Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rjs@moss.ATT.COM
From: rjs@moss.ATT.COM
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: More John Dvorak comments
Message-ID: <31930@clyde.ATT.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 88 14:35:31 GMT
References: <18509@neabbs.UUCP> <24516@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Sender: lp@clyde.ATT.COM
Reply-To: rjs@moss.UUCP (Robert Snyder)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany NJ
Lines: 36

In article <24516@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes:
> ...
>This may be a bit late in the reply chain but I read the review.  The
>reviewer was obviosly an MS-DOS person with little or no UNIX
>knowledge.
> ...
>Along a similar line, check out John Dvorak's article in August PC
>magazine concerning UNIX on PC-style machines.  I found the article
>interesting in that he got an awful lot of facts wrong about the
>history of UNIX and what it's meant for.
>
>jim frost
>madd@bu-it.bu.edu

It's not obvious that John Dvorak even understands MS-DOS.  In PC Computing's
August issue, he tries to explain why UNIX will not beat out OS/2 for
multitasking applications with the following:

"To make Unix acceptable to end users, computer manufacturers have to
design complex shells that shield the user from the Unix kernel.  In
essence, the user talks to the shell and the shell talks to Unix.  The
shell takes plain-English commands or creates menus through which users
must plod as the only means of instructing the machine."

He then goes on to explain that end users prefer the MS-DOS way of executing
programs.  I wonder what he thinks command.com is if not a shell that
shields the user from the MS-DOS kernel.

	Robert Snyder
	{att|ihnp4|clyde}!moss!rjs
	(201) 386-4467

UNIX is a trademark of AT&T.  MS-DOS is a trademark of MicroSoft (I think).

The above statements are my own thoughts and observations and are not
intended to represent my employer's position on the subject(s).