Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!megatest!palowoda
From: palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why unix doesn't catch on
Message-ID: <3315@megatest.UUCP>
Date: 5 Apr 89 07:09:46 GMT
References: <1922@dataio.Data-IO.COM>
Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca
Lines: 81

From article <1922@dataio.Data-IO.COM>, by bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright):
> In article <29177@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@buit4.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes:
> <The biggest problem with UNIX on the PC is there is no single version.
> <Different versions came from different sources and perform (pardon my
> <repetitiveness) differently.  I've used XENIX, plain System V, System
> <V with Berkeley enhancements, and SunOS (Berkeley with enhancements,
> <basically).  The latter performs the best of all of them (easily
> <outperforming OS/2), but most of them outperformed OS/2 once any real
> <load developed.
> 
> Unix suffers from two killer problems:
> 1. Lack of media compatibility.
> 	Silly unix vendors invariably invent a new file format. I haven't
> 	seen one yet where you could write a 5.25" disk under one
> 	vendor's unix and read it on another's.

     Gee, I take my SCO Xenix disks and read them on my friends ATT
     UNIX PC Clone machine with no file format changes. This also
     applies to ENIX, Interactive systems UNIX etc. And if I want 
     to move it to Sun's or BSD systems I just copy it from a PC
     Unix machine over the net. This problem dosn't kill me.


> 2. Lack of binary compatibility.
> 	Can't compile on one unix and run on another, even if the
> 	hardware is the same. Source code compatibility simply isn't
> 	good enough.
> The irritating thing is that these problems are easilly solvable, but
> unix vendors suffer badly from nih.

     Gee, I compile my Xenix application and it runs the binary on
     my friends ATT Clone PC Unix 3.2 also another friends Enix machine.
     The next Xenix release will allow my friend to run his binaries on
     my machine. 
> 
> At least the Mac can now read MSDOS disks, and funny thing, it's selling
> much better! Maybe someday the unix people will wake up and discover
> that compatiblity sells more than capability does.
> 
     Let's see you run the DOS program on the MAC processor. I can load
     and run DOS programs on my UNIX system with the same processor.

> An MS-DOS application developer can write and test a piece of code, and

  ^^
  At least you have the correct term here. Most application software 
  requires more than one programmer to work on the code. Unix has
  the ideal enviornment to manage the project much more effeciently.


> can run it on 25 million DOS machines. Unix application developers have
> to buy a dozen different machines, recompile and test on each, and stock
> inventory on a dozen different permutations. This isn't practical for the
> small developer, which is where most applications come from.



  Yes you are right there are some brands of UNIX that you would have
  to "buy" the hardware to get the software running. But you can't run
  OS2 on an XT. You may be right about the about most applications
  come from a small developer but why did MS price the OS2 development
  kit at 3,000.00? 
  I think there will be some good applications software for OS2 but
  it appears that it will take just as much time money and effort to
  do it on OS2 as it does on UNIX. Just about this time MS or IBM
  will offer OS3 with multiuser. Just kidding. I think customers
  buy what they need to get the job done they way they want it.
  I also think there going to want to see many different applications
  software run on either OS2 or UNIX before they put down there
  cash this time. So it looks like a good race. Who is in the lead?


  ---Bob



-- 
 Bob Palowoda                               
 Work: {sun,decwrl,pyramid}!megatest!palowoda                           
 Home: {sun}ys2!fiver!palowoda                
 BBS:  (415)796-3686 2400/1200   Voice:(415)745-7749