Stupid ... ads

51 views
Skip to first unread message

Doug Landauer

unread,
Jun 2, 1993, 1:36:51 PM6/2/93
to
There was an amusingly stupid ad for OS/2 in the April Byte ...
The caption on one of those ugly, cluttered little screen pix they
like to put in their ads said:

In the Workplace Shell[TM], you can edit source code
files while compiling and debugging in the background.

Whew! I guess I'll just fire off "dbx &" and let it chug away,
debugging in the background, while I go home. Maybe they've finally
gotten this AI stuff to work?

Actually, it's good to hear that OS/2 has finally made it up to the
capabilities of UNIX' Sixth Edition, from about 1974.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
What? Sign this drivel?

Jeremy Reimer

unread,
Jun 3, 1993, 5:30:49 AM6/3/93
to
> Doug Landauer writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <m0pp9j...@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
> Posted: 2 Jun 1993 17:36:51 GMT
>
> Org. : Old UNIX Hackers' Home


To be fair, they didn't say that you couldn't edit while compiling and
debugging on any other system (sheesh, you could even do it on that W......
thing, if you didn't mind the system going choppy and/or crashing)

It's pretty safe to say that pretty much anything that can be done on a
computer can be done with Unix, and done fairly well. The real question is
why Unix hasn't done well on the desktop.

Isn't anyone in the Old Unix Hacker's home concerned about what is brewing
with NT? Sure, the chances of an untested, buggy 1.0 operating system from a
company with a history of truly awful operating systems taking over the Unix
market are absurd, right? But Microsoft could put shit on a disk and have it
sell. Don't ask me how, or why, but...

Personally, I like OS/2, but I'm considering dual-booting with Linux. I'd
like to see NT die a quick death more than most. What is the Unix community
doing to ensure that it does so?


--
Jeremy_Reimer@ | "And it shall be called.. WINDOWS!"| __/\
mindlink.bc.ca | "What a dull name..." - Phouchg | oo | - Kill
---------------| | o/' Barney
aka THE JAGUAR!| Proud owner of a MICROSOFT-FREE HD!| ||
---------------| | It's not a BUAG
Vancouver, BC! | "You can't grep this!" - M.C. Kibo | It's N-MAN!

Danny R. Faught

unread,
Jun 3, 1993, 10:28:25 AM6/3/93
to
In article <25...@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeremy...@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer) writes:
>Personally, I like OS/2, but I'm considering dual-booting with Linux. I'd
>like to see NT die a quick death more than most. What is the Unix community
>doing to ensure that it does so?

Have you been reading the headlines? The ones I saved read like this:
"Computer firms unite on Unix in move to head off Microsoft" and
"DEC Responds to Six-Firm Push for Common Unix Environment".

From the Dallas Morning News:

"They [the six firms, HP, IBM, SCO, Sun, Univel, and USL] vow to
create a consistent 'look and feel' for the software, so that
customers can buy computers from several vendors and use the same
basic set of commands."

I don't expect a revolution any time soon, but in more than one place
I've seen a push toward a more standardized Unix. And the lack of
standardization is the most common complaint I've heard from the
suits about Unix.

Funny, I would have thought they'd complain about Unix's steep
learning curve. "You use 'mv' to rename a file? Huh?"
--
Danny Faught -- Convex rookie -- MPP OS Test Development
"Everything is deeply intertwingled." (Ted Nelson, _Computer Lib_)

Paul Tomblin

unread,
Jun 3, 1993, 10:45:43 AM6/3/93
to
fau...@convex.com (Danny R. Faught) writes:

>Have you been reading the headlines? The ones I saved read like this:
>"Computer firms unite on Unix in move to head off Microsoft" and
>"DEC Responds to Six-Firm Push for Common Unix Environment".

Are these current headlines, or ones from when OSF was founded, or when ACE
was founded, or USL, or whatever?

It seems to me that these promises of standardized Unix have been around for
years - and it's still nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Especially when you get some of the biggest closed system manufacturers in
the world (IBM and DEC) trying to run an "Open Systems Foundation"!

About as believable as a Japanese "Whale Research Vessel".

--
Paul Tomblin - formerly {pt{omblin},news}@{geovision.}gvc.com
"Ok dear, Want me to call the bike shop and see if they'll sponsor your
mid-life crisis?" "Yeah. Ask 'em if they'll upgrade my shifters, too"
- Calvin's mom and dad

Death

unread,
Jun 3, 1993, 5:25:06 PM6/3/93
to
Paul Tomblin (ab...@freenet.carleton.ca) wrote:
: It seems to me that these promises of standardized Unix have been around for
: years - and it's still nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

POSIX seemed promising, but then some people on the committee (or
whoever makes decisions) decided that "their" way was the best way -
not necessarily the most common way. Has anyone seen the drafts for
the printing system? Yuck!

Phill Hallam-Baker

unread,
Jun 3, 1993, 6:10:24 PM6/3/93
to

In article <1993Jun3.1...@news.eng.convex.com>, fau...@convex.com (Danny R. Faught) writes:

|>In article <25...@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeremy...@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer) writes:
|>>Personally, I like OS/2, but I'm considering dual-booting with Linux. I'd
|>>like to see NT die a quick death more than most. What is the Unix community
|>>doing to ensure that it does so?
|>
|>Have you been reading the headlines? The ones I saved read like this:
|>"Computer firms unite on Unix in move to head off Microsoft" and
|>"DEC Responds to Six-Firm Push for Common Unix Environment".
|>
|>From the Dallas Morning News:
|>
|> "They [the six firms, HP, IBM, SCO, Sun, Univel, and USL] vow to
|> create a consistent 'look and feel' for the software, so that
|> customers can buy computers from several vendors and use the same
|> basic set of commands."
|>
|>I don't expect a revolution any time soon, but in more than one place
|>I've seen a push toward a more standardized Unix. And the lack of
|>standardization is the most common complaint I've heard from the
|>suits about Unix.
|>
|>Funny, I would have thought they'd complain about Unix's steep
|>learning curve. "You use 'mv' to rename a file? Huh?"

Well come on now this is hardly a new grouping. Univel SCO and USL are
all pretty well UNIX/network shops anyway. Expecting them to take NT
lying down is like expecting the pope to become a muslim. IBM is a
firm beleiver in being on every standards committtee it can - and of ignoring
the results like it did for ASCII and most everything since. HP have the
most quirky non standard UNIX about and Sun were the original perpetrators
of the whole mess since without Sun UNIX would be taught today together
with MULTICS as a dead O/S. It was sun that kickstarted UNIX into the
workstation arena.

Only surprising name there is HP.


Instead of piddling on with the periphery why don't they fix the broken kernel
the broken network filestore and the broken user interface. Something like
runing MACH with AFS and a Motif interface... something like OSF/1 for example.
:-)


Phill H-B

Bengt KLEBERG

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 3:23:04 AM6/4/93
to
Does anybody think that several vendors different Unix versions
that have different names but (should) have the same API will look
enough like one standard Unix? I don't.

I belive that the only way to stop WNT is to create several different
versions, almost but not intirely totally unlike. Then MIS would
hesitate to buy it (them).
:-)

Bengt

---

Bengt KLEBERG b...@analytikerna.se

da...@gilly.uucp

unread,
Jun 3, 1993, 10:02:44 PM6/3/93
to
Jeremy...@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer) writes:

>It's pretty safe to say that pretty much anything that can be done on a
>computer can be done with Unix, and done fairly well. The real question is
>why Unix hasn't done well on the desktop.

Unix did most things the way that was clean and obvious to the machine, not
to a human. This means that many things are very cheap and powerfull, but
if your needs step outside their range, solutions become extremely
contorted. (Look at the invisibly mounted devices that form the filesystem -
but create such apparently bizarre limitations to hard links. From the
average-user perspective, it's a phase-of-the-moon bug. From the computer's
perspective, it's groovy.)

>Isn't anyone in the Old Unix Hacker's home concerned about what is brewing
>with NT? Sure, the chances of an untested, buggy 1.0 operating system from a
>company with a history of truly awful operating systems taking over the Unix
>market are absurd, right? But Microsoft could put shit on a disk and have it
>sell. Don't ask me how, or why, but...

I for one, don't care.

1. What I like in an OS is not what other people like. (For my purposes,
the Macintosh is a space heater. However, I strongly recommend it for
certain other users.)

2. OS popularity on the open market has no effect on what I run at home.
M$ does not have a military force that will break into my house to
install their code on my computers.

