21 Apr
2002
21 Apr
'02
9:23 a.m.
On April 21, Richard Erlacher wrote:
(This response is going to sound snotty, but I don't mean it that way)
This is likely because you've not been looking in the right places,
and have been (ahem) solidly mired in the world of commercial
proprietary Windows stuff.
Most of the
software in use in the UNIX world is free. Of course
there ARE commercial packages, but...with very few exceptions, for
every commercial package there's at least one free one that does the
job as well or better. It's possible that I'm preaching to the choir
here, but one of the common misconceptions that really bugs me is the
notion that "unix == expensive", when in reality it's just the
opposite. (The same goes for "pc vs. real computers" in the "I use a
PC because I can't afford a Sun or an Alpha" case...)
That's not been my experience. In fact, until LINUX, which I don't presently
use either, I had never seen any software of any use at all other than for
software development for UNIX. The EDA stuff I saw was not terribly useful,
but some folks managed to beat it into submission. I can't forget the
There is a shortage in that area, but there are useful tools. I'm
using some of them in another window right now...I'm designing a
battery charger for a portable microcontroller-based system in one
window and have a PCB layout tool ready to roll in another window.
And I have the source code for all of it, even the operating system
they're running under. And I paid $0 for the software and maybe $150
for the hardware.
One can pay through the nose for functionality. One can even pay list
price for all of one's hardware and buy it all brandie-new. It's just
not very smart. ;)
tradeshow when I ruled out UNIX in my mind. A vendor
had
essentially the same software for DOS and UNIX. The UNIX version
cost 50x what the DOS version cost, and the hardware also cost over
10x the cost of an adequate PC. The two software packages "looked
and felt" as well as worked, indistinguishably once one was inside
the application.
Oh, I don't doubt it for a second...but again you're speaking of
commercial software. UNIX and commercial software don't get along
very well, because commercial software goes very much against the
whole UNIX thing. It's like using a PC as a network server...you
*can* do it, but it won't work very well, it's not a very good idea,
and you'll look like an idiot in the process. ;)
The FPGA/CPLD vendors would like to support everybody
who's likely to use
their products. However, support is a problem under UNIX, since there are
numerous versions (I've had several) that lack compatibility. The size of the
market doesn't justify working up a freeware version for every UNIX version
though, so I think they're wise avoiding the expense. LINUX is getting some
support, though.
Writing the software portably eliminates that problem completely.
The world of Windows software development completely ignores
portability. The common software in the UNIX world doesn't have a
"version for every UNIX version". That's just not the way it works.
and, for the most part, the freeware is often better
than the commercial
products. I've seen little "source-available" freeware that was very
good,
however. The LINUX stuff is a good example. Much of the code sits, full of
ugly hacks and undocumented modifications, among comments relevant only to the
original code that was abandoned six or seven revisions back, though it's not
obvious. It's a wonder any of it works, but it seems it does. It's unlikely
there'll ever be UNIX/GNU freeware that's as useable as the comparable
DOS/Windows stuff, though, since what looks to be the case is that nobody
wants to document the UNIX/GNU freeware.
Linux is a mess no matter how you slice it, mostly thrown together by
script kiddies with no experience whatsoever...it's a bad idea to
judge the entire UNIX world on the cleanliness (or lack thereof) of
Linux, because as even the Linux people are fond of pointing out,
Linux isn't UNIX.
I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, and I respect your
experience...please understand that I'm trying to point out that the
world of computers is very different from the world of Windows
computers...things are, well, just done differently.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big."
St. Petersburg, FL -Den
21 Apr
21 Apr
10:11 a.m.
Quothe Dave McGuire, from writings of Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 02:23:43PM -0400:
Linux is a mess no matter how you slice it, mostly
thrown together by
script kiddies with no experience whatsoever...it's a bad idea to
judge the entire UNIX world on the cleanliness (or lack thereof) of
Linux, because as even the Linux people are fond of pointing out,
Linux isn't UNIX.
Which is why I use FreeBSD and Solaris. There also appears to be a
certain Linux versus anything else attitude, including Linux vs. other
UNIX-like, and UNIX flavors. It wasn't too long ago when most people
who wrote free software for *NIX systems made an attempt to make it as
portable as possible, so that it could be compiled on most *NIX-like
platforms. Many of the Linux hackers, however, it appears, tend to
write their software for Linux, and only Linux, systems, ignoring the
fact that they wouldn't have their Linux software to play with if
other *NIX hackers hadn't written portable code. For example, the
Free Software Foundation from which Linux snatched most of it's
utility programs, etc.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
11:20 a.m.
