Re: At the risk of sounding like an AS/400 rah-rah...

["Adam Lang" <aalang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Very nice summation actually.  The three OSes do things differently because
they all came to the same problems from different paths.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: At the risk of sounding like an AS/400 rah-rah...


> > From: bdietz@3x.com
> >
> > Actually winders NT and up (200 and XP) have a scheduler built in.
>
> Cool!  I'm having a little trouble finding the options that allow you to
> hold, release, modify or immediately execute the batch jobs, though.  Same
> with the Unix stuff.  Probably because they don't exist.
>
> Most of the schedulers for the PC-based OS's are pretty limited in their
> capabilities, but that's simply a reflection of the evolution of the OS.
> While OS/400 has been from its very inception all about handling business
> applications, the PC OS's are primarily single user systems or multi-user
> text processors.
>
> Unix is closer to being able to handle business applications than Windows
> because at least Unix was built for multi-user processing.  Windows was a
> single-user multi-tasker, which "evolved" into a multi-user OS.
>
> In both cases, though, scheduling is seen as more of a "system
> administration" function than an operations function.  In fact, the
concept
> of a system operator is sort of foreign to most Unix/NT shops.  Rather
than
> having a subset of daily business operations that can be easily run by an
> operator with minimal training, you instead have a bunch of technical
> commands (cron, at, ...) that require somebody with some relatively
in-depth
> knowledge to use.
>
> It's this philosophical divergence that really differentiates the IBM
> midrange from the more technical OS's.  And if don't agree with that most
> simple of comments, please send your responses to /dev/nul.
>
> >smile<
>
> Joe