Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!templar!jbickers
From: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: 8-bit death
Message-ID: <3424.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz>
Date: 9 May 91 07:37:44 GMT
References: <1991May2.104907.25975@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1075@stewart.UUCP> <3330.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> <1991May8.124648.17903@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: TAP, NZAmigaUG.
Lines: 29

Quoted from <1991May8.124648.17903@en.ecn.purdue.edu> by stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton):
> In article <3330.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes:
> >
> >    Does OS/2 multitask as nicely as Unix, have all those crontab and
> >    uucp facilities, the user/group/world file protection stuff, etc?

> out there.  UUCP is slightly easier (uupc is pretty good).  If these things
> can be added to DOS, they can surely be added to OS/2.  Why expect them to
> be built in?

    Having things as standard tools just seems more convenient to me than
    having them as extras. Sort of helps define the scope of the OS, I
    guess. Things a marketeer can rely on their customers having, a
    programmer can rely on being present, and so on.

> WRT file protection, wouldn't user/group/world make more sense on a
> multiuser machine?  At last count, OS/2 is a single-user, multitasking OS.

    Well, there it is. I think the original article compared OS/2 to
    Unix in some way, so I was wondering if OS/2 was a multiuser OS or
    not.

    Order of magnitude's difference between OSes that have to cater for
    multiple users as opposed to those that do not.

> Steve Wootton
--
*** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG.        jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
***         "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo.          ***