Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!cit-vax!ucla-cs!zen!buddy.Berkeley.EDU!c60b-ia From: c60b-ia@buddy.Berkeley.EDU (Sugih Jamin) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: A different View of the value of OS/2 - it's better than UNIX Message-ID: <3831@zen.berkeley.edu> Date: Sat, 19-Sep-87 03:55:45 EDT Article-I.D.: zen.3831 Posted: Sat Sep 19 03:55:45 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 20-Sep-87 12:40:44 EDT References: <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <2944@hoptoad.uucp> Sender: news@zen.berkeley.edu Reply-To: c60b-ia@buddy.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Sugih Jamin) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 75 Keywords: market acceptance of UNIX lacking In article <2944@hoptoad.uucp> farren@hoptoad.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes: >In article <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM> burton@parcvax.Xerox.COM writes: >> >>Now, for the average user who is terrified of installing Wordstar or backing >>up files, or who uses a hard disk without any subdirectories [too much trouble >>to get them to work right], let's tell that person about UNIX. Any version. >> >No, you don't tell them any of those things. You set up a system, as a >shell, which is as easy to use as MS-DOS (and probably a lot easier), but >which also allows access to deeper, more cryptic levels of Unix if they >want them. You provide, within that system, the tools which are necessary >to let them do their work, and you make sure that the tools are easy-to-use. >You provide, within your Unix implementation, as much protection as possible >against the types of file corruption that you cite (it isn't easy, but it's >possible). Then, you let them go. > >Unix, in its history, has been viewed as an OS for the computer sophisticate. >In part, this is true, in that to use all of its capabilities requires a >fairly large amount of knowledge of its structure. The "normal" user, >however, doesn't need to do this type of access at all, and Unix is very >nicely set up to allow differing types of access for differing types of >needs. All it takes is a little work, and, unfortunately, few people seem >to be very interested in doing this work. "Well, *I* understand it, so >why can't they?" seems to be a prevalent attitude, and it is WRONG. > I would like to make some comments on the last sentence quoted above. But let me comment on the desirability of writing a "protective" shell for UNIX first. OK, so I'll setup UNIX to be as simple as one of the simpler OS. I'll make it such that my users don't have to know anything about login, logout, chmod, ln, etc. (I am not sure the first two are possible in a multi-users system.) I'll make it such that "a:" will bring them to the floppy; such that everything the users want to do will be questioned, as is the prevalent philosophy in one of the "icon-based" OS. I'll go to the trouble of writing tons of shell scripts, aliases, or even little utilities, debug them, safeguard them, maintain them. (And all those after paying for a UNIX box which, so far, costs much more than either of the other OS mentioned above.) All for the purporse that my users won't be able to play with the power of UNIX and get burned. Why bother? Why not, instead, get one of the cheaper, simpler, already "working" system that I am supposed to "emulate"? Maybe my users will one day want to use the full power of UNIX? For that kind of users, I'll advice learning the real personality of UNIX as early as possible, and they are not our main point of discussion. We are talking about people who put everything in their home directory and never use any sub- directory because "it doesn't worth the bother to get it working right" as farren@hoptoad put it. (I don't remember the exact wording.) Even burton@parcvax himself agreed that we are talking about "the 'normal' users who don't need to do this type of access at all." For these users, I say, they want a PC or a Mac, so give them what they want; and I certainly am not going to disguise and downgrade UNIX to "emulate" either. So, you see, my main reason for not making some stupid "menus" is not "Well, *I* understand it, why can't they?" But because I believe it is a better solution for those kind of user to get the kind of machine they really need in the first place. >We can, and should, make it possible to use Unix as easily as using MS-DOS, >or even as easily as using the Mac. Alias manipulation alone will, I think, give an almost-MS-DOS-like shell. Our kind of users, who turn on their machine just to get a letter written and printed out, presumably will know only the commands erase, type, ren, md, cd, rd, print, and maybe mv, plus ws, and lotus, and dBaseIII. As for Mac emulation, you certainly need a mouse and a comparable screen resolution, how about a SUN or uVax running X-window? Somebody over here is working on a "Finder's look-alike" for the X-window. (Don't ask, I am not involve with that project and know nothing more about it; as I am more interested in getting X-window running on the Mac with a UNIX-like shell--too bad RASNIX was such an incomplete attempt.) sugih jamin (c60b-ia.berkeley.edu)