--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECS00003Date: 08/21/97 From: LEE ROBERTS Time: 07:06pm \/To: LARS HELLSTEN (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the19:06:4108/21/97 Upon hearing what Lee Roberts said about Re: To Linux or not to Linux, that's th Lars Hellsten became enraged, and said: LH> LR> must not be any good. My UNIX example pretty well blows that theory LH> LR> to bits (I notice that you didn't try to dispute it), and the same LH> LR> thing holds true for OS/2. LH> LH> You're comparing UNIX (and/or UNIX software) to OS/2? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH! Yup. Quality, powerful software that generally won't be found in a mass-market retail chain. Is this not correct? LH> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! HEHEHEHEHEH!!! Excuse me while I pick myself up off This is pretty funny, coming from someone who uses Win95 at home. Win95, AKA Macintosh for Dummies. LH> the floor... hahahaha... that was a good one. Better than anything you can come up with, from what I've seen. --- Launch Line 6.66 * Origin: The Launching Pad Phoenix, AZ (602)864-6610 (1:114/513) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECS00004Date: 08/17/97 From: ROBERT WHITE Time: 05:27pm \/To: TIM SPALDING (Read 2 times) Subj: Software in stores Tim, In Tim Spalding's message to Robert White on <13 Aug 97>, Tim Spalding said: RW>> I do see your point.. Though you cannot ignore the fact that most RW>> residential software sold today is for Win95/NT and not OS/2. TS> Actually, I'd have to point out that most residential software sold TS> today is still for DOS/Win3.1, since that's still the largest market TS> segment. Would you have to point that out would you? Prove it. TS> And I'll also point out that this is software that will also run TS> under TS> OS/2. Prove it. TS> In other words, OS/2 still runs more PC software than anything else TS> out there. Prove it. Regards, - Robert White [ R_White_@hotmail.com - www.geocities.com/area51/dimension/6715 ] --- FMailX 1.22 * Origin: Terminal Shock; Fidonet; Treknet; +61-2-9771-1182 (3:712/101) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECS00005Date: 08/17/97 From: ROBERT WHITE Time: 05:29pm \/To: TIM SPALDING (Read 2 times) Subj: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the Tim, In Tim Spalding's message to Robert White on <14 Aug 97>, Tim Spalding said: RW>>> that the first place people go to buy software, thier local LR>> No, that's the first place *Windows* users go to buy software, LR>> because many of them aren't capable of any more than that. Ask a LR>> serious UNIX user the last time he/she had to go buy software at LR>> a retail store. RW>> Dont you think that if there WAS any good software for OS/2 then RW>> they would at least have it on a store shelf? TS> No, because most OS/2 users prefer the convenience and lower cost of TS> going through the direct channel. They leave the stores to the TS> lemmings. If they preffer convienience shopping then why would someone want to spend hours on the internet searching for one thing? RW>>> Harvey Noman or Dick Smith store. LR>> Never heard of either of those. RW>> These stores are perhaps the biggest retail outlets for RW>> Software/Hardware etc.. TS> Obviously not, if most people here have never heard of them. Look stupid! We are in DIFFERENT ZONES! Meaning different COUNTRIES! cant you get that?!?!?!?!?!?!? LR>> Also, by your way of thinking there is no good UNIX software at LR>> *all*, since you will almost never find it in your typical LR>> software store. If that's really what you're saying, you might LR>> want to rethink it, because it's absurd on its face. RW>> I did not say that. We are talking only about Win and OS/2. TS> That's what YOU may have THOUGHT you were talking about, but the TS> discussion involved operating systems in general. You have been The disscusion was not with you, and it did NOT involve UNIX. TS> supporting the popular (but no less false) notion that there is no TS> quality software for OS/2 based on the fact that said software cannot TS> be found at any corner software shoppe, as it can for Windows. TS> Because of this, you consider Windows to be the superior system. Which it is. TS> It is true that you won't find much OS/2 software on shelves. For TS> that matter, you won't find much Mac software on store shelves either. Thats coz they are both crap. TS> And you won't find ANY for Unix, VMS, or many other systems. The TS> fact TS> that the software isn't on store shelves does NOT mean that it does TS> not exist. Which brings me to Lee's original statement. Yes, you TS> were in effect saying that there is no good Unix software because