bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) (06/14/89)
From Ted Holden at HTE: ....................... From: Gary Barrett, Unisys Corporation, Devon, PA >> >> >> From Ted Holden, HTE: >> >> Unless I'm reading it wrong somehow or other, it's >> saying that by 1993, Unix will be doing more than double the business >> of OS-2 like, basically, hey the game's over; Unix is going to win and >> OS-2 is going to lose, simple as that. > My own feeling is that OS/2 will hit a quick deadend if it does not > address the following: 1) POSIX, and 2) RISC. > > Gates claims to have a POSIX-conformant OS/2 coming down the pike... Let's examine both cases. 1) I am no expert on POSIX, and could easily be off base on this one, but it seems to me that a POSIX compliant version of OS/2 would have to be called OS/2-IX or UNIX/2 or some such since it would, in fact, for all intents, be UNIX, albeit probably a severely ____ed-up version of UNIX. I mean, a POSIX manual reads so identically like a UNIX V manual that you assume the government is merely saying "if you can make your OS function exactly like UNIX for any and all matters concerning portability (mostly with UNIX systems), then we might buy it." And, if it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck..... 2) RISC? Microsoft has been trying for two years to get a 386 version of OS/2 together, apparently with little luck. Kind of like they can't build a wagon and you're talking about them building Ferrarris and Maseratis. What I see really killing OS/2 dead is the following consideration: that in the next few years, wherever you go, you'll see mid-sized computers all running UNIX, database engines (such as the 100 tps Sequent) running UNIX, workstations like the Suns and Appollos all running UNIX, and scores of 386 and 486 desktop machines, and some poor slob will have to tie all of those things together. He's going to think to himself: "Now, do I want those desktops running OS/2 and me have to deal with two totally different software worlds forever and with connecting them forever, or would it be simpler to just run UNIX on everything and use simple uucp connections?" This scenario will become the more prevalent as Sequents and machines running new multi-processor versions of UNIX (the DG or MACH systems for instance) replace traditional mainframes. I claim that you don't need to be Albert Einstein to figure this one out. Ted Holden, HTE
afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian) (06/28/89)
In article <238@imspw6.UUCP> bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) writes: >2) RISC? Microsoft has been trying for two years to get a 386 version of >OS/2 together, apparently with little luck. Kind of like they can't build >a wagon and you're talking about them building Ferrarris and Maseratis. Microsoft is currently translating the 100 000+ lines of 286 assembly language to C so that they can port it to the 80386, never mind future RISC machines. Microsoft will probably be trying for another 2 years before a 386 version arrives. >What I see really killing OS/2 dead is the following consideration: that in >the next few years, wherever you go, you'll see mid-sized computers all >running UNIX, database engines (such as the 100 tps Sequent) running UNIX, >workstations like the Suns and Appollos all running UNIX, and scores of 386 >and 486 desktop machines, and some poor slob will have to tie all of those >things together. He's going to think to himself: "Now, do I want those >desktops running OS/2 and me have to deal with two totally different software >worlds forever and with connecting them forever, or would it be simpler >to just run UNIX on everything and use simple uucp connections?" I second this. IBM appears to be having the same feelings because AIX (or future OSF derivative) is AVAILABLE NOW on everything above (and including?) a PS/2. What possible benefit would OS/2 give to users that AIX (or XENIX) with a NeXT windowing environment (which IBM has licensed from Next Inc.) wouldn't satisfy? DOS programs? Yea, right. People are figuring out that they will have to buy new software for OS/2 regardless, so they are choosing their next platform with much more care. The availability of UNIX on many machines, with its maturity and wealth of software (networking/e-mail/etc.) must certainly tip the scales AWAY from OS/2. //// Anthony Scian afscian@violet.uwaterloo.ca afscian@violet.waterloo.edu //// "I can't believe the news today, I can't close my eyes and make it go away" -U2
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (06/29/89)
Unfortunately, Ted, the poor slob who has to make OS/2 and UNIX interact isn't the guy who authorises expenditures. That guy doesn't generally know OS/2 from UNIX. He just knows which opens windows the fastest and looks nicest... and which has more software. Whether he needs that software or not is a different matter. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
smvorkoetter@watmum.waterloo.edu (Stefan M. Vorkoetter) (07/01/89)
In article <14774@watdragon.waterloo.edu> afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian) writes: > >I second this. IBM appears to be having the same feelings because >AIX (or future OSF derivative) is AVAILABLE NOW on everything >above (and including?) a PS/2. What possible benefit would OS/2 >give to users that AIX (or XENIX) with a NeXT windowing >environment (which IBM has licensed from Next Inc.) wouldn't satisfy? >DOS programs? Yea, right. Even if DOS programs were a reason, AIX (and XENIX I believe) supports DOS Merge. I have used this extensively (on my PS/2 running AIX), and found no problems. I am running SmoothTalk, a terminal emulation and file transfer program that I wrote, under DOS Merge. SmoothTalk is very ill behaved, writing directly to the display, manipulating the COM hardware, etc. It runs perfectly so long as I tell AIX to let it access the serial port. If I don't tell AIX this, SmoothTalk complains that there is no serial hardware, which to all intents and purposes, there isn't as far as DOS is concerned. All in all, DOS Merge seems extremely well implemented. Not that I think that people SHOULD be running DOS programs under *IX Stefan Vorkoetter Waterloo Maple Software watmath!wmsimum!stefan
ericbr@microsoft.UUCP (Eric Brown) (07/04/89)
In article <238@imspw6.UUCP> bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) writes: >What I see really killing OS/2 dead is the following consideration: that in >the next few years, wherever you go, you'll see mid-sized computers all >running UNIX, database engines (such as the 100 tps Sequent) running UNIX, >workstations like the Suns and Appollos all running UNIX, and scores of 386 >and 486 desktop machines, and some poor slob will have to tie all of those >things together. He's going to think to himself: "Now, do I want those >desktops running OS/2 and me have to deal with two totally different software >worlds forever and with connecting them forever, or would it be simpler >to just run UNIX on everything and use simple uucp connections?" This >scenario will become the more prevalent as Sequents and machines running >new multi-processor versions of UNIX (the DG or MACH systems for instance) >replace traditional mainframes. > No, what I think you'll see is IBM mainframes talking to IBM minis talking to IBM desktops, and some poor slob is going to have to tie all of those things together, and he's going to think to himself: "Now, do I want those desktops running OS/2 and *IBM* having to deal with 3 totally different software worlds forever, or would it be simpler to just run UNIX on the desktops and have to connect them together myself?" The IBM mainframes are *NOT* going away, and IBM *is* delivering the goods to make everything talk together (granted, talking SNA/3270 simulation, but talking). And uucp is by *no* means simple to administrate or effective to use (compared to real remote file systems). Eric.
