Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!rpi!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!
hagbard!sunic!kth.se!cyklop.nada.kth.se!news
From: d86-...@dront.nada.kth.se (E Magnus Hulthen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Solaris 2.0 and C libraries
Message-ID: <D86-EMH.92Jan5155713@dront.nada.kth.se>
Date: 5 Jan 92 14:57:15 GMT
Sender: n...@nada.kth.se (Mr News)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Lines: 16
I've seen a lot of discussion about the Sun removing the C compiler from
Solaris 2.0. However I haven't seen if the C libraries will be removed as
well. Does anybody know if that is the case?
The way I see it is that if the libraries remain there wont be any problem
at all since the GNU C compiler is good enough. The 2.0 version of GNU C
will be even better than the Sun C compiler (allegedly :-). The only problem
with the GNU compiler and Sun libraries are the structure passing conventions
which are currently incompatible.
Anyway with the OS wars breaking out in 92 I think that Sun will have to be
a bit careful about alienating its customers. Who knows we might be running
NeXT Step on out SPARC stations by 93 :-).
d86-...@nada.kth.se, Magnus Hulthen
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!sgigate!psinntp!psinntp!
visix!news
From: ama...@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Solaris 2.0 and C libraries
Message-ID: <1992Jan5.162445.29602@visix.com>
Date: 5 Jan 92 16:24:45 GMT
References: <D86-EMH.92Jan5155713@dront.nada.kth.se>
Sender: n...@visix.com
Distribution: comp
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
Lines: 17
d86-...@dront.nada.kth.se (E Magnus Hulthen) writes:
> Anyway with the OS wars breaking out in 92 I think that Sun will have to be
> a bit careful about alienating its customers. Who knows we might be running
> NeXT Step on out SPARC stations by 93 :-).
That or Windows/NT... Sun's only two great strengths, unless they make
some course corrections, will probably end up being (a) manufacturing &
delivery capacity (where 486 & ACE boxes will give them a run for their
money) and (b) brand loyalty. My impression is that Sun marketing has a
lot of faith in (b), which may not actually be based in fact :)...
Amanda Walker ama...@visix.com
Project Leader, Multiplatform Software Development
Visix Software Inc. +1 800 832 8668
--
"Let's split up--we can do more damage that way!" --Ghostbusters
Path: sparky!uunet!gossip.pyramid.com!pyramid!unify!Unify.com!dgh
From: d...@Unify.com (David Harrington)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Ajay Shah (Was Re: Windows NT)
Message-ID: <kd9l5qs@Unify.Com>
Date: 10 Jan 92 01:10:11 GMT
References: <kmf83bINN9sq@alhena.usc.edu> <1992Jan7.153522.15530@visix.com>
<1992Jan8.170208.2686@ornl.gov> <kmnkhoINN12m@alhena.usc.edu>
Sender: n...@Unify.Com (news admin)
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)
Lines: 41
In article <kmnkhoINN...@alhena.usc.edu>, ajays...@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
writes:
>
> To be sure, the world once had a similar large investment in the
> dinosaurs (still does to some extent). Unix was able to replace
> the dinosaurs by offering a dramatic improvement in bottomline
> price/punch (better punch at lower price).
I've got a news flash for you: The dinosaurs haven't been replaced, and
they aren't real likely to be any time soon. You try to imagine AmEx
processing its worldwide credit card operation with Unix. Not bloody likely.
TP monitors are just beginning to be talked about in Unix, and for these
*really* global apps, like Airline reservations, AmEx, ATM's, etc., this
is what you need.
> Now Microsoft is a
> company with a crummy OS record (look at Windows and OS/2, not
> to mention DOS).
Hmmm... crummy, maybe. But who cares? DOS is far and away the most popular
and populus piece of software in the history of the business.
> In the best scenario, people have described a
> NT which is a lot like Unix (decent kernel, decent /bin tools,
> will compile net software, compatibility with X and TCP/IP,
> multiprocessor support, etc -- all in a very optimistic
> scenario). I don't see such a system, especially one which throws
> you back into dependence on one vendor, as being dramatically
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> successful in the commercial marketplace.
