sccm@tcistl2.UUCP (Mason) (11/29/89)
The details of my situation are not very important, but I am faced with having to make a presentation tomorrow morning (89/11/29 0900 hrs CST) as to why OS/2 is inferior to xenix. This is a surprise heaped upon me at 1600 hours this afternoon. I have maintained an awareness of the OS/2 debate that has been raging for years now, and I have a few specifics, but I would welcome any first-hand experiences dealing with the problems of OS/2. The benefits of xenix/unix (or is it unix/xenix ?) are well-known to me, having used unix for about ten years in one form or another, and xenix for the last two and a half years. Any comments appreciated. E-mail please ! Regards, Stephen Comfort-Mason
is813cs@pyr.gatech.EDU (Cris Simpson) (11/30/89)
In article <12@tcistl2.UUCP> sccm@tcistl2.UUCP (Mason) writes: >The details of my situation are not very important, but I am faced with >having to make a presentation tomorrow morning (89/11/29 0900 hrs CST) as >to why OS/2 is inferior to xenix. This is a surprise heaped upon me at >1600 hours this afternoon. > Gee, there's nothing like going in with an open mind... -- Cris Simpson | Computer Engineer | No, No! Not THOSE chains! VA Rehab R&D Center | -K. Marx Atlanta,GA is813cs@pyr.gatech.edu |
kthompso@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov (Kevin W. Thompson) (11/30/89)
In article <12@tcistl2.UUCP> sccm@tcistl2.UUCP (Mason) writes: >The details of my situation are not very important, but I am faced with >having to make a presentation tomorrow morning (89/11/29 0900 hrs CST) as >to why OS/2 is inferior to xenix. This is a surprise heaped upon me at >1600 hours this afternoon. > > ... > >Any comments appreciated. E-mail please ! > >Regards, > >Stephen Comfort-Mason Deep six OS/2? Give a presentation on why OS/2 is inferior to XENIX? I can't let this go by without commenting, even if it is too late for your talk. The "superiority" of an operating system depends solely on the degree to which it accomplishes the objectives which are important to the buyer or user. You cannot give an honest presentation about why one OS is "superior" to another unless you state the goals which must be achieved. So you cannot state that OS/2 is inferior to UNIX/XENIX (or vice versa) independent of context. You personally may not like OS/2, but that is a different question, and likely has nothing to do with what your audience is concerned with. Statements about superiority of operating systems which do not relate to a context are intellectually dishonest. I can guarantee that OS/2 is superior to UNIX/XENIX for certain tasks, just as I can guarantee the opposite for others. =============================================================== Kevin W. Thompson thompson@galileo.arc.nasa.gov
las) (12/01/89)
In article <4003@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> kthompso@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov (Kevin W. Thompson) writes: }In article <12@tcistl2.UUCP> sccm@tcistl2.UUCP (Mason) writes: }}The details of my situation are not very important, but I am faced with }}having to make a presentation tomorrow morning (89/11/29 0900 hrs CST) as }}to why OS/2 is inferior to xenix. }Deep six OS/2? Give a presentation on why OS/2 is inferior to XENIX? [Discussion about the relationshiip of "superiority" to context and criteria for evaluation omitted.] }Statements about superiority of operating systems which do not }relate to a context are intellectually dishonest. But... but... my personal prejudices are laws of nature! :-) regards, Larry -- Signed: Larry A. Shurr (cbema!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbema!las) Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave (With apologies to the real thing. The above represents my views only.) (Please note my mailing address. Mail sent directly to cbnews doesn't make it.)
aryeh@eddie.mit.edu (Aryeh M. Weiss) (12/01/89)
OS/2: single-user (working at console) / multi-tasking Unix/Xenix: multi-user (logged in at multiple terminals or remote networked locations) / multi-tasking Both OS's are multi-tasking, but Unix has direct support for multiple users. The internals concerning file i/o (read, write, etc) and process creation (fork/exec) of OS/2 (and Dos for that matter) are modeled after Unix. One question would be, could a suitable init/getty/login/shell set of programs be written for OS/2 to simulate multi-user login's? SCO Unix/Xenix provides program cross-development for Dos and, I assume, OS/2. (The converse is not true.) Case History: At the Continuum Electromechanics Group at MIT, we have two Xenix/386 systems and three Xenix/286 systems. The 386's support staff and students for text processing and data crunching. The 286's coordinate data collection from various devices and XT's. XT's running DOS are used as either smart terminals or dedicated for data-taking from and control of experimental apparatus. One 386 has 10 terminals scattered thru the lab. The 386 also has the printer (Apple LaserWriter). Everyone has a common platform with Emacs, TeX, and C and the programs that people port or write and share. I can't imagine having ten single-user machines to maintain and giving the same performance. For our equipment and budget constraints, my philosophy has been to run Unix on one or two capable machines to give support to common tasks that everyone requires and then dedicate cheap machines to specific tasks. -- eliot%lees-rif@eddie.mit.edu (Eliot H. Frank)
bobf@lotus.com (Bob Frankston (BFrankston)) (12/06/89)
Note that there is a "comp.sys.os2". Naturally, comp.unix.xenix is not a place for OS/2 advocacy. "comp.sys.ibm.pc" is not necessarily read by OS/2 believers either.