conan@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Robert B Carroll) (07/04/89)
In article <6221@microsoft.UUCP> ericbr@microsoft.UUCP (Eric Brown) writes: >In article <238@imspw6.UUCP> bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) writes: <stuff about os/2 being/is dead> >mainframes are *NOT* going away, and IBM *is* delivering the goods to ^ /|\ | | Your just trying to funny and sarcastic right? ibm has had a history of screwing people over since the 60's. and they'll do it again when they need some more cash. if (ibm = need_money) ibm_customer_screwed = TRUE I won't comment about micro-soft and they're bang up job on os/2. -- conan@vax1.acs.udel.edu OR conan@192.5.57.1 ******************************************* ****I only play DISC GOLF and drink tea**** *******************************************
fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) (07/04/89)
In article <6221@microsoft.UUCP> ericbr@microsoft.UUCP (Eric Brown) writes: ->In article <238@imspw6.UUCP-> bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) writes: ->->What I see really killing OS/2 dead is the following consideration: that in ->->the next few years, wherever you go, you'll see mid-sized computers all ->->running UNIX, database engines (such as the 100 tps Sequent) running UNIX, [deleted stuff] ->-> ->No, what I think you'll see is IBM mainframes talking to IBM minis ->talking to IBM desktops, and some poor slob is going to have to tie all ->of those things together, and he's going to think to himself: "Now, do I ->want those desktops running OS/2 and *IBM* having to deal with 3 totally ->different software worlds forever, or would it be simpler to just run ->UNIX on the desktops and have to connect them together myself?" The IBM ->mainframes are *NOT* going away, and IBM *is* delivering the goods to ->make everything talk together (granted, talking SNA/3270 simulation, but ->talking). Obviously this scenario can only function in a world where mainframes reign. Is it then that OS/2 has been relegated to Fortune 1000 firms? Why is it then that IBM 'reluctantly' has endorsed (Unix) AIX all across its boxes? I believe for everything but the 400 there will be a similar operating environment. I suppose that is because the 400 will also be used out there in small computer land where little independent mini users can't be let off the hook just yet. That is the System 36 world is it not? RPG and all. It doesn't take a lot of smarts to wish to go with one operating system all across the line if we really want to pursue the line of one vendor thinking. And we don't expect a mainframe OS/2 just yet, right? Or maybe on a variety of present and future RISC machines that will most likely serve in the capacity alluded to here. Fred Rump -- This is my house. My castle will get started right after I finish with news. 26 Warren St. uucp: ...{bpa dsinc uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr Beverly, NJ 08010 domain: fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@cdin-1.uu.net 609-386-6846 "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..." - Schiller
rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) (07/06/89)
In article <14774@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian) writes: | ...IBM appears to be having the same feelings because | AIX (or future OSF derivative) is AVAILABLE NOW on everything | above (and including?) a PS/2... No. It's available on a few, promised on some more, but certainly not available on all. While I'm at it, consider the wording of the quoted sentence...how can a "future derivative" be "AVAILABLE NOW"??? -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Simpler is better.
jcg@tree.UUCP (John Gonnerman) (07/10/89)
In article <3926@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU>, conan@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Robert B Carroll) writes: > In article <6221@microsoft.UUCP> ericbr@microsoft.UUCP (Eric Brown) writes: > >In article <238@imspw6.UUCP> bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) writes: > >mainframes are *NOT* going away, and IBM *is* delivering the goods to v > if (ibm = need_money) > ibm_customer_screwed = TRUE Is this a bug? Or did they design it that way? Hmmm, makes a guy wonder... -- __ | -- John C. Gonnerman -- \__/ __ | ..!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!pacbell!sactoh0!tree!jcg \__/ \__/ | \__ | "THIS is the Age of Magic!"