Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!auspex!guy
From: guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXT not revolutionary enough?
Message-ID: <375@auspex.UUCP>
Date: 1 Nov 88 18:37:42 GMT
References: <471@wucs1.wustl.edu> <354@auspex.UUCP> <482@wucs1.wustl.edu>
Reply-To: guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Lines: 44

>>1) What does he mean by "a text-oriented UNIX base"?  What is the "UNIX
>>   base"?
>	NeXT uses Mach; Mach is essentially UNIX.  UNIX's primary view
>of the world is one-dimensional:  files as streams of bytes (mostly
>textual) and textual user interfaces (as text files or user
>interactions).

The first part is irrelevant.  I know of few, if any, systems that
*don't* ultimately have files that are streams of bytes (or, perhaps,
streams of disk blocks).  You can implement whatever file structure you
want atop that, if you think the file structure is what's important.

The second part is just a description of one class of applications that
run under UNIX.  Other types of applications exist as well; there's
nothing about the UNIX intrinsics that *requires* you to do this. 

>The simplicity and portability of this view is one of the reasons for
>UNIX's success.  (Along with the fact that AT&T made the sources
>available to universities and research institutions very cheaply--at
>least in the early days.)  UNIX is good example of 1970's technology.

Umm, I've seen little evidence that a preference for text files had much
to do with UNIX's success in the marketplace.  That isn't what made UNIX
portable, and the widespread availability of UNIX and its portability
probably were the major contributors to its success. 

>>2) How does he consider these notions "incompatible"?  I had the
>>   impression that the Mac's moral equivalent of the UNIX OS intrinsics
>
>	Trying to build systems which integrate two- (or three-) dimensional
>and/or multisensory (e.g., sound as well as sight) concepts on top of
>an inherently one-dimensional, textual environment probably result in a
>non-standard kludge.  For consistency, the basic operating environment
>should be built with such concepts assumed as basic elements.

The UNIX environment is not "inherently one-dimensional" and "textual". 
Period.  The user interfaces supplied with most UNIX systems may be, but
the underlying OS doesn't require that.

And what do you mean by "basic elements"?  The NeXT machine (and more
and more other UNIX machines, these days) offer various tookits for
constructing at least two-dimensional visual user interfaces; whether
they're considered "part of the operating system" or "part of the window
system" is irrelevant.  They're present, and that's what counts.