[Info-vax] [OT] Linux vs Windows vs OS X. Was Re: Unix on A DEC Vax?

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <nospam-3395ED.21543919012013 at news.chingola.ch>,
	Paul Sture <nospam at sture.ch> writes:
> In article <am0ap2F23lrU1 at mid.individual.net>,
>  billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> 
>> In article <nospam-9BBB3A.18542519012013 at news.chingola.ch>,
>> 	Paul Sture <nospam at sture.ch> writes:
>> > In article <alvu1iFllU2 at mid.individual.net>,
>> >  billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>> > 
>> >> In article <50fa9a7b$0$6073$e4fe514c at dreader36.news.xs4all.nl>,
>> >> 	MG <marcogbNO at SPAMxs4all.nl> writes:
>> >> > On 19-jan-2013 1:07, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> >> >> The only operating system which seems to have a serious future
>> >> >> is Linux.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Mostly for "LAMP" web servers, but hardly on 'the desktop' and
>> >> > (especially there) Linux is still extremely marginal.  
>> >> 
>> >> Huh??  I am playing with three different "Desktop Linux" distributions
>> >> now that install easier than Windows and have all the functionality 
>> >> offered by a full-fledged (read after you buy a lot of extras) Windows
>> >> right out of the box!!
>> > 
>> > Windows installations are far easier than they used to be, particularly 
>> > for the server versions.  
>> 
>> In the past week I have done a 2008 Server and a Ubuntu.  Which one
>> do you think was harder?
> 
> It's been a couple of years since I installed Ubuntu but I'd reckon 
> Ubuntu is the harder of the two.

Damn, I thought that question was rhetorical.  No, Ubuntu was trivial.
My father could have installed it.  :-)

> 
>> > 
>> > For a long time I was convinced that Microsoft made installation 
>> > deliberately labour intensive.   Do you remember all the kerfuffle a 
>> > decade or more ago about the Out Of The Box Experience from MS, where 
>> > they laid down strict guidelines as to how OEMs wrote their own 
>> > installation routines?
>> 
>> I never thought it was deliberate. Never attribute to malice that which
>> can be adequately explained by stupidity.
> 
> I thought it was very deliberate, but may have been driven by marketing 
> above all else.
>  
>> > 
>> > The most accurate description I have come across for that is Stockholm 
>> > Syndrome.  Anyone who had to slog through Windows ME's interminable 
>> > "Press OK to continue" prompts will recognise that.
>> > 
>> > Linux is definitely ahead of Windows in terms of selecting your language 
>> > and tailoring your disks at installation, but the latter is not for 
>> > novices.
>> 
>> My last Ubuntu install asked only one question: Do you want to use the
>> whole disk?  In the average users desktop install I can think of no
>> reason to ever answer no.
> 
> OK, I'm not the average user, and was doinbg dual boot installations.

Yes, that makes it into something even a pro wil likely have a hard
time with.  But, getting back to competing with Windows, how many of
the average Windows users have multi-boot systems?

> 
> I did find Ubuntu a swine when I wanted to do something as simple as 
> change the desktop image, 

really?  I don't usually mess with stuff like that as it is non-functional
and PC's to me, regardless of which OS they run, are just tools and all I
care about is functionality.  I'll take a look at it later.  But, to be
honest, I don't know how to do it on Windows either.  I seem to recall
seeing it in a menu somewhere (tiled or stretched to fit) but I tend to
not change it there either.

>                           and particularly when I wanted a non-US date 
> format (which seems strange when you consider that Canonical is a UK 
> company).

I can't believe that is that difficult.  Date format where?  Wouldn't that
be application specific rather than something the OS does?  Date in the
OS is always ticks since the epoch.

> 
>> > 
>> > When it comes to applying the latest patches to the O/S, Linux is 
>> > streets ahead of Windows as well.  With Windows you need to apply the 
>> > updates and reboot then rinse and repeat multiple times before you are 
>> > up to date.
>> 
>> I have always assumed this was due to the fact that some of even the
>> kernel stuff in Windows is in dynamic libraries that need to be reloaded
>> before later patches can be applied.
> 
> Could be, but I have been informed by experienced Windows developers 
> that this needn't be the case.

Needn't be or isn't?  There are lots of things in lots od OSes that
"needn't" be.  But you still get stuck with them because some engineer
up the chain thought it was necessary (mark memory parity in the Prime
mini, for example!!)

>  
>> > 
>> >> > This was
>> >> > also exactly the area which VMS supposedly underestimated.
>> >> 
>> >> I doubt anyone here evert hought VMS was tsargeted for or even
>> >> reasonbly considerable for a desktop.  None of the orignal development
>> >> was in that direction.  And by the time the "Desktop" became important
>> >> VMS was already to deeply ingrained with Server concepts.
>> > 
>> > If you had access the excellent DEC Direct magazine produced by DEC UK 
>> > in the early 90s you would have come across various desktop productivity 
>> > tools.  DEC had a word processor for Windows that was well ahead of the 
>> > competition too.  From what I recall that was competitively priced 
>> > against a standalone copy of MS Word, but couldn't hope to compete with 
>> > the bundled packages of word processor, spreadsheet and presentation 
>> > utility, especially where most vendors would offer deep discounts if you 
>> > proved you already had a copy of a competitor's product.
>> 
>> But that's not VMS.  There were lots of alternatives for Windows in the
>> early days.  None of them ever had enough marketshare to compete.  Now,
>> that could be because being the OS vendor MS had a legitimate competitive
>> advantage or it could  have been their questionable business practices,
>> but in any event, if the biggies like WordStar and WordPerfect could not
>> compete thinkng that DEC ever had a chance would be rather naive.
> 
> I got carried away a bit there, but there were things like DEC Document 
> and DECwrite, Teamworks, All-In-One which all ran on VMS.

