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>.