Re: GS+AFP Unix server

[cwilson@toast.wpd.sgi.com (Chan Wilson)]

In article <1k5vkjINN4nc@gap.caltech.edu>, toddpw@cco.caltech.edu writes:
> philip@utstat.toronto.edu (Philip McDunnough) writes:
> 
> >and why using Unix based editors for mail and news is a pain
> 
> I use the same editor I normally work with to edit my mail. It is never a
> pain. For people using micros, there is POP (Post Office Protocol) and various
> other mail programs for both Macs and PCs. I am no expert on these but I know
> there are quite a few out there.
> 
> >running Unix and on the Internet). You can't imagine how far behind Unix mail
> >systems are when it comes to doing anything easy, interesting, etc...In 

Hmm.  Your last sentence gives the impression that the "PC" mail systems 
are better that Unix mailers.

As anyone who's worked in both environments can tell you, the flexability
of most Unix mailers far outstrips any advantages that the sugar-coated
GUI'd mailers of the "PC" world.  In the Unix world, it is possible to 
have the same familiar editor for writing email, memos, and news posts, 
while in the "PC" world, each program forces you to use their specific
idiosyncrate editor.

Granted, there are limitations to this idea, but by and far, it's much
easier for the user.
 
> Like what? Mail is sending text back and forth. Do you have to be sending
> fully formatted word processor documents with sound annotations for it to be
> interesting? Get real! When there are standard formats for that sort of thing,
> sending them via mail will be as easy as text encoding them (or not even that,
> if the mail system evolves to allow full 8 bit transmission).

There are several standards and pseudo-standards in use today.  The
problem lies not with the standards, but with the editors.  The two most
popular editors, vi and emacsen, have no support for such standards.  It's 
moderately easy to add support into emacsen, but vi you can't do much with.

You think email and networking are religious issues.  Try editors.
 
> >You keep talking in principle. That isn't the
> >point. In practice the people working as Unix administrators have a vested
> >interest in keeping the system a mystery to everyone but a few.
> 
> Of course they do. But they are not a brotherhood or something. Any company
> can have a competent administrator if he is reasonably smart and they make
> it his full-time job to learn the ropes and keep things working. The multi
> user nature of unix requires it to be far more complicated and have a lot
> more options than single-person systems, and it is unreasonable to think that
> the system can be simplifed to the point where a novice user can set it all
> up without a decent understanding of how things work. Most unixes come as
> pre-configured default setups that work but could use some customizing --
> Sun's in particular is quite easy to install from CD-ROM onto a blank machine.

Speaking as a System Administrator for 50+ people (and support for 100+ 
machines and another 100 odd people in our building) I can assure you that,
for most situations, the main reason admins keep "the system a mystery" is 
to make their jobs easier.  Todd explains quite well the overall view of a
Unix system.  Unless you're emerged in the environment, it's very hard to 
know what results your actions might have.  I've got it easy - most of my
people are Unix engineers, so I don't have to hand hold, but our email
gateways and YP servers are admin'd by the system admins to reduce the 
chances of a mistake being made.

Unix systems span the largest configuration of machines ever created, from a 
2Mb 386 box with a 400Mb drive to a 16Gb 36 processor SGI box with over a 
terabyte of storage.  That's a large, no, enormous, range.  Such an operating
system isn't going to be groked in one setting, nor a hundered settings.

--Chan
       Chan Wilson  ---  cwilson@sgi.com  ---  415/390-5006
	      Silicon Graphics, Inc.   Mountain View, CA
       -> The only stupid question is the one not asked. <-