Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!samsung!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!tholen
From: tholen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (David Tholen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: (Sigh) Here we go again...
Message-ID: <12847@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: 4 May 91 03:46:05 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Lines: 38

Tom Hundt writes:

> Guys, the big thing that Unix has that I like, that is missing from
> OS/2, is that it's multi*user* (and not just multi*tasking*)!

Yes, OS/2 was designed as a single-user operating system.  It was designed
for the PC, and the P stands for "personal".  Nevertheless, I have read
about at least two companies that have licensed the source code for OS/2
and built multi-user capabilities on top of the basic system, so if you
want multi-user OS/2, you can have it.  As for me, I am the only person
using my computer, so why should I saddle it with all sorts of multi-user
capabilities that I'll never use?  There are lots of Sun workstations out
there now that sit on a person's desk and get used by only one person, so
all of that wonderful UNIX multi-user capability isn't being used anyway.

> OS/2 is missing the whole multiple user concept, what with
> directories, security, etc.  This, to me, is why one might call
> OS/2 a "baby" operating system.  (Macintosh has the same shortcoming.)

I don't follow you here.  OS/2 does have directories.  So does DOS for that
matter.  The era of the central mainframe computer with dumb terminals on
people's desks is giving way to the distributed computing approach we're
seeing nowadays, with multiple CPUs connected via networks.  PCs running
OS/2 can be easily networked.  I think this is what IBM had in mind for
multiple users.

> So: please realize that you are comparing apples and oranges.  I
> like them both.

Yes, they are apples and oranges (figuratively speaking).  If you need
extensive multi-user support, UNIX is the obvious choice.  If you don't,
OS/2 is an excellent choice.  I use both, but I must say that I like OS/2
better, if for no other reason than the fact that I know enough to run an
OS/2 system myself; UNIX machines often need system administrators to
manage the system, and you had better know C.  I am constantly annoyed by
changes in the behavior of our UNIX systems, and I can usually trace the
problem to something a system administrator did.  With my OS/2 PC, I get
consistent behavior, because I'm in control.