🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1089@hrshcx.csd.harris.com> steved@hrshcx.csd.harris.com (Steve Daukas) writes:
> Most who have a PC don't need to support more than one user (at a time),

A network is an inherently multiuser environment. DOS on a network is a
dreadful mess. Oh, they've spent (wasted) enough manpower to make it
usable, but the complexities add up. You end up having to add a new multi-
user operating system on top of DOS, and write special versions of applications
to run on it.

And even off the network, if more than one person uses the machine it's
a problem. So each PC is treated like a terminal. A terminal with an 80386
and 4 Meg of RAM.

> Unix is great (I use it at work and have various knock-offs for my PC),
> but it doesn't run DOS applications.

So get Merge or VP/IX.

> From what little I know of OS/2 2.0, you do have a multitasking OS which can
> run DOS applications in a window (even different versions of DOS itself).

SOrt of.

> This appeals to my DOS side.  The only question I have is - is it still easy
> to bootstrap a Unix from another partition with OS/2 like I can with DOS?

No. It's not just not easy, it's not possible. You can run DOS in a window
in OS/2 or UNIX because DOS doesn't do anything.

> Life would be simpler if there was a Unix that could run DOS applications under
> a (any duck) window environment (X11R4, MOTIF, Windows, Program Manager, etc.).

System VR3.2 or SVR4.0 with VP/IX or Merge/386 and X. It's real. We've been
using it for a year. And you can dial in and run DOS remotely, even, on any
terminal.

> So, whats your idea of a perfect combination of parts from Unix, DOS, OS/2, ...?

See above.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"