Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!fortune!ojs From: ojs@fortune.UUCP (Oliver Sharp) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: S1 & NCC Message-ID: <3940@fortune.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Aug-84 12:13:48 EDT Article-I.D.: fortune.3940 Posted: Fri Aug 3 12:13:48 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Aug-84 03:19:16 EDT References: <642@sri-arpa.UUCP> Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA Lines: 59 [] A couple of things about the article posted to the net recently: I am currently learning UNIX (I ought to be, given that we sell a UNIX box!) and have been learning some of the delights and pitfalls of this OS. Beginners are always the ones who complain about the system because it is hard to learn, the documentation is not beginner-friendly, etc, etc. These complaints are, by and large, true. One thing that people seem to lose sight of quite often is that UNIX was written by software developers FOR software development. It is a wonderful environment for just that. I call the orientation of UNIX expert-friendly, and I think it is great. Once you know how to use the system, a process that takes quite a while, you can be very productive with it. I have an IBM PC and I keep adding programs to it trying to get up to the level of functionality a normal UNIX system already has. A couple of languages, make, communications software, text editors, utilities galore, etc. are all standard. Each of these must be purchased separately for the PC and don't work together nearly as well as the UNIX utilities do. So, while it is time consuming to understand the UNIX system, if you want to do software development, it is worth the effort. Another complaint mentioned in the article was that there are all these versions of UNIX floating around and nothing will transfer from one to the other without changes. Again, this is true. However, I would like to see ANY other OS that runs on machines from an IBM PC up to DEC VAXen and higher still that allows ANY transportability at all. This is not really an argument in favor of UNIX over a new, even better system, but it is a favorable note in the real world where people are trying to get work done. It is possible to port a UNIX program between versions with RELATIVELY FEW changes most of the time. If the program was written with portability in mind, it is usually quite easy. Porting across AT&T versions is generally not too bad, and things generally don't get too tricky unless you start dealing with Berkeley's new version, 4.2 BSD. There have been a number of changes in it which sacrificed compatibility for functionality. A lot of people don't like 4.2 for that reason. Anyway, the point is that there is a lot of compatibility and most programs port fairly easily most of the time. Part of this is also due to the fact that almost EVERYTHING in UNIX is written in C (which I like a lot) and almost nothing is written in Assembler (which I also like, but .....). This is why it is so easy (relatively speaking, of course) to bring up UNIX on a new machine. Once the assembly stuff is rewritten, the C that sits on top of it doesn't need to be changed too much. While I see some of the faults that others find in UNIX, there isn't anything I've come across that does better. BTW, the UNIX idea of having a single file type is NOT bad - it is a cornerstone of the whole system and is a GREAT idea. I just thought that someone ought to mention the other side. I'm sure some of the UNIX gurus out there could write a much more spirited rebuttal, so come on guys - out with it! I think we could get a good discussion going (in net.micro.pc??? - maybe we should switch groups; I can feel the heat already). I love mail - send flames, agreements, etc. Oliver Sharp .......!fortune!ojs