I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP.

[Snuffelluffogus]

terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter) wrote in message news:<4a77b8e8.0405231915.6675f43e@posting.google.com>...

Sorry, but after years of using Linux and trumpeting it's advantages,
I have tried some Windows circuit board design software and quite
honestly there is really no comparison between the Windows software
and the somewhat crude, though functional, Linux software.
Rather than waste the groups time, I just thought I would say that
Windows is actually a pretty good system and I have none of the
compatability problems with clients that I had when I was using Linux.
Linux is great, but Windows is far superior.
Terry Porter

The problem is that Linux proponents have taken the erroneous libertarian
attitude that the Linux movement must always be growing, improving,
becoming more bloated. As a result they never finish what they started,
other than kernel projects. Growth should never be the goal : specific
definable projects should be. And of course it doesn't help that
commercial Linux companies never pass on their profits to 99% of
the open source developers so there is no monetary incentive either.
But that is how advocates want it -- no money for programmers, only for
middlemen.

 

[William Ewart Gladstone]

Snuffelluffogus wrote:

The problem is that Linux proponents have taken the erroneous libertarian
attitude that the Linux movement must always be growing, improving,
becoming more bloated.

They are all Tories and Roundheads.

Long Live Queen Victoria !

Long ago life was clean
Sex was bad and obscene
And the rich were so mean
Stately homes for the lords
Croquet lawns, village greens
Victoria was my queen
Victoria, victoria, victoria, 'toria

I was born, lucky me
In a land that I love
Though I am poor, I am free
When I grow I shall fight
For this land I shall die
Let her sun never set
Victoria, victoria, victoria, 'toria
Victoria, victoria, victoria, toria

Land of hope and gloria
Land of my victoria
Land of hope and gloria
Land of my victoria
Victoria, 'toria
Victoria, victoria, victoria, 'toria

Canada to india
Australia to cornwall
Singapore to hong kong
From the west to the east
From the rich to the poor
Victoria loved them all
Victoria, victoria, victoria, 'toria
Victoria, victoria, victoria

--The Kinks

--
w:4

 

[David T. Johnson]

David H. McCoy wrote:

In article <40ccd87a$0$25487$45beb828@newscene.com>, abc@def.ghi says...

I'm not trying to incite a riot here, but I can't just sit here and let
you spout this nonsense. What would *your* reaction be to someone
claiming all sorts of defects in OS/2 (or Linux), but basing his
reasoning on OS/2 2.1 (or Red Hat 5).

Mike



That's pretty typical here. I believe that the problem is that OS/2
hasn't seen a significant change since OS/2 Warp 4, the last version I
used, so it appears to be difficult to understand that other operating
systems are on the move.

OS/2 has seen many significant changes since OS/2 Warp 4 was released in
1996. IBM has released two new "Convenience Pack" versions of OS/2 since
Warp 4 that they called 'OS/2 v4.51' (2000) and 'OS/2 v4.52' (2002).
These were fully-installable new updated versions of OS/2. The most
notable features they had that were not in Warp 4 were the JFS file
system (in addition to FAT and HPFS), the Logical Volume Manager (LVM),
Java 2 support, a 32-bit TCP/IP stack, improved peer-to-peer
networking, USB support, support for DBCS fonts, Geyserville power
management, better support for PNP devices, a revamped installer,
updated device driver options, and a lot of general improvements to the
WPS desktop function and performance, although its appearance remained
nearly the same as in Warp 4. The Warp 4.51 installer would let you
install over the top of a Warp 4 install and preserve your old Warp 4
desktop. The Warp 4.52 installer would let you install over the top of
a Warp 4.51 installer and preserve your Warp 4.51 desktop. You can
still get these from IBM by purchasing an OS/2 license from their
Passport Advantage online site and then purchasing a 'OS/2 Media Pack'
which comes with all of the Warp 4 CDs, the Warp 4.51 CDs, the Warp 4.52
CDs, and the 'Software Choice' CDs (which had software updates and
device driver additions.) Go to this site and click on the 'How to Buy'
link.

