Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!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: <12849@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: 4 May 91 16:58:40 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Lines: 53

Michael D Mellinger writes:

> Forget that personal computer stuff.  The NeXT is more of a personal
> computer than a multiuser workstation.  My big hangup with using two
> different OS's is: what's the point.  When I sit down at a $2000
> machine why should things be any different than if I sit down at a
> $20,000 machine?  I would like the interface to be the same.  How do
> the added features hurt by being there?

They don't hurt, as long as you have all the disk space and CPU cycles
you need.  The CPU overhead to implement multi-user capability may be
small, but it isn't zero.

> In fact can you see the
> senerio where you leave your computer on all day so you are able to
> call it from work(or where ever you are) to do some work, or get some
> documents that you forgot.  Of course, you can always jump back in the
> car and drive 20mins-2 hours to get home.

Yes, I can see this scenario, because I actually live out this scenario with
a home PC running OS/2.  So I don't follow the argument here.  How does this
scenario make UNIX preferable to OS/2?

> What additional features does OS/2 offer over Unix(honest question)?
> Someone mentioned that you can interrupt the kernal.  Is OS/2
> realtime(I think I'm getting things confused here)?  DOS compatibility
> isn't a feature with me.  Anyway, it's only a software emulation
> program away.

I don't know enough about UNIX or OS/2 at the kernel level to compare them.
I deal with the user applications.  For example, calling the UNIX machine at
work from an OS/2 machine at home over a standard telephone line (no T1 lines
here) is easy.  Communications programs for OS/2 abound.  But calling my home
OS/2 machine from a UNIX machine at work isn't nearly as easy.  What do our
UNIX machines offer in the way of communications programs?  Can't use rlogin,
telnet, or ftp over this particular connection.  I have used cu, but it can't
compare to PC communications packages.  I've also used Kermit, but there are
faster file transfer protocols.  When I need to call my home PC, I usually
wind up doing it from another PC at work!  We could go on comparing the
available applications (CodeView and Multiscope versus adb and dbx and
whatever else UNIX has to offer), but it boils down to what people actually
use.  I have both OS/2 and UNIX machines available to me, and I find that
I am more productive and spend more time working on the OS/2 machine,
whatever the relative merits of the underlying operating systems.  To
paraphrase the Apple ad, the most powerful operating system is the one people
actually use.  OS/2 isn't for everybody, but neither is UNIX.

> And if you own a Unix machine, you are in control of it too. 

Not always.  There are some places that won't let a user attach a UNIX
workstation to a local network unless the local system administrator is
the only superuser on the UNIX workstation.  Of course, I doubt they would
let an OS/2 machine be attached to the network for the same reason.