Richard Erlacher wrote: Sure and wait years for the thing to load...and install. The first thing I did when I got a newer computer is deleate all the crap that 'bloat master - 2000' came with. The problem is I want to use a computer not have a 'cute' desktop to play with. -- Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu * www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html

Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote: And here I thought all you had to do boot DOS was to insert a FLOPPY. :) -- Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu * www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html

On Monday 06 May 2002 18:33, you wrote: you are a bit unclear on the concept it seems What isolation are you talking about, when the examaple shows that the power of several machines seemless on one screen operating as a whole ? http://www.mosix.org MOSIX is a software that allows any size Linux cluster of Pentium/AMD workstations and servers to work cooperatively like a single system. I am not running mosix, I dispatch my taskloads off buttons like was shown, run app xxx on host xxx. But the mosix example is a close familiar to my operating habits. and its strongly implied with my examples. Clicking on a button runs that text, i stated that clearly. winblows limited thinking again ? Here you dismiss superiority by waving "pseudo-sophistry" at it this from you is really pathetic, but i think you are just a bit quick off the gun, something im just as guilty of from time to time. Perhaps you could look again and point out where your confusion is.

On Monday 06 May 2002 20:01, you wrote: Yes it seems your unclear, unix boxes access the file systems of other boxes, but running a program on host xxx that displays on screen xxx .. you seem to mean running it off the remote disk, when its should be clear it is running on the other CPU. You are more "winblows limited" in your thinking than i thought I think you invented this out of whole cloth, or else like my example didnt have any clue of what they was doing. Normal modis operandi a unix guy is doing things impossible for winblows, so perhaps you just didnt understand. What makes you think it dont ? when slack reved one of the largest mirrors would set new records for bits over the wire in 24 hours flooding their 3 100mbit pipes for days, it was largest site with the fattest pipes, and published its stats, cdrom.com did it all on a single box running bsd. For every sale, most cdroms does many loads, but the iso downloaded are far more. When you buy a redhat cdrom you are not buying the os you are buying support. if you download it you get the same thing but no paid support, 99,9999% of installs / upgrades are downloads. Heh then we should have left Getty Oil alone then by that reasoning When vendors are out from under threat of paying 40 more dollars per copy for winblows if they dare preload anything else, ( again from court transcript) and the market has time to adjust to certain boxes being available preloaded without the Mickysoft Tax then we will see. Comprehension problems too ? ... umm you seem to be "on" something You make being obtuse into an art form I don't think I'm confused You seem utterly confused, You said :"All my machines are visible from any of them " networked machines mean more than file and print service but you have this "winblows limited" view of reality where anything more than that and you lose your frame of reference it seems. Study http://www.mosix.org again, the example i gave as a close familiar to what im attempting to show you. a mosix cluster isnt about file serving, unix boxes thosands of miles apart where mounting each others disk years before john q public had heard the word internet mentioned You should know this and should see clearly its about more than your simplistic view. Try again Raymond

I don't see many people using Linux. I routinely see one, however, and he's the guy who likes long drawn-out processes. I don't. I doubt they're necessary, but he's not the only guy using Linux whom I've seen get wrapped around the axle with procedures directed from the console that would take a half-line of text under other circumstances, as you've demonstrated. My question is why someone would do that when there are easier ways, again, as you've spelled out, to get the job done. Nobody's been able to tell me why a half line of text would be preferable to a dropdown menu witha selection. The effect's the same. The Macintosh doesn't even offer a command line interface, right? It does effect all the functions of a Unix command-line driven system, though, doesn't it? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doc" <doc(a)mdrconsult.com> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 10:53 PM Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor,, No shell = No power of a need Well, they're conclusions based on observation. There's not much to investigate since it has to do with the preferences of the people involved. Information from outside is required. That's why I'm asking the questions. It just doesn't help when people use terms like "better" when they're not relevant, in any sense. Clearly each of these systems offers people someting they want. Different people have different wants and needs of their computers, hence, they choose different systems. Getting the straight poop, not some rubbish about what's bad about other systems, or what someting not under discussion won't do, etc, is what's needed. Having juvenile comments The question that remains unanswered is, "Are all those millions that use Windows really so much dumber than the Mac, Linux, Unix communities that they're being duped, or what?" Since early this morning, I've been batting this stuff back and forth on a Windows box that I primarily use for comm's and all the while doing a few other things, with complete impunity. I've had no crashes, no difficulties of any sort, and no need to reboot, reload an application unexpectedly or any such problem. It seems that Windows works OK for what I'm doing. Am I alone? How would I benefit from the advantages offered by *nix if I were to make a switch? This OS seems to work OK for me and for many others. Why does everybody seem to hate it so much? Dick

No. OS X does, but OS X is ... Unix. -- ----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ -- Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu -- In memory of Howard Caine --------------------------------------------------

On Tuesday, May 7, 2002, at 01:30 AM, Richard Erlacher wrote: keystrokes on Actually, yes there are keyboard shortcuts for most mouse-based actions in MacOS, just like Windows... On Tuesday, May 7, 2002, at 02:08 AM, Richard Erlacher wrote: Macs that run OS X do have a CLI now (command line interface) I think the answer to this is 'yes'. > The question that remains unanswered is, "Are all those millions that use > Windows really so much dumber than the Mac, Linux, Unix communities that > they're being duped, or what?"... No, most of them are probably just stubborn, like some (most?) of us here. Me included, sometimes... -- --- David A Woyciesjes --- C & IS Support Specialist --- Yale University Press --- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu --- (203) 432-0953 --- ICQ # - 905818 Mac OS X 10.1.3 - Running since 01/22/2002

On Monday 06 May 2002 23:53, you wrote: Fubar:~# mount /mnt/jeanc Fubar:~# df | grep jean //jean/c 1358560 597184 761376 44% /mnt/jeanc Fubar:~# mount | grep jean //jean/c on /mnt/jeanc type smbfs (0) Fubar:~# grep jean /etc/fstab //jean/c /mnt/jeanc smbfs noauto,username=xxxx,password=xxxx //jean/d /mnt/jeand smbfs noauto,username=xxxx,password=xxxx and if in fstab its less than that He utterly didn't understand my example, i wasn't showing a program started off a remote disk, something Unix was doing as early and earlier than anything else. .. what system could graft the volumes of remote machines before Unix, was it the Xerox PARC altos where the founder of 3com, i forget his name invented Ethernet, or at least its predecessor Bob .. um i forget, before then Unix used UUCP didn't it. Anyhow I was showing a one click remote start of a program started and executing on a remote CPU, and running seemless as if it was local. another thing Unix was among the first at for GUI applications, as X11's network transparency was a core design element, not something added later. This seems outside of his "winblows limited" frame of reality, so he just didn't understand. It does seem like reflex don't it, and the funny part is that most of them are not outdated arguments that once where valid, but utterly false arguments never valid at any time. Cest la Vie, it seems like a cult of "big fish story" folklore that gets expanded and inflated and twisted from ignorant to ignorant and then parroted. Aint fair I suppose, most all of us that work in IT have to work with winblows, you cannot avoid it,,, where your contempt is based on hands on total understanding of that sh**ware. Where you are reduced to a janitor refixing the same crap over and overagain the same way the night mop has to clean the same floor over again, we know more about the system they are defending than the defenders. On the other hand everything they *know* about our system is wrong and their "winblows limited" thinking prevents them from understanding things for which they have no reference. Such as my example, I cannot see how that could be misinterpreted into running a program off a file server when it was clearly remote execution and local display. Old hat for us, but for the winblows limited, its like attempting to explain the 3rd dimension to a 2 dimensional being It is my assertion that Winblows dumbs down humanity the same way cultural Marxism in the schools is turning our kids into intellectual inferiors, where reason and logic is discarded for feelings. where learning about history involves brainwashing them into hatred of America. Hyperbole perhaps, ( about winblows ) but you cannot ignore that your approach to a problem is affected by the richness or limitations of the tools available to address it. Freeware Unix as it comes is the whole snap-on tool catalog on a disk. More than *he* needs comes the argument but that assumes that if you make power available that the person wont/cant learn to take atvantage of what is provided. I reject the idea that the new user needs to be "protected" from discovering how to wield power over his machine. A dumbed down system isn't doing them any favor, any more than socialist slavery has shown itself to release an individuals potential ( other than capacity for brutality and holocaust). Raymond