Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!ames!eugene From: eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: Marketing Unix Message-ID: <442@ames.UUCP> Date: Thu, 2-Aug-84 15:24:02 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.442 Posted: Thu Aug 2 15:24:02 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Aug-84 02:12:50 EDT Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 47 [][] AARGH! It happened again. I am trying to educate (inform) people about UNIX. 'Selling' U*X within an organization must be as difficult at retail sales. In trying to put together an informative document, I used the "six qualities" from the original UNIX paper by Ken and Dennis. You know: hierarchical file system, asynchronous processes..... I tried it on several interested people and I got questions back like: "What's an hierarchical file system? What good is that? Why not have it like xyz system?" "Why do I need asynchronous processes? Doesn't that waste cycles? [Or a similar line like: doesn't UNIX have batch? Doesn't interactive waste cycles?]" (Invariably these same people come back later saying "Is there same way, I don't have to wait for this thing to get done?....." .... It is easy to answer these questions face to face, or at least over a phone. The challenge is to do this on paper, in organizations that don't have access to systems already. You can certainly pose these questions in advance, but we come up with rationalizations for advantages..."The hierarchy allows you to group files into projects....You don't need to fill up you screen with an `ls`, and so on." One problem seems to be that many people in large organizations have vastly different ways of conceptualizing computing: IBMers say DATASETS others say "files." Another problem is the non interactive nature of written words. A third problem is that many companies offer their inhouse OS (e.g., RSX or VMS) which might compete with their own U*X ["These computer makers know their hardware, don't you think they would write the best OS for their machines?"]. Any ideas on educating the public in general writing? Lastly, I wish to say that in the FALL 83 COMPCON procs. a session was held comparing micro OSs. I think they looked at CP/M, MS/DOS, and UNIX. Clearly, the "cryptic" command naming took the greatest flack. We typically say, that the OS is not the command language or the name of the commands, IT is the "functionality." This is obviously got to change because it represents the one greatest weakness to 'sellng' U*X. --eugene miya NASA Ames Res. Ctr.