Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!ubvax!vsi1!daver!mfgfoc!exodus
From: exodus@mfgfoc.UUCP (Greg Onufer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Porting utilities to the ST.
Message-ID: <370@mfgfoc.UUCP>
Date: 1 Jul 88 18:44:21 GMT
References: <2568@ihuxy.ATT.COM>
Organization: FOCUS Semiconductor Sys., Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 38

From article <2568@ihuxy.ATT.COM>, by rnss@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Ron Schreiner):
> In article <6915@cup.portal.com> Henry_Burdett_Messenger@cup.portal.com writes:
>>I've thought about it quite often, actually. If the memory management unit 
>>had a little more guts... :-) 
> 
> What memory management unit ??

The one that has no guts....  actually an Address Management Unix???

>>I appreciate the work that goes into *any* software tool (I do _that_ for 
>>a living). My comments were merely directed at the 'if it isn't UN*X, it's 
>>junk' crowd. I personally avoid UN*X, since it's in the serious dark 
>>ages compared to VMS. And going from GEM/TOS -> MINIX/X11 isn't going to 
>>help performance much... 
> 
> VMS has a different name then RSX or RT11 or whatever, but that does not
> make it state-of-the-art.  Lets face it, VMS has it's roots in OSs that
> predate UNIX.

Unix has its roots in operating systems that predate Unix*.  I hate
VMS and my feelings are:  VMS is an operating system too advanced for
the hardware it runs on and by the time there is hardware that is good
enough, it won't be advanced enough.  That doesn't say anything about
the philosophy behind it, just the kernel internals.  The philosophy
isn't worth mentioning (ever tried to _USE_ a VMS system?  Can't.)

* Multics, etc. (Don't know exact names or dates, but Unix wasn't 
  born without parents :-)

> -- 
> Ron Schreiner   AT&T Bell Labs  ...ihnp4!ihuxy!rnss

--Greg Onufer
-- 
Greg Onufer   		GEnie: G.ONUFER		University of the Pacific
UUCP:						-= Focus Semiconductor =-
exodus@mfgfoc ...!sun!daver!mfgfoc!exodus  (and postmaster/exodus@uop.edu)
AT&T: 415-965-0604	USMAIL: #901 1929 Crisanto Ave, Mtn View, CA 94040