THETechnoid skrev:
>In <200101131511.f0DFBMY07232_at_bg-tc-ppp1007.monmouth.com>, on 01/13/01
> at 12:11 PM, Bill Pechter <pechter_at_pechter.dyndns.org> said:
>It is true that the applications market for Warp isn't the largest or most
>complete, but it is good enough for me. I've never actually used a
>machine for a Purpose if you know what I mean. I network them, play with
>them, get X running on warp, make a Nat router, make it a web server, make
>it sense when the door opens and closes, turn on and off lights, interface
>it with my Atari ST.
Oh, that sounds exactly like what I use my computers for. Besides running a
web browser (going to reference pages for old hardware and obscure chip music
formats) and reading mail and news (participating in mailing lists about
quirky old hardware =), I just tend to stack the machines up and connect
wires between them. I couldn't care less whether none of them has got a
decent word processor.
>I use Star Office 5.1 for correspondence, PMView 2000 for image viewing
>and processing, BNR for getting binaries off the newsgroups, Injoy as an
>internet router. For windows there are a hundred different incarnations
>of programs for the same purpose. Most of them suck, but some are awesome
>like MS Office. OS/2 apps are exactly the opposite; for the most part
>they are awesome, but there are only five or ten to chose from at most.
Veru true.
>You can run almost any Win32/32s application in OS/2 via Win/OS2. You can
>now run SOME winnt/9x applications via an API converter project called
>ODIN (used to be called win32/OS2).
I think this is a downfall of OS/2 and other x86 OSes. It's just too easy to
give in to the temptation and run Windows, one way or another. I think it has
stifled the development of alternative OSes just as much as the ubiquitous
hardware has aided them.
>One really neat thing is that OS/2 (Warp) is based on the MACH kernel
>which came from NEXT and provides the foundation for Apple's new OS/X.
>With a few tools, lots of Unix ports have been made available including
>Xwindows and lots of X applications. Of course I have X and Gimp and tons
>of other apps installed. They run perfectly and of course I have no
>purpose for them in any practical sense..... ;-)
Is there no end to this industry incest? It seems that every OS nowadays is
either a clone or descendant of UNIX or DOS, or a mix thereof. What's happened
to innovation?
>There is a diagnostic kernel that you can use that gives you ONE physical
>terminal which would help, but my desktop doesn't crash often enough to
>bother with an ANOTHER terminal on my desktop. I've allready got six
>machines on my desktop. I need another screen like a hole in my head
>(unless it is something KEUL) Wink.
If you've got six machines on your desktop, why not use one of those as
terminal? Surely there must be a serial port on some of them.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6.
Remember:
- On the Amiga, you can make a way.
- On Linux, there is a way, you just don't know it.
- On Windows, there is no way and you know it.
Aaron Digulla
Received on Sat Jan 13 2001 - 14:00:12 GMT