Unix vs DOS, which was better?

>>57745035
Unix
because

1. Its newer
2. Its what Dos should of been.

>>57745119
Unix is from 1971, retard.

>>57745119
>should of
Why can't tripfags ever english properly?

File: att-unix-pc-boot.jpg (40KB, 413x259px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 413x259px

Both had their respective place among businesses and home users.

Arguably UNIX is the superior operating system technically speaking.

DOS was and still is superior.
bare metal programming is always superior.

>>57745119
>should of

Dos because money

>>57745522
DOS is literally obsolete garbage in every way compared to UNIX.

>>57745035
I used msdos for years, and I been using linux for a while but the commands, the syntax of the commands and the ability to couple comands with the output of other commands in unix just makes shit more complicated than it has to be.

Dos offers you a directory structure a child can understand, it offers a learning curve much lower than Unix/Linux does. What it doesn't have is current up to date development of the OS or the software.

Suppose for the sake of argument that for example, FreeDOS would have removed the 640k barrier, had added on multi user, privileges support, and ability to manage more than one program at a time and able to switch between them, it would still be far easier to use than Unix/Linux is.

But Dos is dead and Unix/Linux isn't.

>>57745669

the availability of multi-threading and multi-process userspaces before either were necessary for the user is directly responsible for why the web is shit

immature multi-threaded environments are why each one of your programs has to load its own font rendering runtime to draw to screen

unix is a mediocre 70s server environment but it fails utterly as a single coherent userspace process for personal computing

>>57745740
are you seriously defending dos?

>>57745840
Different uses different purposes.

DOS is a single user single environment unitasker OS that works great for personal computers.

Unix is the exact opposite, it was literally made for servers.

The problem is today we all want to run server OSs on our computers and we really don't have a choice.

>>57745840

I'm defending userspaces that aren't schizophrenic

I personally use linux because Linus was the first to lead a mature i386 platform capable of networking, but my dream platform would be a single-address spaced environment like DOS

an example: each application in unix has to load its own library for graphics, font rendering, networking etc. in DOS video memory is mapped out in a linear block; rendering font is as simply as calling a global function for drawing and loading your font map; likewise you could shuffle around video memory elsewhere if you wanted to look at something else

>>57745901
multi user environments are more secure... what's the problem?

>>57745937

>multi user environments are more secure... what's the problem?

that's wrong, mult user environments have a larger surface area for security problems stop talking out of your ass

>>57745937
>are more secure
That totally depends on the user.

>>57745934
I honestly think you'd be trading a lot of security for such a small performance improvement.

>>57745950
you're talking about exploits now. there would be far more vulnerabilities in a single user system. every way in is access to everything.. try harder.

>>57745951
this is the correct way to think about it.

>>57746076

>I honestly think you'd be trading a lot of security for such a small performance improvement.

over 3/4s of Linux security issues have been due to permissions elevations

>try harder

16-22 year old male high school or student CS major, please qualify why the single-task environment model presents an inherent security risk over multi-user, multi-process environments

>>57745035
Almost everything these days is nix-based so I say unix wins.

>>57746169
Pardon my egotism above. I'm curious now, what do you think is SAFER about giving complete access in the only environment accessing the system? Isn't that exactly what you should NOT do? What would be the security advantage? Maybe I'm just not wrapping my head around this concept, I only know that controlling access is a logical step in security. Why is providing constant access to the entire system a good thing?

>>57745934
>each application in unix has to load its own library
Only if that library hasn't been loaded by a previous program. Almost everything uses shared libraries now.

>>57746169
>over 3/4s of Linux security issues have been due to permissions elevations

So 3/4 of the problems occur when Linux's multiuser model begins to approximate a single user. There's a reason Temple OS doesn't do networking.

>>57746169
>please qualify why the single-task environment model presents an inherent security risk over multi-user, multi-process environments
Owning the computer is a one step process. If any application exposes a vulnerability, the whole system will be owned instead of a restricted portion of it.

>>57746320

>If any application exposes a vulnerability, the whole system will be owned instead of a restricted portion of it.
>Why is providing constant access to the entire system a good thing?

while many single task OS's (like DOS, at this point I'm not really defending it except on the grounds that you'd be hard pressed to find any modern virus DOS botnets or viruses) do this, this has nothing to do with the single userspace model itself; security restrictions or sandboxes can be set at any place in the program(s)

that said, imagine Terry adds networking support to TempleOS. its unlikely or impossible that anyone will hack it because /he understands every level of his stack/. This is power that single userspaces allow to an advanced user.

>controlling access is a logical step in security

increasing the amount of things you have to control across spaces is also a security liability, as in mechanical engineering the more moving parts the more ways something can go wrong

saying single userspaces are an inherent security threat is like saying VMs are a security threat: they're not, sometimes they actually increase security.

>>57745740
>adopted by major computer industry giants like HP, IBM, Sun, among others
>continues to be the backbone of most enterprises and business around the world
>inadvertently started the free software movement
>has influenced multiple successful projects to replicate the operating system.
>ported and adapted to all sorts of computers ranging from PC's to embedded systems.
I don't think mediocre is the right word there buddy.

>>57745035
>ITT a bunch of dumb mother fuckers that don't know that MS-DOS was based on/a clone of Unix.

>>57746506
ya but its e z 2 use

>>57746491

http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf

ctrl+f Sun


>>57746506
? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M

>>57746562
>published in 1994
lol who fucking cares, the UNIX-Haters Handbook is more of a comedic read than anything else at this point.

