HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ngervae@next.com (Nik Gervae)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Object Oriented File System: Huh??
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:55:26 GMT

In article <2596@tau-ceti.isc-br.com> jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey)  
writes:
> A point of clarity, on the Mac the file type _is_ independent of the
> creator.  The directory structure holds _both_ type and creator, which
> gives you just what the NeXT does, except that each document can have
> its own preferred application (the creator field), regardless of its
> name.  I still think that Apple had the best idea here.  Changing the
> creator field on the Mac can be done with file hacking utilities, like
> ResEdit, or it can be accomplished simply by doing a Save-As (or even a
> Save) from within any other application that can read files of that
> type, even if it didn't create it. 
> 
> To summarize, the Creator field determines who gets invoked when the
> document is opened from the desktop.  The Type field determines who
> gets to open it when you open it from an open-file dialog.
> 
> I've used both systems, and I generally prefer the Mac where you have
> complete freedom in choosing names for files.

I'm just writing in case folks don't know about Workspace Manager's Tools
inspector. Workspace maintains the idea of a "preferred application" for
opening documents with a specific file extension, and you can change this,
or open the document with a non-preferred applicaiton, by using the tools
inspector (command-3). In release 3, you can even command-drag a document
over an application tile regardless of the extension and have that app
(try to :-) open that document.

The bad part of file extensions is, of course, that they're visible to
the user, whether the user wants to see them or not--but in a browser-
oriented environment where one usually sees the name first and *then* the
icon, I personally prefer having the extensions. Also, requiring extensions
in NeXTSTEP/UNIX isn't as much of an issue compared to the Mac FS because
Mac filenames are limited to 31 (?) characters, while in the Berkely FFS I
believe the limit is much higher (restricted by an absolute full path
length of 1024, but that's life).

In the end, of course, the simple truth is that NeXT and Mac do it
different in some ways, and everyone has their own personal preferences.
I do miss some of the compactness of certain Mac-isms (like the Apple
menu), but I moved to NeXT (and came to work for them :-) because NeXTSTEP
works more like I do than the Mac does.

--
Nik "am I getting preachy?" Gervae
Software Publications, NeXT Computer, Inc.
ngervae@next.com
[[[[NXDisclaimer alloc] init] disclaim] free];
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: bill@mathnx.math.byu.edu (Bill Smith)
Subject: Re: NeXT RISC machine?
Organization: Brigham Young University -- Mathematics Department
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 22:42:41 GMT

In article <Sep15.192808.38678@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  
randall@redfish.atmos.colostate.edu (Dave Randall) writes:
> In article <1992Sep15.175122.183310@lexmark.com> songer@lexmark.com  
> (Christopher Songer) writes:
> > In article <1992Sep11.143516.2173@merrimack.edu> ieeesb@merrimack.edu  
writes:
> > >
> > >	I'm very interested in purchasing a high end NeXT system but I've
> > >heard rumors that NeXT is going to put out a RISC-based workstation using
> > >the Motorola 88110 with multiprocessing capabilties.   Certainly the 88110
> > is a nice chip today, but the major vendors who were once considered to be
> > signed up for it have chosen other alternatives. Apple is going to go with
> > IBM and Ford (using them for embedded controllers) decided on an Intel
> > chip. The end result is that the 88110 is likely to retain a high cost
> > per unit and may be the end of its line. 
> > 
> Data General is known to be using the 88110 in a forthcoming machine. NeXT  
> recently announced a partnership with Data General. You can draw your own  
> conclusions.

