop, etc.) and numerous standards being proposed for Unix GUIs (OSF/Motif, Looking Glass, etc.). The question now is which Unix GUI standard will be dominant. >So, if the world is indeed going GUI, will UNIX fade away, or will >there try to be some kind of combination of the two? Also, why >have we seen very little GUI in the mainframe world? It seems >vector-based graphics and/or smarter terminals could make that >possible. Or is GUI simply a personal computer thing? Unix will NOT fade away. I don't have the requisite background on the rest of this so maybe someone else can reply to your questions. [...deleted...] BTW, I'm writing this on a Sun workstation which uses Sun's Sunview GUI. Sun did a nice job on this (IMHO). >__________________________________________________________________ >Jason W. Anthony anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu //// /| >Computer Engineering / / | >Clarkson University, Potsdam N.Y. / / /--| >____________________________________________________ ///. / |. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ravi Dhiman Motorola, Inc. Cellular Infrastructure Div. M/S IL27-N276 Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Disclaimer: My opinions, not my employer's.
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) (09/06/90)
In article <1990Sep5.202652.700@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: > >I recently unwillingly got invloved in a Mac vs IBM argument, and I left > with an interesting question in mind... The person I was discussing this with said "the world is going UNIX" and the IBM was more UNIX like. Now, > I feel the world is going toward a graphically-based approach to computing >[...] >But, I began to wonder how UNIX would fit into such a world.... From my (admittedly personal and therefore limited) viewpoint, you are both completely correct. The world is indeed going UNIX. I see DOS as more UNIX-like, but that's because I'm a Mac enthusiast; people who know both systems see more differences than similarities between DOS and UNIX. (I know UNIX but only a little DOS.) UNIX is a big, powerful operating system, with everything you could want, except user-friendliness. Apple's A/UX is supposed to provide a user-friendly front-end to UNIX, but only on hardware well out of my price range. I think NeXT does the same, for a UNIX variant whose name escapes me at the moment. The world is also going to graphical interfaces. It's just a matter of putting one onto UNIX. There are several available, but the one called X is clearly winning out. And it will continue to win out, whether it deserves to or not, for one big reason--it's public domain, and therefore free. >It would seem UNIX would be in direct opposition to a "GUI" (Graphical >User Interface) world since it is completely character-based and also >very cryptic. At the bottom, it's all bit-based anyway. And as for cryptic, let me assure you that X is entirely compatible with UNIX in this respect. (Not that the Macintosh Toolbox is a model of clarity....) X, like UNIX, subscribes to the belief that flexibility is more important than simplicity. It's intended to run on any UNIX machine, anywhere. This makes it highly desirable to people who want to run their programs on a variety of platforms (i.e. almost everyone), but the cost, in terms of both complexity and efficiency, is very high. As part of this flexibility, X itself doesn't provide "widgets" such as menus, buttons, graphics, etc.--it's just a windowing system. Widgets are an add-on. The Athena widget set seems to be the most popular, as far as I can see. I've also used HP widgets. The next level is the GUI. The one I use every day on my Sun is called TAE+; it's main advantage is that it was developed for the government (specifically, NASA), so it is free for any government-related work. The GUI that seems to be winning the race in the IBM/DOS world is Motif. (Motif uses Athena widgets.) Motif is also being ported to the UNIX world, but I don't know how that's coming along--it hasn't appeared on my Sun yet. So here's the way it is: you start with C; on top of that you build UNIX; on top of that you build X; on top of that you build a widget set; on top of that you build a GUI. I'm sure I'll be flamed for saying this, but in my opinion the IBM world has more speed freaks in it than the Mac world, and this is why. They need all the speed and all the memory they can get in order to make their GUIs usable. BTW, things like QuickDraw don't come into this. If you want to draw pictures, that's another thing entirely. >[...] >So, if the world is indeed going GUI, will UNIX fade away, or will >there try to be some kind of combination of the two? What I've described is definitely a combination of the two. It's real, it's here, and it's taking over. Whether we like it or not, I am convinced that this is the future. Personally, I don't like it. The Mac is, IMHO, obviously superior technology. Unfortunately for me and the computing world, Apple has behaved to maximize their own profits, rather than to be noble and make the technology available to everyone. I don't blame them. I would have, too. The whole point of a company is to make money. Patent laws and copyright laws were designed to encourage innovation