Interactive and me - An open letter to ISC.

Peter da Silva peter at ficc.ferranti.com
Sat Jul 14 04:47:31 AEST 1990


In article <783 at digi.lonestar.org> cfoughty at digi.lonestar.org (Cy Foughty) writes:
> Please don't flame me to hard. OS/2 1.2 provides a much
> better solution. Costs less, easier to ADMIN, and needs a
> lot less iron.

Let's see... I have run UNIX systems on a stock PC/XT with 640K RAM.
Yep, OS/2 needs a lot less iron.

> A much richer programming environment

Yep. You have Microsoft C, and Microsoft C.

> and soooo
> much easier to connect to a network.

How can you possibly connect a single-user box to a network? A network
is inherently a multi-user environment. What do you do... give up on
security or run everything in a strict client-or-server setup?

> I know this is a Unix
> based network, but if one evaluates OBJECTIVELY, OS/2 vs. Unix
> OS/2 wins in most of the categories, not all, but most.

OS/2 is probably adequate for a single-user workstation, but there are
much cheaper alternatives for that. How about a system that supports
useful multitasking in as little as 512K?

> For that fact it
> shouldn't be "OS/2 vs. Unix".

No, it should be OS/2 versus AmigaOS, Microsoft Windows, and Mac System 7.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.
<peter at ficc.ferranti.com>



More information about the Comp.unix.i386 mailing list