Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!coplex!chuck
From: chuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: R.I.P. Byte
Message-ID: <444@coplex.UUCP>
Date: 31 Aug 88 21:22:38 GMT
References: <402@mfgfoc.UUCP> <674@proxftl.UUCP>
Reply-To: chuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites)
Organization: Copper Electronics Inc. Louisville, KY
Lines: 61

In article <674@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:
>In article <402@mfgfoc.UUCP> exodus@mfgfoc.UUCP (Greg Onufer) writes:
>: Has anybody seen the latest issue of Byte?  I was searching long and hard
>: for some redeeming social value in that magazine the other night when I
>: started to glance through Pournelle's column....  and the bastard basically
>: said that Un*x was good for nothing except poorly written multi-user
>: databases.   His biggest complaint was that Un*x couldn't run a lot of his
>: MS-DOS applications well enough (two products were mentioned, I think).

[Greg quotes Jerry Pournelle's article and then summerizes Jerry's 
complaints about Unix]

>
>	1) There does not seem to exist a good way to run
>	   arbitrary DOS programs on a Unix box.  Or more than
>	   one of them at a time, as a good Unix ought to.

So the analogy is... Hehe.. Lets run that MacPaint on a PC. I know
it should work. :-)  (seriously though,  wait until XDOS hits the
market for 680x0, or VP/ix or Merge on a i386 with an MMU that tame
the little monsters written for those PC's).    

>	2) The Unix applications he wants to use are weak
>	   compared to DOS applications.  For that matter, in
>	   word processing and accounting, they are weak compared
>	   to CP/M applications.

Jerry just doesn't know what he's talking about as far as quality of
WP and accounting.  He just pick a couple of lousy vendors who couldn't
port thier aps to unix.

>	3) Unix can do some wonderful things, but not the things
>	   he wants to do.

And so he doen't use unix, and that's good.  God_for_bid if he had
a USENET node.  Or even an experienced unix user.  :-)

>	4) Unix applications are overpriced.
>	5) Unix applications are hard to use.
>	6) He implies that Unix system administration is
>	   unnecessarily complex.
>
>Well, how many of you want to defend Unix against these
>complaints? 

It sure beats a network of PCs!  Have you ever seen one of those
boys adminsitered properly and used with any success.  And like
I'm sure Jerry has a 20 user PC-Network to do word processing and
bought WRITE (or what ever it is now) for all 20 Machines.   My Quote:
"One processor!  20 Dumb users!"  :-)
"A qualifier, 20 dumb user! 1 per MIP" :-)
  
>While *I* wouldn't use DOS for anything at all, if I could avoid
>it, ...

I do avoid it.  My PC/286 at home runs UNIX only!  Even if I only balance
my checkbook with it.  I just wish Jerry would compare oranges to oranges.
 
>---
>Bill
>novavax!proxftl!bill