From: Spif <c642011@cclabs.missouri.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 95 21:55:47 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: alt.religion.your.operating.system.sucks
In-Reply-To: <199501300522.VAA17151@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.91.950129233454.3652G-100000@sgi7.phlab.missouri.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sun, 29 Jan 1995 anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com wrote:

> Spif wrote:
> >UNIX?  user hostile?  where have you been lately?  
> 
> Well, maybe unix gets its reputation for being hostile because of
> things like 
> 
> * many commands don't work fully (find, for example)

find works just fine for me...  there's also "whereis", in case you 
didn't know...

> * a large portion choke on input that isn't "expected"

so it give it "expected" input...  since when does DOS like "unexpected" 
input, anyhow?

> * many more do extremely poor input checking,

could we see an example of this?  I have yet to find one.

> * the configuration files are bizarre

again, provide an example.  again, I have yet to see one.

> * different version have command with different options (stty
>   everything, ps -ef vs. ps -aux, etc.)

different operating systems have differences...  the differences between 
IBM PC-DOS and MS-DOS are a good example.

> * each version is slightly different (ever try porting a non-trivial
>   program?  Look at some available large software and examine the #ifdef
>   #define #endif statements; look at the differences in system calls.
>   Hell, look at the "config" program that comes with PERL - 80K of stuff
>   to build a make file for the flavor of UNIX you are using!)

again, different OSes are different...  you don't expect every company to 
make the same UNIX, do you?  what point would there be in cloning each 
other?

> * the commands don't combine well (often uuencode + sendmail ==
>   garbage)

I've never encountered this...  perhaps because I uuencode things and 
THEN send them rather than trying to pipe a uuencode into mail.

> * many commands accept a slightly different regular expression syntax
>   than the shell does

again, does DOS *not* do this?  

> * the commands aren't built with ease of use in mind.  For example, to
>   kill a process under unix requires that I know it's process id.  How
>   do I find that?  Run another command...

at least UNIX gives you the option of killing a process in the first 
place...  I can remember having to reboot DOS and fiddling with multiple 
configuration hassles just to clear a device driver out in order to solve 
an incompability problem with another program.

> > ever hear of X windows?
> 
> X-Windows is an extreme pain to get working.  Sure, if you buy your
> unix workstation the manufacturer will pre-install it.  Just try
> setting it up from scratch.

I've done it.  Several times.  Within minutes, each time.  And I'm not a 
guru, either.  And, as you've pointed out, I wouldn't have had to do even 
that if I was working with an already-setup system.

    Bryan Venable               | c642011@cclabs.missouri.edu
    Student & MOO Administrator | wlspif@showme.missouri.edu
    U of Missouri - Columbia    | spif@pobox.com
    SGI/Netscape/MOO addict     | spif@m-net.arbornet.org
    Spif or Turmandir @ MOOs    | http://www.phlab.missouri.edu/~c642011 

             <insert standard university disclaimer here>