Oakland CPM Archive

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Oakland CPM Archive / oakcpm.iso / cpm / news / cpmnet81.jql / CPMNET81.JUL

Wrap

Text File | 1985-02-10 | 39.5 KB | 873 lines

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CP/M-Net News <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ============================================================ Number 7 July, 1981 Volume 1, Issue 7 ============================================================ In This Issue ============= SIG/M-CPMUG Caveat (???) By: Kelly Smith, CP/M-Net "SYSOP" A Comparison of CP/M and UNIX: A Matter of Choice By: Richard Conn, with additions by: Ted Shapin Midwest Update: SQ, USQ, and Other New Programs By: Ben Bronson, Hyde Park RCPM/RBBS Rumor-MILL...Possible NEW Mega-RCPM System! By: Kelly Smith, CP/M-Net Printed monthly (at worst quarterly) to inform user's of RCPM Systems to the latest software news, information, and updates of public domain software accessible via telephone/modem transfer. Yearly subscription for copies of the CP/M-Net News may be obtained by mailing $18.00 (check or money orders only) to Kelly Smith, CP/M-Net, 3055 Waco Street, Simi Valley, California 93063. CP/M-Net is a non- profit orginization and all money received on subscriptions are utilized for the sustaining and enhancments of the CP/M- Net System. If you would like to contribute an article, include a column containing your area of interest and expertise, or participate in an open forum for conversation and transfer of ideas, feel free to send it to the CP/M-Net System and indicate that you would like it to be included in the CP/M- Net News...if possible, use WordStar (trademark, MicroPro International) or Electric Pencil (trademark, Micheal Shrayer) in 60 column format. NOTE: CP/M is a registerd trademark of Digital Research On the Stack ============ Many thanks to the following supporting subscribers to the CP/M-Net News: R. C. Alberts, R. C. Alberts Co.,Inc., Pewaukee, Wisconsin Trevor Marshall, Dept. of Elec. Eng., Nedlands, W. Austrlia Joseph C. Sharp, Micro Science Assoc., San Luis Obispo, CA. C. E. Stuart, Goleta, CA. R. E. Walker, Beaumont, Texas William Wolfson, Waylan, Mass. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SIG/M-CPMUG Caveat (???) ======================== By: Kelly Smith, CP/M-Net "SYSOP" The follwing message was downloaded June 25, 1981 from Technical CBBS (313) 846-6127. It's with absolute dismay that I write this message (article), inspired by my own general interest and participation in this matter (and also the help of 5 bottles of Henry Weinhard's (Private Reserve)...I will keep you informed on my progress (consumption) as I proceed). I intend to type this exactly as it occurs to my somewhat 'foggy' brain, in a 'straight-from-the-hip' attitude...if at times you find this offensive, well then DARN it...this is life, and it's time to face facts. And so: Msg 147 is 06 line(s) on 06/21/81 from BILL EARNEST to ALL about SIG/M-CPMUG CAVEAT I have just left a small file on this system named SIGMWARN.MSG on drive A. It is in that form instead of as a message for readability reasons. Hopefully, the current unknown state of affairs will be resolved shortly, but take note. Also see the messages earlier from Bruce Ratoff. (Nrs. 129 & 130 as of now) ************************************************************ * * * *** IMPORTANT NOTICE *** * * * * AS OF JUNE 1, 1981, THERE IS NO OFFICIAL * * VERBAL OR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION TO MERGE THE * * SIG/M LIBRARY VOLS. 1-25 (19-25 PASCAL Z 1-7) * * INTO THE CP/M USERS GROUP LIBRARY. * * * * BE AWARE THAT IF 25 NEW CP/M USERS GROUP VOLUMES * * APPEAR, THEY MAY BE SIG/M VOLS. 1-25. * * * * FOR UPDATES ON THIS MATTER, CONTACT RIBBS * * ACG-NJ AT (201) 272-1874 OR RIBBS LEHIGH VALLEY * * AT (215) 398-3937. SIG/M CORRESPONDENCE SHOULD * * BE MAILED TO: SIG/M USER GROUP * * P. O. BOX 97 * * ISELIN, NJ 08830 * * * * PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COPY THIS MESSAGE IN CLUB * * NEWSLETTERS, MAGAZINES AND OTHER CBBS'S. * * * * SIG/M * * BILL CHIN BRUCE RATOFF HENRY KEE * * RAY GLUECK BILL EARNEST HOWARD FINGERHUT * * * ************************************************************ O.K.,...what the heck does THAT MEAN???..." NO OFFICIAL or WRITTEN authorization to MERGE into the CP/M User's Group...". Is SIG/M a 'public domain' distributer of software, or is this limited to 'authorized individuals' (limited access), for the lucky few??? Well first of all, let's get a definition of terms... From Merriam-Webster, 'Webster's New Ideal Dictionary': public (adj); 1 a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people : ...c : relating to or engaged in the service of the community or nation 2 a : of or realting to mankind in general...5 : accessible to or shared by all members of the community...