Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald
From: mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: OS/2 programmer's model
Message-ID: <45900074@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 11-Sep-87 11:26:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uxe.45900074
Posted: Fri Sep 11 11:26:00 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Sep-87 08:27:13 EDT
References: <109@laura.UUCP>
Lines: 46
Nf-ID: #R:laura.UUCP:109:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:45900074:000:2367
Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald    Sep 11 10:26:00 1987


>Generally i agree with what David writes in his article. Considering all the
>similarities between OS/2 and *IX i wonder "why OS/2 at all". I do not see
>REAL advantages over *IXes. As far as i know Microport offers a package which
>allows one MS-DOS task under their UNIX. So this offers all OS/2 does.
>Any comments ??

Yes indeed!

The REAL reason for OS/2 is that IBM is trying to grab CONTROL over the PC
world and YOUR COMPUTER. A properly written protected operating system makes
it MUCH harder for the user to wrest control from the writer of a 
proprietary program!

HOWEVER: If the user of a single-user system (such as OS/2) has physical
control of the machine, he is going to be able, eventually, to get around
any barrier. IBM and Microsoft seem to realize this, and aren't going
out of their way to make it hard (like VMS seems to be doing).

Actually, according to what I have been reading on the BIX (tm) OS/2
conference, there are going to be lots of differences between OS/2 and
**ix. Unix is a very different philosophy from MS-DOS; one is multi-user,
the other single user. I think that Microsoft is trying to write a
SINGLE-USER multitasking system that incorporates as many of the feature
of MS-DOS as possible. Among other things, MS-DOS allows a user to
set up his own operating environment with terminate-and-stay-resident
utilities like Sidekick and Pro-Key. This is very un-Unixy. One thing
OS/2 is trying to do is to organize these things to reduce the chaos that
results from "TSR conflict". Whether they succeed is a big question.
Another thing that I hope they do is to provide a mechanism for seamless
transfer of text and graphics between applications, as the Macintosh
already does. I have not read about whether or not they are trying to do this.

The Unix kernal is really a primitive operating system. I'll bet that OS/2
will be much more complicated. Let's wait until we see the whole thing
before deciding.

(I use Unix, VMS, MS-DOS, and RT-11(pdp-11) every day and I find that
I frequently have temper tantrums over all but RT-11. I think that that
says something. I'll admit that Unix gives me fewer than VMS or MS-DOS.)

Doug McDonald

(this note written on a Micro-term VT-100 clone connected to a PDP-11/73
running RT-11 connected to a VAX11/780 running VMS connected over a
Sytek Localnet to a Pyramid 90 running Unix.)