--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: EDM00024Date: 09/05/97 From: ROBERT WHITE Time: 12:03pm \/To: RICH VERAA (Read 1 times) Subj: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the que12:03:0009/05/97 Rich, In Rich Veraa's message to Robert White on <01 Sep 97>, Rich Veraa said: RW>>> So? This is not a debate over what the system rescources are RW>>> but on the OS itself. NT is MUCH better than OS/2 when it RW>>> comes to thigs like Multi-tasking / Security / Networking. JS>> Don't just leave it there, tell us WHY NT is MUCH better than JS>> OS/2 when it comes to multitasking? RW>> Multi-tasking? Is that all you are going to pivck on? How about RW>> the rest of it JACK? How about Security, and Networking? There are RW>> inadequicies when it comes to these two factors and OS/2. RV> He was trying to nail you down to one area in hopes that you'd say RV> somthing more specific than just "it's better." Since OS/2's RV> superiority by every design criterion and performance characteristic RV> in multitasking, security, _and_ networking is well documented, it RV> would be interesting to see what you came up with. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! You must be joking! Christ! Why dont you stop going along with the crowd in here and start thinking for yourself! The proof is in the pie! Todays business market is almost totally controlled and dominated by Microsoft! not by OS/2 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: EDM00025Date: 09/11/97 From: JACK STEIN Time: 07:24am \/To: RICH VERAA (Read 1 times) Subj: Script files Rich Veraa wrote in a message to Jack Stein: RV> In one message to Keith Douglas Jack Stein wrote: KD> The point is what JACK'S users can do. KD> And we know now that they have a front end. JS> They have a menu. Every user on Unix has a "front end", other than JS> the super user. RV> And in the next message to Keith Douglas Jack Stein wrote: KD> Oh, yes, they do. There shell is your front end. JS> Oh no they don't. A restricted shell is a specific shell account JS> with very limited access to shell commands known as rsh, for JS> restricted shell. They are not using that, they are using a full JS> Bourne Shell. RV> If they're working through a menu, they don't have access to RV> the full Bourne shell. "They" the user may not have full access, but the Menu has full access to the shell. There is a not so subtle difference. 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: EDM00026Date: 09/11/97 From: JACK STEIN Time: 07:28am \/To: KEITH DOUGLAS (Read 1 times) Subj: Unix Shells Keith Douglas wrote in a message to Jack Stein: JS> KD> Oh, yes, they do. There shell is your front end. JS> Oh no they don't. A restricted shell is a specific shell KD> Fine, your front end is a 'limited shell' You are using a term that is meaningless to me. What you mean by "Front end" needs explained specificly to me. KD> Suppose hypothetically I load an app on some operating KD> system, and that app allows me to say.. create files and KD> delete them. It runs on top of, say, a full featured shell In unix a menu as you describe could run in a full featured shell, or on top of a full featured shell, or in, or on top of a restricted shell. KD> - but since it can never be left (per your own admission) KD> one cannot do anything but create files and delete them... KD> You see where this is going, I hope. Not really. KD> A front end -is- a shell. A shell is just an interface to KD> the OS (for humans) No, a shell is NOT just an interface for humans. KD> Finder is a shell. command.com is a shell. ksh is a shell. KD> Greg's Browser is a shell. cmd.exe is a shell. The Menu that the user see's can access any commands available to the shell. The fact that the person that wrote the menu only uses some shell commands in it's operation may insure the user does not access other commands available to the shell, but all the commands are available to the menu. If a user gets a restricted shell (rsh for example) then the writer of the menu cannot use commands not available to the shell. Now, if you wish to call Gregs Browser a shell, go ahead, there is no law against it, but you will have lots of trouble communicating in this subject area of computing. When you start lumping applications like Word Perfect, Gregs Browser and applications like Cmd.exe and ksh together, you are on very thin ice, and your ability to communicate your thoughts will be greatly hampered. 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: EDM00027Date: 09/11/97 From: JACK STEIN Time: 07:50am \/To: KEITH DOUGLAS (Read 1 times) Subj: Script files Keith Douglas wrote in a message to Jack Stein: JS> KD> And we know now that they have a front end. JS> They have a menu. Every user on Unix has a "front end", JS> other than the super user. KD> Depends on the system, doesn't it? No, it depends on what you call a "front end" KD> Or do all Unix installations everywhere use this menu? Every user has a secondary shell, which you apparently are calling a front end. A menu is an application, the same as any other application. 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: EDM00028Date: 09/11/97 From: JACK STEIN Time: 07:58am \/To: KEITH DOUGLAS (Read 1 times) Subj: GUI's vs 0110011011 Keith Douglas wrote in a message to Jack Stein: JS> KD> Explain in broad strokes how one would implement a JS> KD> commandline for Photoshop. JS> At the prompt, type Photoshop and press enter, or from a JS> text menu, select the photoshop item and press enter. KD> That's -running- Photoshop. I want to use it from KD> commandline. How? I sure have no clue what you are talking about. You use an application by running it. You run it, implement it, use it as I stated above? How do you "implement" Photoshop from a GUI? 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: EDM00029Date: 09/11/97 From: JACK STEIN Time: 04:40pm \/To: KEITH DOUGLAS (Read 1 times) Subj: GUI's vs 0110011011 Keith Douglas wrote in a message to Kenneth Abrams: KA> KD> JS> very small part of computing, secondly, you don't need a GUI JS> KA> KD> to run an applictation to edit pictures, view pictures or KA> KD> Explain in broad strokes how one would implement a commandline for KA> KD> Photoshop. KA> How about if you explain the connection between the above KA> statements? KD> Running one is not good enough. I want to be able to -use- KD> Photoshop from a commandline. KD> (eg: instead of using the markee with the mouse, I use some KD> sort of KD> marqee -h 30 -v 20 KD> or something That makes little sense. If the marqee application accepts parameters, then the command-line is totally capable of sending parameters to the application. It is no different than an icon having the capability to pass parameters to an application. Starting an application from a text command line or a text menu item or a gui menu item (icon) is all the same to the application as well as the PC. Only the user see's a difference. KD> (dunno, the point is that it would be very clumsy) How would passing parameters to a application using a GUI be any less clumsy? KA> If a GUI *were* actually required, then one would have to KA> believe that there are not, and never have been, *any* DOS KA> applications KD> I don't see many that actually require commandline operations KD> (see above) And not many (none?) require a GUI either. KA> As for implementing a commandline for a graphical KA> application, take a look at AutoCAD sometime. KD> Does autocad do things like the above? If Autocad accepts parameters then it accepts parameters, and whether issued from a command line, a text menu, or a gui menu makes no difference whatsoever. 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: EDM00030Date: 09/11/97 From: JACK STEIN Time: 04:54pm \/To: ROBERT WHITE (Read 1 times) Subj: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the que16:54:1609/11/97 Robert White wrote in a message to Rich Veraa: RW> Rich, RW> In Rich Veraa's message to Robert White on <01 Sep 97>, Rich RW> Veraa said: RW>>> So? This is not a debate over what the system rescources are RW>>> but on the OS itself. NT is MUCH better than OS/2 when it RW>>> comes to thigs like Multi-tasking / Security / Networking. JS>> Don't just leave it there, tell us WHY NT is MUCH better than JS>> OS/2 when it comes to multitasking? RW>> Multi-tasking? Is that all you are going to pivck on? How about RW>> the rest of it JACK? How about Security, and Networking? There are RW>> inadequicies when it comes to these two factors and OS/2. RV> He was trying to nail you down to one area in hopes that you'd say RV> somthing more specific than just "it's better." Since OS/2's RV> superiority by every design criterion and performance characteristic RV> in multitasking, security, _and_ networking is well documented, it RV> would be interesting to see what you came up with. RW> Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! You must be joking! Christ! RW> Why dont you stop going along with the crowd in here and RW> start thinking for yourself! Why do I think your going to next say some fantasy about that the business world is dominated by MicroSoft, in a lame attempt at relating crowd behavior (lemmings) to "better OS's". RW> The proof is in the pie! Todays business market is almost RW> totally controlled and dominated by Microsoft! not by OS/2 There it is. You do know that Microsoft sells less software than Computer Associates, and IBM sells more than CA? That makes MS at least 3rd in controlling and dominating the computer software world. What else does MS do BTW? There PRIMARY computer activity is software, and they are 3rd in sales world wide. IBM is primarily in Hardware and Research, and software is an aside, yet the are the worlds largest software company, as well as the worlds largest hardware company, and the worlds largest computer research company. If you wish to base quality of an OS based on world dominance in computing products, you will have to pick IBM products, as IBM has the biggest piece of the pie in all areas of computing. If you wish to back up your goofy statements that MS products are superior to other products, then you should perhaps use something other than dominance of the market. You can't do that because your premise that MS OS's are superior is blatantly false, and the truth is MS OS's are well known to be the worst gobledegook of code available in the home and business market. The best you, or anyone can say about MS OS's is they are stuck on millions of machines at the factory, and merchants are at every corner willing to seperate you and your money to buy one hunk of software after another so you can attempt to use your computer to do something. 