[and so on and so on]. domain (adv); 1 a: complete and absolute ownership of land...2 : a territory over which dominion is exercised...[again, so on and so on]. Let's pick 'public, #5; accessible to or shared by all members of the community' and 'domain, #2: a territory over which dominion is exercised'... O.K. SIMPLE! The PEOPLE OWN IT!!! Yes, Kelly OWNS IT, Bruce OWNS IT, and even Tony Gold OWNS IT! So WHY the 'authorization'?...I understood that when I gave SIG/M my (shabby) software efforts, that it was "in the PUBLIC DOMAIN...". What the heck do I REALLY CARE as to WHO uses it (?). I really feel fortunate that someone actually USES the things that (I on occasion) crank-out at ALL! [Interrupt at this point...dinner call, Ben Bronson call...ah, much better now...Henry's #6, renewed inspiration! Now where was I?] Maybe a better way to attack this subject, is question WHO benefits from PUBLIC DOMAIN software...well, my first outing was to wade through the (numerous) JUNK files, and find some REAL 'Gems' amist the agony of programs (such as TACO.BAS) that were of little merit...WOW! Look at this 'MODEM' program...wonder what I could do with that? (the rest is history!). Anyway, the point is, that people like YOU and myself have taken 'diamonds-in-the-rough' and shaped them into the many (and varied) ESSENTIAL programs, that are SUPER VALUABLE to use for the individual growth potential that has been INSPIRED by such programs...look at FINDBAD... a reasonably good magazine article that (almost) 'ran amoke'!...but what was derived from all the individual efforts of you (THE PUBLIC)? A fantastic development for the benefit of ALL PEOPLE! Now thats my point... I draw NO SIDES here...I do suspect that many of you have missed the point on WHY you freely give away your efforts (e.g., 'hacking' away 'till 3 in the morning)...is it for the 'glory' (sure it's neat to see your name in print...I am THRILLED when I see that SIG/M volume #5 is ALL MY STUFF!)...is it for 'the benifit of all mankind'?... well... I'm too darned humble to go that far... I may be good, but i'm not THAT GOOD! So WHY??? Well, I'll tell yah why (just my WHY)...It's just down- right-fun! I got a call from a kid some months ago, that was amazed at what he had found..EXCLAMATION..Over 300 BASIC games...this kid (Jeff, 15 years old), found a fantastic access to MIND EXPANSION! Yes, BASIC GAMES...he has now progressed to bigger-and-better ASSEMBLY Language programs now, but to watch this kid GROW....WOW! Thats why I do this, and thats ALSO why I am conserned about whats taking place with this SIG/M-CPMUG bull...Sad. Let's get a little 'background' on what took place...May 24th, 1981 (Memorial Day weekend): Bruce Ratoff's house...people present: Tony Gold, Eddie Currie, Bruce, and me (third party)...conversation: Tony Gold's concern over the 'backlash' of comment concering the CPMUG and Lifelines 'commercial aspects'...in addition, the 'path' that SIG/M has taken (Good-'ol, US of A competition; I love it!), and finding out if Bruce would like to 'bring- up' a RBBS (Mega-Message-System) for Lifeboat. Bruce's concern about SIG/M is to remain 'autonomous' from CPMUG...to quote: "More water runs from two spouts, than one". Bruce's other concern is that SOME SOFTWARE is being witheld from CPMUG because it is DIRECTLY COMPETITIVE with Lifeboat, and that the PROFIT MOTIVE in Lifelines (as well as the lack of articles on competive products to Lifeboat's) causes much concern (that an organization: Lifelines) is in it ONLY for the MONEY. Well, after spending a weekend with Tony Gold, I see the situation for what (I perceive) it to be...Lifeboat and Lifelines are (indeed) in the same building (do I hear "Booo, Hiss"?). Yep, takes up a couple a'hundred square feet of office space...gads, cabinets full of disks...takes two people just to handle orders, more people doing the Lifelines magazine...shipping, order entry, GADS...this is alot of WORK! And just HOW MUCH for the disks?...8 bucks! So anyway, if Tony Gold were to attempt to make a living selling diskettes to people as the CPMUG ONLY, he's loosing his ***! Believe me, I am now just understanding the problems with distributing, copy charges, mailing, etc., with the CP/M-Net News...and I have NO OVERHEAD! And