> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick@idcomm.com]
> weren't present and functional with no way of figuring out
> what the problem
> was because of the doc-shortfalls, was too much work. It was
> easier to do
> with NT.
Honestly, the easiest O/S installs I've ever done on a system where
the O/S needed "installed" were IRIX and VMS.
Strange? Maybe, but as far as I'm concerned, those are each a
monument to good installation methods.
> work on? I know lots of *nix guys like to type a couple of
> lines of cryptic
> stuff before their computer allows access to a resource that would be
> point-n-click accessible under Windows.
Maybe they're willing to type a couple lines for the sake of
the added reliability, maybe it's easier for them to type
it out than to grab the mouse... or maybe they're stupid, and
think typing makes them look impressive. (I'd certainly like to
think that it would be one of the former, but considering some
people I've seen around, using and advocating Unix, I'm not so
sure) :)
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex White [mailto:meltie@myrealbox.com]
> UNIX as a system to use personally is only cheap if you don't
> value your
> free time. (well-worn but useful quote.) Disclaimer: I only use stuff
> that ain't MS at home.
I find this is the case for windows, but not Unix. I have some Unix
machines at home, which never give me any trouble. I haven't had a
problem with either system in three years that wasn't a hardware problem.
In other words, they "just work."
The system I've had for longer than three years hasn't given me any
software problems since I was messing around with experimental drivers,
and that was my own fault.
I've had hard drives die after years of continuous use (but I keep
backups...), and I've had the processor cook itself on one system when
the fan gave out, but again, that's a hardware problem.
Now, if you need a rock-solid system, rather than just a passable one,
then you can use VMS, but Unix works most of the time, and better than
windows and MacOS, in my experience. ;)
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
Schoolwork has kept me busy for the last few months, but I did manage to
find a few things recently at the local university surplus outlet.
2x metal 9-track magtape storage cabinets, about 5'Hx4'W
1x Macintosh Quadra 950, for a friend
The magtape cabinets don't compute, but I'm very excited to find them. I've
been needing something in which to store all the magtapes I've begun to
acquire. The cabs are a little rusty, but that's nothing a little paint job
this summer won't take care of. I'm thinking PDP-11 red-and-maroon might be
nice colors for it.
I just missed a big old reel-to-reel audio recorder. I saw it go out the
door. It was quite large and rolled around on its own floorstand.
--
Jeffrey Sharp
The email address lists(a)subatomix.com is for mailing list traffic. Please
send off-list mail to roach jay ess ess at wasp subatomix beetle dot com.
You may need to remove some bugs first.
>> I'm sorry... I just can't do it any more.
>>
>Then don't ... When you get old enough that you're out in the working world,
>where your performance is measured on whether or not you meet schedule and
>budget, and not on how cute your comments are, you'll understand the
>realities
>of why people use what they do. If you're just idly fiddling with something
>interesting at home, nobody cares how long it takes you.
Actually... I am in the working world... and the reason I like the Mac so
much more is because it IS more productive for the needs here than
Windows.
I had a whole long winded explination for this, but I decided not to
waste bandwidth, and I summed it up to this.
Increase in employee productivity, reduction of costs, and reduction of
support time directly translate into two things that effect my life.
1: increase in free time
2: increase in year end bonus
So where I have flexability to choose what systems are installed... I
choose them based on what will maximize the above two points.
It is greedy, selfish, and egotistical for me to place my personal
choices on everyone else here... but since in order for me to increase
what I want, I have to make their lives easier, and I have to reduce
costs, no one has yet to complain about my choices.
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
Someone in Japan with a lot of time on their hands apparently put an iMac
into an Apple //c. Pretty slick.
I hope you can read Kanji. Otherwise, enjoy the pictures.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick@idcomm.com]
> However, I'm not
> so sure it's as trouble free when you want to use a single
> machine to do a
> multitude of widely varying things.
I find that very funny. I'm not going to argue with it right
now, though I don't agree, of course. It's amusing, though,
since it's the same argument that I often offer against windows.
:)
> What? Where's there a Windows emulator for Linux that runs
> MSOFFICE? Will,
> it at least, run CorelDRAW? How about the Xilinx Foundation
Years ago, I used to run CorelDRAW under wine -- this was before
windows 95, so it was the 3.1 version of CorelDRAW. It also ran
M$ works. I would be surprised if it didn't run some recent
version of office or Corel's suite.
> software, or
> ALtera's Maxplus-II?
Not sure about those.
> Why don't more people use it then? Is it because, unlike
Because they use windows instead -- the majority of them. If
they were used to using linux, and if linux had all of the
marketing momentum that windows had, they'd use it instead,
or if the Grundey corporation had given GrundeyOS the proper
marketing at the right time, they'd use that.
People use what you hand them. I'm not convinced that
popularity can be any indicator of quality. You only need
look at the high-quality products in any given market segment
to see that.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
> >At least with QuickBasic you had the choice of incorporating BRUN45.EXE
> >and BRUN45.LIB into the .exe file. I remember that with Borland
> >compilers you had to include lots of files such as
> >CGA.BGI, HERC.BGI, EGAVGA.BGI together with any application that
> >you wrote.
>
> When I was running both TurboBasic and PowerBasic, neither
> one required you to issue 'includes' to access standard video modes.
> In over 12 years of running PowerBasic I've never had to link to an
> external file. PowerBasic also compiles into fairly small
> executable's, which are the only thing required unless there are
> datafiles that the programmer required to be present. I never liked
> the way QuickBasic required the distribution of it's external library
> with the executable, especially since you never quite knew which
> version of it a given program would require as things changed.
As Carlos stated above for QuickBASIC, and as I pointed out for
the professional BASIC compiler, it is NOT necessary to distribute
the external library with the executable.
You could create stand-alone executables that required no external
support. However, they were not small. Beginning with QuickBASIC 4.0,
the ENTIRE C LIBRARY was part of the runtime. And even if you never
used graphics statements, all the graphics code got pulled into the
executable (in the case of the stand-alone binaries) or was at least
present in toto in the separate runtime.
This had not been the case with QuickBASIC 3.0 (where I began with QB).
I imagine Turbo^H^H^H^H^HPowerBASIC uses the more sensible approach
of linking into the executables ONLY the stuff needed.
Microsoft could have done this, but they clearly did *NOT* want to
devote the resources needed to make it a truly professional product.
-dq
> And thusly Ben Franchuk spake:
> >
> > What pisses me off is the fact that both systems use dynamic libraries.
> > This makes a real mess of things. I liked dos -- you have a program
> > it runs from the .exe non of this you need version blah blah blah ...
> >
>
> DOS sometimes needed library files - take 32-bit protected mode. You need to
> have a DOS extender file in the path or directory of the executable.
Not just that- the Microsoft BASIC compiler provided two modes
of compilation- one that produced HUGE stand-alone binaries, and
one that kept the HUGE chunk of common code in a runtime-library.
That library had to either be in the current directory or somewhere
along the path...
-dq
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Foust [mailto:jfoust@threedee.com]
> Huh? Amiga volume names ended in colon "DH0:" but
> the folder names weren't separated by colons in a path string.
Ok, so I'm confused. How, are Amiga directories separated,
then?
> I can't remember an instance where a Mac application allowed the
> user to enter the colons, although they were used internally, and
> you could use them in some developer tools that gave command
> lines or operated on "makefile"s.
They're at least few and far between.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
