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

From: Curtis Bass (cmbass_us_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/26/04 

Date: 26 Jun 2004 12:12:35 -0700

hugh.ohare@btinternet.com (Hugh O'Hare) wrote in message news:<XRGTUPwIjPYh-pn2-wxKViXSddQln@localhost>...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:01:57, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
>
>
>>>>> "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.)"
>
> We know how good that was!

Yup. It was _good_ _enough_ to get the job done.

>>>>>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:
>
> Partly correct.

No, completely correct.

> multi-user access is there.

In client-side OS/2? You're kidding, right?

> Protection limiting what those users can do on a workstation once
> they have logged in is another matter.

Since when do users "log in" to OS/2? No, getting to the desktop
doesn't require "logging in" unless you have "lockup" enabled, which
is an extremely superficial concept of "logging in".

And not having "protection limiting what those users can do on a
workstation" kind of proves that there is no "multi-user" access in
the first place. I mean, geez, based on your arguments, DR-DOS 6.0
was a multi-user system -- it had a password logon screen, after all.

> Windows is no better than OS/2 in this regard.

Geez, you're ignorant.

> In both
> environments, once you move to the server platform things change with
> the server providing the security. But that's how client server
> mechanisms were originally intended to work. You could scale down the
> terminal unit to the bare minimum with the server doing all the hard
> work and providing client level security.

Your ramble above is laughable nonsense.

>>>>>Why not just use Linux, instead of porting all of this Linux/GNU
code
>>>>>over to the OS/2 kernel?
>
> Lot's of reasons.

Yet you fail to provide even one. Hardly surprising.

> In fact, I use both and like each for its strengths.

Good for you, I suppose.

>>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.
>
> Utter crap!

I see that you provide no elaboration for your emotional ejaculation.
I my post, I explained _why_ the WPS is "rendered more irrelevant with
each passing day", but all you can do is sputter out a monosyllabic
froth as a rebuttal.

>>The point I am making is that much "development" on OS/2 seems to be
>>little more than porting OSS/GNU code
>
> You like to reinvent the wheel? That's a real waste of time.
> Thankfully scientists and engineers spend their time trying to learn
> from each other, preventing mistakes recurring and building on what
> they get right! Real progress is made that way.

"Real progress" would be taking that GNU code and _integrating_ it
into the WPS, but that isn't being done, at least, not to much of a
degree.

> , 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
>
> I doubt Lotus would be too pleased to hear you say that.

I couldn't care less what Lotus thinks. When was the last release of
SmartSuite 1.7x? When is 2.x due? Hell, when is 1.8x due?

>>The WPS is Just A Shell, after all, no matter how fancy or polished
it
>>may be. It's just a tool, not nirvana.
>
> How integrated does a shell have to be to be useful? In Lotus
> Organiser e.g. I can drag and drop an address onto the printer object
> (note the legitimate use of the term object) and have it print
> instantly on a label or any other form of stationery I wish. The
> reason being that the desktop layer in the WPS is itself an object and
> hence complies with all the rules of inheritance as with all the other
> objects on the desktop. They are far more than just icons where under
> windows the links break if you change a file name or move it to
> another location. In Lotus Organiser I mentioned, try the operation I
> just described. You'll be waiting a long time. What you must do is
> open the print dialogue window, manually select the entry or range you
> wish to print followed by print. Very unweildy!
> The WPS is rather more than 'just a shell' as you state and if it
> seems to be nirvana to you, it may be you set your personal sights too
> low. Fot those of us who use it regularly, there is nothing to match
> it for simplicity in use and effectiveness in operation.

Geez, I'm not sure where to even begin. For starters, your Windows
info is hopelessly dated -- shortcuts have been able to track file
movements for years now. As far as your drag and drop example, so
what? All you are saying is that WPS has more polish that the Windows
shell, but the bottom line is that your task can be accomplished in
Windows, even if it requires using dialogs (which may not even be the
case, but I don't have Organizer for Windows and have no desire to
procure a copy just to try your experiment). Finally, learn how to
comprehend English -- I never said that the WPS was nirvana, and, in
fact, quite clearly stated the exact opposite. It's you OS/2
Advocates who try to portray the WPS as nirvana, and your drag and
drop example is an illustration of that.

>>And yes, I used it exclusively for several years, and no, I don't
see
>>it as anything special.
>
> You are either lying or you have never tried to use it to its full
> potential.

Of course. When confronted with facts you don't like, scream "liar!".
 Very convincing.

As for using the WPS to its potential, who is to say? I did use
templates extensively, and drag-and-drop. I never did use Organizer,
just played with it a couple of times (in both Windows and OS/2). But
yes, I have draged and dropped documents onto printer icons in OS/2
and Windows, and even Linux, so what is your point? Oh, that's right.
 WPS has more polish wrt more obscure tasks.