I am trying to promote system upgrades to CP/M-Net, while I have little more than 30 'subscribers' (at the same $18/year as Lifelines) who give-a-darn, and it's costing 70-80 dollars to put it out each month! Put 2 and 2 together, and figure that I go 'belly-up' before the year is out...and the really STUPID thing is that I GIVE IT AWAY!!! As far as the 'control' of the CPMUG, it's my impression that Tony Gold is absolutely concerned that ALL software contributed (via CACHE) be represented in any and all new releases of CPMUG volumes (even such masterworks as TACO's). I want to add a note here, that Jim Mills is doing one- heck-of-a-job with distribution of the CPMUG...also to Ward Christensen for all his fine efforts (and software contributions) that has made possible the 'net-working' of the many RCPM's now running... darn, I wish I'd written DU...instead I offer such (memorable) programs as AREACODE...Gag. Darn, as I drink more of this stuff...I tend to wander. To get on with this: Who gives a diddely darn WHERE the software GOES TO, much less where it COMES FROM...as long as it gets into the hands of PEOPLE (The PUBLIC) who want to use it? If the Pascal/Z Users Group want to put stuff into the SIG/M...GREAT! If Tony Gold wants to use the SIG/M stuff...WHY NOT? If Kelly Smith wants to see some 15 year old kid get really inspired...WHY NOT??? At this point, I close...I may be back for more comment, and surely suspect that those of you out there that read this will have yours...cuss me out, but at least I said what I thought and am not afraid to get it out in the open...just first consider...we attempt to THINK LOGICALLY when we write programs...let's THINK LOGICALLY for the benefit of the end- user of those programs... Day two of the saga continues...Saturday morning, with me bleary-eyed from too many Henry's... In response to my file BULL.MSG (ALL of the above) placed on Ben Bronson's Hyde Park RCPM, Bill Earnest put the following (June 27, 1981) message to me on CP/M-Net... "00142,13,06/27/81,Bill Earnest,SYSOP Response re: SIG/M," "I am sorry to see such a hassle rise over a misinterpretation of that SIG/M-CPMUG message. It was made because as of then, there were strong indications that the SIG/M disks would be taken, references to SIG/M deleted, and re-issued under CPMUG numbers. We have been careful to show the source of SIG/M vols. 19 thru 23, as the PASCAL-Z group via merger, and believe that it might "rip-off" someone not realizing the possible duplication. Widest distribution of software is certainly the main object, and the intent was to give all concerned the fullest choice possible. If the data is not "disguised", we are certainly agreeable to another outlet to facilitate the spread." Well Bill, I am sorry to see such a hassle take place also, but this is what ultimately takes place when a message (such as the one 'posted' by you, and others of SIG/M) 'implies' impropriety...especially when based on unfounded rumor and gossip. This is an irresponsible position for anyone to assume! From the tone of your message to me, it appears that 'others' were upset also... I think what is particularly unfortunate, is the paranoia of 'irrational suspicions' that (1) someone would BOTHER to edit off ALL references to SIG/M, and (2) that ANYONE entering software into the public domain is NOT AWARE that they do so FREELY with no limitations on subsequent usage (unless they 'tag' the file with a "NOT TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS", and (3) to think that anyone could 'disguise' the files to a form that would NOT BE RECOGNIZED...and even if they were, SO WHAT? It was FREELY GIVEN AWAY! I have certainly had a change of attitude after speaking directly to Tony Gold...I asked reasonable questions, got reasonable answers (NO SECOND-HAND INFORMATION), and best of all was impressed with his concern...NOT CONCERN for Lifeboat/Lifelines, but for the proper distribution of submitted software (read 'NO Hold-Outs' here...), as well as a responsiveness to get the problems 'out-into-the-light-of- day' with Bruce Ratoff. Let me suggest, that in the future TALK DIRECTLY with the principals involved...get it all out (I am really sorry that we could not get ahold of Bill Chin when we were all at Bruces house), and discuss the issues in a 'non-emotional' manner. I can see both sides of this SIG/M-CPMUG thing...Tony Gold has 'fathered his baby', you guys have done a SUPER effort in offering an alternate source, but somehow BOTH groups perceive an unfounded threat of 'one- against-the-other'...the