Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!vax.cs.pitt.edu!jonathan From: jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) Newsgroups: comp.sys.sequent Subject: Re: Mach as a replacement O/S (was obsolete software) Message-ID: Date: 25 Mar 91 10:29:42 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> <266@raysnec.UUCP> Sender: news@pitt.UUCP Organization: University of Pittsburgh Computer Science Lines: 21 In article <266@raysnec.UUCP> shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes: gustav> Aha, one more thing... Someone suggested here in comp.sys.sequent gustav> that Sequent should embrace OSF/2. What Sequent could do is to gustav> provide two alternative OSs - much like DIGITAL (VMS and Ultrix) gustav> or CRAY (once upon a time). A system such as OSF/2 may turn to gustav> be highly portable and with much of the work already done by OSF gustav> maintenance on the side of the Sequent could be much reduced. shwake> Might one be so blunt as to point out that OSF/2 does not exist! shwake> Heck, OSF only released OSF/1 last November. Realistically, don't shwake> expect OSF/2 for another 18-24 months, perhaps another year beyond that shwake> for it to appear as a robust, commercial product. I'd be *real surprised* to see OSF/2 in 18-24 months. This mythical beast is nowhere close. OSF is much more likely to release incremental systems, some of which may partially adopt the true micro-kernel approach. Specialized server implementations, for example. At least, this is what Ira Goldstein et al were saying at Uniforum this Janurary. At this point, OSF/2 is identical to Microsoft's NT -- micro-kernel-vaporware.