--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: EAL00009Date: 06/12/97 From: LEON KIRILIUK Time: 05:41pm \/To: QUENN FINCH (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: I'm BACK!!!! QF> the job done for me. But, OS/2 is good for running BBS 24 hrs a day QF> tho without any freeze up. EXACTLY! Which is why I ran it for 2.5 years! Because at that time I had no need for all my high end top of the line graphic applications, and programming tools. But these days, OS/2 can't cut it anymore. As an OS, it is excellent, as an OS that people support and has a mass market with tons of applications, it's TERRIBLE! I would rather use a mac than OS/2 these days! Not only that, in the good old days, when the internet was young, and IBM Explorer was great, nobody even though of using anything other than OS/2 based internet programs under OS/2. But OS/2, once again, has fallen behind even in that field. That is also another reason I switched.. it was the day I realized all my plugins and internet tools are mostly win3.1 based and I'm running it under OS/2! Leon Kiriliuk --- * Origin: The Sight & Sound BBS (416)665-6908 (1:250/532) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: EAL00010Date: 06/13/97 From: LEON KIRILIUK Time: 05:14pm \/To: KEITH DOUGLAS (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: I'm BACK!!!! KD> You can have the best of all possible worlds on Mac OS systems, KD> though. Speaking of MAC's, I got a nice PowerPC at work with the PC card in it. It is running windows95 on it! ;) Only thing is that this PC card has only 8MB of RAM on it, and an IBM pentium clone.. but it's ok. Leon Kiriliuk --- * Origin: The Sight & Sound BBS (416)665-6908 (1:250/532) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: EAL00011Date: 06/13/97 From: LEON KIRILIUK Time: 05:36pm \/To: JACK STEIN (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the17:36:3606/13/97 JS> Thats not true to begin with, windows ONLY works on Intel JS> architecture, so it's support right away sucks, and is horribly JS> limited compared to Unix. Well, Windows95 that is. ;) Anyways, do you really believe there are more UNIX boxes out in the world than Intel machines?? I strongly doubt that! JS> Yes, it's still lame, and so are the vast majority of it's users. Oh I'm sorry master. The entire population is wrong, but you know better, show us the way, oh great one.. JS> Even PCGAG, the Win rag stated WIN is for the computer stupid, and JS> they were for once right. It's so amazing how you generalize windows.. it's like saying Win3.1, 95 and NT is the same thing! Give me a break.. OS/2 might be better than 3.1 and 95 technically on the white papers, but NT just kills it! (And the HW requirements are no longer a bother, since most of the computers people buy for their homes today run NT very well!) JS> 100 Billion people using the lamest OS on earth does NOT make the OS JS> NOT lame. The OS might be lame, but who gives a hoot? The programs are not! Unlike all the OS/2 apps out there (if there are any left) JS> What is unusual is that OS/2 is price competitive with WIN, yet is a JS> great deal more advanced and robust in design, yet almost NO ONE Again, I know that, but that is totally worthless! Because THERE ARE NO GOOD COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS FOR IT. I feel like a broken tape recoder.. I keep on say that, but all you OS/2 die hard fans just keep on jumping it "well, win95 is lame... OS/2 is better.. OS/2 multitasks better.. blah.. blah.. blah...".. It doesn't matter if it can't run a NORMAL application! The day OS/2 would be as widely supported as WindowsXX, is the day I would switch back to it. But by todays standards, and the high end applications I require, it is totally TRASH. JS> doesn't make perfect sense, that Unix is not more stable than JS> WIN, that the vast majority runningWIN have no clue? Ya.. well, you do have to be a rocket scientist to configure and use UNIX, and 1/2 way there with OS/2. That is why Windows is so popular, and has a ton of great and amazing applications. JS> True, OS/2 and UNIX cannot easily be crashed, but OS/2 runs all kinds JS> of stupid WIN apps that crash DOS/WIN on a regular basis, and JS> generally do nothing at all to the running OS/2 system. It's the PLEASE... Are you REALLY implying that there are any good windows 3.1 applications left around?? No wounder you don't like windows or any of its applications, you haven't seen any win32 ones! JS> run WIN95. I don't need 100 billion lamo WIN users nor hype experts JS> like PCGAG to tell me this stuff though, I