and technology, not to restrict it, but those laws are ancient and in serious need of overhauling, if they are to serve that function in the modern world. But that's the subject of an entirely different flame.... > Also, why >have we seen very little GUI in the mainframe world? >[...] >Or is GUI simply a personal computer thing? Um...what? I'm not sure what you mean here. To me the mainframe is that big thing that sits in another room, and does heavy computation if I need it. The graphics are done on my workstation. Specifically, I'm on a Sun, networked to two VAXen, a whole buncha other Suns, and a couple of other stray things. I used to do batch processing on mainframes, and a GUI would certainly be out of place there. And if the mainframe is interactive, why would I want it doing my graphics? Either I'm connected via a terminal that's too dumb to do graphics anyway, or I'm on a workstation that's smart enough to do its own graphics, and can use the bandwidth to the mainframe for other things. Anyway, if I want to use a mainframe to do graphics at a workstation, X will certainly support it. Or do you just mean, why haven't mainframe *manufacturers* gotten more into GUIs? I have no inside information about that. >[...] I am >interested in people who use the Mac and who use or have used UNIX, >since they would see the fruits of both. You found one; any more out there? I use a Mac at home and a UNIX machine at work, and have for five years now. The last year or so I've had X on my UNIX machine. I love the Mac and can live with UNIX. (C + UNIX + X + Athena + Motif) is a few years behind the Mac, but it progresses, and some such chimera will eventually pass the Mac, since Apple has made a closed marketplace for itself, isolated from the rest of the world. ----- Most of what's above is my opinion of where things are now, and will be in the future. I'd love to hear opinions and predictions from other people with experience in both worlds. Some of what's above is whether I like it or not. I have my likes and dislikes, you have yours; if you gotta flame, mail it to me personally and let's keep it off the net. -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) -- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA 19301 -- Any resemblance between my opinions and those of my employer is improbable. < You can put a mouse on an IBM. And you can put a radio on a motorcycle. >
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (09/06/90)
In article <1990Sep5.224940.19185@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >Then everything will depend on HP's and Sun's marketing (that might be quite >a snag). I personally find both Sun and HP workstations quite distasteful. Prejuidice aside, I think it's a mistake to not to mention NeXT, IBM, and DEC. DEC makes better machines with better UNIX than Sun or Appollo. IBM is, of course, IBM, and as UNIX moves into the mainstream more and more knee-jerk IBM'ers will buy IBM stuff. NeXT hasn't made big inroads yet; but Jobs has done it twice before, and it wouldn't surprise me if he did it again. It is also relevant to mention that the GUI vs. UNIX thing cuts both ways; not only is UNIX getting a GUI, but GUI-heavy machines are finding they need operating systems. Witness OS/2, Macintosh System 7, and the new Windows. It is at least as valid to ask whether these operating systems will be any good as it is to ask if the GUI's on top of UNIX are any good. My own feeling is that it is much easier to put a good GUI on UNIX than it is to slip a REASONABLE operating system under an existing application base (the game currently being played in the IBM PC and Mac worlds). -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
lantz@Apple.COM (Bob Lantz) (09/07/90)
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: >Apple's A/UX is supposed to provide a user-friendly front-end to UNIX, >but only on hardware well out of my price range. A/UX will run on a 4 meg SE/30 with an 80 meg hard drive; or a Mac II (w/pmmu), IIx, cx or ci; but not a Plus, SE or Portable - sorry, no mmu on those machines! >The world is also going to graphical interfaces. It's just a matter >of putting one onto UNIX. There are several available, but the one >called X is clearly winning out. As you mentioned later on in your posting, X isn't a user interface, but a windowing platform on which a variety of user interfaces (e.g. Motif, Open Look, DecWindows) can be implemented. >-- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) >-- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA 19301 Bob
wwb@sps.com (Bud Bach) (09/07/90)
So, if the world is indeed going GUI, will UNIX fade away, or will there try to be some kind of combination of the two? Take a look at A/UX if you want to see Unix with a GUI. Also look at a workstation running an X Window System server. -- Bud -- Bud Bach Voice: 407 984-3370 Software Productivity Solutions, Inc. FAX: 407 728-3957 122 4th Avenue email: wwb@sps.com Indialantic, FL 32903 or: ...!uunet!sps!wwb
johnston@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Jon Johnston) (09/07/90)
Have you guys seen any of the Unix GUI's available??? Open Look is quite
a beautiful thing, and Sun seems to be taking over the engineering world.
