Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cos!fetter From: fetter@cos.com (Bob Fetter) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Ignorance speaks loudest (was:Computers for users not programmers) Message-ID: <43686@cos.com> Date: 15 Feb 91 04:23:01 GMT References: <409@bria> <13252@lanl.gov> <1652@hpwala.wal.hp.com> <43615@cos.com> Reply-To: fetter@cos.UUCP (Bob Fetter) Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA Lines: 57 In article kenw@skyler.arc.ab.ca (Ken Wallewein) writes: > You know, Bob, it's a bit amusing, the number of "OS experts" who >pompously debate their preconcieved versions of techniques (like shells >that know command syntax) without bothering to see how it's already done on >(gasp) non-Unix OSes. That's interesting, in that I've had similar feelings. While I've fallen into the trap before of believing in a "one true OS", and I can understand the alure of it, more importantly I can now see the value in *contrast* and *alternative solutions* one only really sees in different OSes. To me, Unix is one of those "different OSes". Hey, I'm just as bigoted as the next guy in having what I think is "the best solution", and I'll even argue myself into a corner on occasion on a topic or two but, when the dust settles, I find that I've learned something (on occation in spite of myself). Keep in mind, though, that I (and probably you) have an advantage, in that I've had a chance to work within and watch the computer industry grow from tab shops through batch through timesharing into PCs and workstations. I used to think that nobody really *knew* programming until they had to debug assembler using a front panel -- nowadays I find that I'm really hurting without a decent symbolic debugger (and one that understands unions at that!). Huh. Me, an old fart at 37. Who would'a thunk it? Having been an OS kernal hacker for a while (non-Unix), I can understand the methods and means used in the Unix community today (to an extent -- some of it is beyond what I was involved with then), but still, some of the basic ideas, like async i/o, conserving context switches, dynamic reallocation of i/o_assignments, working with mapped segmented memory, shared libraries/dynamic linking, etc., doesn't *seem* new (I remember these things from the middle 70s), but appears new in the Unix arena. Ok, maybe not "new", but surely not "standard" in Unix product releases. But, hey, who can expect everyone to know of everything done earlier? Major things, sure, I can hope that they aren't lost. But "minor" things like command line syntax parsing? Hey, that's a religion. We all have our biases on that (boy, would I have fun writing the "one true shell", and boy, would nobody use it but me, but I digress). But stuff like "hey, we can do run time linking now, and so Unix is again 'state of the art'" just gives me a case of the smiles. But, now its a standard -- POSIX -- so I really should just deal with things as they are, work towards injecting what I can that I have worked with in the past that "was good", and do what's important: use the system as a tool to provide solutions to problems. And, there *is* a whole lot of -->new and improved things<-- in the Unix environment coming out nowadays. So, the world maybe doesn't always get better, but it sure does keep getting more interesting. [Soliloquy mode off -- maybe the above is nothing earth shaking, but it sure feels good sitting here and saying it] -Bob-