Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!ucla-seas!turing!plinio
From: plinio@turing.seas.ucla.edu (Plinio Barbeito/;093091;allsites)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: How wrong is MS-DOS? (or: What is the definition of obsolete)
Summary: Unix is more powerful than at first glance, or long stares
Keywords: DOS power :-)
Message-ID: <1618@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 12 Jan 91 07:23:05 GMT
References: <343@bria> <11123@lanl.gov>
Sender: news@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
Followup-To: rec.humor
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles
Lines: 180

Warning: This article is fairly long.  

In article <11123@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
[...stuff deleted...]
>The tools on UNIX tend to be clustered into a few categories:
>
>   1) Trivial.  These tools ('grep' is an example) perform functions
>      that are so simple that there is hardly an excuse for separate
>      tools to do them.  I do a 'grep' perhaps once a month (and then,
>      only because 'ls' doesn't have a filter for file ownership in it).
>      In view of this fact, 'grep' also falls into the next category.

One of the things that makes unix programs so powerful is the extent to
which they can be used together to provide a result that would require
custom development under DOS.  No doubt, the specifically developed
program would probably be missing a feature you want/need, and then
you have to hunt for another slightly different program.  Then you have
to decide a (non-standard?) place for both programs on your disk, and 
remember what names they had and the (probably different) interfaces 
they use.  

In contrast, the unix csh interface allows you to hide details 
pertaining to the interface of its programs.  For your case, you could
learn how to use grep ONCE, then write an alias that pipes grep's output 
to ls, call the result 'lso' or whatever you insist on, put the line 
in your .cshrc, and never deal with grep again.  Do the same with the 
other features of ls that you use (e.g. alias lsa ls -a), and then 
forget that ls and grep ever existed.

This way you don't have to remember how to use all of the functions of 
the programs you need to use, or even see them as available, unless
you want to. 


>   2) Useless.  These tools (and there are a lot of them) don't do
> [...a reference regarding how spell was useless]

A lot of commands seem to be useless, but keep in mind that some of
these programs' raison d'etre does not become apparent until you
use them in combination with others.  For example, I once marveled
at what possible use a program doing nothing else but printing a bunch 
of y's on the screen could have.  The program 'yes' turns out to be a 
way (I didn't say a good way) to force an interactive program requiring 
'y' inputs back into a program you can run from a batch file or an alias.

It's those seemingly useless programs that (when used in combination with
others), turn out to be the invaluable lifesavers when you have some 
obscure thing you need to automate.  Power and automation go hand 
in hand.


>   3) Backward.  These are UNIX tools which are behind those available
>      on other systems, and UNIX implementations are playing catch-up.
>      Graphical user interfaces (popularized by Apple, often just as
>      good on MS-DOS machines as on UNIX workstations), and word
>      processing/desktop publishing (UNIX may have had a _lead_ here
>      a decade ago, they blew it - they are now _behind_).  In addition,
>      there are things like spreadsheets, etc. which UNIX doesn't have
>      at all as far as I can determine (there are bound to be some, I
>      just haven't seen any).  (Note: graphical interfaces benefit
>      _slightly_ on UNIX from the following category.)

What you have said is akin to "If I can put the Y operating system on
top of DOS, then DOS has a better interface than unix running X".  Windows
or Deskview are nothing short of what many people consider an operating 
system.  X is a Unix *application*, for instance.  It doesn't handle
memory allocation, I/O or other things for the machine.

If you can claim Windows as a DOS application, then with a freer conscience, 
people that use NeXTs are bound to mention their excellent interface and 
DTP software.  People using A/UX will mention (but please don't, it 
threatens my argument :-) ) the mac DTP software, Xerox users might 
mention GlobalView (which runs on top of SunOS) with ITS associated set 
of word processor/DTP/spreadsheet software, and the list goes on.  

[4...]
>      on MS-DOS, you only pay for the software/hardware for TCP/IP if
>      you really _need_ the functionality.

