Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!cica!travis!greg From: greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Amiga/NeXT flames (Was Re: Amiga OS *IS* state...) Message-ID: Date: 17 Apr 91 00:44:41 GMT References: <46907@ut-emx.uucp> <890@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <891@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> Sender: news@cica.indiana.edu (News System) Organization: Indiana University Lines: 114 Nntp-Posting-Host: travis.cica.indiana.edu dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: >In greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) writes: >>>>Why is the Unix non-standard? It is not. >>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? Ok, I've read your entire posting. What you're saying is that you're bothered by the additional functionality that the NeXT machine provides over a generic 4.3BSD machine. You are NOT complaining that NeXT provides a non-standard or incomplete 4.3 UNIX box. Only that they provide extensions. So what? Ignore them. Ignore the extra manual pages. >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? Exactly. "How not?" Only in the extensions. If you approach the NeXT as a generic 4.3 box, it will reward you by behaving likewise. Everything is standard up to and including the 4.3BSD level. There are NO surprises. >>>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. Only NeXTMail. NeXTMail is an extension. As I said, if you don't like it, ignore it. The NeXT comes with all the standard Berkeley mailers. I think NeXTMail sux and I don't use it. I don't have to. They ARE providing the choice. Read my posting. >>>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. Please define what a standard is - does it mean non-proprietary? That flies in the face of several "standards" that I can think of. Or is a standard defined by fiat? If so, NeXTStep might well be one in a few years. I've already got a bunch of my manuals on my desk that lay down the world according to NeXTStep. I consider this a large part, if not the only part, of becoming a "standard." >>>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? I don't think you understand the concept of a unified display/printing model. It is not generally visible on the application level. However, it is visible on the programming level. No application NEEDs transparency at any level. It's simply more work for the programmer to supply it at the application level than it is for the windowserver (which should REALLY be called the "PostScript server") to supply it. I don't really know what you're confusing "transpency" with but I'm beginning to think that it has nothing to do with the issue of a transparent display/print model. >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. Again. The OS is STANDARD 4.3BSD. Period. It is NOT non-standard. Rip out all those pages in the manuals that describe features not available on a generic 4.3BSD machine and you should be happy. What you're saying, in essence, is that no company is allowed to improve upon a "UNIX" box unless those improvements have been previously implemented by AT&T/Berkeley/OSF. A rather limiting set of circumstances I think. >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? Jeeze. You should try and convince Amiga owners that there might be some flaws in their machine sometime. -- Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 greg@cica.indiana.edu Center for Innovative Computer Applications This signature intentionally left blank.