Discussion:
Why did OS/2 fail?
(too old to reply)
Andreas Kohlbach
2019-02-02 21:07:01 UTC
Permalink
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.

I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
also ran Windows applications.
--
Andreas
Peter Flass
2019-02-02 22:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
also ran Windows applications.
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete fairly
in the market.
--
Pete
J. Clarke
2019-02-02 23:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
also ran Windows applications.
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete fairly
in the market.
Except that they didn't have a monopoly then. IBM could have cut the
hardware manufacturers a better deal on DOS if they had wanted to or a
better deal on OS/2 than DOS/Windows combined. But they didn't.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2019-02-03 17:39:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 15:51:37 -0700
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since
OS/2 also ran Windows applications.
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete
fairly in the market.
Not monopoly power at first - the original arrangement that made
Windows ubiquitous was a very deep discount on the license fee provided you
installed Windows on every PC sold. That made it cheaper to sell every PC
with Windows pre-installed than anything else - even bundling MS-DOS at
full price cost more than the deepest discount for Windows. That happened
in this part of the world with Windows 3.1 - prior to that there was real
competition for the OS, afterwards not.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Jorgen Grahn
2019-02-03 19:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 15:51:37 -0700
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since
OS/2 also ran Windows applications.
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete
fairly in the market.
Not monopoly power at first - the original arrangement that made
Windows ubiquitous was a very deep discount on the license fee provided you
installed Windows on every PC sold. That made it cheaper to sell every PC
with Windows pre-installed than anything else - even bundling MS-DOS at
full price cost more than the deepest discount for Windows. That happened
in this part of the world with Windows 3.1 - prior to that there was real
competition for the OS, afterwards not.
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
JimP
2019-02-03 19:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 15:51:37 -0700
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since
OS/2 also ran Windows applications.
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete
fairly in the market.
Not monopoly power at first - the original arrangement that made
Windows ubiquitous was a very deep discount on the license fee provided you
installed Windows on every PC sold. That made it cheaper to sell every PC
with Windows pre-installed than anything else - even bundling MS-DOS at
full price cost more than the deepest discount for Windows. That happened
in this part of the world with Windows 3.1 - prior to that there was real
competition for the OS, afterwards not.
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
/Jorgen
Those are PCs to. I call my Amiga A1000 a personal computer.

--
Jim
Andreas Kohlbach
2019-02-03 20:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Not monopoly power at first - the original arrangement that made
Windows ubiquitous was a very deep discount on the license fee provided you
installed Windows on every PC sold. That made it cheaper to sell every PC
with Windows pre-installed than anything else - even bundling MS-DOS at
full price cost more than the deepest discount for Windows. That happened
in this part of the world with Windows 3.1 - prior to that there was real
competition for the OS, afterwards not.
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
Neither did I. But PCs were for "serious" business, while Amigas and
Ataris were seen as gaming machines although they offered the typical
business applications like word processors and spreadsheets.

Business users might have (and correctly) worried they cannot import a
spreadsheet from a PC into an Amiga.
--
Andreas

https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/
J. Clarke
2019-02-03 21:04:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 15:57:44 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Not monopoly power at first - the original arrangement that made
Windows ubiquitous was a very deep discount on the license fee provided you
installed Windows on every PC sold. That made it cheaper to sell every PC
with Windows pre-installed than anything else - even bundling MS-DOS at
full price cost more than the deepest discount for Windows. That happened
in this part of the world with Windows 3.1 - prior to that there was real
competition for the OS, afterwards not.
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
Neither did I. But PCs were for "serious" business, while Amigas and
Ataris were seen as gaming machines although they offered the typical
business applications like word processors and spreadsheets.
Business users might have (and correctly) worried they cannot import a
spreadsheet from a PC into an Amiga.
Could the Amiga or Atari emulate a 3270? Lack of that capability
would have been a showstopper for many businesses. Note that "emulate
a 3270" meant having the hardware to connect to SNA.
David Wade
2019-02-03 23:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 15:57:44 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Not monopoly power at first - the original arrangement that made
Windows ubiquitous was a very deep discount on the license fee provided you
installed Windows on every PC sold. That made it cheaper to sell every PC
with Windows pre-installed than anything else - even bundling MS-DOS at
full price cost more than the deepest discount for Windows. That happened
in this part of the world with Windows 3.1 - prior to that there was real
competition for the OS, afterwards not.
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
Neither did I. But PCs were for "serious" business, while Amigas and
Ataris were seen as gaming machines although they offered the typical
business applications like word processors and spreadsheets.
Business users might have (and correctly) worried they cannot import a
spreadsheet from a PC into an Amiga.
Could the Amiga or Atari emulate a 3270? Lack of that capability
would have been a showstopper for many businesses. Note that "emulate
a 3270" meant having the hardware to connect to SNA.
3270 <> SNA. Most IBM PC used co-ax connections to a 3174 which handled
any SNA (isms)....

Dave
Andreas Kohlbach
2019-02-04 20:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 15:57:44 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Jorgen Grahn
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
Neither did I. But PCs were for "serious" business, while Amigas and
Ataris were seen as gaming machines although they offered the typical
business applications like word processors and spreadsheets.
Business users might have (and correctly) worried they cannot import a
spreadsheet from a PC into an Amiga.
Could the Amiga or Atari emulate a 3270? Lack of that capability
would have been a showstopper for many businesses. Note that "emulate
a 3270" meant having the hardware to connect to SNA.
Dunno. Probably not. But many businesses might only use word processors,
spreadsheets which an Amiga or ST could provide.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
your kid takes a siphon hose to show-and-tell.
Dave Garland
2019-02-05 02:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 15:57:44 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Jorgen Grahn
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
Neither did I. But PCs were for "serious" business, while Amigas and
Ataris were seen as gaming machines although they offered the typical
business applications like word processors and spreadsheets.
Business users might have (and correctly) worried they cannot import a
spreadsheet from a PC into an Amiga.
Could the Amiga or Atari emulate a 3270? Lack of that capability
would have been a showstopper for many businesses. Note that "emulate
a 3270" meant having the hardware to connect to SNA.
Dunno. Probably not. But many businesses might only use word processors,
spreadsheets which an Amiga or ST could provide.
I don't remember trying an Amiga (they weren't that common in the USA)
but how were the keyboards (compared to the gold standard, a
Selectric)? There were a lot of crappy keyboards in those days (some
even attached to dedicated WP gear). IBM did have keyboards that
typists wouldn't incessantly bitch about, and some of those keyboards
are still being used and/or rebuilt today.

(I guess I shouldn't say "in those days", most laptop keyboards are
horrid, function being sacrificed for thinness. That's what happens
when somebody who is not a touch typist designs a keyboard.)
Quadibloc
2019-02-05 06:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Garland
I don't remember trying an Amiga (they weren't that common in the USA)
but how were the keyboards (compared to the gold standard, a
Selectric)?
I doubt the keyboards had a good feel, they were probably fairly cheap.

As well, the Backspace key had an extra key sitting between it and +=. It wasn't
even worse because the ~` key was absent.

John Savard
Scott Lurndal
2019-02-05 15:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dave Garland
I don't remember trying an Amiga (they weren't that common in the USA)
but how were the keyboards (compared to the gold standard, a
Selectric)?
I doubt the keyboards had a good feel, they were probably fairly cheap.
If you don't know, why do you feel free to speculate wildly?
Jorgen Grahn
2019-02-05 08:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 15:57:44 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Jorgen Grahn
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
Neither did I. But PCs were for "serious" business, while Amigas and
Ataris were seen as gaming machines although they offered the typical
business applications like word processors and spreadsheets.
Business users might have (and correctly) worried they cannot import a
spreadsheet from a PC into an Amiga.
Could the Amiga or Atari emulate a 3270? Lack of that capability
would have been a showstopper for many businesses. Note that "emulate
a 3270" meant having the hardware to connect to SNA.
Dunno. Probably not. But many businesses might only use word processors,
spreadsheets which an Amiga or ST could provide.
I don't remember trying an Amiga (they weren't that common in the USA)
but how were the keyboards (compared to the gold standard, a
Selectric)?
I had no trouble with the A500 keyboard, compared with Sun, PC clone
and Luxor keyboards I had used. But revisiting it now I don't like it
at all -- indistinct and cheap.
Post by Dave Garland
There were a lot of crappy keyboards in those days (some
even attached to dedicated WP gear). IBM did have keyboards that
typists wouldn't incessantly bitch about, and some of those keyboards
are still being used and/or rebuilt today.
I think people (hobbyists and small businesses) buying PC clones
around 1990 didn't care about the keyboard, either. Not as a
professional typist would.

