Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
From: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Anyone?
Message-ID: <693@omen.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jun 88 05:50:08 GMT
References: <1866@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <216100037@trsvax> <1084@usfvax2.EDU>
Reply-To: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Organization: Omen Technology Inc, Portland Oregon
Lines: 26

In article <1084@usfvax2.EDU> whitley@usfvax2.usf.edu.UUCP (John S. Whitley II) writes:
:OS/2 & Pres. Manager combination(SAA).  Besides, the big compiler vendors
:in the DOS market are making their compilers for OS/2 now, NOT Unix.  
:Turbo C on Unix, I think not!  Nor anything with "Microsoft" on the label.

The SCO Xenix C compiler *is* the Microsoft C compiler, minus
a few of the bugs that infest the DOS flavors.  And since it
is compiled 32 bit, the 386 Xenix compiler runs fast and
doesn't complain about running out of memory when there's 4MB
left on the machine.  The Green Hills C compiler is available
for those who aren't satisfied with the default compiler.  The
only need for a TurboC is to compile DOS programs wiht non
standard features in the TurboC library.  If one really needs
TurboC, it can be run in a DOS partition.

As for hackers and free software, it's hard to say, but
consider: One really wants a 386 box with a good sized disk to
run OS/2, and such a box runs 386 *nix just fine, thank you.
There's a cornucopia of PD Unix software to entice the hacker
(X windows, GNU, Netnews, Nethack, comp.sources.*) and one can
put *nix on one's disk for less $$$ than OS/2 and an "equivalent"
set of "quality" tools.

There is one feature of OS/2 I like.  It doesn't have a file system
clean/dirty flag, so one doesn't have to clean the file system
every time one hardware resets the system.