A friend at NeXT says that secret negotiations have taken place with
HP for NeXT to license PA-RISC.  This was some time back so it may
be a done deal now, or a discarded idea.  One thing for sure, NeXT had
apparently decided to go RISC at the time.  NeXTSTEP runs now 
(so this very unofficial source says) on HP 700 hardware, but whether 
it makes it out of the lab and on to your desk is an entirely different  
question.  Also, the source said that HP does not regard NeXT as a
competitor....
-Bill
--
Professor William V. Smith
Phone: 1-801-378-2061 Fax: 1 801 378 2800
email: smithw@hamblin.math.byu.edu  or  uunet!hamblin.math.byu.edu!smithw
NeXTmail: bill@mathnx.math.byu.edu
SMail: Math Dept. -- 314 TMCB; BYU; Provo, UT 84602 (USA)
From: randall@redfish.atmos.colostate.edu (Dave Randall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT RISC machine?
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:28:08 GMT
Reply-To: sh.atmos.colostate.edu (Dave Randall)
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Sep15.175122.183310@lexmark.com> songer@lexmark.com  
(Christopher Songer) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.143516.2173@merrimack.edu> ieeesb@merrimack.edu writes:
> >
> >	I'm very interested in purchasing a high end NeXT system but I've
> >heard rumors that NeXT is going to put out a RISC-based workstation using
> >the Motorola 88110 with multiprocessing capabilties.   Certainly the 88110
> is a nice chip today, but the major vendors who were once considered to be
> signed up for it have chosen other alternatives. Apple is going to go with
> IBM and Ford (using them for embedded controllers) decided on an Intel
> chip. The end result is that the 88110 is likely to retain a high cost
> per unit and may be the end of its line. 
> 
Data General is known to be using the 88110 in a forthcoming machine. NeXT  
recently announced a partnership with Data General. You can draw your own  
conclusions.
From: mccallum@ngoma.cs.rochester.edu (R. Andrew McCallum)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Rick Rashid at Microsoft?
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:37:13 GMT
Reply-To: mccallum@cs.rochester.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <jbone.716051484@splat> jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:
> Can somebody verify this?  I'm thinking somebody is just getting him
> confused with Dave C., but I could be wrong...

Rick Rashid is now "Director of Research" at Microsoft.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Andrew McCallum		ARPA: mccallum@cs.rochester.edu
Computer Science Department	UUCP: uunet!rochester!mccallum
University of Rochester		 VOX: (716) 275-2527
Rochester, NY  14627		FEET: CSB  Rm. 625
From: rwalker@next01.cc.umanitoba.ca. (Robert Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chrysler order for NS486?
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:02:59 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In article <1992Sep9.163154.2876@leland.Stanford.EDU>  
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:
> 
> From yesterday's SF Chronicle, in the Technology column by Ken  
> Siegmann:
> ...
> Steve Jobs' Next Computer Inc is close to a major deal to supply its  
> latest software to Chrysler Corp.
> ...
> A Chrysler deal could give Next the needed spark.
> --
> -
> Stefano Pagiola

Good news Stefano, but should'nt mention "spark" before the deal is done.  
:-)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark Thomsen)
Subject: Re: New idea:  forget Open Systems.  N(o)T! (was Re: Open...)
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 02:09:52 GMT

Jeff Bone writes
> <lots and lots of stuff deleted, and one item that maybe does not
>  require a response, but it is late Friday ...>
> I think NT has great room for stealing a few good concepts from UNIX
> while offering reduced functionality out-of-the-box, all the while
> slathering them over with this sludgey Windows- and DOS-derived interface.
> Now, if what I really want is multitasking, threads, networking, and
> a few other UNIXy things, why wouldn't I buy UNIX instead?  I still
> can't see a compelling reason.

The ratio of the number of software applications on DPS:Unix is perhaps 10:1 or  
greater. The ratio of machines running DOS:Unix is perhaps 20:1 or greater.  
These ratios feed on each other, possibly increasing with time.

So if one is going to write a new operating system one is tempted to attain
DOS compatability so that prospective customers see all those PC applications  
as accessible. If one is going to create something to replace DOS on existing  
PCs one would be foolish to not strive for DOS compatability.

This is the marketing arguement - not one of technical worth, technical
pissing contests, or other criteria. Better plumbing under OS interfaces that
support many customers and many applications allow those customers and  
applications to extend. Switching to something that has the plumbing already  
but a different OS interface loses the customers and applications.

The NeXTSTEP arguement is that to balance the loss there is a gain in
developing and deploying custom applications much faster and much cheaper
- and this year instead of 1993-94.

