Very Computer

by **ken..** » Mon, 05 Sep 1994 04:14:13

I'm having an argument with my friend here at *ia Tech, and I
need some expert opinions. Please read and reply.

Here's the scenario:

My friend (let's call him Bob) has a computer (486-33) with 8 MB of RAM and
a 200 meg HD. I on the other hand, have a 486-66 w/16 mb of RAM.

I run OS/2 on my machine. Up until recently, he ran DOS/Windows. He recently
installed Linux on his machine.

He's doing this because he "wants to learn more about his computer."
He says that by using Unix, he's learning things about his computer that he
wouldn't learn otherwise. This is partially true, IMO, because by running
into all the problems of getting Unix off the ground, he's learning a lot
about his computer (i.e. the hardware specs).

My major pet peeve is when someone comes up to me and says "hey I have Unix
so I'm better than you and so is my computer." Well maybe, but hey he
can't run Microsoft Office, or use multimedia or even run the DOS apps
required for engineering classes here. No Xwindows, no graphics, right?
In the mean time, I'm running all my Windows and DOS apps, and getting the
benefit of crash protection and true multitasking (and all other good
stuff with OS/2).

Bob has a friend who has a 486 and Linux. What is it that he can "do" with
a Linux machine that is really productive? Bob says that his friend does
"all sorts of things" with his machine.

What I want to know is:
1) Why do CS majors here use Unix? What is it that is so great about Unix
that can't be done with OS/2? No flames on this one.
2) Isn't the lack of "killer" apps a good reason not to use Unix?
3) Aren't the Borland IDEs considered to be the best in the industry? Is it
possible that ONE person could write as of a good development environment
for C? He has a friend who's developing his own IDE for C on Unix.
4) Why do developers use Unix platforms to develop software? Is it because
of multitasking/crash protection/memory model? Is it true that
"everyone important in the industry is moving to Windows NT" ? Why can't
developers use something like the OS/2 environment to develop software?
5) I think NT's user interface is ugly and unproductive. Is it true that
you can write your own interface? And if so, why would you bother
when OS/2s PM and Mac OS already exist?

My reasoning is that he should just stick to learning about computers in a
conventional way (reading mags and books and online literature, and taking
classes) rather than wasting his time by fooling around with Unix.

I know for a fact that you can't learn Unix (I mean learn it really well)just
by fooling around with it. So what's the point?

Please don't flame me. I just want helpful answers.
*******************************************************************************
==== ============= Kenneth Liu

\ \ / / / /
\ + / / / *ia Tech
\ / / / Bradley Department of Electrical Engineering
=== ==== Computer Engineering
*******************************************************************************

by **Josh Kneubu** » Mon, 05 Sep 1994 10:02:40

: I'm having an argument with my friend here at *ia Tech, and I
: need some expert opinions. Please read and reply.

: My major pet peeve is when someone comes up to me and says "hey I have Unix
: so I'm better than you and so is my computer." Well maybe, but hey he
: can't run Microsoft Office, or use multimedia or even run the DOS apps
: required for engineering classes here. No Xwindows, no graphics, right?
: In the mean time, I'm running all my Windows and DOS apps, and getting the
: benefit of crash protection and true multitasking (and all other good
: stuff with OS/2).

true, whatever gets the work done is the best for you.. It doesn't matter
what anyone else uses.

: What I want to know is:
: 1) Why do CS majors here use Unix? What is it that is so great about Unix
: that can't be done with OS/2? No flames on this one.

because OS/2 runs on a 80X86 platform, unix runs on most anything..

: 2) Isn't the lack of "killer" apps a good reason not to use Unix?

quit a few scientific apps are done on unix systems that can not be done
on other systems..

: 3) Aren't the Borland IDEs considered to be the best in the industry? Is it
: possible that ONE person could write as of a good development environment
: for C? He has a friend who's developing his own IDE for C on Unix.

I like IDE's just for the fact that it has an interface that you just
select a menu and it compiles and test, its pretty easy to do.. I
don'tcare if an IDE is flashy or not, it just has to work..

