distinctives...
Timothy Larson
What would you say are the distinctives of A/UX? What really sets it apart
from all (or at least most) other Unices? Not just particular quirks (though
it would be interesting to know about those too) but features or
characteristics that really define the A/UX experience. Since A/UX was
discontinued, have any other Unices stepped up to fill those gaps, in your
view? Am curious to hear your responses.
Tim
Cameron Kaiser
The Finder and Commando. Other than that, it's actually kind of harder to
work with ... *sheepish*
This isn't to say I don't like it, mind you, but despite its underpinnings
it's still rather rough even compared to its contemporaries.
Until OS X dumped Classic, I would have said OS X was what A/UX should have
been (and I still say it about Tiger).
--
Cameron Kaiser * cka...@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
Senor Wences
older implementation of UNIX is what is appealing to me. While the
particular version of UNIX is lacking some of the features of a more
modern implementation, I really had a fun time porting a couple of
applications (ssh, apache, perl, top) to the platform.
Josh
Bjarne Bäckström
> Hello group (all three(?) of you)...
Make that four, since I've recently installed A/UX on a IIsi. :-)
>
> What would you say are the distinctives of A/UX? What really sets it
> apart from all (or at least most) other Unices?
Haven't yet had time to run it enough to have an opinion. It will be
interesting to read what other people have to say, though.
--
Timothy Larson
Should have known Dr. Kaiser would be around!!
> The Finder and Commando. Other than that, it's actually kind of harder to
> work with ... *sheepish*
>
> Until OS X dumped Classic, I would have said OS X was what A/UX should have
> been (and I still say it about Tiger).
So is it specifically the ability to run 68k Mac apps that you enjoyed (why?)
or just the "Mac-like" UI generally? Because if the latter, isn't OS X "good
enough"? I know that many people have made quite a bit of the UI differences
between classic Mac OS and Mac OS X.
It does kind of make one wonder what would have been different if Jobs had
stayed in the 80s and maybe pushed the "Big Mac" concept more.
What do you think of the Etoile desktop? If something like that could be
fleshed out more, given the NeXT-ish architectural heritage it shares with OS
X and the similar UI, it may appear to be something of a successor to "the
A/UX ideal". (Whatever that means.)
> This isn't to say I don't like it, mind you, but despite its underpinnings
> it's still rather rough even compared to its contemporaries.
How do you feel it lacking in comparison to other Unixen of its day?
Tim
Timothy Larson
I keep hoping to get another suitable machine so I can do some more porting,
myself. I was getting to the point that I thought I'd have pkgsrc running
"real soon", and then my free time evaporated, and I lost A/UX access.
Tim
Cameron Kaiser
>Should have known Dr. Kaiser would be around!!
I lurk in back alleys, under lab benches, ... ;-)
>>The Finder and Commando. Other than that, it's actually kind of harder to
>>work with ... *sheepish*
>>Until OS X dumped Classic, I would have said OS X was what A/UX should have
>>been (and I still say it about Tiger).
>So is it specifically the ability to run 68k Mac apps that you enjoyed (why?)
>or just the "Mac-like" UI generally? Because if the latter, isn't OS X "good
>enough"? I know that many people have made quite a bit of the UI differences
>between classic Mac OS and Mac OS X.
>It does kind of make one wonder what would have been different if Jobs had
>stayed in the 80s and maybe pushed the "Big Mac" concept more.
Sorry, I don't think I was clear. What I admire most about A/UX is that
everything is profoundly integrated. The Finder is a first class citizen, and
even Unix apps are given GUIs (with Commando as, effectively, a shell).
In fact, now that I think about it, this is something that A/UX does better
than OS X, assuming there is the front-end metadata to power a Commando
screen. It would get in my way, being a crusty former sysadmin, but it would
be great for people using it simply as a workstation and I admire the effort.
The major thing that makes OS X's (former) integration better than A/UX's is
virtualization. Bluebox Classic is A/UX on steroids. But, admittedly, even
that could have come along if A/UX development had continued and hardware
support had followed.
>What do you think of the Etoile desktop? If something like that could be
>fleshed out more, given the NeXT-ish architectural heritage it shares with OS
>X and the similar UI, it may appear to be something of a successor to "the
>A/UX ideal". (Whatever that means.)
I've never used it, so I couldn't say. I've played with AfterStep but that's
more of a clever wm with a NeXT-like interface rather than a true inheritor.
(Power MachTen uses AfterStep, if anyone here still remembers that:
http://www.floodgap.com/retrotech/machten/
)
>>This isn't to say I don't like it, mind you, but despite its underpinnings
>>it's still rather rough even compared to its contemporaries.
>How do you feel it lacking in comparison to other Unixen of its day?
Mostly in command set and libraries. Your good work has helped to mitigate
much of this for us contemporary antediluvianists :) but even many proprietary
Unices had a better development and compiler set out of the box, and I know a
lot of people found its X support frustrating even considering that X11R4 was
reasonably competitive for the early 1990s (and to be sure it has a very fast
internal implementation). There was also the question of hardware, which
admittedly isn't A/UX's fault per se.
