[Info-vax] OT: Elephants Can't Dance

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <49c98c7c$0$90262$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
	Arne Vajhøj <arne at vajhoej.dk> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <49c6e55f$0$90276$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
>> 	Arne Vajhøj <arne at vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> In article <49b71a37$0$90263$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
>>>> 	Arne Vajhøj <arne at vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>> In article <49b5d07b$0$90267$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
>>>>>> 	Arne Vajhøj <arne at vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>>>>>>                                     - there are plenty
>>>>>>> of open source operating systems out there,     
>>>>>> Name one serious OS that is open source that is not just another flavor
>>>>>> of Unix.
>>>>> I can not think of any.
>>>> So then, there really aren't "plenty of open source operating systems
>>>> out there", are there.  Just one really.
>>> No.
>>>
>>> Unix and Unix-like operating systems is not one operating system.
>> 
>> For all intents and purposes, yes, they are.  All of them but two trace
>> their origins back to real Unix (but not being willing to pony up the
>> money for certification can not claim that name)  the other two had as
>> one of their primary driving elements to be as close to Unix as possible
>> without invoking the wrath of AT&T.  Any major differences in functionality
>> can be traced to accident or the implementors lack of ability.
> 
> Different maintainers, different code, different functionality,
> different architecture.
> 
> I can not see how that can be one OS.

So, a Ford mechanic can't maintain my Chevy?

> 
> VMS and Windows NT are not one OS just because Cutler reused some ideas.

Never said they were.  I said all the current flavors of Unix and Unix-like
OSes are are, for all intents and purposes, one OS.  If you can do one you
can do any of them.  I know, I do.

> 
>>>>> But what so. Unix roots does not seem to scare away users.
>>>> Why should it?  Contrary to the warped vision of the IT industry found
>>>> here, there really is nothing wrong with Unix.  It has survived and moved
>>>> forward quite nicely over the last 3 decades while many of its competitors
>>>> fell by the wayside.
>>> Surprisingly - yes.
>> 
>> Why "Surprisingly"?
> 
> I don't think Unix 20 years ago were that attractive.

I've been doing it for well over 20 years.  Never saw any real problem.
The only time people see things wrong with Unix is when they look at
20 year old Unix and compare it to modern versions of other OSes.
20 years ago the current versions of Unix were just as good as the
current versions of other OSes.  All OSes have advanced in the last
20 years, Unix among them.

> 
>>                    Or are you one of those people who think there was no
>> design in Unix and it was just something a couple of hackers thrrew together
>> in a back room?  People (especially here) seem to forget that Unix had real
>> users from the very beginning.  Ritchie & Co. had to share the original
>> PDP-11 they developed Unix on with people doing real work while they were
>> doing that development.
> 
> So did MS-DOS.

Huh?  MS-DOS was never multi-user or even multi-tasking.  How could the
developers have shared their development machine with real users while
they were doing the development?

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>