: 4) Why do developers use Unix platforms to develop software? Is it because
: of multitasking/crash protection/memory model? Is it true that
: "everyone important in the industry is moving to Windows NT" ? Why can't
: developers use something like the OS/2 environment to develop software?

no, unix runs on almost ALL FAST systems.. NT runs on most of em too, but
I'd rather use unix on the systems anyways..
as far as I know, OS/2 does not run on any other platform than 80X86
systems..

: 5) I think NT's user interface is ugly and unproductive. Is it true that
: you can write your own interface? And if so, why would you bother
: when OS/2s PM and Mac OS already exist?

[see explanation above]

: My reasoning is that he should just stick to learning about computers in a
: conventional way (reading mags and books and online literature, and taking
: classes) rather than wasting his time by fooling around with Unix.

most large computer systems and mainframes run some form of Unix, if you
are looking into a computer career, you should learn unix, dos, and
windows [at least according to current trends]

: I know for a fact that you can't learn Unix (I mean learn it really well)just
: by fooling around with it. So what's the point?

some people can, some just intuitivly know about these things..

[kill the mile log .sig ......]
--
=============================================================================
Conan Rules!
KRUNK KRUNK KRUNK KRUNK KRUNK KRUNK KRUNK KRUNK KRUNK KRUNK KRUNK KRUNK KRUNK

by **Leo Bickne** » Mon, 05 Sep 1994 22:09:53

>What I want to know is:
>1) Why do CS majors here use Unix? What is it that is so great about Unix
> that can't be done with OS/2? No flames on this one.

Unix has a long history of program development, and
because of this has a lot of tools that a programmer will find
very useful. Sure, Borland's C++ IDE is nice to working in,
but it doesn't quite manage a project with 20 programmers all working
on parts of it on the same machine at the same time very well.
Unix has features like sccs, rcs, and multi-user, multi-tasking
that make this kind of development easy.

You will find many of the commercial products are
developed on Unix systems and either cross compiled for DOS,
or just final compiled on a DOS machine.

Quote:>2) Isn't the lack of "killer" apps a good reason not to use Unix?

Define killer? Sure, Unix doesn't have Doom (yet), but all
the major industry players run under Unix (dbase, oracale, word
perfect). Our hypertext software (Mosaic) is _free_, as are most
of our other cool apps. What's more killer than free stuff?
Can you live with a little less flash and noise for free?

Quote:>3) Aren't the Borland IDEs considered to be the best in the industry? Is it
> possible that ONE person could write as of a good development environment
> for C? He has a friend who's developing his own IDE for C on Unix.

Borland's IDE is nice. I've used it before. Like I said
above, for a project with many people working on it the borland
IDE lacks features of file locking, file checkpoints, revision control,
etc. Besides, a good programmer doesn't need an IDE, he needs
a text editor he knows, and a command line compiler. When working
with borland on my PC now I prefer to use a PC port of Emacs and
the command line compiler, because it's what I'm used to.

Quote:>4) Why do developers use Unix platforms to develop software? Is it because
> of multitasking/crash protection/memory model? Is it true that
> "everyone important in the industry is moving to Windows NT" ? Why can't
> developers use something like the OS/2 environment to develop software?

Some people do. And yes, those are reasons to use Unix.
The revision control systems are key, and while they exist on other
platforms now, they aren't as easy to use. Also, most programmers
from the pre-OS/2 WinNT days still can use the new Unixes, because
they are pretty much the same. Add batch jobs, and such
and Unix just makes sence.

Quote:>5) I think NT's user interface is ugly and unproductive. Is it true that
> you can write your own interface? And if so, why would you bother
> when OS/2s PM and Mac OS already exist?

Real programmers don't use a cute little interface. Most
of their work is done in a text editor. It's nice to have two or
three windows so you can look at multiple things, but that
could be acomplished with a couple of vt100 terminals rather
than a snazzy GUI. MacOS, PM, and Windows in downright unproductive
for most code writing chores. Even the Borland IDE is a little
too graphical for some things, although it's a generally usable
mix for a one person project.

Quote:>My reasoning is that he should just stick to learning about computers in a
>conventional way (reading mags and books and online literature, and taking
>classes) rather than wasting his time by fooling around with Unix.

