Re: Unix

[James Rich <james@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Pat Barber wrote:

> Since you can run most, if not all of the Unix apps on the 400,
> why have two machines ??? Since OS/400 requires little, if any
> "administration", I guess you just enjoy all the thrills of Unix.

How do you figure that "most, if not all of the Unix apps on the 400"?  I
work on several iSeries machines and unix apps don't run on any of them.
The as/400 doesn't support bit-mapped displays so all X11 apps are out.
And even text-only apps won't run right on os/400 - as long as it requires
screen-at-a-time input/output instead of character-at-a-time, tcsh, bash,
top, ncurses, worm (whee!), etc. won't work either.  Remember the
requirement:  it had to run on os/400 - not on linux in a partition.

As for administration, didn't we just have a big thread on losing disk
space?  The backup at our office failed last night and we filled the disk
with job logs and other crap that made the system nearly useless.  Or what
about the thread recently on reducing backup time?  Or the current thread
on writing multiple CD volumes?  OS/400 does require administration, and
in my experience about the same amount as unix requires.

Note that both os/400 and unix are highly reliable, highly useful, and
built for the big time.  OS/400 and the different *nix OSes are far easier
to admin than other, consumer-grade OSes (one from Redmond comes to mind
here).  I wouldn't wish a network of windows machines on my worst enemy
(unless he was Bill G.) and I have refused to admin them in my job.  And
yes, I do like all the thrills of UNIX :)

James Rich
james@eaerich.com