News Group Posts

what's wrong with unix

Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:06:07 -0500
From: Bill Vermillion <bill@wjv.com>
Subject: "It's deja-vu, all over again"

I believe it was Casey Stengel who said that.  Or Yogi Bera.

Going through some old stuff - I had copied in an old tape and
burned the contents to CD.  I was looking over some articles and
came across this one.

In the following article substitute the word Linux for Unix, the
word Windows for DOS, and see if a lot still doesn't ring true - 13
years later. Will we never learn?

Note that this is from comp.misc  June 14, 1988

***************************************

From: rk@bigbroth.UUCP (rohan kelley)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Its time to uni(x)fy
Keywords: window of opportunity, unify, OSF,now or never
Message-ID: <198@bigbroth.UUCP> 
Date: 14 Jun 88 14:01:27 GMT


The world of unix has a window of opportunity.  For each of us, unix
users, this is also the same opportunity.  It is obvious to each user
what universal acceptance of unix could mean.  Imagine the day when the
trade publications carry the statistics that shipments of hardware
with unix as the primary or host operating system have surpassed those
of DOS and OS/2.

That will only happen after a number of prerequisites have been met.
Among those are:

     1. A common user friendly front end has been added to hide the 
        harshness below. (Why doesn't the default end prompt for pg say 
        "Press [return] to proceed" rather than "(EOF):"
     2. Application software in DOS-like quantity and quality is 
        available.
     3. A seamless and transparent DOS-under-unix is built in.
     4. One common or universal unix is available.

1. The user-friendly front end is being worked on now.

2. Unix software applications are good.  In some instances they are
more powerful than their DOS counterparts.  To the extent that they are
OS dependent, they are always more powerful.  For example, now with 
Word Perfect for word processing, we have the equivalent of the DOS
functionality, but, just as the unix version was released, the DOS
version took another quantum leap forward in power and functionality.
The unix offerings are, however, not as numerous.  We argue "How many
word processors (or spread sheets) can you use at the same time", but
that probably won't pursuade any more people in the future than it did
in the past. The reality is that we will not win converts to our
operating system until we have substantial software available.

But there is that window of opportunity.  /usr/digest newsletter quotes
Datapro that the growth this year in 386 boxes is 161% and these now
represent 8% of total PC machines.  The is the first PC practically
powerful enough to run unix.  It is far too powerful for either DOS or
OS/2 for several years to come.  Ergo, if you want to take advantage of
the power of the hardware, you must run an OS other than DOS or OS/2.

The trade publications are just beginning to give space to unix
articles or news, albeit grudgingly.  InfoWorld now has a page devoted
to Unix.  The PC magazines are beginning to discuss Unix in some of the
columns, but still with little or no feature articles.  All this is a
recognition that _THE_COMPUTING_PUBLIC_IS_BECOMING_CURIOUS_ABOUT_UNIX.

This is our window of opportunity! Some common organization which can
present a vendor-impartial face, perhaps /usr/group or usenix shoul
form a public information group to conduct a full-blown campaign to
educate the DOS-public and the DOS-software development community about
the advantages and "ease of use" and power of unix. 

They should conduct day-long and then multi-day seminars for software
developers covering "Programing in the Unix environment", the potential
market and how to reach it, co-operative advertising and marketing, and
all topics on how to develop and market software for the unix market.
These seminars should be free to the industry and should be given in
locations all across the country -- like a traveling road show.  There
should be a membership drive for software developers with a hotline to
answer technical questions regarding program development.  The
manufacturers should be asked to donate hardware which can be furnished
to proven software developers who agree to develop unix applications.
All this activity should be directed by this vendor-independent group.

Funding for the group should be provided by hardware and software
developers and by the primary unix operating system vendors.  If OSF
can raise 90 million overnight, funding should be no problem.

