--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECZ00019Date: 08/28/97 From: LARS HELLSTEN Time: 10:08pm \/To: JUSTIN BAUSTERT (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the22:08:4008/28/97 JB> Maybe I did stretch it a bit, but I believe your words were that JB> Win95 is better than OS/2, you didn't add anything about your Since "better" is subjective, I don't see why I would need to add anything about my opinion. If there is something quantitative, or consensual that represents what "better" is in terms of an OS that I'm unaware of, please let me know. JB> opinion.. Furthermore you leave absolutely nothing to backup your JB> statements about why Win95 is so much better.. Sure I do, I've gone over it many times already, and I won't again. It's probably more a result of the fact I dislike OS/2 than a result of the fact I like Windows (I don't really like it, I just prefer it to OS/2 and DOS). ** Lars Hellsten (lars@matrixsoft.dyn.ml.org) ** --- Telegard v3.03.b06/mL * Origin: Future Shock <*> MatrixSoft / Telegard Beta Site (1:259/412) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECZ00020Date: 08/27/97 From: LARS HELLSTEN Time: 02:25pm \/To: LEE ROBERTS (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the14:25:1608/27/97 LR> Maybe now, but not just a couple of months back. Would you like to LR> see some of your recent quotes? :) What caused the sudden LR> revelation? Maybe, just maybe the fact that I shut my BBS down? To refresh your selective memory, you may want to recall the fact that when I was running Windows, I was also running my BBS, and only was using one computer at the time. That was the whole premise for why Windows was the best OS choice for me. I have been using Linux at work for quite some time now however. I would never setup a mini-ISP/Intranet using Windows or OS/2. LR> What is "normal", and what does it have to do with this discussion? Meaning people who aren't computer geeks. As for the relevance to this discussion, it probably isn't - but you're the one who brought this up by saying Windows is for "dummies". LR> tongue-in-cheek reference toa popular series of how-to books (the LR> Dummies series) that I was making, you're beyond help. Umm... you're comparing an operating system to a book? If so, I think you're beyond beyond help. LR> Are you running X with Linux, and did you try OS/2 without the WPS? Both. LR> onto Linux (someone is supposedly doing just that, by the way) and LR> I'd guess they'd be pretty close to equal. Pretty close to equal in terms of what? Multitasking performance? As long as overall performance is adequate, it's one of the least of my concerns when choosing an OS. It's not like I'm using a 286 or something. ** Lars Hellsten (lars@matrixsoft.dyn.ml.org) ** --- Telegard v3.03.b06/mL * Origin: Future Shock <*> MatrixSoft / Telegard Beta Site (1:259/412) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECZ00021Date: 08/27/97 From: LARS HELLSTEN Time: 02:32pm \/To: LEE ROBERTS (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the14:32:5208/27/97 LR> "isn't quality software"... but wait, didn't you just say that *you* LR> were porting something to OS/2? Now, why on earth would you want to LR> waste your time with something like that? :) Because quite a few people paid for my software, and I realize the value in being able to use native software as opposed to DOS software. If you read what I said, I said: LH> Now why on EARTH would I want to port UNIX software to OS/2... when I an LH> just run UNIX??? I did not say: Now why on EARTH would I want to port DOS software to OS/2... when I can just run DOS??? Does that clarify things? LR> I assume you know this for a fact. I also assume that you'll be LR> happy to provide proof. No one has proven that there isn't a person alive who's over 10 feet tall. Does that mean it's unreasonable to assume as a fact that there's no one alive who's 10 feet tall? Unless you can provide proof to me that there's an ISP that's OS/2 based which I consider to be of "reasonable size", I'll continue to assume that there isn't one. ** Lars Hellsten (lars@matrixsoft.dyn.ml.org) ** --- Telegard v3.03.b06/mL * Origin: Future Shock <*> MatrixSoft / Telegard Beta Site (1:259/412) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECZ00022Date: 08/27/97 From: LARS HELLSTEN Time: 02:51pm \/To: LEE ROBERTS (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the14:51:1208/27/97 LR> No, it isn't... I've yet to actually meet anyone like that, but it's LR> not worse in theory. Same here, as I have yet to meet many people who actually run OS/2 for starters. But I've seen plenty such people in FidoNet. I mean... that's what I interpret those team OS/2 sigs as - why would one want to advertise what OS they use in their sigs? I don't get that. It seems kinda like putting "My favourite food is Pizza" or "I drive a Porsche" in your sig. LR> That'll start to happen, as Linux gets more and more popular and LR> Windows users start perceiving it as a threat. What makes you think that? I'm not aware of very many Windows users who ridicule other people for their choice of OS. In fact, the only reason I ridicule OS/2 users is I've been listening to them ridicule Microsoft OSes for years now and it's annoying. LR> Win95 preloaded on his/her machine usually doesn't know about any LR> alternatives -- and if MS had their way, there wouldn't *be* any I hear this all the time, and it's so annoying... I think what you really mean, is that they use Win95, and LIKE it, thus have no reason to look for an alternative. Don't you think there's a reason OS/2 isn't that popular among home users? Oh, I forgot... it's all marketing. 