[Info-vax] Anyone interested in another public access system

[yyyc186]

On Apr 6, 8:00 am, billg... at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>
> So, tell me, what is wrong with forking a new process for each job?  What
> does SPAWN do? The idea of using a separate process for each running task
> is a part of the underlying paradigm that Unix is based on, why would they
> do it any other way?  If you change the paradigm, then it isn't Unix any
> more.  

Well....the concept of a process doesn't really exist in the Unix
kernel.  There used to be only one process, but they might have gotten
it up to two now.  Unix has threads.  Threads are what you get when
you don't get a real operating system from the beginning.  Unix rarely
keeps track of threads.  There are hundreds, if not thousands of
utilities out there to find and kill off dangling threads.  Why do
threads dangle?  Because Unix doesn't really have the concept of a
process.  OpenVMS (and quite a few other operating systems) correctly
implemented the process concept.  You have a parent process and child
processes.  Each child can become a parent its.  The OS keeps track of
parent-child relationships.  When a parent dies the OS handles the
children unless you have specifically told the OS the child is to out-
live the parent when you filled out the birth certificate for the
child.

There is no parent-child thread concept, nor is there a central
starting point for all threads or a central thread registry.

>As for the file system being strictly a stream of bytes, why not?
> Why impose a layer of overhead on all users when for many of the real uses
> of computers every day the stream of bytes is sufficient.  If you want
> more, then use it.  We had C-ISAM and if there really was a desire for it
> ther eis no reason why RMS (or something compatable) could not be called
> as a library interposing itself between that stream of bytes and an
> application, thus limiting the overhead to people who need it and not
> imposing it on people who neither need or want it.  the lack of all of
> these features people keep bringiang up only goes to show that the majority
> of people (based on the ratio of Unix Users to Users of other OSes) just
> plain don't care and don't see any real value in such features.  Unix is

OMG!  I hope you brought enough of whatever you are smoking to share
with everyone.  It must be some really prime stuff!  You really need
to read "The Minimum You Need to Know About Service Oriented
Architecture" (which won 2008 Best Book Award from USA Book News).

There is physically no method for anyone anywhere to "thump in" an RMS
library between a useless stream of bytes and an application.  There
is no way to create "something compatible".

The "ratio" has more to do with Unix being free.  The artificial world
of universities likes free, so that is what they use.  When students
graduate, that is all they know.  They do not understand what IT
really is, or what it takes to create a reliable business system.  Now
we have off-shore Universities cranking out $10/day labor with the
same abysmal skill set.  MBA's have a degree proving they have been
purged of ethics, morals, and the concept of any sentient being
deserving some level of dignity and respect.  This "free thinking"
allows them to commit attrocities normally associate with people like
Hitler and Mengela with a clear consience.  One has to understand
these things to understand how Unix proliferated.  One has to also
understand that corporations can murder tens of thousands without CEOs
or the board of directors going to prison (think DOW Chemical and
Bopal, Caremark and two rounds of killing off hemophiliacs (first from
known HIV tainted source blood, second from China production facility
having a sideline of industrial waste disposal))

When you enter the business world with this mentality, and only one
university provided tool to increase profits (Cut Costs!) you
gravitate to whatever is free.  You replace systems where peoples
lives are at stake with the cheapest thing on the market, knowing full
well you will never serve a day in prison.  Unix was never fit for
business use, nor was it ever intended for business use.  It was a
task switching platform with a primary application of operating a
telephone switch.  The task switing piece came about because they
wanted remote access for technicians to cut costs.  When you
understand the original design scope, you understand why Unix is as
crippled as it is...there wasn't much it _had_ to do.

As a desktop OS, Unix/Linux are fine.  Task switching works fine on
the desktop.  You can even survive with only worthless byte streams
for your files if you have to as a desktop user.

As a business back end, Unix/Linx are a crime against humanity.
Without the concept of a record integrated in the OS kernel, you
cannot create an integrated lock manager.  Without an integrated
distributed lock manager you cannot create an integrated distributed
transaction manager.  Without an integrated distributed transaction
manager, you cannot cluster.  Period.  There are some really pathetic
products, like Tuxedo, out there claiming to give ACMS level of
distributed application control to the Unix market.  It's a lie.  You
cannot "bolt on" ACMS level of integrity because the underlying OS is
providing much of that integrity on OpenVMS.

There are operating systems out in the world which get many of these
concepts correct.  Unix, Linux, and Windows simply aren't among them.


> the most adaptable of any OS that I have ever worked with (and I have
> worked with a lot of different OSes most of which have not survived the
> advancement of the industry).  Any of these features that people bring
> up could be added, most of them quite easily, but none of them have benn.
> And the reason is so blatantly obvious.  The Unix user community just
> doesn't see enough value in them to bother

The blatantly obvious reason is they can't be added to Unix and have
it still be Unix.

Cheaper isn't better, it's simply cheaper.

Don't confuse "a wide assortment of free hacks I can download,
compile, and run" with either adaptable or robust.