http://www-306.ibm.com/software/os/warp/swchoice/

The latest fixpack for Warp 4 is fixpack 17 (xr_m017) and the latest
fixpack for Warp 4.51 or Warp 4.52 is fixpack 4 (xr_c004). This site
has links to all of these. An IBM subscription ID and password are
needed to access them which you get if you purchase a one-year OS/2
maintenance license.

http://ps.software.ibm.com/os2fixp/softupd.html


--
Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
and IBM Web Browser v2.0.2

 

[David T. Johnson]

Jim Backus wrote:

From what I hear, the XP version of Windows is at last delivering the
robustness that users should expect of an operating system. Based on
my own experience of a variety of operating systems, OS/2 is the most
robust, followed by Mac OS (version 5 was probably the one I used),
Windows NT, Windows 98 with Windows 95 and Windows 3.1 as the worst -
I have no experience of Win2000 or XP.

OS/2 is very stable but now there are other operating systems that are
also reasonably stable. In addition to stability, the reasons I still
find OS/2 to be a lot of fun to use are the flexibility and
functionality of its workplace shell desktop, its superb multi-tasking
capabilities, its powerful tcp/ip stack, and the capabilities of its
printing subsystem to operate a variety of devices simultaneously.

--
Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
and IBM Web Browser v2.0.2

 

[Jan Panteltje]

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On a sunny day (14 Jun 2004 08:11:31 -0700) it happened darkred@myway.com
(Snuffelluffogus) wrote in <5f063e31.0406140711.641463c9@posting.google.com>:

terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter) wrote in message news:<4a77b8e8.0405231915.6675f43e@posting.google.com>...
Sorry, but after years of using Linux and trumpeting it's advantages,
I have tried some Windows circuit board design software and quite
honestly there is really no comparison between the Windows software
and the somewhat crude, though functional, Linux software.
Rather than waste the groups time, I just thought I would say that
Windows is actually a pretty good system and I have none of the
compatability problems with clients that I had when I was using Linux.
Linux is great, but Windows is far superior.
Terry Porter

The problem is that Linux proponents have taken the erroneous libertarian
attitude that the Linux movement must always be growing, improving,
becoming more bloated. As a result they never finish what they started,
other than kernel projects.
This is total bull, if you took the trouble of going to

www.sunsite.unc.edu you will see many finished projects (that are dated as far back as 1995),
and many new ones (that have been around for years and have frequent new releases).
This is also what I do.

Growth should never be the goal : specific
Yes MS shows that, hehe, Billy The Gates will disagree with you.

definable projects should be.
Nope, solutions to problems should be.

Newer times, better solutions, other challenges.
For example now I write Linux soft for DVD video, in the older days to do
stuff with VHS source, or simple audio.

And of course it doesn't help that
commercial Linux companies never pass on their profits to 99% of
the open source developers so there is no monetary incentive either.
Nice try, but then anyone can bring out a CD with open source.

So no limits here.
AND you can ask money for source you write, and for support to source
(and updates).
Free (as in beer) is not the same as free as in freedom.

But that is how advocates want it -- no money for programmers, only for
middlemen.
Bull, that is all covered.

Try buying the full version of Eagle Linux.
They developed it, and they sell it, and you pay for it.
Now as you have no clue about Linux, why not buy yourself some nice distro,
install it, and 10 years from now maybe you have learned a few Unix tricks hehe.
People with an agenda still living in the old ANALOG times (when toooooobs
were in), will have to wake up to the reality of the PENGUIN invasion.
With the ice ages coming 'Day after tomorrow' PENQUINS will walk all over redmond.
hehehehe

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Chuck Harris]

Snuffelluffogus wrote:

The problem is that Linux proponents have taken the erroneous libertarian
attitude that the Linux movement must always be growing, improving,
becoming more bloated. As a result they never finish what they started,
other than kernel projects. Growth should never be the goal : specific
definable projects should be. And of course it doesn't help that
commercial Linux companies never pass on their profits to 99% of
the open source developers so there is no monetary incentive either.
But that is how advocates want it -- no money for programmers, only for
middlemen.

You haven't actually looked into linux, have you?

