Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:74428 alt.religion.computers:2221 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,alt.religion.computers Subject: Re: A3000UX competition Message-ID: Date: 13 Dec 90 19:59:07 GMT References: <86470@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <12003@hubcap.clemson.edu> <36449@cup.portal.com> <1990Dec2.153612.28555@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <36488@cup.portal.com> <1990Dec11.164431.819@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <16482@cbmvax.commodore.com> I agree with you that source code is a really great thing for those of >us who are capable of modifying it. In an academic or engineering >environment, it is a necessity. What I really dislike is people who >design operating systems so poorly that simple reconfigurations >require modifying the sources and recompiling the kernel. OS kernels >should be like color TVs; there are no user-servicable parts inside. > >VMS does this fairly well... WHAT? How about those zillion OS tuning parameters in VMS? More importantly, how come Unix has been able to live w/o them all these years (just as another data point, so have IBM mainframe OS's.) No user serviceable parts...just answer a few simple questions about what you would like for page-cluster sizes and minimum/maximum resident and working sets and why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings. Oh, and let's let mere mortals muck with system logical names under VMS and see what you end up with... >Even AmigaDOS is way ahead of Unix in >this. Since you got the VMS example wrong it would be nice to know what you mean by this for those of us who don't use AmigaDOS. >Operating systems (IMHO) should be simple, modular and expandable. Right, and all together now, "except for the stuff I need..." >In AmigaDOS, filesystems and networking protocols can be dynamically >added or removed from the system. Why can't Unix do this? Sounds like a "user-serviceable part", make up your mind. Do you want tons of little tuning features or not? >The other issue is the suitability of Unix to businesses. Why do >most businesses with VAXen run VMS? Boy, you've narrowed the set quite a bit. Do most businesses have Vaxes? etc. Mostly because, until relatively recently, DEC refused to support VMS and Vaxes were a good hardware buy. How many businesses are buying Vaxes to run VMS anymore? I dunno, but judging by DEC's recent stock prices (~$50, down from a high of $175 three years ago), not an impressive number. And DEC just announced a $1B cost-trimming program. But I guess we should all follow their lead...? Meanwhile, Sun continues its 140% compounded annual growth, and they sell neither Vaxes nor VMS. Only Unix. (That's more significant than it might first appear, name another company over $1B that only sells Unix and the hardware to run Unix on. Now go thru companies that happen to sell Unix as a sideline [DEC, DG, Prime] and how they're doing financially, IBM is the only major exception I can think of, not sure how HP is doing OVERALL these days.) If we're really going to follow your logic we should all run out and buy 3090's to run MVS on, since that accounts for more bucks out there than a Vax can hold in its registers (I might be right on that, hmm, $4B/register, 16 registers, $64B, that's probably about the size of the MVS market...amusing.) >Because it's easy to configure, is well supported >and doesn't require a Unix kernel hacker to support it? Bosh. How many VMS shops don't have VMS hackers. Ever do a VMS OS upgrade and watch every third-party package bite the dust? I have. This is mythology, have you ever run a VMS shop? I have, it's a pain in the butt, give me Unix any day. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD