Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!canisius!pavlov From: pavlov@canisius.UUCP (Greg Pavlov) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: How wrong is MS-DOS? (or: What is the definition of obsolete) Message-ID: <3130@canisius.UUCP> Date: 13 Jan 91 06:51:32 GMT References: <343@bria> <11123@lanl.gov> Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo N.Y. 14208 Lines: 77 In article <11123@lanl.gov>, jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > > ..... 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. > I use grep, awk, sed, etc constantly - both on my own pc and the UNIX systems I work on. These, for me, long ago became "necessities". Also true of my programming staff and a lot of our user base. > My spelling checker on MS-DOS suggests alternatives so that > I can correct my error. It also has a built-in thesaurus, .... > Funny, but none of the MS-DOS machines we have here came with anything that looks like what you describe. Didn't even come with anything as useless as "ispell", in fact.... > ...... Of course, TCP/IP is a DARPA > standard and is available on many systems - including MS-DOS. But, > on MS-DOS, you only pay for the software/hardware for TCP/IP if > you really _need_ the functionality. You also pay in time and lack of integration. It takes a heck of a lot less effort for us to get a new UNIX box up and on a network than an MS-DOS box. > .... The prices (considering the > heavy hardware cost of a UNIX system) is competitive though. This is only true if you insist on the comparison DOS people love to make: cheapest Taiwanese clone one can dig up vs. list price for a SUN/DEC/HP/ IBM box. But most of the major mail-order vendors here now sell UNIX on their 386/486 platforms. Granted, you can run MS-DOS on much less (just as you can run UNIX on much less). But those "features" you attributed to DOS- graphics-based interfaces, complex compilation packages, etc, literally drag on the lesser INTEL breeds. > 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 > so many things needed just to get the system working and keep it > working. > Not quite sure what you mean by "monolithic" (2001 Monolith ??). But your second sentence rather accurately applies to most software packages avail- able for MS-DOS machines: lots of facilities have to be built in and/or bundled in with them to make them functional in MS-DOS. And every package handles these in its own way. Like talking to a printer, for example: /ppr[select range]ag in 1-2-3, [specify page range] in WordPer- fect, etc (this AFTER you've gone thru each package's unique gobbledy- gook to identify/initialize the printer in the first place). > Finally, you make the claim that UNIX tools are fun to use. Now, this > may be a personality thing. > How about that !!! > As someone pointed out years ago (I wish I could find the reference), > the word 'arcane' and the phrase 'user friendly' are mutually exclusive. > UNIX is arcane. > ... and MS-DOS is 'user friendly' ???? > 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. > No, I don't question whether you know UNIX but whether you have been dis- cussing MS-DOS or a wraith that changes characteristics, shape, and size in response to each one of your arguments' needs. greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny pavlov@stewart.fstrf.org