>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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!

