Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!maytag!water!cgeisler
From: cgeisler@water.waterloo.edu (Craig Eisler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs AmigaDOS, 1.4wish, and
Message-ID: <2332@water.waterloo.edu>
Date: 19 May 89 19:58:25 GMT
References: <2968@cps3xx.UUCP> <75800069@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: cgeisler@water.waterloo.edu (Craig Eisler)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 36

In article <75800069@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>Somewhere I read a quote:
>"OS/2 uses a lot of memory because it implements sophisticated
>features, such as lightweight processes"
>
>*snicker*.  God knows what a lightweight process is, if needs gobs of
>memory just to be "lightweight"?!!??

Spoken like a true user.  It takes 150 lbs of bone and goo to implement
the lightweight (1 or 2 lbs) process known as your brain.

The O.S. takes a lot of memory.  The PROCESSES you can run are light-weight.
Big difference.

To all those who think OS/2 is "missing" something by not having
(gag puke retch) fork, I say this:

*pppppppffffffffffftttttttttttttt*

On a more mature side, fork is a very BAD way of implementing process creation.
Why the heck should the child look like the parent?  You want a copy of
some of the data?  Do an initial Send once the child is created.  Fork is
the biggest resource waste in existence.  Then again, it's a UNIXism, so
that isn't a big surprise.

Back to OS/2:

There is nothing wrong with OS/2,  if you want all that functionality.

WHY you'd want all that functionality, of course, is what your IBM rep
has to tell you.  Something to do with increasing memory sales, I think.

craig
-- 
Craig Eisler, Applied Math, University of Waterloo
"Either way, I'm afraid to try it" - Calvin.