HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: 1992 in review.
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:28:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.144641.3319@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <47398@ogicse.ogi.edu> francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes) writes:
>>kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski) writes:
>>
Deletions
>>:OS/2. I was  just corresponding with a fellow  who was happily running
>>:OS/2 on a Gateway 386 machine, so I wonder about these assertions.
>>
>>I have 3 different model DELL machines here, they all run OS/2 just fine.
>>Perhaps they are talking about DELL 286s. :)
>>
>Well, as for the Gateway matter, I had a devil of a time installing it
>on my 386/33c, 8 MB RAM system.  After the first few abortive tries, I
>called the IBM 800 help line and, a few days later, received a call back
>from them with the information that "it won't work" on my system and
>that I should return it.  I was quite interested in OS/2, though, and
>stuck with it, turning to the net and the OS/2 list for advice, which
>finally did (had to do with using an older beta version device driver?
>for the hd).  Then the WINOS2 subsystem wouldn't install, more hassles,
>but finally got that going to.  I can see why someone could very easily
>claim that it won't install on my system with perfect justification, but
>they could add that workarounds were/are available.
>
Joe, Phil Katz's (PKZip) experience could shed some light on this.

He found a hardware bug in the 486 (and reported it) that blew the 
delivery dates for his software for over a year.  He had 4 identical
(as far as he knew without going inside) Gateway 486s,  two of them
gave the error all of the time, one of them about half the time, and
one worked perfectly.  All Gateways are not Equal under the hood.

We bought 8 Gateways a year ago, and so far have had to litterally rebuild
5 of them (Gateways service guarentee was worthless to us).  And the other
three perform flawlessly.  So saying that it will install (or not install)
on my Gateway is really quite meaningless.  Unless you give a detailed
listing (bios type and revision date, MB Manufacuturer and model #,
shipping date on the CPU and so on.) of the machines internals.  Same for
the Dell, Zenith, or my home built clone.

--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Be more creative than the FTC!
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:07:53 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Why don't Novel, Lotus, et al, find a more creative solution to their problem
than just using the FTC as a club against Microsoft?  Here are some better
alternatives:


1.  Form a consortium with Digital Research (who makes DR DOS, a fully
    compatible MS DOS clone) to make a Windows 3.x clone.

2.  Better yet, stop developing for Windows/Dos until Microsoft does what
    they want it to.  Power plays go both ways.  At this point Microsoft's
    biggest nightmare would be if all of the big software houses dumped
    Windows and Windows NT and started developing for OS/2 and Unix.

3.  Cut special deals with PC clone vendors who don't bundle MS-DOS/windows.
    If they bundle OS/2, give them discount versions of Lotus 123 for
    OS/2 or Novel for OS/2.

4.  Charge higher prices for Windows versions of their software than for
    OS/2, Mac, or UNIX versions.  
   
If Windows 3.x wasn't being supported by software developers, it would be
going nowhere.  If other software companies don't like the way that 
Microsoft plays, then they don't have to play with Microsoft.  There are
other games in town.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 16:15:08 -0800
From: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: Nt Smp Users
Comment-To: Brian_Sturgill@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

BS>I suspect if you had included
comp.os.ms-windows.{programmer.win32,advocacy}
BS>you'd see a lot more hands.  I mean just how rational is it to ask
such
BS>a question in the OS/2 advocacy group.

 About as rational as seeing what looks like MS NT advertising here
day after day. For you NT advocates here:

   Date: 12-10-92  12:18                Message #: 251          
OS2CONCT
   From: Eric Lapaille                  Status: PUBLIC
     To: Holger Stephan                 Ref #:  232     
Subject: Need Some info!                Conf: Win32 (18)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
In a msg on < Dec 10 12:18>, Holger Stephan of 2:249/27.24 writes:

 AF> Windows 32 - an add-on to Windows 3.1 to allow Windows 3.1
 AF> to run native 32-bit applications. Still in the works.

 HS> "Microsoft(R) Win32s(tm) is a technology that allows Win32(tm) 
 HS> applications compiled for Microsoft(R) Windows NT(tm) (x86) to 
 HS> run binary-compatibly with Microsoft(R) Windows(tm) version 3.1. 
 HS> Win32s consists of a virtual device driver (VxD) and a set of 
 HS> dynamic link librarys (DLLs) that extend Windows 3.1 to support 
 HS> Win32 applications."