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Quadibloc
2019-02-05 14:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorgen Grahn
I think people (hobbyists and small businesses) buying PC clones
around 1990 didn't care about the keyboard, either. Not as a
professional typist would.
Many of them did not. I touch-type. I breathed a sigh of relief when IBM finally
came out with the Model M, which put the Backspace, Enter, and both Shift keys in
their proper places. This was in 1985.

John Savard
JimP
2019-02-05 14:36:28 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 20:34:19 -0600, Dave Garland
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 15:57:44 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Jorgen Grahn
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
Neither did I. But PCs were for "serious" business, while Amigas and
Ataris were seen as gaming machines although they offered the typical
business applications like word processors and spreadsheets.
Business users might have (and correctly) worried they cannot import a
spreadsheet from a PC into an Amiga.
Could the Amiga or Atari emulate a 3270? Lack of that capability
would have been a showstopper for many businesses. Note that "emulate
a 3270" meant having the hardware to connect to SNA.
Dunno. Probably not. But many businesses might only use word processors,
spreadsheets which an Amiga or ST could provide.
I don't remember trying an Amiga (they weren't that common in the USA)
but how were the keyboards (compared to the gold standard, a
Selectric)? There were a lot of crappy keyboards in those days (some
even attached to dedicated WP gear). IBM did have keyboards that
typists wouldn't incessantly bitch about, and some of those keyboards
are still being used and/or rebuilt today.
The Amiga had two fewer function keys. At university we had 101 key
Standard keyboards on the various IBM PC Clones in the computer lab.
None of them had the Function keys and arrow keys in the same place on
the keyboard.

So they didn't seem 'standard' to me.

The staff had Tandy IVs with an external floppy drive so they could
run Scripsit.

By the time I graduated, most offices on campus all had an IBM PC
clone of some sort. We had around 5, possibly more, 101 key 'standard'
keyboards.

--
Jim
Scott
2019-02-05 17:03:49 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 20:34:19 -0600, Dave Garland
Post by Dave Garland
(I guess I shouldn't say "in those days", most laptop keyboards are
horrid, function being sacrificed for thinness. That's what happens
when somebody who is not a touch typist designs a keyboard.)
The resurgence of "chiclet" keyboards has me somewhat nonplussed.
Understandable on portables (though I've had lappy boards with proper
fully sculpted keycaps and still very space efficient), but now we're
getting full blown desktop systems with (external, wired) chiclet
keyboards that are otherwise full size. The quest for thinness and
minimal key travel makes no sense on the desktop. Unless the idea is
to replicate the awfulness of a laptop's keys? I guess consistency
counts for something.
JimP
2019-02-04 00:35:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 15:57:44 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Not monopoly power at first - the original arrangement that made
Windows ubiquitous was a very deep discount on the license fee provided you
installed Windows on every PC sold. That made it cheaper to sell every PC
with Windows pre-installed than anything else - even bundling MS-DOS at
full price cost more than the deepest discount for Windows. That happened
in this part of the world with Windows 3.1 - prior to that there was real
competition for the OS, afterwards not.
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
Neither did I. But PCs were for "serious" business, while Amigas and
Ataris were seen as gaming machines although they offered the typical
business applications like word processors and spreadsheets.
Business users might have (and correctly) worried they cannot import a
spreadsheet from a PC into an Amiga.
Lotus 1-2-3 had more rows on an Amiga than an IBM PC. So you had to
remember to not go below a certain row when the file was going to go
from Amiga to IBM.

--
Jim
m***@mail.com
2019-02-03 21:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 15:51:37 -0700
competition for the OS, afterwards not.
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
/Jorgen
The PC looked soberer, to the men making decisions, the world and its
people were writing the other systems programs, and producing a lot of
what turned out to be crap. Imagine trying to convince a middle-aged
accountant that you needed to look for a loan to buy an Archimides.
--
***@ireland.xxx
Will rant for food.
You are taking the IPCC, right?
J. Clarke
2019-02-03 21:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@mail.com
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 15:51:37 -0700
competition for the OS, afterwards not.
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
/Jorgen
The PC looked soberer, to the men making decisions, the world and its
people were writing the other systems programs, and producing a lot of
what turned out to be crap. Imagine trying to convince a middle-aged
accountant that you needed to look for a loan to buy an Archimides.
One thing that made those machines a hard sell was the proprietary
operating systems.
Jorgen Grahn
2019-02-03 22:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@mail.com
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 15:51:37 -0700
competition for the OS, afterwards not.
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
/Jorgen
The PC looked soberer, to the men making decisions, the world and its
people were writing the other systems programs, and producing a lot of
what turned out to be crap. Imagine trying to convince a middle-aged
accountant that you needed to look for a loan to buy an Archimides.
One thing that made those machines a hard sell was the proprietary
operating systems.
Surely no more proprietary than MS-DOS or Windows 3.1?

There was Unix too, but if it was available for PC hardware at all in
the early 1990s, most people were unaware.

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
J. Clarke
2019-02-04 00:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@mail.com
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 15:51:37 -0700
competition for the OS, afterwards not.
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
/Jorgen
The PC looked soberer, to the men making decisions, the world and its
people were writing the other systems programs, and producing a lot of
what turned out to be crap. Imagine trying to convince a middle-aged
accountant that you needed to look for a loan to buy an Archimides.
One thing that made those machines a hard sell was the proprietary
operating systems.
Surely no more proprietary than MS-DOS or Windows 3.1?
MS-DOS ran on hardware from hundreds of different vendors and was
second-sourced. This was not true for the operating systems from
Commodore, Atari, or Acorn.
Post by Jorgen Grahn
There was Unix too, but if it was available for PC hardware at all in
the early 1990s, most people were unaware.
Unix was available on the original IBM PC. It was called "Xenix" but
it was derived from the AT&T codebase. System V was available for
80286 machines in the mid-'80s. By the early '90s there were several
different flavors of Unix available. I ran a Xenix shop for about 5
years in that timeframe.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-02-04 01:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@mail.com
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 15:51:37 -0700
competition for the OS, afterwards not.
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
/Jorgen
The PC looked soberer, to the men making decisions, the world and its
people were writing the other systems programs, and producing a lot of
what turned out to be crap. Imagine trying to convince a middle-aged
accountant that you needed to look for a loan to buy an Archimides.
One thing that made those machines a hard sell was the proprietary
operating systems.
Surely no more proprietary than MS-DOS or Windows 3.1?
MS-DOS ran on hardware from hundreds of different vendors and was
second-sourced. This was not true for the operating systems from
Commodore, Atari, or Acorn.
Post by Jorgen Grahn
There was Unix too, but if it was available for PC hardware at all in
the early 1990s, most people were unaware.
Unix was available on the original IBM PC. It was called "Xenix" but
it was derived from the AT&T codebase. System V was available for
80286 machines in the mid-'80s. By the early '90s there were several
different flavors of Unix available. I ran a Xenix shop for about 5
years in that timeframe.
PC/IX (not sure about the punctuation), was, iirc, a System III variant
for the original 8086 IBM PC. Of course the hardware had no memory
protection, but the PC/IX C compiler attempted to do what it could
protection-wise with segment registers.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
J. Clarke
2019-02-04 01:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@mail.com
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 15:51:37 -0700
competition for the OS, afterwards not.
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
/Jorgen
The PC looked soberer, to the men making decisions, the world and its
people were writing the other systems programs, and producing a lot of
what turned out to be crap. Imagine trying to convince a middle-aged
accountant that you needed to look for a loan to buy an Archimides.
One thing that made those machines a hard sell was the proprietary
operating systems.
Surely no more proprietary than MS-DOS or Windows 3.1?
MS-DOS ran on hardware from hundreds of different vendors and was
second-sourced. This was not true for the operating systems from
Commodore, Atari, or Acorn.
Post by Jorgen Grahn
There was Unix too, but if it was available for PC hardware at all in
the early 1990s, most people were unaware.
Unix was available on the original IBM PC. It was called "Xenix" but
it was derived from the AT&T codebase. System V was available for
80286 machines in the mid-'80s. By the early '90s there were several
different flavors of Unix available. I ran a Xenix shop for about 5
years in that timeframe.
PC/IX (not sure about the punctuation), was, iirc, a System III variant
for the original 8086 IBM PC. Of course the hardware had no memory
protection, but the PC/IX C compiler attempted to do what it could
protection-wise with segment registers.
That was one of the real issues with Unix on the 808x. You could
start writing zeros at location 0 and keep going until you overwrote
your code. No hardware to provide protected memory.

