Xref: utzoo comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:7128 comp.sys.ibm.pc:46921
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!uwvax!daffy!cat9.cs.wisc.edu!schaut
From: schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix
Message-ID: <4513@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 22 Mar 90 12:36:26 GMT
References: <90070.221543GILLA@QUCDN.BITNET> <4473@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <6508@skinner.nprdc.arpa> <4492@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <1990Mar21.084532.11387@utgard.uucp>
Sender: news@daffy.cs.wisc.edu
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 24

Note the newsgroups and followup-to lines in the header.  This discussion
belongs in c.s.i.p more than it belongs in c.b.i.p.d.

In article <1990Mar21.084532.11387@utgard.uucp> chris@utgard.uucp (Chris Anderson) writes:
| 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".

1) While one can make UNIX work on a tightly-coupled multi-processor system,
without multi-threading the system will not take full advantage of having
multiple processors.

2) While AT&T, Berkely, Sun, and a host of others decide on a standard
way to implement multi-threading in UNIX, I'll use good old standard OS/2.
I prefer not to wait for committees.  They are notoriously slow.

--
Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu)

"I'm a theory geek; we use Turing machines!"--Gary Lewandowski