I have made this interesting test :

on a 16 MB 386DX/40,

I load a 2.3 MB Write document

Win 3.1          + Write 16-bit   : 28 sec
Win 3.1 + Win32s + Write 32-bit   : 21 sec
Win32            + Write 16-bit   : 40 sec
Win32            + Write 32-bit   : 38 sec


and find a word at the end of this document  

Win 3.1          + Write 16-bit   : 40 sec
Win 3.1 + Win32s + Write 32-bit   : 38 sec
Win32            + Write 16-bit   : 59 sec
Win32            + Write 32-bit   : 58 sec

How could we explain that Win32s is 20 sec faster than the "powerful"
NT ?
___--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 On the other hand, I'm using IBM's BETA of OS/2 2.01 with the 
Windows3.1 subsystem and it is faster than MS-Dos/MS-Windows3.1 on the
same machine using BootManager. File loads and saves are faster and it
performs better on WinBench than MS-Win3.1 does. NT offers NOTHING
that
cannot be had with OS/2 v2 for someone who is looking for a bit more
than
Windows 3.1 can offer, yet doens't need security and peer-peer
networking.
___
 * MR/2 1.32 NR * Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:00:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.115359.2369@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>First of all, whats wrong with it? Second, have you considered
>that I am not a native English speaking person?

	Try using a comma or two.

	First of all, it does not matter that you are an
	English speaker or not.  The issue is not your grammar,
	but the condescending and stupid nature of your post.

	Comments on .sig files are just one step below 
	spelling flames on the scale of stupidity.  It is wholly
	inapropriate to this group--even as an .advocacy group--
	and should be done in email, if you're going to be that 
	juvinile.

	Putting a little "this is not meant as an insult" 
	after commenting that someone might be some name-hungry
	secretary does not make it any less of an insult.
 
	"What do you call a black man in a suit?"
	"Oh, it's just a joke--ha ha--not an insult."

	Yeah, right.

-- 
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?

 I've got my flame proof jacket, how about you?  
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: What about OS/2 2.1?
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:37:44 GMT

In article <18352@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeremy_Reimer@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer) writes:
>Why isn't anyone talking about the upcoming release of 2.1?  Instead of
>pointless debates about OS/2 vs. NT... Who cares about that, this is an OS/2
>advocacy group, people!

Excellent idea.

>
>I haven't tried the beta yet but a friend of mine has, and he says his
>swapfile has decreased by about 2 megs, meaning I guess that in a sense
>memory requirements are down 2 megs!  Also the folders open properly, there
>is no huge delay like in 2.0 (Something that Microsoft guy kept posting
>about, as if it couldn't be fixed).
>
>Doesn't anyone see Win 3.1 support, lower memory requirements and faster
>execution as a GOOD thing for OS/2?

Is this the normal beta that they released a while ago (32-bit GRE + win31)
or a new full-blown 2.1 beta?  It sounds like a new one (folder opening
always takes a second or two, even in the normal beta I used, that's why
I minimize windows). 

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel)
Subject: I'd rather use Windoze
Keywords: productivity
Reply-To: amitp@owlnet.rice.edu
Organization: Rice University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:39:57 GMT

If I were working in an office typing documents or something, I'd
rather be running Windoze.  Why?  Well, every time I print I have a
legitimate excuse to get up and talk to someone, or get a cup of
coffee.  If the office was running OS/2, my boss would be asking me
why I'm not working on another document...  :(

We NEED windoze so that we won't be overworked!


		Amit













P.S.  1/2 ;-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:24:23 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>	If memory really was such a big deal, you wouldn't be using 
>	OS/2.  [Besides, even if you pull all 8 1 meggers and 
>	pop in 3 4 meggers that's only about $420, not $600...
>	and 12megs NT == 8 megs OS/2]

I've never seen a machine in which you could put in only 3 4M simms.
(Could you tell me were to get one...:-) )  

Most current PCs take 4M simms 4 at a time, at current prices it's ~$540
for 16M.  Now the price of the typical clone 486/33 w/o memory is only 
about $1000, so the cost of this memory is about 1/2 the cost of all
the other parts put together.  8M from 8 1M simms is currently about $280.


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:43:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.133304.24367@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1gh6jjINN9mg@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland) writes:
>> OK, I'll explain what I mean.  Creative Labs have already released a
>> driver for their SoundBlaster CD interface, Trident have already
>> released 32bit drivers for their cards.
>
>	Is CL putting that on the package?  Putting those drivers in
>	the box?
>
>	<I hope not, I need someone else to complain about>
> 
>	Oo, Trident.  There's high technology.  

I guess you didn't see the post about the new Trident 32-bit drivers which
for winos2 3.1 which beat out win 3.1.  Of course, they don't work properly
under straight 3.1, so you can't steal them...

I've been impressed with Trident's service, even if there card isn't a super-
speedster.  It's been just about right for me.

Ted
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Date: 20 Dec 92 07:17:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec20.071758.12077
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

In article <1992Dec13.170014.6114@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>	First of all, it does not matter that you are an
>	English speaker or not.  The issue is not your grammar,
>	but the condescending and stupid nature of your post.

Then why did *YOU* bring it up?

>	Comments on .sig files are just one step below 
>	spelling flames on the scale of stupidity.  It is wholly
>	inapropriate to this group--even as an .advocacy group--
>	and should be done in email, if you're going to be that 
>	juvinile.

But grammer flames like you post are OK?

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10279 comp.os.os2.misc:39381 comp.os.os2.programmer:7019 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3192
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:32:32 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:

- more printer drivers
- Windows 3.1 support
- native Windows 3.1 performance with 8Mb RAM machines
- improved performance for low memory configurations
- 32bit graphics engine
- multimedia support
- portable PC support
- CD-ROM version

[please notice the Win31 performance and the MultiMedia, thanx IBM!]

OS/2 2.1 will be released end february, begin march 1993.

Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

To get (many) ==> LOSSLESS DATA COMPRESSION SOURCES <== get lds_10.zip at 
garbo.uwasa.fi /pc/programming. Make files for Borland C are included.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why 512MB limit in OS/2?
From: cscks@luxury.latrobe.edu.au (Kamal Shaker.)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 08:51:53 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin) writes:
: In article <BzF32B.Dpr@ecf.toronto.edu> kumarad@ecf.toronto.edu (KUMARADAS JOSEPH CARL) writes:
: >In article <1992Dec17.064426.7111@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
: >>
: >>Why does OS/2 have a limit of 512MB per application?
: >>
: >It is there to maintain compatibility with 16 bit OS/2 apps.  It will be 
: >removed once 16 bit apps are a thing of the past.
: 
: Why does this 512MB seem like it's a big deal?  Who's writing an app that
: needs 512MB today?  Maybe in a year or two, however ;)
: 
: Jeff
: 
: 

Microsoft Word for OS/2???? :-)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamal Shaker,        | cscks@luxury.latrobe.edu.au or shaker@latcs1.lat.oz.au
Student Vax Cluster, | %SYSTEM-F-EXQUOTA, Alcohol quota exceeded,
La Trobe Uni,        | stomach dumped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's enough water on earth to drown the human population 87.6 million times
From: s914534@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (UT)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Just what exactly does os2 require?
Date: 12 Dec 1992 12:53:45 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

Hello, I'm really interested in purchasing os2 - however, I don't know what
sort of hardware is required for it to be usable. I have a 386-40 with a 105 MB
hard drive. How much of my system will it use?

	Ut

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:48:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec12.140126.4711@kth.se> d92-jhe@hemul.nada.kth.se (Johan Hellman) writes:
>In <1992Dec12.071059.2337@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.054414.7325@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>>
>>>[Windows NT uses undocumented APIs]
>>[What is your source, several other (unanswered) questions]
>
> 1) MS has stated that Windows NT will use the Win32 API, which will not be changing.

    MS has stated that Windows NT will _support_ the Win32 API -
the interals of the OS can and do use whatever internal function
calls might be necessary to make it work.  PView, the utility in
question, is part of the OS.


> 2) MS wrote OS/2 and is therefore probably the source of many of these undocumented calls in OS/2. 

     Ah - well, when IBM did that complete rewrite for version 2.0
that we keep hearing about, shouldn't they have taken them all out?


> 3) IBM is not competing with any software vendors, just providing them with an OS. 

     Where did you get this from?  IBM is certainly competing with
other software vendors.

     BTW, try to limit your line length to around 72 characters.