BINGO! I think when you're talking about mission critical apps for any
business, esp. the xaction oriented, with lots of users and terrabytes
of data, decision makers will not want to be locked into one company,
the way they are with IBM. (oh, and by the way, this is where the *real*
money is in the software business, in case you didn't notice)
--
David Harrington internet: d...@unify.COM
Unify Corporation voice: +1 916 928-6255
3901 Lennane Drive, Sacramento, CA 95834 fax: +1 916 928-6401
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.windows.ms
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!agate!linus!philabs!crpmks!wizkid!ksmith!keith
From: ke...@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith)
Subject: Re: Windows NT vs. UNIX (Was Re: Windows NT)
Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 92 17:18:05 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Feb02.171805.1645@ksmith.uucp>
References: <1992Jan8.170208.2686@ornl.gov> <kmnkhoINN12m@alhena.usc.edu>
<kd9l5qs@Unify.Com>
In article <kd9l...@Unify.Com> d...@Unify.com (David Harrington) writes:
>In article <kmnkhoINN...@alhena.usc.edu>, ajays...@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
writes:
>
>>
>> To be sure, the world once had a similar large investment in the
>> dinosaurs (still does to some extent). Unix was able to replace
>> the dinosaurs by offering a dramatic improvement in bottomline
>> price/punch (better punch at lower price).
>
>I've got a news flash for you: The dinosaurs haven't been replaced, and
>they aren't real likely to be any time soon. You try to imagine AmEx
>processing its worldwide credit card operation with Unix. Not bloody likely.
>TP monitors are just beginning to be talked about in Unix, and for these
>*really* global apps, like Airline reservations, AmEx, ATM's, etc., this
>is what you need.
>
Ho,
Woa,
Airline Reservations you say? How about Hotel/Motel? ATMs? All three can
be found running on SMALL (mini & micro) platforms networked & Not.
Your DAMN right I can SEE American Express Downgrading to Super Micro's.
Give me a BREAK. All the big Corportations are doing it. Dumping
proprietary Mainframe enviroments for *IX. Do you read the trade rags
at all? OLTP and Database applications are comming online for
Super-Micros as we speak. Informix OnLine was featured in an article in
Info World for Christs Sake. First of all Many of these applications do
not REQUIRE the services of a Mainframe PER SE. You need a FAST DISK
SUBSYSTEM, and Excellent communications capabilities. The old fashioned
method would be to lease some phone lines and tie each branch into some
monster Dinasaur Pen remotely. How about NYNEX and AMEX? Network of
Mini's? You DISTRIBUTE data across the "network" of machines. This is
where UNIX SHINES. It Communicates WELL. In fact that is the #1
feature of unix. DINASAURS are being dumped by the HUNDREDS. Why the
hell do you think IBM is SLASHING prices and losing money? Because
people are falling over themselves to buy 3090's. No, because people
are DUMPING EXPENSIVE 3090's and buying HP's and SUNS and 486 boxes that
do the SAME JOB for 1/10th the cost. Enter RS/6000.
>> Now Microsoft is a
>> company with a crummy OS record (look at Windows and OS/2, not
>> to mention DOS).
>
>Hmmm... crummy, maybe. But who cares? DOS is far and away the most popular
>and populus piece of software in the history of the business.
>
Agreed. And totally due to MARKETING. But, lets face it. It's
difficult to MARKET Free software even if it does work better.
>> In the best scenario, people have described a
>> NT which is a lot like Unix (decent kernel, decent /bin tools,
>> will compile net software, compatibility with X and TCP/IP,
>> multiprocessor support, etc -- all in a very optimistic
>> scenario). I don't see such a system, especially one which throws
>> you back into dependence on one vendor, as being dramatically
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> successful in the commercial marketplace.
>
>BINGO! I think when you're talking about mission critical apps for any
>business, esp. the xaction oriented, with lots of users and terrabytes
>of data, decision makers will not want to be locked into one company,
>the way they are with IBM. (oh, and by the way, this is where the *real*
>money is in the software business, in case you didn't notice)
>
>--
>David Harrington internet: d...@unify.COM
>Unify Corporation voice: +1 916 928-6255
>3901 Lennane Drive, Sacramento, CA 95834 fax: +1 916 928-6401
--
/ _/_ / _/_ /
/_ _ o / /_ _ ______ o / /_
/ <_</_<_<__/ /_ /_)_/ / / <_<_<__/ /_
aka Digital Designs uunet!ksmith!keith GEMail: K.SMITH52
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.windows.ms
From: mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum)
Subject: The role of marketing (Re: Windows NT vs. UNIX (Was ...))