It's not to say it's bad, and it certainly implemented POSIX with no gaps.
I would still have called it competitive, but it did not eclipse its
competitors.
Timothy Larson
> Sorry, I don't think I was clear. What I admire most about A/UX is that
> everything is profoundly integrated. The Finder is a first class citizen, and
> The major thing that makes OS X's (former) integration better than A/UX's is
> virtualization. Bluebox Classic is A/UX on steroids. But, admittedly, even
> that could have come along if A/UX development had continued and hardware
> support had followed.
How would you compare A/UX with (current) OS X in this regard - integration?
> even Unix apps are given GUIs (with Commando as, effectively, a shell).
> In fact, now that I think about it, this is something that A/UX does better
> than OS X, assuming there is the front-end metadata to power a Commando
> screen. It would get in my way, being a crusty former sysadmin, but it would
> be great for people using it simply as a workstation and I admire the effort.
I never really have used Commando, being familiar enough with Unix by the time
I discovered A/UX that I didn't need it. The concept is very cool though.
Has this metadata ever been documented, to your knowledge? It would be
interesting to see someone build on those ideas to redevelop something like that.
> I've never used it, so I couldn't say. I've played with AfterStep but that's
> more of a clever wm with a NeXT-like interface rather than a true inheritor.
I actually haven't either. It's dependencies are development branches of
those projects, and I'm not comfortable installing that on my systems. I keep
meaning to ask the devs when they are going to pin it to stable branches of
those dependencies.
>> How do you feel it lacking in comparison to other Unixen of its day?
>
> Mostly in command set and libraries. Your good work has helped to mitigate
> much of this for us contemporary antediluvianists :) but even many proprietary
> Unices had a better development and compiler set out of the box, and I know a
> lot of people found its X support frustrating even considering that X11R4 was
> reasonably competitive for the early 1990s (and to be sure it has a very fast
> internal implementation). There was also the question of hardware, which
> admittedly isn't A/UX's fault per se.
>
> It's not to say it's bad, and it certainly implemented POSIX with no gaps.
> I would still have called it competitive, but it did not eclipse its
> competitors.
Thanks for the comments. Can I ask what kind of work you were doing with A/UX
back in those days? I never touched it until the 21st c., except that the MUD
I played then was hosted on it - something I didn't know until much later.
Tim
Cameron Kaiser
>>Sorry, I don't think I was clear. What I admire most about A/UX is that
>>everything is profoundly integrated. The Finder is a first class citizen, and
>[snip]
>>The major thing that makes OS X's (former) integration better than A/UX's is
>>virtualization. Bluebox Classic is A/UX on steroids. But, admittedly, even
>>that could have come along if A/UX development had continued and hardware
>>support had followed.
>How would you compare A/UX with (current) OS X in this regard - integration?
The Finder is a first class citizen in OS X, which is also nice (the
question of FTFF being a separate issue ;-). The integration issue is a bit
squishy in 10.0 through 10.4 because you have so many separate APIs, but if
we take 10.5 which is basically Cocoa with grudging support for Carbon,
then there is no difference between a Mac app and a Unix app (even X11 is
getting better and better integrated). A/UX did this too, but it did not do
virtualization of processor resources (something I was always impressed
with in Classic, even if Classic apps were intentionally made to look
different). I imagine you will start seeing even native apps running in more
and more of a sandboxed environment yet being totally "1st class citizens"
starting with 10.6 now that Apple has chosen the one true architecture
(warning: SERIOUS IRONY ALERT ;-).
>I never really have used Commando, being familiar enough with Unix by the time
>I discovered A/UX that I didn't need it. The concept is very cool though.
>Has this metadata ever been documented, to your knowledge? It would be
>interesting to see someone build on those ideas to redevelop something like
>that.
I believe Commando in MPW and A/UX are one and the same. There are even MPW
Commando dialogues for diverse tools like Larry Wall's patch (!!). I believe
it is the same hinting in both, and I'm quite sure that I remember reading
about it in an A/UX manual ages ago, but I know the MPW Commando documentation
is not hard to find. Any MPW Tool will have a Commando dialogue that can be
examined as well.
(Mind you, I never got into MPW. I always used things like FutureBASIC, and
when I started doing C work, I just found a used copy of CodeWarrior.)
>>It's not to say it's bad, and it certainly implemented POSIX with no gaps.
>>I would still have called it competitive, but it did not eclipse its
>>competitors.
>Thanks for the comments. Can I ask what kind of work you were doing with A/UX
>back in those days? I never touched it until the 21st c., except that the MUD
>I played then was hosted on it - something I didn't know until much later.
*I* wasn't, because my Mac fu in those days was relatively limited to user
stuff in the undergraduate labs, but I knew some people who did some playing
around with it as a development environment at the University and I did get
to touch a few A/UX systems at the time. My perspective is based largely on
their views, which still were positive, just not enough to push it higer.