The '286 fixed that but introduced other issues.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2019-02-04 10:40:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 20:54:59 -0500
Post by J. Clarke
The '286 fixed that but introduced other issues.
Oh but those wonderful addressing modes and the clever one way
protected mode gate were such ingenious features. Just look at how much
work they made for compiler writers and applications programmers.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2019-02-04 09:11:43 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Feb 2019 19:40:26 GMT
Post by Jorgen Grahn
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
Originally it was in pursuit of the talismanic triad of letters
IBM, later in pursuit of something cheaper that works like an IBM. By this
time the fact that there had for a long time been things that were both
cheaper and better was forgotten by most.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Carlos E.R.
2019-02-04 14:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 15:51:37 -0700
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since
OS/2 also ran Windows applications.
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete
fairly in the market.
Not monopoly power at first - the original arrangement that made
Windows ubiquitous was a very deep discount on the license fee provided you
installed Windows on every PC sold. That made it cheaper to sell every PC
with Windows pre-installed than anything else - even bundling MS-DOS at
full price cost more than the deepest discount for Windows. That happened
in this part of the world with Windows 3.1 - prior to that there was real
competition for the OS, afterwards not.
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
I was told at the student club not to buy any of that, but an IBM PC
clone, if wanted software and help from the club.

And later, I did similar recomendations to people.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Jorgen Grahn
2019-02-04 19:24:29 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Jorgen Grahn
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
I was told at the student club not to buy any of that, but an IBM PC
clone, if wanted software and help from the club.
And later, I did similar recomendations to people.
I got the opposite recommendation. The CS students around me in ~1991
had mostly Amigas, if they had a computer at all. Some had a C64 but
wanted an Amiga. I think there was one older guy who had a PC.

(I understand these things varied a lot by country.)

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Bob Eager
2019-02-04 20:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorgen Grahn
...
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Jorgen Grahn
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
I was told at the student club not to buy any of that, but an IBM PC
clone, if wanted software and help from the club.
And later, I did similar recomendations to people.
I got the opposite recommendation. The CS students around me in ~1991
had mostly Amigas, if they had a computer at all. Some had a C64 but
wanted an Amiga. I think there was one older guy who had a PC.
(I understand these things varied a lot by country.)
Remember that AmigaDOS incorporated TRIPOS, an operating system written
by CS students!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPOS
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Carlos E.R.
2019-02-05 14:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorgen Grahn
...
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Jorgen Grahn
At the time, I didn't understand why anyone bought PCs at all, when
the Commodore-Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were cheaper and better.
I was told at the student club not to buy any of that, but an IBM PC
clone, if wanted software and help from the club.
And later, I did similar recomendations to people.
I got the opposite recommendation. The CS students around me in ~1991
had mostly Amigas, if they had a computer at all. Some had a C64 but
wanted an Amiga. I think there was one older guy who had a PC.
(I understand these things varied a lot by country.)
This was earlier, around 1986.
Yes, I suppose it varies per country.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Richard Thiebaud
2019-02-04 14:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
the original arrangement that made
Windows ubiquitous was a very deep discount on the license fee provided you
installed Windows on every PC sold. That made it cheaper to sell every PC
with Windows pre-installed than anything else
This seems like monopoly power to me.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2019-02-05 08:09:39 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 09:01:09 -0500
Post by Richard Thiebaud
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
the original arrangement that made
Windows ubiquitous was a very deep discount on the license fee provided
you installed Windows on every PC sold. That made it cheaper to sell
every PC with Windows pre-installed than anything else
This seems like monopoly power to me.
Nope it was the dirty deal that got them monopoly power, anyone
else could have done something similar but Microsoft did.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Andreas Kohlbach
2019-02-03 19:30:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
also ran Windows applications.
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete fairly
in the market.
That was also said on that web page. But then they couldn't kill off
Linux, UNIX or Mac OS. Even if not have a large user base compared with
Windows they are still around (Linux and UNIX more on servers than the
desktop.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
there are more than five mcdonald's bags currently on the floorboard of your
car.
J. Clarke
2019-02-03 19:56:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 14:30:08 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
also ran Windows applications.
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete fairly
in the market.
That was also said on that web page. But then they couldn't kill off
Linux,
Since Linux has always been open source, there's nothing to kill. IBM
is in business to make money, they are not altruists. If OS/2 isn't
making money then there's no business case for continuing it. The
Linux developers don't care about making money--they're either
independently wealthy, hobbyists, or working under grants.
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
UNIX
UNIX on the PC is pretty much dead and has been for decades. It's not
anything from Microsoft that killed it though, it's the ludicrous
prices that UNIX vendors charged combined with the availability of an
open-source alternative.
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
or Mac OS.
Mac OS never competed with anything from Microsoft. If you want an
Apple computer you get Mac OS. If you want any other kind of
computer, Apple makes it as difficult as they can to put Mac OS on it,
while they also used to make it as difficult as they could to put an
IBM or Microsoft operating system on it.
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Even if not have a large user base compared with
Windows they are still around (Linux and UNIX more on servers than the
desktop.
So?
Andreas Kohlbach
2019-02-03 21:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 14:30:08 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Peter Flass
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete fairly
in the market.
That was also said on that web page. But then they couldn't kill off
Linux,
Since Linux has always been open source, there's nothing to kill.
MS tried to convince users to not use Linux/UNIX but use MS servers. And
failed.

[...]
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
or Mac OS.
Mac OS never competed with anything from Microsoft. If you want an
Apple computer you get Mac OS. If you want any other kind of
computer, Apple makes it as difficult as they can to put Mac OS on it,
while they also used to make it as difficult as they could to put an
IBM or Microsoft operating system on it.
For me it's hard to grasp why people choose a Mac over a PC (with
Windows). I don't know what is so compelling selecting a Mac. May be it's
the brand name. Like you can buy a Mercedes to do your shopping while a
Toyota would be sufficient. Like to say "Look, I have a MacBook and not a
rubbish no name PC".
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Even if not have a large user base compared with
Windows they are still around (Linux and UNIX more on servers than the
desktop.
So?
Microsoft isn't able to kill off competitors. But they probably killed
OS/2 in the past otherwise. I suppose the reason is that OS/2 was a
commercial product while Linux is free, unless you want professional
customer support.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
you take a fishing pole to sea world.
J. Clarke
2019-02-03 21:24:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 16:10:57 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 14:30:08 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Peter Flass
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete fairly
in the market.
That was also said on that web page. But then they couldn't kill off
Linux,
Since Linux has always been open source, there's nothing to kill.
MS tried to convince users to not use Linux/UNIX but use MS servers. And
failed.
[...]
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
or Mac OS.
Mac OS never competed with anything from Microsoft. If you want an
Apple computer you get Mac OS. If you want any other kind of
computer, Apple makes it as difficult as they can to put Mac OS on it,
while they also used to make it as difficult as they could to put an
IBM or Microsoft operating system on it.
For me it's hard to grasp why people choose a Mac over a PC (with
Windows). I don't know what is so compelling selecting a Mac. May be it's
the brand name. Like you can buy a Mercedes to do your shopping while a
Toyota would be sufficient. Like to say "Look, I have a MacBook and not a
rubbish no name PC".
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Even if not have a large user base compared with
Windows they are still around (Linux and UNIX more on servers than the
desktop.
So?
Microsoft isn't able to kill off competitors. But they probably killed
OS/2 in the past otherwise. I suppose the reason is that OS/2 was a
commercial product while Linux is free, unless you want professional
customer support.
Yep, IBM wanted to get paid for OS/2. Even after it was clearly dead
they weren't willing to really cut it loose as open source, instead
they sold it to an outfit that didn't really have the resources to
continue development, and so it continues to die a lingering death.
m***@mail.com
2019-02-03 21:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 14:30:08 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
I would sooner have a Toyota than a Mercedes, and if anyone ever asks,
I would recommend a Mac over a PC, to which everyone answers,
"But they are dearer." I wouldn't go into a hardware store and buy
the cheapest hammer.

(I run Linux)

I remember the story from years ago, of what Alan Sugar said when he
realized that he had paid IBM for taking the wrong path.
--
***@ireland.xxx
Will rant for food.
You are taking the IPCC, right?
J. Clarke
2019-02-03 21:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@mail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 14:30:08 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
I would sooner have a Toyota than a Mercedes, and if anyone ever asks,
I would recommend a Mac over a PC, to which everyone answers,
"But they are dearer." I wouldn't go into a hardware store and buy
the cheapest hammer.
If Macs weren't made in the same Chinese factory that makes Gateways,
Dells, and HPs you might have a point. But they are.
Post by m***@mail.com
(I run Linux)
I remember the story from years ago, of what Alan Sugar said when he
realized that he had paid IBM for taking the wrong path.
m***@mail.com
2019-02-04 08:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@mail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 14:30:08 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
I would sooner have a Toyota than a Mercedes, and if anyone ever asks,
I would recommend a Mac over a PC, to which everyone answers,
"But they are dearer." I wouldn't go into a hardware store and buy
the cheapest hammer.
If Macs weren't made in the same Chinese factory that makes Gateways,
Dells, and HPs you might have a point. But they are.
Post by m***@mail.com
(I run Linux)
I remember the story from years ago, of what Alan Sugar said when he
realized that he had paid IBM for taking the wrong path.
My first PC was a gateway, mechanically good machine, better when Linux
replaced the original OS.

