Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!houem!hgp
From: hgp@houem.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Unix and the future
Message-ID: <329@houem.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 00:19:02 EST
Article-I.D.: houem.329
Posted: Tue Apr  9 00:19:02 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Apr-85 05:19:56 EST
References: <9753@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 71


>> Though I really hate to say this, it certainly is true that Unix as
>> an operating system environment only has a comparatively limited life 
>> ahead of it in anything resembling its current form.  Even many of the 
>> tools are showing serious signs of age and the perpetuation of old designs,
>> often with many known deficiencies, is not encouraging.

>> I can't help but wish that the sorts of efforts that could create a
>> completely new operating system with new, well designed tools (not
>> just "copies" of Unix stuff) would get as much attention as a Unix
>> rewrite.

>> Unix and its tools are primarily being perpetuated because 
>> ambitious newer stuff (that might not be compatible with the old
>> design but that would still be much better) isn't being written.
>> A truly ambitious effort would be to break loose from the Unix mold
>> with a totally different sort of OS and new tools and applications
>> packages that weren't based on the Unix design framework.  There's
>> a tremendous amount of work to be done in this area, and while
>> it wouldn't be easy, it would be a lot more useful in the long run
>> than basing work on essentially a "duplicated" Unix.

>> --Lauren--

Sounds interesting Lauren. Perhaps you could give us some examples of
what could be written but isn't. Also, what are some of the shortcomings
of the ``UNIX design framework'' and why would it be an ambitious
project to break out of it?

Howard G. Page
..!ihnp4!houem!hgp

From houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houem.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: houem!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA
From: lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Unix and the future
Message-ID: <9753@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 6-Apr-85 00:18:34 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.9753
Posted: Sat Apr  6 00:18:34 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Apr-85 13:23:06 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 22

Though I really hate to say this, it certainly is true that Unix as
an operating system environment only has a comparatively limited life 
ahead of it in anything resembling its current form.  Even many of the 
tools are showing serious signs of age and the perpetuation of old designs,
often with many known deficiencies, is not encouraging.

I can't help but wish that the sorts of efforts that could create a
completely new operating system with new, well designed tools (not
just "copies" of Unix stuff) would get as much attention as a Unix
rewrite.

Unix and its tools are primarily being perpetuated because 
ambitious newer stuff (that might not be compatible with the old
design but that would still be much better) isn't being written.
A truly ambitious effort would be to break loose from the Unix mold
with a totally different sort of OS and new tools and applications
packages that weren't based on the Unix design framework.  There's
a tremendous amount of work to be done in this area, and while
it wouldn't be easy, it would be a lot more useful in the long run
than basing work on essentially a "duplicated" Unix.

--Lauren--