Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!pasteur!dog.ee.lbl.gov!elf.ee.lbl.gov!torek From: torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Ignorance speaks loudest (was:Computers for users not programmers) Message-ID: <9978@dog.ee.lbl.gov> Date: 16 Feb 91 01:35:34 GMT References: <409@bria> <13252@lanl.gov> <1652@hpwala.wal.hp.com> <43615@cos.com> <43686@cos.com> Reply-To: torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley Lines: 26 X-Local-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 17:35:34 PST (I have no idea what all this is doing in comp.arch, but I have no better place to put it, so I will try to keep this short...) In article <43686@cos.com> fetter@cos.UUCP (Bob Fetter) writes: > 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. This is a fine sentiment. There is, however, a trap lying in wait: things that `were good' are not necessarily good in all contexts. Indeed, one of the problems with this whole pro/anti Unix flamefest here in comp.arch is that many of the points made for and against various features make implicit assumptions as to the surrounding system. To put it another way, a system (whether it be Unix, VMS, NOS, TSO, VSPC, CP/M, ...) is not just made up of a series of parts, but also of a set of interactions.% In particular, Unix `parts' tend to have different interactions than most other systems. ----- I.e., the whole is, as always, the sum of the parts plus their exact positions and momenta. :-) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Lawrence Berkeley Lab EE div (+1 415 486 5427) Berkeley, CA Domain: torek@ee.lbl.gov