Mark R. Thomsen
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: Next vs Macintosh for the Graphic Professional (rtf)
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:59:46 GMT

In article <BuCotL.9xG@research.canon.oz.au> andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy  
Newman) writes:
> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
> >... but NeXT users that have "no NeXTmail please" in their .sig puzzle me.
> 
> Have any of the following situations occurred to you?
> 
> 1. They don't have a NeXT but are interested in them.
> 2. Their NeXT's are not on the 'net and they use another for mail/news
> 3. They don't like Mail.app
> 
> -- 
> Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)		"int - God's own type"
Actually, yes.

As to 1., I said "NeXT users".  As to 2., they are missing much. and as to 3.  
(ducking..)
I class it along with folks that must have EMACS key bindings, etc, on their  
NeXT editors, and other examples of an inflexible unix mindset on a platform  
that is able to rise above all the little grey memory based clicisms that haunt  
unix.

I'm too old to learn which keystroke does what in which package.  NeXTSTEP ALL  
THE WAY!

Jim


Jim
From: unregistered@newcastle.ac.uk (Scott A. McIntyre)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Next vs Macintosh for the Graphic Professional (rtf)
Date: 9 Sep 92 11:12:24 GMT
Reply-To: S.A.McIntyre@durham.ac.uk
Organization: Synapse Computer Consultants
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

kris@coyote.fdn.org (Christophe Janot) writes:
: 
: OK, I agree with you, rtf posting could be really cool, but the problem is the  
: over-use of rtf articles by RightBrain for their advertisement postings. Such RTF  
: articles will be welcome when everybody on the net will use 1Mb+ modems.
: 
: Could someone confirm that advertisement is not allowed in netnews ? 
: 


I don't know the paragraph or article number, but it does say somewhere
that Usenet is not to be used as a medium for advertising, but it is
permissable to create awareness of new items of technology that may 
interest readers, so it's a fuzzy grey line.

The biggest problem with RTF posts is that they can be BIG...as with
NeXTmail documents, and many sites can reject them on size alone...so
unless there is some standard about how big email and posts can be,
it will alwasy be a gamble.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: edwardj@microsoft.com (Edward Jung)
Subject: Re: NT is *NOT* Mach!
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:22:25 GMT
Organization: Strategy Division, Microsoft Corp.

Jeff Bone writes:

>Per object-oriented, to be fair, the Mach 2.5(?) microkernel inside
>NeXTStep is probably no more or less OO than the proprietary microkernel
>under NT.  The *environment*, on the other hand...

The original new OS project that started NT did actually do the first
i386 port of Mach. We called this port the Psycho project.

Mach 2.x docs refer to object orientedness in Mach due to the clean
kernal semantics and the use of the port abstraction to address Mach
"objects". Mach 2.x, however, does not have the same level of object
management found in the NT object manager, which manages handle objects
for the executive. Mach 3, however, has more of this, since it actually
implements the microkernel abstraction originally envisioned by Mach's
creator, Rick Rashid (author of Accent and now an Architect here at
Microsoft).

Which is more OO? Who knows? In any case, it is clear that you can
build an OO environment on top of anything -- witness NeXTstep,
which really only uses the port abstraction of Mach, and not any
other particularly salient Mach OO features. And it turns out to
appear as a pretty decently-integrated system.

Edward Jung, Software Architect, Sr. Program Manager
Advanced Systems, Microsoft Corporation
edwardj@microsoft.com

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: RightBrain Software File Server: up and running
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:48:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.161850.26684@cs.yale.edu> nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu  
(Nathan F. Janette) writes:
> You don't think the people who *pay* Glenn and others to
> develop those contributions by purchasing the
> software have a right - no - an obligation to use the tools
> available to consumers to give strong negative feedback
> to a company?  Tough luck, because I (and others) do! 
> 
So, usenet is a "tool" for consumer feedback to vendors, but not the 
other 'way around?  What a twisted world!