3. Unpoplarity for Unix would be advantageous to me, since old unix machines
would become cheaper on the used market.

This is just for my personal situation. If your unix access is at work, and
your employer is considering W/NT, go apply at McDonalds, or kill yourself.

------------------------ uunet!quack!gilly!dave ------------------------
================= Dave Fischer - Nature's Perfect Food =================
----------------------- dave%gi...@speedway.net ------------------------

Guy Middleton

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 11:05:20 AM6/4/93
to
In article <1993Jun3.1...@news.eng.convex.com> fau...@convex.com (Danny R. Faught) writes:
> In article <25...@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeremy...@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer) writes:
> Funny, I would have thought they'd complain about Unix's steep
> learning curve. "You use 'mv' to rename a file? Huh?"

That's no stupider than typing "DIR" to get a list of your files.

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 12:47:46 PM6/4/93
to

DIRectory - most people actually know what a "directory" is.
MVwhut? - most people don't think a command that means "move" would
be logical to rename their files - and they would also
have to understand unix's habit of naming commands with
two letters, no vowels.

----
Mike Dahmus Internet: mi...@vnet.ibm.com Vnet: MDAHMUS at BOCA
Pen for OS/2 Development IBM IPNet: mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com
IBM Personal Systems Disclaimer: Not an official IBM spokesman

Michael A. Gelman

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 2:52:04 PM6/4/93
to
[Regarding UNIX learning curve, particularly mv to rename a file]

|>>
|>>That's no stupider than typing "DIR" to get a list of your files.
|>
|>DIRectory - most people actually know what a "directory" is.
|>MVwhut? - most people don't think a command that means "move" would
|> be logical to rename their files - and they would also
|> have to understand unix's habit of naming commands with
|> two letters, no vowels.

Well, are talking about what "most people" know or the inherent
understandability of abbreviations? The only reason why DIR is big is
because it happened to be the abbreviation that MSDOS chose. They are
both equally stupid. In another world, it might have been "CAT" or,
gods help us, even LOAD "$",8:LIST.

I think it's equally "fair" in making abbreviations to remove vowels
as to just cut off the end of the word.

--Mike "MK GEL" Gelman
--
Michael Gelman -- M.Ge...@ma30.bull.com
Bull HN Info Systems -- Advanced Engineering Program
#include <disclaimer.h>
'He that troubleth his own gender-specific house shall "himherit" the wind.'

Jim Frost

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 4:16:22 PM6/4/93
to
land...@morocco.Eng.Sun.COM (Doug Landauer) writes:
> In the Workplace Shell[TM], you can edit source code
> files while compiling and debugging in the background.

>Whew! I guess I'll just fire off "dbx &" and let it chug away,
>debugging in the background, while I go home. Maybe they've finally
>gotten this AI stuff to work?

Reminds me of cdb's "F" command -- Find and Fix bug. It was a nice
break from debugging when I found that one.

>Actually, it's good to hear that OS/2 has finally made it up to the
>capabilities of UNIX' Sixth Edition, from about 1974.

I keep thinking about that when I hear about Windows 3.X and NT.
People tell me how great DLL's are and don't I wish UNIX had them?
Well, text sharing's been a part of UNIX for a long, long time so I
guess I already was. Shared libraries have been here awhile too
(SunOS 4.0 had 'em in '88 and it was by no means first). Oh, what
about threads? Bah, I used a threaded UNIX on a multiprocessor in
'86 and everyone pretty much used it exactly like an unthreaded OS so
it didn't make any difference whatsoever except for the speed of the
OS services.

And lest I get wasted by people using older, more capable systems I'm
aware that UNIX was a latecomer in nearly all of its capabilities and
enhancements (although it was rare in that it put a lot of useful
constructs in one usable package, discarding most of the stuff nobody
really cared about). Seeing uSoft spout off about the novelty of this
stuff just cracks me up. Advertising is mostly lies though, right?

jim frost
ji...@centerline.com

Jim Frost

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 4:49:23 PM6/4/93
to
fau...@convex.com (Danny R. Faught) writes:
>I don't expect a revolution any time soon, but in more than one place
>I've seen a push toward a more standardized Unix. And the lack of
>standardization is the most common complaint I've heard from the
>suits about Unix.

Sitting at the leading edge of UNIX I can tell you it's a lot closer
than you think -- as far as programmers go it's basically already
done.

X11 is a standardized window system on UNIX. *Everyone* uses it. If
you haven't heard, there is no longer even a Motif/OpenLook rift --
for better or for worse OpenLook is dead (although its corpse will
stick around and rot for awhile).

As much as I hate what the POSIX interface has done to the very usable
BSD model of UNIX programming it has seriously cut down on code
variance between systems. Most of the porting nightmares people
remember are gone now, modulus OS bugs that vary between systems. I
now write significant chunks of code that run without ifdefs on every
major version of the UNIX operating system out there, and my job is
making debugging tools -- traditionally amongst the most non-portable
of all software products. Two years ago that was impossible. It was
pretty hard even one year ago.

The only thing left to standardize on is window-manager and
file-manager semantics, two of the most visible aspects of the
interface. If you watch the UNIX groups that's what they're doing
now. The users are starting to see a merging, but the programmers
started seeing it awhile ago.

Add to this that USL is now owned by a company that's serious about
marketing it and making money on it, and one that has a track record
of doing so. Since the Bell breakup the biggest limitation to the
commercial proliferation of UNIX was AT&T; I would not expect that
trend to continue. We'll see aggressive marketing the likes of which
you've never seen in the UNIX marketplace.

The revolution isn't happening anytime soon, it's *been* happening for
the past few years. It's just that it didn't get a lot of press.

Which will win, NT or UNIX? I'm not betting my money on either one.
For one thing, NT is not a desktop system operating system, it's a
*server* operating system. There is quite a market out there for
servers but it's not nearly as large numerically as the full PC
market, and MS doesn't have any experience or presence in that market.
I strongly doubt NT will sell a million copies in a year purely
because the market isn't big enough for a million experimenters to buy
a copy (and first-year purchases will be experimenters). NT will
sell, but even if it's as good as the marketing department says it is
it's going to take awhile to build momentum.

jim frost
ji...@centerline.com

Jim Frost

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 4:57:58 PM6/4/93
to
fau...@convex.com (Danny R. Faught) writes:
>Funny, I would have thought they'd complain about Unix's steep
>learning curve. "You use 'mv' to rename a file? Huh?"

Believe it or not, UNIX doesn't have a steep learning curve for the
casual user. Novice users are at home as fast under UNIX as they are
under MS-DOS. Even if I hadn't seen research indicating this I'd know
it because I've taught totally naive users how to make use of both
systems.

"Rename" is no more natural to the beginner than anything else.
Likewise "delete." AT&T research into the subject indicated that
mnemonics had virtually no impact on the actual learning curve;
complexity does, but not mnemonics. This correlates with what I've
seen *but is the opposite of what you expect.*

Hmm, it occurs to me that yellow sticky things may be the *real*
reason that computers have become utilized by more and more people.
They can write down the commands they need to remember and stick 'em
to the machine.

jim frost
ji...@centerline.com

Jim Frost

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 5:02:40 PM6/4/93
to
hal...@dxcern.cern.ch (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>[...] without Sun UNIX would be taught today together

>with MULTICS as a dead O/S. It was sun that kickstarted UNIX into the
>workstation arena.

Personally it's my belief that hardware proliferation did it, not Sun.
Sun was just there to take advantage of it, providing cheap hardware.

The real need was an OS you could move around fast, and for a long
time UNIX was the only thing available. All other long-lived OS's
lived because hardware vendors killed themselves to keep the hardware
fairly static. Unfortunately this hardware-independence has also been
the greatest hinderance.

jim frost
ji...@centerline.com

Jim Frost

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 5:08:32 PM6/4/93
to
mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>>That's no stupider than typing "DIR" to get a list of your files.

>DIRectory - most people actually know what a "directory" is.
>MVwhut? - most people don't think a command that means "move" would
> be logical to rename their files - and they would also
> have to understand unix's habit of naming commands with
> two letters, no vowels.

Hahahahahaha. You've never tried to teach this stuff to a secretary
(or any other supposedly nontechnical occupation). "dir" doesn't make
any more sense than anything else. Neither does "copy" or even
"delete." *The concepts don't directly map to what new users are
accustomed to dealing with.* Because of that the actual mnemonic used
really doesn't matter.

But I'll throw you an answer for your mnemonics anyway:

MoVe
LiSt
ReMove
CoPy

Beginning users I showed this to found that the names actually did
make sense, and shorter names are a boon to non-typists.

Happy hacking,

jim frost
ji...@centerline.com

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 5:27:06 PM6/4/93
to
In <1uoaim$r...@armory.centerline.com> ji...@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
>land...@morocco.Eng.Sun.COM (Doug Landauer) writes:
>> In the Workplace Shell[TM], you can edit source code
>> files while compiling and debugging in the background.
>
>>Whew! I guess I'll just fire off "dbx &" and let it chug away,
>>debugging in the background, while I go home. Maybe they've finally
>>gotten this AI stuff to work?
>
>Reminds me of cdb's "F" command -- Find and Fix bug. It was a nice
>break from debugging when I found that one.
>
>>Actually, it's good to hear that OS/2 has finally made it up to the
>>capabilities of UNIX' Sixth Edition, from about 1974.

Perhaps they're targetting DOS and Windows developers, for whom UNIX is an
incredibly expensive proposition, both in hardware and software, but for whom
OS/2 is a cheap solution, at roughly half the memory and/or disk space of any
variety of UNIX with X & somewm, and twice the speed.

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 6:34:45 PM6/4/93
to

Nononono - the point is that "move" doesn't imply "rename" in any stretch of
the imagination. That was the original beef - I have no trouble personally with
any of the other mnemonics, like you said, it's just a different method of
abbreviation - but using "move" to change the name of a file is inherently
ridiculous for someone who doesn't understand the filesystem.

Jin S Choi

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 3:43:35 PM6/4/93
to
In article <1993Jun4.1...@petra.ma30.bull.com> mge...@orleans.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman) writes:

> Well, are talking about what "most people" know or the inherent
> understandability of abbreviations? The only reason why DIR is big is
> because it happened to be the abbreviation that MSDOS chose. They are
> both equally stupid. In another world, it might have been "CAT" or,
> gods help us, even LOAD "$",8:LIST.
>
> I think it's equally "fair" in making abbreviations to remove vowels
> as to just cut off the end of the word.
>

I personally find LOAD "$",8:LIST more intuitive. Except that nowadays,
my fingers look for " somewhere else than shift-2, and I want to use ;
instead of : to separate instructions.

--
Jin Choi
j...@athena.mit.edu

Matthew Crosby

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 7:03:46 PM6/4/93
to
In article <C848x...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mi...@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>In <1uoaim$r...@armory.centerline.com> ji...@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
>>land...@morocco.Eng.Sun.COM (Doug Landauer) writes:
>>> In the Workplace Shell[TM], you can edit source code
>>> files while compiling and debugging in the background.
>>
>>>Whew! I guess I'll just fire off "dbx &" and let it chug away,
>>>debugging in the background, while I go home. Maybe they've finally
>>>gotten this AI stuff to work?
>>
>>Reminds me of cdb's "F" command -- Find and Fix bug. It was a nice
>>break from debugging when I found that one.
>>
>>>Actually, it's good to hear that OS/2 has finally made it up to the
>>>capabilities of UNIX' Sixth Edition, from about 1974.
>
>Perhaps they're targetting DOS and Windows developers, for whom UNIX is an
>incredibly expensive proposition, both in hardware and software, but for whom
>OS/2 is a cheap solution, at roughly half the memory and/or disk space of any
>variety of UNIX with X & somewm, and twice the speed.
>
Bollocks. I run Linux and OS/2, and OS/2
-uses more memory
-runs slower
-uses more memory for the basic OS
-was more expensive.

Paul Tomblin

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 7:59:41 PM6/4/93
to
j...@monolith.mit.edu (Jin S Choi) writes:

>In article <1993Jun4.1...@petra.ma30.bull.com> mge...@orleans.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman) writes:
>> both equally stupid. In another world, it might have been "CAT" or,
>> gods help us, even LOAD "$",8:LIST.

>I personally find LOAD "$",8:LIST more intuitive. Except that nowadays,


>my fingers look for " somewhere else than shift-2, and I want to use ;
>instead of : to separate instructions.

I find dI (or D followed by a roundish line drawing character) _far_ more
intuitive.

Paul [Ah, BASIC 4.0, now _there_ was computing power!]

Killer of Trees

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 7:45:19 PM6/4/93
to
In article <C84C1...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mi...@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
> Nononono - the point is that "move" doesn't imply "rename" in any stretch of
> the imagination. That was the original beef - I have no trouble personally with
> any of the other mnemonics, like you said, it's just a different method of
> abbreviation - but using "move" to change the name of a file is inherently
> ridiculous for someone who doesn't understand the filesystem.


Thats funny. When I first came across UNIX, I didn't understand the
filesystem. I still don't.

But when I originally asked how one renames a file and my local guru
said "use move, mv," my reaction was <pause> "move? Oh, I get
it...move it to a different name."

And that was that.

I had a harder time with "ls", cause I didn't realize it was an abbreviation
for "list." "dir" made a lot more sense to me at the time.

Then I found grep and awk and all hope of mnemonics went out the window. :)

--
*********************************************************
Laura Lemay le...@netcom.com
writer of trifles in shadows and blood
*********************************************************

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 9:05:50 PM6/4/93
to
In <1993Jun4.2...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> cro...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Crosby) writes:
>
>Bollocks. I run Linux and OS/2, and OS/2
>-uses more memory

Wrong. Insert the following statement in your config.sys:

CALL=C:\OS2\CMD.EXE

You now have a functional full-screen-only OS/2 system. It takes up a pittance
of memory. (Or are you assuming that the Workplace Shell *is* OS/2? Then, I
can assume that X-Windows plus a good window manager *is* linux, right? Of
course, you can't get an interface on top of X as powerful as the WPS or
NeXtStep or the Mac or even the *&^# Windows Program Manager, but this would
be as close as one could get).

>-runs slower

See above. If you want to try another neat thing, try changing the following
line in your config.sys:

SET RUNWORKPLACE=C:\OS2\PMSHELL.EXE

with

SET RUNWORKPLACE=C:\OS2\CMD.EXE

You'll boot up into an OS/2 window from which you can start any kind of session
(DOS, Windows, OS/2, PM) you want with the START command. That will be much
faster than the Workplace Shell; and about as functional (i.e. mostly crippled)
as the average X+Window manager setup.

>-uses more memory for the basic OS

See the previous two statements. And OS/2 2.1 plus the Workplace Shell runs OK
in 4 megs, well in 6 megs, great in 8 megs. Without the Workplace Shell, but
retaining the PM, OS/2, Windows, and DOS capabilities as in the second
suggestion, you could subtract about 2 to 3 megs from each requirement.

>-was more expensive.

You're correct on that one, of course, how many people like compiling their
own apps, ftp-ing fixes, ftp-ing apps to begin with, since linux's dos
compatibility is nothing to crow about...

Face it - linux is a hacker's OS, and a fine one at that. OS/2 meets the needs
of a much wider audience (and is probably, right now, one of the most popular
hacker os's as well due to a thriving internet population).

Steve VanDevender

unread,
Jun 4, 1993, 4:26:50 PM6/4/93
to
In article <C84J1...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>
mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:

Face it - linux is a hacker's OS, and a fine one at that. OS/2
meets the needs of a much wider audience (and is probably,
right now, one of the most popular hacker os's as well due to
a thriving internet population).

This almost as much fun as when Microsofties discover this group
and how much everyone hates MS-anything.

I'd be more inclined to take this guy seriously if he liked OS/2
that much and _didn't_ work for IBM in OS/2 development.
--
Steve VanDevender ste...@greylady.uoregon.edu
"Bipedalism--an unrecognized disease affecting over 99% of the population.
Symptoms include lack of traffic sense, slow rate of travel, and the
classic, easily recognized behavior known as walking."

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Jun 5, 1993, 12:21:38 AM6/5/93
to
In <STEVEV.93...@miser.uoregon.edu> ste...@miser.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender) writes:
>In article <C84J1...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>
>mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>
> Face it - linux is a hacker's OS, and a fine one at that. OS/2
> meets the needs of a much wider audience (and is probably,
> right now, one of the most popular hacker os's as well due to
> a thriving internet population).
>
>This almost as much fun as when Microsofties discover this group
>and how much everyone hates MS-anything.
>
>I'd be more inclined to take this guy seriously if he liked OS/2
>that much and _didn't_ work for IBM in OS/2 development.