First, there are numerous companies that pay their programmers to
develop software for use in linux. Some examples are: IBM, SCO,
SGI, INTEL, Motorola, AMD, NVidia, US Government, APL, RedHAT,
SUSE, Cisco, virtually every major university... The list goes on
and on.

Second, libertarian doesn't properly describe the movement, anarchist
would be more accurate. Since the programmers are writing for their
own (or their employer's) reasons, they scratch their own itches first.
There are many packages that are works in progress, but there are many
more that are done. The biggest advantage to GPL'd software is if you
are using a package, and you just have to have some special new feature,
you can add it onto the existing package. You don't have to start over
from scratch. Try that with microsoft.

And third, the best example of a practitioner that believes that
products "must always be growing, improving, becoming more bloated. As
a result they never finish what they started" would be Microsoft.
Microsoft is largely responsible for the never ending need to buy faster
and larger machines each year; but yet the response time of the software
remains substantially the same...slow. It is still possible to create
a linux distribution that fits on a 3" mini CDROM, and runs blazingly
fast. I can still make a simple version of linux that will boot off
of a floppy disk. It is still possible to configure a linux system to
run on an old 386 machine, and be happy with the performance. Try any
of those feats with 'doze XP.

-Chuck Harris

 

[Jan Panteltje]

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On a sunny day (Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:42:31 -0400) it happened Chuck Harris
<cfNOSPAMharris@erols.com> wrote in <40cdd5ea$0$3042$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>:

I can still make a simple version of linux that will boot off
of a floppy disk. It is still possible to configure a linux system to
run on an old 386 machine, and be happy with the performance. Try any
of those feats with 'doze XP.

-Chuck Harris
I have it on a memory stick:

http://www.8ung.at/spblinux/

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Gumboot]

Snuffelluffogus wrote:

The problem is that Linux proponents have taken the erroneous libertarian
attitude that the Linux movement must always be growing, improving,
becoming more bloated.

There's a generation of Linux enthusiasts that do indeed strive for
precisely that... but only because they want Linux to be just the same
as Windows, and Windows is like that.

 

[Swedish Meatball]

Jim Thompson, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use,
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:37:44 +1200, "Terry Given"
the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

"Ken" <___ken3@telia.com> wrote in message
news:qhqqc0pt6k4hdh3mjifu6bmq1c6uf1biii@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:03:25 -0400, David H. McCoy <fake@mail.com
wrote:

NT 4 was the version of Windows that migrated me from OS/2. I
personally, after my time using OS/2 and my job of working on Unix,
found it very stable.

I used NT4 for 3 years 24/7 and had never a crash.
It was crash proof in my home computer.


I would dearly love to move away from M$, but its too much like hard work
learning how to set up a linux system from scratch, especially for a luddite
like me, who is only interested in analogue circuit design, adaptive
nonlinear control systems and suchlike, rather than wanking around with an
OS. I also cant quite get the apps I need on linux (matlab/simulink,
mathcad, simetrix, protel) - if I cant have all of them, its no use to me. I
am competent enough that im OK with the likes of star office - word/excel
are not used much by me, compared with the aforementioned apps - but my
clients insist on sending me micro$haft docs.....I always send PDFs in
return.

My win2K system has been running unchanged since march 2000. Protel is the
single most unreliable program I have EVER used, it makes mathcad look
reliable. But no blue screens of death, and crashes can usually be fixed by
ending the app - rebooting is extremely rare. Protel probably crashes once a
week. If I am doing a big layout, it might crap out once a day but win2k
keeps on ticking. and some of my simulations take days to run, so I beat the
hell out of my pc

my pet peeve is the "computers for retards" philosophy underpinning shit
like talking paper clips and puppy dogs. fuck that, make the poxy thing boot
faster. I NEVER upgrade software unless I have a real good reason - if it
works for me, leave it alone. when I got an internet connection (used
sneakernet for 3 years) I got norton internet security, and have had no
problems to date

Cheers
Terry


I think

We're still waiting for you to start.
--
Linux 2.4.20-4GB-athlon
1:36pm up 3 days 17:01, 2 users, load average: 0.12, 0.05, 0.01

 

[Gregory L. Hansen]

In article <5f063e31.0406140711.641463c9@posting.google.com>,
Snuffelluffogus <darkred@myway.com> wrote:

The problem is that Linux proponents have taken the erroneous libertarian
attitude that the Linux movement must always be growing, improving,
becoming more bloated. As a result they never finish what they started,

Surely you're not suggesting this is unique to the Linux world! Except
most firms, e.g. Microsoft, call the current state of a work in progress
a version, and they want money for it.


