Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: Interactive and me - An open letter to ISC. Message-ID: Date: 13 Jul 90 18:47:31 GMT References: <3126@rsiatl.UUCP> <783@digi.lonestar.org> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 31 In article <783@digi.lonestar.org> cfoughty@digi.lonestar.org (Cy Foughty) writes: > Please don't flame me to hard. OS/2 1.2 provides a much > better solution. Costs less, easier to ADMIN, and needs a > lot less iron. Let's see... I have run UNIX systems on a stock PC/XT with 640K RAM. Yep, OS/2 needs a lot less iron. > A much richer programming environment Yep. You have Microsoft C, and Microsoft C. > and soooo > much easier to connect to a network. How can you possibly connect a single-user box to a network? A network is inherently a multi-user environment. What do you do... give up on security or run everything in a strict client-or-server setup? > I know this is a Unix > based network, but if one evaluates OBJECTIVELY, OS/2 vs. Unix > OS/2 wins in most of the categories, not all, but most. OS/2 is probably adequate for a single-user workstation, but there are much cheaper alternatives for that. How about a system that supports useful multitasking in as little as 512K? > For that fact it > shouldn't be "OS/2 vs. Unix". No, it should be OS/2 versus AmigaOS, Microsoft Windows, and Mac System 7. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180.