Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bcstec!iftccu!bressler
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Re: Macintosh OS (was: 68000 and Workstations.)
Message-ID: <880001@iftccu.ca.boeing.com>
Date: 31 May 90 00:16:31 GMT
References: <6392@scolex.sco.COM>
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Lines: 28

> Let's turn this around-
> UNIX has most of those :-), but it has a *lousy* user interface.
> To most folks, the interface controls the amount of work you can get out of a
> computer.  They don't want to spend six months learning how to get the
> thing to print a directory...
> Someone (with a :) or two) might say that UNIX isn't an OS- it's just a 
> programming language with a Napoleon complex...

Many of us would call a user interface an APPLICATION, not an operating system.
I guess it all depends on your point of view.  From my background (large scale
IBM, --- hey, we all had to start somewhere :-) ) We called the part that 
managed the system resources the O.S. and the part that talked to the user the 
application.  Probably the blurring of the line is why the MAC takes some 
heat from lots of folks with traditional views. Windows and OS/2  have some 
of the same 'features' :-).  Unix is capable of any variety of user 
interfaces, the MAC only one.  :-). My question is, do we really want 
everything (user interface, database manager etc. )to be a part of the 
operating system, or do we want the freedom to pick and choose our 
'applications' or even perhaps run multiple user interfaces on a single 
platform?  This is where the traditional view helps.  

My vote is that the os is the part that manages the system resources and 
provides a standard interface to the hardware. Anything else should be 
an application.  Course, then what do we call OS/2 Windows/ MAC??

Now if only the MAC had a decent command line shell processor ......... :-) :-).

Rick.