A lot of these attitudes are held by folks lacking in a wide range of
experience. Once you've done the same things on a number of different
systems, you begin to see that it's easier to use the combination of hardware
and software that works rather trying to force a hardware/software combination
to do what it really doesnt' want to do. Some may find this distasteful, but
it's more effective, sometimes, to hold your nose and plow ahead rather than
trying to dance around the obstacles.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. D. Davis" <rdd(a)rddavis.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
animals:
Quothe Dave McGuire, from writings of Sun, Apr 21,
2002 at 02:23:43PM -0400:
Linux is a
mess no matter how you slice it, mostly thrown together by
script kiddies with no experience whatsoever...it's a bad idea to
judge the entire UNIX world on the cleanliness (or lack thereof) of
Linux, because as even the Linux people are fond of pointing out,
Linux isn't UNIX.
Which is why I use FreeBSD and Solaris. There also appears to be a
certain Linux versus anything else attitude, including Linux vs. other
UNIX-like, and UNIX flavors. It wasn't too long ago when most people
who wrote free software for *NIX systems made an attempt to make it as
portable as possible, so that it could be compiled on most *NIX-like
platforms. Many of the Linux hackers, however, it appears, tend to
write their software for Linux, and only Linux, systems, ignoring the
fact that they wouldn't have their Linux software to play with if
other *NIX hackers hadn't written portable code. For example, the
Free Software Foundation from which Linux snatched most of it's
utility programs, etc.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief
that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify
such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify
much human cruelty.
11:47 a.m.
On 21 Apr 2002, R. D. Davis wrote:
Quothe Dave McGuire, from writings of Sun, Apr 21,
2002 at 02:23:43PM -0400:
Nah, most of us are code sluts. We run whatever works best on a given
platform. And if you want to see real OS attitude, put a Solaris admin
across the table from an AIX admin. Then step way back.
Doc
Linux is a mess no matter how you slice it,
mostly thrown together by
script kiddies with no experience whatsoever...it's a bad idea to
judge the entire UNIX world on the cleanliness (or lack thereof) of
Linux, because as even the Linux people are fond of pointing out,
Linux isn't UNIX.
Which is why I use FreeBSD and Solaris. There also appears to be a
certain Linux versus anything else attitude, including Linux vs. other
UNIX-like, and UNIX flavors. 
22 Apr
22 Apr
5:31 a.m.
Doc said:
Nah, most of us are code sluts. We run whatever works best on a given
platform. And if you want to see real OS attitude, put a Solaris admin
across the table from an AIX admin. Then step way back.
I admin both. And also IRIX, Linux, and a little HP-UX. Should I be walking
down the street twitching and arguing with myself, or something? ;)
Doc
- Dan Wright
(dtwright(a)uiuc.edu)
(http://www.uiuc.edu/~dtwright)
-] ------------------------------ [-] -------------------------------- [-
``Weave a circle round him thrice, / And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honeydew hath fed, / and drunk the milk of Paradise.''
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Kubla Khan
7:42 a.m.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Dan Wright wrote:
Arguing violently with yourself and losing. 8-)
Peace... Sridhar
Nah, most of
us are code sluts. We run whatever works best on a given
platform. And if you want to see real OS attitude, put a Solaris admin
across the table from an AIX admin. Then step way back.
I admin both. And also IRIX, Linux, and a little HP-UX. Should I be
walking down the street twitching and arguing with myself, or
something? ;) 
24 Apr
24 Apr
8:13 a.m.
New subject: Unix versions
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Dan Wright wrote:
Arguing violently with yourself and losing. 8-)
Peace... Sridhar
A yes... That explains my current state of mental health:
Alliant Concentrix (4.2 BSD)
Coherent (v3, v4)
Concurrent/Perkin-Elmer OS/32
Concurrent Xelos
Concurrent RTU
DEC RT11
DEC Vax/VMS (v2.x, 3.x, 4.x) OpenVMS 7.1
FreeBSD (v1.x, 2.x, 3,x, 4.x)
HP-UX (v9.x)
IBM AIX RS6000 (v3.2,4.1.x)
Linux (Red Hat, Mandrake, Caldera, Slackware, SLS, Suse)
SCO/Caldera Open Desktop/Server, SCO/Caldera Unixware 2.x, Xenix86)
SunOS4.x
Solaris2.x,7,8
Pyramid OS/X
Pyramid DC/OSx
Unix System III (UnipLUS
Unix System V (Release 0,2,3,4)
I guess talking to my self and jerking violently and twitching is ok
then after 20 years in the biz...