Message-ID: <1992Feb3.001704.29226@decuac.dec.com>
Sender: news@decuac.dec.com (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hussar.dco.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Washington ULTRIX Resource Center
References: <kmnkhoINN12m@alhena.usc.edu> <kd9l5qs@Unify.Com>
<1992Feb02.171805.1645@ksmith.uucp>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1992 00:17:04 GMT
keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith) writes:
>>Hmmm... crummy, maybe. But who cares? DOS is far and away the most popular
>>and populus piece of software in the history of the business.
>>
>
>Agreed. And totally due to MARKETING. But, lets face it. It's
>difficult to MARKET Free software even if it does work better.
Au contraire. It's not totally due to marketing.
DOS may be a technically stupid OS, but it does the job for most
people. That's not marketing - that's just plain good business sense. We
operating systems gurus have to remember that Joe User doesn't typically
care if the operating system is the greatest thing since sliced bread -
they just want to get the job done. IBM and Microsoft marketed DOS and
PCs as machines on which the average person could get a hell of a lot of
an average workload done. More power to them. McDonalds' cooking isn't
cordon bleu - it's cheap, edible, and *STANDARD* - and they're not losing
money last I looked.
We UNIX weenies would do well to realize that the DOS phenomenon
is a sign of how to do business. Joe User doesn't (typically) care which
standards consortium or vendor group you're aligned with this week, or
any of that crap - they just want to get the job done without having to
think about it.
DOS may suck - it does - but there's a lot to be said for knowing
that if you write your application for it, you've targetted 6+million
machines without having to worry about operating system release levels,
or binary compatibility, or whether vendor XXY's socket interface is
kinda broken.
UNIX is *NEVER* going to rule the desktop until it's got that kind
of absolute portability. Unfortunately Joe User's not stupid enough to
want to waste his time learning all the little differences between
MUMBLENIX and FRATZNIX2.0.
mjr.
--
One should question the motives of people who demand "User-friendly"
software. Are they really convinced that being asked "Are you sure? (Y/N)"
will make the program easier to use, or are they simply egotists who enjoy
having a machine act as if it respects them? -notebooks of a heretic
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.windows.ms
From: bill@connection.prospect.com (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: The role of marketing (Re: Windows NT vs. UNIX (Was ...))
Message-ID: <1992Feb5.010226.5906@ctr.columbia.edu>
Sender: news@ctr.columbia.edu (The Daily Lose)
Reply-To: bill@polygen.com
Organization: Polygen Corporation, Waltham, MA
References: <1992Feb3.001704.29226@decuac.dec.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 01:02:26 GMT
mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) writes:
: DOS may be a technically stupid OS, but it does the job for most
: people. That's not marketing - that's just plain good business sense. We
: operating systems gurus have to remember that Joe User doesn't typically
: care if the operating system is the greatest thing since sliced bread -
: they just want to get the job done. IBM and Microsoft marketed DOS and
: PCs as machines on which the average person could get a hell of a lot of
: an average workload done. More power to them. McDonalds' cooking isn't
: cordon bleu - it's cheap, edible, and *STANDARD* - and they're not losing
: money last I looked.
I agree that people use DOS because it gets work done. What I think
"technically better OSes" offer people is something they don't realize
that they need: more productivity. If you were to ask every Windows user
how often they reboot thier machine a day, you probably would average out
to more than 1. Of course that depends on what they do. What Windows NT
(and my favorite OS/2 2.0) offer is the ability to run more programs,
faster, with better integration, less down time, less lost work etc.
:
: We UNIX weenies would do well to realize that the DOS phenomenon
: is a sign of how to do business. Joe User doesn't (typically) care which
: standards consortium or vendor group you're aligned with this week, or
: any of that crap - they just want to get the job done without having to
: think about it.
And unfortuately Joe User doesn't care about the fact he can only run one
program at a time, or only run a few, because his Corel Draw program
sucks down all of his "Resources". He just says "well thats life".
Us UNIX weenies are spoiled compared to DOS users. I am espicially
spoiled because I use SunOS 4.1, which has better development tools and
a more stable OS than IRIX 4.x and AIX 3.x. It is very painful not
having a decent editor which handle large files. Its also painful not
having a good command line interpreter, or a very configurable GUI (as
compared to X11).
