peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/15/91)
[Followups directed to comp.os.misc... this has nothing to do with c.s.a.a] In article <1089@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: > [OS/2] multitasks *BETTER* than UNIX. It has lightweight processes (threads), > the concept of the foreground process, etc. Well, to begin with, the "concept of the foreground process" is a major step back from UNIX's dynamic priority reallocation, which automatically gives more CPU time to *all* interactive processes... not just the one that happens to have an active window. As for threads, I've written a set of fairly portable threads routines and posted them a couple of years back. If you want kernel threads, there are variants of UNIX that do that. Basically, everything OS/2 does is already available in some version of UNIX, and the only reason IBM and Microsoft went for a new O/S instead of tuning a UNIX variant to their tastes is marketing hype to keep users locked in to proprietary systems. I don't like DOS. I despise the very idea of OS/2. > It has dynamic-link libraries, more IPC mechanisms than UNIX ever dreamed of, More IPC mechanisms? That's supposed to be good? How about AmigaOS, which has one very good IPC mechanism? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (05/20/91)
>> It has dynamic-link libraries, So do at least some modern UNIXes (SunOS 4.x, System V Release 4, OSF/1, probably others). >>more IPC mechanisms than UNIX ever dreamed of, > >More IPC mechanisms? That's supposed to be good? Amen. Of course, UNIX isn't exactly lacking in them these days, either. Consider a "typical" UNIX system with the Usual Collection of S5 and BSD stuff; it probably has: FIFOs (I'd call them "named pipes", but I don't want to confuse the OS/2oids in the audience) S5 message queues S5 shared memory sockets of various flavors and, if you're *really* lucky, you may also have various streams-based IPC mechanisms as well. There may well be some that I've forgotten....
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (05/20/91)
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Well, to begin with, the "concept of the foreground process" is a major step >back from UNIX's dynamic priority reallocation, which automatically gives more >CPU time to *all* interactive processes... not just the one that happens to >have an active window. > This is debatable. NeXT-OS seems to have special treatment for the foreground process as well. > >As for threads, I've written a set of fairly portable >threads routines and posted them a couple of years back. If you want kernel >threads, there are variants of UNIX that do that. > "Portable threads routines?" This is interesting. How can you graft thread on top of a UNIX kernel that doesn't support them? All you have in normal UNIX is fork(), which creates both a process and an execution thread. There simply is no way to create just the thread! Seriously, I'd like to see how you did this! > >Basically, everything OS/2 does is already available in some version of UNIX, > Yes, this is probably true, but you must admit that UNIX is a horrible mess, with all the different versions floating around, each with its own set of deficiencies. > >and the only reason IBM >and Microsoft went for a new O/S instead of tuning a UNIX variant to their >tastes is marketing hype to keep users locked in to proprietary systems. > Sorry, you're wrong. The reason they went for a new OS has to do with the hardware for which it was initially written -- the Intel 286. UNIX does not run well on that processor. > >I don't like DOS. I despise the very idea of OS/2. > Well, you may dream of a world standardized on UNIX, but I prefer having several choices. > >More IPC mechanisms? That's supposed to be good? How about AmigaOS, which has >one very good IPC mechanism? > Wait a minute! I thought you despised the very idea of proprietary operating systems! Read your own comments above. > >Peter da Silva. `-_-' > -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (05/21/91)
In article <7913@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: > FIFOs (I'd call them "named pipes", but I don't want to confuse > the OS/2oids in the audience) and > sockets of various flavors and maybe even > S5 message queues Can be written with STREAMS or streams (assuming, of course, you have those; however, since SysV and OSF have STREAMS, and BSD4.3++ will have bstreams, that will start to become a very reasonable assumption). Thus, they won't clutter up the kernel (except for backwards compatibility for some systems [e.g., 386bsd has no need to worry about b.c., while anything sco ever does for the '386 will]). > S5 shared memory This *should* be possible to emulate in other systems (e.g., bsd&sunOS), although I'm not sure how much effort it would take. >and, if you're *really* lucky, you may also have various streams-based >IPC mechanisms as well. There may well be some that I've forgotten.... Semaphores (xenix and SVID), and xenix shared memory. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
jmcarli@PacBell.COM (Jerry M. Carlin) (05/21/91)
In article <1101@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >>Basically, everything OS/2 does is already available in some version of UNIX, >Yes, this is probably true, but you must admit that UNIX is a horrible mess, >with all the different versions floating around, each with its own set of >deficiencies. I don't admit any such thing. OS/2 is basically vaporware at this point with at least 2 incompatible versions coming, IBM's and Microsoft's (if one can believe the trade press). And, in fact, the next version is supposed to be the one where we get all the 'benefits' of OS/2. These benefits are available in UNIX today. >Sorry, you're wrong. The reason they went for a new OS has to do with the >hardware for which it was initially written -- the Intel 286. UNIX does not >run well on that processor. UNIX runs a lot better than OS/2 and uses less memory besides. Now if you insist on running X, that is another matter. In fact, I was able to run MINIX on an 8088, something OS/2 could not even begin to do. BTW, IMHO Minix is a real UNIX, although simpler than the current versions. -- Jerry M. Carlin (415) 823-2441 jmcarli@srv.pacbell.com To dream the impossible dream. To fight the unbeatable foe.
