Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!dewey
From: dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: The value of QNX
Keywords: IBMPC/AT/386, Distributed.
Message-ID: <5876@sequoia.UUCP>
Date: 12 Jan 90 20:46:25 GMT
References: <3528@zorba.Tynan.COM> <2525@softway.oz> <130118@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize)
Organization: Home for Recalcitrant Hackers
Lines: 25

In article <130118@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> lm@sun.UUCP (Larry McVoy) writes:
]
]Bottom line: if you want Unix, this ain't it.  If you want a usable
]C environment on cheap, cheap, cheap networked hardware - this is it.
]---
]Larry McVoy, Sun Microsystems     (415) 336-7627       ...!sun!lm or lm@sun.com

I'm not a QNX expert either, though I use it and run a system with it.

Yeah, its a good C platform.  What its better at, though, for me is allowing
real true multiple processing without extremely expensive hardware.  We
have up to 10 user logins going (granted, with restricted capabilities) on
a 10 Mhz XT.

Not an AT, please note.

If they just had 1) a way to access diskettes faster when doing backups/
restores and 2) something resembling a defragmenter for HDs, it would be
a lot better!

Dewey
-- 
| ...!cs.utexas.edu!execu!dewey or | "If you will just quit shouting at me, I |
|     ...uunet!execu!dewey         | will try to hear what you are saying"    |
| Execucom and I often have different ideas.  THESE are mine, ok?  Ok.        |