> --
> Nathan Janette		"I'm a NeXTstep man,
> Dept MB&B, Yale Univ	 I'm a NeXTcube guy"
> New Haven, CT
> nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (NeXT)

Jim
From: basiji@milton.u.washington.edu (David Basiji)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT sighting on NBC!
Keywords: Machine Use to promote Bozo From Space
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:23:52 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

todd@liveware.com writes:

>In article <1992Sep10.150001.4911@cs.yale.edu> nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu  
>(Nathan F. Janette) writes:
>> My wife claims that during this morning's NBC Today show
>> the female host (I've lost track of her name) asked Briant
>> Gumbal (sp?) a question while he was off-camera, and as

>Gawd, I hope that bozo wasn't using a NeXT.  What a bummer
>to have such an ego maniac, butthead using a NeXT!!! ;')
>By the way, I spell class 1 a-hole, Bryant GUM-BALL.
>Todd

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way about Butthead Gumball.
I particulary hate his one-word question, obnoxiously intoned: "Why?"
that he repeats so often (when he's trying to impress some bigwig that
NBC roped into an interview with him).

I love these advocacy newsgroups!

Dave
-- 
David Basiji 
"C neophyte, Bioengineering Grad Student, Internet Personality"

email: basiji@u.washington.edu          
NeXTmail: basiji@larry.pathology.washington.edu

	"Whining is just anger coming out of a very small opening."
            --Stuart Smalley

   "Who are these Stooges, of which you speak?"
				--Gina, on Seinfeld
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: vesely@next.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Ivan Vesely)
Subject: Re: Avoid RightBrain for RTF ? (Who the heck are you people?)
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:07:56 GMT

In article <timm.716098845@void> timm@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Tim McClarren)  
writes:
> glenn@rightbrain.com (Glenn Reid) writes:
> 
> > ......A handful of people (essentially
> >all of them in college, for what it's worth) have decided that we are
> >evil and wanton in our disregard for the net rules, when in reality it is
> >not the least bit clear what is right and wrong......
> 
> No, you're evil and wanton because you show no consideration for other
> folks.  That's my complaint. 

With RTF postings? Are you for real?

When will you people stop whinning about the evils of RTF posting?  Many of the  
silent news readers out there actually LIKE RTF!  It brightens up their day.   
Isn't this one of the joys of owning a NeXT?  Having fun with it, doing things  
that others CAN'T do?  Avoiding RTF altogether, and using only plain boring  
ASCII is sinking to the lowest common denominator.  I refuse to do that!  So it  
costs a little bit more, that's the price of using this newsgroup. This is the  
way THIS newsgroup has naturally evolved.  Don't spoil it for the rest of us  
just because you're a tight wad.

--
Ivan Vesely, Electrical Engineering and Medical Biophysics
University of Western Ontario,     vesely@next.heart.rri.uwo.ca
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Avoid RightBrain for RTF ? (Who the heck are you people?)
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:14:36 GMT
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Sep11.223959.24650@dvorak.amd.com>  writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.162305.2865@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>tacchi@next01.cc.umanitoba.ca. (Mark G. Tacchi) writes:
>
>Pro :-)


Me too.

--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone)
Subject: Re: New idea: forget Open Systems. N(o)T! (was Re: Open...)
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:17:33 GMT


Here's the #1 REASON this whole argument is just plain *SILLY*:


waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu writes:
> NT is much more than DOS.
     ^^
and then:

> Windows NT apps will be network-capable
                  ^^^^ ^^

Now, I recall that OS/2 was supposed to be this, and supposed to be that,
and supposed to be some other, etc.  To date there are, what, a half-dozen
OS/2 apps shipping? ;)  OS/2 was the technical brainchild of MS and IBM;
what makes *ANYONE* think NT is going to be any more real?  

YOU CAN'T BUY AN NT APP TODAY, AT ALL!  The whole argument is based on
this implicit assumption that NT is going to, essentially, saturate the
market!  I can't imagine that it won't, *however* I wouldn't invest a
wooden nickel on the damn thing until it starts shipping to *end users*
and until NT-aware apps start shipping.  AND STILL, if at that point it
becomes obvious that NT-compatibility is desired...

...it'd still be better/easier/cheaper to build NT-compatibility on
top of, say, the Mach 3.0 microkernel than attempt to port NeXTStep
to a black-box OS that NeXT doesn't/almost certainly won't have a
source license for!  Bottom line!   