3. There has been a lot written lately about the two major DOS-under-
unix programs.  No DOSling would agree to give it up cold turkey.  The
only way we will lure him over is to leave the door open to go back
with the push of a key.  Every 368 unix product should have integrated
into it (not packaged with it) a DOS-under-unix. And it should work
with no problem or question.  And it has to take less than a unix guru
to install it.  SCO, Microport, Interactive and AT&T should
license (or as it relates to AT&T, buy) one of the existing systems or
develop their own and integrate it into the operating system.

4. For the unix user community, the best thing that could happen is the
AT&T initiative in converging the three major unix strains, BSD, SV,
and xenix.  Do you think that DOS could have existed in 3 versions,
which were incompatible?  One compatible standard will encourage
software developers to develop and will allow users access to
substantially greater quantity and quality of software.

Too much has been written about OSF to comment more than briefly 
to tie into these opinions.  

First, it is clearly and unquestionably severely detrimental to the 
unix community.  This is not to say that it is inherently good or bad.  
The American revelation was clearly and unquestionably detrimental to 
the British empire in 1776 and its later greatness, but that is not to 
say it was bad.  Its just that there was no other viable alternative.

But consider timing.  Remember that "window of opportunity" regarding
the DOS world.  We can't lure all those DOS users when their response
is "unix, ... which unix?" The reason there are so many flames directed
against and suspected motives regarding OSF is that if DOS vested 
interests wanted to hold off the unix attack, or even wanted to kill 
unix, what they would have done is something very similar to OSF.  The 
OSF people justify their actions saying they had no competitive 
alternative, and that may be true, just like the Boston Tea Party. 
Assuming that OSF's motives were not to kill or retard unix, 
reunification is the only missing ingredient to a successful 
competitive brew.  Properly managed, financed and coordinated, the unix 
world is in a competitive position to mount the final assault on the 
DOS/OS/2 world.  This window of opportunity will not exist 3 or 4 years 
from now when OS/2 matures.  It is now or not for the present.  This is 
why the OSF is so untimely.  

Both sides will loose.  AT&T gets substantial revenue from OS sales.
HP and other members (with the possible exception of IBM) stand to
penetrate markets which they never had with substantial commercial
success.  Divided, this community will loose to OS/2.  United (or
reunited) it can blow OS/2 into oblivion.  But only now -- not later.
AT&T needs to yield and guarantee concurrent commercial access to new
versions.  OSF needs to abandon, or at least defer development of a new
operating system.  If AT&T offers iron-clad guarantees of equal access,
then the motives of OSF will become clear.  If they continue, it is
only as a unix spoiler and the unix community should rise up as a mass
market and refuse to support such activity.  We can all vote with out
purchases.

Its time for AT&T to take the first step toward immediate
reconciliation.  Clearly, the product is proprietary and no one can be
forced to contract away proprietary market advantages.  If they don't,
however, this tremendous potential opportunity will be lost to them and
the benefits to having unix as the premier OS will be lost to all of 
us.  AT&T doesn't have the marketing clout by themselves to make unix 
an "industry standard" the way IBM did with DOS. (Sometimes one wonders 
if AT&T has ANY marketing clout and what the other companies are afraid 
of.) If they want it as an industry standard, they have to give some in 
the competitive market place and allow open access.  This is not in 
writing the OS since that can't be done by committee, it simply means 
that they must place guarantees in place to allow equal competitive 
access to the final product. They should publically state those offered
guarantees so we can see if they are being reasonable and if OSF
rejects a reasonable offer, so we can know who the culprits really
are. 

All AT&T needs to do is to fantasize about selling as many copies 
of unix per year as are now sold in DOS.

The ball is in AT&T's court.  

=======================================================================
Rohan Kelley -- UNIleX Systems, Inc. (Systems and software for lawyers)
UUCP:  ...{ihnp4!codas,ucf-cs,allegra,uflorida}!novavax!bigbroth!rk
ATTmail:  attmail!bigbroth!rk
3365 Galt Ocean Drive, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Phone: (305) 563-1504

"Go first class or your heirs will" -somebodyelse
=======================================================================

****************************************

Bill
-- 
Bill Vermillion -   bv @ wjv . com

Comments?

Jump to Comments

Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.

Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.

We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.