Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:39056 comp.unix.xenix:8803
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!cbema!las
From: cbema!las@cbnews.ATT.COM (cbema!las)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: deep-six os/2
Keywords: os/2 xenix
Message-ID: <11846@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 30 Nov 89 18:37:00 GMT
References: <4003@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: cbema!las@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr,20650,cb,9a110,6148605851)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, OH (actually an AGS consultant)
Lines: 24

In article <4003@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> kthompso@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov (Kevin W. Thompson) writes:
}In article <12@tcistl2.UUCP> sccm@tcistl2.UUCP (Mason) writes:
}}The details of my situation are not very important, but I am faced with
}}having to make a presentation tomorrow morning (89/11/29 0900 hrs CST) as
}}to why OS/2 is inferior to xenix.

}Deep six OS/2?  Give a presentation on why OS/2 is inferior to XENIX?

[Discussion about the relationshiip of "superiority" to context and
criteria for evaluation omitted.]

}Statements about superiority of operating systems which do not
}relate to a context are intellectually dishonest.

But... but... my personal prejudices are laws of nature!

:-)

regards, Larry
-- 
Signed: Larry A. Shurr (cbema!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbema!las)
Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave
(With apologies to the real thing.  The above represents my views only.)
(Please note my mailing address.  Mail sent directly to cbnews doesn't make it.)