One thing about China, you specify what you want, and they will supply
to those specs.
--
***@ireland.xxx
Will rant for food.
You are taking the IPCC, right?
Andreas Kohlbach
2019-02-04 20:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@mail.com
One thing about China, you specify what you want, and they will supply
to those specs.
So, this morning I could not find the wireless mouse.
The (wireless) cat got it?
No problemo, use lynx to contact gmail.. I have done it before, but
now, AFAIcould see, no Javascript, noy gmail.
Yes, but what does this has to do with

| One thing about China, you specify what you want, and they will supply
| to those specs.

?
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
your kid takes a siphon hose to show-and-tell.
m***@mail.com
2019-02-04 22:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by m***@mail.com
One thing about China, you specify what you want, and they will supply
to those specs.
So, this morning I could not find the wireless mouse.
The (wireless) cat got it?
No problemo, use lynx to contact gmail.. I have done it before, but
now, AFAIcould see, no Javascript, noy gmail.
Yes, but what does this has to do with
javascript used not to be needed to access Gmail by lynx, now it does.
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
| One thing about China, you specify what you want, and they will supply
| to those specs.
?
to chinese, factory/whatever, specify shoddy construction, you get
shoddy, specify quality, you get quality
--
***@ireland.xxx
Will rant for food.
You are taking the IPCC, right?
Peter Flass
2019-02-05 13:33:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@mail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@mail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 14:30:08 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
I would sooner have a Toyota than a Mercedes, and if anyone ever asks,
I would recommend a Mac over a PC, to which everyone answers,
"But they are dearer." I wouldn't go into a hardware store and buy
the cheapest hammer.
If Macs weren't made in the same Chinese factory that makes Gateways,
Dells, and HPs you might have a point. But they are.
Post by m***@mail.com
(I run Linux)
I remember the story from years ago, of what Alan Sugar said when he
realized that he had paid IBM for taking the wrong path.
My first PC was a gateway, mechanically good machine, better when Linux
replaced the original OS.
There was a problem in the end with the gateway, hard to replace
the Motherboard, the specs were a bit unusual.
Post by m***@mail.com
One thing about China, you specify what you want, and they will supply
to those specs.
So, this morning I could not find the wireless mouse. No problemo, use
lynx to contact gmail.. I have done it before, but now, AFAIcould see,
no Javascript, noy gmail.
Why do you not use SMTP?
--
Pete
JimP
2019-02-05 14:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by m***@mail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@mail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 14:30:08 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
I would sooner have a Toyota than a Mercedes, and if anyone ever asks,
I would recommend a Mac over a PC, to which everyone answers,
"But they are dearer." I wouldn't go into a hardware store and buy
the cheapest hammer.
If Macs weren't made in the same Chinese factory that makes Gateways,
Dells, and HPs you might have a point. But they are.
Post by m***@mail.com
(I run Linux)
I remember the story from years ago, of what Alan Sugar said when he
realized that he had paid IBM for taking the wrong path.
My first PC was a gateway, mechanically good machine, better when Linux
replaced the original OS.
There was a problem in the end with the gateway, hard to replace
the Motherboard, the specs were a bit unusual.
Post by m***@mail.com
One thing about China, you specify what you want, and they will supply
to those specs.
So, this morning I could not find the wireless mouse. No problemo, use
lynx to contact gmail.. I have done it before, but now, AFAIcould see,
no Javascript, noy gmail.
Why do you not use SMTP?
One place I worked, we all had MS Office with Outlook for email. Not
given a choice. Some employees found their personal email sites
blocked. We could read personal emails during our lunch break.

I would have to do research on replacement motherboards, ram DIMMs,
etc. I had to buy. Mostly they weren't blocked, but sometimes they
were.

--
Jim
Scott Lurndal
2019-02-05 15:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
So, this morning I could not find the wireless mouse. No problemo, use
lynx to contact gmail.. I have done it before, but now, AFAIcould see,
no Javascript, noy gmail.
Why do you not use SMTP?
Because SMTP is just for SENDING and transferring mail, not reading it.
Dave Garland
2019-02-05 18:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Peter Flass
So, this morning I could not find the wireless mouse. No problemo, use
lynx to contact gmail.. I have done it before, but now, AFAIcould see,
no Javascript, noy gmail.
Why do you not use SMTP?
Because SMTP is just for SENDING and transferring mail, not reading it.
It is, however, customarily paired with POP3.
r***@gmail.com
2019-02-04 14:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 14:30:08 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Peter Flass
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete fairly
in the market.
That was also said on that web page. But then they couldn't kill off
Linux,
Since Linux has always been open source, there's nothing to kill.
MS tried to convince users to not use Linux/UNIX but use MS servers. And
failed.
[...]
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
or Mac OS.
Mac OS never competed with anything from Microsoft. If you want an
Apple computer you get Mac OS. If you want any other kind of
computer, Apple makes it as difficult as they can to put Mac OS on it,
while they also used to make it as difficult as they could to put an
IBM or Microsoft operating system on it.
For me it's hard to grasp why people choose a Mac over a PC (with
Windows). I don't know what is so compelling selecting a Mac. May be it's
the brand name. Like you can buy a Mercedes to do your shopping while a
Toyota would be sufficient. Like to say "Look, I have a MacBook and not a
rubbish no name PC".
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Even if not have a large user base compared with
Windows they are still around (Linux and UNIX more on servers than the
desktop.
So?
Microsoft isn't able to kill off competitors. But they probably killed
OS/2 in the past otherwise. I suppose the reason is that OS/2 was a
commercial product while Linux is free, unless you want professional
customer support.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
you take a fishing pole to sea world.
Don't understand why people choose Mac OSX (macos) over Windows? Let me give my view - I was professionally and privately a Windows user forever (still am ) however when I retired I decided to give Mac a try when my main windows PC went very slow, only way to resolve would be to blow it away and rebuild a fresh install. Over the years that sort of thing has happened many times. I've been running Windows 10 and OSX sierra in parallel for two years and gradually come to the conclusion I prefer Mac. With Windows I was always battling with disparate backup methods, having Windows Home Server before evolving into Windows Server 2012R2 Essentials or using the win7 backup. Every few months I'd find that automatic backups would fail , but no obvious notification. I'd also find that the domain attached (AD) workstation would periodically lose manual DNS settings and drift back to just seeing my server as prime DNS, so internet access broken. With Mac OSX Time Machine backup and restore has worked flawlessly to local hd , Synology and Freenas servers and I have been able to make several full restores easily. So that is a win for Mac over Windows. I also find it handy that with Homebrew I can install most linux apps under Mac, but Windows builds of linux apps with CygWin is a skill I have not yet developed, again that is a win for Mac over Windows. For me the only area of win of Windows over Mac is with apps that only exist under Windows, or legacy older windows apps, e.g being able to run tl866 rom burner software, being able to run MyZ80, and being able to run my wife's Husqvarna embroidery software with copy protection dongle.

As an OS/2 aside, I worked at Citrix 1998 to 2002 and was persuaded to work on the port of the Citrix client to OS/2, much desired by large insurance companies using OS/2 even then in the late 90s. They had been bullying the Citrix CEO for years to get a native OS/2 ICA client, eventually and late in the lifecycle he relented and the new client was created. The insurance companies found that OS/2 was stable and ran well.
Quadibloc
2019-02-04 21:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
For me it's hard to grasp why people choose a Mac over a PC (with
Windows). I don't know what is so compelling selecting a Mac.
Well, for one thing, the Macintosh came out in 1984, well before there was
Windows. So initially, there was more Macintosh software than Windows software.

As well, the Macintosh was considered, with reason, to be easier to use and more
secure.

Today, though, with Apple losing interest in the Macintosh, and its market share
is what - in the single digits? - it is no longer a viable alternative, except
in very rare cases.

