HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re: Open Letter: Don't get rid of UNIX
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 03:33:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.055531.26412@pages.com>, bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster) writes:
> In article <jbone.715620959@splat> jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:
>> again:  
>> 
>> 
>> I can think of another good example of a barely existing OS --- OS/2.
>> THAT got all kinds of praise when it was announced, etc.  Where are
>> all the OS/2 boxes today?  Only in the shops of IS managers that bought
>> it because it was "the" thing, and their managers are probably asking
>> them now "when's that server going to be ported to UNIX".
>> 
> 
> Not that I'm a great fan of OS/2, but...IBM has sold 1,000,000 non-developer  
> copies. There aren't that many IS managers around, so *someone* else must be  
> using it. Actually, OS/2 stands a pretty decent chance vs. WinNT, simply  
> because it's shipping now to end users, and NT isn't (and probably won't until  
> mid-93, is my guess).  
> 
> I'm a great NeXTSTEP fan--and our entire company is certainly betting on it  
> right now--but how long do you think it will be until there are 1M NS  
> installations?  ..bruce..
> 
> Bruce F. Webster
> CTO, Pages Software Inc.
> bwebster@pages.com
> #import <pages/disclaimer.h>
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 11:09:36 GMT
Reply-To: S.A.McIntyre@durham.ac.uk
Organization: Synapse Computer Consultants
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
: 
: Why have a NeXT if you want to restrict yourself to '70s UNIX features.  I  
: don't want to see excessive use of RTF postings at least until the backbones  
: are sped up, but NeXT users that have "no NeXTmail please" in their .sig puzzle  
: me.  


It's not that bad of a request, actually...I love my NeXT, but here in
the UK I'm fighting an uphill battle in getting them accepted in the
University setting...thus, I keep my machine at home for now.  So
if someone sends me NeXTmail it takes several hours for me to see it,
and if they've asked for read receipt, it only destroys my mailer with
bounces and they never know if I've read it.  I don't mind it, indeed
I welcome it when it's really really needed, but there are those of us
who are not lucky enough to have a NeXT on a / the network.

: But the occasional one, such as RightBrain's recent posting, is a breath  
: of fresh air in an otherwise 7 bit ascii world.
: 

RTF is nice, esp compared to other posts, but advertising is a no no.
From: smb3u@squeeg.psyc.virginia.edu (Steven M. Boker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Jack Reynolds Apologizes to the Net (RTF)
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:34:15 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia, Department of Psychology

In article <875@rtbrain.rightbrain.com> reynolds@rightbrain.com writes:
>
   [An eloquent apology deleted]

Good work, Jack.  Public relations is a difficult business and you've
just scored a lot of points for your side.

I'd also like to mention that Rightbrain has, IMHO, been a good citizen
of the net on the whole.  In particular, Glenn Reid has provided NeXT
programmers with a lot of highly informative postings in and around
Display PostScript.  We miss his presence, but it is understandable in
that he is currently working hard (I hope) to get PasteUp out the door.

The freedom (nay, anarchy) of the Usenet is a joy when it is populated
by such well meaning, enthusiastic and gracious people as compose
the NeXT groups.  And that description must include Jack Reynolds.

Steve

-- 
 #====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#
 #  Steven M. Boker            #          "Two's bifurcation           #
 #  boker@virginia.edu         #           but three's chaotic"        #
 #====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#
From: saunders@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Kevin Saunders)
Subject: Mac filenames derogated...
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:09:42 GMT

>> I've used both systems, and I generally prefer the Mac where you have
>> complete freedom in choosing names for files.
>As long as you don't put a colon in the file's name.

And as long as you don't start it with a ".".  If you do
open and then save a file as, say, ".Sony", the (insane)
beauty of the Mac's "Poor Man's Search Path" will
automatically waste the floppy driver in the System
Folder.

Gee, maybe this belongs in comp.sys.mac.bashing?

Where's my straitjacket?  Where's my rubber room?  Where's my Mac?