I agree with your general argument to a certain degree.  However, how do 
you know that you won't need the functionality in the future, and be 
forced to buy a complete new system because of it?  You are able 
to reliably predict your needs, but this does not apply to everyone.  
I know people that have to buy a new clone every 2 years.  If they used 
Unix, they could wait 3 years :-)


>   5) Mundane.  This category includes such things as compilers,
[...]
>      Some MS-DOS compilers have 'integrated environments' of their
>      own, with built-in editors, debuggers, etc..  This is a slight
>      advantage for MS-DOS if you like that sort of thing, you can
>      turn it all off if you don't.

Are you sure that in ALL cases you can "turn it all off"?  It may be
true of Turbo, or another compiler you use, but can you decouple
dbase (etc, for the sake of argument) from its interface if you need 
to run it unattended?  If you can't get rid of the (typically 
non-standard) interface, this becomes a net disadvantage if you 
have information that programs must share, IMO.  

You may be able to find the program with the kitchen sink in it, 
that has enough features to make everyone happy (except for the person 
learning to use it), and that doesn't need to communicate with other 
programs, but you may pay a price waiting for all that stuff to be 
loaded into the typically very limited physical memory from the 
typically slower, non-concurrently accessed, DMA incapable, either
(limited small) or (large and inefficient) filesystem.

[By this point your argument no longer centers on DOS' relative power,
just general Unix bashing, but, let's keep going...]

>Part of the problem with UNIX is that it tends to be monolithic and
>obscure.  That's why so much is typically 'bundled' with it: there's
^^^ you've just described a lot of MS/DOS programs. :-)

>so many things needed just to get the system working and keep it
>working.

Unix may be too complex for the average joe.  But (back to the original
premise) don't say that its programs aren't powerful.  IMHO, its beauty
is that by putting 0010 and 0010 together, on the whole, it makes it 
possible to automate the heck out of your tasks.


>[...] For example, a lot of people think that
>Zork-like games are fun to play.  Personally, I think such games are
>deadly dull - carry every object you find to every room you find and...

You're right, one person's idea of fun may be another's exercise in
boredom.  But there are other "tools" which you might not have known 
about, whose excitement value is not necessarily derived from the 
interface.

If fun can be traced to ego satisfaction, then there can be nothing more 
fun than ruining someones day :-).  Unix provides plenty of opportunity 
to do this (without lawsuits from the victims) by playing multi-user
games like xtrex or empire.  Complex human interaction is what makes it 
more than just issuing commands.  If the amount of fun is proportional
to the amount of ego, then empire must be the funnest game of all time 
(just read rec.empire and you'll see what I mean).  But this is also 
subjective.  And if I don't seem fanatical about it, there's a chance you 
or someone else might not even be intrigued.


[...some talk about Unix user interface deleted...]
>to be useful and which don't, it's just a matter of memorization.  The

Memorization, IMHO, is learning which of the 30 non-mnemonic function 
keys does what in each different DOS program I have to use, and where and 
in which fashion the result will be shown on the screen.

[...]


>Note: in order to disarm the usual ad hominem flame from UNIX proponents
>I must tell you that I have used UNIX every working day for about a decade
>now.  I know it reasonably well.  So don't hit me with the usual "he's
>obviously never used UNIX and doesn't know what he's talking about"
>routine.  It won't wash.

I've tried to be lighthearted throughout this post, so don't take it
too personally when I say that for washing purposes, soap is in the eye 
of the beholder :-) But I'm not necessarily a Unix proponent, and I 
don't consider this a flame.

The old O/S that is Unix (early 1970's) has many drawbacks; your argument 
about its user interface being hard to learn is convincing and you 
make some other valid points, but I think that for the most part you are 
barking up the wrong trees, especially in the area of power, 
and especially if the thing you are comparing it with is an operating
system with an architecture that provides very little that the
applications don't want to do themselves.

>J. Giles

plini b
---
Disclaimer: 
No disclaimers.