THREAT just DOES NOT EXIST! Thank you for responding, to my (even my 'emotional') message...but I think that the real loosers out of all this would be the 'end-users' if BULL persists. Let's all get our stories straight before jumping to conclusions... Best regards, Kelly Smith ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Comparison of CP/M and UNIX: A Matter of Choice ================================================= By: Richard Conn An interesting discussion and controversy concerning the selection of an Operating System (OS) for a micro- computer-based office automation system has recently taken place between and within members of DARCOM (Dept of the Army Readiness Command) and others on the ARPA Network. Central to the controversy are two basic groups -- those for the CP/M OS and those for UNIX/UNIX-like OS's. This is the first such controversy I have observed that has taken any significant proportions, and with the advent of the new 16-bit microprocessors such as the 8086, Z8000, and 68000 and the "UNIX-like" operating systems such as OMNYX and XENIX, the question of staying with CP/M or going to the UNIX environment is going to arise with more and more frequency. UNIX (first released by Bell Labs in 1969) has recently been hailed as the "Operating System of the 80'S" by several people, and I feel that now may be a good time to outline a comparison of CP/M 2.2 and UNIX for future reference. Note that this comparison involves traditional UNIX (NOT necessarily identical to the yet-to-be-released XENIX). Having done some research on and used both types of operating systems, I offer the following discussion for general dissemination. This discussion is divided into two parts -- (1) a brief comparison of Bell's UNIX and CP/M 2.2 and (2) a brief discussion of the criteria for selection of the OS and my recommendation. Part 1 ------ -- A Comparison of UNIX and CP/M 2.2 -- The following is a basic comparison of several key points of the UNIX and CP/M 2.2 Operating Systems. Data for the UNIX part of the comparison was extracted from "The Bell System Technical Journal", July-Aug 78, Vol 57, No 6, Part 2, ISSN0005-8580 (Articles: "A Retrospective" by DM Ritchie and "The UNIX Shell" by SR Bourne primarily). Data for the CP/M 2.2 part of the comparison was extracted from "Digital Research CP/M 1.4 & 2.0 Documentation" reprinted by Morrow Designs, Inc. (Section II: CP/M 2.0 User's Guide). The data presented is edited and augmented by comments from my personal experiences. UNIX ! CP/M 2.2 ------------------------------!---------------------------- o No Unique Version ! o Unique Version At least 5 versions exist: ! Version 2.2 (Precisely 1. "Standard" maintained! Defined) by the UNIX Support Group at ! Bell Labs ! 2. PWB/UNIX (Programmers! Work Bench) ! 3. Version 6 (distrib. ! by Western Electric) ! 4. Version 7 ! 5. The version currently! in use by the Computing ! Science Research System at ! Bell Labs ! ! o Multi-user/process ! o Single-user/process ! o File Size Limit ! o File Size Limit == 1e9 bytes (depends on ! == 8e6 bytes version); e=10 to power ! ! o Supports Random Access Files! o Supports RA Files also ! o Targeted to the PDP-11 Fam ! o Targeted to 8080/Z80 ! o Tree Directory Structures ! o Dual-Level Directory (Indefinite number of levels! Structure (USER/DIR or and Path Names) ! SYS) and Limited Path (A:FN) ! o Links Allowed ! o Links Permitted (Extension) (Different dir entries pt to! same file for disk space save)! ! o Device Transparency and Re- ! o Device Transparency and Re- directability Complete ! directability limited to (I/O routed to/from files ! terminal I/O and terminals with equal ease)! User Interface Comparisons -------------------------- UNIX ! CP/M 2.2 ------------------------------!-------------------------- o Command Interpreter ! o Command Interpreter "Shell" ! "CCP" ! o Shell Easily Replaced ! o CCP Replaced with ! difficulty ! o Not Part of Kernal ! o Not Part of Kernal ! o Full Command Language is ! o Full Command Language is relatively complicated ! simple ! o All commands have redirect- ! o Only terminal I/O is able I/O (<,<<,>,>>) ! redirectable ! o More extensive wild cards ! o Simple wild cards (?,*,[c1-c2],[c1...cn]) ! (?,*) ! o Interprocess information ! o No equivalent transfer (pipes); coroutines! ! o Type-Ahead ! o Type-Ahead possible ! via BIOS ! o Parallel processes ! o No equivalent ! o Indirect command files; no ! o Indirect cmnd files; 20 limit to arguments ! argument limit (sh file arg1 arg2 ...) ! (submit file arg1 ...) ! o Conditional Execution ! o No equivalent (ANDF - &&, ORF - !!) ! ! o Construct Execution ! o No equivalent if ... then ... else ! case ... in ... ! while ... do ... ! for ... do ... ! until ... do ... ! ! o Shell Variables (Param sub) ! o No equivalent ex: user=myfile ! print $user ! ! o Command Substitution ! o No equivalent ex: d='pwd' ! Other Items ----------- UNIX ! CP/M 2.2 ------------------------------!---------------------------- o Reliability - Good ! o Reliability - Good ! o Security - Fair ! o Security - Poor ! o Use of HOL ! o Use of HOL 90-95% in C - OS ! Mainly Assem - OS 95-100% in C - Utilities ! 90% in PL/M - Std Utils ! o ARPANET Interface (NCP) ! o No Equivalent currently available ! (except for terminal pgms) ! o Extensive document prepara- ! o Extensive document prep tion facilities ! facilities ed - simple char-oriented! ED - simple char-oriented editor ! editor Are there any screen- ! WM, EP - screen-oriented oriented editors or ! editors formatters? ! WS, MW - s-o edit/format troff, nroff - formatters! TFS - formatter with macro expansion ! with macro expansion eqn - mathematical expr ! No known equivalent preprocessor ! tbl - table preprocessor ! No known equivalent spell - spelling check ! SPELLGUARD - spell chk ! speak - voice output ! No known equivalent diff - file comparator ! FILCOM - file comparator ! o Online instruction ! o Online instruction learn -- tutor ! PILOT - CAI language online help? ! HELP - online doc ! o Exotic applications ! o Exotic applications yacc - compiler-compilers! MUMATH - symbolic others? ! algebra ! o Languages ! o Languages C, FORTRAN 77, BASIC, ! C, FORTRAN IV, BASICs, SNOBOL, APL, ALGOL 68, PASCAL ! APL, ALGOL 60, PASCALs, others? ! LISP, MUMATH, MUSIMP, ! PILOT, PL/I, COBOL ! others? Part 1 Commentary ----------------- From the point of view of a hacker (such as I consider myself to be), both CP/M and UNIX are outstanding operating systems to experiment with and study. Systems programming on each is relatively easy to do, and both exhibit an ex- treme level of extensibility which may be utilized by sys- tems programmers. By this I mean that both OS's can be modified, tailored to a specific application, with a great deal of ease at the systems programming level. Each is flexible enough to be used to create a "virtual machine" of the system programmer's design which can react in almost any way desired (e.g., text processing environments and program development environments can be easily created which are tailored to a user's particular needs). The particularly intriguing aspects of UNIX to me are: 1. the tree directory structures; using these, each user's projects and files can be logically grouped and organized as the user and/or his manager desires and special work environments, each with their own set of commands, can be easily created 2. the Shell (command interpreter) can be easily replaced, so specialized shells or even menu-driven command environments may be created with ease 3. device transparency and redirectability is an outstanding concept! This allows instances such as a program which by default sends its output to the terminal (such as a directory program) to be forced to channel its output to a different device, a file, or even another process; the potential for applications of this facility is enormous! 4. parallel processing and coroutines are common- place; this provides the very nice ability of a user to, say, initiate the printing of a file while he goes off and does something else -- better yet, one user may issue several commands to be executed concurrently while he does something else 5. conditional executions (ANDF, ORF), language constructions in the command language (IF, WHILE, FOR, CASE, etc.), and parameter and command substitutions (Shell variables) are novel and interesting concepts On the other hand, the intriguing aspects of CP/M to me are: 1. the ability to divide logical projects and work files into user areas, with each user area having its own set of files and commands (any number of which may be hidden [transparent] to the user); in a single user environment, this seems to be just as reasonable and useful as the tree structure of UNIX 2. the ability to replace the CCP (with difficulty); this can be done easier in UNIX, but it is not outside the scope of a system programmer to do this with CP/M (I have done it, making a major modification which greatly enhances CP/M's power -- command execution of COM files under my new CCP searches the current user area on the current disk, falls to user 0 of the current disk if not found, finally falls to user 0 or drive A: if not found, and finally issues an error message). This new CCP significantly places CP/M in a competative mode with UNIX in command execution (UNIX traces up the tree for command execution). 