OS/2 vs. Unix

[Wm E. Davidsen Jr]

{ note: I have put followup to comp.unix.questions, since this group has
nothing to do with unix OR os/2. I have sent many people notes asking
them to move the thread, hopefully people will cooperate.

In article <4473 at daffy.cs.wisc.edu> schaut at cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) writes:

| UNIX is exclusively designed to work with losely coupled CPU's (i.e. it's
| pretty good for a network) but you can't put it on a system with tightly
| coupled CPU's without adding some extensions (ask the people at Cray).

  Except for Solbourne running multicpu SunOS, someone (concetric?)
running multiprocessor SCO Xenix on the Zenith Z1000, Encore, Alliant,
Convex and Cray, etc. In short, your statement just isn't true.

| So, in the ability to handle future hardware, score: OS/2 1, UNIX 1/2
| In a world of multi-processor workstations and distributed processing
| facilities (where multi-user capabilties aren't necessary) it looks as
| though OS/2 would be the operating system of choice.

  OS/2 has threads. Many variants of UNIX do, too, although there isn't
a standard. UNIX allows multiple users, not only at once, but allows
multiple people to share a machine without depending solely on their
being willing and able to avoid causing each other problems.

  OS/2 doesn't have the concept of file ownership and protection, and
currently anyone can change process priorities. OS/2 is easily postable
to any Intel 80X86 CPU, unix is portable to any CPU with memory
management (and some without, more or less). OS/2 gives you your choice
of vendors of utilities, UNIX comes with utilities.

  OS/2 is the operating system of Intel and IBM's choice.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen at 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