🚀 go-pugleaf

JDM> .We support an X.25 WAN of 50+ CTOS LANs (used to call them clusters) and
   > .fair amount of development on CTOS.  Having said this, I would caution
   > .anyone to think twice before buying into CTOS, I'll list points both
   > .pro and con below.

JDM> .-       CTOS is a great programmer's OS, strong APIs are provided for
   > .        every conceivable use (SNA,X.25,TCP/IP,filesystem,Modems,printing
   > .        digitized voice, ISAM, Async)  Debugging tools could be a little
   > .        better, development tools are solid.

Agreed.

JDM> .-       CTOS as an OS is stable, has client server (buzzword alert) messa
   > .        passing (local, lan and wide area).  The OS is such that routing
   > .        function calls across a net is not "seen" by the program, so
   > .        scalability is built in.  It may not be "realtime" but it is
   > .        close.

Agreed, but I'd class it as real-time.  Task switching time is quite
predictable.  Task prioritization is easy and precise.  What OS would
you consider more suited for real-time?

JDM> .-       CTOS is single user, multi tasking and sort-of multi threaded.
   > .        Exceptionally neat things can be done with minimal headaches
   > .        for the programmer.  DOS programmers drool, OS/2 programmers
   > .        pray for this sort of functionality.  Unix programmers smile.
   > .        (I've got a neat program with 4 processes doing X.25 comm ;-)

"Sort-of multi threaded?"  How could it be more multi-threaded?  It's
trivial for an application to spawn multiple synchronous or asynchronous
threads, and equally trivial to communicate between them.

JDM> .-       CTOS is _very_ proprietary.  Unisys has published much about bein
   > .        "open" but this term seems to apply to the "open" API and not to
   > .        important things like hardware and third party software.

Some day the hardware aspect may change.  I'm not holding my breath.
Even if it does, it's too little and too late.  I'm not sure I
understand your statement about third party software...

JDM> .-       Third party software is !@#$% expensive for CTOS, and
   > .        software vendors are shameless about raping the customer.
   > .        (ie if you are not developing yourself, be prepared to pay)

Compared to commodity platforms (PC, Mac, Atari) this is certainly true.
Compared to other "proprietary" platforms, I don't agree.  It's a
function of market size.

JDM> .-       CTOS does have POSIX compliant capability: BUT it is a kludge,
   > .        (if you want POSIX buy an OS whose name ends in "ix" :-)

Basically agree.  Of course there was a full distributed "ix" OS running
on that hardware, but the company, in their infinite wisdom, abandoned
it.

JDM> .-       CTOS does have MS-DOS/PC emulation:  IF you want a PC buy one,
   > .        the emulation is decent... but why spend your money this way?

Agreed.  Except if you want to run a couple of DOS apps and have the
advantages of that WAN/LAN architecture, etc. then the "emulation"
(actually a V-86 "machine") works quite well.

JDM> .-       CTOS networks like a fiend: The OS is _designed_ for LAN/WAN
   > .        functions and does networks like they ought to be done.
   > .        (we dream of the day Netware develops decent switched link X.25
   > .         WAN stuff... we've had it in CTOS since 1986)

Actually, the LAN stuff dates to 1980 and still enjoys a throughput
matched by few environments.

JDM> .-       Hardware is expensive.  Software is expensive.  You don't see
   > .        the sort of pricing that the PC industry does.  Unisys TCP/IP
   > .        was quoted to me ~1500$US, and we're _government_.  We've seen
   > .        pricing on 386DX machines as high as 3000$US.

If you saw the volumes that the PC industry did, you'd see equivalent
pricing.

JDM> .-       Maintenance.  Steep.

Do your own.  This stuff is very reliable, and I, for one, never
encouraged anyone to get a maintenance contract!

JDM> .Be careful.  One does not do "a little CTOS" with the option of getting o
   > .with some re-usable hardware... it is proprietary in the classic IBM-ish
   > .sense of the word.

Agreed.  But it's so much more fun to use!  <~>

JDM> .IMNSHO Unisys should have ported CTOS to PC hardware (don't you
   > .dare mention EPS to me) years ago and blown OS/2 out of the market.  But
   > .it seems that the "big corporate" mentality has viewed CTOS as a cash cow
   > .and flogs it (and its users) as a revenue source extrordinaire.

Now that I'm not a member of that "big corporate" group, I can be even
more outspoken about this issue than I was.  I wish it was as simple as
you believe.  And I won't mention EPS if you don't!!  <~>

JDM> .I'd rather develop code on CTOS than any other platform (I built a
   > .cross development library for Unix :-), but from an institutional
   > .perspective we can no longer afford to blindly buy CTOS.  Our cost
   > .per user for PCs (yes, this includes SW, networking and HW) is ~ 2200$US,
   > .CTOS side ~3400$US for less horsepower and proprietary SW.

I'd question what your total life cycle costs are.  Bet they're a lot
closer, and possibly favoring CTOS.

JDM> .- Jon McCown (used to be a True Believer...)

        Dick Zeitlin.  (Still a True Believer...)

(Hi, Jon...   Long time!)

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com