Well, there was even WordPerfect for Unix and they even did a VMS
version.  But look at the GUI part.  Over 20 years behind at this point.
It, apparently, was never seen as something they were interested in. 

>  
>> > 
>> >> >                                                             The
>> >> > worrisome part is, that many 'mission-critical' things are on
>> >> > Windows systems; for instance, I've seen TV news imagery from
>> >> > navy vessels here, with Windows logos on the background (of the
>> >> > 'desktop', I presume)...
>> >> 
>> >> Just because the frontend says WindowsXP doesn't mean the backend is.
>> >> Many hospitals have Windows on the desktop and Mumps (yes, that Mumps)
>> >> in the backend. (Look up Vista and I don't mean the one from Microsoft.)
>> > 
>> > Many moons ago I worked with a product which had the support of more 
>> > users per VAX CPU than any other software as one of its design goals.  
>> > When the developer commissioned an "independent survey" to look at the 
>> > competing products, Vista came out top in several performance metrics, 
>> > with the developer's product coming a respectable second.
>> 
>> Read what I said again.  I am not talking about MS Vista.  Vista is a
>> hospital/medical office package written originally for the VA.  it runs
>> on Mumps.  Most hospitals frontend it with Windows boxes but that is
>> nothing but the UI.
> 
> No, this was in the early 90s, long before MS used the name.  I think we 
> are talking about the same product, which ran on VAX hardware.
> 
> http://vistapedia.net/index.php?title=MUMPS_Overview
> 
> "MUMPS is a general purpose ANSI and ISO standard computer language 
> which is a key component of VistA systems. As with VistA, there is 
> considerable history.
> 
> MUMPS is the middle component of the whole VistA structural stack.
> 
> The structural components of most VistA implementations includes in its 
> stack-
> 
> 1. computer hardware running as a server - from PC's to much larger CPUs
>       the VA runs many DEC(now HP) VAX
>       A PC may run Linux - GTM Stacks
> 2. An Operation system- Linux or Windows or DEC/HP VMS
> 3. MUMPS/M System  - Cache' or GT.M are the usual
> 4. Kernel (FileMan Sub component) - standardizes communications betwen 
> OS and FileMan and MUMPS VistA Apps
> 
> ..."
> 

Yep.  That's the one.  Too bad it would take so much work to get GT.M
to run on VMS.  Could have put VMS back in the medical niche.  I under-
stand that Vista is the number one hospital system, especially outside
the US where money is even tighter.

>> > 
>> > No problems here either.  There is some silliness with those 
>> > distributions which try to persuade you that "proprietary software is 
>> > evil" and make you hunt for various codecs.  
>> 
>> The only ring like this I have ru into was Ubuntu which says something about
>> Flash being third-party and making me click a checkbox if I want it.
> 
> I think it was Fedora which gave me a lecture.  Open Solaris went 
> further and pointed me at commercially available codecs.
> 
> Fedora "Forbidden items":
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items?rd=ForbiddenItems

Not surprising.  Coming from a company that violates the BPL all the time
with noone complaining or trying to stop it.

>  
> 
>> >> And yet, OS x is nothing but BSD packaged by a third party who, by the way,
>> >> have no real control over the direction the lower levels go.  They either
>> >> stand still or risk having all their third party offerings obsoleted over-
>> >> night.
>> > 
>> > But Apple does have the resources to fork it.
>> 
>> Some rags are questioning how much longer the Apple domain will last.
> 
> They are saying the same about MS, HP and others too.  I really cannot 
> see Apple disappearing any time soon.

Didn't say dieappearing, just losing a lot of the dominance.  MS is in
an evenmore dangerous position.  I would bet that the government accounts
for a very large portion of MS's business.  If they were to decide that
they can no longer afford that luxury and that OpenSource can meet their
needs (and it can!!) it could prove rather disturbing to their bottom line.
I am actually working on a magazine article (which I doubt anyone here will
ever see) to address this very issue with at least one faction of DOD.)

> 
>> 
>> I am actually looking at VirtualBox on Server 2008 again.  It has improved
>> but it still has some quirks I don't like.  But we will see where it goes.
> 
> I found VirtualBox on Server 2008 to be very solid and it could 
> certainly handle some hefty I/O loads.

Two problems that I am aware of (from experience):

1. Guests don't restart automatically on reboot. (I have been given some
work-arounds for this, but I hate kludges)
2. I could not get 64bit BSD to run as a guest.  Not sure why as it should
but at the moment, 32 bit still works for the specific tasks I need it to
do.

So I am continuing my research and may decide it has grown up enough to
handle the necessary tasks.


> 
>> The built in virtualization from MS seemed to be cutting some people (like
>> FreeBSD) out of the picture.  VMWare is really nice.  As long as you work
>> for someone with deep pockets.  The only employer I have had in a long time
>> who met that requirement was the government and with the state of the budget
>> and the the economy, that may not last either.
> 


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>