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 03:52:32 GMT

In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:
>
>- more printer drivers
>- Windows 3.1 support
>- native Windows 3.1 performance with 8Mb RAM machines
>- improved performance for low memory configurations
>- 32bit graphics engine
>- multimedia support
>- portable PC support
>- CD-ROM version
>
>[please notice the Win31 performance and the MultiMedia, thanx IBM!]
>
>OS/2 2.1 will be released end february, begin march 1993.

Hmm... but IBM _officially_ said that it would be out by the end of the
year!!!  Do I detect a SLIPPAGE? :-)

In all seriousness, I'd prefer they waited till it was ready (for a change).
But OS/2 fans have been more than a little obnoxious about harping on
Windows NT "slipages".  And unlike IBM, Microsoft is quite frank about
the fact that their target dates may slip.

Another item that seems to have "slipped", IBM also promised good video
driver support... I don't see this in you list?

>
>Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:35:01 GMT

In <1992Dec10.202126.22880@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <1992Dec9.235439.27679@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>In <rhoward.723911026@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
>>
>>>dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>>
>>>>  It will suffer the same lack of native apps that os/2 faces.  True,
>>>>     microsoft lines up lots of smiling ISV at trade shows, but that is
>>>>     because microsoft is better at putting on pretty shows than actually
>>>>     directing the PC market.
>>
>>>But I guarantee it will run *all* MS Windows apps [...]
>>
>>That's funny, even Microsoft won't make that guarantee.  In fact, they
>>have only said that NT will support the top 100 DOS and top 100 Windoze
>>apps.  Heck, Win3.1 won't run all Windows apps--in fact, OS/2 runs more
>>3.0 apps than Win3.1 does!

>Sigh, Microsoft did not say this, they said they will guarentee that
>NT will run at least the top 100.  Now, how many has IBM guarenteed that
>OS/2 will run? :-)

Uh, Brian, I don't know how to tell you this but I don't see any
difference between the two statements.  Note that neigher statement
says "Windows NT will ONLY RUN the top 100 applications" -- they both
say that there is only SUPPORT for the top 100 applications to run in
Windows NT.  So what's the problem?

>Brian
>(Really I thought you said I wasn't allowed to spread FUD, does this mean
>you're allowed to, but I'm not?  Hardly fair!) :-)

Since you're both saying the same thing, where's the FUD?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Date: 14 Dec 92 02:07:27 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University


>>      Available sometime in the future
>
>       First half of '93.

Yeah right.  Just like by the end of '92 right?  We'll believe it when it
really looks possible.  As of right now I'm guessing at least 3Q93 and
compared to some, I'm being pretty opimistic.

(stuff deleted)
>>      15 million copies of previous versions shipped
>
>       No, there are approximately 12-15 million _true_ users.  Windows
>       has shipped far more than 15 million copies.
>       Windows 3.1, not counting upgrades from 3.0, ships at more than
>       1 million copies a month.  That means a rather conservative 8 million
>       new copies just for it.

Gimme a break Brian.  You just love to twist statistics you can't back up
don't you?  You know very well that you have *no* idea how many copies of
Windows are just shelfware.  I doubt Billy himself really has a good idea
given his sales practices.  As for the 1 million a month, I'm inherently
suspicious of that number, but even assuming it is true, what about actual
sales?  I'm fairly certain that IBM has *shipped* well over 2 million by now,
but as you are so fond of pointing out, that doesn't necissarily mean 2
million sold.  You are adding the number of copies of Windows 3.0 and 3.1 and
then claiming that most of those are in use right now.   I believe the
last shipping figures I heard for Win3.0 were 7-9 million shipped.  Even
assuming for a moment that the Win3.1 figures are correct, that adds up to at
best 17 million *total* copies shipped.  Now given that at least 1/3 to 1/2 of
those had to be people chucking 3.0 in favor of 3.1, that seriously reduces
the number of copies that can be counted for any purpose.  That is NOT "far
more than 15 million copies".
    Please, let's all stop giving these figures so much meaning. They are
really useful only as a guideline as to see if a system is doing pretty well
or not.  Obviously both Windows and OS/2 are selling pretty well.  Could we
just leave it at that and drop these stupid discussions about how many
users/copies/copies shipped/etc./ad nauseum.  there are?  We just don't know
and all it turns into is a mindless war of FUD and statistics.


>Brian
>--
>C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
>University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
>Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy