alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (01/06/90)
In article <1022@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes: >The most important feature of OS/2 above DOS is its memory protection >and virtual memory management which makes it directly comparable to >Unix. If that is all you want, then it would seem to me that Windows 3.0 would be enough for you ... ;-) There is a lot more to OS/2 (and UNIX) over DOS ... >... Also, take a look on OS/2's >dynamic linking (ever heard about dynamic linking of Unix versions on >286/386 class computers ?). From the UNIX System V/386 release 3.2 Programmer's Guide, Vol I (p 3-30) As noted above, beginning with UNIX System V Release 3.0, shared libraries are supported. ... The reason why shared libraries are desirable is that they save space. ... When code in a shared library is modified, all programs that share the code use the new version the next time they are executed. Sure sounds like dynamic linking to me. This is from the manual for the standard 386 UNIX sytem V. I am using ESIX system V which conforms to this standard. >And, the separate screen groups for >concurrently executing processes are fine. Of course, PC versions of >Unix also have this feature, but did you ever work on a Unix terminal >(alpha) having two or more processes running on your terminal and all >of them producing output to you ? Again, in ESIX, I have 4 virtual 'consoles' which I can change between by hitting ALT 1, 2, 3, and 4. I generally leave the super-user logged in on 1 (the 'system' console), a connection to the in-house VAX on 2, a connection to the in-house UNIX server (which I am on now) on 3, and normal work on 4. If this isn't enough, you can run X-Windows which gives a separate window for each task being run. Unfortunately, X is dog-slow compared with PM or Windows ... :-( >Unix is not a bad system, I like it too, but OS/2 is developed several >years later and therefore is more modern than Unix is. Unix was >designed to run with terminals, when computers were expensive and there >were many terminals connected to single machines over slow lines and >the users were running mostly command line driven batch programs with >stream in/output. But the PC has a memory mapped display with high >speed access which allows very interactive programs. Make sure you are comparing apples with apples (oops ... bad metaphor ... am I about to be sued? ;-). UNIX hasn't been sitting on its ass. Also, keep in mind that UNIX is the operating system that has been used for the workstation market. All those Suns, Apollos, etc have large bit-mapped displays and are running single user! In many ways PCs are just catching up with UNIX in terms of single-user functionality. >Well, I would say OS/2 and Unix are different systems for different >purposes and Unix was ported to the PC (286, 386) because no other good >time-sharing, virtual-memory OS was available. But they are still a bit >uncomparable. ... Unix has traditionally had two very good things going for it. First, it was (and still is) the most versatile operating system in terms of the platforms it runs on. It is a hardware independant 'standard'. Second, it was the 'cheapest real operating system' that you could get. Personally, I thought that Unix had a major shot at unseating DOS when the 286 architecture took over the PC world and IBM/Microsoft didn't have an operating system that could take advantage of it. (And yes, I will grant you that 286 Unix is partially brain-dead, but the difference between 286 Unix and 386 Unix pales in comparison to the difference between Dos and 286 Unix.) At this point, Unix has a number of MAJOR problems, none of which you addressed: - Unix still hasn't settled down into a standard. There are not only the two competing camps (OSF vs Unix International), but still a reasonable amount of dissention in the ranks of each. The Dos/Windows/OS/2 world has always had the advantage of a central player (Microsoft) that called the shots, kept the os standard, and moved the technology upscale (consider how much Dos->OS/2 has changed since 1981, and compare that with how much Unix has changed). - Unix is playing catch-up in the game of graphical shells. This is what gave the Mac it's market share, and Windows has prompted a major move of the PC market in that direction. PM has been around for a while now, and apps are arriving. Unix not only has standards issues (Next and IBM using Next-Step, OSF with Motif, and Sun with Open Look - although I will grant you that Motif seems to be winning) but the apps that will provide the consistent user interface are going to be a while coming. - Unix doesn't have anywhere near the application base that the PC world has. I will grant you that OS/2 has been held back by the same problem, but there are a lot more people doing OS/2 apps than there are doing Unix apps. Furthermore, with Mirrorz and Microsoft's announcement that the next version of OS/2 will have a dynamic link library to automatically convert Windows 3.0 calls to OS/2 calls, the migration path to OS/2 is much easier than the migration path to Unix. - Finally, Unix lacks the binary standard that OS/2 has, and the resultant problems in distribution. How many accountants and secretaries are going to want to configure and compile their applications before they can run them? Not even their MIS/Micro Support Groups are going to want to do that. I will grant you that there is now a binary standard for Unix on 386 machines, but Unix on 386 micros is a pretty small market to try to get software shrink-wrapped for. After all, the whole point of Unix is that it is hardware independent ... this is its strength AND its weakness ... -- --------| Whether you can believe it or not, the universe is Alien | laughing behind your back. - Deteriorata --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) (01/07/90)
In article <3364@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: > [ lots of stuff deleted, most of which i agree with... ] > > At this point, Unix has a number of MAJOR problems, none of which you > addressed: > [ ... ] > and moved the technology upscale (consider how much Dos->OS/2 has > changed since 1981, and compare that with how much Unix has changed). ms/dos and os/2 are two completely different operating systems. they may have been created by the same people and one is meant to take over the other's market, but they are really quite different. (in the late 60's, ibm created a quick and dirty operating system called "DOS" so that people and something to run until thier "real" operating system came out. 20+ years later MVS/XA is _still_ trying to kill off DOS/VSE... ) anyway, if you compare how dos has change from 1.0 through 4.0, or how os/2 has change since it was first released, i would say that unix is moving _faster_ than either of them. > [ more stuff deleted... most of which i dont disagree on enough to > comment on ] > > -- > --------| Whether you can believe it or not, the universe is > Alien | laughing behind your back. - Deteriorata > --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien -wayne