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (05/21/91)
In article <1101@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >>Well, to begin with, the "concept of the foreground process" is a major step >>back from UNIX's dynamic priority reallocation, which automatically gives more >>CPU time to *all* interactive processes... not just the one that happens to >>have an active window. > >This is debatable. NeXT-OS seems to have special treatment for the >foreground process as well. ... although, it's more debatable than that, because the window manager could just be adjusting the nice value of the process which happens to belong to the foreground window. No change of philosophy needed at all. Ought not such a content-less thread belong on alt.religion.computers?
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/22/91)
In article <1101@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: > "Portable threads routines?" This is interesting. How can you graft thread > on top of a UNIX kernel that doesn't support them? You do it in user mode, and use select() or poll() to look for I/O unless all of the threads are blocked. Lester Buck was the last person to touch this code that I know of. > Yes, this is probably true, but you must admit that UNIX is a horrible mess, > with all the different versions floating around, each with its own set of > deficiencies. Not at all. If you limit yourself to the 35 (give or take a couple) system calls in standard UNIX you still have a richer environment than any of IBM's proprietary PC operating systems. > Sorry, you're wrong. The reason they went for a new OS has to do with the > hardware for which it was initially written -- the Intel 286. UNIX does not > run well on that processor. You'll have to excuse me, then. I'm running under Xenix on a 286 right now, and it's supporting 20 users (up to 10 concurrently). Runs as well as any other O/S. Oh, the segments are a pain, but they're no less a pain under DOS. For that matter, UNIX runs fine on the 8088, which OS/2 will never support. IBM Xenix 1.0 and Venix both provided better performance on a vanilla XT than MS-DOS. > >I don't like DOS. I despise the very idea of OS/2. > Well, you may dream of a world standardized on UNIX, but I prefer having > several choices. Me too, that's why I like UNIX. It gives me choices. I can choose any hardware from an 8088 based PC up to an Amdahl monster with 2000 users. Standards don't restrict, they empower. > >More IPC mechanisms? That's supposed to be good? How about AmigaOS, which has > >one very good IPC mechanism? > Wait a minute! I thought you despised the very idea of proprietary operating > systems! Read your own comments above. No, I despise the idea of OS/2. There is no feature of OS/2 that isn't bettered by something else. It provides no new capabilities over any of a dozen operating systems that already exist... including concurrent CP/M, OS-9000, as well as UNIX. And it's bigger than the lot of them... including UNIX. More to the point, just about every proprietary general purpose operating system that has come out recently for the PC (Coherent, OS/9000, etc) has a superset of the base UNIX API. OS/2 doesn't. Why? -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (05/23/91)
In article <0WGBJ55@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >No, I despise the idea of OS/2. There is no feature of OS/2 that isn't bettered >by something else. It provides no new capabilities over any of a dozen >operating systems that already exist... And it's bigger than the lot >of them... including UNIX. And *that*, dear readers, is saying a lot. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.