Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!purdue!haven!boingo.med.jhu.edu!aplcen!wb3ffv!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake From: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) Newsgroups: comp.sys.sequent Subject: Re: Mach as a replacement O/S (was obsolete software) Message-ID: <266@raysnec.UUCP> Date: 15 Mar 91 21:43:39 GMT References: <53625@sequent.UUCP> <123459@uunet.UU.NET> <536@coatimundi.cs.arizona.edu> <1991Mar13.221353@arp.anu.edu.au> <1991Mar13.222938@arp.anu.edu.au> Organization: IRS/CI - Technical Solutions Branch Lines: 16 gustav@arp.anu.edu.au (Zdzislaw Meglicki) writes: >Aha, one more thing... Someone suggested here in comp.sys.sequent >that Sequent should embrace OSF/2. What Sequent could do is to >provide two alternative OSs - much like DIGITAL (VMS and Ultrix) >or CRAY (once upon a time). A system such as OSF/2 may turn to >be highly portable and with much of the work already done by OSF >maintenance on the side of the Sequent could be much reduced. Might one be so blunt as to point out that OSF/2 does not exist! Heck, OSF only released OSF/1 last November. Realistically, don't expect OSF/2 for another 18-24 months, perhaps another year beyond that for it to appear as a robust, commercial product. ----------- uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake shwake@rsxtech