Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!indetech!fiver!palowoda
From: palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Low Productivity of Knowledge Workers
Message-ID: <903@fiver.UUCP>
Date: 3 Oct 89 10:15:19 GMT
References: <7916@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: Fiver Communications  Fremont, Ca
Lines: 108

From article <7916@microsoft.UUCP>, by philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett):
> In article <6361@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>
[some stuff deleted]

> microcomputer users.  Binary Compatibility is a key factor -- one which the *NIX
> market sadly lacks.

  With respect to microcomputers Binary Compatibility is *NOT* a key factor.
I run Xenix286/886, Microport, ESIX, ATT, ISC's binary applications on
my SysV machine with no major problems. When I have found problems they
where usally 286 bin's compiled with the goofy tunes MSC compiler causeing
wierd pionters trying to write where it shouldn't. Buy that's just my 
opinion.



>  Its not at all clear the Emulators under unix work
> that well.  There are numerous types of apps that don't work at all and it
> varys from system to system.

  I use Simul-Task 2.0 (VPIX) and to many programs work to pass up.
  Excuse me too many good apps that I need to complete my work.
 
>>
>>> So, quite simply, I can put together a very nice office automation system
>>> with file servers, shared printers, Email and PCs AND still get all the benefits
>>> of all that PC SW out there.  Also, there are lots of DOS based SW products
>>> designed to work nicely on a network.
>>
>>That last sentence is the critical one here. You have to have all your
>>applications especially coded to work with the network. I'm still running
>>UNIX software that was born before Ethernet. It hasn't been updated. It
>>doesn't have to be... it doesn't know the nets there and doesn't need to.
> 
> Ahem...  Perhaps I should have been clearer.  Given PC-NET, MS LanMan or
> Novell nets, file access IS transparent.  No special `coding' is required.
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   What do you mean by this?
   
[cut cut]                   

>>
>>> You are right that the DOS based networks dont support both server and client
>>> on a single machine reasonably.  But so what?
>>
>>Transparent file access is like sex. If you haven't tried it, you don't
>>miss it. If you have tried it, yu can't get along without it.
> 
> see above.  its available with all the major PC networks.  You simply use
> a server based file model rather than one on your personal machine.
  
  I used to think this was a good idea, now I think it's a shame that
someone spends all that money for a dedicated machine just to make it
a fileserver. Really it's a waste of expensive hardware. But DOS users
don't have many alternatives. I was setting up realestate office's with
some Novell networks 10 to 15 units per office when I lost a contract to
someone because the owner was convenced that NFS could run as clients
and servers with the same database he was useing on dos.  

>>
>>> 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?  Found any good security holes in
> unix lately?  Point is that no system is totally secure.  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 ...) as well as 
> programs like flu-shot and such.

  Egad, thier talking about commercial software for dos containing viruses.
If you take your above approach you shouldn't run any software to be
secure. Speaking of dos viruses I got a hold of one to play around with. 
Sence the emulator I use for dos creates a drive C as nothing but a 
pseudo file the stupied virus attached itself to the file. No big deal
just reinstall dos. All my dos apps where in the unix parition anyways.

> 
> 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.  No environment is
> perfect, it is usability that counts.  You can argue the details but a lot of
> people use these kind of systems to significant benefit every day.

  I will not disagree with you here. But what seems to be happening is
that developers are running into some limitations writeing software in
multiuser DOS machines. This kind of puts a halt on thier advancement
to keep up on the competition. OS2 may be the answer but it seems it
it's rought stages right now. If a developer gets stuck by any of these  
limitation thier going to try alternatives. That dosn't mean they are
not going to develop OS2 apps. They just have a little more time to
develop on two OS's. When MS gets the bugs worked out or enhances the
the OS to the point the developer can get thier apps working they way
they want it they release to OS2 version.   

 Your right "usabilty" is what counts. But what comes after that is 
"reliablity". Both terms are too subjective. However the costomers
money isn't.   

---Bob

-- 
Bob Palowoda  packbell!indetech!palowoda    *Home of Fiver BBS*  login: bbs
Home {sun|daisy}!ys2!fiver!palowoda         (415)-623-8809 1200/2400
Work {sun|pyramid|decwrl}!megatest!palowoda (415)-623-8806 2400/9600/19200 TB
Voice: (415)-623-7495                        Public access UNIX XBBS