Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!uwvax!daffy!cat9.cs.wisc.edu!schaut From: schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix Message-ID: <4475@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> Date: 15 Mar 90 16:19:31 GMT References: <90052.182144CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu> <6937@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> <16155@smunews.UUCP> <25e6d6ed.26a3@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <25e85897.57ec@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <21786@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <27788@cup.portal.com> <900 Sender: news@daffy.cs.wisc.edu Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 31 In article <90070.224516DLV101@psuvm.psu.edu> DLV101@psuvm.psu.edu (Dwaine VanBibber) writes: | A lot of people need a multi-user PC!! Well, give me a for-instance. One interesting development within the department here at UW is that large multi-user machines are being replaced by networked workstations with distributed processing facilities. Where in such an environment do I need multi-user capabilities? | I agree with one of the previous opinions that OS/2 is just Unix reinvented. | Its not really necessary. You can run existing DOS applications on a Unix | box..more than one at a time also..which you can't do with OS/2. Show me a _standard_ version of UNIX that can handle tightly coupled CPU's in a multi-processor workstation. OS/2 is most definitely _not_ UNIX reinvented. | They should have just developed a REALLY GOOD GUI (PM or even NeXTStep) to run | ontop of Unix. And they ought to ship the damned development tools with it, | as Sun does with Openwindows. If I have 30 workstations for 20 users and 10 developers, you would have me paying for the "damned development tools" for the 20 workstations being used by people who aren't doing any development. It's a good thing you don't run a business. You'd run it into the ground. -- Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu) "I'm a theory geek; we use Turing machines!"--Gary Lewandowski