:
: DOS may suck - it does - but there's a lot to be said for knowing
: that if you write your application for it, you've targetted 6+million
: machines without having to worry about operating system release levels,
: or binary compatibility, or whether vendor XXY's socket interface is
: kinda broken.
True, but then again you never get programs running on a PC that can run
a simulation program where the compute engin runs on a Cray at some
super-computer center, while the local display interactive shows the
results.
--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras | Polygen Molecular Simulations | bu!polygen!bill |
| (bill) | Waltham, MA USA | - This space for rent- |
| | FAX (617)890-8694 | bill@polygen.com |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.windows.ms
From: mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum)
Subject: Re: The role of marketing (Re: Windows NT vs. UNIX (Was ...))
Message-ID: <1992Feb5.042741.3552@decuac.dec.com>
Sender: news@decuac.dec.com (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hussar.dco.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Washington ULTRIX Resource Center
References: <1992Feb3.001704.29226@decuac.dec.com>
<1992Feb5.010226.5906@ctr.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 04:27:41 GMT
bill@polygen.com writes:
>mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (me)
>: DOS may be a technically stupid OS, but it does the job for most
>: people. That's not marketing - that's just plain good business sense.
>I agree that people use DOS because it gets work done. What I think
>"technically better OSes" offer people is something they don't realize
>that they need: more productivity. If you were to ask every Windows user
>how often they reboot thier machine a day, you probably would average out
>to more than 1.
As I said earlier, I'm one of the biggest UNIX bigots on the
block, and I can't stand DOS, but - have you ever actually configured
a PC network for a paying customer - a customer who has fairly simple
needs (file sharing, printer sharing, the ability to run lots of stuff,
not having to mess with complex file permissions and logins and systems
managemet)? UNIX does *NOT* cut it. It does *NOT* offer more productivity
by any reasonable measure. Yeah, Joe PC user reboots the machine more
than once a day. What's *WRONG* with that? It's an effective mechanism
for problem diagnosis on a PC. Usually it fixes the problem.
See my point? The UNIX industry is going to *FAIL* unless we
simply let people Get It Done - if they can mindlessly reboot a machine
(30 seconds?) 3 times a day - they're *WAY* ahead on the systems
management curve over a UNIX workstation. You don't believe me? Get
a job managing 50 PCs. Then get a job managing 50 workstations. Then
get an ulcer, lose all your hair, and have everyone hate you.
PCs are *NOT* a phenomemon of "eat sh** - 50 billion flies
can't all be wrong" - PCs are amazingly good at filling the niche
they fill. Sure they don't do XXXXXX very well, but if they do it
*adequately*, you'll see a PC on the desk every time. With a 386/486
being almost disposable price-wise against a workstation, and usually
*adequately* fast - and far far cheaper to keep running: UNIX loses.
I'm constantly indebted to one of my past customers who
explained to me (it was pretty cool, 'cuz he was paying me, and
taught me one of the most valuable lessons in perspective in my
career) that when a UNIX/VMS/XYZ guy comes along and starts talking
about how cool multitasking is, and memory protection, and multiuser
and all this - and then they tell the PC user: "best of all, you
don't have to *REBOOT* it when it gets wedged" - the PC user is
confused. Because rebooting a wedged computer's a perfectly fine
way to unwedge it, and it's quick, and doesn't hose the guy next
to you, and you're back working in one minute.
>And unfortuately Joe User doesn't care about the fact he can only run one
>program at a time, or only run a few, because his Corel Draw program
>sucks down all of his "Resources". He just says "well thats life".
No - he doesn't *CARE*. It doesn't have to be perfect, just
adequate, if it's easy to use, and you can fix most problems by
hitting <crtl>-<alt>-<del>.
>Us UNIX weenies are spoiled compared to DOS users.
>[...] I use SunOS 4.1, which has better development tools and
You've never used turbo C, have you? It's an amazing compiler.
I'm sorry - I *HATE* DOS, but I'd lovelovelove to have some of the
stuff you can have for DOS on my nifty-cool workstation. If I could
have it for the price. Not a chance.
