Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!mvb.saic.com!ncr-sd!se-sd!cns!dltaylor From: dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Amiga/NeXT flames (Was Re: Amiga OS *IS* state...) Message-ID: <891@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> Date: 16 Apr 91 00:27:05 GMT References: <46907@ut-emx.uucp> <890@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> Organization: NCR Corp. SE-San Diego Lines: 65 In greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) writes: >>>Why is the Unix non-standard? >I dare you to find a single significant difference between the programming >interface to NeXT's Mach and a pure 4.3BSD system. Have you ever launched a lightweight process (thread) on a bsd system? No, because bsd doesn't have them, Mach does. And they are available at the user-process level. Threads are considered a VERY significant difference. I can compile and run bsd programs on OS-9/68k. too. Is that now a standard UNIX? There's a lot more to a "Unix" than the minimal programming interface. There are comptiblity libraries and headers for PCs and System V. But the OS is also the file handlers (bsd on NeXT, last I looked), the process scheduling (pure? Mach), the IPC mechanisms (I believe bsd sockets), the user interface provided (pure NeXT), networking ....... Some of these are "standard" on NeXT, some are not. The question was: how not? >>2) it has NON-standard mailers (voice is nice, why not an OSI standard?). >Don't really know what you're talking about here. Sendmail is still the >underlying delivery method and SMTP is the connection to the outside >world. However, the interface will package data for sendmail, and SMTP, that is unreadable on any other system. It's still non-standard. Read the original question. >>3) it has a non-standard graphics interface; it is NOT X11R4, which is >>[the] only non-proprietary GUI standard. DPS has nice features, but it >>isn't a standard, it's [a] proprietary licensed technology. >1) Thank God. 2) So what? Because its NOT a standard, and that's what the original question was. >>As an aside, other than watching goldfish, what practical use is the >>transparency? >Try programming one sometime. That is not an answer. I would really like a list of applications, or proposed applications that NEED transparency at the window manager level. There is already an animation program (Disney) on the Amiga that uses an internal form of transparency to allow you to see several frames at once to judge the smoothness of your motion. But why does the window manager need it? >Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 However, did you read the ORIGINAL question? I simply listed the non- standard implementations of the OS. There was no heavy value judgement, and everything I listed is unique to NeXT, or, at least, not available in the System V, bsd, or OSF distributions. This is not a flame of the NeXT computer, per se, but why are so many NeXToids unable to hold an intellegent conversation, without shouting the virtues (?) of their machine at everyone else? Are they trying to convince us, or themselves? Dan Taylor