Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bywater!scifi!ndla!platt
From: platt@ndla.UUCP (Daniel E. Platt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: OS/2 vs. Unix
Keywords: Invitation for opinions/flames...
Message-ID: <260@ndla.UUCP>
Date: 16 Dec 89 05:00:44 GMT
Lines: 73

Greetings,

I just read an article in PC Computing (which came today) looking at the
future of PC computing in the next year.  The authors of the editorial
have suggested that OS/2, because of its similarity to DOS and increasing
availability of resources to make it work, have suggested that OS/2 will
come into its stride this comming year.  The authors have even indicated that	one of the selling points will be re-writing OS/2 in C so that it will be
portable to other processor platforms.  They also said Unix would pick up,
in spite of its 'ugliness'.

Having used both DOS and Unix (as well of trying OS/2) I've found little
difference between the two operating systems (besides not being able to
move files easily from one directory to another without a temporary 'copy'
first, and not being able to do several things at the same time easily,
DOS is almost as easy as Unix...) from a beginning user standpoint.  I've
also been confronted with trying to explain good DOS management to my Aunt.
Explaining HDB UUCP setups to Unix ignorant friends was easier.  Other than
some very Unix like additions such as pipes, standard I/O re-direction, and
directories, DOS looks a lot like CP/M.  Most of the best features of DOS
were copied from Unix.  Unix also has a 20 year tradition of portability
to other systems, as well as 20 years to develop a standard set of software
ranging from sophisticated development tools such as yacc, to very early
text processing in troff, to one of the most well established set of
TCP/IP tools in the business.  Unix is mature.  Further, Unix is supported
on systems ranging from PC's (80386 boxes) to Mainframes (IBM 3090's, Cray's,
etc).  It is network compatible (mostly) over many systems.  It is possible
to share disk resources over the network between almost any two Unix systems
via NFS.  I've been doing it between an RT and a Stellar for some time now.
And Unix is multi-user as well as multi-tasking.  OS/2 is only multi-tasking,
single user.

The wide range of applications supported on DOS have been written primarily
in assembler.  Word Perfect recently moved to C.  Ashton-Tate's DB series
was written in C.  Most C programs are very portable, and can run with little
modification on a Unix system if it runs on DOS, and vice-versa (unless the
code running on a Unix system has multi-tasking elements in it).  There
should be very little barier in moving a program in C from DOS to Unix.  
The story is different in moving Assembler routines from DOS to Unix... but
then, there's almost as much of a problem in moving to OS/2... all the
direct screen references, all the BIOS calls, &c have to be re-written
to use OS/2 compatible calls.  That is one reason why so many applications
have taken so long to move from DOS to OS/2 ... it just hasn't been worth it.

There have been claims in this article that OS/2 was going to come out in a
truly '386 (32 bit) version (no more 'near'/'far' pointer junk? will this 
still be compatible with old OS/2?  I thought one of the only advantages of
OS/2 was that it would run on '286 machines -- but then, the authors were
predicting the demise of '286 in the light of '386SX...), as well as a
'portable OS/2' that would run on non-Intel 80X86 chips.  I'd always thought
that one of the weaknesses of OS/2 was that it was destined to be stuck on
the Intel line.  I never considered making it portable.  Now that I do, I
wonder what commercial line of machines are available to take this software?
Most of those in existance that aren't 80x86 machines are either running
Unix, or are Apple Mac's (if they're in a power range to utilize OS/2).  I
don't see where 'portable' OS/2 could go.  Also, as the '286 dies, there
won't be any high end PC's that cannot run Unix.  Further, the memory
requirements (around 4MB) and disk space is comparable on both systems.

I have more issues and arguments, but this article has scrolled several pages
already.  This is already plenty of grist for the mill.  In any case,
I'd be interested in hearing other opinions, either posted, or sent direct
to me.  I'd even be somewhat interested in flames... within reason.  By the
way; I wanted the opinion of people who are still using DOS; also people
who may be using OS/2 or UNIX, but also the opinion of people who may be
considering the move: this is the newsgroup for this question.  Is there
a percieved vested interest in DOS users to 'stay with the family' and
go with OS/2? and if so, why is it that Unix (which so strongly resembles
DOS in so many ways) isn't considered to be a part of that family?

Thanks in advance :-)

Dan Platt
...!uunet!dla!platt