--
"The preferred method of entering a building is to use a tank main gun
round, direct fire artillery round, or TOW, Dragon, or Hellfire missile to
clear the first room." -- THE RANGER HANDBOOK U.S. Army, 1992

 

[Richard Steiner]

Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy, Ken <___ken3@telia.com> spake unto us, saying:

I used NT4 for 3 years 24/7 and had never a crash.
It was crash proof in my home computer.

I've never had a stability problem with NT4 either. It was my desktop
OS at work for a number of years, and I also had an NT installation at
home here for dialing in. For those things, it worked fine.

The things I didn't like about NT had little to do with its stability
and far more to do with its (relatively) poor DOS support compared to
the OS/2 variants available at the time. As a heavy user of DOS s/w,
including a number of DOS games, that made the difference.

--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment.
See web site above for resume/CV and background.

 

[Jim Backus]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:47:04 UTC, Mike <abc@def.ghi> wrote:

Jim Backus wrote:

From what I hear, the XP version of Windows is at last delivering the
robustness that users should expect of an operating system. Based on
my own experience of a variety of operating systems, OS/2 is the most
robust, followed by Mac OS (version 5 was probably the one I used),
Windows NT, Windows 98 with Windows 95 and Windows 3.1 as the worst -
I have no experience of Win2000 or XP.


Having no experience with Windows 2000 or XP pretty much rules you out
for commenting on Windows. These are by far the most robust and stable
versions. Also, claiming MacOS 5(!) as being robust and stable leads
me to question your sanity.

The versions of Windows I use is principally controlled by my
employers. I run Win95 and Win98 at home for Word and Visio - except
that I now prefer Wordpro and find the OS/2 version quite
satisfactory. The Mac OS version is a wild guess - this was in the
period 1991 to 1994 - again dictated by my employer at the time.

Starting with OS/2 - two points that support its robustness. First:
OS/2 appears to repair its initialisation files at restart. Even when
badly broken, the operating system will generally return to a workable
state after a number of restarts. Windows does not do this - if
anything it is likely to become more broken.

Not true. Your ignorance of Windows 2000 and XP is showing. Both
maintain snapshots of the system before each major change, so it's easy
to "rollback" to previous configurations.

You've completely missed my point - being able to roll-back is quite
different from the self repair that OS/2 appears to do.

I used Windows NT4 at work for a couple of years and found it to be
relatively reliable and robust - about half that of OS/2 in
qualitative tests. Crashes did occur and occasionally it would run out
of resources and need a restart. The non-Microsoft email client had a
noticeable memory leak and was usually the cause of the operating
system running out of resources. The 'repair' technique used by the IS
department was to re-install.

Sounds like you needed a different email client and some IS guys who
knew what they were doing.

Again at the mercy of my employer - for the record this was DEC's
Teamlinks. As for the comment on the IS guys - if their experience was
that it was quicker to 're-blow' a PC than to repair it, this would
have been the correct economic choice.

My most recent employer provided Windows 98se. It generally allowed me
to get my work done but crashes and essential restarts were common.


I used to do development on 98se, before we moved to 2000. I can tell
you that 98se *can* be stable, and I never re-installed it in 4 years of
use (except when I got new machines). <snip

The PC I had for almost 3 years never needed a reinstallation and was
generally stable - it even shutdown correctly. It was common in the
evenings to see at least half the PCs displaying the "Please wait
while Windows shuts down' screen.

Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 were so bad it constantly amazes me that
these appalling operating systems enabled Microsoft to become so
successful. The only explanation is that heavy advertising and keeping
the computer press on-side helped Microsoft to dupe a gullible
marketplace.