Unix embodies many concepts that WinNT and OS/2 are just
starting to latch on to. Unix predates both by a LARGE amount in
computer terms. The fact that it still works, and is so popular
with programs should tell you it's worth studying/learning if
you want to be a programmer.

Quote:>I know for a fact that you can't learn Unix (I mean learn it really well)just
>by fooling around with it. So what's the point?

I think you need to check your facts. I've learned some
of the most useful things I know by just playing around with
various things.

Unix is nice for programmers. If you want Desktop publishing
go buy a Mac with a Radius monitor. If you want killer apps
go buy a DOS box. If you want a nice cross between DOS and Windows
and Unix get OS/2. Use the right tool for the job, and don't try
to use one tool for all jobs.

--

by **Casper H.S. D** » Mon, 05 Sep 1994 23:20:45

>4) Why do developers use Unix platforms to develop software? Is it because
> of multitasking/crash protection/memory model? Is it true that
> "everyone important in the industry is moving to Windows NT" ? Why can't
> developers use something like the OS/2 environment to develop software?

Because the tools & compilers work. I know a number of people doing
serious software development on OS/2, MS-DOS, Windows, Windows/NT and
Macintosh. They all agree about one thing: no compiler for
any of these platforms comes even close in robustness as the average
(note: average) Unix compiler. Code generated is often wrong and/or
inefficient. None of the development enviroments for these platforms
comes even close in handling large projects. Competition seems so
big that the standard approach seems to be ``it compiles, let's ship''.

Quote:>I know for a fact that you can't learn Unix (I mean learn it really well)just
>by fooling around with it. So what's the point?

I know for a fact that you can.

Casper

by **Bill Vermilli** » Wed, 07 Sep 1994 00:18:16

>>What I want to know is:
>>2) Isn't the lack of "killer" apps a good reason not to use Unix?
> Define killer? Sure, Unix doesn't have Doom (yet), but all
>the major industry players run under Unix (dbase, oracale, word
>perfect). Our hypertext software (Mosaic) is _free_, as are most
>of our other cool apps. What's more killer than free stuff?
>Can you live with a little less flash and noise for free?

Minor correction. While not quite Unix Doom does run on
something that looks, smells and acts like Unix. In fact it
was written in that environment. NeXTStep - runs Mach - which
was derived/inspired by BSD's implementation. NeXTStep
currently runs on Motorola, Intel and HP's PowerPA.

Quote:>>My reasoning is that he should just stick to learning about computers in a
>>conventional way (reading mags and books and online literature, and taking
>>classes) rather than wasting his time by fooling around with Unix.
> Unix embodies many concepts that WinNT and OS/2 are just
>starting to latch on to. Unix predates both by a LARGE amount in
>computer terms. The fact that it still works, and is so popular
>with programs should tell you it's worth studying/learning if
>you want to be a programmer.

Absolutely. Regarding the first posters comments on reading
mags and book and online literature - there is a lot of
information in the 'popular pc' press that just isn't right.
Too much of an iNTEL centered way of looking at the world. His
friend will probably know more about computers in general than
one who sticks entirely in a pc oriented venue.

Quote:>>I know for a fact that you can't learn Unix (I mean learn it really well)just
>>by fooling around with it. So what's the point?
> I think you need to check your facts. I've learned some
>of the most useful things I know by just playing around with
>various things.

I wouldn't say 'fooling around' is the best way to learn, but
up until recently most of the Unix books were written by people
who knew what it was and how it operated. The current plethora
of Unix books seems to have brought forth many writers who know
how to write, but don't know *ix worth a damn.

Quote:> Unix is nice for programmers. If you want Desktop publishing
>go buy a Mac with a Radius monitor.

If you want REAL Desktop publishing you forget toy machines
like the Mac or any PC and get something likes Sun's and run
FrameMaker for the initial docs and then run FrameBuilder to
handle the FrameMaker docs.

I'd like to see just how a Mac would handle 10,000 pages
of documention, let alone 100,000 pages. It's designed for
really SERIOUS publishing. I was extremely impressed with it
seeing the demos - but have never used it myself.

--

by **Al Spar** » Tue, 06 Sep 1994 16:11:30

K> What I want to know is:
K> 1) Why do CS majors here use Unix? What is it that is so great about
K> Unix that can't be done with OS/2? No flames on this one.

It's probably a matter of preference. Most platforms provided by the
CS departments ARE unix (ok, so I don't have statistics on that one).
Also, you mentioned linux, it's free, whereas OS/2 isn't. You also
said (I didn't include it) that you couldn't get X-Windows on linux.
Not true, I've made it run myself. Talk about learning about the
hardware, try running X-Windows on a 486 Linux box.

K> 2) Isn't the lack of "killer" apps a good reason not to use
Unix?

There are lots of "killer apps" when you include X-Windows, more being
made everyday. There are also lots of more conventional programming
aids like lex and yacc available as well as perl. Going back to OS/2,
aren't a lot of those killer apps expensive too?

K> 3) Aren't the Borland IDEs considered to be the best in the industry?
K> Is it possible that ONE person could write as of a good development
K> environmen for C? He has a friend who's developing his own IDE for C
K> on Unix.

Don't know enough to comment.

K> 4) Why do developers use Unix platforms to develop software? Is it
K> because of multitasking/crash protection/memory model? Is it true
K> that "everyone important in the industry is moving to Windows NT" ?
K> Why can't developers use something like the OS/2 environment to
K> develop software?

If learning to develop on OS/2 is going make money, I'll gladly look
into it, though I'd probably look into MS-Windows first if I'm chasing
after the almighty buck. If one is going to develop for the sake of
developing (that is, learn for the sake of learning) then what does it
matter what OS platform you use? Which costs less? For example once
you learn Object Oriented Programming on one platform, you can switch
over to another platform much easier. MS Windows marketed their
product better than IBM, so a mediocre environment is used most by
end-users. That's why people also prefer MS related software to
develop.

K> 5) I think NT's user interface is ugly and unproductive. Is it true
K> that you can write your own interface? And if so, why would you
K> bother when OS/2s PM and Mac OS already exist?

There's merit to not re-inventing the wheel, nevertheless, one can
learn a lot by programming another wheel.

K> My reasoning is that he should just stick to learning about computers
K> in a conventional way (reading mags and books and online literature,
K> and taking classes) rather than wasting his time by fooling around
K> with Unix.

A conventional way to learn is by doing (and the primary way in the
military; an organization that does a LOT of training). You don't
learn JUST by reading mags and books. For example there are people
that learn electronics by building a TV set.

Part of your post seems to question the "Religion of Unix". I agree
that any religion is open to questions like that. But you seem to
have fallen into the same trap. You seem to have the same zealotry
with respect to OS/2. That makes you a relgious fanatic questioning
someone else's religion. It undercuts the basis for your questions.

I did it. No flames. This was written on a NeXT running NeXTSTEP,
speading of religious zealots. === Al

by **B.W. Hughe** » Thu, 08 Sep 1994 21:51:19

>He's doing this because he "wants to learn more about his computer."
>He says that by using Unix, he's learning things about his computer that he
>wouldn't learn otherwise. This is partially true, IMO, because by running
>into all the problems of getting Unix off the ground, he's learning a lot
>about his computer (i.e. the hardware specs).

Now, I don't know exactly what Bob is doing to "learn about his
computer", but just having the full source code for an the operating system
anyone happens to be running must have SOME advantage (as well as your
mention of 'getting UNIX off the ground'). I seem to remember (some
time ago) reading that running Linux is a great way to "get into"
operating systems, just because you can play with it, hack up the kernel
code some, recompile it, play with it some more and see what happens.

Quote:>What I want to know is:
>1) Why do CS majors here use Unix? What is it that is so great about Unix
> that can't be done with OS/2? No flames on this one.

I'm a Computer Engineering and I've run Linux for a few years now. This
is basically because it's 32-bit and it's free though... if I found
something of equal or greater value (look at a theoretical price/power
ratio :) ) I may very well switch. I do, and always have been partial
to the UNIX development environment over, say. Turbo C++'s IDE (This is
the only Borland IDE I've used). I've learned and started using \LaTeX
for what reports I need to do, and find it more productive than MS-Word
for Windows 2.0 (which I formerly used).

