Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!uplherc!giga!unislc!dgb From: dgb@unislc.uucp (Douglas Barrett) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: UNIX is yuck (was Re: Next intro...) Message-ID: <1990Oct11.220943.9764@unislc.uucp> Date: 11 Oct 90 22:09:43 GMT References: <58@genco.uucp> Organization: Unisys, SLC Utah Lines: 95 From article <58@genco.uucp>, by rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel): >>>IT IS HORRIBLE! >>> >>Having been a Unix systems programmer for a long time, most of my >>arguments for Unix would be emotional, though having also been a Mac >>user for a few years, I might be able to muster some objectivity. > > Comparing Mac and UNIX would be totally frivolous. They are two different > beasts for different uses. UNIX is capable of many many things that MacOS > will never do. I think UNIX the two can be compared. UNIX is an operating system. Mac is an architecture, os and implementation. Thus in one sense you are right. It does not make much sense to compare a Mac to UNIX. But it does make sense to compare UNIX to the MacOS. In fact one can compare UNIX on a Mac to MacOS on a MAC. Since both operating systems are available on one machine, that should say something about the validity of comparing the two operating systems, no? The thing which most people focus on when making these comparisons is (as has been pointed out else where) the user interface. The traditional unix interface is sh|csh. These are old character based interfaces, which the Mac is the antithesis of. The point is that a legitimate comparison of user interfaces would be between two icon based interfaces. (One note, I don't have any sales figures available but I would not be surprised if there have been more icon based UNIX osses sold than MacOSses. Sun, Apollo, HP, NeXt, and etc combined are a lot of units.) Now a lot of Mac fans are going to talk (if not rave) about the consistency of the Mac interface across differing applications. Well look at A/UX I think that the same standardization is achieved, no? If we compare os to os. UNIX is more complicated. It takes more hardware to run it. It has to be, it does more. UNIX is much cheaper per user. I find the UNIX os an exceptionally rich and flexible os. Once one has gotten over the "hump" a programmer can glean all necessary information from the *on line* documentation. I find programming a MacOS frustrating (I keep looking for services the os does not provide, and where are the header files?). There is a *lot* of good software available for the Mac at a reasonable price. UNIX software is *very* expensive. So it is pretty clear that for 1 user interested in available software running on a GUI on a minimal hardware platform MAC is about the only game in town. But for how long? Windows is here to stay. But UNIX may just be the os that keeps the Mac promise of ease of use and consistency. Now, today, you can develop an application on one box and simply move the executable to a machine of grossly different architecture and it will run. How much more standard can you get? Tomorrow you will be able to do this across vendors platforms. UNIX is now, today making the underlaying hardware invisible to users. This is (as especially Apple users should know) cool. Now you can buy your hardware on its merits, your os on the vendors merits and keep your software investment. (How long would Apple be in business if you could buy MS MacOS for nubus clones?) If you go with the MacOS you go with Mac hardware. And you wait for Apple to give you multiuser, multitasking, or even rudimentary IPC. And then you take what you get and pay what they ask. I am not trying to run Macs down. But at the top of the line (IIfx, ci and sx? ) the Mac is definitely competing against work stations. And where the work stations are today the mainstream will be tomorrow. So the MacOS is going to have to get more complicated and require more machine to run it. What will the MacOS which delivers these services be like? And how much sense does it make for Mac to spend $$ to develop a proprietary os *and* UNIX? Now for Apple to continue to deliver a quality product they need money. So far they have pursued a profit by margin strategy ie you pay more per mip for a mac than about anything else. But when MAC tries to crack the work station market (and they *must*) they will find buyers who are not going to pay too much for a machine that they can not run their software on so that they can wait for MAC to allow them to spend too much money for a fix. And they will expect *real* support. The Apple line might never grow into this problem but Mac has already. If Mac is going to compete in the 90's (never mind the next century) they are going to have to compete based on their engineering. Part of a good design is cost effectiveness. Even IBM has seen the light. The RS6000 is some of the hottest technology (not quite yet) available. And IBM is selling the thing (if you could buy it) at a price BELOW the industry average (per mip). Apple has a well deserved reputation for delivering a product with good quality and reliability at an outrageous price. Now I would like to see them quit carping about how only Apple understands GUIs, how every one else is just a cheap non standard imitation; and roll up their sleeves and get in there and duke it out. On price, quality, and performance. Lets see them make their money on volume. Lets see an Apple that will be around to see some what some of their ideas grow into. So no *I* don't think it is frivolous to compare UNIX and a Mac. I think it is *vital*. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Barrett These comments are all mine UNIX Systems Programmer Unisys UNIX Development Center Salt Lake City Utah