Nonsense. At the time, they were outstanding, and were the only game
in town. OS/2 - as good as it was - was never in the running. you
can thank IBM for that.

Absolute balderdash! OS/2 2.1 was far superior to Windows 3.1 and OS/2
version 3 Connect was almost as good as Windows 95 and Warp 4 was and
is better.

This comparison of operating systems does not address availability of
applications - without the necessary applications it becomes
irrelevant how good the OS is. Conversely users may have to tolerate
unmaintainable and unreliable operating systems that support their
essential applications.

True, and this probably explains why some companies are still using OS/2
- the apps have not been/will not ever be ported to Windows (or Linux or
whatever).


Regarding the quoted text:
Where does one learn 'basic Windows internals'? The Windows registry
is so arkane that it might as well be written in Mayan. The on-line
help in Windows is aimed squarely at the least knowledgeable user. For
example the advice to 'ask your system administrator' is no use to
someone trying to set up a network at home. It is also common to find
that Windows help assumes knowledge of the purpose and effect of a
setting so only explains the mechanics of entering a value - there is
no expert knowledge to back up the basics. Most computer books
regurgitate the on-line help - based on the OS/2 editions I had a high
opinion of Sams 'Unleashed' series but found Windows 95 Unleashed to
be almost useless.

Again, you're basing your opinion of Windows of Windows 95(!), an almost
10 year old product!

Actually my comment was more about computer books than the operating
systems. Although I've had little exposure to Windows XP, even there
the on-line help is generally much less helpful than OS/2's.

The registry is no more "arkane" than OS/2's config.sys file, or the ini
files. If you're smart and resourceful, you can figure out either.

It's a binary file to start with whereas the OS/2 config.sys is at
least human readable. Once again the OS/2 on-line help does explain
all the commands and their options in the config.sys file. The
relevance of individual entries in the Windows Registry are rarely
explained either by the operating system or the application help
files. I agree that OS/2's ini files are equally complex.

Again, Windows 2000 and XP's Add/Remove programs is all you need.
Everything that was changed during install will be reversed during
un-install. The "System Clean" utilities were only needed on
95/98/98se.

Bob Thomas's post that I was replying to stated that he used a variety
of 3rd party tools and implied that he did not use Windows built-in
Add/Remove programs.

I'm not trying to incite a riot here, but I can't just sit here and let
you spout this nonsense. What would *your* reaction be to someone
claiming all sorts of defects in OS/2 (or Linux), but basing his
reasoning on OS/2 2.1 (or Red Hat 5).

That is why I started my comments saying that I understood that
Windows XP was robust. My subsequent comments were based on my own
experience not on hearsay.

I'm fairly competent as a PC user and maintainer however I choose not
to use Windows so I don't have the depth of Windows experience that I
could use. Most of the people I help out use older versions of Windows
and what I'd like to know is what tools people use to maintain those
systems. I wasn't 'trolling' or trying to incite a riot but I do feel
very strongly that Microsoft have grown very rich on some very poor
products. I stand by my comments on the versions of Windows that I
know, but admit that many may not apply to the latest version.

--
Jim Backus OS/2 user since 1994
bona fide replies to j <dot> backus <the circle thingy> jita <dot>
demon <dot> co <dot> uk

 

[Trent]

But for security, robustness, and maintainability, Linux beats
it by orders of magnitude.

Cheers!
Rich

maintainability? damn, it can't even find my freaking printer, my HP
scanner, and when it BREAKS, i have to hire some guru from the 1960's
to
fix it.

keep lying, and your nose will hit the screen.

-trent

 

[Jim Thompson]

On 14 Jun 2004 17:38:30 -0700, trentallenblack@hotmail.com (Trent)
wrote:

But for security, robustness, and maintainability, Linux beats
it by orders of magnitude.

Cheers!
Rich

maintainability? damn, it can't even find my freaking printer, my HP
scanner, and when it BREAKS, i have to hire some guru from the 1960's
to
fix it.

keep lying, and your nose will hit the screen.

-trent

Sno-o-o-o-o-o-ort! ROTFLMAO!