Quote:>2) Isn't the lack of "killer" apps a good reason not to use Unix?

I find Linux apps to be higher quality than anything commercial I've
ever purchased, as well as more prodictive to use... granted they aren
't as user friendly or breathtaking while running (Well, if you're interested
in the internals of them, they're damn amazing sometimes! ...but
don't look for complex user interfaces or 'cool' graphics or anything)

Quote:>4) Why do developers use Unix platforms to develop software? Is it because
> of multitasking/crash protection/memory model? Is it true that
> "everyone important in the industry is moving to Windows NT" ? Why can't
> developers use something like the OS/2 environment to develop software?

I'm on coop right now and we're looking into using a PC archetecture for
a mobile robot we're putting together. Two commercially available robot
bases come with PC's integrated into them to serve as control computers,
and, ironically, both of them run Linux. I'll give them a call and ask
why they chose it (I'm curious myself... :) )

Quote:>I know for a fact that you can't learn Unix (I mean learn it really well)just
>by fooling around with it.

I did.

--
- - - - - - - - -Brian Hughes- - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - -

by **B.W. Hughe** » Thu, 08 Sep 1994 22:28:33

>He's doing this because he "wants to learn more about his computer."
>He says that by using Unix, he's learning things about his computer that he
>wouldn't learn otherwise. This is partially true, IMO, because by running
>into all the problems of getting Unix off the ground, he's learning a lot
>about his computer (i.e. the hardware specs).

Now, I don't know exactly what Bob is doing to "learn about his
computer", but just having the full source code for an the operating system
anyone happens to be running must have SOME advantage (as well as your
mention of 'getting UNIX off the ground'). I seem to remember (some
time ago) reading that running Linux is a great way to "get into"
operating systems, just because you can play with it, hack up the kernel
code some, recompile it, play with it some more and see what happens.

Quote:>What I want to know is:
>1) Why do CS majors here use Unix? What is it that is so great about Unix
> that can't be done with OS/2? No flames on this one.

I'm a Computer Engineering and I've run Linux for a few years now. This
is basically because it's 32-bit and it's free though... if I found
something of equal or greater value (look at a theoretical price/power
ratio :) ) I may very well switch. I do, and always have been partial
to the UNIX development environment over, say. Turbo C++'s IDE (This is
the only Borland IDE I've used). I've learned and started using \LaTeX
for what reports I need to do, and find it more productive than MS-Word
for Windows 2.0 (which I formerly used).

Quote:>2) Isn't the lack of "killer" apps a good reason not to use Unix?

I find Linux apps to be higher quality than anything commercial I've
ever purchased, as well as more prodictive to use... granted they aren't
as user friendly or breathtaking while running (Well, if you're interested
in the internals of them, they're damn amazing sometimes! ...but
don't look for complex user interfaces or 'cool' graphics or anything)

Quote:>4) Why do developers use Unix platforms to develop software? Is it because
> of multitasking/crash protection/memory model? Is it true that
> "everyone important in the industry is moving to Windows NT" ? Why can't
> developers use something like the OS/2 environment to develop software?

I'm on coop right now and we're looking into using a PC archetecture for
a mobile robot we're putting together. Two commercially available robot
bases come with PC's integrated into them to serve as control computers,
and, ironically, both of them run Linux. I'll give them a call and ask
why they chose it (I'm curious myself... :) )

Quote:>I know for a fact that you can't learn Unix (I mean learn it really well)just
>by fooling around with it.

I did. (well, I think I did. It was enough to become "system manager"
on the Sparc 20 here...)

--
- - - - - - - - -Brian Hughes- - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - -

by **Herbert Rosmani** » Sat, 10 Sep 1994 04:28:04

: I'm having an argument with my friend here at *ia Tech, and I
: need some expert opinions. Please read and reply.

: What I want to know is:
: 1) Why do CS majors here use Unix? What is it that is so great about Unix
: that can't be done with OS/2? No flames on this one.

It's great about Unix that it runs on an SGI. Never saw OS/2 on a SGI.
Convex C3440, C210 ...
Apollo
IBM RS6000
PDP 11 (*ho ho ho*)
Sun Systems
(... and the list goes on ...)

