Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!splut!jay From: jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: A different View of the value of OS/2 - it's better than UNIX Message-ID: <161@splut.UUCP> Date: Thu, 24-Sep-87 04:16:24 EDT Article-I.D.: splut.161 Posted: Thu Sep 24 04:16:24 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 26-Sep-87 10:25:54 EDT References: <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <961@looking.UUCP> <498@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <13212@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX Lines: 115 In article <13212@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, acm@bu-cs.BU.EDU (ACM) writes: > 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: > >[...] 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). You mean it takes an hour for you to stuff a disk in A: and turn the machine on? > 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. Boy, you can say that again. I've had to start over and reinstall my Microport system three times, and there are still a couple of installation decisions I need to change - which means a fourth re-installation... > >>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! Yeah...your finger reaching for the power switch. (only 1/2 :-)...as I sit here and type with an injured finger...) > 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. I have a bad sector now on my second hard drive, and I'll have to reformat it to lock it out - and it's exclusively for Unix (worse - it's exclusively for news! :-) > Where a single bad sector in a directory can trash an entire directory > substructure with absolutely no way of recovering your valuable data. A single bad sector in the root directory of a filesystem will do the same thing... > 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. Most of which was so that people could (more-or-less easily) unerase files. > The UNIX file system is pretty nice and quite consistant. It's > easy to find (and fix) errors within it. Only if you trust fsck - and I'm not sure I do, especially given the comment in the Unix manual (I don't recall exactly where) that recommends that you have file system expertise available for fixing broken filesystems... > 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. At lease I can fly 'chkdsk -f' and understand what's going on. Anyone want to explain fsck in less than 10 pages? > >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. Not on my system, it isn't... > >>> 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.... Who said Unix is cheap?? $450 for System V/AT isn't peanuts...and that's the buggier of the various Unixes available for the PC - but it also happens to be the cheapest. > OS/2 or UNIX? I'd take UNIX. But I'm a programmer. Ask DP managers ...or users... > and I bet you most of them will answer OS/2. They're drooling for it, > even though better is available right now. Better by whose definition? If you think in terms of a strictly program development environment, then you're probably right in thinking of Unix - for it's a superior system for people who are willing to take the time and effort to learn incredibly cryptic commands, multiuser system administration (even on boxes that only get used by one person), and babying a complex and somewhat fragile system. If you think in terms of a user who's only interested in turning on the computer and getting an answer on how many widgets he needs to buy supplies to make next year, then Unix is a terrible non-solution. > If you have comments, please feel free to give them. I love an > argument! Besides, I don't know everything yet.... So do I, and I certainly don't know all about Unix by any stretch of the imagination. (Just ask Peter Da Silva, with whom I've had this argument on and off for four years...) -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC (@WB5BBW)...>splut!< | uucp: hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay Never ascribe to malice that which can | or {sun!housun,uunet}!nuchat!-^ be adequately explained by stupidity. | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD CI$: 71036,1603 The opinions herein are shared by neither of my cats, much less anyone else.