Newsgroups: comp.parallel.pvm
From: bwh@inf.rl.ac.uk (Brian Henderson)
Subject: Re: PVM under Windows?
Organization: RAL, Chilton, Didcot, England
Date: 24 Aug 1994 07:40:11 GMT
Message-ID: <33etgr$2go7@unixfe.rl.ac.uk>

In article B8URBSZN@math.fu-berlin.de, wolff@inf.fu-berlin.de (Thomas Wolff) writes:
>BAD305@UKCC.UKY.EDU (Bill Paterson) writes:
>
>: >>> Notwithstanding any proprietary secrets, why would you want to
>:     to run PVM under Windows?  I assume that the job would be running
>:      without any other users over your network?  Windows is not an
>:      operating system.
>
>I won't argue that Windows is wide-spread, people use it, lots of 
>developments have been made for it, and all that, since on the same 
>grounds I would also have to accept the single-letter junk language 
>as a usable programming language - which I don't.

Ok 

>But I'd like you to take a somewhat more relative view. 

Do you now????

>For years 
>during my studies, I used to blame BS2000 (a mainframe operating system) 
>for being slow, user-unfriendly, unflexible in setting up command jobs, 
>etc. When I became familiar with Unix, I really had to reduce my 
>anger. Unix is flexible, yes, that's it. It is extremely user-unfriendly, 
>poorly documented, error-prone, leaving you alone with errors, 
>errors are fostered over years for sake of "compatibility" instead 
>of removing them, it is unsafe in many respects. Widespread add-ons, 
>like X-Windows, are gigantic and slow. 

Zzzzzzz. X-windows in FREEEEEEEEEEEE, portable...............
A real system (ie: i CAN use all systems around me!!!!!!!!)

>Almost worst of all, Unix is 
>basically responsible for the persistent plague of the meanest 
>programming language ever.

Whoa there! UNIX has nothing to do with FORTRAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Be cautious with your judging!
>Windows may well be called a toy system if you wish.

Grow up laddy!!! Windows is a TOY!  :)

Today we are looking to write multi-application systems, co-operating, 
co-existing!

Under windows applications fight each other for memory, processor......
No pre-emptive shceduling, no memory protection (hardware/os)

>Unix is definately a hackers' system.
>The best system I've seen (Apollo Domain/OS) is dying out.
>VMS (which I don't know much about) is dying out.
>What else do we have?
>
>A nerved systems user
>Thomas Wolff@inf.fu-berlin.de

Coming to the point:

PVM on WINDOWS????

Without pre-emptive scheduling how can one access the available cycles on 
nearby PC's without totally thrashing the machine. Under UNIX PVM tasks
co-exist in a multi-tasking environment. WINDOWS is esoterically single-task
orientated so:

	You play in WINDOWS    OR	you compute and twiddle fingers

	you cant seriously hope to do both, or allow other users to attempt
	to steal/borrow your free cycles.




---
Brian W. Henderson		    *	UK JANET: bwh@uk.ac.rl.inf
Parallel Processing Group	    *	UUCP:	  ..!mcsun!ukc!rlinf!bwh
Computational Modelling Divison,    *
Informatics Department,		    *******************************************
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon. OX11 0QX,	Tel : +44 + (0235) 821900 ext. 6151
_______________________________________________________________________________



