From: hph@hphbbs.E.open.DE (H.P. Heidinger) Subject: Re: Coherent vs. Linux - a comparo Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1993 02:30:07 GMT
In article <umunk.740677666@naxos> munk.pad@sni.de writes:
# dans@panix.com (Dan Simoes) writes:
# [...]
# >Let's talk about Linux for a second, and compare it to Coherent,
# >from what I have gleaned by reading c.o.linux for a few weeks:
#
# I can't agree with your compare completely, so I added some
# comments. But please notice: I'm not very familar with Linux,
# I installed it once on a system and played several hours hours with.
# I was impressed about all the work done by the net community, but
# I wasn't satisfied because Linux still is under heavy construction,
# no documentation is available and Linux doesn't follow any standard.
# Parts from every UNIX system are pulled in (a little bit SV.3,
# a little bit SV.4, a little bit BSD, a little bit POSIX.1), instead
# of makeing it compatible to one standart and use the appropriate
# flags in the Makefile of applications, to compile them under Linux.
Show me a "nowadays-UNIX" that clings to ONE standard!
- IRIX (Silicon-Graphics) is a so-far "pure Sys-V" but has
symbolic-links in its filesystem,
- ULTRIX is a BSD[V4.2]-derivate but has a 'termio.h' and
'termios.h' (POSIX-termio) and supports all these
- TOS [Targon-Operating-System, Unix-clone] V4.whatsoever on NIXDORFs
TARGON (actually a PYRAMID-machine) even has a file /etc/universe
that keeps entries about which 'universe' certain users prefer to
work in -- "att" (AT&T) or "bsd". You find an /etc/inittab and
/usr/ucb/... on the VERY SAME machine!
I'm _really_ a lover of standards. But "UNIX" is not merely an
operating system -- it's a "System-Philosophy" and its nutriment is
the thought of "Open Systems". I guess you would not refuse to have
sockets in a Sys-V, because they were introduced with BSD neither
you would refuse 'symbolic links' if you had a Sys-V to manage with
lots of diskspace and quite a couple of different filesystems.
Well, things are in quite a disorder in LINUX, that it is hard to
cope ... at the beginning! But COH' is still running after
Sys-V-compatibility while dragging their "V7-bag" behind itselves.
Is that any better? :-))
# >Coherent Linux
# >======== =====
# >Mostly SysV ditto, more so
# >No networking (pending) yes
#
# COHERENT doesn't support TCP/IP on an ethernet yet (under construction).
# It does support ARCNET and SLIP on serial lines (modem or direct).
- ARCNET is a "hardware-creek" and not a standard. There is NO system
(of which I know) that supports it. So what shall's ... there is
no protocol-level-driver anyway (the user had to write one). At
most one could build a peer-to-peer connection between two (or
more) COH'-boxes. What's that gotta do with networking?
- COH' does not support SLIP, since SLIP (Serial-Line-Internet-Protocol)
hooks on TCP/IP (_IP_!). There just exists a port of KA9Q and
another @!#~-thingy which are nothing but Application-Level hooked
packages that emulate SLIP somehow.
Sorry for being that harsh; but I really don't like it, if things
are bent to something what they not are ...
# >COFF binaries (i.e. SCO) no
# >terrible i/o much better
# >limited device support tons
#
# There isn't really a limit. Everyone could get a device driver kit
# from MWC and write drivers for any devices. Also there are additional
# commercial third party drivers and freeware drivers available.
How comes, that one with an amputated arm and lost fingers on the
other hand can count the available drivers?
# >dos commands ditto
# >no dos emulator beta, "works w/60% of programs"
#
# Yes, but the DOS emulator can't run Windows 3.1 in enhanced 386 mode.
# Also I'm really wondering how long you are willing to support and use
# DOS/Windows anymore, when you can have UNIX/X11 on your box.
# I prefer it to boot DOS when I sometimes want to run a DOS
# application, I'm really happy that the COHERENT kernel isn't blown
# up with a DOS emulator.
Would you dare to bet on it, that MWC will NOT stuff in a DOS-Emu.
if there is demand for it?
Here is my bet: They will, if it would sell -- dependless whether it
blasts the kernel or not!
# ............................. I would like to hear from someone, which
# applications are missing under UNIX/X11, so that you really have
# a need for a DOS emulator in an UNIX kernel. Don't tell me that
# the DOS games are better than those under UNIX and you want to
# have it for playing only ;-)
#
# >stable ???
# >small, easy to install bigger, perhaps harder (haven't done it)
#
# Only stock COHERENT is smaller then Linux. If you install the device
# driver kit, GNU C/C++, X11, emacs, elm, news sytems/news reader...
# you'll not find a great difference in the size of the systems.
# COHERENT and X11 from ASC defenitely are much easyer to install,
# the Linux people should take a look at a COHERENT and X11 installation,
# to learn how a UNIX OS should be installed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(I'm roling with laughter :-)))))) )
Uhhh boy! You are comparing baby-shoes and army-boots here!
If COH' deserves the attribute "UNIX" at all, it is Lowest-End-UNIX,
and so is its installation -- idiot-proof. But no way one learns
"how a UNIX OS should be installed".
I've been maintaining ULTRIX- and IRIX-Systems at industrial
custumors sites. I installed SCO- and INTERACTIVE-Unix (both PC
Unices) at home. I've been using COH' for three years now and I
installed LINUX onto a spare 200MB SCSI disk recently.
None of all these systems can teach anybody how-to-install-a-UNIX-OS.
But nonetheless is COH' _THE_ "exemplary UNIX" -- actually it is
galaxies away from that ...
# ............................................... I'm not talking about
# the wizards and gurus, they for sure get a Linux box running without
# to much trouble. I'm talking about the newbies just switching from
# DOS to UNIX. For them the first steps in a UNIX environment can be
# a fustrating adventure, if they decided to start with Linux.
This is not LINUX's fault. These people would have the very same
problems when starting off with any other "real UNIX". The point is,
that people think it is trivial, since it it freely available. They
are neither aware that they enter another "universe" nor they are
prepared for such a step.
There are no herbs ever grown against wrong expectations ...
# For the one or other it can be so frustrating, that she/he switches
# back to DOS and that for sure isn't in the mind of the whole
# UNIX community, independet if one likes to use COHERENT, Linux or
# whatever.
#
# >software hard to port much, much easier and more of it
#
# Sorry, but software isn't harder to port to COHERENT then to
# SCO, HPUX, AIX, AT&T SV.3, DomainOS. I really know it, because
# I ported a lot to COHERENT and I'm using this other UNICES too.
Objection, your honor!
With the tools of stock COH' all porting endeavours can drive you mad!
I had to port -step by step, little by little- most of the
GNU-tools, before I could think of portings of non-trivial kind.
Under LINUX I "ported" the 'acm'-flight-simulator (which is an
X-based, networked airial combat simulator for up to eight players
on a network) -- guess what, it just took 2 hours, of which I spend
much more than half, to dig thru the piles and piles and piles of
available C-headers for BSD-, GNU- and other development
environments, since it was my "prime-time"-port under LINUX.
[ ... ]
# COHERENT comes with a very good documentation (the best one I ever
# got from a UNIX vendor so far) and COHERENT users are still able
# to do their homework, befor asking the net community. Here I also
# know about what I'm talking, I read c.o.l and see all this newbie
# questions, which wouldn't be neccessary, if Linux would have
# such a good documentation as COHERENT.
That's the ONLY reproach that I _really_ accept.
But if COH' would come as a "full-featured" UNIX-clone, that looks
like UNIX, smells like UNIX, tastes like UNIX and feels like UNIX,
including X, network and the other goodies then its docu would be
at least 5 times as big as it it now. Thus MWC could not longer
sell it for just $$99.
Written docs cost. Written docs require maintanance. In the end
the cost of a complete UNIX-System documentation can reach the price
of a decent PC-hardware. E.g. that of ULTRIX consists of 18 binders
and costs nearly $$4000.
# >no X (Answer or MWC will cost) Xfree386 1.2 and 1.3 (free), Motif (costs)
#
# no X????? Sure, it costs money, but ASC's version is worth every cent!
That of LINUX would be worth every cent, too ... again: it's not
worthless, since it is free ...
# >large user base (?) much. much larger
#
# Really? Where do you know?
Well, I'm invited to a "Linuxer-Party" this weekend, since my NEWS-feeds
SysOp is such a guy (who even ditched SCO for LINUX). There will be
more people from just my home-town and adjacent citties than I know
of people, who are (still) using COH' ...
Regards, Peter
-- ####################===============================**************************** # H.P. Heidinger # Call : +49-201-287433 (data) * ~~ HPHBBS ~~~ CUC-Ger ~~ * # Steeler Str. 121 # : V22/32/42bis, 8N1 * COHERENT User Conference * # 4300 Essen 1 # E-Mail: hph@CUC-Ger.E.open.de * Germany * # Germany # Login : guest, gast, public * anon. UUCP UUlog=nuucp * ####################===============================**************************** # UNIX is a trademark of AT&T ... AT&T is a modem test command .... :-) #