Path: utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bigsur!bnr-rsc!bcarh61!schow
From: schow@bcarh61.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Killer Micros
Summary: Oh no, you said the magic word.
Message-ID: <1576@bnr-rsc.UUCP>
Date: 26 Nov 89 05:00:15 GMT
References: <3257@husc6.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@bnr-rsc.UUCP
Reply-To: bcarh61!schow@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 29
Followup-To:
Keywords:

In article <3257@husc6.harvard.edu> reiter@harvard.harvard.edu () writes:
>
>(2) Mainframe operating systems (e.g. MVS) are much superior to Killer Micro
>OS's (inevitably a UNIX variant) in terms of reliability, security, error
>recovery and the like, and also make far better use of that $5M worth of
>peripherals.  Sure, programming under MVS is a nightmare (I've done it),
>and most programmers would probably prefer to write UNIX code.  But, from
>an end-user's perspective, MVS has a lot of advantages, and the above-mentioned
>corporate buyer is unlikely to move to a Killer Micro system until such a
>system has a competitive OS.
>

Boy, this is most likely a mega-flame starter. I have found that there
are few issues that can generate as much flames as RICS vs CICS. The 
most notable is Unix vs anything.

You not only said "Killer Micros" won't kick ass in the real world, you
also said Unix is not as good as MVS. I hope you have a really thick
asbestas suit. :-) Well, at least you didn't get into the language wars
or the editor wars. :-)


BTW, I happen to agree your accessments but the Killer Micros do have
their places in some scientific computing jobs.

Stanley Chow        BitNet:  schow@BNR.CA
BNR		    UUCP:    ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow
(613) 763-2831		     ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!schow%bcarh61
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.