Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!utgard!chris
From: chris@utgard.uucp (Chris Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix
Message-ID: <1990Mar21.084532.11387@utgard.uucp>
Date: 21 Mar 90 16:45:29 GMT
References: <90070.221543GILLA@QUCDN.BITNET> <4473@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <6508@skinner.nprdc.arpa> <4492@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Organization: QMA, Inc., Rancho Cordova, California
Lines: 21
FollowupTo:
ReplyTo: chris@utgard.UUCP (Chris Anderson)

In article <4492@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) writes:
>Simply a bias towards standards (I _did_ use that word).  The LAN Manager
>is a standardized addon.  So far, AT&T hasn't published _anything_ that
>will enable UNIX to handle tightlycoupled CPU's.  In that sense, the LAN
>Manager is a part of OS/2 that users can opt not to buy.

What about 3b4000's?  They have tightly coupled CPU's and run SVR3.
This whole bit about tightly coupled CPU's is ridiculous...  There
are plenty of manufacturers out there who use unix on machines with
tightly coupled CPU's.  AT&T is *not* the last word in Unix.  Nor do
they define what Unix is or isn't.  That's one of the reasons that
OSF was created, to allow other manufacturers to have some say as
to what Unix "is".


Chris
-- 
| Chris Anderson  						       |
| QMA, Inc.		        email : {csusac,sactoh0}!utgard!chris  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| My employer never listens to me, so why should he care what I say?   |