Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!cmcl2!lanl!beta!egdorf From: egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: How wrong is MS-DOS? (or: Tools Tools Tools) Message-ID: Date: 13 Jan 91 01:46:30 GMT References: <3120@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <11143@lanl.gov> Sender: news@lanl.gov Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 103 In-reply-to: jlg@lanl.gov's message of 11 Jan 91 23:58:10 GMT In article <11143@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > > From article <3120@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>, by davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr): > > In article <11123@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > >> [... grep is trivial ...] > > > > So your job doesn't involve data analysis, or you have other tools. > > Other tools. As I said, the problem with grep is that what it does > is too trivial to deserve to be a separate tool. I needs to be a > built-in capability of editors, database managers, etc.. > Ummm... But, Jim, weren't you just saying that the problem was the "muscle" required to run all the Unix stuff? doesnt wrapping a grep into EVERY program just make the problem worse? The point being missed is that Unix was, and still IS (in a practical sense, just to avoid OS/2 arrows) the only system that provides the USER with a multitasking facility that is Easy to use: the pipe. Generally, grep as a stand-alone command is indeed a toy. The beauty of the interface is that grep is ALREADY connected to all that other software by Unix via the pipe. The point of the Unix interface is (and was in 1975) that tools like grep are supposed to be seperate in order to avoid the "muscle" required when all those 'modes' are in EVERY program. > > [...] > > | In view of this fact, 'grep' also falls into the next category. > > | > > | 2) Useless. These tools (and there are a lot of them) don't do > > | anything I ever need to do. > > > > That sounds like a bad argument to me. My spreadsheet was last > > accessed in October of 1988, does that make it useless? UNIX gives you > > lots of tools and you can use what's useful to you. [...] > > Which, as I said, verges on the empty set. If you don't need a > spreadsheet, you shouldn't have bought one. The problem with UNIX > is that it comes with a whole host of software which is useless > to _me_, but I have to retain it because it's all needed for > system maintenance. Grep, USELESS???? Once you begin to (yes, I agree) MEMORIZE what all those little tools do, and then start to use them together, you find that there are a lot of useful ones after all. The problem (my opinion) stems from lots of users moving to Unix from systems that do not provide multitasking ("Why would I ever need to run more than one thing on my single-user suystem?" shows up all over the net a lot ...) and then try to use the tools one at a time and are disapointed. > ... > > [...] > > But UNIX runs on an XT. And like DOS it runs slowly, but many things > > run faster than DOS for the same effect. > > Well, MINIX et. al. will run on XT's. They aren't _really_ UNIX. > I looked into that stuff before. At the time, my XT didn't have > sufficient space to install UNIX (DOS occupies almost no space). > Now, I have a much bigger system, but even so, UNIX would consume a > significant portion of my disk/memory. By the way, I've never seen > _any_ PC-UNIX benchmarks which compared favorably to the same appli- > cation on DOS. I use two classes of tools. Gnu emacs and Common Lisp form one, A few windows on the Sun for access to all the very useful Unix utilities form the other. The Unix tools I use (with grep as one of the more common) run with little or no change as they did on my 11/40 with 128KB in 1976. The fact that I like power tools when appropriate (you DO use a Cray once in a while??) does not mean that I do not also use the simple tools when they are appropriate. The trick is to realize that both are needed at times. I don't use a power floor sander to do the final smoothing on a picture frame, and I don't use a piece of 1x2 with 320 grit wrapped around it to finish an Oak floor. > ... > (I'm already _stuck_ with UNIX at work). > ... But, UNIX would be, at best, a step sideways: > not forward. I'm sorry to hear the word "_stuck_" there. The primary responsibility of a computer professional is to know enough about the range of tools available so that the correct tool can be chosen for the job. I find CTSS on a Cray a useful tool for some jobs. I find Unix on a workstation to be a useful tool for some jobs. I expect to find Unicos on our Crays to be useful for some Jobs. I find VMS useful for some jobs (though the jobs for which is is useful is a rather limited set). I find MS-DOS useful for some jobs (again, a limited set). I have chosen a field where I am working on projects that use the tools I like BEST (Lisp on large workstations in my case), but I realize that there is a difference between what I like best to do, and what I must use professionally as the need arises. If you are in a position where you are being _stuck_ using some tool you dislike, either your management is forcing an inappropriate tool on you, or the tool is appropriate but you dislike it. In either case, you might consider moving to someplace where the projects worked upon require the tools you like. If your current job is best served by Unix tools, but you dislike those tools, you will neither be productive, nor happy. > J. Giles Skip Egdorf hwe@lanl.gov