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)