In article <19970129.152804.$7JJA01@RALVM17>, John J Archer
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>
>My paycheck may be blue (only because I'm outsourced), but my heart is
>HP3k. I am now looking for a new direction as my main base.
>NT quickly then Unix over the long haul? Maybe NT quickly and then
>AS400 (heart be still)?

Unix quickly, then NT over the long haul. Unix is a kludge, and it will
always be a kludge. It may improve, like DOS -> WIN 3.x -> WIN95, but it
will always be based on the 'wrong' foundations for solid commercial
usage.

If you sigh for the HP3000, and believe as most of us do that it has a
lot more going for it than Unix (apart that is, from number of users,
number of applications, number of hardware suppliers for it, people
trained to use it, and other trivial issues), then you have to believe
in an operating system put together for the same sort of reasons and
with the same sort of philosophy.

So who are/were the big(gish) three there? HP (HP3000), DEC (VAX), IBM
(AS400). Now VMS wasn't bad, and the guy who did it (Dave Cutler) had a
second bite at the cherry when he designed NT.

So NT has got to be the standard-bearer for 'our' sort of OS. With the
clout of Microsoft, and the sexiness of Windows (but without the hangs),
the only thing they can get wrong is to position NT incorrectly.
Provided they don't, NT should absolutely sweep the board.

Even if it doesn't win outright, it'll surely make a huge dent in the
ubiquity of Unix. And you'll probably *feel* better, working on it.


--
Roy Brown               Phone : (01684) 291710     Fax : (01684) 291712
Affirm Ltd              Email : [log in to unmask]
The Great Barn, Mill St 'Have nothing on your systems that you do not
TEWKESBURY GL20 5SB (UK) know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful.'