I think Unix will be with us quite a lot longer. It's a piece of
antiquated crap as far as design is concerned, but it's going to be here fore
a while.
The direction we'll have to move with Unix and other operating systems is
into a message-passing scheme similar to what Mach has tried to implement and
QNX already does.
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!johnston
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!johnston@nosc.mil
INET: johnston@pnet51.orb.mn.orgshwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (09/07/90)
anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: >It would seem UNIX would be in direct opposition to a "GUI" (Graphical >User Interface) world since it is completely character-based and also >very cryptic. However, we do see UNIX appearing on many mainframes, >workstations, and even as A/UX on the Mac, which doesn't seem to be >very popular (price being one reason). UNIX also I think is considered >the (or one of the) most "powerful" operating systems in existance. I'm afraid I must challenge your basic premise. UNIX has an undeniable character-based heritage, dating back to the teletype days, but has proven extensible in the extremis in any number of areas, including - but not limited to - networking, security, real-time AND user interfacing. For a number of workstation vendors (e.g. Sun, HP/Apollo, NeXT, SGI, DEC) UNIX is the basis of their bread-and-butter offerings, and users on each of these communicate through a GUI. Apple's offering is just more proof that it CAN be done. Time to move beyond cliche and misconception.
dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) (09/08/90)
In article <14894@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM>, dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: >Apple's A/UX is supposed to provide a user-friendly front-end to UNIX, >but only on hardware well out of my price range. I think NeXT does >the same, for a UNIX variant whose name escapes me at the moment. That is Mach, a unix variant from CMU, also to be the core of OSF/1 the first version of a unix operating system out of OSF. >government-related work. The GUI that seems to be winning the race in >the IBM/DOS world is Motif. (Motif uses Athena widgets.) Motif is >also being ported to the UNIX world, but I don't know how that's >coming along--it hasn't appeared on my Sun yet. Nope Motif uses Motif widgets developed for OSF under contract by HP. They are specifically noted for their "3D" appearance and conformance to Presentation Manager style and behaviour. The idea being that you can sit down at a $2k PC running OS/2 (or Windows 3) or a $15k unix workstation and "experience" the same kind of consistent behaviour...in terms of window management and user interface interactions. Also Motif was developed to and does run on UNIX -- it is already on HP, DEC, IBM and SUN. You are confusing Motif look and feel with Presentation Manager (the stuff for OS/2). Also you can get Motif for A/UX from a company called ICS in boston who normally does X consulting and puts on the X Windows trade show called Xhibition. By the way if, OSF(the Open Software Foundation) doesn't sell Motif for Sun, I believe that HP does! In any case we have it running on our Suns here. You might find it amusing to know that the original graphic design for the look of the Motif widgets and HP's workspace manager are all developed on Macintosh II's using PixelPaint and MacroMind Director.
lcuff@spectrum.CMC.COM (Leonard Cuff) (09/08/90)
I have a Mac at home, a Mac at work, and also get paid to write software on Unix systems, on which I use the command line Unix interface. I believe on the whole command-line interfaces will disappear over the next decade. Regrettably, I also believe we will see a lot of mediocre GUI designs implemented in the next decade. As an example, the Sun 3-button mouse interface is far less easy to use than the Mac 1 button interface. What happens with which button is context-sensitive in no reasonable way (based on my using a Sun for a couple of weeks and discussions with a fellow engineer who has used a Sun for development for a couple years). It could be easy (left button = 1 click, middle button = 2 clicks, right button = pop up a context-sensitive menu). But it's not! With the current proliferation of parties involved in GUI design, I have slim hopes that a coherent and consistent design will emerge. However I also believe most non-mac users won't notice the poor design. It is still easier than a command-line interface. Unix as an operating system that provides process control, disk buffering, an I/O subsystem etc. will be around for some time. But it is unlikely that it will be recognizable as the same beast at the user interface level. There are two things Unix provides at the user interface level that will have to be incorporated in a complete windowing/point and click interface for it to completely replace the Unix user interface: (1) A way for applications to pass data to one another. I have hopes that this is part of what Mac system 7.0 is all about. In Unix, almost every application reads standard in, writes standard out, and deals with a stream of ascii characters. The beauty of this interface in terms of getting diverse applications to communicate is truly marvelous. How well this can be moved into the Mac environment which is rife with special file formats and rarely uses ascii data is a hot design question for Apple to face. (2) Programmable extensibility at multiple