John Savard
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2019-02-05 08:15:27 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 13:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Post by Quadibloc
Today, though, with Apple losing interest in the Macintosh, and its
market share is what - in the single digits? - it is no longer a viable
alternative, except in very rare cases.
I disagree with that - I have a Macbook pro for work, it has the
full suite of MS Office junk, talks to the Exchange server for mail and
calendar using either the native Apple applications or MS Outlook. IOW it's
a perfectly capable office computing appliance - it also has a POSIX
environment just under the GUI and a GUI that mostly fails to irritate me
which makes it a nice developer workstation.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Huge
2019-02-05 10:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 13:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Post by Quadibloc
Today, though, with Apple losing interest in the Macintosh, and its
market share is what - in the single digits? - it is no longer a viable
alternative, except in very rare cases.
I disagree with that - I have a Macbook pro for work, it has the
full suite of MS Office junk, talks to the Exchange server for mail and
calendar using either the native Apple applications or MS Outlook. IOW it's
a perfectly capable office computing appliance - it also has a POSIX
environment just under the GUI and a GUI that mostly fails to irritate me
which makes it a nice developer workstation.
If the file browser part of Finder wasn't so clunky and buggy I'd
probably be happy with a Mac. Especially if it would let me delete
iTunes.
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 36th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2019-02-05 11:15:06 UTC
Permalink
On 5 Feb 2019 10:15:11 GMT
Post by Huge
If the file browser part of Finder wasn't so clunky and buggy I'd
Yeah that is a POS.
Post by Huge
probably be happy with a Mac. Especially if it would let me delete
iTunes.
I just don't let it run. I wouldn't buy one for myself, but it's
vastly preferable to a Windows box as a work laptop.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Huge
2019-02-05 11:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On 5 Feb 2019 10:15:11 GMT
Post by Huge
If the file browser part of Finder wasn't so clunky and buggy I'd
Yeah that is a POS.
And not replaceable ... :o(
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Huge
probably be happy with a Mac. Especially if it would let me delete
iTunes.
I just don't let it run.
Me neither. But it irks me that I just can't delete it. It particularly
irked me when I had slow metered Internet, so the frequent huge updates
were a pain. It irks me less now I have (effectively) unmetered Internet
at a decent speed (and hope to have FTTP in the not to distant future)
but the fact that I cannot delete something from *my* computer still
annoys me.
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
I wouldn't buy one for myself, but it's
vastly preferable to a Windows box as a work laptop.
I have a Macbook Air which I bought for travelling (especially once
work locked down my (their) laptop such as make it unusable for personal
purposes.) It was S/H on eBay, I paid a very reasonable price for it
and I'm quite happy with it.
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 36th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
Peter Flass
2019-02-05 13:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 13:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Post by Quadibloc
Today, though, with Apple losing interest in the Macintosh, and its
market share is what - in the single digits? - it is no longer a viable
alternative, except in very rare cases.
I disagree with that - I have a Macbook pro for work, it has the
full suite of MS Office junk, talks to the Exchange server for mail and
calendar using either the native Apple applications or MS Outlook. IOW it's
a perfectly capable office computing appliance - it also has a POSIX
environment just under the GUI and a GUI that mostly fails to irritate me
which makes it a nice developer workstation.
Isn’t Mac market share increasing? (too lazy to look it up just now)
--
Pete
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2019-02-04 11:15:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 14:56:28 -0500
Post by J. Clarke
Since Linux has always been open source, there's nothing to kill. IBM
is in business to make money, they are not altruists. If OS/2 isn't
making money then there's no business case for continuing it. The
Linux developers don't care about making money--they're either
independently wealthy, hobbyists, or working under grants.
One other group - they're employed by companies that use Linux,
want some well engineered improvement, are willing to employ people to
make it happen and give away the result because they already have the
benefit they needed and by doing so they get some free testing and code
inspection.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Jorgen Grahn
2019-02-05 07:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 14:56:28 -0500
Post by J. Clarke
Since Linux has always been open source, there's nothing to kill. IBM
is in business to make money, they are not altruists. If OS/2 isn't
making money then there's no business case for continuing it. The
Linux developers don't care about making money--they're either
independently wealthy, hobbyists, or working under grants.
One other group - they're employed by companies that use Linux,
want some well engineered improvement, are willing to employ people to
make it happen and give away the result because they already have the
benefit they needed and by doing so they get some free testing and code
inspection.
And a third: companies like Intel, RedHat and Google. For important
parts of the Linux ecosystem, I think lots of the resources come from
there. (And these aren't altruists.)

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Dave Garland
2019-02-03 20:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Peter Flass
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete fairly
in the market.
That was also said on that web page. But then they couldn't kill off
Linux, UNIX or Mac OS. Even if not have a large user base compared with
Windows they are still around (Linux and UNIX more on servers than the
desktop.
Way more than servers. TVs and phones and routers and IoT probably
have a far bigger user base than Win. And I think most of them run
some version of Linux under the hood.
Peter Flass
2019-02-04 00:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Peter Flass
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete fairly
in the market.
That was also said on that web page. But then they couldn't kill off
Linux, UNIX or Mac OS. Even if not have a large user base compared with
Windows they are still around (Linux and UNIX more on servers than the
desktop.
Way more than servers. TVs and phones and routers and IoT probably
have a far bigger user base than Win. And I think most of them run
some version of Linux under the hood.
As a longtime Linux user (like Andreas migrated from OS/2) I can’t
understand why Linux is not used more as a desktop OS. Does just about
everything windoze does, and a lot of software that costs extra for win is
free for Linux. The one thing I miss about OS/2 is that the GUI API was
simpler.
--
Pete
J. Clarke
2019-02-04 00:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Peter Flass
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete fairly
in the market.
That was also said on that web page. But then they couldn't kill off
Linux, UNIX or Mac OS. Even if not have a large user base compared with
Windows they are still around (Linux and UNIX more on servers than the
desktop.
Way more than servers. TVs and phones and routers and IoT probably
have a far bigger user base than Win. And I think most of them run
some version of Linux under the hood.
As a longtime Linux user (like Andreas migrated from OS/2) I can’t
understand why Linux is not used more as a desktop OS. Does just about
everything windoze does, and a lot of software that costs extra for win is
free for Linux. The one thing I miss about OS/2 is that the GUI API was
simpler.
In the corporate market it doesn't give the same degree of control.
Registry entries have security at the line-item level.
Dan Espen
2019-02-04 04:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Peter Flass
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers from
pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk could compete fairly
in the market.
That was also said on that web page. But then they couldn't kill off
Linux, UNIX or Mac OS. Even if not have a large user base compared with
Windows they are still around (Linux and UNIX more on servers than the
desktop.
Way more than servers. TVs and phones and routers and IoT probably
have a far bigger user base than Win. And I think most of them run
some version of Linux under the hood.
As a longtime Linux user (like Andreas migrated from OS/2) I can’t
understand why Linux is not used more as a desktop OS. Does just about
everything windoze does, and a lot of software that costs extra for win is
free for Linux. The one thing I miss about OS/2 is that the GUI API was
simpler.
In the corporate market it doesn't give the same degree of control.
Registry entries have security at the line-item level.
/etc file entries provide security at the same level...

I believe it's Windows that comes up short with the registry.
One big DB affecting everything? How is one supposed to
set protections on that?
--
Dan Espen
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2019-02-04 11:36:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 05:10:27 -0500
OK, tell me how to let user A edit line 3 of an etc file and user 4
edit line 5 but not vice versa.
Almost all of them can import components from a <feature>.d/
directory. As a sysadmin you can create template files in these directories
and provide access feature by feature to individuals and/or groups using
either the standard unix user/group or POSIX ACLs.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Huge
2019-02-04 15:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 05:10:27 -0500
OK, tell me how to let user A edit line 3 of an etc file and user 4
edit line 5 but not vice versa.
Why are you permitting users to edit files in /etc?
--
Today is Setting Orange, the 35th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
Dan Espen
2019-02-04 14:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
/etc file entries provide security at the same level...
OK, tell me how to let user A edit line 3 of an etc file and user 4
edit line 5 but not vice versa.
I didn't know Windows editors all listened to registry entries that tell
them which lines users can edit.

Oh, wait, you're referring to some feature of regedit?

So, on Linux it would be impossible to write a /etc file editor
with a feature like that?

I can't imagine how such a feature would be useful unless I dumped
all system configuration into one huge file.
--
Dan Espen
Huge
2019-02-04 15:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Dan Espen
/etc file entries provide security at the same level...
OK, tell me how to let user A edit line 3 of an etc file and user 4
edit line 5 but not vice versa.
I didn't know Windows editors all listened to registry entries that tell
them which lines users can edit.
Oh, wait, you're referring to some feature of regedit?
So, on Linux it would be impossible to write a /etc file editor
with a feature like that?
I can't imagine how such a feature would be useful unless I dumped
all system configuration into one huge file.
And then you end up with AIX. :o(

There's no good solution to this problem.
--
Today is Setting Orange, the 35th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
Dan Espen
2019-02-04 15:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Huge
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Dan Espen
/etc file entries provide security at the same level...
OK, tell me how to let user A edit line 3 of an etc file and user 4
edit line 5 but not vice versa.
I didn't know Windows editors all listened to registry entries that tell
them which lines users can edit.
Oh, wait, you're referring to some feature of regedit?
So, on Linux it would be impossible to write a /etc file editor
with a feature like that?
I can't imagine how such a feature would be useful unless I dumped
all system configuration into one huge file.
And then you end up with AIX. :o(
There's no good solution to this problem.
What problem?