already know it from JS> experience. Quote please... JS> Baloney! I can't program myself out of a wet paper bag, and I've JS> only crashed OS/2 once with bad code, and Unix I never crashed. I Make a recursive pipe command.. With it a friend of mine crashed the entire computer science network, running : - 4 Ultra 2 machines with each one having 4 CPU's - Each one having 512MB of RAM! - Running SUN OS 4.2! JS> enviornment, you are dead wrong, and either have no clue about how JS> the systems work, or are lying. I program small dos applications for my DOS based BBS. I've manged to lock OS/2 using small DOS application with Borland Turbo C++ 3.0 for DOS.. so don't tell me what that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about if you don't know. JS> "arcane". What is there about the DOS/WIN/WIN95/WINNT design JS> that makes it stable/unstable compared to Unix? Why is it so DAMN... You just love bringing up the structual desgin, don't you.. let me say it again.. OS/2 IS A BETTER OS THAN WINDOWS 95. OS/2 RUNS BETTER, MULTITASKS BETTER AND CRASHES LESS. OS/2 IS WORTHLESS TO 99.99% OF THE PEOPLE OF PLANET EARTH BECAUSE IT HAS NO GOOD APPLICATIONS. Happy? JS> What might they be? Don't give me names, tell what these "AMAZING" JS> apps do? I haven't found an "AMAZING" application in years. My first I've stated it in my past 10 messages. I'm not about to write it Read my past few messages. JS> Every major OS has applications that do the same stuff. Unix is not Show me **1** desktop publishing application for OS/2!!!!!! JS> good there, and it runs about all the DOS and WIN apps anyway, so Once again you say WIN as if it means WindowsXX.. it doesn't run Win32 applications! (New ones) JS> Tell me Leon, how long will DOS/WIN users be stuck with FAT? When Windows NT users are happy with their *32-bit* NTFS, thank you.. You can enjoy your 16bit FAT all you want, or you forgot it's 16bit?? JS> Gateway, Dell, Computerland, Sun or Wal-mart? How many truly stupid JS> users are there on earth? Should those that demand more just give in Users are not stupid because of the OS they run. It is stupid blind people such as yourself that can't understand it. Understand this : "People use their computer because of the programs that come with it". People know what MS Office is, they know what "Photoshop" is or "Netscape" or the HUNDREDS of other good productive titles out there. When you walk into a store, or even surf the net for good OS/2 applications, you can't find any. And the ones you find are outdated, or aren't complete. (Lotus Office 96!) Hence, how is it our fault that we use our computer for work, for games, or just for fun? You might find it fun to play around with your configurations, or you K-RAD OO Desktop (OS/2 user) or recompile your Kernel every time a new patch comes up (Linux user), but for the rest of us, we don't give a shit what kind of OS we are using, as long as the programs we need work with it. If Lotus, MS, Corel, Adobe, and all the other great companies announced tommorow that they are writing applications for OS/2, I'll switch over night, but they are NOT! And that is the end of that. JS> can't help you, call MSor Gateway or whoever sold you the system" I JS> guess I'm like a mini IBM, I don't want to be bothered with people JS> not really "serious" about computing. Exactly.. you can enjoy compiling your KERNEL all you want.. but if you run UNIX, that is basically all you're going to be doing with your computer. Face it, all the good applications are one MAC and WINDOWS based.. Leon Kiriliuk --- * Origin: The Sight & Sound BBS (416)665-6908 (1:250/532) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: EAL00012Date: 06/13/97 From: LEON KIRILIUK Time: 05:39pm \/To: JACK STEIN (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: I'm BACK!!!! JS> A better question would be what type of computer task cannnot be JS> accomplished with OS/2 running as the OS, that can be accomplished - Desktop publishing - 3D rendering - Photoimage manipulation (colorWorks SUCKS!) - 3D landscaping - Digital music recording, manipulation and master recordings - Playing internet based games (sorry, they support only win32) - Running the latest plugins for the internet - Live VIDEO communication over the internet - Teleconferencing Want any more? Leon Kiriliuk --- * Origin: The Sight & Sound BBS (416)665-6908 (1:250/532) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: EAL00013Date: 06/13/97 From: LEON KIRILIUK Time: 07:23pm \/To: JUSTIN BAUSTERT (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: I'm BACK!!!! JB> since