Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!rice!brazos.rice.edu!bbc From: bbc@legia.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Re^2: IBM Kills NeXT !! Summary: Get real. Message-ID: Date: 20 Feb 90 20:19:16 GMT References: <1654@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> , <1550@awdprime.UUCP> Sender: root@rice.edu Reply-To: Benjamin Chase Distribution: usa Organization: I wish. Lines: 92 In-reply-to: ron@woan.austin.ibm.com's message of 18 Feb 90 23:00:26 GMT ron@woan.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan/2100000) writes: >|>Keith Perkins (n245bq@tamunix.tamu.edu) writes: >|>I have been told that AIX of IBM s... (is so bad) Why is this ? Are you >|>sure it is not compatible with other Unix like BSD ? >Unlike earlier versions of AIX for the IBM RT. AIX 3 also supports >full job control (ctrl-Z in the csh or ksh). Well, thank the Lord. Does your version 3 csh get "$#argv" (notation for "number of arguments passed to the shell") correct, or does it still think that the '#' is the beginning of a comment? I hate to think how many shell scripts use that one piece of notation. "Standard" and "compliant" are very squishy terms when applied to Unix, and even more so its _utilities_. Also, you have to ask yourself why you wanted to have a fully compliant Unix. Because it gave you warm fuzzies? Because it sounds good on marketing sheets? I don't know if NFS is standard BSD Unix, but I'd be very annoyed at a Unix that didn't have it or something as useful. "How about IBM's "Remote Virtual Disk" or whatever they called it?" Don't make me laugh. I could tell that cheap NFS knock-off was a loser just by reading the excellent IBM documentation that came with it. If I had grown accustomed to Mach (perhaps someday I'll have the opportunity...), perhaps I would be unwilling to settle for less than that, too. I wonder if it's "BSD compliant", or if CMU et al had to warp the BSD interface a little to make it better than BSD unix? > If you wait for the new NeXt boxes, pray they use something faster > than the 68040. Then again, if they do, you won't be binary > compatible, and might as well have switched to IBM. Let's look at this more closely. If you bought a NeXT, and are now thinking about buying the (hypothetical) new NeXT: new processor, possibly from a new processor family still has a DSP (same chip?) still has an Optical Disk? probably new versions of the operating system bundled applications, probably new versions definitely new versions of the compilers still uses NeXTStep, probably new version Now lets look at IBM's offerings. Suppose you bought an RT, which might be the case if you're in academia. If we're comparing NeXTs and IBMs, I argue this is a fair restriction, since it is NeXT's (original) market. Maybe IBM even put an RT on your desk for free during this past year. So, what if you get a new Power Series? new processor, totally new family IBM is apparently abandoning the ROMP? new operating system version AIX 2.2.1 is the highest supported version of AIX on your old RT. AIX 3.whatever is the first version for the new IBM boxes. new compilers The America chip set has a totally new instruction format; I'm pretty sure IBM has the only compilers for it. new window system? I really don't know the story here, but I know that historically IBM's support of a particular window system for its hardware has been less than coherent. Sort of like Sun. Sort of unlike NeXT. What really is the difference here? You might as well have _not_ switched to the IBM. Or, if you've got an old IBM, you might as well switch to the new NeXT, since your old IBM and new IBM are about as "binary incompatible" as can be. The two lists above are very inconclusive. I argue that NeXT is much more committed to keeping much of the ancillary parts of the system the same, because that (perceived) guaranteed "minimal" configuration is what will preserve their niche market. ("Minimal" has the wrong connotation, since Jobs' notion of "minimal" appears fairly ample compared to many manufacturers'.) On the next NeXT, you'll probably still have a fairly large set of the hardware toys found on the first NeXT. This encourages sophisticated software that expects and exploits the presence of these hardware toys. Also, in NeXT, you've got a company that is clearly interested in that product line, and the window system that runs on it. In recent history, I see no such coherencey, commitment, and "minimal" configuration from IBM for its academic products. I hate for this posting to be such a diatribe, but you asked for it, Ronald. -- Ben Chase , Rice University, Houston, Texas