Xref: utzoo comp.os.minix:7611 comp.sys.ibm.pc:36613 comp.unix.xenix:8122
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!sun-barr!ames!uhccux!webb
From: webb@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Thomas Webb)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: dosread.c again
Message-ID: <5182@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Date: 20 Oct 89 22:27:03 GMT
References: <3717@ast.cs.vu.nl> <3a18.2536ede8@ibmpcug.co.uk> <3721@ast.cs.vu.nl> <2501@optilink.UUCP> <1989Oct20.170447.19573@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: webb@uhccux.UUCP (Thomas Webb)
Organization: University of Hawaii
Lines: 54

In article <1989Oct20.170447.19573@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <2501@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>I'm sure that if DOS weren't used by COMMON PEOPLE, the DOS-haters
>>would make appropriate criticisms of the many very real deficiencies
>>of DOS, and leave it at that.  But as long as someone can learn to
>>use a computer without devoting years of their life to it, the
>>DOS-haters will remain filled with irrational hatred.
>
>The common people make essentially no use of DOS; they just use it to load
>programs that take over the whole machine and largely ignore DOS.  Learning
>to use DOS itself -- especially the fine points of the file system, which
>is what this discussion was about -- *does* take lots of work.  And it's not
>worth the trouble for most people, which is exactly what Andy was getting at.
>
>Hatred of DOS is entirely rational, and has nothing to do with who else
>uses it.  There are ample reasons to despise that feeble excuse for an
>operating system.

Hey folks, this isn't a class strugle.  I program at the DOS level
nearly every day and Henry is right, it does take a bit of work to
learn about 80x86 assembly language and DOS, and a lot of times you
end-up by-passing the operating system to get decent results anyway.
So, in a sence, DOS isn't much of an operating system.  On the other
hand, it does do a pretty good job of organising files and loding
programs.  It is fast and small.  For those of us who still have to
put-up with slow 8088 PC' speed is the bottom line.  Also, those
of us on tight personal budgets can get a complete DOS development
system for about $1500, $1000 for the machine and $500 for a very
complete set of development software.  It costs more than that just to
get a unix development package, plus the hardware needed to run unix is
far more expensive.  The moral here is that while DOS is undeniably
feeble, it works very well in a low cost, low power environment.  

BTW, it isn't easy to learn to program in DOS, but it is even harder
to program in 'real' operating systems at the OS level.  At least you
can get a good book on DOS programing, God help you if you need a
quick function reference and programing primer for unix.

Anyway, my feeling is that people who hate DOS are comparing it to
OSes that cost a lot more and run on more expensive platforms.  This
is an apples and oranges type problem, not a class struggle.

PS
Henry, I teach 'common people' about unix as part of my job, and most
of them don't want to know anthing more then how to load SPSS or
whatever anyway.  Maybe DOS has all they need?

-tom


-- 
===============================================================================
webb@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.edu   
===============================================================================