Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!turnkey!orchard.la.locus.com!prodnet.la.locus.com!romulus.la.locus.com!richp From: richp@romulus.la.locus.com (Richard L. Pettit Jr.) Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix Subject: Re: AIX PS/2 patch 1009: Which Tape? Large SCSIs? Summary: This has nothing to do with the subject. Message-ID: <21334@oolong.la.locus.com> Date: 18 Jan 91 15:21:20 GMT References: <1991Jan17.225248.5539@odin.corp.sgi.com> Sender: news@locus.com Reply-To: richp@locus.com (Richard L. Pettit Jr.) Followup-To: e-mail Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Inglewood, CA Lines: 26 In article <1991Jan17.225248.5539@odin.corp.sgi.com> jeffs@soul.esd.sgi.com (Jeff Smith) writes: >probably by an order of magnitude). AIX on the PS/2 has never had >much support from IBM. Oh, thank you Jeff for pointing this out and NOT being a Locus employee. I've been screaming bloody murder to Locus management since day one that IBM treats AIX PS/2 & 370 as the ugly stepchild just as it does to any OS that wasn't developed by IBM or Microsoft. If I may babble for a moment, I really like the 386/486 architecture. And even though I hoped that IBM would go down in flames when it turned it's back on an industry effort to standardize the 32 bit bus for PCs back in the '86-87 time frame, I still like the PS/2 and the microchannel. As far as I'm concerned there is *no better* operating system to be had for the [34]86 architecture even though it will only run on a PS/2. There is more bias towards BSD 4.3 in that statement than there is towards the product that is sold by the company for which I'm employed. I won't bother pointing out all the "features" of other UNIX OSs that are available for these processors that make AIX PS/2 all the more desirable. I've wasted enough bandwidth as it is. Rich ---- Richard Pettit Locus Computing Corp. richp@locus.com "Opinions expressed herein are of the author, not (LCC or IBM)"