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

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <f279d341-b937-42e1-adc6-9e69b09f6e71 at v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
	yyyc186 <yyyc186 at hughes.net> writes:
> 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.

I'm sorry, this one left me rolling on the floor way too much to even
compose an answer.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>