I don't use Linux, but I do have a guru from the '60's who maintains
my printers ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Sir Charles W. Shults III]

"Terry Given" <the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:37gzc.2194$s52.73852@news.xtra.co.nz...

my pet peeve is the "computers for retards" philosophy underpinning shit
like talking paper clips and puppy dogs. fuck that, make the poxy thing
boot
faster.

Absolutely! Computers double in speed every eighteen months, and this
1.8 GHz takes longer to boot that the damned 4.77 MHz IBM PC. We are being
swindled somewhere along the way, and it is our money that is paying for the
resources that are being burned.
Since my present machines are 1.8 GHz and 2.2 GHz and they crash
constantly, lock up for no good reason, and take forever to boot, it is
pretty clear that some horribly wrong has happened to computer technology as
a whole. Gates will roast in Hell for quite some time to come, surely, but
that is poor repayment for the lack of use we get out of these digital
doorstops we have today.
We need certain functionality without a doubt, such as the ability to
see graphics and hear audio, and the ability to have GUI and mouse functions
with lots of tasks operating at once, but there is no reason for software to
be so bloated and corrupt.
I think a huge rewrite of the most basic level DOS would be a wonderful
thing. It would be very fast, give absolute control over the hardware, and
not require gigabytes of software to perform text editing functions or play
solitaire. Burt enough of my rant.

Cheers!

Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B.
Xenotech Research
321-206-1840

 

[Chris Carlen]

Jim Thompson wrote:

I've been using Win2K for about 2 years, NT4 before that. I can't
recall a crash. The only reboots I do are upon software installs. My
heavily-used PSpice machine is showing more than a month of "system
idle" time ;-)

I think this the Linux people are just like the toooobz people,
irrational fanaticism.

...Jim Thompson

It's not about crashing anymore Jim. Every desktop user knows that
Windows rarely crashes as a desktop OS, and every network admin knows
that Windows falls apart in the server room, with a reliability at leat
an order of magnitude lower than Linux/UNIX.

In fact, I will admit, sometimes the Linux desktop can crash more than
Windows 2000, though my experience is limited. I only use Win2k to run
one or two programs at a time, like a development tool and a
filemanager, or a browser if I'm forced into it for some odd reason.

So I never load it much. Linux I load heavily, and it crashes every
once in a while. It's hard to quantify because Linux is so layered.
There is the KDE desktop, on top of the X Window system, on top of the
Linux kernel. Any of it can crash due to a bad driver or something. So
sometimes it happens. Usually related to a video card and some program
like a sound or video player that needs root permissions.

The point is that it isn't about crashing or stability anymore. It is
about freedom, something I think you might care about Jim.

Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/


And when you are done read about Palladium, or whatever they have named
it these days.




--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
crobc@earthlink.net
Suse 8.1 Linux 2.4.19

 

[David H. McCoy]

In article <10cri8rh60hlod7@corp.supernews.com>, djohnson@isomedia.com
says...

David H. McCoy wrote:
In article <40ccd87a$0$25487$45beb828@newscene.com>, abc@def.ghi says...

I'm not trying to incite a riot here, but I can't just sit here and let
you spout this nonsense. What would *your* reaction be to someone
claiming all sorts of defects in OS/2 (or Linux), but basing his
reasoning on OS/2 2.1 (or Red Hat 5).

Mike



That's pretty typical here. I believe that the problem is that OS/2
hasn't seen a significant change since OS/2 Warp 4, the last version I
used, so it appears to be difficult to understand that other operating
systems are on the move.

OS/2 has seen many significant changes since OS/2 Warp 4 was released in
1996. IBM has released two new "Convenience Pack" versions of OS/2 since
Warp 4 that they called 'OS/2 v4.51' (2000) and 'OS/2 v4.52' (2002).
These were fully-installable new updated versions of OS/2. The most
notable features they had that were not in Warp 4 were the JFS file
system (in addition to FAT and HPFS), the Logical Volume Manager (LVM),
Java 2 support, a 32-bit TCP/IP stack, improved peer-to-peer
networking, USB support, support for DBCS fonts, Geyserville power
management, better support for PNP devices, a revamped installer,
updated device driver options, and a lot of general improvements to the
WPS desktop function and performance, although its appearance remained
nearly the same as in Warp 4. The Warp 4.51 installer would let you
install over the top of a Warp 4 install and preserve your old Warp 4
desktop. The Warp 4.52 installer would let you install over the top of
a Warp 4.51 installer and preserve your Warp 4.51 desktop. You can
still get these from IBM by purchasing an OS/2 license from their
Passport Advantage online site and then purchasing a 'OS/2 Media Pack'
which comes with all of the Warp 4 CDs, the Warp 4.51 CDs, the Warp 4.52
CDs, and the 'Software Choice' CDs (which had software updates and
device driver additions.) Go to this site and click on the 'How to Buy'
link.

