Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pacbell!hoptoad!peora!rtmvax!bilver!jwt!john
From: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why unix doesn't catch on
Message-ID: <258@jwt.UUCP>
Date: 14 Apr 89 06:33:29 GMT
References: <7697@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Reply-To: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples)
Organization: John W. Temples, III -- Orlando, FL
Lines: 27

In article <7697> caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) writes:
>also, keep in mind that the juicy
>market both sides in this battle will be going for is not a market of
>developers-- therefore in principle (at least) the target customers
>won't share your (or my) opinion that not having a good compiler around is
>almost inconceivable...

Does this mean that Unix is doomed to be used only by techies like us? I don't
consider myself a "user"; I use Unix because it's fun to hack on.  I suppose
most "users" are interested in running things like Lotus 1-2-3, dBase, and
WordPerfect -- none of which interest me.  Without a very rigidly defined
standard, I don't see how such applications can be supported under Unix.  A
couple of very recent experiences have shaken my confidence in the "386 Unix
binary standard."  WordPerfect 4.2 for Microport Unix won't run correctly on
386/ix.  It appears as though it may just be due to differences in the console
driver -- but I guess a binary standard doesn't guarantee a device driver
standard.  More disturbing was finding that ksh for 386/ix wouldn't run on
Microport.  Something like a shell doesn't rely on console drivers, so I would
expect the binary standard to work.  ksh wouldn't even recognize internal
commands like "cd". 
 
Now that Microport appears to be defunct, I wonder how WordPerfect Corp. feels
about entering the 386 Unix market.  Will this frighten off other prospective
Unix developers like Lotus?  I suppose Unix will survive through it all, but
can it succeed commercially?
-- 
John Temples - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!rtmvax!bilver!jwt!john