🚀 go-pugleaf

tim@ohday.sybase.com (Tim Wood) writes:

>Here's my vote that Sequent designate Mach (or OSF/2) as their standard
>operating system, and layer BSD and System V guests onto it.  Would this
>be doable in, say, three years?
>Just trying to broaden the discussion,
>-TW

This is interesting....

A couple of points come to mind.

1. You can get Mach for the Sequent systems now and have been able to
   get it for at least 3 years that I know of. 

2. I have never been asked by a university for it.

3. Right now, I wouldn't say that Mach was a commercially viable 
   alternative to UNIX. While systems such as the NeXt are running it
   successfully, they have the advantage of a tightly defined hardware
   environment. In a more general environment, there are more choices
   and therefore more places for errors to occur.

4. Discussions I have had with some folks from CMU indicate that Mach
   needs a lot of work under the hood, before even they will feel
   comfortable with it.

5. I spend a good portion of my day hearing people say things like,
   "We've decided to standardize on COBOL. We are now converting 
   all our FORTRAN code to the standard."

   Do you really think these folks are ready for a new O/S?

6. Please notice that I have not said that Mach is not a technologically
   viable O/S or that Mach does not have its place in the universities,
   and eventually the commerical market place, but I do question the
   timeframe outlined above.

These opinions are definitely my own and in no way, shape or form should
be thought to reflect Sequent philosophy, policy or corporate direction.
I have enough troubles... ;-)

-david-
-- 
David Haynes	Sequent Computer Systems (Canada) Ltd.	 david@torsqnt.UUCP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes I think the world is filled with mindless sheep constantly bleating
"MIIIIPPPPPSSSS, MMMMIIIIIPPPPPSSSS" until they are lead to slaughter.