Ignoring the fact that I *don't* work in OS/2 development (our product runs
on top of OS/2, but isn't part of the package being sold like wildfire from
the 1-800 number), if you feel my credibility lacking, talk to some of the
non-IBM people in the os2 newsgroups. By the way, I was exposed to UNIX long
before I ever touched OS/2, so you can't use the "it's what you're used to"
excuse...

Adam Justin Thornton

unread,
Jun 5, 1993, 12:12:10 AM6/5/93
to
In article <C848x...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mi...@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>
>Perhaps they're targetting DOS and Windows developers, for whom UNIX is an
>incredibly expensive proposition, both in hardware and software, but for whom
>OS/2 is a cheap solution, at roughly half the memory and/or disk space of any
>variety of UNIX with X & somewm, and twice the speed.

I realize where you're posting from, but SURELY you've heard of either Linux
or 386bsd? Linux at least runs snappily on much less machine than OS/2, and
even with X is about the same size as a full OS/2 installation. On my box,
Linux and color X runs a great deal faster than OS/2. And the dos emulator
isn't half bad. Not OS/2's, granted, but better than nothing. And improving
fast.

Adam
--
ad...@rice.edu | These? Rice's opinions? Yeah, right. | "Might there have
been fewer crimes in the name of Jesus, and more mercy in the name of Judas
Iscariot?"--Thomas Pynchon | "This is not an assault."--FBI to David Koresh,
as they broke holes in the wall and began firing in teargas. | 64,928 | Fnord

Jeremy Reimer

unread,
Jun 5, 1993, 5:17:41 AM6/5/93
to
> Guy Middleton writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <C83r8...@math.uwaterloo.ca>
> Posted: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 15:05:20
>
> Org. : University of Waterloo Software Liberation Army
>
> In article <1993Jun3.1...@news.eng.convex.com> fau...@convex.com

> (Danny R. Faught) writes:
> > In article <25...@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeremy...@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy
> Reimer) writes:
> > Funny, I would have thought they'd complain about Unix's steep
> > learning curve. "You use 'mv' to rename a file? Huh?"
>
> That's no stupider than typing "DIR" to get a list of your files.


Well it wasn't for me, I was fairly familiar with CP/M...

What I'd like to know is, can you use mv to rename with wildcards? like say
mv *.z *.Z. I tried this and it didn't work (using bash)

Kinda weird having almost fifteen years of experience with computers and
still being a UN*X newbie. Oh well. (hey is that bait or what?)

Casper H.S. Dik

unread,
Jun 5, 1993, 6:30:06 AM6/5/93
to
mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:

>DIRectory - most people actually know what a "directory" is.
>MVwhut? - most people don't think a command that means "move" would
> be logical to rename their files - and they would also
> have to understand unix's habit of naming commands with
> two letters, no vowels.


c:\> directory
Bad command or file name.

Perhaps people know what a directory is. But wouldn't
something like ``show directory'' be more obvious than
``dir'' (and not directory).
(and they must also understand dos' habit of abbreviating commands
that would have too many letters).

Saying that any naming of basic commands is more obvious than
the next is silly. The naming of commands doesn't matter.
You must learn them, what kind of OS you use.

Atleast on unix systems I can say ``apropos rename'' and
I will get an answer: mv(1) - move or rename files.

Casper

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Jun 5, 1993, 12:51:04 PM6/5/93
to
In <C84ro...@rice.edu> ad...@owlnet.rice.edu (Adam Justin Thornton) writes:
>In article <C848x...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mi...@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>>
>>Perhaps they're targetting DOS and Windows developers, for whom UNIX is an
>>incredibly expensive proposition, both in hardware and software, but for whom
>>OS/2 is a cheap solution, at roughly half the memory and/or disk space of any
>>variety of UNIX with X & somewm, and twice the speed.
>
>I realize where you're posting from, but SURELY you've heard of either Linux
>or 386bsd? Linux at least runs snappily on much less machine than OS/2, and
>even with X is about the same size as a full OS/2 installation. On my box,
>Linux and color X runs a great deal faster than OS/2. And the dos emulator
>isn't half bad. Not OS/2's, granted, but better than nothing. And improving
>fast.

As I said in another post, if you want to do a straight speed comparison, run
OS/2 without the Workplace Shell, which cripples it to the same level of
functionality as the best X-Windows/window manager combinations.

Guy Dawson

unread,
Jun 5, 1993, 1:14:03 PM6/5/93
to

In article <25...@mindlink.bc.ca>, Jeremy...@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer) writes:
> > Guy Middleton writes:
> >
> > Msg-ID: <C83r8...@math.uwaterloo.ca>
> > Posted: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 15:05:20
> >
> > Org. : University of Waterloo Software Liberation Army
> >
> > In article <1993Jun3.1...@news.eng.convex.com> fau...@convex.com
> > (Danny R. Faught) writes:
> > > In article <25...@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeremy...@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy
> > Reimer) writes:
> > > Funny, I would have thought they'd complain about Unix's steep
> > > learning curve. "You use 'mv' to rename a file? Huh?"
> >
> > That's no stupider than typing "DIR" to get a list of your files.
>
>
> Well it wasn't for me, I was fairly familiar with CP/M...
>
> What I'd like to know is, can you use mv to rename with wildcards? like say
> mv *.z *.Z. I tried this and it didn't work (using bash)

No, the shell ( bash in this case ) processes the command line and
expands the wildcards before executing mv. If you have a directory containing
the following

file1.z file2.z file3.z

then the command actually executed will be

mv file1.z file2.z file3.z *.Z

This will work if there is a directory called *.Z in that the files will
be moved into the directoy.

>
> Kinda weird having almost fifteen years of experience with computers and
> still being a UN*X newbie. Oh well. (hey is that bait or what?)
>
>
> --
> Jeremy_Reimer@ | "And it shall be called.. WINDOWS!"| __/\


Guy
--
-- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Dawson - Hoskyns Group Plc.
gu...@hoskyns.co.uk Tel Hoskyns UK - 71 251 2128
gu...@austin.ibm.com Tel IBM Austin USA - 512 838 3377

Message has been deleted

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Jun 5, 1993, 4:37:25 PM6/5/93
to
In <1993Jun5.1...@klaava.Helsinki.FI> wirz...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes:

>mi...@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>>As I said in another post, if you want to do a straight speed comparison, run
>>OS/2 without the Workplace Shell, which cripples it to the same level of
>>functionality as the best X-Windows/window manager combinations.
>
>Real objective, comparing a text mode OS with a system running a gooey
>interface.
>
>If OS/2 is allowed to run without WS, then Linux should be allowed to
>run without X. Which, incidentally, should be quite fair, since
>Linux' virtual consoles would seem to provide the "same level of
>functionality". With the selection patches, one can even cut+paste
>with the mouse over virtual consoles.

No, you're misunderstanding here. The Workplace Shell is much much more than
X + any window manager. X + a window manager is the equivalent of OS/2's
Presentation Manager, and you can achieve that effect by changing the
RUNWORKPLACE line in config.sys to read "c:\os2\cmd.exe". That gives you a
single os/2 window from which you can launch any kind of program via the
"start" command. (any program could be the interface here; cmd.exe is typically
used because it resembles the initial xterm a lot of x-windows setups dump
you into). The Workplace Shell is functionally similar to NeXTStep's OO
interface, not X-Windows. Presentation Manager is functionally equivalent to
X-Windows plus the average window manager.

Richard Kooijman

unread,
Jun 5, 1993, 4:20:22 PM6/5/93
to
gu...@austin.ibm.com (Guy Dawson) writes:

>No, the shell ( bash in this case ) processes the command line and
>expands the wildcards before executing mv. If you have a directory containing
>the following

> file1.z file2.z file3.z

>then the command actually executed will be

>mv file1.z file2.z file3.z *.Z

>This will work if there is a directory called *.Z in that the files will
>be moved into the directoy.


*.Z is expanded too you know. If there is no directory name (or names)
that can be expanded using *.Z you will receive an error '*.Z: no such
file or directory'. If there are more than 1 directory that match *.Z
you'll get something you probably didn't intended to get: all files
and directories that match *.z and *.Z (except for the last one) will
be moved into the last *.Z dir.

It's really simple if you remember what is expanding your command-line:
the shell or the programs. On DOS and OS/2 this is all very inconsistent,
as not all programs do expand the command-line, you'll just have to test
and see.


Richard.

Emery

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 12:21:09 AM6/6/93
to

Ahhhh, but you forget, "DIR" is much more intuitive :!)