>: DOS may suck - it does - but there's a lot to be said for knowing
>: that if you write your application for it, you've targetted 6+million
>: machines
>
>True, but then again you never get programs running on a PC that can run
>a simulation program where the compute engin runs on a Cray at some
>super-computer center, while the local display interactive shows the
>results.
Reality check. The mythical average computer user doesn't know
what a CRAY is, and if he does, he probably doesn't know what version of
DOS it runs... You speak with the voice of a rarefied environment.
mjr.
--
One should question the motives of people who demand "User-friendly"
software. Are they really convinced that being asked "Are you sure? (Y/N)"
will make the program easier to use, or are they simply egotists who enjoy
having a machine act as if it respects them? -notebooks of a heretic
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.windows.ms
From: mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum)
Subject: Re: The role of marketing (Re: Windows NT vs. UNIX (Was ...))
Message-ID: <1992Feb5.044047.3858@decuac.dec.com>
Sender: news@decuac.dec.com (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hussar.dco.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Washington ULTRIX Resource Center
References: <1992Feb3.001704.29226@decuac.dec.com>
<1992Feb5.010226.5906@ctr.columbia.edu> <1992Feb5.042741.3552@decuac.dec.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 04:40:47 GMT
Thoughts provoked by my earlier rant in this same topic:
<1992Feb5.042741.3552@decuac.dec.com>
Maybe we're all racing pell-mell in the wrong direction. The
UNIX industry and vendors are in a terrific race for more complex
standards and features, in an attempt to gain market share via bells
and whistles. It's possible that we're making a tremendous mistake,
since every step we take further into complexity and arcana, we take
another step further away from Joe PC User who's *NEVER* going to
want to figure out the intricacies of things like AFS/RPC/DCE/NFS/etc,
etc, etc, etc.. There are millions of them. It seems to me that
Mr. Gates may have a better feeling for what the real constituency
of the computer industry may be - and he may clean our ("our" the
collected UNIX weenies of the world) clocks, if we can't keep it
simple, my fellow stupids.
mjr.
--
"User Friendly" is a marketing term for "designed to keep idiots from
screwing up."
-notebooks of a heretic
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.windows.ms
From: bill@connection.prospect.com (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: The role of marketing (Re: Windows NT vs. UNIX (Was ...))
Message-ID: <1992Feb6.022237.24419@ctr.columbia.edu>
Sender: news@ctr.columbia.edu (The Daily Lose)
Reply-To: bill@polygen.com
Organization: Polygen Corporation, Waltham, MA
References: <1992Feb5.042741.3552@decuac.dec.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1992 02:22:37 GMT
mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) writes:
: bill@polygen.com writes:
: >Us UNIX weenies are spoiled compared to DOS users.
: >[...] I use SunOS 4.1, which has better development tools and
:
: You've never used turbo C, have you? It's an amazing compiler.
: I'm sorry - I *HATE* DOS, but I'd lovelovelove to have some of the
: stuff you can have for DOS on my nifty-cool workstation. If I could
: have it for the price. Not a chance.
Yes I have. I also have used Saber-C and xdbx, and dbxtool. The first
one is an interpreter environment which blows the doors off of TC, and
the latter two are just debuggers, but much better than the turbo
debugger. I have tried to get work done under Turbo C and I found the
fact that it takes over my whole screen, makes it difficult to use
anything but the built-in editor, I find it highly frustrating. Plus the
lack of ANY command-line interface is also a pain. There are tons of
features that Saber-C has that TC doesn't. However, it costs a lot more.
But my company (a software developer) is willing to get me the tools I
need to get the job done.
I don't want to get into a UNIX vs. DOS development war with you. I just
find UNIX much better to work with medium to large projects.
: >
: >True, but then again you never get programs running on a PC that can run
: >a simulation program where the compute engin runs on a Cray at some
: >super-computer center, while the local display interactive shows the
: >results.
:
: Reality check. The mythical average computer user doesn't know
: what a CRAY is, and if he does, he probably doesn't know what version of
: DOS it runs... You speak with the voice of a rarefied environment.
I wan't talking about the average user. I was talking about people (like
scientists) who have the need to run simulations. Molecular dynamics
simulations can take CPU weeks on a SGI machine. I was just saying that
there are a class of needs that PCs cannot meet today. Eventually
computing will get so developed, the scientist (or other type of
researcher) will have the graphics display on the desktop and the compute
engine at a super-computer center or the companies local compute engine.
