Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: AT&T Joining OSF Message-ID: <8344@smoke.ARPA> Date: 16 Aug 88 12:56:26 GMT References: <10474@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <5960008@hpcupt1.HP.COM> <5796@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <313@dtscp1.UUCP> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 40 In article <313@dtscp1.UUCP> scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) writes: >... I think that if Unix is to survive it needs a mass cleanup to go >*back* to its original idea of "small is beautiful" and get some of the >junk out of it ... The UNIX product will "survive" even with all the added cruft. The extra baggage persists because none of the marketing types will seriously consider changing the system in ways that cause massive amounts of existing customer applications to break. The correct solution would have been to resist adding features in the first place and to change kernel functionality only after considerable careful thought. In fact the Bell Labs "research" version of UNIX has suffered far less from feeping creaturism than the commercial products (4.nBSD & System V). Generally the real UNIX gurus are well aware of the problem. Even many of the AT&T UNIX product development staff understand the basic philosophy to some degree; to take one of your examples, the tty driver has indeed been converted to STREAMS, it just wasn't ready for Release 3.0. For another example, in response to a call for public-domain contributions I sent Berkeley a "cat" with NO options that preserves record structure. 9th Edition UNIX has a similar version of "cat". We really DO want to stamp out the cruft. In the research world, it appears to still be possible. The commercial versions of UNIX are probably a lost cause due to uneducated customer demand for features. Features sell a system, even though its underlying logic determines its real worth. There are many good new ideas that can be incorporated into future operating systems. Whether it would be fair to call such a system "UNIX" is a debatable point. There is one in the works called "Plan 9" that embodies some good concepts.. The best operating systems really are developed by small teams working with little interference; this has been demonstrated several times by history. That doesn't keep managers from missing the lesson and organizing huge project teams! Maybe the real problem lies in typical technical management?