Bill
--
d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN. Don't you wish you could still buy it now!
bpechter@shell.monmouth.com|pechter@ureach.com
Nah,
most of us are code sluts. We run whatever works best on a given
platform. And if you want to see real OS attitude, put a Solaris admin
across the table from an AIX admin. Then step way back.
I admin both. And also IRIX, Linux, and a little HP-UX. Should I be
walking down the street twitching and arguing with myself, or
something? ;) 
8:34 a.m.
New subject: Unix versions
I admin both. And also IRIX, Linux, and a little
HP-UX. Should I be
walking down the street twitching and arguing with myself, or
something? ;)
Arguing violently with yourself and losing. 8-)
22 Apr
22 Apr
8:09 a.m.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Dan Wright wrote:
Doc said:
Ever see "Fight Club"? :^)
Doc
Nah, most of us are code sluts. We run whatever works best on a given
platform. And if you want to see real OS attitude, put a Solaris admin
across the table from an AIX admin. Then step way back.
I admin both. And also IRIX, Linux, and a little HP-UX. Should I be walking
down the street twitching and arguing with myself, or something? ;)
21 Apr
21 Apr
11:15 a.m.
see below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave McGuire" <mcguire(a)neurotica.com
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
Well, when I want groceries, I go to the grocery store, and when I want
computer hardware I go to the computer store ... When I want software to do
what I want my computer to do, I have to go where they sell it. I can't find
EDA tools at the hardware store, and a Modula2 compiler won't route my PCB's.
EMACS isn't particularly useful tool for everyday word-processing, either,
though it certainly can do it. I have a "friendlified" EMACS (really a
DOS-based EMACS-in-a-shell) that works pretty well for lots of things for
which one normally would have used EMACS for want of another capable tool.
Nowadays, I can do all that simple stuff in WORD, like hundreds of millions of
others.
I've gotten software gratis all my life. Even the Microsoft products I have
were all originally provided, gratis, from Microsoft. I've never been offered
a single bit of UNIX software, ever, by any Unix software vendor. They even
charge for providing stuff that they claim to give you for free, and then,
when it doesn't work as advertised, which it seldom does if it works at all,
they charge you to make it work, which often costs plenty and results in
nothing.
I'm not sure what you mean by "network server." I've used a PC
as a server right here in the house for over a decade. There's not
one non-PC machine in my ISP POP either. There's a mix of OS' in-
cluding LINUX and UNIX, but it's the most generally provisioned
"small" ISP in the area and has a reputation for fewer breakdowns
and fewer busy signals on dialups than any other ISP, including the
muti-billion-dollar guys like AOL, MSN, and Qwest.
The first thing I'd ask about "writing the software portably" would
be,
"Who's going to do that, and whom are we serving by doing that?"
The few dozen folks in my market area, worldwide, who'd prefer to
use UNIX might like it, but would they send any dough our way?
Probably not ...
Secondly, I have serious doubts that there's a way to write software
that is both portable and fully functional in all cases. There are
limitations, I'm sure, and the devil's in the details.
That's probably true, but it's the only realistically inexpensive route
into the UNIX world for one starting out or starting over.
Last time I checked, the add-on required to extend the file system
for UNIXWARE (? maybe one of the others) to larger than 2GB cost
$2K per instance.
On April 21, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> > Most of the software in use in the UNIX world is free. Of course
> > there ARE commercial packages, but...with very few exceptions, for
> > every commercial package there's at least one free one that does the
> > job as well or better. It's possible that I'm preaching to the choir
> > here, but one of the common misconceptions that really bugs me is the
> > notion that "unix == expensive", when in reality it's just the
> > opposite. (The same goes for "pc vs. real computers" in the "I
use a
> > PC because I can't afford a Sun or an Alpha" case...)
> That's not been my experience. In
fact, until LINUX, which I don't
presently
use either, I
had never seen any software of any use at all other than for
software development for UNIX.
(This response is going to sound snotty, but I don't mean it that way)
This is likely because you've not been looking in the right places,
and have been (ahem) solidly mired in the world of commercial
proprietary Windows stuff.
