Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!bu-cs!acm From: acm@bu-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: A different View of the value of OS/2 - it's better than UNIX Message-ID: <13212@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sun, 20-Sep-87 11:40:08 EDT Article-I.D.: bu-cs.13212 Posted: Sun Sep 20 11:40:08 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 20-Sep-87 20:54:20 EDT References: <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <961@looking.UUCP> <498@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <1344@van-bc.UUCP> Reply-To: madd@bucsb.bu.edu Organization: Boston University ACM Lines: 137 In article <1344@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >In article <498@parcvax.Xerox.COM> burton@parcvax.xerox.com.UUCP (Philip M. Burton) writes: >[...] the current System V Sysadm package is at >least adequate for reducing the amount of knowledge you need about all of >the nitty gritty details to a low level. It basically steps you through all >of the steps necessary to add users, System file entries (aka uucp L.sys >file), etc. I know how to do all this, but still use Sysadm, because it >keeps me from forgetting things. Having used the AT&T system, let me tell you it's pretty easy to install things, get them running, add users, perform system checks, etc. A bit slow, perhaps, but very very easy. The only thing that is a pain to DOS users is the floppy disk -- you CANNOT remove it without telling the system. Does anyone out there own a Mac? What happens when you use a paper clip to remove a disk while inside an application? Sometimes, nothing. Other times, boom. Hmm -- people can handle macs, even though you have to tell the system to give you your disk back. Methinks they could handle UNIX if you give 'em a reasonable interface. >[...] I cringe anytime I have to go near an MS-DOS system. >It's really not very easy to setup. I mean really, auto-exec what?? For me >to bring 3.2 MS-DOS on our recently installed 386 would take me longer than >it did to put unix on it (about 1hr from a standing start). It shouldn't take very long to bring up anything but the most complex DOS system. I can bring up just about any DOS system in less than an hour and usually in a few minutes, even with multiple hard drives. UNIX is harder to bring up, but (again) it's more complex. >The reason that everyone thinks that MS-DOS is easier is that they have had >a relatively slow and long training period, with lots of peer support. Everyone >had MS-DOS so it was easy to find other people who could help you. And the >real experts started with 1.0 (ah, a great little version, the last one *I >used*), and progressed upwards through levels two, and on to 3.[012]. Nah. The reason they think it's easy is because it is -- it's pretty braindamaged so of course it's simpler. You introduce multitasking and multiuser and you immediately make life tougher on the people who set up and use the system. >And if you've ever brought up an IBM pc network, you can't really claim that >MS-DOS is a simple system to configure! Makes *anything* else look simple. True! Again, multiuser.... The only real problem with DOS here is that it was not designed for multiuser access to the filesystem. >>At the same time, until you make fundamental, and I do mean that, changes >>to UNIX, for example the filesystem fragility, lack of true random access, > >I've beening running on an older Uniplus Unix box for over a year now, with >over 150MB of files on second hand, slightly flakey hard disks. The system >crashes occasionally (flakey hardware). I've *never* lost a file. Mr. Burton: WHAT filesystem fragility? Compared to MS-DOS? Are you serious? You really have to break something to lose information on a UNIX box! Compare this to MS-DOS, where the only way to allocate bad sectors (aside from a third-party utility) is to reformat your hard disk. Where a single bad sector in a directory can trash an entire directory substructure with absolutely no way of recovering your valuable data. Also, I notice that there was a hell of a market for Norton's utility package, which should indicate that users have problems with MS-DOS. The UNIX file system is pretty nice and quite consistant. It's easy to find (and fix) errors within it. DOS's is not. DOS's filesystem is also grossly inefficient -- when you move up to larger hard disks, you end up with allocation clusters of 2K or more and no way to pack smaller files together. The UNIX fragmentation method is much more efficient. Also, I notice that DOS has a 32Mb limit on lots of things. Want to check out the size limitation on UNIX? Can you say "unlimited"? Granted, files become less efficient (slightly) when you approach the gigabyte range, but you have to be reasonable. (I'm leaving out a lot of information on how UNIX does its file storage but if you really want to see what I mean you could buy a book on the internals of UNIX.) Don't knock the UNIX filesystem until you've tried it, and don't compare it to MS-DOS's. MS-DOS's structure is horrible compared to UNIX's. >With the current release of System V, release 3, AT&T has "hardened" the file >system. Reports of the "fragility" of the Unix file system are grossly >mis-informed. True. And even the old one was more robust than MS-DOS's. >>> OS/2 for the 386 is predicted by Microsoft to be over a year away. If > >And probably not so cheap too! Definitely not so cheap. IBM's price (straight from their catalogue) is $395/copy. And it's still vaporware.... This brings up a question. Anyone know how many people are paying for copies of OS/2 now? It *was* advertised in IBM's catalogue (with "To be released first quarter 1988" in very small print), as was the model 80 and some enhancements to OS/2 (including the Presentation Manager which should be out sometime before the turn of the century). I'd like to know what the sales are for OS/2 before release. >>What got me started on all this was the prospect that MicroPort has a UNIX > >>Then I started thinking of the incredible hassles that I would have to put >>up with to get uucp news up, or whatever. Just not worth it. Heehee. You think it's a hassle to get uucp news up under UNIX? Wanna try it with DOS? Hmm? Do you? *I* don't! >I think that Unix will replace MS-DOS wherever users want multi-user or >multi-tasking. It's not all that hard to use/install/configure. You just >have to learn how to do it, just like you did with MS-DOS. It's already beginning to do that in many companies. One of the favorite schemes I've seen is to use a UNIX system as a multi-PC fileserver to PC's running MS-DOS. This gives the security and reliability of the UNIX filesystem to MS-DOS while allowing users to run MS-DOS and its software. On a final note, it would be naive to believe that OS/2 will fall prey to UNIX. Very, very naive. One thing that I've learned since being in business is that people will wait for IBM even if the wait is much longer than expected, even if there are better products available, even if the product is less than advertised, even if the product is overpriced, even if the product is faulty. There are numerous examples I can pull up to back up this claim (many in my own experience). I won't include them here unless someone asks. OS/2 or UNIX? I'd take UNIX. But I'm a programmer. Ask DP managers and I bet you most of them will answer OS/2. They're drooling for it, even though better is available right now. If you have comments, please feel free to give them. I love an argument! Besides, I don't know everything yet.... %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jim Frost * The Madd Hacker | UUCP: ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd H H | ARPA: madd@bucsb.bu.edu H-C-C-OH <- heehee +---------+---------------------------------- H H | "We are strangers in a world we never made"