the beginning.. Sure, they have their Office97 bloatware JB> which will never run under OS/2 on my system, but what major JB> upgrades were actually done to that office suite? It looks a little Let's see.. - Better grammer engine. Not only does it check your spelling as you type, it checks your grammar. - Complete internet integration. Anything from working with coleagues on a document over the net to creating full blown web pages. - Faster... - Less bugs (where the hell did you read about the 100+ bugs?!?) Talk about a biased opinion, you probably never even tried it! The second feature is the biggest thing. It does every thing Lotus WordPro 96 does except even more! Now, MS Office is just a small thing, what about all the rest? Even your Lotus Smartsuite, which IBM owns, makes better applications for Win32 than for OS/2! Heck, even the 96 smartsuite isn't complete! (Yet alone work with Warp 4 or 3 without major patches!) JB> run *now* will probably do anything they want to do for the next 10 JB> years, but waste their money on more crap from Microsoft for which Too bad that there aren't even enough applications under OS/2 to last you till the end of the year! Leon Kiriliuk --- * Origin: The Sight & Sound BBS (416)665-6908 (1:250/532) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: EAL00014Date: 06/13/97 From: LEON KIRILIUK Time: 07:24pm \/To: ELLIOTT GOODMAN (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: Why I run OS/2 EG> I can say the same thing, Leon. Except that I find that all the apps EG> I need to run work just fine under OS/2. Well, congratulations Elliott.. You are one of the very few people out in the world that has all his needs fulfilled with OS/2. Unfortuntly, for the rest of us, there are many applications to be desired. Not only for educational purposes, but also financial purposes. Leon Kiriliuk --- * Origin: The Sight & Sound BBS (416)665-6908 (1:250/532) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: EAL00015Date: 06/16/97 From: ANTHONY TIBBS Time: 04:30pm \/To: JUSTIN BAUSTERT (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: OS/2 On Jun 13 23:58, 1997, Justin Baustert of 1:147/92 wrote: RW>> Haven't you heard of NT? JB> I believe we were talking about Win95, and Microsoft dropped HPFS JB> support for JB> NT 4.0 (though it can be hacked back into place with a few JB> well-placed NT3.51 Actually, going by the subject line, we were talking about OS/2. Going by your original message, we were talking about "Windows" (no particular version specified). You didn't say "Windows 95" - you said "Windows". JB> files).. Due to the fact that NT doesn't run the latest OS/2 apps JB> at all, JB> nor DOS apps with the speed of OS/2, who needs it? I do have to agree with you there, though! DOS apps under WinNT are *slow*. Anthony --- TriED 0.90 * Origin: World of Power BBS (pvt) (1:163/215.38) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: EAL00016Date: 06/15/97 From: JACK STEIN Time: 07:46am \/To: PAUL WANKADIA (Read 2 times) Subj: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the que07:46:4006/15/97 Paul Wankadia wrote in a message to Keith Douglas: PW> On 10 Jun 97, Keith Douglas wrote to Ektoras Karagiannis -- KD> There's no underlying metaphor to unix UI, which is why it is so KD> broken. (Windows suffers from the same problem, in a different way) PW> Unlike you, Keith, most people can see that "grep" is used PW> for searching for regular expressions in files, that "ls" PW> gives you a directory listing and that "cat" is most often PW> used for displaying files on-screen. Quite simply put, it's PW> no more illogical than calling your cat "Rover" and your dog PW> "Whiskers". I understand what your saying, but to get a little finatical about it, I have to disagree a little. Naming a dog Rover and a cat wiskers is standard convention, so doing the opposite is confusing, like using Esc for repeat, and F3 for help and so on, not wrong, but not quite right either, and certainly not user friendly to those used to normal conventions. Unix is much more user friendly and UN-arcane than that, and generally uses mnemonic terms (those that "tweek the memory) terms that are logical and make sense. cat stands for CATenate files, ls stands for LiSt, grep for Get Regular ExPression, dv for Disk Volume, man for MANuel and so on. The fact you must have something in memory to "jog" is apparently what Keith is moaning about. My argument with Keith all along has been that this is NOT at all "ARCANE". IE, this is not SECRET info, and is readily available to anyone interested in learning and using the Unix command language. The commands are NOT complex, are simple to use, have great flexability, any dork with half a brain can learn them quickly and easily, particularly if they are already familar with computing on the command line and so on. I think Keith would like commands like "Show me a list of all the files on the default directory, the default directory meaning the one that you are in at this very moment" Then, since few people on earth could remember that exact line, would like a graphical representation of it in a little ICON showing a picture of a folder, or a file cabinet, or a fish. Of course, one would still need to know what a directory, file and where you are at the moment, actually means, or what a folder, file cabnet or fish represents. No one is bourne with that info any more than they are bourne with concept of man, ls, cat, type, cut, paste, who, diff, pwd, dv, grep, sed, awk, nawk, gawk, uname, uuname, comm, rcp, find, file, kill, lp, lpstat, print, cu and hundreds more "arcane" commands that make the Unix system a breeze to use to those interested in computing at it's finest. Jack --- timEd/2-B11 * Origin: Jack's Free Lunch 4OS2 USR16.8 Pgh Pa (412)492-0822 (1:129/171) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: EAL00017Date: 06/16/97 From: JUSTIN BAUSTERT Time: 10:18pm \/To: LEON KIRILIUK (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: OS/2 LK> Actually, NT4 can see HPFS partitions right out of the box. The only LK> thing is that when you have a new installation, you don't have LK> the feature to format your HD to HPFS. That's news to me.. Explain why there is even talk about the popcorn (?) hack to get NT 4.0 to read HPFS.. Are you running NT 4.0? Have you done it yourself? I could do it myself since I have NT 4.0 here, but I don't feel like wasting my time going though another installation when OS/2 does it better/faster than NT can *any* day. LK> But why waste your time with HPFS, if NTFS is better! What's so great about NTFS? It's already proven to be slower than HPFS. LK> Give me a break, if you had a kick ass OS that can run every LK> single win32 app or every single OS/2 app, I'm sure you wouldn't LK> think twice about choosing win32! Hmm... Let me think for about 2 seconds.. I can continue running the software I have now, or waste my money on the new bug-ridden software from Microsoft.. Not a very tough decision.. LK> I know.. it runs it faster! (This from experience on an ***IBM*** LK> laptop, P120 with 32MB of RAM). My friend's laptop (he works at LK> IBM) came with 3 HD's. On one HD I installed OS/2 Warp 4, the other LK> 95 and the last NT4. NT4 runs the best and easiest with many great LK> laptop features. OS/2 ran the worse.. he had to reinstall it 3 LK> times.. and HPFS didn't even want to install! And all this on a LK> $10,000+ IBM laptop! Oh, a laptop, not something I'd call a good testbed.. I'll tell you what. Whenever I become less busy and completely bored out of my mind, I'll run some real tests on NT 4.0 vs. OS/2 4.0.. This system is running a Tyan Tomcat III w/ Intel P166 MMX, 64M ram, Matrox Millenium w/4M, Adaptec 2940U, and the main HD is a Seagate Cheetah 4.5G Ultra SCSI.. The main problem I see right now is that NT can't install without seeing a C: partition.. Being that my first two HDs are 2.1G WD drives formatted HPFS, that makes even *installing* NT a chore. Strike one, and we haven't even started. I suppose I'll end up resizing my first partition to allow for a small DOS partion at the front of the drive, for the sole reason of installing NT, mind you. Actually, I don't know why I'd even need to bother doing these tests, as it's already been proven that OS/2 runs it faster/better.. JB --- Telegard v3.02/mL * Origin: Courier Central \ Cashion, OK \ 405.433.2665 (1:147/92) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: EAL00018Date: 06/16/97 From: JUSTIN BAUSTERT Time: 10:27pm \/To: LEON KIRILIUK (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the22:27:0706/16/97 JM> a couple more months. LK> Keep on dreaming. If NS communicator for OS/2 comes out in 2 months, LK> then I'll swallow my pride, but knowing Netscape and the past LK> track record of companies making applications for OS/2, it will be We'd prefer that you eat crow, actually.. LK> Better yet, does Domino for OS/2 even exist? (I don't know the LK> answer for this one) Of course.. You probably also didn't know that the performance of Notes under OS/2 Server is second to none.. JB --- Telegard v3.02/mL * Origin: Courier Central \ Cashion, OK \ 405.433.2665 (1:147/92)