you TS> can't walk into your local Harvey Wallbanger store and find shelves TS> and shelves of programs for Unix. And I agree with Lee, that the very TS> idea is laughable. TS> Typical, but laughable. uhuh. Regards, - Robert White [ R_White_@hotmail.com - www.geocities.com/area51/dimension/6715 ] --- FMailX 1.22 * Origin: Terminal Shock; Fidonet; Treknet; +61-2-9771-1182 (3:712/101) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECS00006Date: 08/22/97 From: JOHN MEROTH Time: 08:45am \/To: LARS HELLSTEN (Read 2 times) Subj: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the Hello Lars! Replying to a message of Lars Hellsten to Justin Baustert: JB>> Well, let's hear what you're running.. From what I've seen, OS/2 has LH> Let's see... how much does OS/2 itself cost? Then I'd have to pay for LH> a program to do IP masquerading for my network. There is a version LH> of Apache for OS/2, so that wouldn't cost me anything. There might LH> be a decent FTP server, but no FTP server can be as good as a UNIX LH> FTP server, because they have to emulate a UNIX file system. And as LH> far as mail server apps, I highly doubt that there are any mail LH> servers for OS/2 that can come anywhere close to rivaling what is LH> available for UNIX. In fact, there are programs available for UNIX LH> OSes to do just about everything under the sun. And even better is LH> the fact that many of them come with source code. Most have been ported to OS/2 as that is so easy to do with Unix software. Even IBM ported Berkley's DNS, bind into LanServer. I AM an ISP and do it all on OS/2. BTW, my FTP server does all that NFS does, though I could have loaded the port of the UNIF NFS. V5 of Warp will have the Unix file system as part of the OS. LH> Anyone who wants to rely on freeware/shareware apps (as you need to if LH> you use OS/2) would be using Linux if they were smart. Linux has its place as does OS/2. Apples & oranges. LH> Because they're too stupid to be able to figure out UNIX, like the LH> vast majority of major corporations. Or maybe it's because the OS/2 LH> people they hire command cheaper salaries than the average UNIX LH> P/A... who knows. Ask them. TTYL, John Meroth jmeroth@tbos2cla.com --- FleetStreet 1.19 NR * Origin: Tampa Bay OS/2 -- Clarion BBS (1:377/86) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECS00007Date: 08/21/97 From: KEITH DOUGLAS Time: 12:18pm \/To: LAWRENCE LUCIER (Read 2 times) Subj: To Linux or not to Linux, LL> IMHO, Keith it all depends on where a personal has/is coming LL> from; that is, old tiimers who are used to typing and Yes, to some degree, but these studies indicate that a lot of 'speed' commandline users claim to have is in fact a psychological trick. (None of what I'm saying necessarily means that commandlines are -always- slower FOR YOU, though) LL> KD> (HINT: Typos make a mess :)) LL> Solution DOSKEY and arrow keys. But then you are taking more time. LL> KD> But can you -record- your commandline? And play it back? Modify LL> KD> it and then play it back again. Scripting. LL> Seems like DOSKEY would also fit these requirements but I'm DOS cannot be used in this discussion, as DOS doesn't support multitasking (at least alone) and hence cannot meaningfully have interapplication communication. --- FMail/386 1.22 * Origin: The Chrono Zone (514)363-6298 Lasalle, QC, Canada (1:167/310) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECS00008Date: 08/22/97 From: KEITH DOUGLAS Time: 07:35pm \/To: JOHN MEROTH (Read 2 times) Subj: To Linux or not to Linux, JM> KD> You need the REXX interpreter. JM> Still far less than one that must convert a char into bits JM> for display. How are these tied together? JM> KD> It provides a scripting language independant, dialect independant JM> KD> scripting API. JM> At the operating system level, yes. Some applications suites But can the applications talk between themselves and to the OS and its shell(s) via the API in a language independant dialect independant manner? JM> KD> DIALECT INDEPENDANCE) JM> I don't know if it is. Well, if it isn't (and do find out, I'd like to know) there's one feature that Mac OS has (and one cannot deny it is an immensely powerful one) that no other OS [yet] has. JM> KD> faster on CLIs. JM> In the business world where the speed is important, that JM> would be a grave mistake. I agree, so it is not surprising that people find time and again that it is true. (That CLIs aren't fast) JM> KD> That would be a tall order to demonstrate. JM> Not at all. Most any CURRENT CLI based word processor will JM> spellcheck and scroll screens far faster than any GUI. Spellcheck? Scroll screens? I can already do that faster than I can see. Is that enough? I'd