Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!RSaunders.TCSC@HI-MULTICS
From: RSaunders.TCSC%HI-MULTICS@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.works
Subject: Unix & Workstations
Message-ID: <15046@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Jan-84 00:25:00 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.15046
Posted: Tue Jan 10 00:25:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Jan-84 01:00:02 EST
Lines: 43

[flame on]

I think that Mr.  Spencer missed the mark in his reply to Mr.  Mishkin.
It is important to consider more than just the quick-and-dirty solution
to a problem.

> Why spend man-decades building your own new system when a few man-months
> of effort will suffice to port Unix[(tm)] ?  

Why bother to do anything if the existing stuff is so cost-effective?
One of the major items of discussion in this digest is what sort of
workstations we will need in 5 years and how to get them.  I will admit
that if I was playing catch-up ball getting into the workstation market
I would port Unix(tm) and try to get some business.  However, in the
search for a "standard" workstation OS stopping at Unix(tm) is taking
the first thing you find.  

> It runs on everything.  [...] (The Big One) It's one of the best 
> things going.  

I would suggest that the two statements above are simply not addressing
the proper question for a standardization effort.  If it runs on
everything then it makes use of nobody's features.  This implies that
the PDP-11 is the ultimate in computer architectures, not a widely held
opinion.  Standardizing on "the best thing going" is a mistake for two
reasons.  Being better than something else is a VERY subjective
decision.  I can say "Multics is THE BEST thing going".  Since I have
used both and you may not have do you consider the issue redecided in
favor of Multics?  I would think that the way to standardize things is
to define a standard set of functions and their effects.  This would
mean that as long as all the subroutine calls worked the same two
unrelated operating systems could be considered "compatible".  This is
the approach taken by most(?) Unix-compatible people.  I would consider
the normal Unix(tm) subroutine interface library less than minimal as
far as a standard.  Items such as segmentation support, process
protection, and multi-processor synchronization are desparately needed
in a work station OS of the future.  The last thing we need to do is
immortalize a particular piece of code.  

Sorry for the flaming.

	Randy Saunders
	RSaunders @ HI-Multics