Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Re: Object oriented Message-ID: <569@opus.UUCP> Date: Tue, 26-Jun-84 01:32:49 EDT Article-I.D.: opus.569 Posted: Tue Jun 26 01:32:49 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jun-84 01:03:04 EDT References: <2224@mit-eddie.UUCP> <296@harvard.ARPA> <2235@mit-eddie.UUCP> Organization: NBI, Boulder Lines: 25 >> From: brownell@harvard.ARPA (Dave Brownell) > >> But ... I asked for an OS written in LISP or some object >> oriented language that supported ONE HUNDRED users ... > >Take a hundred Lisp Machines. Connect then together with a network. >Put on some file servers, print servers, etc. Voila, you have a >computer system that supports ONE HUNDRED users... Sure. And, to borrow the tired old analogy, if I ask to have a child born in one month, you'll just find nine women for the project! The argument that = doesn't hold, even with a network to connect the single-user machines. If you try to get the sort of interaction possible on the large machine, you end up with n processors doing nothing but I/O. Moreover (but a slight side issue) the single large machine can focus resources briefly on a large problem that will hopelessly overwhelm the small processors. I'm not saying that the large machine is superior; it's just different and not reasonably comparable to a collection of small machines. (BTW, what's the cost of those hundred LISP machines?) -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.