Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!kddlab!icot32!nttlab!utogw!kuno
From: kuno@utogw.gssm.otsuka.tsukuba.JUNET (Yasushi Kuno)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: TRON (a little long)
Message-ID: <272@utogw.gssm.otsuka.tsukuba.JUNET>
Date: 24 Jun 89 05:05:04 GMT
References: <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu> <3341@titcce.cc.titech.JUNET>
Sender: news@utogw.gssm.otsuka.tsukuba.JUNET
Lines: 55

In article <3341@titcce.cc.titech.JUNET>,
	mohta@necom830.cc.titech.junet (Masataka Ohta) says:

> TRON was supported by many vendors because it prevent NEC from
> monopolizing the government's computer market for education. As
> NEC's PC9801 (msdos 8086 machine) was the only usable machine
> when department of education was choosing the machine for education,
> other vendors cooperated and promoted TRON as their standard.

It might be true, but I don't care about these political issue.

From my point of view, the TRON project is developping:

    A new instruction set architecture (TRON Chip),
    A new real-time OS kernel (ITORN),
    A new man-machine interface style and architecture (BTRON),
    A new OS architecture for central server machine (CTORN),
    A new distributed computer network architecture (MTRON),

and these result may have some inpact on us.  I myself have
interests in BTRON user interface, which is a bit similar to
Macintosh, but is fairy different.  To my understanding,
everything in BTRON are a kind of uniform hypertext, and one
can handle these thru standard text editor (something like
"Hyper" MacWrite?) and standard graphics editor (MacDraw?).
I don't know well about the other part of the project...

> Bad standards will have bad impacts.

It's the TRON Project's standard, not my standard.  So if
it were successful, I shall use it.  If not, I don't care.

> MOST JAPANESE RESEARCHERS DO NOT CARE EITHER. WE USE UNIX.

So I am not included in the "MOST" above.  I have interests.
But I do like Unix, too.

So far I spoke in favor of TRON.  Now another side.  Firstly,
I am suspicious because its project area is far too huge and
vague.  Well, it might not be a problem because of Prof.
Sakamura's great intelligence.  But as someone has pointed
out here, TRON Chip might not be CICS if it were designed
today.  Built-in systems should prefer simpler chips in spite
of complex compilers, aren't they?  Any system will get
obsolete if it takes too long to develop.  I wish they could
get rid of such obsoleteness somehow...

> I don't like MSDOS, but it is far better than TRON.

Oh, I hate MSDOS.

						Yasushi Kuno
			Graduate School of Systems Management
				  University of Tsukuba, Tokyo
				kuno@gssm.otsuka.tsukuba.ac.jp