Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!jmcarli
From: jmcarli@PacBell.COM (Jerry M. Carlin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 versus UNIX
Message-ID: <1991May21.153112.27613@PacBell.COM>
Date: 21 May 91 15:31:12 GMT
References: <1089@stewart.UUCP> <1991May15.110459.21996@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1101@stewart.UUCP>
Sender: news@PacBell.COM (Pacific Bell Netnews)
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Lines: 24

In article <1101@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>>Basically, everything OS/2 does is already available in some version of UNIX,
>Yes, this is probably true, but you must admit that UNIX is a horrible mess,
>with all the different versions floating around, each with its own set of
>deficiencies.

I don't admit any such thing. OS/2 is basically vaporware at this point
with at least 2 incompatible versions coming, IBM's and Microsoft's (if one
can believe the trade press). And, in fact, the next version is supposed
to be the one where we get all the 'benefits' of OS/2. These benefits are
available in UNIX today.

>Sorry, you're wrong.  The reason they went for a new OS has to do with the
>hardware for which it was initially written -- the Intel 286.  UNIX does not
>run well on that processor.

UNIX runs a lot better than OS/2 and uses less memory besides. Now if you
insist on running X, that is another matter. In fact, I was able to
run MINIX on an 8088, something OS/2 could not even begin to do. BTW,
IMHO Minix is a real UNIX, although simpler than the current versions.

--
Jerry M. Carlin	(415) 823-2441 jmcarli@srv.pacbell.com
To dream the impossible dream. To fight the unbeatable foe.