-Emery
--

Some people call me "Mr." Some people call me "E."
Some people call me "Mr. E." Some people call me "Mr. Mystery." -- Sun Ra
Emery W. Lapinski e...@sacco.cs.nyu.edu No professional affiliation with NYU

Jeff Hameluck

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 12:24:08 AM6/6/93
to
In article <lemayC8...@netcom.com> le...@netcom.com (Killer of Trees) writes:
>I had a harder time with "ls", cause I didn't realize it was an abbreviation
>for "list." "dir" made a lot more sense to me at the time.
>
>Then I found grep and awk and all hope of mnemonics went out the window. :)
>

If you really want to see some horrible mnemonics for commands try using a
Geac 9000 sometime. Geac is a company which in the early 80's (late 70's)
made complete systems for libraries to use. The Geac 9000 which I am using
was installed in 1985 and is due to be replaced (by probably a Unix system)
next year but our Geac rep tells us they still sell 'em. Anyway the OS
commands are ALL TWO letters. Every single command is two letters long and
filenames are 6 letters long.

It's hell moving from a Unix system to this thing, every time I type ls
I get a Log Scan, I should have typed FI for File Information but maybe I
wasn't in the right directory so I should have SU'd (Signed Up) to the
proper directory. The list goes on and on. Sure Geac can come up with
names which fit but like a guy was saying before what these mnemonics have
to do with what is happening is anyone's guess (MV for rename in Unix, etc)

trust me, a Geac makes a Unix system seem as friendly as a Mac.


Jeff Hameluck hame...@cs.uregina.ca
regina!mercury!hameluck
CL 115.1 University of Regina
(306) 585-4009 Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

Charles Lasner

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 12:38:01 AM6/6/93
to
In article <C83r8...@math.uwaterloo.ca> gami...@math.uwaterloo.ca (Guy Middleton) writes:
>In article <1993Jun3.1...@news.eng.convex.com> fau...@convex.com (Danny R. Faught) writes:
>> In article <25...@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeremy...@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer) writes:
>> Funny, I would have thought they'd complain about Unix's steep
>> learning curve. "You use 'mv' to rename a file? Huh?"
>
>That's no stupider than typing "DIR" to get a list of your files.

You guys are starting a religious argument.

ls might mean "list" to some, but in any case you are claiming that you
want a listing (presumably on your screen unless redirected elsewhere) of
your files. Listing things isn't limited to files. The cat command is
listing what's in one particular (grouping of) file(s).

DIR at least meants I want my own directory to be indicated to me, not saying
what about this directory admittedly, but at least I've indicated that the
directory in my designated area is what I want to know something about.

All of this can be quite troublesome to anyone with pre-unix experience
since LIST has been used to look at the innards of some item, usually the
contents of a particular file. Unix is placing more emphasis on the action
rather than the object. Moreover, the majority usage of cat filename bears
little on the fact that a more general usage *could* imply a conCATenation
of several files. You can't concatenate one item <without saying another item>
anymore than you can say "what's the difference between an orange?".

The guy's gripe about mv is as much (or as little) justified as well, since
a rename operation isn't really moving anything. Of course it's a trival
case of a command that *can* actually move files around, but again, the
problem is that the command addresses the *most* the operation can do
for its name, not what it's typically used for (especially for beginners).

My gripe is that rm is ReMove. If that's the way to abbreviate it, it's
suggestive of moving again, which it clearly isn't. Perhaps it should have
been dl from delete or er from erase or ki from kill.

cj "initials not any known unix command - cjl?" l

Galen F Gawboy

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 4:38:28 AM6/6/93
to
>In article <C83r8...@math.uwaterloo.ca> gami...@math.uwaterloo.ca (Guy Middleton) writes:
>>In article <1993Jun3.1...@news.eng.convex.com> fau...@convex.com (Danny R. Faught) writes:
>>> In article <25...@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeremy...@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer) writes:
>>> Funny, I would have thought they'd complain about Unix's steep
>>> learning curve. "You use 'mv' to rename a file? Huh?"
>>
>>That's no stupider than typing "DIR" to get a list of your files.
>

I think that the fundamental difference between unix and DOS is that in
unix you can rename your commands to DOS commands on shared resources. That
is if you think that DIR is more intuitive than ls you can alias it in the
cshell or write a script DIR which will execute ls. Then you would have things
like you want them, and everybody else which is sharing your system could
still use ls. If however you are sharing a DOS machine, I do not think you
can do this. If you prefered ls to DIR on a DOS machine and were to write a
script to rename the command, then I think everybody else who shared your
system would have to do it your way.

-Disclaimer: I avoid working in the DOS environment like the plague, so I am
not very knowledgable in its ways. If I am mistaken, enlightenment would be
appreciated.

-galen

-I am probably wrong and it won't be the first time.


Lennart Regebro

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 2:32:37 PM6/6/93
to

>>I personally find LOAD "$",8:LIST more intuitive. Except that nowadays,
>

>I find dI (or D followed by a roundish line drawing character) _far_ more
>intuitive.

Your both totally wrong. It should be RUNLIB, of course.


--
Lennart Regebro reg...@stacken.kth.se
Stacken Computer Club
Any Opinion expressed above is (c) Rent-An-Opinion(tm). It is not an Opinion
of either Lennart Regebro or the Stacken Computer Club.
Now you also can get an Opinion. Call Welcome To Reality(tm) +1 (800) NO-CLUES.

Charles Lasner

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 1:42:48 PM6/6/93
to
In article <1993Jun4.1...@petra.ma30.bull.com> mge...@orleans.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman) writes:
>In article <C83vz...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>, mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>|> In <C83r8...@math.uwaterloo.ca> gami...@math.uwaterloo.ca (Guy Middleton) writes:
>[Regarding UNIX learning curve, particularly mv to rename a file]

>|>>
>|>>That's no stupider than typing "DIR" to get a list of your files.
>|>
>|>DIRectory - most people actually know what a "directory" is.
>|>MVwhut? - most people don't think a command that means "move" would
>|> be logical to rename their files - and they would also
>|> have to understand unix's habit of naming commands with
>|> two letters, no vowels.
>
>Well, are talking about what "most people" know or the inherent
>understandability of abbreviations? The only reason why DIR is big is
>because it happened to be the abbreviation that MSDOS chose. They are
>both equally stupid. In another world, it might have been "CAT" or,
>gods help us, even LOAD "$",8:LIST.
>
>I think it's equally "fair" in making abbreviations to remove vowels
>as to just cut off the end of the word.

The point isn't the method of downsizing something familiar into a concise
command, rather the meaningfulness of the command when done. MSDOS didn't
chose DIR, they copied it from many other pre-existing systems because it
made sense there as well. DIR is likely the most consistent command in the
industry. Basically, unix is the only significent system that disagrees with
this. Moreover, a lot of novice scripts add DIR into unix to make it a bit
easier, etc.

I agree that a "most people" argument doesn't matter. If we strip away the
vast unwashed public of MS-DOS users and stick to computer types, then don't
in turn use the "most people use unix" argument either. This isn't any form
of "might makes right" kind of argument.

I think it's fair to say that the mindset of they who begat unix is quite
different from most people who enter upon the world of computers more than
minimally. This is as much true today as it was way back when unix was
quite different from all other pre-existing and successful systems where
there really wasn't any hue and cry to change the form or specifics of
the names of the commands. Many from days of yore and also today further
resent having to learn a specific set of alien quirkinesses just to get
some work done, and are more learning what to do by rote than by any actual
understanding. What I am getting at is that people are learning that:

mv = {Oh!, that's how I do the equivalent of RENAME}

rather than thinking that mv is used to move the file's name from one name to
the other. The quirkiness sticks. Think of it as a foreign language that you
can understand, but never really become fluent in and are instead always doing
a form of "lookup" in a unix-{familiar system}<=>{familiar system}-unix
dictionary like a tourist in another country, etc.

To an "outsider", unix commands always seem to be one level of indirectness
removed from functionality. The method of abbreviation is secondary; what
is being abbreviated is the issue.

cj "So show me a sensible unix command abbreviated down to cjl" l

Peter da Silva

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 1:56:16 PM6/6/93
to
In article <C848x...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mi...@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
> Perhaps they're targetting DOS and Windows developers, for whom UNIX is an
> incredibly expensive proposition, both in hardware and software,

Gee, my 386BSD cost nothin but the cost of the floppies, and I'm currently
running a newsfeed on the system next to it, running multiuser with 4M RAM
and 70M hard drive, on a 16 MHz 386.