The only problem I'm aware of is that the registry is a big dump
mixing things that should not be mixed and requiring special tools
to access and update.
--
Dan Espen
Huge
2019-02-04 16:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Huge
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Dan Espen
/etc file entries provide security at the same level...
OK, tell me how to let user A edit line 3 of an etc file and user 4
edit line 5 but not vice versa.
I didn't know Windows editors all listened to registry entries that tell
them which lines users can edit.
Oh, wait, you're referring to some feature of regedit?
So, on Linux it would be impossible to write a /etc file editor
with a feature like that?
I can't imagine how such a feature would be useful unless I dumped
all system configuration into one huge file.
And then you end up with AIX. :o(
There's no good solution to this problem.
What problem?
The problem we're discussing.
Post by Dan Espen
The only problem I'm aware of is that the registry is a big dump
mixing things that should not be mixed and requiring special tools
to access and update.
Yep.

Also /etc is full of random text files in different formats and many
tools no longer keep their config files there anyway.
--
Today is Setting Orange, the 35th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
J. Clarke
2019-02-05 01:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Huge
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Dan Espen
/etc file entries provide security at the same level...
OK, tell me how to let user A edit line 3 of an etc file and user 4
edit line 5 but not vice versa.
I didn't know Windows editors all listened to registry entries that tell
them which lines users can edit.
Oh, wait, you're referring to some feature of regedit?
So, on Linux it would be impossible to write a /etc file editor
with a feature like that?
I can't imagine how such a feature would be useful unless I dumped
all system configuration into one huge file.
And then you end up with AIX. :o(
There's no good solution to this problem.
What problem?
The only problem I'm aware of is that the registry is a big dump
mixing things that should not be mixed and requiring special tools
to access and update.
Actually its purpose is to keep things separate that should be
separated. There's a user and hardware dependent piece, a user
dependent hardware independent piece, a hardware dependent user
independent piece, and one that is independent of either. User moves
from one machine to another with the same hardware, he gets both the
hardware dependent and the hardware independent piece. If he moves to
a machine with different hardware he just gets the hardware
independent piece and may have to do some configuration on that system
that will then carry over to any other similar system on the network.
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer
2019-02-05 07:56:29 UTC
Permalink
... There's a user and hardware dependent piece, a user
dependent hardware independent piece, a hardware dependent user
independent piece, and one that is independent of either.
You're in a twisting maze of little passages? :-)
Peter Flass
2019-02-05 13:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer
... There's a user and hardware dependent piece, a user
dependent hardware independent piece, a hardware dependent user
independent piece, and one that is independent of either.
You're in a twisting maze of little passages? :-)
Missing from this discussion is the fact that Linux has ACLs, which serve
the dame purpose, in a more standard way.
--
Pete
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer
2019-02-05 14:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer
... There's a user and hardware dependent piece, a user
dependent hardware independent piece, a hardware dependent user
independent piece, and one that is independent of either.
You're in a twisting maze of little passages? :-)
Missing from this discussion is the fact that Linux has ACLs, which serve
the dame purpose, in a more standard way.
ISTR that the genesis of Window's registry was fairly simple, merely to
record the association between file type (eg .DOC) and the application
to handle that type (In this case, Microsoft Word)

But grown out of all proportion for other purposes when an existing
suitable mechanism, the
.ini file, was extant (and more user friendly)
J. Clarke
2019-02-05 01:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Dan Espen
/etc file entries provide security at the same level...
OK, tell me how to let user A edit line 3 of an etc file and user 4
edit line 5 but not vice versa.
I didn't know Windows editors all listened to registry entries that tell
them which lines users can edit.
Oh, wait, you're referring to some feature of regedit?
So, on Linux it would be impossible to write a /etc file editor
with a feature like that?
I can't imagine how such a feature would be useful unless I dumped
all system configuration into one huge file.
It's not "a feature of regedit", it's a property of the registry.
Individual entries in the registry have their own security controls.
The registry can be accessed a variety of ways, not just through
regedit, and the security applies no matter how it's accessed.

I've been away from Windows administration for a long time and I can't
come up with an example offhand, but once you're used to the registry,
text files in a folder seem terribly klunky.
Scott
2019-02-05 17:12:33 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 20:04:06 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
I've been away from Windows administration for a long time and I can't
come up with an example offhand, but once you're used to the registry,
text files in a folder seem terribly klunky.
...once you get used to the pillars of flame and the endless keening
wails of the tormented souls, a quiet stroll through the garden seems
downright quaint.
Dave Garland
2019-02-04 06:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
As a longtime Linux user (like Andreas migrated from OS/2) I can’t
understand why Linux is not used more as a desktop OS. Does just about
everything windoze does, and a lot of software that costs extra for win is
free for Linux. The one thing I miss about OS/2 is that the GUI API was
simpler.
I never had a chance to use OS/2 much.

For individuals, Linux et al. are intimidating because:
1) all the distros look different, things are in different places
2) there tends to be less consistency in how things work (since there
isn't a single source enforcing a style)
3) some games don't work even with Wine
4) Uncle Fred or Little Johnny aren't familiar with it
5) you might actually have to edit a txt file
6) Photoshop (or whatever) doesn't work (there doesn't seem to be any
Linux software comparable to Photoshop's level, GIMP doesn't cut it),
and when there is comparable software, it's a learning curve all over
again
and institutionally,
7) because of 1-6, the boss doesn't like it. Besides, it's socialist
or something.

I dunno. I use both. But I'm retired now, and don't have to be
keystroke compatible with clients any more, so I doubt I'll run Win on
any new* computer.

*New to me. I can't remember when I last actually bought a computer
for myself, rather than using someone's castoff. I think it was a
netbook that's now a server running Mint.
Melzzzzz
2019-02-04 19:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Peter Flass
As a longtime Linux user (like Andreas migrated from OS/2) I can’t
understand why Linux is not used more as a desktop OS. Does just about
everything windoze does, and a lot of software that costs extra for win is
free for Linux. The one thing I miss about OS/2 is that the GUI API was
simpler.
I never had a chance to use OS/2 much.
1) all the distros look different, things are in different places
2) there tends to be less consistency in how things work (since there
isn't a single source enforcing a style)
3) some games don't work even with Wine
What does that means? Native game doesn't work with wine?
Post by Dave Garland
4) Uncle Fred or Little Johnny aren't familiar with it
My father and mother are not familiar with Windows and they are 70 and 79
respectivelly...
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
Andreas Kohlbach
2019-02-04 20:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Peter Flass
As a longtime Linux user (like Andreas migrated from OS/2) I can’t
understand why Linux is not used more as a desktop OS. Does just about
everything windoze does, and a lot of software that costs extra for win is
free for Linux. The one thing I miss about OS/2 is that the GUI API was
simpler.
I never had a chance to use OS/2 much.
You can today by using an emulator like VirtualBox.

[...]
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
your kid takes a siphon hose to show-and-tell.
J. Clarke
2019-02-05 01:07:48 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:33:21 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Dave Garland
As a longtime Linux user (like Andreas migrated from OS/2) I can’t
understand why Linux is not used more as a desktop OS. Does just about
everything windoze does, and a lot of software that costs extra for win is
free for Linux. The one thing I miss about OS/2 is that the GUI API was
simpler.
I never had a chance to use OS/2 much.
You can today by using an emulator like VirtualBox.
If you're willing to pay for OS/2.
David Wade
2019-02-05 05:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:33:21 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Peter Flass
As a longtime Linux user (like Andreas migrated from OS/2) I can’t
understand why Linux is not used more as a desktop OS. Does just about
everything windoze does, and a lot of software that costs extra for win is
free for Linux. The one thing I miss about OS/2 is that the GUI API was
simpler.
I never had a chance to use OS/2 much.
You can today by using an emulator like VirtualBox.
If you're willing to pay for OS/2.
There are various places with downloadable CD Images...
Peter Flass
2019-02-05 13:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Peter Flass
As a longtime Linux user (like Andreas migrated from OS/2) I can’t
understand why Linux is not used more as a desktop OS. Does just about
everything windoze does, and a lot of software that costs extra for win is
free for Linux. The one thing I miss about OS/2 is that the GUI API was
simpler.
I never had a chance to use OS/2 much.
1) all the distros look different, things are in different places
2) there tends to be less consistency in how things work (since there
isn't a single source enforcing a style)
3) some games don't work even with Wine
4) Uncle Fred or Little Johnny aren't familiar with it
5) you might actually have to edit a txt file
6) Photoshop (or whatever) doesn't work (there doesn't seem to be any
Linux software comparable to Photoshop's level, GIMP doesn't cut it),
I used photoshop on win for a few years and switched to Gimp on Linux. A
bit of a learning curve, but overall I found things Gimp did that Photoshop
didn’t.
Post by Dave Garland
and when there is comparable software, it's a learning curve all over
again
and institutionally,
7) because of 1-6, the boss doesn't like it. Besides, it's socialist
or something.
I dunno. I use both. But I'm retired now, and don't have to be
keystroke compatible with clients any more, so I doubt I'll run Win on
any new* computer.
*New to me. I can't remember when I last actually bought a computer
for myself, rather than using someone's castoff. I think it was a
netbook that's now a server running Mint.
--
Pete
Huge
2019-02-05 16:48:55 UTC
Permalink
On 2019-02-05, Peter Flass <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Snippage]
Post by Peter Flass
I used photoshop on win for a few years and switched to Gimp on Linux. A
bit of a learning curve, but overall I found things Gimp did that Photoshop
didn’t.
For what I need (*), I find GIMP perfectly acceptable. I suspect that
Photoshop adherents are even more zealous than those of various
editors, operating systems and the like, and that for the vast majority
of amateur photographers, it would serve perfectly well, if only they could
overcome their religious objections.

