Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!samsung!rex!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!bennett
From: bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Death of OS/2? (was Re: Microsoft OS/2?)
Keywords: OS/2, Presentation Manager, Microsoft
Message-ID: <1991Feb12.233004.8484@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 12 Feb 91 23:30:04 GMT
References: <2467@beguine.UUCP> <29814@usc> <70447@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 99

In article <70447@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) writes:
>In article <29814@usc>, ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>> 
>> In my understanding,
>> the quality of people at Microsoft is not good enough to do a
>> good OS -- starting from scratch in C -- within a few years.

     Ajay, since you started this, whence come you by this "under-
standing"?  Also, I certainly hope you aren't requiring that an
operating system be written in C for it to be a good one because
that would certainly be narrow minded at best and ignorant otherwise.

>> They're good at writing word processors, Bill Gates knows how to
>> write a Basic Interpreter.  Writing an OS is a different kettle
>> of fish!
>
>And folks like to complain that Microsoft people are arrogant!
>Say, Ajay, if you're so smart.... how come you're not working
>at Microsoft?  

     Without making any comment of my own regarding the competence
or lack of same of the Microsoft programming staff, I'd say that
Ajay's self-image probably requires that he work with people that
he feels are competent.  What others think of those same people may
well be unimportant to him.
>
>Also, Ajay, who is the single biggest provider of Unix software?
>A silly little toy-software company called "Microsoft".  

     Surprise!  And all this time I had thought it was the Computer
Systems Research Group (and its friendly helpers) of the University
of California at Berkeley, or possibly (though less likely) even the
crowd at AT&T. :-)  I would certainly never have guessed that it was
Microsoft...
>
>I've encountered hostility from "the real world" since day one, when
>I started the Microsoft OS group.  Our first product, even though we're
>such pathetic excuses for programmers, was an operating system.  It was
>called "UNIX".    I don't pay much attention to UNIX these days, but I

     Hmmm...I guess I missed that one.  I only knew about the one
called XENIX that was loaded with gratuitous incompatibilities (e.g.
lx instead of ls) and has grown into one of the doggiest and most
expensive versions around.  However, your implication that UNIX was
written by Microsoft, rather than merely ported/adapted by Microsoft,
would certainly interest AT&T if it were explicitly stated and carried
any weight.

>seem to recall a few years ago that "the best minds" at AT&T bought some
>UNIX technology from an outside vendor - a company by the name of "Microsoft".

     I didn't think that Ritchie et al. were involved or even interested
in such activities.  Well, we learn something new every day.  :-]
>
> [some ruffled feathers deleted  --SJB]
>
>And by the way, if UNIX is the result of the smartest OS minds in the
>field, how come it bites the big one?  It has no standard GUI, and

     I don't know of any operating system that has a standard GUI.  GUI's
are new enough that most have happened more recently than any of the
major operating systems.

>it's disk performance is at least 5 times worse then[sic] even pathetic old
>DOS...  And HPFS runs rings around the BSD improved file system.

     If you're refering to the original DOS (as in DOS/360 or DOS/370),
then the comparison is hardly meaningful.  If, as is more probable,
you're refering to {PC,MS}-DOS, which is a monitor system and *not* an
operating system, then the comparison needs to point out that the "DOS"
file system maintains relatively little information about its contents,
has a vulnerable FAT without backups, has no security features, doesn't
understand disk addresses beyond 32MB, allows a file to have only one
name, etc.  One can make this kind of performance comparison in many
other situations (e.g. echo(1) is faster than awk(1)) as well, but the
usefulness of doing so is questionable at best.
>
>	Gordon Letwin
>	Microsoft
>
> [adulation of Fearless Leader deleted  --SJB]

     My comments above should not be construed as any particular sort
of support for Ajay Shah.  I have no idea who he is.  However, they
*are* intended to highlight some of the things I noticed in Gordon 
Letwin's posting that give the public (in this case, us) insight into
the calibre of people that Mr. Gates employs.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
                                  Systems Programming
                                  Northern Illinois University
                                  DeKalb, Illinois 60115
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett@cs.niu.edu                                 *
* BITNET:         A01SJB1@NIU                                        *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  "WAR is the HEALTH of the STATE"  --Albert Jay Nock (I think:-)   *
**********************************************************************