James Giles wrote:

> Peter Seebach wrote in message <67enk6$skq$11@darla.visi.com>...
> ...
>
> >Unix is the most reliable and stable thing you can get these days.
> >The competition is what, NT?  MacOS?  '95?
>
> Isn't it funny how times change?  Back when UNIX was the
> *least* reliable and stable system for mainframes, minis, and
> high-end worstations it was promoted as being the de-facto
> standard that everyone had to switch to because all the
> Universities used it (they used it because, a decade before
> that, it was *free* - not because they thought it was any
> good).  It's unreliability was dismissed as being less important
> than compatibility.  Now, the shoe is on the other foot.

I don't know about THAT!  It is certainly one of the most powerful/flexible O/S
out there!In raw power/flexibility/standards, I don't think it has an equal.

> >>There's no excuse for this attitude
> >>today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that
> >>UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses.
> >
> >Uhm.  I work in support, and we get angry calls if the system crashes.
> >Ever.  We don't get compliments on reliability until over a year of
> >uptime on a small machine with thousands of users and a few hundred active
> >web pages.  (BSDI 1.1, no less, which is a pretty old system by now.)
>
> The reliability of UNIX has improved over the last decade (though not
> its user interface).  It is still less reliable than many systems that
> were developed for mainframes and minis *after* UNIX (in the late
> '70s and early '80s).  And it is still fairly insecure.  Finally, it's still
> less efficient, larger, and less powerful than many of those systems
> were.  All those better systems are now in the waste tip, mainly
> because UNIX promoted compatibility as more important than any
> of those other attributes (even when it wasn't *really* all that widespread
> itself - the *claim* was made that it was the de-facto standard).

HOW do you want its "user interface" to improve?  X-WINDOWS has or can quickly
have, EVERY functional feature of M/S WINDOWS NT(they even have environments
that LOOK like WIN95!  It is faster, more standard(with older software, and
UNIX), etc...

INSECURE?  That depends on how it is setup, etc....  MOST tcp/ip functionality
and login functionality is OUTSIDE of the kernel!  It can be changed ALL OVER
THE PLACE!  M/S windows has a LOT of security problems!

Less efficient?  larger?(Running an 8MB 386 system here is FASTER than a
microvax with 9MB!)!  Less powerful?  DREAM ON!  THAT is why POSIX was designed
by the IEEE on/for UNIX, and every other system strievs to be "POSIX COMPLIANT"?

GEE, I think you are confusing UNIX with M/S WINDOWS!

> As I said, the *perception* of reliability being relatively unimportant
> was originally a UNIX-ism no matter what you think today.

Well, I have heard ex-IBM salesmen(that sold MAINFRAMES) say that the same was
true of the systems THEY sold!

> --
> J. Giles
> Ricercar Software