> but for whom
> OS/2 is a cheap solution, at roughly half the memory and/or disk space of any
> variety of UNIX with X & somewm,

I believe Linux will run X fine in 8MB, which is what you need to do anything
useful on OS/2.
--
Peter da Silva. <pe...@sugar.neosoft.com>.
`-_-' Har du kramat din varg idag?
'U`
"Det er min ledsager, det er ikke drikkepenge."

Peter da Silva

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 2:13:31 PM6/6/93
to
Here's a logical set of command names:

files <n>
display files in drawer <n>

close <n>
close drawer <n>

open <name>
open a new drawer as curent

open <name>,<n>
open a drawer on top of drawer <n> as current

open <n>
select <n> as current drawer

examine <file>
display contents of files in current drawer

workspace
display currently open drawers

index
display all drawers

Here's another one:

catalog
display files in current volume

directory
display available volumes

list
display contents of a file

select
select a new current volume

Both of these make perfect sense. Don't they? Not a single command in common.

Peter da Silva

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 2:03:18 PM6/6/93
to
In article <C84C1...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mi...@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
> Nononono - the point is that "move" doesn't imply "rename" in any stretch of
> the imagination.

My imagination is pretty flexible.

Does standard PC-DOS provide a "MoVe" commend yet?

Tor Lillqvist

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 7:35:47 PM6/6/93
to
>>>>> On 5 Jun 1993 10:30:06 GMT, cas...@fwi.uva.nl (Casper H.S. Dik) said:

> Saying that any naming of basic commands is more obvious than
> the next is silly. The naming of commands doesn't matter.
> You must learn them, what kind of OS you use.

That's true. I remember reading about some research where computer
novices were taught using some simple (line-oriented) text editor or
such. One group was taught normal allegedly mnemonic commands (like
maybe 'add' for adding lines, 'del' for deleting etc.) Another group
used a slightly modified version of the program, with commands that
were in no way mnemonic at all ("to remove lines, use the 'plugh'
command. To add text, use the 'xyzzy' command." You get the idea.)
Anyway, the result was that the mnemonicness of the command had little
if any significance.
--
Tor Lillqvist,
working, but not speaking, for the Technical Research Centre of Finland,
Laboratory for Information Processing (VTT/TIK).

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 5:57:17 PM6/6/93
to
In <C87oH...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> pe...@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
>> but for whom
>> OS/2 is a cheap solution, at roughly half the memory and/or disk space of any
>> variety of UNIX with X & somewm,
>
>I believe Linux will run X fine in 8MB, which is what you need to do anything
>useful on OS/2.

Baloney - and even if it did, the interface is pitiful compared even to a
Macintosh, much less the Workplace Shell or NeXTStep. You can rip the Workplace
Shell off of OS/2 2.x and have it perform well in under 4MB of memory (if you
doubt, check out a copy of OS/2 1.3, which ran pretty well with a MS-Windows
like interface in 2MB)

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 6:00:08 PM6/6/93
to
In <C87ot...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> pe...@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <C84C1...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mi...@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>> Nononono - the point is that "move" doesn't imply "rename" in any stretch of
>> the imagination.
>
>My imagination is pretty flexible.
>
>Does standard PC-DOS provide a "MoVe" commend yet?

I don't know; I haven't used DOS in over a year now. OS/2 does, however, but
it only works on the same drive (be it physical or logical).

move schmoopity.schmoo \temp\"unix sucks"

is legal, but

move schmoopity.schmoo c:\temp\"unix bites"

isn't. (doesn't even if c is the current drive, I guess just to hammer home
the point that you can't even think about drives when MOVEing :+)

young a t

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 6:54:25 PM6/6/93
to
In article <1upsje$1...@mail.fwi.uva.nl> cas...@fwi.uva.nl (Casper H.S. Dik) writes:
>Saying that any naming of basic commands is more obvious than
>the next is silly. The naming of commands doesn't matter.
>You must learn them, what kind of OS you use.

Right. Look at the supposedly "intuitive" point-and-click systems.
Every time I come up against one, I can't make hear nor tail of it.
Try pushing mouse buttons ... maybe I can get some label to go into
reverse video or some highlight mode, but I can't make it *DO* anything.
--
----
A.T.Young, Astronomy Department, San Diego State University, San Diego CA 92182

a...@mintaka.sdsu.edu

Peter da Silva

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 6:48:01 PM6/6/93
to
In article <C87zn...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mi...@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
> Baloney - and even if it did, the interface is pitiful compared even to a
> Macintosh, much less the Workplace Shell or NeXTStep.

I'll grant you that X is less than an ideal environment, but I'll take a
system with a clean API and a primitive shell over something written to
a requirements list without any conceptual integrity and the best shell in
the world.

If you want to REALLY compare apples to apples, replace X with MGR. X has a
lot of capabilities that can't be reproduced in OS/2, so it's only fair.
Then you can run your Linux window system in 2MB.

(of course, the ultimate bare-bones UNIX window system is still User Agent
on the 3b1. Multiuser UNIX with windowing in 512K to 1M).

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 9:41:25 PM6/6/93
to
In <C8820...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> pe...@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <C87zn...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mi...@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>> Baloney - and even if it did, the interface is pitiful compared even to a
>> Macintosh, much less the Workplace Shell or NeXTStep.
>
>I'll grant you that X is less than an ideal environment, but I'll take a
>system with a clean API and a primitive shell over something written to
>a requirements list without any conceptual integrity and the best shell in
>the world.

Oh - a sidehanded slam of OS/2, eh? Please be specific on how it has no
conceptual integrity, and remember you're arguing with someone who helped
write the blasted Workplace Shell. I've found that most of the conceptual
problems certain types of users have with the Shell are problems with the
Shell's internal consistency, which is BETTER than any other windowing
environment and/or interface save the Macintosh. Things like "when I add a
command prompt to the Desktop menu, why is the Desktop passed as a parameter?
This seems really dumb!" answer: "command prompt is just a program object,
which usually take other objects as parameters - they are in effect actions
one can perform ON the object in question, thus it is objectively reasonable
to pass the Desktop as a parameter".

>If you want to REALLY compare apples to apples, replace X with MGR. X has a
>lot of capabilities that can't be reproduced in OS/2, so it's only fair.
>Then you can run your Linux window system in 2MB.

X's only capablity that can't be reproduced in OS/2 is network graphics. You
can easily do this with the tcp/ip add-on package, which comes with an X
server. The difference is, OS/2 doesn't force you to swallow the performance
overhead for something that most people don't ever need.

And I don't know enough about MGR to argue about it - why don't you educate me
on how it stacks up against your ideas of the features in PM and/or the
Workplace Shell so I can blast them down? :+)

Adam Justin Thornton

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 9:12:53 PM6/6/93
to
In article <C87zn...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mi...@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:

>Baloney - and even if it did, the interface is pitiful compared even to a
>Macintosh, much less the Workplace Shell or NeXTStep. You can rip the Workplace
>Shell off of OS/2 2.x and have it perform well in under 4MB of memory (if you

Remind me to stay far away from any interface you ever design. I'll take twm
over Macintrash or the Workplace Shell any day. And most days I'd rather use
it than NeXTStep.

Jacqueline U. Robertson

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 10:11:24 PM6/6/93
to
In article <C87oH...@sugar.neosoft.com> pe...@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <C848x...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mi...@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>> Perhaps they're targetting DOS and Windows developers, for whom UNIX is an
>> incredibly expensive proposition, both in hardware and software,
>
>Gee, my 386BSD cost nothin but the cost of the floppies, and I'm currently
>running a newsfeed on the system next to it, running multiuser with 4M RAM
>and 70M hard drive, on a 16 MHz 386.
>

The point is, non-technical users are NOT going to use an
unsupported freeware or shareware OS. Certainly a business user is not.
Thus, the previous poster's point about unix being expensive holds;
commercial releases are far more expensive in dollars and resources.

James Robertson

Robert Boucher

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 8:14:59 PM6/6/93
to
In article <C87ot...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>, pe...@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) types:

>Does standard PC-DOS provide a "MoVe" commend yet?

If I may bring the thread back to the subject line, winNT now
supports, among other things, "move" (even between filesystem)
and a "rename" which can rename a directory.

