Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: A different View of the value of OS/2 - it's better than UNIX(TM)
Message-ID: <153@splut.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-Sep-87 09:44:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: splut.153
Posted: Sun Sep 20 09:44:52 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Sep-87 07:17:05 EDT
References: <494@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <961@looking.UUCP> <498@parcvax.Xerox.COM> <17@lzaz.ATT.COM>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 27
Summary: Ah, but will it be compatible?

In article <17@lzaz.ATT.COM>, bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (BRUCE SZABLAK) writes:
> UNIX(TM) has the demonstrated ability of running in a variety of hardware
> environments: micro to mainframe. Given recent history: 8008->8080->8086->
> 80186->80286->80386 and CPM->MSDOS->OS/2; it seems that this is essential
> for any competing OS. The question is: can OS/2 be true to its traditions,
> still have a future when the 80386 is history, and not collapse under its
> own weight in the end?
> 
> My personal opinion is there is no good reason to take that risk;
> UNIX(TM) will be there on the next generation of processors, and
> the generation following that one...

Except for one minor detail:

Un*x is NOT the portable solution everyone claims it is. If it were, we
wouldn't have all these discussions about "package X wants to run on System
V, can someone help me to get it going on 4.3BSD?" I've had little success
taking software off the net and making it go.

Maybe POSIX (or one of the other standards efforts) will succeed in this
regard, but I doubt it.

-- 
Jay Maynard, K5ZC (@WB5BBW)...>splut!< | uucp: hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay
Never ascribe to malice that which can |        or sun!housun!nuchat!--^
be adequately explained by stupidity.  | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD     CI$: 71036,1603
The opinions herein are shared by neither of my cats, much less anyone else.