Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!gandalf.cs.cmu.edu!lindsay
From: lindsay@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Lead time to a working system.
Message-ID: <13013@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 12 May 91 06:15:24 GMT
References: <1991Apr30.191117.4373@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> <576@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> <3411@spim.mips.COM> <48857@ut-emx.uucp>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 11

In article <48857@ut-emx.uucp> dboles@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Boles) writes:
>Can anyone even name an OS that was completed on time?

For an OS, "completed" == "dead".

If you mean, a version being shipped on schedule, then, yes. In
particular, porting something from the R3000 to the R4000 (32-bit
mode) shouldn't be the stuff of legends. If there's an OS schedule
slip, it will more likely be for other reasons.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute