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=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC,SYSADMIN 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: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk (Lawrence Kirby) Subject: Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1997/12/28 Message-ID: <883319809snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 310811190 References: <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <882757510snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <67ktrg$ibk@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> X-Mail2News-Path: genesis.demon.co.uk Reply-To: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-User: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 883336460 164 fred genesis.demon.co.uk Organization: none Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-12-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <67ktrg$ibk@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes: > >Lawrence Kirby wrote in message <882757510snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>... >>In article <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> >> jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes: >... >>>Exactly what I said. Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his >>>lessons well. He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the >>>stage. >> >>The "stage" at the time for the development of DOS was CP/M. Windows was >>an attempt to counter the Mac. NT is greatly influenced by VMS. Unix >>has very little relevance here. > >On the contrary. The stage was the choice between, first CP/M >and then DOS on the one hand, or to buy a mini (or later, a workstation) >and run UNIX (probably with several terminals and users per UNIX machine >if you bought the mini). Unix wasn't even a major player at the time, certainly not for business systems. It tended to be a secondary OS available for systems supplied by companies like DEC who pushed their own major OSs such as VMS. Unix was gaining strength from the exposure it was getting in Universities. > That was the percieved choice of business users >circa 1980. DOS only succeeded because people percieved UNIX as the >other choice. Nonsense. Most people who bought DOS weren't even aware that Unix existed. It came well down on the list of "other choices" for business systems. > They did not see that UNIX provided better performance (for >the money), or that is was more reliable - which it wasn't at the time. What is your definition of "relaiblae"? >Indeed, one of the problems is that most businesses had to hire additional >personel to support UNIX but not DOS. If you are talking about more than one system administrator you are talking about a large system well out of DOS's league, or you are talking about hardware and networking issues which DOS couldn't even support at all. ... >And hell, I'm only in this discussion because I got drawn in by someone's >*defence* of UNIX which said that I should somehow expect systems >software to be *less* reliable than other kinds of software. What kind of >a defense is that? Certainly any reasonable person disagrees with that >assessment (including the person who originally said it). I certainly agree there. In my experience Unicx systems stay up until you have a reason to take them down. ... >Finally, I don't understand why everyone is in such vehement opposition to >me on this. Even if you *don't* believe that there have been better systems >than UNIX in the past, you must admit that UNIX is *NOT* perfect; Sure, but that wasn't what was being discussed. You were making specific comparisons netween Unix and DOS and were saying that many of the (anti-)features in DOS came about as a direct result of Unix. We're saying that Unix wasn't the influence you seem to believe it was. >that ideas >for improved systems ought to be pursued; that among these ideas, what I've >described *might* have merit. The only people I can think of who'd actually >oppose a more reliable and more secure system are those whose jobs are >to maintain the existing ones. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. -- ----------------------------------------- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com -----------------------------------------