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: <2759@sugar.uu.net> Date: 6 Oct 88 11:54:16 GMT References: <5384@fluke.COM> <9362@swan.ulowell.edu> <800@super.ORG> Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX Lines: 30 In article <9747@cup.portal.com>, dan-hankins@cup.portal.com writes: > In article <2742@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >The reason for OS/2 has nothing to do with technical superiority, a fresh > >start, or anything like that. It's a blatant attempt to sell IBM hardware, > >and to lock out the competition. Just business as usual for IBM. > Whoa there! OS/2 is as much a product of Microsoft as it is IBM. Plus, it > *will* run on any AT compatible, so I don't see how it is an attempt to > sell IBM hardware and lock out competition. Well, it's not a portable operating system (like, say, Mach), so it will at least lock people out of the Mac. Also, it was envisioned as running ONLY on the PS/2 line at one point. There was some discussion (ahem) about this, so they backed down. > I do think they could have done a better job, although I'm not sure > considering all the hacks that must be done to get by Intel's kludgy > architectures. UNIX runs on intel's kludgy architectures. And runs better than OS/2. So I doubt these hacks are that necessary. I still say they should have started with UNIX and built a real-time kernel to support it... or licensed one (say, Mach from Carnegie Mellon). Have I mentioned Mach yet? I just got the Mach docs and I'm going gaga over them. What will I do NeXT? -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?