Here is a list of commands supported by winNT's cmd.exe (replacing the
traditional command.com):

ACLCONV Converts OS/2 LANMAN SERVER access control lists.
AT Schedules commands and programs to run on a computer.
ATTRIB Displays or changes file attributes.
BREAK Sets or clears extended CTRL+C checking.
CALL Calls one batch program from another.
CD Displays the name of or changes the current directory.
CHCP Displays or sets the active code page number.
CHDIR Displays the name of or changes the current directory.
CHKDSK Checks a disk and displays a status report.
CLS Clears the screen.
CMD Starts a new instance of the Windows NT command interpreter.
COMP Compares the contents of two files or sets of files.
CONVERT Converts FAT or HPFS volumes to NTFS. You cannot convert the
current drive.
COPY Copies one or more files to another location.
DATE Displays or sets the date.
DEL Deletes one or more files.
DIR Displays a list of files and subdirectories in a directory.
DISKCOMP Compares the contents of two floppy disks.
DISKCOPY Copies the contents of one floppy disk to another.
DOSKEY Edits command lines, recalls Windows NT commands, and creates macros.
ECHO Displays messages, or turns command echoing on or off.
ENDLOCAL Ends localization of environment changes in a batch file.
ERASE Deletes one or more files.
EXIT Quits the CMD.EXE program (command interpreter).
FC Compares two files or sets of files, and displays the differences
between them.
FIND Searches for a text string in a file or files.
FINDSTR Searches for strings in files.
FOR Runs a specified command for each file in a set of files.
FORMAT Formats a disk for use with Windows NT.
GOTO Directs Windows NT to a labelled line in a batch program.
GRAFTABL Enables Windows NT to display an extended character set in graphics
mode.
HELP Provides Help information for Windows NT commands.
IF Performs conditional processing in batch programs.
KEYB Configures a keyboard for a specific language.
LABEL Creates, changes, or deletes the volume label of a disk.
MD Creates a directory.
MKDIR Creates a directory.
MODE Configures a system device.
MORE Displays output one screen at a time.
MOVE Moves one or more files from one directory to another directory on
the same drive.
PATH Displays or sets a search path for executable files.
PAUSE Suspends processing of a batch file and displays a message.
POPD Restores the previous value of the current directory saved by PUSHD.
PRINT Prints a text file.
PROMPT Changes the Windows NT command prompt.
PUSHD Saves the current directory then changes it.
RD Removes a directory.
RECOVER Recovers readable information from a bad or defective disk.
REM Records comments (remarks) in batch files or CONFIG.SYS.
REN Renames a file or files.
RENAME Renames a file or files.
REPLACE Replaces files.
RESTORE Restores files that were backed up by using the BACKUP command.
RMDIR Removes a directory.
SET Displays, sets, or removes Windows NT environment variables.
SETLOCAL Begins localization of environment changes in a batch file.
SHIFT Shifts the position of replaceable parameters in batch files.
SORT Sorts input.
SUBST Associates a path with a drive letter.
START Starts a separate window to run a specified program or command.
TIME Displays or sets the system time.
TITLE Sets the window title for a cmd.exe session.
TREE Graphically displays the directory structure of a drive or path.
TYPE Displays the contents of a text file.
VER Displays the Windows NT version.
VERIFY Tells Windows NT whether to verify that your files are written
correctly to a disk.
VOL Displays a disk volume label and serial number.
XCOPY Copies files and directory trees.

>--
>Peter da Silva. <pe...@sugar.neosoft.com>.

--
Robert Boucher

Home: boucher%asi...@revcan.rct.ca
Work: bou...@sofkin.ca

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 10:49:20 PM6/6/93
to
In <C888p...@rice.edu> ad...@owlnet.rice.edu (Adam Justin Thornton) writes:
>In article <C87zn...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mi...@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>
>>Baloney - and even if it did, the interface is pitiful compared even to a
>>Macintosh, much less the Workplace Shell or NeXTStep. You can rip the Workplace
>>Shell off of OS/2 2.x and have it perform well in under 4MB of memory (if you
>
>Remind me to stay far away from any interface you ever design. I'll take twm
>over Macintrash or the Workplace Shell any day. And most days I'd rather use
>it than NeXTStep.

You're welcome to your opinion. twm is a very minimalist user interface, and
some people consider anything else to be "getting in their way". To them, I'd
show my OS/2 desktop with a desktop menu with most of my frequently used
programs right on it (like the desktop menu in twm) -- so if I want quick, I
know where to get it. The difference is that setting up new programs is about
a billion times quicker and easier for most people, since the main way to
modify twm is to load up an editor and figure out how to change the .twmrc
file. Oooo! What an interface! With OS/2, I open settings on the desktop, go
to the Menu page, figure out where the program is I want to plop on the menu
(or use the Find facility to locate it if I don't know where it is or what it
is called) and voila. If I already have the folder containing it open on the
desktop, it's easier - just drag the program object onto the menu page and it
gets added.

But back to the point - twm is the interface for those who really don't want an
interface at all. It's barely more elegant than simply starting all of your
programs from an initial xterm by always typing "program-name &".

Bernd Meyer

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 4:50:10 PM6/6/93
to
gami...@math.uwaterloo.ca (Guy Middleton) writes:

>In article <1993Jun3.1...@news.eng.convex.com> fau...@convex.com (Danny R. Faught) writes:
>> In article <25...@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeremy...@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer) writes:
>> Funny, I would have thought they'd complain about Unix's steep
>> learning curve. "You use 'mv' to rename a file? Huh?"

>That's no stupider than typing "DIR" to get a list of your files.

Don't laugh, but after getting linux SLS complete, some guy called me and
basically asked "what now?".
When I told him to type ls, he said "so DIR is called ls? Funny!"

Really happened :-(((

Bernie
--
We both know that the earth is curved | ro...@umibox.hanse.de
so we can't see the way before us to its end. | or
We walk down this way hand in hand, | b-m...@tu-harburg.dbp.de
and I hope you are still with me behind the horizon | Hamburg, Germany

Vadim Antonov

unread,
Jun 7, 1993, 12:03:56 AM6/7/93
to
In article <1993Jun3.1...@news.eng.convex.com> fau...@convex.com (Danny R. Faught) writes:
> Funny, I would have thought they'd complain about Unix's steep
> learning curve. "You use 'mv' to rename a file? Huh?"

Oh, Unix "mv" _does not_ rename files. It actually _moves_ it, though
sometimes this operation is performed by pointer juggling instead of
data copying. Since "move" is much more general than "rename" and
as efficient where they're equivalent, Unix's idea is clear win (and
the abbreviation is logical and mnemonic).

--vadim

ObFolklore: Does anybody know if the convention on omitting vowels
in abbreviations has any relationships with Yiddish? :-)

iv...@cc.usu.edu

unread,
Jun 6, 1993, 11:53:22 PM6/6/93
to
In article <1utsj1$r...@gondor.sdsu.edu>, a...@ucssun1.sdsu.edu (young a t) writes:
> In article <1upsje$1...@mail.fwi.uva.nl> cas...@fwi.uva.nl (Casper H.S. Dik) writes:
>>Saying that any naming of basic commands is more obvious than
>>the next is silly. The naming of commands doesn't matter.
>>You must learn them, what kind of OS you use.
>
> Right. Look at the supposedly "intuitive" point-and-click systems.
> Every time I come up against one, I can't make hear nor tail of it.
> Try pushing mouse buttons ... maybe I can get some label to go into
> reverse video or some highlight mode, but I can't make it *DO* anything.

Could be worse. NT's HELP system usually just regurgitates what written on
the buttons with a different wording. Totally useless.

Until now, I thought Un*x man pages were the worst documentation I'd ever
seen. I guess it remains to be seen whether Microsoft will simply print out
their HELP manuals and call it documentation...

Roger Ivie
iv...@cc.usu.edu

Charlie Gibbs

unread,
Jun 7, 1993, 2:10:45 AM6/7/93
to
In article <1usae4$r...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

gga...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Galen F Gawboy) writes:

> I think that the fundamental difference between unix and DOS is that in
>unix you can rename your commands to DOS commands on shared resources. That
>is if you think that DIR is more intuitive than ls you can alias it in the
>cshell or write a script DIR which will execute ls. Then you would have
things
>like you want them, and everybody else which is sharing your system could
>still use ls. If however you are sharing a DOS machine, I do not think you
>can do this. If you prefered ls to DIR on a DOS machine and were to write a
>script to rename the command, then I think everybody else who shared your
>system would have to do it your way.
>
>-Disclaimer: I avoid working in the DOS environment like the plague, so I am
>not very knowledgable in its ways. If I am mistaken, enlightenment would be
>appreciated.

I'm not sure whether newer versions of DOS allow aliasing (3.3
still works as well as I can hope MS-DOS to do), but I got my hands
on a nifty little program called UNCLE. It not only gives me
aliasing, but also command-line history, and you can even get it
to swap forward- and back-slashes so that you can type a path the
way God intended. I've put in aliases from all my favourite Unix
commands.

