long identifiers

[Kevin Weller]

NOTE THE FOLLOWUP-TO FIELD ABOVE.  This discussion is evolving outside
the scope of comp.lang.c, so we should probably shift over to
alt.religion.computers exclusively.

I originally wrote:
   > ....
   >                      As regards MS-DOS, you're right again, although
   >I might point out that UNIX makes for a more "portable" environment in
   >the qualitative sense (it runs on many different processors in systems
   >of many different sizes and configurations).
   > ....

In article <5940045 at hpcupt1.cup.hp.com> jamiller at hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Jim Miller) writes:
>   Ah, "qualitative"?
>      Do you want it to run on the most MACHINES?                 MS-DOS
>      Do you want it to run on the most SELLER'S machines?        MS-DOS
>      Do you want it to run on the most MANUFACTURER'S machines?  MS-DOS
>      Do you want it to run on the most different CPU (chip/CPU only, not
>	 including differences in mother boards)?                 UNIX
>      Do you want it to run on the most wide range of mips?       UNIX(?)
>      Do you want it to run on a standard OS that all sellers agree on
>	 the implementation?                                      MS-DOS
>
>	 (sorry I couldn't resist that last poke).
>
>   I'm claiming you have picked a meaning of "qualitative" that is
>   self serving.   *I* never pick my definitions that way :-)
>
>
>      jim - ok. ok. so it's a drift - miller

Look up qualitative in the dictionary.  A qualitative difference is
one of KIND (as in hardware in this case); a quantitative difference
is one of NUMBER (as in number of systems running MS-DOS as opposed to
UNIX).  I hardly see this usage as self-serving.  MS-DOS clearly wins
in number of computers running it.  It's a sad fact, but I don't deny
it.  I hope against hope that this situation will evenutally change.

You must realize that popularity alone doesn't make a good operating
system, although it certainly plays a role.  MS-DOS is such a
backwards OS because it lacks some of the most important and
productive functions of operating systems, namely decent
multi-tasking, multi-user support and a truly unified I/O scheme.
Sure, one can go out and buy packages to provide some of this
functionality under DOS, but then one has lost the value of DOS
standards, or reliability, or both.  I regularly go between various
UNIX implementations with no difficulty.  For instance, I can and do
run many of the same programs on my 386 that I also run on the campus
Amdahl mainframe, simply because both machines do UNIX (this is not
the only example I could give from my own personal experience).  I can
even run DOS programs when I must (such as Turbo Pascal, which we use
in class for some reason) just by starting a DOS-as-an-application
session, and I can readily switch among DOS and UNIX tasks.  I think
running DOS as a UNIX task really puts it in its place! :-)

I admit that the various UNIX implementations are not perfectly
identical, but in general they are compatible enough with one another
for all practical purposes.  In other words, we don't need an absolute
agreement on every aspect of the environment, just most aspects.
Again, consider my own inter-UNIX successes.  I think I've reached a
good compromise between compatibility and a decent OS environment.

-- Kev