The EDA stuff I saw was not terribly useful,
but some folks managed to beat it into submission. I can't forget the
There is a shortage in that area, but there are useful tools. I'm
using some of them in another window right now...I'm designing a
battery charger for a portable microcontroller-based system in one
window and have a PCB layout tool ready to roll in another window.
And I have the source code for all of it, even the operating system
they're running under. And I paid $0 for the software and maybe $150
for the hardware.
One can pay through the nose for functionality. One can even pay list
price for all of one's hardware and buy it all brandie-new. It's just
not very smart. ;)
tradeshow when I ruled out UNIX in my mind. A
vendor had
essentially the same software for DOS and UNIX. The UNIX version
cost 50x what the DOS version cost, and the hardware also cost over
10x the cost of an adequate PC. The two software packages "looked
and felt" as well as worked, indistinguishably once one was inside
the application.
Oh, I don't doubt it for a second...but again you're speaking of
commercial software. UNIX and commercial software don't get along
very well, because commercial software goes very much against the
whole UNIX thing. It's like using a PC as a network server...you
*can* do it, but it won't work very well, it's not a very good idea,
and you'll look like an idiot in the process. ;)
> The FPGA/CPLD vendors would like to support everybody who's likely to use
> their products. However, support is a problem under UNIX, since there are
> numerous versions (I've had several) that lack compatibility. The size of
the
> market doesn't justify working up a freeware
version for every UNIX
version
> though, so I think they're wise avoiding the
expense. LINUX is getting
some
support,
though.
Writing the software portably eliminates that problem completely.
The world of Windows software development completely ignores
portability. The common software in the UNIX world doesn't have a
"version for every UNIX version". That's just not the way it works.
> and, for the most part, the freeware is often better than the commercial
> products. I've seen little "source-available" freeware that was very
good,
> however. The LINUX stuff is a good example.
Much of the code sits, full
of
> ugly hacks and undocumented modifications, among
comments relevant only to
the
> original code that was abandoned six or seven
revisions back, though it's
not
> obvious. It's a wonder any of it works, but
it seems it does. It's
unlikely
there'll
ever be UNIX/GNU freeware that's as useable as the comparable
DOS/Windows stuff, though, since what looks to be the case is that nobody
wants to document the UNIX/GNU freeware.
Linux is a mess no matter how you slice it, mostly thrown together by
script kiddies with no experience whatsoever...it's a bad idea to
judge the entire UNIX world on the cleanliness (or lack thereof) of
Linux, because as even the Linux people are fond of pointing out,
Linux isn't UNIX.
I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, and I respect your
experience...please understand that I'm trying to point out that the
world of computers is very different from the world of Windows
computers...things are, well, just done differently.
Different, is certainly the case. Better, well, the market thinks otherwise.
1:42 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Dave McGuire once stated:
On April 21, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Well ...
A few years ago I worked at a company helping to port their application to
UNIX (various flavors thereof). And yes, UNIX is UNIX is UNIX, except for
certain areas, like file locking (three incompatible methods for locking
files) and threading (even worse than file locking). If I remember
correctly, Solaris supports both Solaris threads and pthreads [1], AIX
supported a slightly different version of pthreads, HP-UX had their own
version of threads, and Linux has it's own version of threads [2] as well
as a slightly different version of pthreads. You can do threading under
UNIX (and Windows, which is what the application was written for) but you
end up making an interface the application calls which hides the details of
the actual threading mechanism used.
It comes down to experience and knowing what is and isn't going to be
portable and working your way around those, which is a skill that most
programmers don't have.
-spc (Well aware of what's involved in writing portable code)
[1] pthreads is the POSIX standard for threading and does it suck.
[2] Which is actually much better than pthreads, and done in a more
UNIXy way. Unfortunately, pthreads is POSIX, which sucks.
The FPGA/CPLD vendors would like to support
everybody who's likely to use
their products. However, support is a problem under UNIX, since there are
numerous versions (I've had several) that lack compatibility. The size of the
market doesn't justify working up a freeware version for every UNIX version
though, so I think they're wise avoiding the expense. LINUX is getting some
support, though.
Writing the software portably eliminates that problem completely.
The world of Windows software development completely ignores
portability. The common software in the UNIX world doesn't have a
"version for every UNIX version". That's just not the way it works.
8120
days inactive
8123
days old
10 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
dtwright＠uiuc.edu -
edick＠idcomm.com -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
pechter＠pechter.dyndns.org -
rdd＠rddavis.org -
spc＠conman.org -
vance＠ikickass.org