levels. Let us take two examples: The shell, and nroff. I love the shell. If I want to perform the same task on multiple entities, I can use the shell to loop over all those entities (typically files). In contrast on the Mac, if I want to use unStuffit to decode a whole pile of sounds, I have to do them one at a time. How to provide shell-like programmability in a Mac environment is another hot design question for Apple. In contrast, I hate nroff, but then I never learned to use it very well. WYSIWYG is a much easier thing to learn, but the programmability of nroff is lost. I am unaware of anything in the works within the point and click interface paradigm that would provide the kind of extensibility one really wants after using a system for an extended length of time. Some places it really matters (e.g. the shell) and other places it seems less critical (e.g. document preparation). In summary: The Mac has lots of good features, not the least of which is a very consistent design. The same can be said of Unix. But the Mac addresses a far less sophisticated user, and thus a much larger market segment. The design question ahead is how can a Mac type user interface be integrated with some of the capabilities provided in Unix so sophisticated users won't be aggravated. The current GUI's I've seen beg the question by letting you revert to the standard command-line interface to do something "Unix-like". -- Leonard Cuff if ( my_words == Rockwells_words ) lcuff@cmc.com hell_freezes_over = now; "I feel like a fugitive from th' law of averages" - Bill Mauldin
ostroff@Oswego.EDU (Boyd Ostroff) (09/08/90)
In article <14894@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: >In article <1990Sep5.202652.700@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: >> >>But, I began to wonder how UNIX would fit into such a world.... I realize this may seem obvious to many people, but I feel it should be clarified for the benefit of those who aren't really clear on what UNIX is... When you discuss UNIX vs. Mac you are really talking about each system's *shell* program; the user's interface to the underlying operating system. In the case of UNIX, it is the Bourne shell (/bin/sh) or C-shell (csh) or Korn shell (ksh). These are text-based command interpreters which allow you to run a variety of programs such as ls, mv, rm, etc... to do things like list directories, rename files, delete files, etc. Each of these programs consists of calls to the underlying operating system to provide services. On the mac, the shell program is the Finder. Selecting a menu item or clicking on an icon generates similar calls to the underlying Mac OS. So what we're really discussing here are the merits of the *shell* programs available on either system. Add a graphical shell program to UNIX and it becomes Mac-like. Add a command interpreter to the Mac (such as Manx's Aztec C shell, which behaves just like the Bourne shell) and it will become UNIX-like. >>[...] I am >>interested in people who use the Mac and who use or have used UNIX, >>since they would see the fruits of both. > >You found one; any more out there? Here's another! I'm sure there are *lots* of us too. I have both a Mac IIcx and and an AT&T 3B1 (System V UNIX box) at home, and use Macs and UNIX systems at work too. I like the Mac because of its software and ease of use, but UNIX appeals to the hacker in me.... :-) ||| Boyd Ostroff - Tech Director - Dept of Theatre - SUNY Oswego ||| Sys Admin - "The CallBoard" - (315) 947-6414 - 1200/2400 baud ||| ostroff@oswego.oswego.edu - cboard!ostroff@oswego.oswego.edu
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (09/08/90)
In-Reply-To: message from anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu Sorry if I seem like an outsider jumping in here, but... You must not be keeping up with what's going on in the Unix world these days...GUIs are what are on everyone's minds. Gone are the days of character-based UNIX systems (although there will still be a way to get at a shell or too...FPUO). The two leading contenders for top-dog UNIX GUI are Motif, from OSF...and Open Look from Unix International. Each have their own heavyweights backing them. Then, since you mentioned the NeXT (which is a UNIX-based system), you have the NeXT-Step. While most other UNIX GUIs are based on X-Window, NeXT-Step is based on Adobe's Display PostScript (a slow sucker). If you'd like to learn more about what's happening now, go down to your local newsstand and check out some of the latest trade journals. Sean //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | " Fanatics have their INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | dreams, wherewith they | weave a paradise for RealWorld: Sean Cunningham | a sect. " Voice: (512) 994-1602 PLINK: ce3k* | -Keats | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Chris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Gehlker) (09/08/90)
In a message to All dated 09/05/90 at 23:35:11, Jason W. Anthony
(anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu)
writes:
JWA> I recently unwillingly got invloved in a Mac vs IBM argument, and I left
JWA> with an interesting question in mind... The person I was discussing this
JWA> with said "the world is going UNIX" and the IBM was more UNIX like. Now,
JWA> I feel the world is going toward a graphically-based approach to
computing
JWA> (Mac, Sun, NeXT, Windows 3.0 and OS/2), so I didn't think much of the
JWA> argument. But, I began to wonder how UNIX would fit into such a
JWA> world....
