Re: I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP.

From: Curtis Bass (cmbass_us_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/25/04 

Date: 25 Jun 2004 10:01:57 -0700

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<5u1pq1-ua5.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Curtis Bass
> <cmbass_us@yahoo.com>
> wrote
> on 23 Jun 2004 08:42:45 -0700
> <163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1@posting.google.com>:
>
> >> MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rmQKQ$8dh@news.consultron.ca>...

-- snip --

> >>>> OK, I will adopt the 'right' meaning, why not. It allows me now to say
> >>>> that OS/2 has a local multiuser and a local security support (not
> >>>> HPFS386 related), because there is a 3rd party product that does that.
> >>>> How do you like it?
> >
> >>
> >> I have no problem with it, as long as you are clear that the support
> >> is 3rd party, just as The Ghost In The Machine was:
> >>
> >> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7hu3q1-drn.ln1%40lexi2.athghost7038suus.net&output=gplain
> >>
> >> "Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.
> >> (Trumpet Winsock was a 3rd party addon product
> >> that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)"
> >>
> >> The Ghost In The Machine -- June 15, 2004
> >>
> >> It's easy to assume vendor (out of the box) support, as you did, but
> >> the problem is that you went into an "out of the box" rant in spite of
> >> The Ghost In The Machine's clarification that the support he was
> >> talking about was indeed 3rd party, and now it seems you have a desire
> >> to mislead people into thinking that OS/2 has out of the box
> >> multi-user and file system security support.
> >>
> >
> >>>> Multiuser-OS/2-plus-local-security* (protecting files and
> >>>> directories by UID/PSWD) according to your 'right' definition?
> >
> >>
> >> It ain't "my" right definition -- it's just _the_ right definition.
> >>
> >
> >>>> I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting about
> >>>> NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.
> >
> >>
> >> Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security and
> >> multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it is a beta
> >> port of Linux code. Which, of course, leads to the obvious question:
> >>
> >> Why not just use Linux, instead of porting all of this Linux/GNU code
> >> over to the OS/2 kernel?
>
>
> I for one would think that obvious, if somewhat limiting, since one
> can also flip the question (you'll see how in a moment).
>
> Obviously, OS/2 has some utilities that the individual likes. I've
> heard good things about their workshell (I forget the exact name),
> for example.

Well and good, until you consider that the Workplace Shell (WPS for
short) is not supported by its vendor, and rendered more irrelevant
with each passing day. Consider the local file system security and
multi-user access we were discussing -- how well does this integrate
with the WPS? For example, if you right-click on a file icon in WPS
and select Properties, will the Properties notebook give you the
file's permissions? Can you change those permissions via the WPS or
do you have to use the command line?

The point I am making is that much "development" on OS/2 seems to be
little more than porting OSS/GNU code, and little of what I see is
WPS-specific, or even WPS-integrated, which, again, translates into
the WPS becoming more irrelevant. Also, those native WPS-aware OS/2
applications that do exist are, for the most part, frozen and stagnant
(yes, there are doubtless a few exceptions, which only proves the
rule). I see these OS/2 Advocates go on and on about how wonderful
the WPS is, as if it were magic rather than just a means to an end.
The WPS is Just A Shell, after all, no matter how fancy or polished it
may be. It's just a tool, not nirvana.

And yes, I used it exclusively for several years, and no, I don't see
it as anything special. As far as I'm concerned, the Windows shell
has caught up to the WPS in the important areas, and GNOME/KDE are
closing in. Frankly, advocating the WPS is nothing more than
religion, as I see it. I see no rationale behind using it when it
means doing without so many things that Windows and Linux provide,
such as good development tools and environments, full exploitation of
current hardware, and yes, the wide choice of applications (not just
MS-Office).

My understanding is that the knowledge to do effective WPS programming
is evaporating -- relatively few programmers know the ins and outs of
WPS programming, and documentation is not that easy to find. Can you
even do WPS programming with GCC? Regardless, WPS and its underlying
SOM are not well supported at all.

> The flipped question, obviously, is why those couldn't be ported to Linux.
> I do not know the answer to that, as I'm not familiar enough with OS/2.

Much of OS/2, including the WPS, was written by third parties
(including Microsoft, MicroGrafix, and Adobe, I believe) and licensed
to IBM for inclusion into the product. This licensing prevents the
porting of many sections of code, and what can be ported may not be
functional without that which cannot be ported. Also, there doesn't
appear to be any business reason for IBM to open what source it can,
and frankly, I doubt that there is enough programming talent in the
active OS/2 community to do anything with such code even if it _were_
made available. This isn't a slight against OS/2 programmers, btw;
I'm not saying that OS/2 programmers aren't talented, only that there
aren't enough of them to make a difference.

Frankly, all things considered, to me it simply makes more sense to
take the best concepts of WPS and OS/2, and re-implement them on
Linux, and I view GNOME (for example) as a decent start.

Curtis

Quantcast