Ouch!
bonze
________________________________________
Kevin Eric Saunders (a/k/a bonze blayk!), CometMonger--"NeXT, please!"
   saunders@nmc.cit.cornell.edu
-- 
________________________________________
Kevin Eric Saunders (a/k/a bonze blayk!), CometMonger--"NeXT, please!"
   saunders@nmc.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re:   Nextstep on NT
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 03:29:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.183848.473@prim>, prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave Griffiths) writes:
> In article <1992Sep12.205400.1@capd.jhuapl.edu> waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu writes:
>>
>>	Clarity's a good thing.  I'll try too 8^)
>>
>>	I distinguish between NT (the pre-emptive multi-tasking, microkernal
>>	OS) and the various flavors of user interface (Windows, OS/2, POSIX,
>>	DOS) that sits on top.  When I say NT is a nice piece of work done by
>>	a top flight group of professionals, I refer to the OS and not the
>>	UIs.  For someone used to NeXTSTEP, Windows probably does seem like a
>>	piece of crap.  When I advocate porting NeXTSTEP to NT to avoid having
>>	to use the Windows and other alternative UIs, I am NOT advocating
>>	porting NeXTSTEP on top of Windows.  Instead, NeXTSTEP would be an
>>	alternative UI built directly on top of the NT OS.
>>
> 
> I'm sympathetic to your idea, but since we're looking for clarity here I
> think you should explain how you envisage NeXTStep living alongside Windows
> on NT. As you know, NT will have a Windows GUI and it is under this that the
> majority of NT applications will run. Presumably your goal in porting NeXTStep
> to NT is to be able to run all these Windows apps as well as NeXT apps
> (otherwise what do you gain?). So how will NeXTStep live alongside the
> Windows GUI? Presumably they both want total control of the screen? Do you
> envisage a hot key to switch between the two environments? It's by no means
> certain that this problem is solvable. It was done for X on the NeXT, but
> only because the X source code is freely available. This won't be the case
> for Windows on NT. Will NeXT modify _their_ stuff to use the Windows server?
> (Ugh!)
> 
> What about the hard disk? Will NeXTStep and Windows be able to share the
> same disk such that you can browse through the DOS filesystem under
> WorkSpace manager and vice-versa? Printer support? Networking?
> 
> This is beginning to sound like a lot of work. I know that NeXT ported to
> AIX and if that was possible maybe anything is, but NeXTStep and AIX both
> had UNIX in common (filesystem, drivers, system calls could be shared) and
> there was no alternative GUI.
> 
> If NeXTStep on NT takes over the machine and can't co-exist with Windows
> on NT then you gain nothing and might as well save the bother and run raw
> NeXTStep 486.
> 
> Dave Griffiths
From: asd@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Doug McClure)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3.0--It's Here, It's Here, It's HERE
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:23:13 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In <1992Sep14.152217.1327@newsgate.sps.mot.com> reed@prism.sps.mot.com (Tim Reed) writes:

>I just talked to our saleperson in Scottsdale, AZ on Friday and was  
>told the following:

>1. If you bought a CDROM drive, you should receive your upgrade very
>   soon (if you haven't received it already).

>2. The upgrades for those who recently purchased NeXTstep2.2 or a
>   machine with NeXTstep 2.2 is delayed due to a problem with their
>   user database. Upgrades should be shipped by the end of this
>   month.

Actually, I think NeXT is probably wipping them the CD-ROM disks out
the door super fast.  I ordered the CD-ROM/drive bundle, probably not
more than 4 weeks ago, just received my 3.0 disk today, and although I
was told to expect a 9 week delay on the drive, it's scheduled to go
out next week.  Now if I can only find someone who has the drive so I
can install it!  And only if I can find time to do so too! :)

If you ordered your disks more than 4 weeks ago, ya might bug NeXT
about it.  I didn't even expect mine for another two weeks or so.

-dsm
From: ddj+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT vs. (MIDI) Sampler
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:39:31 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <15409@umd5.umd.edu> rgc@rac2.wam.umd.edu (Ross Garrett Cutler) writes:
>You can *lose* sound when recording on the NeXT if the machine is doing
>something else (like a compilation).  What's even worse is that you don't 
>know you missed a segment sound.  I asked the makers of DigitalEars, and
>they verified this, but also said, "You can tell when you miss a segment
>just by listening to it."  A real bummer, IMHO.  
>
>I guess the only solution to this is to have SoundKit run at the kernel
>level (via a device driver).  Don't know why this wasn't done in the first
>place...

It would be extremely nice if all the UI componants (graphics, sound,
mouse/keyboard input) were run in a realtime environment.  The fact
that they don't will make synched video and audio difficult.  This is
bad for multimedia apps (can't send a movie with sound through the
mail), and for games.
-- 
Doug DeJulio
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re: NT is *NOT* Mach!
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:29:08 GMT

In article <jbone.716222683@splat>, jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:

	[...]

> 
> PS - for all you developers out there eager to jump on NT, think about
> this:  you griped when Apple developed both apps and OS software.  Why
> are you so anxious to return to that situation with NT?  Your app might
> compete directly -w- an MS app, and *they* know what's going on under 
> the hood.
> 

	I'm also reminded that Open Software Foundation (OSF) was formed
	when AT&T said, in effect, that UNIX is OUR OS and we'll call the
	tune on what features it has and who gets to know what and when
	they get to know it.  So, as you and I have said often, single
	vendors are almost inevitably evil.  No, I don't want Apple, 
	MicroSoft, DEC, AT&T, OSF or even Steve Jobs (didn't he have
	something to do with Apple ?^)  controlling my destiny.  So, as a
	developer, you weigh the risks (am I likely to be competing with
	the OS vendor with my particular app? etc.) against the benefits
	(a very large market).  That is, you look at the chance you're
	taking in going with someone vs. what he/she offers you in return.
	A lot of UNIX app vendors have prospered.  A lot more Mac app vendors
	have prospered.  And a lot more Windows app vendors have prospered.

