From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:18:04 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <3036@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>In <1992Sep3.104251.24889@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>In article <3033@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>>>Let me start with stating this is becoming an interesting list and I
>>>have learned a lot from it. I do have some problems with it however.
>>>
>>>It contains a mix of facts, opinions (of the author) and plans for
>>>the future. The distinction between those is not made very clear. I
>
>>Can you give me some examples of where I'm not being clear... I believe
>>you, but it's not always easy for me to tell.
>
>For example the subjects on asynchronious I/O and autoexpanding stacks
>seem a bit single sided to me. Some people (Charlap and some IBM fellow?)

I think you need to read more closely then.  I've changed the async stuff
more than once, and still have it marked as a point of controversy.
I've got a definitive answer from an IBM person that knew on the
stack extention question.  What more do you want?  The information
there is correct.. I'm sorry if you don't like it, tell IBM... I have
no control over that feature.

>responded to them and I did see no changes in your list. I can imagine

Charlap's responses (more so the earlier ones, he's nicer about it now)
were often very bashing... I paid attention to the points he listed, but
I will not respond to bashing posts.  (I almost didn't respond to
this one, but your heart seems to be in the right place.)
You can criticize the information in the list without bashing, I have
received tons of e-mail and several posts that manage this quit well.

>you don't agree (you don't have to) but claiming unbiasness means IMO

I only claim that I try to be unbiased as I can be.

>you should at least note in this kind of cases that people have doubths
>about them. Now you just have your claims withouth the arguments of the
>other side. Notice I only give examples. I noticed you don't use many
>of the comment of Charlap which IMO is mostly very founded comment.
See above.

>
>>As to opinions... well unfortunately it's hard to do such a thing
>>without opinions.  I am removing some of the more inflammatory stuff
>>from the next revision (1.5... to be posted this evening)  if I still
>>have stuff you regard as only opinions send those to me.
>
>I have to admit you are doing very well. I couldn't do it so well myself.
>I am looking forward to the new revision.

Should be out in the next little while.

>
>>...
>>That is why I added the "!" in 1.3... if someone questions whether
>>or not the point is valid, I put the "!" beside it.
>
>I would like more details of that kind.

Ok.

>IBM has announced B2 security, POSIX complyance and use of the MACH

(B-level-security is already listed) Do you have a time frame for these
others?  I mean if you think IBM has "ANNOUNCED" some things, you
should see some of the things Microsoft has "ANNOUNCED". There is
no end to Microsoft's "vision" for the future.  Until
I at least get some sort of time frame, I assume it's very much vapor.
If you have the time frames from official sources (or even trade rags),
then pass them on.  POSIX compliance to my knowledge was only
announced at Spring COMDEX and if I remember correctly Reiswig
only used the phrase "eventually".  Sorry, but I don't consider
that an announcement of a feature that we'll see anytime soon.

>kernel to allow OS/2 on other microprocessors. That kind of information
>should at least be mentioned IMO. Even if no release dates are given. After
>all MS DOES give release dates but they don't say it all either. IBM is
>more conservative in giving dates and promises but I would not leave them
>out for that reason.

That is IBM's problem.

I agree that Microsoft is more liberal about dates, but then I assume that
the readers of the list know that, further it's not like they are that
much more liberal.  Microsoft often talks about "vision", but the
details I'm putting in the list don't come from that.
I.E.  I'm not putting in Microsoft's pie-in-the-sky promises... why
should I put in IBM's?

The "rules" I use need to be fair to Microsoft too.
The rule is simple... If it exists now, or has an announced time frame
not futher away than say '94, then I'll put it in.  Anything dated beyond
(or even in) '94 is mostly nonsense/hope.
In truth I only mention that Cairo comes out in '94 so that people
can see just how far MS is from having an OO shell out.
I put in things like that all over the place, but zealots have a
tendency to only see the ones that affect their god.

IBM may well eventually put OS/2 on Mach... but until we see them
putting a time frame around it, we'd probably be best off assuming
it is quite some time away.


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy