Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!
elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mcnc!beguine!Gerben.Wierda
From: Gerben.Wie...@samba.acs.unc.edu (Gerben Wierda)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Microsoft OS/2?
Keywords: OS/2, Presentation Manager, Microsoft
Message-ID: <2467@beguine.UUCP>
Date: 3 Feb 91 15:19:48 GMT
Sender: use...@beguine.UUCP
Lines: 8
Two reports I have seen so far on Microsoft "dropping" OS/2. Someone over
here told me that they were *not* dropping OS/2, but they*are* dropping
the Presentation Manager and are taking the Windows interface instead.
They also told me that Microsoft just invested $10M in OS/2 Lan Manager...
So, does anyone has something that is more than rumour (NeXT telling that
Microsoft quits OS/2) but fact (Microsoft telling it quits OS/2)?
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!alhena.usc.edu!ajayshah
From: ajays...@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Death of OS/2? (was Re: Microsoft OS/2?)
Keywords: OS/2, Presentation Manager, Microsoft
Message-ID: <29814@usc>
Date: 3 Feb 91 19:26:31 GMT
References: <2467@beguine.UUCP>
Sender: news@usc
Followup-To: comp.sys.next
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 49
Nntp-Posting-Host: alhena.usc.edu
In article <2...@beguine.UUCP> Gerben.Wie...@samba.acs.unc.edu (Gerben Wierda)
writes:
>
>Two reports I have seen so far on Microsoft "dropping" OS/2. Someone over
>here told me that they were *not* dropping OS/2, but they*are* dropping
>the Presentation Manager and are taking the Windows interface instead.
>They also told me that Microsoft just invested $10M in OS/2 Lan Manager...
>
>So, does anyone has something that is more than rumour (NeXT telling that
>Microsoft quits OS/2) but fact (Microsoft telling it quits OS/2)?
Microsoft knows OS/2 is a disaster and is definitely not doing
any more 386-assembly work on OS/2. Work on OS/2 in C is also on
back burner; the major software efforts are on Windows 3 and it's
children. IBM is continuing work on OS/2 in 386-assembly; there
is some news about IBM-Novell deals on that front.
Many vendors have stuck their necks out by doing products for
OS/2 (especially database and LAN types) so everyone is being
discreet about it.
-------Start_of_Speculation----------
In the long run, I suppose Microsoft understands Intel processors
are a dead end and would want to migrate to SPARC/MIPS/88k. The
only way to do that is to rewrite in C. The best they can hope
for in that project is 100% source compatibility between Windows 4
applications and OS/2 written in C for (say) SPARC. I assume
that will be their target next.
Unix grew up over more than a decade, using the best minds of
Bell Labs, UCBerkeley and Sun Microsystems. In my understanding,
the quality of people at Microsoft is not good enough to do a
good OS -- starting from scratch in C -- within a few years.
They're good at writing word processors, Bill Gates knows how to
write a Basic Interpreter. Writing an OS is a different kettle
of fish!
Hence, personally, I consider that line of thought to be a
dead-end. I'm more interested in the way SysVR4 will evolve esp.
in the influence of Mach (multiprocessing dreams).
All this is my understanding, not fact.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ajay Shah, (213)734-3930, ajays...@usc.edu
The more things change, the more they stay insane.
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Death of OS/2? (was Re: Microsoft OS/2?)
Summary: arrogance redux
Keywords: OS/2, Presentation Manager, Microsoft
Message-ID: <70447@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 4 Feb 91 19:19:54 GMT
References: <2467@beguine.UUCP> <29814@usc>
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 42
In article <29814@usc>, ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>
> In my understanding,
> the quality of people at Microsoft is not good enough to do a
> good OS -- starting from scratch in C -- within a few years.
> They're good at writing word processors, Bill Gates knows how to
> write a Basic Interpreter. Writing an OS is a different kettle
> of fish!
And folks like to complain that Microsoft people are arrogant!
Say, Ajay, if you're so smart.... how come you're not working
at Microsoft?
Also, Ajay, who is the single biggest provider of Unix software?
A silly little toy-software company called "Microsoft".
I've encountered hostility from "the real world" since day one, when
I started the Microsoft OS group. Our first product, even though we're
such pathetic excuses for programmers, was an operating system. It was
called "UNIX". I don't pay much attention to UNIX these days, but I
seem to recall a few years ago that "the best minds" at AT&T bought some
UNIX technology from an outside vendor - a company by the name of "Microsoft".