>>57746709
your faggot ass was published in 1994

>>57746562
Jesus Christ that email reads like a /g/ autism attack. Now I wanna read the entire book

>>57746709
I don't know if it's you who doesn't understand Unix or me. Even though the OS is has been updated, it's still basically the same OS the same way MS-DOS 3 is basically the same as MS-DOS 7 under windows 98.

Meaning if you can use it in 94 you can use it today, if you understand the basic principles and commands you can use it today as you did then

>>57745035
DOS has more games

Anything that can access your files is just a dangerous as a rogue app that can access arbitrary memory. IE, every fucking OS in existence.

The only point of mmu and priviledge is MULTI USER not security. privs do not stop a rogue app from fucking your files. This is what you unix weenies just dont understand.

A desktop/pc system doesn't need multiuser or perms or mmu. its just a giant hack that doesn't do anything.

Amiga flat memory model was far better and far more performant than the shoe-horned pc experience latched onto NT and Unices.

I'm not the same guy as was prev. posting, however, I've been around long enough to know the score.

If you want real security use OS in ROM like the old days.

>>57745706
>FreeDOS would have removed the 640k barrier
That is not some software barrier.

>>57746372
Look at how android apps work. That's multi user as well

File: haiku.png (54KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 800x600px

It must be said, the only viable personal (I mean, only YOURS) computing OS now is Haiku.
It already has a bunch of software, and it's POSIX-compatible - is there really something better?
Contribute to Haiku to make it come true!

>>57749694
Are trying to be autistic because I think you know exactly what I meant. It is a barrier that the OS can't get around on its own, you have to manage it by loading this or that into high memory and even that has limitations. As far as I remember, and I could be very wrong once you ran or loaded something into memory you couldn't go terminate it until you rebooted. That is not a useful/practical way to manage anything for the user, it is a barrier.

Oracle, make Solaris GPL you fuckers!!!!

>>57745119
should have been should have

>>57751692
Where?

File: b7bdc6139feef047894666314f17389c.jpg (20KB, 308x313px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 308x313px

>>57745937
>>57746320
>a single program/script/command can encrypt my files without me knowing
>but it's alright because the system files which I download from the internet are safe

Great security you got there bud

>>57751092
>yfw they're taking so long to develop that the 32bit x86's they mad it for are now out of date

Reminds me of that Amiga-like OS that only works on PPC.

>>57749676
This. You can actually do this somewhat on the SBCs that are out these days by just flicking the write-protect switch.

I mean, it's not even close to being as secure as "literally cannot be rewritten by the hardware it's connected to," but it's about as close as we can approximate these days.

>>57749654
This

Why shoehorn a multi user os on a mobile personal device? You just kill the battery, require gigabytes of ram and multi-core cpu just to protect base system while any rogue app can upload and steal your files and track your location.

Fuck the Unix and NT hegemony!

File: haiku.png (26KB, 266x220px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 266x220px

>>57751092
>haiku

It's dead, Jim.

This thread seems to be stuck in the past from when a computer never had to deal with foreign attacks, and just sat there doing its work offline. Nowadays operating systems need to be made as if they're sitting idle for days at a time but still connected to the web. In a lot of ways the web has killed personal computing because you spend most of your time on your "personal" computer connected to other people's and totally dependent on those "other people" to actually get any use out of it.

I'm not against the web, God no, but rather I'm just pointing out the effect that it's had on computing.

>>57751092
RISC OS is faster, but software is VERY lacking, and is (obviously) contained to ARM architecture. There's the AROS family of Amiga-like platforms that work under x86, and they seem very snappy and I think they're API compatible with original 68k software.

>>57755532
>require gigabytes of ram and multi-core cpu

They'd put that in anyway just so they can say "look how big the numbers are in this version!"

If we only ever got on desktops what was actually NEEDED then we'd probably still be on 400MHz and 128MB of RAM.

>>57745035
They're both shit.

>>57755756
This exact thing is why I've been wanting a second laptop, May get another x220 to use as an airgapped machine just to do "personal computer" stuff

>>57751092
No WiFi support.

>>57746949
/thread

>>57756619
It does in the latest nightly. At least it works on my T60.

>>57756718
Doesn't work on my R51 or X220.

>>57756314
I don't understand your argument.

Getting on our computers what we actually need is the entire motto of this board (install gentoo)

The point being you should be the one in control of your computer not Microsoft or anyone else, computers would have evolved regardless of the software developments, the need for power efficiency has always been paramount and always will be,

>>57756737
Well I don't know then.

>>57756784
>you should be the one in control of your computer not Microsoft or anyone else

We had that before. People decided they'd rather be doing things than copying BASIC from a magazine to make the colors flash.

>>57745139
Remind me when the last official update of DOS was, again?

>>57755756

>Nowadays operating systems need to be made as if they're sitting idle for days at a time but still connected to the web

no they don't, not all PC users are checking their twitter account 24/7, operating systems need to cater user/developer needs

and you're still conflating single-process userspaces with that notation that "everything is accessible all the time", no no no no, sandboxed VMs do this all the time, and if you are running it alone atop an OS you're technically running a single process userspace

>>57756893

>BASIC

I've compiled DOS programs with Lisp, there are TCP/IP and crypto libraries for DOS, learn to write drivers, there is no inherent limitation here beyond your ignorance

>>57757081
>not all PC users are checking their twitter account 24/7
No, but the app on their phone probably is.

>>57757161
>tfw too intelligent to know about Apple //s, C64s, Spectrums, etc.