🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <TOWFIQ.91May16111015@babyoil.FTP.COM> towfiq@FTP.COM writes:
>Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Juhani Huttunen) writes:
>
>Ari> Why not just implement Windows and OS/2 on top of Mach? A(n
>Ari> almost) ready kernel that I've heard is also pretty fast.
>
>>>>>> On 14 May 91 15:47:54 GMT, barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B.
>>>>>> Floyd) said:
>
>Barry> Correct me if I am wrong (a request not worth making? :-> ),
>Barry> Windows is to PM as DOS is to OS/2. Windows is to NextStep as
>Barry> DOS is to Mach. Mach is a Unix compatible (shaky ground?)
>Barry> "operating system", supporting multi-user, multi-tasking, etc.
>Barry> access to a computing platform.
>
>Basically, except that Mach isn't Unix; Mach itself is a message-based
>micro-kernel, on top of which people have put a Unix-compatible OS.
>One could also write a DOS on top of Mach, or an OS/2, or a VMS....
>
>In fact, I am hoping that someday (perhaps after the GNU Kernel is
>released) someone WILL do this!

I've heard that IBM has an experimental version of OS/2 running on top 
of Mach (I believe the discussion was on BIX somewhere). I doubt you
will find any IBM person to confirm that, but... time will tell.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Mussar  |Internet:  mussar@bnr.ca                |  Phone: (613) 763-4937
BNR Ltd.     |                                        |  FAX:   (613) 763-2626