Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!coherent!aimt!breck
From: breck@aimt.UU.NET (Robert Breckinridge Beatie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXT impressions
Message-ID: <2911@aimt.UU.NET>
Date: 23 Feb 89 07:28:50 GMT
References: <888@fornax.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: AIM Technology, Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 31

In article <888@fornax.UUCP>, mcdonald@fornax.UUCP (Ken Mcdonald) writes:
> ...
> It seems to me that what NeXT did right was in the low-level stuff--hardware,
> display software, etc. (If there is anything else to the low-level).  What
> they did wrong was at the higher levels--OS, to some degree the interface,
> maybe a few other things that I'm not aware of yet.  This means they can
> still rectify their errors.

Well, I'll start off by saying that I've never so much as laid hands on
a NeXT box.  But I am opinionated :-).  I'll avoid arguing about whether
putting a UNIX-like operating system on the NeXT box was a good idea or
not. (But I will say that I think it was a good idea).  What I would like
to comment on is something more to do with what I guess people call
"Software Engineering".

Isn't the whole point of implementing systems as layers to allow the
designer/implementor to change the LOW LEVEL layers without affecting
the layers that the user interacts with?  Once people become used to
the user interface or the OS, I would assume that you would be reluctant
to change the layers that people use.  Go ahead and change the low-level
layers that people never actually see, but leave the high-level layers
alone.

Of course higher level layers must be subject to improvement.  But if
in a new release of a system I am no longer allowed to run more than
one process at a time, or pipes no longer work, or awk no longer works,
well I'm going to be one unhappy camper.
-- 
Breck Beatie	    				(408)748-8649
{uunet,ames!coherent}!aimt!breck  OR  breck@aimt.uu.net
"Sloppy as hell Little Father.  You've embarassed me no end."