Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Why OS/2   Was Re: Stoopid *nix freaks!
Message-ID: <543@sixhub.UUCP>
Date: 26 Feb 90 11:57:26 GMT
References: <90052.182144CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu> <6937@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> <16155@smunews.UUCP> <25e6d6ed.26a3@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <7~&#71+@rpi.edu>
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Lines: 24

In article <7~&#71+@rpi.edu> joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu (Jochen M. Fritz) writes:

|                                               The problems: Microsoft would
| not be able to sell their language compilers seperatelly, because they are
| such an integral part of the system.  

  Virtually all versions of UNIX has unbundled the compiler as a
separately priced item. I know of several machines running the SCO
development set and ix386, for instance, or gcc. Certainly they *could*
compete in this market, and might have if their major customer, IBM,
didn't want it's own o/s.

|                                       Also, the user interface in UNIX is
| less than ideal, but even this could be fixed.  You could write a graphical
| shell for UNIX, if that was needed.  

  There are a number of GUIs already. Like C vs BASIC, the UNIX shell
trades power for complexity, and some common constructs like pipes just
haven't been well mapped to GUI.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc
"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon