Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!yale.edu!cmcl2!lanl!cochiti.lanl.gov!jlg
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: UNIX vs. the world (again) (was: Compilation listing from Sun ...)
Message-ID: <26087@lanl.gov>
Date: 20 Jun 91 17:23:02 GMT
References: <1991Jun15.143436.5574@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <25791@lanl.gov> <1991Jun16.184815.17898@kithrup.COM> <25855@lanl.gov> <WI0CX-5@xds13.ferranti.com>
Sender: news@lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 16

In article <WI0CX-5@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> In article <25855@lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
|> [...]
|> > One of the recognized pitfalls of designing things for
|> > human use is the problem of standardizing to soon.*  That's what happened
|> > with operating systems.
|> 
|> Yep. That's why we're stuck with IBM-PCs and MS-DOS.

"Everyone knows that IBM set microcomputing back at least 5 years", so
said an add for a magazine that I immediately subscribed to for making
that very statement.  Now, unfortunately, UNIX is doing the same thing 
to operating systems, but its aim is more ambitious - 15 years is the
setback it is accomplishing.

J. Giles