Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osupyr!vkr From: vkr@osupyr.mps.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Minix, Unix on the Amiga, and flames on AmigaDOS braindamage... Message-ID: <1332@osupyr.mps.ohio-state.edu> Date: 2 Aug 89 18:26:15 GMT References: <1610@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> <195@VAX1.CC.UAKRON.EDU> <513@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> Reply-To: Vidhyanath K. Rao Organization: Dept of Math, Ohio St U at Newark, Newark, OH 43055 Lines: 21 In article shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: >On 1 Aug 89 12:54:54 GMT, >lofaso@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Bernie Lofaso) said: >Bernie> There is also a more elegance of design to the AmigaDos system. Deven>AmigaDOS? More elegant than Unix? Don't make me laugh. I would say that AmigaDOS looks like a project from a B student: A good concept, but implementation shows lack of imagination and more importantly, inability to adapt to a different evoirment: Relying on BCPL thruout is only one instance of it. Another example [why I would give the implementation a B rather than an A] is packets implemented to support only co-routines, hijacking of the Message.Node.Name field etc. But I side with Bernie: Conceptually, AmigaDOS is more evolved than Unix. But then, it did come latter. -- It is the man, not the method, that Nath solves the problem. vkr@osupyr.mps.ohio-state.edu -Poincare. (614)-366-9341