Of course, I also use aliases on the Amiga side, so I can type
Unix commands wherever I go.

--CJ"will simulate Unix for food"G

Thomas Koenig

unread,
Jun 7, 1993, 3:44:02 AM6/7/93
to
ro...@umibox.hanse.de (Bernd Meyer) writes:

>Don't laugh, but after getting linux SLS complete, some guy called me and
>basically asked "what now?".
>When I told him to type ls, he said "so DIR is called ls? Funny!"

>Really happened :-(((

Funny thing is, the GNU manpage for ls (and Linux does use the GNU
utilities) DOES mention 'dir' as an alternate command name. Looks like
'dir' is finally getting into the UNIX world, after having been used in
CP/M, MS, MS-DOS, ftp, and I don't know where else (RSX? Twenex?) for
ages.

So... Who Had It First? What does Multics use? What did/does DOS /360
use? ITS?

TSO uses "LISTCAT", if anyone wants to know ;-)
--
Thomas Koenig, ig...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig...@dkauni2.bitnet
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.

Thomas Koenig

unread,
Jun 7, 1993, 3:52:16 AM6/7/93
to
r...@asimov.uucp (Robert Boucher) writes:

>Here is a list of commands supported by winNT's cmd.exe (replacing the
>traditional command.com):

[list deleted]

Hey, I can do better than that; here's a list of the commands for TSO/E
under MVS/ESA ;-)

LANGUAGE PROCESSING COMMANDS:

ASM INVOKE ASSEMBLER PROMPTER AND ASSEMBLER F COMPILER.
CALC INVOKE ITF:PL/1 PROCESSOR FOR DESK CALCULATOR MODE.
COBOL INVOKE COBOL PROMPTER AND ANS COBOL COMPILER.
FORT INVOKE FORTRAN PROMPTER AND FORTRAN IV G1 COMPILER.

PROGRAM CONTROL COMMANDS:

CALL LOAD AND EXECUTE THE SPECIFIED LOAD MODULE.
LINK INVOKE LINK PROMPTER AND LINKAGE EDITOR.
LOADGO LOAD AND EXECUTE PROGRAM.
RUN COMPILE, LOAD, AND EXECUTE PROGRAM.
TEST TEST USER PROGRAM.
TESTAUTH TEST APF AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS.

DATA MANAGEMENT COMMANDS:

ALLOCATE ALLOCATE A DATA SET WITH OR WITHOUT AN ATTRIBUTE
LIST OF DCB PARAMETERS.
ALTLIB DEFINE OPTIONAL, USER-LEVEL OR APPLICATION-LEVEL SETS OF
LIBRARIES CONTAINING SAA/PL EXECS OR CLISTS. THESE
LIBRARIES ARE SEARCHED WHEN IMPLICITLY INVOKING AN
SAA/PL EXEC OR CLIST.
ATTRIB ALLOW DCB PARAMETERS TO BE DYNAMICALLY INTRODUCED
AND NAMED FOR USE WITH A SUBSEQUENT ALLOCATE COMMAND.
CONVERT SIFT ITF/PL1 AND FORTRAN SOURCE.
COPY COPY A DATA SET.
DELETE DELETE A DATA SET.
EDIT CREATE, EDIT, AND/OR EXECUTE A DATA SET.
FORMAT FORMAT AND PRINT A TEXT DATA SET.
FREE RELEASE A DATA SET AND/OR AN ATTRIBUTE LIST.
LIST DISPLAY A DATA SET.
LISTALC DISPLAY ACTIVE DATA SETS.
LISTBC DISPLAY MESSAGES FROM OPERATOR/USER.
LISTCAT DISPLAY USER CATALOGUED DATA SETS.
LISTDS DISPLAY DATA SET ATTRIBUTES.
MERGE COMBINE DATA SETS.
PRINTDS PRINT A DATA SET.
PROTECT PASSWORD PROTECT DATA SETS.
RENAME RENAME A DATA SET.

SYSTEM CONTROL COMMANDS:

ACCOUNT MODIFY/ADD/DELETE USER ATTRIBUTES.
CONSOLE PLACE TERMINAL IN CONSOLE MODE.
OPERATOR PLACE TERMINAL IN OPERATOR MODE.
PARMLIB LIST/UPDATE TSO/E DEFAULTS.
RACONVRT UADS TO RACF DATA BASE CONVERSION UTILITY.
SYNC SYNCHRONIZE THE BROADCAST DATA SET WITH USER IDS FROM THE
UADS AND RACF DATA BASE.

SESSION CONTROL:

CONSPROF DEFINE USER CONSOLE CHARACTERISTICS.
EXEC INVOKE COMMAND PROCEDURE.
EXECUTIL ALTER REXX ENVIRONMENT.
HELP INVOKE HELP PROCESSOR.
LOGOFF END TERMINAL SESSION.
LOGON START TERMINAL SESSION.
PROFILE DEFINE USER CHARACTERISTICS.
SEND SEND MESSAGE TO OPERATOR/USER.
TERMINAL DEFINE TERMINAL CHARACTERISTICS.
TIME LOG SESSION USAGE TIME.
TSOEXEC EXECUTE AN AUTHORIZED OR UNAUTHORIZED COMMAND
FROM WITHIN AN UNAUTHORIZED ENVIRONMENT.
WHEN CONDITIONALLY EXECUTE NEXT COMMAND.

FOREGROUND INITIATED BACKGROUND COMMANDS:

CANCEL CANCEL BACKGROUND JOB.
OUTPUT DIRECT OUTPUT MEDIUM FOR BACKGROUND JOB.
STATUS LIST STATUS OF BACKGROUND JOB.
SUBMIT SUBMIT BACKGROUND JOB.

INTERACTIVE DATA TRANSMISSION FACILITY:

RECEIVE RECEIVE DATA SENT TO YOU BY A TRANSMIT COMMAND.
TRANSMIT TRANSMIT MESSAGES AND/OR DATA SETS VIA NODES DEFINED TO JES.

This list is not complete, installation dependent commands (the commands
from the RACF security package, for example), and CLIST or REXX commands
are not included. If you don't understand what half of them actually
mean, never mind; you seriously don't want to know about ALLOCATE, for
example ;-)

Thomas Koenig

unread,
Jun 7, 1993, 4:00:21 AM6/7/93
to
mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:

>In <C87oH...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> pe...@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>
>>> but for whom
>>> OS/2 is a cheap solution, at roughly half the memory and/or disk space of any
>>> variety of UNIX with X & somewm,
>>
>>I believe Linux will run X fine in 8MB, which is what you need to do anything
>>useful on OS/2.

>Baloney - and even if it did,

It does. Try getting the facts right before you post next time, or people
might not believe the rest of your post, either.

Mika Iisakkila

unread,
Jun 7, 1993, 6:30:59 AM6/7/93
to
ro...@umibox.hanse.de (Bernd Meyer) writes:
>When I told him to type ls, he said "so DIR is called ls? Funny!"
>Really happened :-(((

What's so sad/funny about that? That was precisely the point of saying
"no mnemonic is better than the others". I remember when I got my
first Unix account. I had used several systems before (none of which
included DOS, incidentally) and all of them had DIR or something very
close to that. "ls" seemed totally and utterly stupid.

Of course, nothing beats having "System V, Rel. 3.0 User's Reference
Manual" to help you when you're trying to figure out what you can
really do with the stupid system. Put that in your pipe and try to
find out that you use "cat" to view files. "You mean there are other
editors besides ED?"
--
Segmented Memory Helps Structure Software

A Myles

unread,
Jun 7, 1993, 4:28:07 AM6/7/93
to
Mike Dahmus (mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com) wrote:

: X's only capablity that can't be reproduced in OS/2 is network graphics. You


: can easily do this with the tcp/ip add-on package, which comes with an X
: server. The difference is, OS/2 doesn't force you to swallow the performance
: overhead for something that most people don't ever need.

Not wanting to jump in here as a non-OS/2 user, but I assume you mean by
this "that most OS/2 people don't ever need."

fastbox$ DISPLAY=oldslowbox:0; export DISPLAY

Aside: Does X severly impact 386 performance? No loss (1.2%CPU) on a 68030 box
here for full X11R5. Is this just a (mis)feature of linux, 386BSD?

Andy
----

Mika Iisakkila

unread,
Jun 7, 1993, 6:45:55 AM6/7/93