Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!IUS1.CS.CMU.EDU!edw
From: edw@IUS1.CS.CMU.EDU (Eddie Wyatt)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Unix vs. OS/2 (was RE: Pournelle on Unix)
Message-ID: <603@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 7 Jan 88 16:39:09 GMT
References: <11156@brl-adm.ARPA>
Sender: netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 54
Summary: I tired of this


     Please specify what flavor of Unix you are talking about because....

In article <11156@brl-adm.ARPA>, GUTHERY%ASC%sdr.slb.com@RELAY.CS.NET (guthery%asc@sdr.slb.com) writes:
> 1) Here are some O/S goodies that stock OS/2 (now playing on my desk)
> has that stock Unix (also playing on my desk) doesn't have:
> 	- built-in light weight processes blended compatibly 
> 	  with heavy weight processes 

	Mach a Unix kernal (4.2 BSD compadible) has threads and tasks
	light weight and heavy weight process respectively.

> 	- runtime dynamic linking and demand loading

	Is posible under BSD 4.2 Unix - I don't know how its done but
	we have someone around here maintaining a load at run time
	library.

> 	- shared global memory segments

	Sys V has shared memory segments. So does Sun 3.2 and later
	additions after merging BSD and Sys V.

> 	- file locking by byte region

	Sys V file locking.

> 	- standard system calls from drivers

	That's an advantage?

> 	- periodic signals

	BDS SIGALRM

> 	- systemwide semaphores

	SYS V maybe I'm not sure.

> 	- file write-though

	Not sure what you mean.

> 	- system trace
	ptrace ?

  I'm not condemning OS/2 never played with it, just stating some
of the features you attribute to only OS/2 are in a number of flavors
of Unix.  

				
-- 

Eddie Wyatt 				e-mail: edw@ius1.cs.cmu.edu