🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41akgg$9v5@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
Jeffrey William Davis <c23jwd@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> wrote:
>
>OS/2?  You MUST be joking, so I won't touch that one.
>
>UNIX falls right into your description of the ideal OS.  The difference
>is that there is no automatic installation procedure to set it up to be
>a child's toy on the outside, and detailed on the inside.

  As you point out later, it is possible to configure Unix to be very
OS/2-like, but that doing so removes much of Unix's functionality from
the user's disposal.

  But this is pretty much what OS/2 *is*.  It's a lobotomized Unix 
which is easily used and maintained, plus a number of spiffy features
which are available to highly knowledgable Unix users, but not to the
newbie (like the ability to give processes unrestricted access to 
hardware components, et al).  OS/2 is a Unix suitable for the masses.
  As an OS design engineer and a long-time user of OS/2 (and Unixes),
it's pretty obvious that the designers of OS/2 were Unix programmers.
The architecture is pretty straight (if less complex) Unix.

  Different OS's are suitable for different tasks, and hard disks 
are cheap as dirt these days..  So why don't power-users install both,
OS/2 and Linux (or BSD, if you prefer) on their systems?  There will
always be features and applications for OS/2 that won't be available
for Unix, and visa-versa.  Why go without?

-- 
Bill Moyer <ttk@rahul.net>