I don't think it would be a BAD THING if the world went to UNIX but I've been
hearing this for a log time now. The world apprently has a mind of its own.
JWA> So, if the world is indeed going GUI, will UNIX fade away, or will
JWA> there try to be some kind of combination of the two? Also, why
JWA> have we seen very little GUI in the mainframe world? It seems
JWA> vector-based graphics and/or smarter terminals could make that
JWA> possible. Or is GUI simply a personal computer thing?
I think almost all of the desktop systems have some kind of GUI on top of UNIX
and X-Windows is, if I understand it correctly, intended to do exactly what
you suggest, ie let the smart terminal handle the graphics to overcome the
lack
of bandwidth between the mainframe/mini and the terminal. This also applies
to all the things that run on top of X-Windows, such as Open Look and Motif.
My 2 cent opinion is that the reason we don't see much progress in this area
is simply the dissonance between the expectations of UNIX users and the
expectations
of customers for programs with GUIs. UNIX is the domain of the one time
program,
the kind the programmer builds himself to perform some experiment or calculate
some answer. It's also the domain of the program that's constantly under
development.
Such programs don't need GUIs and its too much work to program one for them.
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!56.12!Chris.Gehlker
Internet: Chris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.orgewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) (09/09/90)
In article <1990Sep6.161554.28923@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: >I personally find both Sun and HP workstations quite distasteful. Prejuidice >aside, I think it's a mistake to not to mention NeXT, IBM, and DEC. DEC >makes better machines with better UNIX than Sun or Appollo. IBM is, of course, >IBM, and as UNIX moves into the mainstream more and more knee-jerk IBM'ers >will buy IBM stuff. Uh, one point here Steve. I think you will find that IBM really knows next to nothing about UNIX. It was quite surprising to us here when we were looking at their new 6000 series, but they are complete doorknobs on UNIX. We had one of our UNIX guru's go to them, and they were real eager to sell to us, so they brought out their "experts". Ha ha ha ha ha ha! <BZZZZZTTTT> Wrong answer. They have a lot of catching up to do with companies like Sun. Sun has many years of experience integrating their GUI over UNIX. Not to say it is the best system it could be, but there is something to be said for a working and tested system. Eric
bell@pyro.ei.dupont.com (Mike Bell) (09/10/90)
A similar concept was behind the design of our MacBLITZ board. For those
who dont know, it is a single NUBUS board for the MacII that is a self
contained workstation, running UNIX V.3.1 at 14 MIPS. It has on board
ethernet, SCSI, and serial ports, and we have written extensive software
that allows Mac programs to communicate with UNIX processes. We also wrote
drivers to allow the board to speak ethertalk directly(no bridge box) and we put
a CAP-like AFP file server on the board to take advantage of it. The board
also acts as an ethernet card for the Mac.
We thought that it made sense to make a workstation hybrid that allowed
each machine to do what it was good at; The Mac's easy to use GUI acts as a
gateway to the extensive but cryptic processing and comm factlities of UNIX.
As an example, both Ingres and Informix have been ported to the board. So,
the Mac that the card sits in, as well as all of the other Macs on the
network (the card speaks Ethertalk) can perform SQL queries through Hypercard
front ends, or spreadsheets like Wingz. Many people do the same thing today
with the company Vax; the MacBLITZ allows you to put a Vax INSIDE your Mac
(One with a lot more power !).
I would be very interested in hearing from people who use Mac/UNIX
connectivity; I would like feedback on the concept, and I would like to hear
from people who make extensive use of Mac/UNIX; I would like to select a few
VERY QUALIFIED beta sites to help test a major new release of our hardware
and software.
Please send any responses to:
mike_bell@zip.ei.dupont.com
Thanks.
Mike Bell
P.S. For the record, I helped to design the MacBLITZ.
--
********************************************************************************
Mike Bell Internet: mike_bell@zip.ei.dupont.com
Senior Engineer CSNet: BELLMA%ERVX01@dupont.com
DuPont Electronic Imaging Applelink: D2747
Core Technology Group
MacBLITZ..... When you feel the need for speed..........