Because we have some products which self described "computer hot shots"
like to sneer at, hostile types like to pretend that we're just a bunch
of duffers who "got lucky". Most of our products - even those beneath
the dignity of a guru - require a lot of skill and effort. The quality
of our talent is at least as good - and often better - than any other
place you might be able to name. Come interview us and find out.
And by the way, if UNIX is the result of the smartest OS minds in the
field, how come it bites the big one? It has no standard GUI, and
it's disk performance is at least 5 times worse then even pathetic old
DOS... And HPFS runs rings around the BSD improved file system.
Gordon Letwin
Microsoft
p.s.: re bill gates: - a few years ago, as a publicity stunt, Bill Gates
challenged a buncha other big name industry types - all programmers - to
a public programming contest. He won. Perhaps you should meet the man,
Ajay, before you sneer so publicly.
From: edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Death of OS/2? (was Re: Microsoft OS/2?)
Keywords: OS/2, Presentation Manager, Microsoft
Message-ID: <70471@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 5 Feb 91 02:43:45 GMT
References: <2467@beguine.UUCP> <29814@usc>
Reply-To: edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 69
In article <29814@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>Microsoft knows OS/2 is a disaster and is definitely not doing
>any more 386-assembly work on OS/2. Work on OS/2 in C is also on
>back burner; the major software efforts are on Windows 3 and it's
>children. IBM is continuing work on OS/2 in 386-assembly; there
>is some news about IBM-Novell deals on that front.
Although you had a line "Start_of_Speculation", you put it *after*
the above paragraph when it should have come *before*!
This is speculative (and would come as a surprise to people working
on such things). Microsoft has previously announced that it gave
IBM primary control over the development of OS/2 2.0, but retained
primary control over OS/2 3.0.
As far as work on C being on the back-burner, well, that's partly
true since alot of the work is actually in C++.
Although OS/2 hasn't sold "well" in the marketplace, developers
seem to like it better than Unix (an independent survey of companies
developing for both), and "not selling well" is still more copies
than any given version of Unix is selling (mod sales and marketing
reworking of figures).
>-------Start_of_Speculation----------
>
>In the long run, I suppose Microsoft understands Intel processors
>are a dead end and would want to migrate to SPARC/MIPS/88k. The
>only way to do that is to rewrite in C. The best they can hope
>for in that project is 100% source compatibility between Windows 4
>applications and OS/2 written in C for (say) SPARC. I assume
>that will be their target next.
I don't know what you mean by "dead end". The major advantage to
a portable OS (which is what OS/2 3.0 is) is that is does not
depend upon the vagaries of chip economies. Currently a RISC
processor is attractive not because it blows the doors off a
CISC processor (indeed it doesn't by all that much), but because
the RISC processors that are multiply sourced are very cheap
(e.g. SPARC, MIPS are cheap compared to 68k and Intel). If you
are looking to a 100MIPS workstation for under $5k, then you are
probably looking at a RISC machine.
>Writing an OS is a different kettle
>of fish!
Very well put. Microsoft has spent alot of time and money finding
this out. The market will tell us if future OS Microsoft produces
"better meet the needs of the user" or not.
Don't be surprised to find our future OS to be "object oriented",
micro-kernel, and low-overhead multiprocessing; in short,
everything that Mach promised to be but isn't (yet) unless you
rewrite it yourself. But more importantly, the OS will support
applications and end-user needs (like information retrieval
and categorization), which is, after all, what an OS is for.
If you want POSIX compliance, PM or Windows compatibility, or
security, then you'll want OS/2.
A long time ago, people postulated that Apple should deliver
a secure pre-emptive multiprocessing portable object-oriented
protected client-server distributed OS with a "Mac compatibility"
layer (eg virtual machine). This is how we are positioning OS/2.
--
Edward Jung
Microsoft Corp.
My opinions do not reflect any policy of my employer.
From: ogawa@orion.arc.nasa.gov (Arthur Ogawa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Death of OS/2? (was Re: Microsoft OS/2?)
Keywords: OS/2, Presentation Manager, Microsoft
Message-ID: <1991Feb10.121445.9312@news.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: 10 Feb 91 12:14:45 GMT
References: <2467@beguine.UUCP> <29814@usc> <70447@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@news.arc.nasa.gov (USENET Administration)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/rn/organization
Lines: 88
In article <70447@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) writes:
>In article <29814@usc>, ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>>
>> [...Ajay's arrogant flames deleted--AO...]
>
>And folks like to complain that Microsoft people are arrogant!
>Say, Ajay, if you're so smart.... how come you're not working
>at Microsoft?
I get the impression that Mr Shah is a student at USC. This may explain things.
>Also, Ajay, who is the single biggest provider of Unix software?
>A silly little toy-software company called "Microsoft".
I'm casting about in my mind for any recollection of a MicroSoft trademark
on any of the software on my Unix system. I see AT&T, I see Sun, I even
see HP. But MicroSoft? Would somebody clue me in? Can I buy MS Word for
Unix? Excel? C compiler? What have I been missing?
>I've encountered hostility from "the real world" since day one, when
>I started the Microsoft OS group. Our first product, even though we're
>such pathetic excuses for programmers, was an operating system. It was
>called "UNIX".
Wa-a-ait a minute! You mean you guys wrote DOS _after_ you wrote Unix?
Then you are guilty of a far greater sin than I ever might have
thought: the massive installed base of DOS users, groaning under the
handicap of an "operating system" ;^) that is no more than an
application launcher, an OS whose name (I get this second-hand) was
QDOS, standing for Quick-and- Dirty Operating System, have you to
thank for their lack of protected-mode running, lack of vm, lack of
true pipes, lack of .... We were supposed to have _learned_ something
from our math courses. These concepts were not purely academic, after
all. Why take such a big step backward? (To be fair, Apple had their
big chance with the Mac---and blew it, too.)
>I don't pay much attention to UNIX these days, but I
>seem to recall a few years ago that "the best minds" at AT&T bought some
>UNIX technology from an outside vendor - a company by the name of "Microsoft".
Also, shame on you guys for not tooting your horn more. All this time I've
been under the impression that Unix, C, etc. all crept out of some research
lab at AT&T.
>Because we have some products which self described "computer hot shots"
>like to sneer at, hostile types like to pretend that we're just a bunch
>of duffers who "got lucky". Most of our products - even those beneath
>the dignity of a guru - require a lot of skill and effort. The quality
>of our talent is at least as good - and often better - than any other
>place you might be able to name. Come interview us and find out.
Hokay, Ajay, graduate and then...PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
But, uh, wait. I'm remembering those pot shots the hot shots were
taking at MicroSoft. What about those notorious MS apps that played so
fast and loose with the Mac low memory (much to Apple's dismay)?
Howcum those early apps don't run under the later OSs, you know, the
ones that required the app to be 32-bit clean? What about the heavy
hits that MS C takes for its s-l-o-w speed and bulky code? Are these
all just cheap shots? And why did my neighbor (who wrote an early,
authoritative book about OS/2) have such a big, happy smile on his
face when he afterwards went out and bought himself an SE/30 and
discarded every one of his OS/2 materials?
I'd sincerely like to hear some comment by people who have done BOTH
Unix and DOS/OS/2 programming. And no fair faulting the Intel memory
addressing---thats not the issue.
>And by the way, if UNIX is the result of the smartest OS minds in the
>field, how come it bites the big one? It has no standard GUI, and
>it's disk performance is at least 5 times worse then even pathetic old
>DOS... And HPFS runs rings around the BSD improved file system.
Touche, monsieur! OK, you Unix GUIs, shape up, and get the lead out.
And let's start seeing more Unix OSs for 286 machines, too.
> Gordon Letwin
> Microsoft
>p.s.: re bill gates: - a few years ago, as a publicity stunt, Bill Gates
>challenged a buncha other big name industry types - all programmers - to
>a public programming contest. He won. Perhaps you should meet the man,
>Ajay, before you sneer so publicly.
I wish I had been there, lessee, was DEC represented by Ken Olsen? Um,
was Sun represented by Bill Joy? Alright, AT&T by Kernighan and Apple
by Woz, no, Jobs, no Sculley. Oh well, can anybody recall the incident
Mr. Letwin is speaking of?
From: glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Death of OS/2? (was Re: Microsoft OS/2?)
Keywords: OS/2, Presentation Manager, Microsoft
Message-ID: <2773@autodesk.COM>
Date: 15 Feb 91 09:38:05 GMT
References: <2467@beguine.UUCP> <29814@usc> <70447@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: Autodesk, Inc., Sausalito, CA
Lines: 27
Of course, Gordon forgets that at the OS/2 "Masterbuilders" rollout
(seems so long ago, 4 years and still no takers) he gave a lunch talk
in which he said "Um, this stuff is actually not all that revolutionary.
Unix has had it for years". He couldn't see Jon Shirley rolling his eyes
behind him at the podium.
But Gordon, with all due respect, if MS wanted to give Unix a standard
GUI, it could do so. And if your new OS is POSIX-compliant as the noise
from Redmond is starting to get out, you're basically building YAU so
why not fess up to it? What was so fabulous about an operating system
based on the architecture of the 286 that didn't even have a new file
system? Were the licensing fees really that bad?
If Windows32 ends up running on OS/3 or whatever you call it and
OS/3 is POSIX compliant, I'd say you solved the problem. The divergent
GUI nonsense in the Unix world has nothing to do with Unix per se.
BTW, I think MS developers are incredibly talented, and just want it
clear that the person who said that is just talking nonsense.
-g
--
Gary T. Lang (415)332-2344 x2702
Autodesk, Inc.
Sausalito, CA.
MCI: 370-0730
From: glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Death of OS/2? (was Re: Microsoft OS/2?)
Keywords: OS/2, Presentation Manager, Microsoft
Message-ID: <2774@autodesk.COM>
Date: 15 Feb 91 10:01:00 GMT
References: <2467@beguine.UUCP> <29814@usc> <70447@microsoft.UUCP>
<1991Feb10.121445.9312@news.arc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Autodesk, Inc., Sausalito, CA
Lines: 70
Mr. Ogawa asks:
> Can I buy MS Word for Unix?
and then infers that Unix came from Bell Labs and so what could MS
have to do with it?
MS developed Xenix several years ago. SCO took hold of it and sold and
extended it. SCO is 20% owned by MS. SCO ships more Unix licenses
than anybody. Xenix became an official Unix a few years ago.
MSWord 5.0 is available for this Unix, and Multiplan has been available
for years as well.
If MS does do a new OS, I hope it's a superset of what Unix has these
days; the stuff Edward talked about sounds a little more interesting
than anything I've heard out of Redmond. to date. On the other hand, although
an "independent survey" showed that developers "prefer" OS/2, I would
have to see what exact choices were laid out in front of them.
They really preferred LAN Manager to NFS? They really preferred
the DOS file system to the Unix one? They really preferred managing
segments and sub-segments of memory to flat address spaces and simple
pointers? I have never met these people before.
Say what you will, but if developers really "preferred" OS/2 as you said
the survey showed, then where did all the applications for OS/2 and PM
in particular wind up? There are more shipping shrink-wrapped NeXTStep apps
than there ever were PM applications. I'm missing something here.
Boy you must have gotten a hell of a salary when you were lured away
from your cube to work at MS, (smiles, grins, and so on) Edward!
My real beef with MS has nothing to do with technology. It's more
stuff like Steve Baumer speaking at a Windows Dev. Conference in late
'86 and telling us that we Windows developers were "developing OS/2
apps today" and that when OS/2 finally shipped, we'd just recompile
our programs. Yes, he actually said this 6 months before OS/2 shipped.
It's not likely that GDDM was slipped into the API for PM in 6 months.
Also, I asked him myself if by developing Windows/PM applications
if my company wasn't opening itself up for a look and feel lawsuit.
His answer? "Microsoft is the largest developer of Macintosh applications
in the market. Apple is not about to sue us or any of our developers".
This was at the OS/2 Masterbuilders conference in early 1987. A year
later, whammo.
Then the support for OS/2 in its initial incarnation wavered as
momentum for Windows grew, and folks like SPC and Lotus are left standing
around going "what happenned" while MS merrily sells Excel, Word,
PowerPoint and so on to the burgeoning Windows market that they pushed
in preference to the one that everyone else tried to get going in, at
their direction( and they are the OS company so Lotus and SPC weren't dumb.
This is why Apple and NeXT will always have a market. They are
predictable and directionally reliable. Apple will do the next Macintosh
OS and NeXT will continue to improve their product, which in terms of
programmability for neat programs is years ahead of the rumors that
are being dropped here from MS.
Hopefully, so will MS. Unless they wait too long to release the neat
stuff they're discussing here. Good luck to Gordon and the gang up there.
luck to everybody there.
I shudder to think about all of the small frys who got screwed in this
situation).
--
Gary T. Lang (415)332-2344 x2702
Autodesk, Inc.
Sausalito, CA.
MCI: 370-0730
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Death of OS/2? (was Re: Microsoft OS/2?)
Keywords: OS/2, Presentation Manager, Microsoft
Message-ID: <1991Feb17.113300.5802@kithrup.COM>
Date: 17 Feb 91 11:33:00 GMT
References: <29814@usc> <70447@microsoft.UUCP> <2773@autodesk.COM>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 21
In article <2773@autodesk.COM> glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) writes:
>And if your new OS is POSIX-compliant as the noise
>from Redmond is starting to get out, you're basically building YAU so
>why not fess up to it?
Just because an OS is posix-compliant doesn't make it YAU. The goal of
posix (and ansi, mind you) was to be able to have a set of routines, and a
language, such that people could write portable programs for that set. In
ANSI's case, a portable program can't do a whole lot that most people would
find interesting; currently, even a POSIX-portable program can't be too much
fun, as there is not fun user interface (not even curses, let alone a GUI).
A posix-compliant system is entitled to have all of the extensions and
nicities it wants, provided portable posix-compliant programs still compile
and run properly (using the 'c89' command).
--
Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!edwardj
From: edwa...@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: The Unix story straight (was Re: Microsoft OS/2?)
Keywords: OS/2, Presentation Manager, Microsoft
Message-ID: <70662@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 14 Feb 91 07:26:22 GMT
References: <2467@beguine.UUCP> <29814@usc> <70447@microsoft.UUCP> <3172@unccvax.uncc.edu>
Reply-To: edwa...@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 58
I think there has been alot of confusion over Unix and Microsoft. This
is largely because many people do not know the history of modern Unix.
I don't like defending Microsoft (it's not my job), but I like mis-
information even less. No sniping here, just the facts.
1. Microsoft's Unix work was licensed to AT&T as part of the
merge that created SysV. All modern AT&T Unix contain
Microsoft work and royalties.
2. The derivative Unix for '386, called Xenix, is the best
selling Unix in the world. (Note I did not say "is the
best Unix in the world"!)
3. At one time, all Microsoft development was done on Unix.
4. HPFS is a file system that runs on OS/2, and thus is pretty
comparable to BSD FFS, and yes, it's faster.
5. Although there has been work involving Microsoft applications
on Unix, this is not to what Gordon was referring.
Also I would like to add (as someone who was closely associated with
Apple before joining the "evil empire") that the "fast and loose"
tricks that Microsoft apps played with the Macintosh were all passed
by Apple's Developer Support at one time. They are very old tricks
that predated Apple's more forward-thinking of today. They did cause
Apple grief when they rev'd the OS, but please recall that it used
to be OK to munge the upper bits on handles (as a matter of fact,
samples of this appeared in Apple's code examples).
Microsoft applications have been 32-bit clean since Apple starting
promoting 32-bit cleanliness. Very few early apps are 32 bit clean.
I have programmed significant projects in nearly every system
from JCL to pure Mach, from Amiga to Sun to Macintosh to NeXT.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the NeXT system is the most
pleasant to program -- bar none. I love it. The advanced product
group at Lotus loves it. Lots of people love it. The NeXT system
is one of the very few that has a real system architecture behind
it.
On the other hand, mod familiarity issues, I enjoy programming
OS/2 more than Unix (although neither is something I'd call
really "pleasant"!) If anyone can get really concrete about
why they like Unix over OS/2 (mod familiarity), then I'd be
interested in knowing so I can feed back such information to
the OS group (via EMAIL, please).
Also, for the last time, you guys will be among the first to know
when Microsoft does anything on the NeXT machine. At this time
there is nothing to say about it. So stop sending me mail about
it.
--
Edward Jung
Microsoft Corp.
My opinions do not reflect any policy of my employer.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
wuarchive!csus.edu!beach.csulb.edu!nic.csu.net!csun!kithrup!sef
From: s...@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: The Unix story straight (was Re: Microsoft OS/2?)
Keywords: OS/2, Presentation Manager, Microsoft
Message-ID: <1991Feb18.180523.12409@kithrup.COM>
Date: 18 Feb 91 18:05:23 GMT
References: <70447@microsoft.UUCP> <3172@unccvax.uncc.edu> <70662@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 13
In article <70...@microsoft.UUCP> edwa...@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) writes:
>2. The derivative Unix for '386, called Xenix, is the best
> selling Unix in the world. (Note I did not say "is the
> best Unix in the world"!)
XENIX runs on '286s (well, and xt's, if you want to count them 8-)) as well;
the 286's are the reasons for the "best selling," I believe.
--
Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
s...@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
From: glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Death of OS/2? (was Re: Microsoft OS/2?)
Message-ID: <2876@autodesk.COM>
Date: 20 Feb 91 05:26:15 GMT
References: <29814@usc> <70447@microsoft.UUCP> <2773@autodesk.COM>
<1991Feb17.113300.5802@kithrup.COM>
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA
Lines: 11
In-reply-to: sef@kithrup.COM's message of 17 Feb 91 11:33:00 GMT
>Just because an OS is posix-compliant doesn't make it YAU. The goal of
>posix (and ansi, mind you) was to be able to have a set of routines, and a
Yes I know this, I was painting the picture with broad brush strokes.
--
Gary T. Lang (415)332-2344 x2702
Autodesk, Inc.
Sausalito, CA.
MCI: 370-0730