>>As far as I'm concerned, the Windows shell
>>has caught up to the WPS in the important areas
>
> Firstly, by the windows shell, I presume you are referring to explorer
> which is integrated with the core OS. You have one choice. Use
> explorer or have a dead and utterly useless system. Nice choice! With
> OS/2 WPS like other OS runs as an application and you can run any
> other shell you like. That means choice and scope for development e.g.
> multiple desktop applications, remote access working capability across
> platforms etc. Yes Windows is really flexible. Do it the MS way if
> they allow it or don't!

My god . . .

Alternate shells are available for Windows, if you choose to use them.
 And the default shell is extensible. For example, Object Zip makes
zip files look like part of the file system -- you can unzip files
simply by opening the folder that represents the zip file, and
dragging zipped files out into a regular folder, just like moving or
copying a regular file.

> So given that explorer is not a shell and it has in any even caught up
> with WPS, tell me directly how you reach that conclusion. Where are
> the similarlities, the equivalent functionalities, the flexibility and
> the cross platform compatability.

They're all there, Hugh, but the individual examples are too numerous
to list, although I have already mentioned a couple.

But hey, here is a couple more. I can right click in explorer (right
pane) and select New->Word Document (for example) and a new document
appears, ready to be renamed. After renaming, just hit enter twice to
bring up Word with the new document loaded. This works for all Office
documents, and can work with and file type. I have already had
discussions with Johnson and Sten Solberg regarding other
functionality, such as creating folders and moving/copying files, all
done with drag and drop. Hell, I consider at least one Windows method
of creating folders superior to OS/2's method(s), and have stated as
much elsewhere.

>>and GNOME/KDE are
>>closing in.
>
> Gnome and KDE are at least shells and very good ones. KDE won the
> award for the best desktop recently but while infinitely better than
> explorer, does not come close to WPS.
> Personally my preference is for KDE although aesthetically Gnome has
> improved greatly.

Opinions noted.

>>Frankly, advocating the WPS is nothing more than
>>religion,
>
> Now where have I heard that one before?

Who knows, and, more importantly, who cares?

>>as I see it. I see no rationale behind using it when it
>>means doing without so many things that Windows and Linux provide,
>
> Are we talking about the WPS as a shell here or have we diverted into
> a discussion of operating systems and applications?

Geez, learn to read. Do you not comprehend "such as"?

>>such as good development tools and environments, full exploitation
of
>>current hardware, and yes, the wide choice of applications (not just
>>MS-Office).
>
> As it happens OS/2 is a very capable OS with a wide range of
> applications available for it and in the case of Linux it can run MS
> Office very nicely under WINE. It's becoming more the case that there
> is very little of a compelling reason to run windows except in a few
> niche areas for specialised software which at the moment is configured
> only for windows. Have you considered what happens to those
> applications as windows is overtaken and forced actually into the
> position you imagine for OS/2 at the moment?

David T. Johnson-like ramble noted. And I am not "imagining" OS/2
position in the industry. No, it's your "fertile imagination" that
makes OS/2 into something it isn't. It's your "fertile imagination"
that sees "specialised software which at the moment is configured only
for windows" when it's obvious that such software will never be ported
to OS/2. Hell, Oracle is at version 10g now, but the last OS/2
version is 7.x. Similarly for DB/2, which is an _IBM_ _Product_ !!!
What ERP solutions are available for OS/2? When _will_ they be
available? How about CRM? Content Management?

PeopleTools is an ERP development environment for developing and
customizong PeopleSoft applications. This tool "at the moment is
configured only for windows". When will it be available for OS/2,
Hugh?

SQR is a reporting language with integrated SQL support, and can be
used for general-purpose database batch processing. This tool "at the
moment is configured only for windows" and UNIX. When will it be
available for OS/2, Hugh?

It's your "fertile imagination" that sees "very little of a compelling
reason to run windows", when the industry clearly disagrees.

>>My understanding is that the knowledge to do effective WPS
programming
>>is evaporating
>
> Really! Where did you source that infomation, or is this another
> figment of your fertile imagination.

Observation, Hugh. Not imagination. What has happened to God-knows
how many OS/2 ISVs? Did all of those programmers who did abandon OS/2
and go to Windows keep their WPS skills honed? You are obviously in a
deep state of denial, Hugh, but that's your prerogative, I suppose.

> > 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.
>
> But you used the WPS exclusively I heard you say! Changing you tune
> now, or is the truth beginning to appear...another Windows evangelist.

You need to learn how to comprehend attributions. Both statements
above yours were made by The Ghost In The Machine, not me.

>>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.
>
> Well that's original! Considering Microsoft and IBM were originally
> partners. Most of the current MS application offerings are rebranded
> products which MS is now offereing under MS labels. An example would
> be Visio.

How is any of that relevant? And I notice that you do not even bother
to address MicroGrafix or Adobe. I guess Microsoft holds special
meaning to you.

>>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.
>
> Exactly the problem with MS which has led them to so much trouble in
> recent years. That and their rip off pricing policy.

Still ignoring MicroGrafix and Adobe, I see.

>> 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.
>
> So! How many do you need?

Enough to make a difference. Reading comprehension problems?

>>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.
>
> Well, at least you didn't advocate Windows!

What would be the point?

Curtis