--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras | Polygen Molecular Simulations | bu!polygen!bill |
| (bill) | Waltham, MA USA | - This space for rent- |
| | FAX (617)890-8694 | bill@polygen.com |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.windows.ms
From: mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum)
Subject: Re: The role of marketing (Re: Windows NT vs. UNIX (Was ...))
Message-ID: <1992Feb6.031203.4146@decuac.dec.com>
Sender: news@decuac.dec.com (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hussar.dco.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Washington ULTRIX Resource Center
References: <1992Feb5.042741.3552@decuac.dec.com>
<1992Feb6.022237.24419@ctr.columbia.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1992 03:12:03 GMT
bill@polygen.com writes:
[...]
>I don't want to get into a UNIX vs. DOS development war with you.
[...]
>I wan't talking about the average user.
I know. I was.
If you're not talking about the average user, we're talking at
cross purposes, so please stop muddying up the discussion.
My concern was not that UNIX will survive, catering to the
scientists who have specialized needs and aren't average users - my
point was that people who are scoffing at NT and DOS as being stupid
are suffering from fatal over-focus on technology, and a fundamental
failure to realize that often something cheap and adequate is truly
far superior to something technically superior. I don't believe that
Mr. Gates is making a mistake. While the UNIX vendors puff and huff
and struggle over a very small market (the technical user), NT may
very well fill the niche, by being adequate, cheap(er) and easy(ier).
Of course the joke is that the "niche" is something like an
order of magnitude larger.
mjr.
--
Saddam Hussein still has his job. Do you have yours?
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: The role of marketing (Re: Windows NT vs. UNIX (Was ...))
Message-ID: <1992Feb9.203919.26117@news.iastate.edu>
Date: 9 Feb 92 20:39:19 GMT
References: <1992Feb3.001704.29226@decuac.dec.com>
<1992Feb5.010226.5906@ctr.columbia.edu> <1992Feb5.042741.3552@decuac.dec.com>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Lines: 21
mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) writes:
^^^^^^^
} See my point? The UNIX industry is going to *FAIL* unless we
}simply let people Get It Done - if they can mindlessly reboot a machine
}(30 seconds?) 3 times a day - they're *WAY* ahead on the systems
}management curve over a UNIX workstation. You don't believe me? Get
}a job managing 50 PCs. Then get a job managing 50 workstations. Then
}get an ulcer, lose all your hair, and have everyone hate you.
NOT! Two of us manage 500 workstations in addition to our real job
as developers (I guess maybe you've never heard of the DECathena
system management product :)
If they gave me 50 PCs to manage without this kind of tool, I'd be history.
John
--
John Hascall Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011 515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.windows.ms
From: mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum)
Subject: Re: The role of marketing (Re: Windows NT vs. UNIX (Was ...))
Message-ID: <1992Feb9.210256.19859@decuac.dec.com>
Sender: news@decuac.dec.com (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hussar.dco.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Washington ULTRIX Resource Center
References: <1992Feb5.010226.5906@ctr.columbia.edu>
<1992Feb5.042741.3552@decuac.dec.com> <1992Feb9.203919.26117@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1992 21:02:56 GMT
john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>NOT! Two of us manage 500 workstations in addition to our real job
>as developers (I guess maybe you've never heard of the DECathena
>system management product :)
I'm very familiar with DECAthena and MIT's Athena project.
They're great stuff. When you're talking 500 workstations where you
want centralized distributed management you're in great shape. What
to do with the violently decentralized user is always a problem. :)
I don't know if it's a solveable problem, but PCs really are very
appealing to the semi-computer-literate user - who knows enough to
configure the machine with Lotus, but doesn't know not to fire up
routed advertising routes to 16.0.0.0 from his workstation... (not
that that ever happens!)
I'm not trying to provoke a war here, but somehow the PC
manages to be useable enough for a whole hell of a lot of people,
and UNIX doesn't. The numbers bear this out - it's not just good
marketing from uSoft.
mjr.
--
"The nation faces this year, just as it did last year, a tremendous deficit in
the federal budget. But in the President's message there was no sense of
sacrifice on the part of the government, no assignment of priorities, no hint
of the need to put first things first." - George Bush, 1968, critiquing LBJ