https://www.rileybrandt.com/2014/03/09/photoshop-to-gimp/

(* Correcting colour balance, correcting exposure, cropping, levelling
and so on. I know it can do a great deal more, I've just never had
the need.)
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 36th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
Dave Garland
2019-02-05 18:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
I used photoshop on win for a few years and switched to Gimp on Linux. A
bit of a learning curve, but overall I found things Gimp did that Photoshop
didn’t.
I've never had a copy of Photoshop, but the big complaint was that
GIMP didn't do CMYK color (a necessity when you're dealing with the
graphics trades). It looks like it does now (possibly requiring a
plug-in). And that in shops that use it, everybody already uses
Photoshop. A situation not unlike that with MSWord and Excel.
Jorgen Grahn
2019-02-05 16:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Peter Flass
As a longtime Linux user (like Andreas migrated from OS/2) I can’t
understand why Linux is not used more as a desktop OS. Does just about
everything windoze does, and a lot of software that costs extra for win is
free for Linux. The one thing I miss about OS/2 is that the GUI API was
simpler.
I never had a chance to use OS/2 much.
1) all the distros look different, things are in different places
2) there tends to be less consistency in how things work (since there
isn't a single source enforcing a style)
There's plenty of consistency if you look at the command-line
utilities. For the GUI, I've lost track of all the attempts to win
the desktop war ...
Post by Dave Garland
3) some games don't work even with Wine
4) Uncle Fred or Little Johnny aren't familiar with it
5) you might actually have to edit a txt file
6) Photoshop (or whatever) doesn't work (there doesn't seem to be any
Linux software comparable to Photoshop's level, GIMP doesn't cut it),
and when there is comparable software, it's a learning curve all over
again
and institutionally,
7) because of 1-6, the boss doesn't like it. Besides, it's socialist
or something.
A lot of people (sadly) just need something which runs a web browser.

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Huge
2019-02-05 16:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Peter Flass
As a longtime Linux user (like Andreas migrated from OS/2) I can’t
understand why Linux is not used more as a desktop OS. Does just about
everything windoze does, and a lot of software that costs extra for win is
free for Linux. The one thing I miss about OS/2 is that the GUI API was
simpler.
I never had a chance to use OS/2 much.
1) all the distros look different, things are in different places
2) there tends to be less consistency in how things work (since there
isn't a single source enforcing a style)
There's plenty of consistency if you look at the command-line
utilities. For the GUI, I've lost track of all the attempts to win
the desktop war ...
That war is lost and won, and phones came out on top.
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 36th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
David Wade
2019-02-04 09:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Peter Flass
Microsoft used their monopoly power to prevent manufacturers
from pre-loading OS/2. I guess they didn’t think their junk
could compete fairly in the market.
That was also said on that web page. But then they couldn't kill
off Linux, UNIX or Mac OS. Even if not have a large user base
compared with Windows they are still around (Linux and UNIX more
on servers than the desktop.
Way more than servers. TVs and phones and routers and IoT probably
have a far bigger user base than Win. And I think most of them run
some version of Linux under the hood.
As a longtime Linux user (like Andreas migrated from OS/2) I can’t
understand why Linux is not used more as a desktop OS. Does just
about everything windoze does, and a lot of software that costs extra
for win is free for Linux. The one thing I miss about OS/2 is that
the GUI API was simpler. There are many reasons. Its easy to replace
one Windows PC with on Linux
PC but trying to replace 10 PCs on a corporate network where Group
Policy is used to manage the applications installed on the desktop, and
what users are or are not permitted to do is a Major Project.

This is one reason stated for Munich moving back to Windows here :-.

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/linux-to-windows-10-why-did-munich-switch-and-why-does-it-matter/

Then if you are tied to Exchange for Mail and Calendaring migrating that
can be fun. There are other ways of doing it, but there is no Outlook
for Linux and whilst you can use any iMAP client for mail, calendaring
and diary is more challenging.

I also think support is another major thing. If you are even medium
sized, Microsoft put a lot of work into keeping you on-side. Bigger
sites have a dedicated Technical contact.

Most folks just see the consumer oriented Windows/Home and don't
acknowledge or understand the stuff in Pro and Active Directory that let
you manage a whole corporate environment of PC's

Dave
Huge
2019-02-04 11:09:19 UTC
Permalink
On 2019-02-04, Peter Flass <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Snippage]
Post by Peter Flass
As a longtime Linux user (like Andreas migrated from OS/2) I can’t
understand why Linux is not used more as a desktop OS.
As a corporate or an individual? If the former, you need a support
contract; how much does that cost from (e.g.) Red Hat or Canonical,
particularly compared to MS? IIRC, the costs are very similar, in
which case why bother swimming against the tide.

If the latter, then you still need technical ability that's way beyond
what even a reasonably technical home computer user has. I've
just migrated from Mint 17 MATE on a Core Duo machine to Mint 19
Cinnamon on a new i7, and believe me, I know. It took me an entire
day to get my Epson scanner working, and that involved dismantling
two packages and installing pieces from each, writing a udev
rule and linking the SANE libaries to where iscan expects them
from where the Linux geeks moved them. Contrast with my Macbook,
where I plugged it in and installed the Epson app. It's clunky, but
it works.

I also seem to have lost all my editor extensions, since gedit
has now changed, and although in theory you can write extensions
for xed, the process is (i) much more complicated than it was
& (ii) totally undocumented.

Linux devs seem to delight in playing with bells and whistles, to
no particular benefit that I can see (the latest "great" idea seems
to be not only to make it confusing as to which bits of the UI
are buttons and which bits are decoration, but to hide the buttons
completely (so-called X-Apps)), but are not interested in
fixing fundamental issues; bugs sit on their reporting system(s) for
years; MATE will still not play video without "tearing" artefacts.

Mind you, given that I provide support to my non-technical wife and
elderly mother, I'd argue that no O/S is ready for the average user,
although macOS (wife) seems better than Windows (Mother) in that
respect, even if the Apple fanboi "just works" mantra is a joke.

IMNHO, they're all shit. Just in different ways. Given the pain I've
just been through with the Mint migration, I suspect that if I live
long enough to have to do it again, I'm going to get a Mac, and spend
my declining years complaining about how shitty Finder is.

(FTAOD, I've never owned a Windows machine. My first "home computer"
was a SPARCstation 1+ scrounged from work, and I stayed with Sun until
Oracle took over, then I went to Ubuntu until they introduced Unity,
then I switched to Mint.)
--
Today is Setting Orange, the 35th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer
2019-02-04 11:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Huge
IMNHO, they're all shit.
As always, the best software for any individual is that
which she or he writes for herself or himself.