Now tell me ... can you port OS/2 to any machine listed above ?

: 2) Isn't the lack of "killer" apps a good reason not to use Unix?

a) why would I like to run "killer" apps when I know they kill my system ?
b) there is no lack of killer apps on Unix

: 3) Aren't the Borland IDEs considered to be the best in the industry? Is it
: possible that ONE person could write as of a good development environment
: for C? He has a friend who's developing his own IDE for C on Unix.
: 4) Why do developers use Unix platforms to develop software? Is it because
: of multitasking/crash protection/memory model? Is it true that

: "everyone important in the industry is moving to Windows NT" ? Why can't
: developers use something like the OS/2 environment to develop software?

Because it doesnt fit their needs.

: 5) I think NT's user interface is ugly and unproductive. Is it true that
: you can write your own interface? And if so, why would you bother
: when OS/2s PM and Mac OS already exist?

Why would I like to invent a Space Shuttle when Ford's Modell T
already exists ?

: My reasoning is that he should just stick to learning about computers in a
: conventional way (reading mags and books and online literature, and taking
: classes) rather than wasting his time by fooling around with Unix.

Did or did you not fool around with OS/2 ?

I think fooling around with a system is one the best way to learn about
it. Did you learn swimming by reading books about it ?

: I know for a fact that you can't learn Unix (I mean learn it really well)just
: by fooling around with it. So what's the point?

You know that ?

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Rosmanith | fighting for peace is

by **Cave Ne** » Tue, 13 Sep 1994 01:39:47

>>>2) Isn't the lack of "killer" apps a good reason not to use Unix?

>> Define killer? Sure, Unix doesn't have Doom (yet)

>Minor correction. While not quite Unix Doom does run on
>something that looks, smells and acts like Unix. In fact it
>was written in that environment. NeXTStep - runs Mach - which
>was derived/inspired by BSD's implementation. NeXTStep
>currently runs on Motorola, Intel and HP's PowerPA.

And SGI Doom has been out for a month or two, and Linux Doom was released
on Friday (9 Sep). Granted, they're not quite as polished as the DOS
version, but hey--they exist. We're all still waiting for IBM to finish
the OS/2 version.

But back to the main thread: this whole topic seems somewhat stupid (er,
I mean "naive") to me. A LOT of people, myself included, are running *both*
OS/2 and Linux. OS/2 for PowerPC is almost finished, and I have no doubt
that Linux for PPC will follow soon after. (Lack of hardware is the only
reason it hasn't started already, although there may be people working on
PowerMacs for all I know...)

> It's great about Unix that it runs on an SGI. Never saw OS/2 on a SGI.
> Convex C3440, C210 ...
> Apollo
> IBM RS6000
> PDP 11 (*ho ho ho*)
> Sun Systems

As AT&T likes to say, "you will." Well, OK, slight exaggeration, but
portable OS/2 is being actively ported to RS/6000 (of course) and some
sort of MIPS platform, as I recall, so it's possible you could see it
on an SGI sometime in the future. Irix certainly has enough bugs that
a little competition couldn't hurt. :-)

Greg Roelofs

by **Shaugn M Davenpo** » Wed, 14 Sep 1994 06:30:03

This is a classic "where can I find ... " question.`
Please pardon me if this is an inappropriate group for this question. I am a bit of
a novice when it comes to news groups.

QUESTION:
I have a rinky-dink 486/66 running linux (slackware version). I am looking for
a visual programming environment or editor and the associated source code. Free would
be great but I don't mind shelling out some cash. I found that developing in MS-WIN is much easier and quicker with Visual C++ from MS and would like to find something similar for X-Windows. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time
-Shaugn
---
\\\\\//
< 0 0 >
! Today is not a good day to play leapfrog with
\_____/ a unicorn...............

Very Computer

Unix vs. OS/2??

Unix vs. OS/2??

Unix vs. OS/2??

Unix vs. OS/2??

Unix vs. OS/2??

Unix vs. OS/2??

Unix vs. OS/2??

Unix vs. OS/2??

Unix vs. OS/2??

Unix vs. OS/2??

Unix vs. OS/2??

Unix vs. OS/2??