3. CP/M's terminal I/O is redirectable, and this buys a lot of flexibility for the user; UNIX, however, is equally redirectable and even more so 4. CP/M is very small, leaving much of the microcomputer's memory for the transcients and utilities; size is sometimes a problem, but with the new microprocessors and their megabyte addressing capabilities, it should no longer pose such a problem 5. finally, and perhaps most importantly, a wide variety of relatively high-quality software (screen-oriented editors, language systems, communications systems, etc) is currently available for CP/M, and I have not seen such quality systems yet being prepared for systems like XENIX (whose specs are not even out yet); there will be a definite lag before (and IF) XENIX and other such systems obtain the software base currently in existence for CP/M!!!!! Part 2 A Commentary -- Criteria for Selection and Recommendation --------------------------------------------------------- In making such a selection of operating systems, I feel that there are five basic questions which should be considered in the evaluation. In short, these questions are the following: 1. Is the OS adequate to meet the needs of the user? Is there enough memory for the required utilities and applications programs to run in (considering the memory management schemes employed by the OS)? VERY IMPORTANT -- Is the OS responsive (In the microcomputer age, I consider the time of the user/programmer to be much more valuable than the time of the machine, and an OS/machine which in any way slows the user/programmer down due to its lack of re- sponsiveness should be reevaluated!!!!) 2. Is the OS extensible (user-customizable for his particular application)? If I don't like the form of the command language or the commands of the editor, can I change these to meet my tastes? If I want a menu-based user interface, can I create one? 3. Is software produced under the OS on machine A easily transportable to the same OS on machine B (allowing, of course, media compatability)? Source code generally is transportable provided the language is standardized (like C on UNIX), but is the binary (including the OS "hooks") also transportable (like on CP/M)? 4. Are software tools (editors, compilers, de- buggers, etc.) available AND effective for the target class of users? For instance, I would much rather give my secre- tary a screen-oriented editor which is easy to use as op- posed to a character-oriented editor in which she has to worry about the position of an imaginary cursor. The tool should be easy to use, people should be quickly and inexpen- sively trained to use it, and it should be efficient (fast, capable, and requiring as little overhead as possible). Also, if I currently have an existing tool base which my people are already trained to use, I should think carefully about moving to a new OS just because it is new or pro- mising. 5. Finally, is the software easily maintainable and reliable? Tools are seldom perfect, and improvements are constantly coming out. I would like to see the ability to modify my tools if I desire (I own them, don't I?) and be supported by the vendor as new releases emerge. Also, I want to use proven, time-tested tools which I can rely on extensively. Hence, reader, from my point of view, presented are the primary attributes of UNIX and CP/M 2.2 and my basic set of criteria to judge these systems by. Coming from a largely- CP/M environment (I already have CP/M as a base), UNIX would win hands down (looking through the eyes of a hacker). UNIX is a fantastic software tool which supports many interesting and exciting features, and, regardless of the use I put the UNIX system to, I still have my CP/M base to support my current applications and interests (also including hacking). The above statement, however, was from the point of view of a hacker with a CP/M base. The question posed, however, was from the point of view of the creation of a new system to support office automation. This is a management system in a manager's environment, not a hacker system in a programmer's environment. To make a choice for the manager, let's fall back to the five criteria outline above. In my opinion, both operating systems come out about even in the first three items. Both UNIX (XENIX?) and CP/M are generally adequate, extensible, and