Re: GS+AFP Unix server

[toddpw@cco.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)]

philip@utstat.toronto.edu (Philip McDunnough) writes:

> And I don't see any of the major vendors basing their 
>networks on TCP/IP. Do you?

Actually, yes, but not in the sense that I think you mean. You don't base a
network on TCP/IP. You implement TCP/IP and whatever other (maybe proprietary)
protocols you want so that they can be used over your network.

The design of networks and protocols is a lot more modular than you are giving
it credit. The vast majority of NFS implementations for the PC suck big bananas
but that is not sufficient to condemn TCP/IP, of which NFS is not officially a
part. Sun specifies NFS, not the Internet task force.

>FTP will only get you very minimal functionality. It is not enough for what 
>smaller networks, even home ones, need.

Did I say that everyone should replace file server protocols with FTP utilites?
NO. Did I say that FTP uses net bandwidth a lot more efficiently? YES. What's
your point?

>It is not irrelevant. Getting a good mail system is a joy and rare. That's
>why the NeXT is so nice to use,

Is that why NeXT mail annoys the hell out of anyone NOT using a NeXT?

>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 

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).

>principle TCP/IP may have nothing to do with it. In practice, everything 
>surrounding Unix (and as a consequence anything (TCP)/IP based) is political.

Where the HELL do you get this? TCP/IP is a tool first and foremost. It is
also not exclusively unix based although unix has the most built-in support
for it of any operating system family in the world. The _evolution_ of unix
today is definitely very political, but the clear indication is that TCP/IP
has become _the_ standard for making totally different machines communicate,
no matter what the operating system or underlying network hardware.

>The mail system is not going to be changed anytime soon. It took me a year to 
>get a proper reply to address.

Why didn't you wise up and go get help after the first month? I wouldn't put
up with something that simple not being set up properly for very long.

>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.

I have barely scratched the surface of unix sysadminning, yet I have already
installed our server Sparc from scratch _twice_ as well as tweaking numerous
things like reconfiguring the office NFS structure while the server was down
due to hardware/software problems. All I did was read man pages, keep my eyes
open, and experiment carefully. None of this is in my job description, but
our office is so small that some of us just step in when things need doing,
and we manage just fine.

>Maybe, but I'm talking about places that have permanent administrators. It's
>political.

An administrator that deliberately generates more work for himself is being an
idiot. An exec who lays off the system administrator because he has done his
job and now has less work to do is also an idiot. You're right about it being
political.

>My Internet Router does not tie up my ci. The only thing I notice is that I 
>can't use virtual memory, which is neither here nor there in my case. Of
>course a hardware router is better. It's also far more expensive.

$1500. How much does Internet Router cost?

> I don't need to know about IP addressing, etc...

That's all well and good, but if you want to talk to a totally different
machine that doesn't speak Appletalk, what are you going to do? Insist
that every machine you have speaks Appletalk? Good luck!

>more networks than good administrators, this is important. Ease of use is
>very important. People are simply not that interested in the problems of
>networking. They want something that works and is easy to set up. There are
>better hobbies than reading up on Unix networking.

I agree. Things definitely need to be made simpler, or at least automated
better than they are now. But the only solution that happens is going to be
an evolutionary one, not a revolutionary one. Massive upheavals in the way
things work are unacceptable because everybody needs to keep getting work
done while it is happening. This slows down evolution a lot and serves the
useful function of keeping it from getting out of hand. And it is happening,
just not as fast as _you_ would like.

>My point all along has been that the plug and play aspect was more important.
>So it would appear to me at least that you've just come down on both sides of
>the fence.

Yep. You seem to believe that unix and TCP/IP are already dinosaurs and that
they cannot evolve. I used to believe that about unix, but as I learned more
about TCP/IP I began to realize that there is plenty of room for expansion,
without losing the stable foundation. There are many TCP/IP based systems that
are graphically based from login to logout, including that NeXT of yours. On
every one of them I can still get a command line if I want one, but with more
and more of them that is almost never actually necessary.

Be patient. The industry may not look like it wants the same thing as you, but
the truth is that they are being a lot more realistic about making it happen.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ cco.caltech.edu