100% marketing. There are NO computer users like me who've tried both and didn't like OS/2. There are NO people like a couple of my non-computer-literate friends who used both at my place, not really knowing which was which, and liked Windows better. Nope, it has nothing to do with that. ** Lars Hellsten (lars@matrixsoft.dyn.ml.org) ** --- Telegard v3.03.b06/mL * Origin: Future Shock <*> MatrixSoft / Telegard Beta Site (1:259/412) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECZ00023Date: 08/27/97 From: LARS HELLSTEN Time: 03:13pm \/To: LEE ROBERTS (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the15:13:2408/27/97 LR> Then explain the current trend toward *making* the shell a part of LR> the OS -- MS is certainly trying to do this, first with Explorer and LR> now with IE 4.0. No they aren't. They're making IE 4.0 part of the shell. They're not making the shell part of the OS. If that's the impression you get, then you don't know that much about OSes. Think about it. What does an OS do? Tell me. And what does a shell do? They're fundamentally different things. From a user standpoint, you may "see" the shell as being part of the OS, but that only makes the shell and the OS part of the same product, it doesn't make them the same thing. What you're saying is like saying "Intel is trying to make the motherboard a part of the CPU". That makes no sense. I wonder why you're even participating in this echo if you don't know what an OS is. It's this same kind of misunderstanding of what an OS is that has led to some of the idiotic threads in the past such as "Win95 isn't really an OS because it runs on top of DOS" (the most absurd thread I've seen in my life!) LR> Now there's a statement that makes little to no sense. In what way That depends on who is trying to understand it. Logically, however, that statement is quite sound. LR> is the "fundamentally not as good" GUI of Windows "better" than the LR> WPS? Well, most significantly would be the way it's more aesthetically pleasing to most people. ** Lars Hellsten (lars@matrixsoft.dyn.ml.org) ** --- Telegard v3.03.b06/mL * Origin: Future Shock <*> MatrixSoft / Telegard Beta Site (1:259/412) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECZ00024Date: 08/27/97 From: BAS HEIJERMANS Time: 11:07am \/To: ANKUR GUPTA (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: To Free or Not to Free Ankur Gupta made noise to Bas Heijermans: Hi Ankur, BH> The biggest threat to OS/2 is not the media, MS or other sources, it's BH> IBM itself:-( You must compare IBM with General Motors, you buy a car BH> from them but the salesmen are telling you to put a Lada motor in it BH> because the GM one doesn't have good maintenance, even when the GM BH> version doesn't require much maintenance at all. IBM needs to get their BH> employies on 1 line, OS/2 is far from dead. The best thing for OS/2 is BH> as IBM sells OS/2 to another company that stand really behind it, like BH> they did with Lexmark. AG> AG> Your idea is good. But I havent seen any aggressive AG> marketing for os2 yet. BH> There has been some good marketing for Warp3 redspine in the past, and BH> it worked. But then IBM stopped, nobody knows why, but IBM. AG> Maybe because they were not getting anything in return for AG> their adverts. They had a good return, Warp 3 was the most sold OS/2 ever. But people had complaints and IBM refused to listen to them. IBM has no clue what's going on in the market in Europe. For example, here in Belgium schools are complaining that the educational program has been gone, they wrote to IBM Belgium, no response, they wrote to Lou Gerstner, no response. IBM is too big to take good marketing decissions, there are too many people involved, that's why they mostly don't take any decissions at all! Merlin/2, Bas Heijermans. -=Team OS/2=- -=Mensys@Ping.Be=- --- timEd/2-B11 * Origin: You need OS/2 soft? Call Mensys ++32-3-3124611 (Voice) (2:292/880) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: ECZ00025Date: 08/27/97 From: BAS HEIJERMANS Time: 11:12am \/To: TIM SPALDING (Read 1 times) Subj: I'm BACK!!!! Tim Spalding made noise to Bas Heijermans: Hi Tim, BH> OS/2 Warp 5 is scheduled for 1998 TS> Cool. Any word on features yet? Journaling file system, no more fixed drive letters, new kernal, runs on more CPU's and/or types of CPU's. These are at the moment just roumors. Merlin/2, Bas Heijermans. -=Team OS/2=- -=Mensys@Ping.Be=- --- timEd/2-B11 * Origin: You need OS/2 soft? Call Mensys ++32-3-3124611 (Voice) (2:292/880) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: EC^00000Date: 08/30/97 From: JUSTIN BAUSTERT Time: 04:43pm \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: OS/2, The Best Intranet Server Choice...16:43:3608/30/97 I just thought I'd add a little pepper to this stew.. ******************************** OS/2, The Best Intranet Server Choice? The best intranet server operating system around just might be OS/2. Seriously. Recently, a friend told me he bashfully confessed to a coworker that he used OS/2. "Of course you do," replied his business associate. "You're a computing professional!" OS/2 is viable as the basis for your intranet for the same reasons that OS/2 has become "the professional's choice" for file servers and client systems. The primary reasons are decidedly unglamorous, but not insignificant: OS/2's rock-solid stability, its scaleability, security, and its low cost. Robust performance isn't often discussed in magazine articles, unfortunately, because what can a writer say other than, "It works"? And how exciting would it be to read a follow-up article six months later that says, "It still works, and they haven't even rebooted the computer"? Stable systems make dull journalism. On the other hand, they form the solid bedrock that lets you focus on enhancing your employees' computing ability. Rock Solid and Dirt Cheap We all yearn for the unrelenting