Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve gnu.misc.discuss:6394 comp.os.linux:11668 comp.unix.bsd:6043 Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) Subject: Re: Suggestions for the free Unix projects Message-ID: <1992Oct3.220517.1325@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT) References: <1akqadINN76c@almaak.usc.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 22:05:17 GMT Lines: 79 In article <1akqadINN76c@almaak.usc.edu> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: >I have watched the Linux/BSD/GNU projects with much joy. >I have a few suggestions. > > >0. Packaging >------------ > >I think the Most important constraint impeding relatively novice users >from using Linux (I don't know about 386BSD) is the difficulty of >installation. I can think of lots of university folk who have used a >Unix account at school with much ease, but are intimidated by the >problems of installation. > >Packages like MCC interim, SLS, etc. are steps in the right direction. >I think they are important, and need to be done better. They >certainly need better documentation. > >There may be a role for a profit-making company to make a $50 >shrink-wrapped free Unix with a manual and limited support. > > >1. Binary compatibility >----------------------- > >From the end-users perspective, I think binary compatibility is >incredibly important. I mean binary compatibility across versions of >the OS and across the three major free Unixes. > >In my ideal world, I would be able to: >a) pick a OS -- any OS -- of the three >b) grab binaries for programs I plan to run, without regard for my > choice at step a >c) be able to move versions of the OS or to a different OS without > needing to get (say) TeX binaries afresh >d) Ideally, be able to run commercial software for 386-Unix too. > >When Linux was younger there were Major kernel changes being done >every month. But maybe it's now possible to talk about ways to ensure >that all future kernel releases will be able to run binaries which >conform with definition X. > >Intel has a binary compatibility standard for x86 Unix. Is that too >hard to support? A important payoff of supporting it would be easy >access to commercial Unix software. The other path to getting access >to commercial software would be to write a emulation box (that already >exists for Linux, to run Xenix binaries). > >Talking about commercial software brings me to the next point: > > >2. Xbase >-------- > >The GNU project is already working on such anti-hacker objectives as a >Fortran and a spreadsheet. :-) (I completely agree with the >proposition that these need to be done). In that spirit, I think we >also need a Xbase clone. > >Ideally it should be a Xbase compiler, but an interpretor would also >be good. It should certainly open .dbf files from out there. (Would >it be the ugliest frontend to gcc ever? Or would Fortran still take >that prize?). > >I'm not claiming Xbase has anything to offer to someone who knows >Unix. Personally I would not use it ever. I suspect it's the Most >important single piece of commercial software out there with a >well-defined standard (fileformat and language specn). A good free >Xbase implementation would make free Unixes more attractive to the >end-user (as would GNU Fortran and Oleo). >-- >Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@usc.edu -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial -------------------------------------------------------------------------------