http://www-306.ibm.com/software/os/warp/swchoice/

The latest fixpack for Warp 4 is fixpack 17 (xr_m017) and the latest
fixpack for Warp 4.51 or Warp 4.52 is fixpack 4 (xr_c004). This site
has links to all of these. An IBM subscription ID and password are
needed to access them which you get if you purchase a one-year OS/2
maintenance license.

http://ps.software.ibm.com/os2fixp/softupd.html

You consider Java support and a tcpip stack significant? That's stuff
that Windows had back in 96. So OS/2 matches 96 Windows? Okay.

--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy


--------------------------------------

 

[Jason Bowen]

In article <qhqqc0pt6k4hdh3mjifu6bmq1c6uf1biii@4ax.com>,
Ken <___ken3@telia.com> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:03:25 -0400, David H. McCoy <fake@mail.com
wrote:

NT 4 was the version of Windows that migrated me from OS/2. I
personally, after my time using OS/2 and my job of working on Unix,
found it very stable.

I used NT4 for 3 years 24/7 and had never a crash.
It was crash proof in my home computer.

You weren't pushing it then. I've crashed every operating system I've
ever used. Microsoft claimed uptimes in the range of 5 days for NT4 when
Windows 2000 came out.

 

[David H. McCoy]

In article <TpquPuPd0tCd-pn2-2uP81c5yiEIb@localhost>, jhb@nospam.co.uk
says...

Not true. Your ignorance of Windows 2000 and XP is showing. Both
maintain snapshots of the system before each major change, so it's easy
to "rollback" to previous configurations.


You've completely missed my point - being able to roll-back is quite
different from the self repair that OS/2 appears to do.

Appears? So your interpretation qualifies as a feature? OS/2 does not

self-repair.
--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy


--------------------------------------

 

[David H. McCoy]

In article <2Pszc.92429$0X2.4157499@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
NOaichipSPAM@cfl.rr.com says...

"Terry Given" <the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:37gzc.2194$s52.73852@news.xtra.co.nz...

my pet peeve is the "computers for retards" philosophy underpinning shit
like talking paper clips and puppy dogs. fuck that, make the poxy thing
boot
faster.

Absolutely! Computers double in speed every eighteen months, and this
1.8 GHz takes longer to boot that the damned 4.77 MHz IBM PC. We are being
swindled somewhere along the way, and it is our money that is paying for the
resources that are being burned.
Since my present machines are 1.8 GHz and 2.2 GHz and they crash
constantly, lock up for no good reason, and take forever to boot, it is
pretty clear that some horribly wrong has happened to computer technology as
a whole. Gates will roast in Hell for quite some time to come, surely, but
that is poor repayment for the lack of use we get out of these digital
doorstops we have today.
We need certain functionality without a doubt, such as the ability to
see graphics and hear audio, and the ability to have GUI and mouse functions
with lots of tasks operating at once, but there is no reason for software to
be so bloated and corrupt.
I think a huge rewrite of the most basic level DOS would be a wonderful
thing. It would be very fast, give absolute control over the hardware, and
not require gigabytes of software to perform text editing functions or play
solitaire. Burt enough of my rant.

Cheers!

Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B.
Xenotech Research
321-206-1840



I suppose I would be angry if my machine did any of this. Fortunately,

whatever you are describing(with much exaggeration) it is not Windows
XP.

Also, if all you do is edit text and play solitaire, you are a fool for
upgrading. Don't blame Bill Gates for being foolish.
--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy


--------------------------------------