Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!nebulus!druid!darcy
From: darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix
Keywords: Invitation for opinions/flames...
Message-ID: <1989Dec20.014855.2204@druid.uucp>
Date: 20 Dec 89 01:48:55 GMT
References: <260@ndla.UUCP> <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>
Reply-To: darcy@druid.UUCP (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Organization: D'Arcy Cain Consulting, West Hill, Ontario
Lines: 26

In article <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
>One big reason for DOS over Unix is that DOS is friendly to the 
>non-computer whiz.  (And that's saying a lot, since DOS has its
>problems.)  For example, to display a file under DOS, I use
>'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots
>easier to remember than 'cat.'
>
That's your opinion.  I am always typing "cat" on DOS machines but I 
never use "type" on my UNIX box.  Easy to remember is what you use most.

>As for the fact that OS/2 is multi tasking but not multiuser, I consider
>this a feauture, not a bug.  I think that one of the great advances in
>computers in the last 10 years has been that everyone can have his/her
>own box (with no other users to do things to crash it) but still be connected
>to a network allowing data sharing as desired.

Considering where OS/2 is coming from I guess it is safer not to make it
multi-user.  DOS programs can crash a system all by themselves without
having others running more programs behind your back.  At least if you
run a program that crashes the system you only hurt yourself.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid)     |   Thank goodness we don't get all 
D'Arcy Cain Consulting             |   the government we pay for.
West Hill, Ontario, Canada         |
No disclaimers.  I agree with me   |