Text File

Aucbvax.6465 fa.works utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!works Fri Mar 12 11:57:17 1982 UNIX as a working environment >From COMSAT.SoftArts@Mit-Multics Thu Mar 11 20:18:37 1982 Local: works at mit-ai Via: Mit-Ai; 11 Mar 82 22:10-EDT Via: Brl-Bmd; 11 Mar 82 22:31-EDT

UNIX is a nice homey system but it is not a lot different from something like CP 67. Like a half a dozen other systems I have used it has a nice subroutine library so you can get at the OS from a higher level language and it provides a weak form of dynamic linking (using process forking) so you can write your own command processor like programs. Multics did it better, OS/360 MVS did it about as well except the terminal support was worse, early Primos blew it because their high level language was Fortran, Magic 6 did this pretty well but was a bit big for the processor and so on. Some of these systems felt more comfortable than others. UNIX is usually the first decent system people get to use and they usually fall in love with it and never question it. [1] Having put up with a dozen operating systems so far I put UNIX in the much better than average category but am constantly reminded of the saying, "If English was a good enough language for the Lord to write the Bible in then it's good enough for me."

As far as the future? My favorite system today consists of a hairy EMACS. I login, enter EMACS and stay there. Why? Because, with a few extensions we have put in, there is no reason not to work in an environment in which the screen is well managed and I can do the things I do all the time easily. Is EMACS the answer? I doubt it.

What does a good system need?

Dynamic linking: UNIX almost has this, but you still have to work to fix a bug in a library. Multics, Magic 6, SMALLTALK systems and the Lisp Machine have this.

Screen Management: You don't NEED bit mapped screens to do something nice to your screen. You need imagination. Personally, I like bit mapped screens, they can be treated device independently, but what you really need is to think in terms of screens, not teletypes.

Memory Management: I have seen several good approaches. Language oriented systems use "object" orientation which will probably be the winner, but segmentation provides a number of useful advantages. The Lisp Machine uses both and, of course, you PAGE underneath the whole thing. [2]

I agree that there is a software problem and I think there is a software problem because most systems programmers and most systems hackers are NOT IMAGINATIVE and INNOVATIVE enough.

Wow, that ought to get the bath water a-bubbling,

Great balls of fire ...

Seth Steinberg

USELESS FOOTNOTES

[1] Why else does everyone say: UNIX is just like Multics except better and ignore all of the work on capabilities and scaling large systems back on CTSS and the PDP-1? It's simple, they know UNIX but they haven't even read about Multics.

[2] SMALLTALK does not page. It loads objects from the disk which is NOT the same. They tried a BIBOP scheme and when it failed threw out the baby too. As you may have gathered I think they made a mistake with their VERY CLEVER scheme but I may be wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/

This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.