🚀 go-pugleaf

>|>> So far, the most "open" system I can think of is a 386 running DOS:
>|>> - systems available from all sorts of people
>|>> - CPU's available from (at least) AMD, Intel, IBM, and Cyrix

I don't agree.  For a system to be open requires it not to be
proprietary.  Of course, 386s running DOS are a lot more 'open' than 
Macintoshes, for example.  But Unix (or at least _some_ unixes) foster
a much more open environment because source code to many things is
usually provided.  For example, your choices for a C compiler are
plentiful, but that depends on how much $$ you are willing/able to
shell out to the various software writers to try those compilers out.
With Unix, one can get gcc for free, including source.

IBM was very open when they published the source code to the
PC BIOS.  However, that openness was short lived, and the PC started
becoming more and more proprietary.  

In my opinion, license agreements, non-disclosure agreements, and
trade secret information just doesn't make for 'openness.'

>UNIX is a single user system too. The only evidence of a multiuser capability 

Huh?  Unix has always been a multi-user system.  I run Unix on a
386SX/16 and have had two additional users doing other things online.
If that isn't multi-user, I don't know what is.

>I would guess that W/NTs single user functionality should outstrip that of UNIX
>fairly easily. I bet that in '94 or whenever Microsoft will be comming out with

I don't see that.  Maybe by 1998, DOS will come with a 'dd' command.
>being able to offer additional functionality.