support transportable software for the automated office environment. In both cases, tools may have to be designed for specific needs (like XMSG for UNIX mail and CBBS software for CP/M mail). Software support from systems programmers will probably be required to design and integrate the tools necessary for an automated office system. Item 4 is perhaps a key point in the decision. CP/M already has a relatively-large base of quality tools for the target class (secretarial/managerial) of user. From my observation of automated office environments such as my own CP/M environment, AUGMENT of Tymshare, and NLS under TENEX and TOPS-20, I note that the majority of the time (at least in my case, and I suspect most others) is spent in the electronic mail system and the editors. Consequently, tools for these environments must be most effective, allowing the user to get his job done in a minimum amount of time with a minimum amount of effort. I am currently employing menu- driven mail systems and fast screen-oriented editors for these functions, and I feel that (design-dependent, of course), these are the most productive alternatives avail- able today. Specialized terminals designed with the editors in mind (e.g., DNLS Workstations) are a good goal, but general CP/M screen editors such as Word Master, Word Star, and Magic Wand are already available, reliable, field-proven and tested, and reasonably effective (I spend little time waiting on them/giving commands and more time composing than I do with more conventional editors). I have not seen comparable field-proven software for the new UNIX systems (they are not even out yet). Finally, the fifth item, that of software maintainability and support, is concentrated on support from this (office automation) level. Your environment probably will not have systems programmers readily available, so you will probably be largely dependent on vendor support. Again, reliable, field-proven software is a big plus. Two additional points should be brought out at this time as well: (1) the philosophy question of the state of the art and (2) the philosophy question of the use of the new microcomputers (microprocessors). Concerning the state of the art, UNIX (XENIX?) is definitely closer to it than CP/M, but the operating system is just the RESOURCE MANAGER of the computer system, not the KEY to the computer system. The KEY to the system lies in the TOOLS (utilities) which run under the operating system! These tools must be reliable, easy to use, and efficient in human terms. From my observations, EDITORS are the most instrumental of tools, and the Word Master and (particularly) Word Star are the most powerful, reliable, and efficient editors I have seen (with the possible exception of EMACS on MIT and the DNLS editor). Such are already available under CP/M, and I know of no comparable editor (Such could exist, of course) under XENIX (will the UNIX editors work on XENIX?). Concerning the philosophy question, many people still look at computer systems and operating systems from a "con- ventional" point of view. The computer is typically viewed as an expensive resource which must be used as efficiently (in terms of computer thruput) as possible, but the micro- processor has changed that. Under CP/M, I am currently running two microcomputers (total cost is under $15,000) quite effectively. These machines and their software are designed to serve me, and to obtain a maximum of effective- ness for the user (measured in terms of minimum wait on the computer), operations such as number crunching programs and print spooling are sent to the second machine. Too many times I have working in environments such as a dual CYBER, DEC-10, or VAX where the machine's thruput was considered above the individual's effectiveness, and the responsiveness of these machines to me was far less than that of my own microcomputer! I hope you consider this point; individual effectiveness and usefulness should be of prime concern, and consider the idea of supplying the single individual with more than one processor/machine. Many of the pro-UNIX types may cling to the old (machine-thruput) school of thought, but much is to be said for the user-effective (made possible by the inexpensiveness of the microcomputer) school of thought. The multiprocess capabilities of UNIX are nice, but I consider multiprocessor capability to be nicer still! In sum, my recommendation is to go with CP/M if your need is immediate. If not, wait and see what the UNIX-like systems have to offer in reliability, tools, and