********************************************************************************
-- boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (09/10/90)
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: >In article <1990Sep5.224940.19185@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >>Then everything will depend on HP's and Sun's marketing (that might be quite >>a snag). >I personally find both Sun and HP workstations quite distasteful. Prejuidice >aside, I think it's a mistake to not to mention NeXT, IBM, and DEC. DEC >makes better machines with better UNIX than Sun or Appollo. IBM is, of course, >IBM, and as UNIX moves into the mainstream more and more knee-jerk IBM'ers >will buy IBM stuff. NeXT hasn't made big inroads yet; but Jobs has done it >twice before, and it wouldn't surprise me if he did it again. I named HP/Apollo and Sun because they are currently dominant in the UNIX+GUI market and will probably still dominate when such systems make a claim for the business/personal computing world. As far as the others go: * DEC: I've nothing against it; it keeps claiming a price/performance advantage over HP and Sun RISC machines, but for some reason its penetration currently seems to be low. As far as I understand, the VAXstations use a proprietary RISC chip that requires recompilation of software running on other UNIX boxes, and right now there are still few GUI-based programs running on the former compared to the latter. * NeXT: I've just come back from MacWorld Expo/Boston, where they had a NeXT running Wingz (and trying to do a 3D graph in all of its two bits per pixel of video). NeXT will be an attractive competitor to both Macs on one end and HP/Apollo/Sun/DEC on the other (in fact, it would be the ideal UNIX Trojan horse to take over personal computing) when there is a serious speed improvement, color, and, most importantly, a really major price cut (the new, faster model should not exceed $4-5,000 WITH a hard drive, although the floptical might have to be dropped). Right now, the only user to whom the existing NeXT would make sense is the one who routinely does object-oriented development for scientific research, etc, and that's just not a big enough market. For DTP, the purpose NeXT has been pursuing, the machine is a joke (it's slow, has 2-bit video and costs the Earth). Just like the first Mac, it's a lacking implementation of a good idea. * IBM: To quote P. W. Botha, it must adapt or die. I trust it will adapt, but whether with very interesting products, I don't know. >It is also relevant to mention that the GUI vs. UNIX thing cuts both ways; >not only is UNIX getting a GUI, but GUI-heavy machines are finding they >need operating systems. Witness OS/2, Macintosh System 7, and the new >Windows. It is at least as valid to ask whether these operating systems >will be any good as it is to ask if the GUI's on top of UNIX are any good. >My own feeling is that it is much easier to put a good GUI on UNIX than it >is to slip a REASONABLE operating system under an existing application base >(the game currently being played in the IBM PC and Mac worlds). Amen. I'm running into the toy aspect of the current version of the Mac OS right now. I hope Apple gets serious about giving the Mac a real operating system, based on UNIX, free, soon (a good first step would be to drop the outrageous $800-1,000 charge for A/UX). A real operating system, though, would really be useful only with higher speed levels (RISC, probably), because if background processes were able to be given more resources on the current Mac models, they would soon make the foreground programs somewhat less than interactive. Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (09/10/90)
Chris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Gehlker) writes: >I don't think it would be a BAD THING if the world went to UNIX but I've been >hearing this for a log time now. The world apprently has a mind of its own. Some seem to think that, if something doesn't explode overnight in popularity, it can't be deemed successful. (TV network programmers seem to fit this category, but that's a different story.) It's true that the IBM took off after Lotus 1-2-3 appeared, that the Mac took off with the appearance of Desktop Publishing tools. UNIX hasn't "exploded" in the same fashion, but instead has demonstrated continuous, and substantial growth. It continues to win over hardware vendors and software developers. It's winning over major users in both the government and commercial sectors, both at home and abroad. Standards are providing for increasingly higher levels of interoperability. Don't know about you, but that seems like success to me!
