Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yetti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!yetti!oz
From: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Unix and the future
Message-ID: <148@yetti.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Apr-85 12:19:21 EST
Article-I.D.: yetti.148
Posted: Wed Apr 10 12:19:21 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Apr-85 14:38:06 EST
References: <9809@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: oz@yetti.UUCP (System)
Organization: York U. Comp.Sci. Downsview, ONT.
Lines: 31
Summary: 

In article <9809@brl-tgr.ARPA> lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA writes:
>That's exactly my point.  The ease of porting the system has (in effect)
>slowed development of other operating systems.  Major efforts to write
>a different sort of system have been stymied by the cost/effectiveness
>of just moving Unix to another piece of hardware.

	That seems to be a gross underestimation of research and
	development devoted to operating systems and interaction
	methodologies. I also do not think that any organization
	capable of porting UN*X to machine-X, is proven capable
	of writing some operating system that is above and beyond
	UN*X.

>... that to the extent that new software efforts spend much of their
>time emulating the same old Unix patterns from the mid-70's, a lot
>of new ways of doing things, that could well be much better in the middle
>to long run, will be ignored.
>
>--Lauren--

	I agree that there are better ways of doing things, and they
	should be explored. However, these things do not come off the
	air. It usually follows the pattern of evolution and mutation.
	(remember MULTICS -> UN*X or RSX -> VMS)
	we are yet too see UN*X mutate beyond recognition. Never know
	what will come off it.


	Oz	(wizard of something or another, no doubt..)

	Electric: {ihnp4 | allegra | decvax | harpo}!utzoo!yetti!oz