----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Pechter <pechter_at_pechter.dyndns.org>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: !Re: Nuke Redmond!
> > 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
> didn't.
>
> 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...
>
I can't say I've had that experience. I have a Netware server that's been
pretty solid, and I do the resource sharing via the built-in TCP/IP in
Windows. My two workstations are attached via fast ethernet as is the
notebook. These all seem to have little trouble swallowing the data and
regurgitating it when required. I recently had a problem due to a hardware
failure, but I doubt MS had anything to do with that.
>
> > > 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.
>
That might be difficult to do. People's imaginations are limited, at least
at the outset, by what applications of technology have preceded them. Now
that PC's are pretty capable of doing what the mini's and mainframes did
before, but perhaps on a smaller scale, it's only a matter of time before
some "new" things pop up. So far, the primary innovation has been making
all the available technology available to as many people as possible. This
is all being done on a scale never before imagined. That scale certainly
wasn't possible with mini's mainframes, and workstations.
> > >
> > > 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
> already compiled for that kernel.
>
> Meanwhile why does every non-Win2000 box need to reboot to change an IP
> address or nameserver address?
>
I've not had to change IP addresses much, so I really don't know. I think
it's a simple decision that was made at MS. Most people fiddle with their
IP addresses only when they have to, and most of them really never have to,
since they're automatically assigned when the dial their ISP. If you have a
persistent connection, you don't have to fiddle with that stuff much either.
OTOH, if you're into fiddling with the internals and such as a hobby, which
THEY (whoever that migh be) probably don't want to encourage anyway, you
have to reboot a lot in order to register everything properly. That's
simply putting the needs of the many ahead of the needs of a few.
> >
> > 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?
>
What I remember about this matter is that the DEC machines were all running
DECnet, while everybody else wanted to run TCP/IP. This was back in the
mid-'80's and it wasn't easy to find an ethernet card that had TCP/IP
support. The only popular LAN package back then was NETWARE, and it used
IPX. Getting datagram service to run on the local net was a problem until
we put the DEC hardware on a separate net.
My interest was in running a voice system over the LAN, which is a hostile
environment for that anyway. Nonetheless, the "fix" was to get the DEC
stuff off the network. SUN, SGI, HP, and others coexisted with the PC's
with no trouble. The DEC stuff didn't work well together with the SUN, SGI,
and HP stations either.
> Bill
> --
> 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 - 12:47:32 BST