From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: steve Subject: Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1997/12/18 Message-ID: <3499CFB7.34F05556@seasoned-software.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 308724697 References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com> <67comb$94o@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3498B5A6.C404C703@seasoned-software.com> <67dc5k$o02@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net> <67enk6$skq$11@darla.visi.com> <67eu7p$j6j@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Giles Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------E6F9889B10DA546E17DE03EA" Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-12-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------E6F9889B10DA546E17DE03EA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 --------------E6F9889B10DA546E17DE03EA Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for steve Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin: vcard fn: steve n: ;steve org: SEASONED SOFTWARE email;internet: steve@seasoned-software.com note: notes would be here! x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: TRUE version: 2.1 end: vcard --------------E6F9889B10DA546E17DE03EA--