Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Low Productivity of Knowledge Workers Message-ID: <6375@ficc.uu.net> Date: 2 Oct 89 02:09:35 GMT References: <9676@venera.isi.edu> <189@crucible.UUCP> <291@voa3.UUCP> <7916@microsoft.UUCP> Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 100 In article <7916@microsoft.UUCP>, philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) writes: > I'm not sure what your point is. I'll spell it out. Systems integration under DOS, for anything but "load one program at a time and run it", is prohibitively difficult for the vast majority of users, who are not technically oriented. It doesn't need a guru, but it's far more difficult than it needs to be. > I guess we just plain disagree. By the way, don't confuse the person with > the company. The statement -- everything just plain works is maybe true for > a limited set of applications but I find it odd coming from a *NIX support > guy. How many times has uucp gotten wedged on you? Under a modern system-V system? Never. How many times has Fido gotten wedged on you. Oh, that's right. Fido just shuts down at 4AM every day so it doesn't have to deal with the problem. > How many times have you > gotten some SW and discovered it hadn't been implemented for or tested on > your flavor of *NIX? A couple of times for our old system-III based Xenix-286 boxes, but that's to be expected. It's like expecting your DOS software to run on MS-DOS 1.4 on a Victor-9000. Under System-V, never. > Binary Compatibility is a key factor -- one which the *NIX > market sadly lacks. Can you say "System-V on an 80386 with an AT-bus"? I've even got binary device drivers to port. Application support is flawless. But if you need more power than a microcomputer, you have a route all the way to big iron. > Its not at all clear the Emulators under unix work > that well. DOS emulators on said System-V/386 box have been very good to me. > >> Security isn't > >> super tight but its good enough for many (if not most) installations. > >Had a look in comp.virus recently? > seen any good internet viruses lately? That's a red herring. The internet is deliberately designed as a low- or no- security environment. And for all that it's more secure than any PC net. I'm on the security mailing list, and have yet to see a System-V related problem show up. > Found any good security holes in > unix lately? In BSD maybe. Not under System-V. > Point is that no system is totally secure. True, but running DOS is like leaving your door unlocked as a matter of course. Yes, a good burglar can still get in anywhere, but you don't need to encourage them. > Besides, if viruses > are a concern, there are simple methods of avoiding them (like don't run stuff > off BBSs and don't boot off of suspected diskettes and ...) ... and don't buy shrink-wrap software from a computer store, and so on. You *haven't* been reading comp.virus, have you? > I think you still haven't gotten it. I can multitask dos apps to my hearts > content. I've been there. I tried just about everything, and the only system that could support more than one badly-behaved application in anything like a reliable manner was DoubleDOS. And I still kept blowing away directories when I accidentally tried to access the one file from both partitions. Windows, DesqView, and the rest were far worse. > Hundreds of thousands of PC users use these products > daily so there must something wrong :-) Yes, I always use that as an argument why you shouldn't assume the majority is always right. > I realize that this won't change your mind. All I'm trying to say is that > the statement that PCs are unusable for anything other than a single task > at a time in an isolated environment is simply wrong. I don't think I ever used the term "unusable". Kludge, yes, and baroque, yes, and a waste of resources, yes. But not unusable. Hell, I've even recommended the bloody things. But setting up an office around a bunch of networked DOS machines is a dead end. And the cancerous spread of the beasts has hurt productivity. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "That is not the Usenet tradition, but it's a solidly-entrenched U delusion now." -- brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor)