*BSD News Article 24091


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!caen!destroyer!gumby!andrews-cc!gillham
From: gillham@andrews.edu (Andrew Gillham)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
Subject: Re: Porting NetBSD to OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 17 Nov 1993 00:40:00 GMT
Organization: Andrews University
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <2cbrt0$n3@orion.cc.andrews.edu>
References: <pcbsdCGE4oI.5zw@netcom.com> <crt.753372922@tiamat.umd.umich.edu> <2c9aka$4fp@u.cc.utah.edu> <crt.753458826@tiamat.umd.umich.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edmund.cs.andrews.edu

In article <crt.753458826@tiamat.umd.umich.edu> crt@tiamat.umd.umich.edu (Rob Shady) writes:
>terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>
>>Some corrections to your corrections of my hosted OS list:  8-).
>>MACH *IS* basically a *NIX kernel.
>>	Nope; MACH is MACH -- a UNIX kernel supplies swapper and file
>>	system services.
>
>True, but MACH was designed with a UNIX kernel (or similar) in mind.
>
WYP? (What's Your Point)  It may have been designed with that in
mind, but it doesn't *INCLUDE* it, i.e. it is a different layer
or abstraction from what you would think of as a UNIX kernel.

>>OS/2 is single user...
>>	Don't confuse "single user" with "single tasking".
>
>I'm not confusing the two at all, but there is a big difference between
>being pseudo-multi-tasking, and being multi-user. 

This is a joke.  While OS/2 may suck (thanks beavis and butthead..)
it is a *TRUE* preemptive multi-tasking OS! It is also multi-threaded
which is something that run-of-the-mill UNIX is not.  And I don't
think Sun's LWP user level threads really count do they?
Pseudo multi-tasking would be MS-Windows or McFinder ... where the
process/program looses control when it makes API calls, or explicitly
yield()'s.  NT is also *TRUE* multi-tasking/threading..

>
>>NetWare on XXX
>>	NetWare is an OS, not an application; don't confuse "non-preemptive
>>	multitasking" with "not multitasking".
>
>How is Netware an operating system?  I think this is arguable.  It's close
>enough I suppose, except you don't 'boot' netware, it relies on the 
>underlying operating system to support it.

Does it?  I believe it uses DOS to load itself and to access the C:
drive for devices, but it can't mount volumes via the underlying OS.
Let's see:
	memory management	yes, has it's own 32bit scheme
	protected mode		pseudo as RAM is one big segment.
	hardware drivers	yes! disk and lan are required
	user interface		yup, commandline, etc..
	etc...

Yeah, doesn't boot Netware...  sorry, but my BIOS and master boot
record boots my PC.  Every single operating system I have running 
on it, NetBSD, OS/2, Windows NT, DOS, Minix, etc.. is unable to
boot itself on my hardware...  they all require some underlying
services to load, once loaded they rely on their own drivers..
Hmm, sounds like an OS?  :-) :-)

>
>>Mac on DOS
>>	Again, don't confuse "single user" with "single tasking".
>
>Same as above.. 

Almost precisely, except System 7 is a cooperative multi-tasking
system, not preemptive... 
Or as a friend of mine argues all the time, "There is no such
thing as multi-tasking on a single processor, it is simply multiple
started tasks"  Yeah, yeah, take that up with a CS major..
:-)

-Andrew
-- 
#!/bin/sh - ==============================================
echo "Andrew Gillham                 gillham@andrews.edu"
echo "Winix Hacker                   usrvnp86@ibmmail.com"
#=========================================================