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: EDM00031Date: 09/11/97 From: LEE ROBERTS Time: 04:46pm \/To: ROBERT WHITE (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the16:46:3609/11/97 Upon hearing what Rich Veraa said about To Linux or not to Linux, that's the que Robert White became enraged, and said: RW> Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! You must be joking! Christ! Why dont you stop RW> going along with the crowd in here and start thinking for yourself! Why don't you offer something substantive to a debate? You have yet to give any solid reasons for anything, nor have you shown any signs of knowledge of the subject matter. RW> The proof is in the pie! Todays business market is almost totally controlle RW> and dominated by Microsoft! not by OS/2 Actually, you're completely wrong (as usual). If you're talking network Ses, it's "dominated" by Netware, which doesn't even hold a majority of the arket. A plurality yes, but not a majority. NT doesn't even come close to being able to compete for large networks and enterprise solutions -- it's just not good enough yet. Consider this statistic: OS/2 sells as many units in one month as NT has in its *entire* lifetime (as of July 1997). Check InfoWorld for stats. If you're talking about the financial industry, which was part of the usiness market last I checked, you're wrong again. OS/2 was and still is the undisputed king of that industry. And, you never answered my previous posts: Is it still your assertion that software can't be any good unless it's found in a retail store -- and by extension, can it be assumed that all variants of UNIX are garbage, since they won't be found in your average retail store? A simple yes or no answer will suffice :) --- 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: EDM00032Date: 09/11/97 From: MARK BIRENBAUM Time: 06:10pm \/To: KEITH DOUGLAS (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: To Linux or not to Linux, that's the18:10:0609/11/97 MB> entire system out. MB> KD> Any OS is vulnerable to this. MB> Very much no. Because other OSes use pre-emptive KD> If it worked as you claim, no preemptive OS would ever KD> hang. Since I've seen KD> preemptive OSes hang... You've entirely got that incorrect. I said a pre-emptive OS wouldn't hang because a particular program will refuse to give up the proccessor. A naughty program can still over-write other program's memory, or in the case of OS/2, the input queue, or lock resources other programs need, there's a lot of things that can cause system hangs. It's just that in a non-premptive environment, the most common one is usually because a program refuses to give back the processor. KD> BTW, there are several Linux implementation for Macs. Yep, I know. But pretty much no-one buys a Mac to run Linux. The one fellow I know using MKLinux is constantly complaining about how this company or that (usually Netscape) won't port a product for it. Fortunatly, for him, he's able to use FSF stuff primarily, so he can compile it himself. KD> Not exactly. If you want the run-down on technical KD> details of Rhapsody, I'll KD> be happy to talk about it, as I've attended several KD> sessions at MacHack (programming conference) on such KD> things. Very much so. Either netmail me the details if they're not on topic (address below) or markb@v-wave.com. * Nereid * The native OS/2 message editor. --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: The Foundation - (403) 436-1345 / 437-1617 - (1:342/620) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: EDM00033Date: 09/12/97 From: KENNETH ABRAMS Time: 12:10am \/To: KEITH DOUGLAS (Read 1 times) Subj: GUI's vs 0110011011 KD> Running one is not good enough. I want to be able to -use- KD> Photoshop from a commandline. However, that wasn't the subject of the debate, which started with this exchange: LH> JS> GUI's have been shown to be vastly unnecessary, and have been LH> Really? So how exactly would you go about editing an image? Lynx In which LH clearly implies that a GUI environment is a requirement of editing an image file. Obviously, most of the tasks in editing an image are simpler when the application itself presents a graphical interface of some type. This, however, does require that the operating environment be a GUI. KD> (dunno, the point is that it would be very clumsy) Actually, it's usually more precise. For example, I've got a modified DOS CAD program called Campaign Cartographer that's used for creating maps such as those used in playing RPG's (like AD&D, I've been known to DM). I can draw lines, etc. using the mouse (after selecting the function from a menu). However, I can also place points of origin, etc. more accurately if I choose to by entering coordinates directly. Granted, that's more difficult, particularly in this program, but it can be far more accurate than I could easily accomplish via the mouse. For the purposes of my maps, however, I seldom need that kind of accuracy. KD> Does autocad do things like the above? I've never actually used AutoCad, but I support a station at work running it and have had to deal with setting it up (and fixing it, or Windows). It has a commandline within the program, although that window can be either resized (1, 2, etc. lines) or removed. According to the operator, you can do anything from that commandline. In watching her work, it seems to be about a 50/50 mix of digitizer menu/commandline operations most of the time. Actually, she has three options for input, the commandline, the digitizer menu, or the onscreen menus (2 of them). This is a Windows program, too, so it is also running from a GUI in this case. kabrams@erols.com * RM 1.3 03106 * --- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0 * Origin: BBS Networks @ bbsnets.com 301-863-5089 (1:2612/10)