Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:3083 comp.os.misc:1818 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!uupsi!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.os.misc Subject: OS/2 versus UNIX Message-ID: <1991May15.110459.21996@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 15 May 91 11:04:59 GMT References: <1075@stewart.UUCP> <3330.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> <1089@stewart.UUCP> Followup-To: comp.os.misc Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 25 [Followups directed to comp.os.misc... this has nothing to do with c.s.a.a] In article <1089@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: > [OS/2] multitasks *BETTER* than UNIX. It has lightweight processes (threads), > the concept of the foreground process, etc. Well, to begin with, the "concept of the foreground process" is a major step back from UNIX's dynamic priority reallocation, which automatically gives more CPU time to *all* interactive processes... not just the one that happens to have an active window. As for threads, I've written a set of fairly portable threads routines and posted them a couple of years back. If you want kernel threads, there are variants of UNIX that do that. Basically, everything OS/2 does is already available in some version of UNIX, and the only reason IBM and Microsoft went for a new O/S instead of tuning a UNIX variant to their tastes is marketing hype to keep users locked in to proprietary systems. I don't like DOS. I despise the very idea of OS/2. > It has dynamic-link libraries, more IPC mechanisms than UNIX ever dreamed of, More IPC mechanisms? That's supposed to be good? How about AmigaOS, which has one very good IPC mechanism? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .