[Fwd: Re: Position & proposal]
William A. Barnett-Lewis
Wed, 04 Jun 1997 14:29:58 -0500
William A. Barnett-Lewis wrote:
> Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> > | Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 12:37:54 -0500
> > | From: "William A. Barnett-Lewis" <email@example.com>
> > | To: ET <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > | Cc: email@example.com
> > | Subject: Re: Position & proposal
> > | Hmmm, this is certainly true, but I guess that a better way of
> > | expressing my feelings might be to suggest that workstation and server
> > | operating systems are, in fact, qualitativly different. Almost all
> > | current operating systems - Linux/Unix, Novell, NT, OS2 - are really
> > | Network Operating Systems and less than ideal (to me) as workstation
> > | operating systems.
> > What is a Network Operating System? I've never seen it defined except
> > my marketroids. What is the technical definition? For that matter,
> > what is a workstation operating system? I'm perfectly willing to
> > believe that there are reasonable technical definitions for these
> > terms. I just haven't run into them yet.
> > Thanks!
> It is a disttinction created by the marketers, much as many of the
> distinctions between mainframe, minicomputers, microcomputers,
> superminis, supermicros, etc... In the end, most people defined systems
> based upon data path and adress path while still using those same names.
> NOS, likewise, is a term created by _them_, but used a lot in the
> enviornment (state government) that I work in. Is it very technical? No.
> Do you (or most people, anyway) understand that I am refering to a
> system that is optimised for storage & printer sharing or for running
> centralized applications over a predominantly PC based network for the
> primary purpose of maintaing the kind of centralized control that had
> otherwise gone the way of most dinosaur pens? Yes. As I stated before,
> this opinion is only a personal philosophy; the more decentralized the
> better. That's all.