MIght take some time, but winding the handle is not
difficult but might be a little wearisome.
Gene Wirchenko
2019-02-05 18:35:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:16:18 +0000, Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs
Post by Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer
Post by Huge
IMNHO, they're all shit.
As always, the best software for any individual is that
which she or he writes for herself or himself.
Not necessarily. I know enough about language processing to
write simple parsers -- and do so to help me in my other work -- but I
could not write a full-fledged compiler. And some programs are just
too big for one person to easily write.
Post by Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer
MIght take some time, but winding the handle is not
difficult but might be a little wearisome.
There is also the expense of time that might be better spent on
other things. There is a reason why society has specialisation.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2019-02-04 12:17:55 UTC
Permalink
On 4 Feb 2019 11:09:19 GMT
Post by Huge
IMNHO, they're all shit. Just in different ways.
This is sadly all to true. Which is why I picked a flavour that
wasn't planning on changing too much and got used to it. That was in 1993,
it has become well polished shit in the interim and I have become very
familiar with its strengths and weaknesses which makes it a reliable tool
for me.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Bob Eager
2019-02-04 12:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Huge
IMNHO, they're all shit. Just in different ways.
This is sadly all to true. Which is why I picked a flavour that
wasn't planning on changing too much and got used to it. That was in 1993,
it has become well polished shit in the interim and I have become very
familiar with its strengths and weaknesses which makes it a reliable
tool for me.
And I never changed. I used DOS, then OS/2 - but also FreeBSD (after
playing with Minix, and using BSD at work).

Now I just use FreeBSD, which I've used since version 0.something.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Andreas Kohlbach
2019-02-04 20:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
That was also said on that web page. But then they couldn't kill off
Linux, UNIX or Mac OS. Even if not have a large user base compared with
Windows they are still around (Linux and UNIX more on servers than the
desktop.
Way more than servers. TVs and phones and routers and IoT probably
have a far bigger user base than Win. And I think most of them run
some version of Linux under the hood.
As a longtime Linux user (like Andreas migrated from OS/2) I can’t
understand why Linux is not used more as a desktop OS. Does just about
everything windoze does, and a lot of software that costs extra for win is
free for Linux. The one thing I miss about OS/2 is that the GUI API was
simpler.
Almost any new PC comes with an OEM Windows installed. People know (or
think they know) Windows since decades. Besides not knowing other OSes
might do the job better people stick to what they know (like cars;
chances are you driving a Toyota now and had many Toyotas since you
bought your first Toyota (or any other car brand)).
--
Andreas
Huge
2019-02-04 20:38:42 UTC
Permalink
On 2019-02-04, Andreas Kohlbach <***@spamfence.net> wrote:

[snippage]
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Almost any new PC comes with an OEM Windows installed. People know (or
think they know) Windows since decades. Besides not knowing other OSes
might do the job
People don't even know other O/S's exist.
--
Today is Setting Orange, the 35th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
Roger Blake
2019-02-05 01:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Huge
People don't even know other O/S's exist.
People don't even know what an O/S is. "Thuh computer" is just a box
that has Microsoft in it.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Garland
2019-02-05 02:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Huge
People don't even know other O/S's exist.
People don't even know what an O/S is. "Thuh computer" is just a box
that has Microsoft in it.
Microsoft and Gmail. They don't distinguish between OS, application,
storage, Internet, it's all one blurry blob to them. And that's not
even talking about phones, which are worse.
Huge
2019-02-05 10:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Huge
People don't even know other O/S's exist.
People don't even know what an O/S is. "Thuh computer" is just a box
that has Microsoft in it.
Troo dat.
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 36th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-02-02 23:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
also ran Windows applications.
--
Andreas
I know it got some traction in embedded devices: When I pulled up to my
bank's ATM after a bad thunderstorm, I watched it reboot into OS/2 and then
the ATM screen.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
David Wade
2019-02-03 00:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
also ran Windows applications.
Its only my opinion, but I believe that OS/2 failed because IBM saw it
as a mainframe application.

They were passionate about reliability and accuracy and so it was and is
over engineered and too resource heavy for the kit available at the time.

Then the base OS/2 warp could be bought cheaply, but as soon as you
wanted to add networking you needed EE or CM/2 both of which added in
the UK £190 to the price. Thats six times the price of the base OS/2....

Microsoft couldn't lose because each copy of OS/2 included a copy of
Windows/3 that had to be paid for.

Then when Windows/95 came out that ran 32-bit applications from NT they
were sunk. No it didn't have proper interprocess protection like OS/2
but it was good enough and reliable enough for most every day tasks and
ran faster than OS/2.

On top of that it came with networking included. TCP/IP, Novell and LAN
Server clients were included. In addition it could act as a file server
for small networks. Everything in the box you needed to build a small
network for a small business and that was where the growing market was.
Big firms had mainframes but small firms were computerising and that was
where the market was....

Dave
Quadibloc
2019-02-03 18:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
also ran Windows applications.
IBM was between a rock and a hard place there. If it _didn't_ also run Windows
3.1 applications, end users would likely not have considered installing it for a
moment... and the number of users would have been so small, developers would
also be uninterested in writing OS/2 applications.

I remember the default OS/2 color scheme looked awful because while most
computers at the time only went up to 16 colors at a high enough resolution for
a GUI, IBM insisted on including other colors in the base color scheme, and so
everything was dithered.

Just a small thing, but I'm sure it helped.

John Savard
Andreas Kohlbach
2019-02-03 19:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
also ran Windows applications.
IBM was between a rock and a hard place there. If it _didn't_ also run Windows
3.1 applications, end users would likely not have considered installing it for a
moment... and the number of users would have been so small, developers would
also be uninterested in writing OS/2 applications.
Hmm. Well Windows 3.x was a mess back in the early days of OS/2. Seems to
me OS/2 was much more user friendly. But then many users had
MS-DOS. Suppose OS/2 wouldn't had supported that either they would have
gone the same way (vanishing).

[...]
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
you take a fishing pole to sea world.
J. Clarke
2019-02-03 19:59:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 14:47:35 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
also ran Windows applications.
IBM was between a rock and a hard place there. If it _didn't_ also run Windows
3.1 applications, end users would likely not have considered installing it for a
moment... and the number of users would have been so small, developers would
also be uninterested in writing OS/2 applications.
Hmm. Well Windows 3.x was a mess back in the early days of OS/2. Seems to
me OS/2 was much more user friendly. But then many users had
MS-DOS. Suppose OS/2 wouldn't had supported that either they would have
gone the same way (vanishing).
The big problem I had with OS/2 was hardware support. If you ran a
PS/2 and an IBM printer you were fine. If not then things got more
chancy. I don't remember when I finally gave up on it but hacking up
a Windows box to function as a PostScript driver for some printer that
did not support OS/2 was part of it.
Dan Espen
2019-02-03 19:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
also ran Windows applications.
I was never a Windows or OS/2 fan.
PCs really needed to run a flavor of UNIX to make me happy.

IBM came out with OS/2 in the same time frame they tried to
take back the market with MicroChannel. That would have been
enough to have me running the other way.
--
Dan Espen
Andreas Kohlbach
2019-02-03 19:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
also ran Windows applications.
I was never a Windows or OS/2 fan.
PCs really needed to run a flavor of UNIX to make me happy.
I never thought of UNIX or Linux but already disliked Microsoft by
1996. So I got OS/2 Warp that year. Took until 1998 that I installed
Linux and never looked back.
Post by Dan Espen
IBM came out with OS/2 in the same time frame they tried to
take back the market with MicroChannel. That would have been
enough to have me running the other way.
Heh! :-)
--
Andreas
J. Clarke
2019-02-03 20:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
also ran Windows applications.
I was never a Windows or OS/2 fan.
PCs really needed to run a flavor of UNIX to make me happy.
IBM came out with OS/2 in the same time frame they tried to
take back the market with MicroChannel. That would have been
enough to have me running the other way.
Microchannel and confusion between O and P S/2 I'm sure was part of
the problem. Microchannel always seemed like a blunder to me. While
it might have some theoretical advantages, it never did anything that
the ISA architecture didn't, until 32 bit processors came along and
then it was still locked to a low clock speed so it held back the
performance.
Dan Espen
2019-02-03 23:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
<https://grantster.com/2015/02/02/why-did-os2-fail/> has some compelling
ideas, why OS/2 ultimately failed to establish itself on the market.
I agree that the most likely reason is that OS/2 also ran Windows
software. Thus developers saw no need to create OS/2 applications since OS/2
also ran Windows applications.
I was never a Windows or OS/2 fan.
PCs really needed to run a flavor of UNIX to make me happy.
IBM came out with OS/2 in the same time frame they tried to
take back the market with MicroChannel. That would have been
enough to have me running the other way.
Microchannel and confusion between O and P S/2 I'm sure was part of
the problem. Microchannel always seemed like a blunder to me. While
it might have some theoretical advantages, it never did anything that
the ISA architecture didn't, until 32 bit processors came along and
then it was still locked to a low clock speed so it held back the
performance.
The advent of EISA put the lie to IBM's MCA claims.

I thought at the time, bus designs are a dime a dozen,
wrong thing to try to lock up.
Of course, they'd already failed to lock up the software,
their hardware was too expensive,
and their OS/2 effort wasn't going to help.

They could have made some headway with a Unix flavor, but
locking in Unix has always been hard. It's too simple.
--
Dan Espen
Loading...