competa- tively-marketed (competition is very important for quaility) software. "Something better" is always coming out, but buying "the best" (=most recent?) software at a given time is not necessarily the best decision in the long run. New software is frequently field-debugged (not always, of course), and you should be leary of opening yourself up to do the debugging when you are trying to get a job done. ...and additional comments by Ted Shapin ---------------------------------------- Richard Conn has written a very interesting comparison of CP/M and UNIX. Although my experience is only with CP/M, there area few things that should be added to his report. First, while UNIX is proprietary to Bell Labs (and licensed by Western Electric) it is "escaping" into the public domain. An active users group called the "Software Tools" group has grown up around the book of that title written by Kernihan and Plauger. The book described the programming of some UNIX-like tools in RATFOR. RATFOR is a FORTRAN preprocessor that has a syntax resembling 'C'. The users group has greatly expanded and enhanced the RATFOR tools to include many of the UNIX tools such as a shell, screen editors, pipes, etc., and transported the system to many different computers. See the article in the September 1980 Communications of the ACM, "A Virtual Operating System". You can get information on the Software Tools Group from Debbie Scherrer, Lawrence Berkeley Laborotory, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA. 94720. This approach embeds UNIX-like tools in a host operating system. Another step in this direction was the publication of the article "A Portable Directory System" in the April 1981 Journal of the ACM. This adds a UNIX-like directory structure to the software tools environment. Another source of UNIX-like systems are those that were written independently of any UNIX systems and hence are not subject to Western Electric licensing. A complete 'C' compiler was written by a programmer at the Mark Williams Company in Chicago. The first system is for the PDP-11, the second for the Z8000. Bill Plauger's company, Whitesmith's in New York has also written a 'C' compiler and UNIX like system which they can sell independently of W.E. licensing. As far as CP/M editors go, I have heard very good reports of an editor called MINCE, (Mince is not complete EMACS) that is sold by a small company called Mark of the Unicorn started by people who recently graduated from MIT. They also sell a text formatter called AMETHYST that is like SCRIBE that runs on the DEC-20. See the review in Dr. Dobbs Journal, April 1981. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Midwest Update: SQ, USQ, and Other New Programs =============================================== By: Ben Bronson, Hyde Park RCPM/RBBS A bunch of useful new stuff has appeared back here in the Midwest, most importantly SQ.COM and USQ.COM; file- compression and expansion utilities that work very easily and offer a 30-40% saving on disk space and modem time. Within a few weeks, most long files will be distributed in compressed form on most RCPM systems, so it'll be vital to get hold of USQ.COM, the 'unsqueezing' utility. Royal Oak (313-588-7054) and HP/RCPM (312-955-4493) have SQ/USQ up for downloading plus a batch of updates to older standard programs and a few good DOC files that, surprisingly, were not written by Kelly. Better give a call to one of the Chicago or Michigan systems on RCPMLIST and check what's available. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Rumor-MILL...Possible NEW Mega-RCPM System! =========================================== By: Kelly Smith, CP/M-Net There are tentative plans in the works for a multi-user (possible 32!) RCPM system, to be established by one of the biggest suppliers of CP/M compatible software. Main usage will be for two party message drop and transfer of software 'updates' to OEM users, as well as access to general information (newsletter type thing) and possibly a 'try- before-you-buy' facility for program demo's of software...the whole project is just at the 'discussion stage', and details for implementation still need to be defined...message system will probably be RBBS running via CP/NET in the PDP-11...amazing! In addition, remember that Reseda CA system that was posted on numerous RCPMLIST's that was 'due up in 2-3 weeks'? Well, lets try again...but this time same guy but in Manhatten NY! I suspect the system will sign on with "Currie's Software Emporium"...probably using RBBS and PMMI modem with...YES! 10 megabyte hard disk!