A *MUCH* better solution overall for NeXT would be to simply market the
hell out of NeXTStep 486, go head to head -w- NT, and do *nothing* what-
soever to validate NT as a technology.  Why in the world would NeXT, a
self-admitted software technology company whose primary product is an
OS/end-user environment want to help Billy sell his "New Toy"?


>	But I'd rather concede the OS for now
>	while keeping the user and development environment.
>	OS with NT compatibility can come later from NeXT, OSF, USL or left
>	field.

This won't happen.  NT gets entrenched, Microsoft pulls its third-party
software developers strings, and NeXT jerks and jumps.  There's no good
reason to concede the OS for now...  why do it?


>Opinions expressed are my own.

Ditto. ;)


jb


--
-- Jeff Bone ------------------------------------------------------------
      "Imagination is more important than knowledge."  - A. Einstein
------------------------------------------------------- jbone@dell.com --
                                                                       --
From: wierda@ltb.ltb.bso.nl (Gerben Wierda)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: The PasteUp add on the net...
Date: 6 Sep 92 11:52:40 GMT
Organization: BSO/LT, Baarn, The Netherlands

And apart from all that, it was never seen by those sites with handle their
mail through UUCP and have an upper limit of 100k for acceptable messages. So
all I have seen is the reactions. Quite funny.

Oh BTW I support Scott Hess in this. Bandwidth on the net is not such that
this behaviour is acceptible. If more would do it the net would come to a
grinding halt. Wrong move, Jack!

And even worse, think of all the people who you forced to pay for this
unsollicited mail! Many people don't like unsollicited mail in their normal
mailbox, suppose what they would say if thay were charged for it! No Jack, not
a very thoughtful move, not at all. But understandable, if one has read your
stories, since it is logical in your way of seeing the electronic future. Your
vision, however, blinded you a little bit, I'm afraid.


-- 
wierda@ltb.bso.nl (Gerben Wierda) || I speak for myself and not for my employer.
(+31) 2154 84415/(+31) 35 833539  || Support the League for Programming Freedom!
	"If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there."
	(Almost from) Lewis Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland".
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: asente@adobe.com (A Usenet Pal)
Subject: Re: Jack Reynolds Apologizes to the Net (RTF)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:33:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.183415.1071@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> smb3u@squeeg.psyc.virginia.edu (Steven M. Boker) writes:
>I'd also like to mention that Rightbrain has, IMHO, been a good citizen
>of the net on the whole.  

Hm.  People from Rightbrain repeatedly use the net as an advertising medium
for their products.  This is entirely inappropriate.  It's not just one person,
and it wasn't just one incident.

__   -paul asente
\/     asente@adobe.com   ...decwrl!adobe!asente   moo-bear@cs.stanford.edu

The most dangerous creation of any society is that man who has
nothing to lose.				-James Baldwin
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave Griffiths)
Subject: RTF Compression
Organization: Primitive Software Ltd.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 06:08:01 GMT

One way to make people feel better about RTF posts would be to make them
use less bandwidth. Since the majority of RTF posts consist only of text
in a variety of fonts, the current NewsGrazer format is maybe a little
inefficient. It repeats the entire body of the text at the end in uuencoded
RTF format.

Surely a more efficient way of doing this would be to include at the end
just the font change information, with suitable pointers to the positions
in the preceding ascii text? I reckon five characters could encode each
position/run-length. In effect you'd be saying for example:
{font=Courier{typeface=bold{size=24{start=230,run=14;start=260;run=8}size=...}
except that it would all be encoded to save space. Since the same program
is writing and reading it, you can also compress the RTF header and font
info quite a lot.

Would that help, or do people object to having _any_ gobbledigook at the end
of posts? 

Just one line at the end would be enough to "personalize" your article,
then we could all post like Jack Reynolds!

Dave Griffiths

PS: this is not just an academic question - I did toy with the idea of
writing a fairly basic news reader that could understand Grazer posts AND
follow threads (I use trn to be able to follow threads). Not sure how much
interest there'd be though. It would be shareware, $50, source available
blah blah blah let me know if you're interested...
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy