Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!tness1!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Pournelle Message-ID: <2731@sugar.uu.net> Date: 2 Oct 88 12:53:03 GMT References: <5384@fluke.COM> <9362@swan.ulowell.edu> <800@super.ORG> Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX Lines: 19 In article , limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) writes: > The one thing about OS/2 that kills me is that all the theory looks > like it's going to work. Every design choice is the one that I would > have picked (except one small one) if I had to implement an OS on a > segmented CPU. Almost makes me want to but a machine with an Intel > chip... naaaah. Me to, except in my case that one design change would be: Start with UNIX. Rip the kernel to shreds, if you like, but start with the UNIX programmer interface. Interim versions would be smaller and available a lot sooner. UNIX is overdue for an internal redesign anyway, but the interface is still the best I've ever seen. There are just a couple of system calls that need to be added, and Mach has them. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?