dependability in a computer system that we expect from, say, a refrigerator. And reliability is one area in which OS/2 quietly and invisibly excels. As one intranet administrator explained, "Except for one AIX machine, all my servers run OS/2. One of my Web servers gets up to 12,000 hits per day and is a file server and domain controller at the same time. I have never seen its performance go down or had the thing crash for non-hardware-related reasons." Best of all, his experience is typical of OS/2 users. OS/2 is a cheaper intranet solution than its competition, or at least cheaper than Windows NT. "It comes down to cost. Both the hardware and software costs are considerably cheaper [than Windows NT] when comparisons are drawn," said Timothy Weaver, a corporate account manager for Newport Technical Services. What about Unix? To be fair, OS/2 and Unix compete neck-and-neck for intranets, and they have a reputation for amicable coexistence. Unix's major disadvantage is its reputation for an obscure interface. Many businesses view Unix as a complicated platform to implement and maintain. OS/2's administrative interface is much easier to learn (though such judgments can be subjective). From the technical side, most Unix daemons still use per-process programs, which take more resources than similar, threaded OS/2 programs. Threaded programs can provide better responsiveness. However, if you and your support staff are comfortable with Unix, don't switch to OS/2 just for your intranet. But if your computing experience has been in the DOS/Windows world and you are daunted by Unix's inscrutability, OS/2 is a far better intranet solution for you than Windows NT. Selection and Technique Contrary to popular belief, OS/2 gives you a wide range of choices for server software (see sidebar, "Tools for your OS/2 Intranet"), all of them dirt-cheap, as well as an active community of expert users to help if you encounter trouble or want advice. It's not necessary to load a full LAN server to use OS/2 on an intranet. Using OS/2 Warp Server for your intranet does give you a few technical advantages; but if you don't need them, don't bother spending the extra money. The TCP/IP support built into the OS/2 Warp client is more than adequate for an ordinary intranet. Among the technical advantages to running your intranet on OS/2 Warp Server is its included DNS daemon, with support for DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) and DDNS (Dynamic DNS). However, if your needs are simple, you can acquire domain name servers elsewhere. Another OS/2 Warp Server advantage is the increased cache size available with HPFS386 (supported only with the Server product), although its merits are debatable. Many system administrators and consultants who have experience with every flavor of intranet strongly prefer OS/2 as an intranet foundation. Perhaps Bob Madore, vice president of Sterling Microsystems, summarized OS/2 best: "There seems to be no end to its possibilities." Author: Esther Schindler *************************************** 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: EC^00001Date: 08/30/97 From: JUSTIN BAUSTERT Time: 06:54pm \/To: LARS HELLSTEN (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the18:54:2508/30/97 JB> Stability, great corporate support.. Both points Microsoft is JB> lacking.. LH> Stability: As I said, Windows is more than stable enough for the vast LH> majority of people. It may not be suitable for misson critical LH> applications, but as I said, how many average computer users are LH> using their computers for mission critical applications? Windows has LH> it's problems, but it's not like it crashes every 2 minutes. Many LH> Windows machines I've ever worked with have been up for days or weeks LH> at a time without the need to reboot. That's certainly stable enough LH> for most people. I have a feeling that many attornies I work with feel their legal briefs are very mission critical when they're working on a deadline.. If the number of documents lost can't be counted on one hand, that is certainly not stable enough for *me*.. As far as your experiences go, I can't explain it.. I'm working with over 120 machines on our network alone, and I'm pretty sure there is not a single Win95 machine that is coherent if not rebooted in a weeks time.. I've worked with hundreds, possibly considered thousands of machines.. How many is your "many"? LH> Support: Sorry, but I don't know a single person who's ever called up LH> Microsoft or IBM's technical support lines anyway. So that's quite LH> irrelevant to most people, as far as I'm concerned. I would think You don't know many people then.. Microsoft hardly needs to give support any more since they force their OEMs to sign support contracts.. IBM usually covers their own corporate support. OS/2 is a corporate OS, at least that's how IBM treats it.. Home users aren't that high on the totem pole, but there are other ways to get support. LH> Many companies refuse to support OS/2 at all. Who's fault is that? If a company doesn't support OS/2, I simply disregard that company as a viable source.. 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: EC^00002Date: 08/30/97 From: JUSTIN BAUSTERT Time: 06:56pm \/To: LARS HELLSTEN (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the18:56:1808/30/97 LH> Sure I do, I've gone over it many times already, and I won't again. LH> It's probably more a result of the fact I dislike OS/2 than a result LH> of the fact I like Windows (I don't really like it, I just prefer it LH> to OS/2 and DOS). I must have missed those many times.. Would you care to give the reasons why you have such a "dislike" (rather hatred) of OS/2? JB --- Telegard v3.02/mL * Origin: Courier Central \ Cashion, OK \ 405.433.2665 (1:147/92)