🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ARTK.95Apr2100356@cc-color1.Congruent.COM> artk@Congruent.COM (Arthur Kreitman) writes:

   In article <WILLIAMS.95Mar28223531@martha.utcc.utk.edu> williams@martha.utcc.utk.edu (Myles Williams) writes:

   >   1) Unix AND Mach system mechanisms
     osf/1 windows nt

   >   2) a development-oriented (i.e. modular) system architecture
     osf/1, windows mt

   >   3) generalized filesystems (e.g. transparent TAR and FTP)
      osf.1

   >   4) free source?
     osf/1

Gee, now you are being downright dishonest.

First, you argued that the availability of Linux meant that people
shouldn't want the Hurd.  But when someone lists four things that the
Hurd has that give it advantages, you list commercial (hoarded)
products as alternatives.  Whether NT also has the advantages of the
Hurd is totally irrelevant to the question of whether Linux makes the
Hurd pointless.

But beyond that, you are dishonest.  Windows NT is not Mach, and its
Posix support is broken.  It isn't Unixy at all; Unix is much more
than Posix.

OSF/1 (as actually shipped) is not modular, and doesn't use Mach 3.0.
(It is based upon Mach 2.5, which is totally different.)

OSF/1 does not have transparent TAR or FTP; the extent to which they
could be written is unclear.

OSF/1 does not have free source, at all.  You must know this.  

If you are unaware of these facts, you are clearly a fool for blabbing
so much.  If you are aware of them, you are being quite dishonest.
Please go away.

Michael