!Re: Nuke Redmond!

From: Bill Pechter <pechter_at_pechter.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu Apr 6 12:00:56 2000

> That's something one would have to take up with the vendors of OS/2, right?

Nope the VB and Foxpro used to say they'd work under OS/2 -- but they

False advertising on the box?

> >
> > Then there is the issue of *stability*.
> >
> for my email, etc) has been "up" without a hitch for three years without a
> problem. I've never seen reason to cuss it. The key is that I don't try to
> make it do stuff for which it wasn't intended.
> The folks I see having problems with their MS-OS-based systems generally are
> the ones that (1) hand around the "chat" rooms (where their computers get
> "social diseases"), (2) try to squeeze more performance out of their
> computers by violating the components' specifications, (3) try to get their
> computers to do other sorts of things for which they (or their software)
> weren't intended. Now, that's not to say it doesn't happen otherwise, but
> from where I sit, that's what I see.

I do none of the above but my Win95 desktop intermittantly blows
chunks and drops ethernet IP connectivity. I've seen this less often
with Win98...

> > Then there is that question of innovation.
> >
> Having been involved with computers since the '60's I'd say this is a given.
> Nothing has been host to more innovation than the microcomputer business.
> Now, I don't know what you're pointing out, but if you know of anyone who's
> bringing more innovation to the masses, you could tell me about it.

Give me a list of the innovations that didn't come out of Minis,
Mainframes or Workstations first.

> >
> > Someone mind explaining why if I install software on a Microsoft system or
> > make *very* minor changes I've got the reboot the _at_*& #$)@ thing?!?!
> >
> I've never wanted to become an expert on *NIX and its kin, but IIRC, if you
> make any changes to the system you not only have to restart the system, you
> have to recompile several modules, including, in some cases, the kernel.

If you're adding new device driver -- maybe. Not if the one was
alread compiled for that kernel.

Meanwhile why does every non-Win2000 box need to reboot to change an IP
address or nameserver address?

> Not all cases are so extreme, but it's the extremes that tend to be
> remembered. It's also no surprise that DEC seems to have gone out of their
> way, during the early days of widespread internet use (1985-1988). to make
> their LAN boards incompatible with anyone else's. They also tweaked their
> protocols to weaken their own networking system so people wouldn't be
> tempted to mix and match.

Examples of the lan board incompatibility please.
Also, some explanation of the protocol issue so I can see
what you mean-- X.25, DECnet Phase III, DECnet Phase IV?

bpechter_at_monmouth.com      |     Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?
                           |     Linux:     Where do you want to go tomorrow?
                           |     BSD:       Are you guys coming, or what?
Received on Thu Apr 06 2000 - 12:00:56 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:39 BST