philip@minnie.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (09/11/90)
In article <1990Sep10.063504.27780@world.std.com>, boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: > dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: > > * DEC: I've nothing against it; it keeps claiming a price/performance advantage > over HP and Sun RISC machines, but for some reason its penetration > currently seems to be low. As far as I understand, the VAXstations use a > proprietary RISC chip that requires recompilation of software running on > other UNIX boxes, and right now there are still few GUI-based programs > running on the former compared to the latter. Actually, that's DECstation. The Vaxstation uses the Vax cpu. The DECstation uses the MIPS processor. While it hasn't sold in the same volume as Sun's SPARC, the MIPS is used in a number of other workstations, including MIPS's own, and Silicon graphics. > > * NeXT: I've just come back from MacWorld Expo/Boston, ... > ...(it's slow, has 2-bit video and costs the Earth). > Just like the first Mac, it's a lacking implementation of a good idea. Rather more like the Lisa, I would say. > > * IBM: To quote P. W. Botha, it must adapt or die. I trust it will adapt, > but whether with very interesting products, I don't know. Gosh. I didn't know anyone still remembered PW Botha. Not even South Africans... > >It is also relevant to mention that the GUI vs. UNIX thing cuts both ways; > >not only is UNIX getting a GUI, but GUI-heavy machines are finding they > >need operating systems. Witness OS/2, Macintosh System 7, and the new > >Windows. It is at least as valid to ask whether these operating systems > >will be any good as it is to ask if the GUI's on top of UNIX are any good. > > >My own feeling is that it is much easier to put a good GUI on UNIX than it > >is to slip a REASONABLE operating system under an existing application base > >(the game currently being played in the IBM PC and Mac worlds). > > Amen. I'm running into the toy aspect of the current version of the Mac OS > right now. I hope Apple gets serious about giving the Mac a real operating > system, based on UNIX, free... Unix needs a vast amount of cleaning up before it can be dumped on an unsophisticated mass market. I agree with the principle that Apple could do what they've done with AUX: support a Mac compatibility box in a "proper" OS. However, as we've seen with OS/2 and System 7, designing a fresh OS is a non-trivial task (even with 2 opposite ends of the scale on "compatability box" - in OS/2, it's not intended to be the main mode of operation; on System 7, it's the _only_ mode of operation). I think Apple can learn a lot about OS design/implementation from AUX, but I'd prefer it if the lessons learned went to creating a newer better OS (but still with _both_ Mac and unix compatability capability). Maybe after they finish System 7, they will have some idea of how big a job this will be... Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
KPURCELL@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK (09/13/90)
Someone said: [IBM] have a lot of catching up to do with companies like Sun. Sun has many years of experience integrating their GUI over UNIX. Not to say it is the best system it could be, but there is something to be said for a working and tested system. This is why they have licenced NeXTstep from NeXT and it will run across their range of machines from (very slowly) on a PS/2 to (nicely I hope) on an RS/6000. But we have drifted away from the Mac here. Unix is here to stay. The CLI won't appear to casual users in the next few years (but it'll still be there, just like the C shell and Korn shell's didn't kill off the Bourne shell). I think the original statement that started the thread was a non-squitur (yeap, Proof can't spell it either!) Kevin Purcell | kpurcell@liverpool.ac.uk Surface Science Centre | Liverpool University | Omit needless words.
drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) (09/14/90)
In <14894@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: [long discussion of Mac, UNIX, and virtues thereof omitted] >X, like UNIX, subscribes to the belief that flexibility is more >important than simplicity. It's intended to run on any UNIX machine, >anywhere. IMHO, UNIX originally (say Edition 7) had both flexibility and simplicity. It is only when diverse groups, who didn't really understand the basics of the UNIX philosophy, started added things that flexibility began to be added at the expense of simplicity. David Dick Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company (sm)]
umapy03@suna.cc.ic.ac.uk (K. Hampel Ext 6918 Supvsr D.Vvedensky) (09/15/90)
Just to add my penny's worth - here I am sitting with a nice big mac on my desk reading news on a sun three blocks away. So far I am using telnet, soon we will get X-windows. I will then be able to use a nice GUI on the unix machine of my choice. Unfortunately, things ain't that simple (yet): For one, we still need to buy an X-windows program for each of our Macs many $$$ here - no site license deals available yet. Is X on a mac fast enough? it is very slow on sun 3s. Will the GUI traffic clog the network? solution - just buy a faster one... (again more $$$) Are there many useful packages that talk to X? rather than a proprietary system - I already have one computer display on my desk, more would be silly. Will it improve my productivity or provide me with new tools? hmm - the mac sort of did, but I spent so much time tweaking my mac that my productivity plummeted, also true first time I met the unix command line so that could just be the way I work... It is a great pity though that Apple have tried to keep the mac user interface locked into mac-os (and now A/UX). Betcha they will try and sue anyone who tries to use it anywhere else... like on a sun over X... like I said - just a few comments (my OWN opinions, not my boss') Kris Hampel, Solid State Theory Group, Physics, Imperial College. =====> kris@sst.ph.ic.ac.uk <=====