[Info-vax] Anyone interested in another public access system

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <9f559497-1bb5-4f65-a906-b39db0dd4c2c at k41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
	yyyc186 <yyyc186 at hughes.net> writes:
> On Apr 4, 5:35 pm, billg... at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>> In article <49D6D457.A96B7... at spam.comcast.net>,
>>         David J Dachtera <djesys... at spam.comcast.net> writes:
>>
>> How many times do you need to be told that Unix is adaptable enough that
>> pretty much any of the things you mentioned could have been (and still
>> could be) added except that Unix users don't see them as something to
>> be bothered about.
>>
> Saying it doesn't make it true.  UNIX, Linux, and Windows cannot
> cluster.  Period.  

You mean they can't cluster like VMS does.  People keep bringing up
things VMS does that Unix doesn't and think that makes Unix somehow
deficient.  And yet, VMS is dying and Unix is thriving.  Go figure.

>                     There are many out there in the marketing world
> commiting both wire and mail fraud each and every day with their
> marketing shpeal, but it is is criminal fraud none-the-less.

Which has what to do with why Unix is successful and VMS is dying?

> The closest the Unix world _ever_ got to clustering was the clustering
> provided by True64 and even that still wasn't clustering.  

So, what?  Are you saying all this computer crime is because Unix doesn't
do VMS Clustering?

>                                                            It created
> an animal which was shunned by both worlds, yet that animal was still
> better than that half completed Unix variant put out by HP.

And still Unix thrives in an industry that has resioundingly rejected
VMS.  Go figure.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>