say yes. JM> JM>> I'm not. The biggest reason a CLI is faster is that it takes JM> JM>> one byte to display a char. A GUI can take many bytes to JM> JM>> display that same char. JM> KD> a) How does (eg) DrawString ("\pFoo!"); fit in this, then? JM> KD> b) Unicode, QuickDraw GX extended chars, and so forth are often JM> useful. JM> KD> c) w_char_t, John? DrawString () is the system level output-a-string call. (analagous to say, printf() or puts() ..) QuickDraw GX and Unicode (and unicode IS crossplatform) use more than one byte per character in order to provide rich sets of characters which are useful for many applications. w_char_t is a similar sort of thing * IN ANSI C * and of course may crop up in strictly CLI operating systems. I suggest you look into it. JM> KD> If one application is serving data to another, that's what P&S is JM> for. JM> Care to tie those two into a BBS program? Suppose a program is uploaded. A datebase can subscribe to the information about the program uploaded and be updated automatically. --- FMail/386 1.22 * Origin: The Chrono Zone (514)363-6298 Lasalle, QC, Canada (1:167/310) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECS00009Date: 08/22/97 From: KEITH DOUGLAS Time: 07:36pm \/To: JOHN MEROTH (Read 2 times) Subj: To Linux or not to Linux, JM> I've never felt like I was 'turning loops' in order to use JM> CLI. No, you don't feel it, that's the point. JM> Could it be that I used CLI for about 5 years before I used JM> a GUI? These studies were done on experienced CLI users, who often thought they were faster on CLI, as well as on GUI users who remained more productive throughout. JM> Never had a mess made from wrong keystrokes. Sure have from I'm -really- skeptical of that claim. JM> KD> You can perform actions WITHIN applications and have it recorded? JM> Sure, the WP that comes with OS/2 will do that. And you can edit the actions recorded and play it back? --- FMail/386 1.22 * Origin: The Chrono Zone (514)363-6298 Lasalle, QC, Canada (1:167/310) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECS00010Date: 08/22/97 From: KEITH DOUGLAS Time: 07:48pm \/To: ERIC JONES (Read 2 times) Subj: Macs - better than you think? EJ> Macintosh computer operators generate a greater EJ> return on investment EJ> then their Windows-based counterparts, according to a study I've known that for quite a while. Of course, I use a Macintosh. :) --- FMail/386 1.22 * Origin: The Chrono Zone (514)363-6298 Lasalle, QC, Canada (1:167/310) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECS00011Date: 08/21/97 From: LAWRENCE LUCIER Time: 10:30pm \/To: KEITH DOUGLAS (Read 2 times) Subj: To Linux or not to Linux, Keith Douglas @ 1:167/310 wrote on 08-20-97 13:04 about *To Linux or not to Linux,* JM>> I don't need to use the increased system overhead that a GUI KD> AppleScript is interface neutral. It doesn't care what KD> applications want as their interface. Does this mean then it can implement a command line and be run from there? I thought Mac gear didn't subscribe to allowing command line interface? JM>> No program needed to run a script here as the script is a CLI JM>> program. KD> You need the REXX interpreter. Bat file need command.com. Are you suggesting that AppleScript doesn't use any form of exe/com or whatever? IMHO, I think Jacks statement was related to not having to use a GUI interface rather than saying no interpreter was involved.... --- Sqed/32 1.13b2/r15155 * Origin: T-Shirts 'N Genes BBS - (250) 748-3408 v32b v42b XA CM (1:340/204) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECS00012Date: 08/21/97 From: LAWRENCE LUCIER Time: 10:45pm \/To: KEITH DOUGLAS (Read 2 times) Subj: To Linux or not to Linux, Keith Douglas @ 1:167/310 wrote on 08-20-97 13:11 about *To Linux or not to Linux,* KD> You can perform actions WITHIN applications and have it recorded? Hmmm...........interesting! Does this mean then that Mac apps record all user input/output commands through AppleScript? JS>> Just because the cute thing you drag and drop is a silly picture, JS>> it is still a menu, just a picture menu, for those KD> We have a precise vocabulary in this discipline. Menu is KD> something else. You mean like refering to the primary drive as the C: drive in some CMOSes? Have to say I agree with Jack on this, a menu is a menu regardless of graphic (which includes straight text interface) presentation style; after all, a menu offers you choice to select one or more elements in a listing. KD> That's ANOTHER problem with commandlines - localization. What do you mean by this statement Keith? Thanks.............:-) --- Sqed/32 1.13b2/r15155 * Origin: T-Shirts 'N Genes BBS - (250) 748-3408 v32b v42b XA CM (1:340/204)