	So in the real world none of the choices are ideal.  You make a
	choice and, if possible, hedge your bet.  And you support standards
	development and adoption.  And the Free Software Foundation.

Opinions expressed are my own.

_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_ _/      _/      _/ _/     _/   _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  cfwaltrip     _/    _/_/    _/ _/_/    _/       _/     _/    _/ _/ _/    _/
_/       _/_/_/    _/  _/  _/  _/ _/_/_/   _/       _/     _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>  _/       _/     _/  _/   _/ _/
_/_/_/_/ _/          _/      _/ _/      _/ _/_/_/_/ _/     _/    _/ _/ _/
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: reed@prism.sps.mot.com (Tim Reed)
Subject: Re: 3.0--It's Here, It's Here, It's HERE
Organization: SPS
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:22:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.193333.18397@socrates.umd.edu>  
fletcher@socrates.umd.edu (Charles Fletcher) writes:
> Rumors about the delay of 3.0 must be incorrect. My copy just  
arrived,
> and it had to be forwarded since I have moved. The wait should be  
over
> for the rest of you soon!-)
> 
> Charlie
> 
> -- 
> 	NeXTMail to:		|	...to confer, converse, and 
> 	charlie@technosci.com	|	otherwise hobnob with my    
> 				|	brother wizards.	    

I just talked to our saleperson in Scottsdale, AZ on Friday and was  
told the following:

1. If you bought a CDROM drive, you should receive your upgrade very
   soon (if you haven't received it already).

2. The upgrades for those who recently purchased NeXTstep2.2 or a
   machine with NeXTstep 2.2 is delayed due to a problem with their
   user database. Upgrades should be shipped by the end of this
   month.


--
-----------------------------------
Tim Reed
reed@prism.sps.mot.com
-----------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re: New idea: forget Open Systems. N(o)T! (was Re: Open...)
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:55:31 GMT

In article <jbone.715916534@splat>, jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:
> waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu writes:
>>
>>  ...reasons for wanting NeXTStep on NT...
>>
> 
> Okay, I finally get it:  you don't necessarily want NT, you just want
> to run DOS and Windows apps.  You don't need a proprietary, single-
> vendor microkernel for that.  SoftPC does a relatively okay job;
> why not encourage NeXT to invest in making that better.  You could 
> almost certainly get the same result for far less money.

	NT is much more than DOS.  Windows NT apps will be network-capable
	with sophisticated inter-process communications and network database
	capabilities.  A DOS emulator ain't gonna cut it.  You would have to
	have an NT emulator.  Your NeXT would have to look just like another
	NT box to all those other NT boxes.  Not impossible, perhaps, but
	not likely.  And not much of a payoff for NeXT when you consider
	that, at most, it would enable NeXTSTEP diehards such as myself to
	get my beloved black box on my desk.  The rest of the desktops
	will have those NT boxes and the mission critical apps will continue
	to be Windows NT.

	But good try and, as you know, I certainly agree that single-vendor
	is potentially disastrous.  But I'd rather concede the OS for now
	while keeping the user and development environment.  A competitive
	OS with NT compatibility can come later from NeXT, OSF, USL or left
	field.

	Keep working on it...maybe there's an even better answer.

	Regards.

Opinions expressed are my own.

_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_ _/      _/      _/ _/     _/   _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  cfwaltrip     _/    _/_/    _/ _/_/    _/       _/     _/    _/ _/ _/    _/
_/       _/_/_/    _/  _/  _/  _/ _/_/_/   _/       _/     _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>  _/       _/     _/  _/   _/ _/
_/_/_/_/ _/          _/      _/ _/      _/ _/_/_/_/ _/     _/    _/ _/ _/
From: simsong@next.cambridge.ma.us (Simson L. Garfinkel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Object Oriented File System: Huh??
Date: 7 Sep 92 14:28:07 GMT
Reply-To: simsong@next.cambridge.ma.us
Organization: Simson Garfinkel and Associates, Inc.

In article <1992Sep4.182618.28508@adobe.com> caro@adobe.com (Perry A. Caro)  
writes:
> First generation OOFS are bound to underperform mature traditional
> filesystems.  One of the strengths of the UNIX FFS is that there is
> relatively little code between the read buffer in my application and
> the raw device.  A fullblown OOFS would add a huge amount of code,
> which necessarily will slow things down.


Timeout.  Wrong.   Patently wrong.

FFS breaks down all reads and writes into 8k chunks, even if your disk can pass  
64K at a time.  That's why all UNIX disks are interleaved 1:2.

People who develop new own filesystems don't have to do this.  The OOFS could  
easily have the same performance as FFS.

The only thing "fast" the Berkeley fast file system is the word "fast" in its  
name.

-- 

................................................................simson
From: reynolds@rightbrain.com (Jack Reynolds)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Jack Reynolds Apologizes to the Net (RTF)
Date: 8 Sep 92 03:29:25 GMT
Reply-To: reynolds@rightbrain.com


(just kidding about the RTF)

I apologize for the 19.4K RTF post I sent out about, "PasteUp vs PageMaker  
vs Quark."

I had intended to:

	-stimulate a discussion about PasteUp's feature set
	-create discussion about what are and are not important features
	-compare NeXT publishing to Mac publishing
	-sell some product

What I wound up doing:

	-pissed people off about advertising on the net
	-wasted valuable bandwidth
	-created ill will for RightBrain

I did not use good judgement in this case.  Please accept my apology and  
try and understand that my poor judgement was not only caused by dollar  
signs in my eyes, but also by a true desire to see the greatest computer  
on earth succeed in my heart.

--
Jack Reynolds, VP Sales
RightBrain Software, 132 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California USA  94301
(415)326-2974 or(415)326-2977 Fax
reynolds@rightbrain.com
From: rfanta@cea.berkeley.edu (Richard Fanta)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Nextstep on NT
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:25:37
Organization: CEA @ UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
	<jbone.715643405@splat> <1992Sep08.160141.104952@lexmark.com>
	<dillon.0nhp@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>
	<1992Sep10.094124.1@capd.jhuapl.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newport.cea.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu's message of Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:41:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.094124.1@capd.jhuapl.edu> waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu writes:


   (Matthew Dillon) writes:

	   [...]

   >     If NeXT is interesting in breaking MS's choke hold on the market with>     NS-486 they are going to have to sell it in the $50-$100 range and have>     a large number of NeXT applications available for it at introduction,>     as well as hire the SoftPC people to put together a PC-emulator (not>     too hard on a PC platform!) to give people a jumping board.

	   I would guess that you're in about the right price range for a run-
	   time version.  A developer's version could be more.  They could
	   probably also come up with a "corporate" version that supported more
	   NT inter-operability (sort of analogous to their Banyan support but
	   more) and charge more for that (but not a lot more).
   > >     If NeXT doesn't do this then their NS-486 will be a failure.  NeXT, if>     you can break Microsoft I would be really happy!

	   I just want them to be an effective (large) competitor.  Our only
	   real protection as customers is good Standards and a lot of 
	   competition.  And I still believe that an effective way to compete
	   against Windows apps is to port NeXTSTEP to NT and let our
	   NeXTSTEP apps compete side-by-side with (mostly) inferior Windows
	   apps.

I would think this is already happening.  There were some comments by
Avadis Tevanian (chief OS dude for NeXT) on the net a few months ago.
If I remember right, the posting said he wanted to make NeXTSTEP more
independent of the underlying OS.  Started to sound like a toolkit.
Also, I've heard that Microsoft hired several of Carnegie Mellon's
(where Tevanian is from) MACH people to design NT.  Lastly, it's been
said that Steve Jobs has been seen talking to Bill Gates within the
last year or so.  About what, who knows?

All of this would probably also mesh quite nicely NS486.  The expected
high performance of the 586 machines on their way within the next
year coupled with the large market of Windows/NT would further
strenghten a push like this.

Of course, this is all hearsay and rumors.  I speaking out of my ass
and don't know how feasible any of this is.

Rick Fanta
Center for EUV Astrophysics


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Fanta			e-mail: rfanta@cea.berkeley.edu
Center EUV Astrophysics		
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Jack Reynolds Apologizes to the Net (RTF)
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 11:10:37 GMT


In article <875@rtbrain.rightbrain.com>
reynolds@rightbrain.com writes:

>I apologize for the 19.4K RTF post I sent out about,
>"PasteUp vs PageMaker vs Quark."

>[...]

>[caused] by a true desire to see the greatest computer  
>on earth succeed in my heart.

I suggest seeing your cardiologist quite soon, there's
black paint on your valves!

Seriously folks, the sincere apology is unquestionably the
rarest of all rare items on Usenet, and a person ought to
appreciate it when it happens, I think.  Among the many of
us who are enthusiastic about NeXTs, few are as ardently
dedicated to its best ideals and potentials as Jack is.

<> A transcendental number is easier to put into a glossary
<> entry than a transcendental experience is.  
<> -- Mara Chibnik (mara@panix.com)
-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
From: hardy@golem.ps.uci.edu (Meinhard E. Mayer (Hardy))
Subject: Re: Open Letter: Don't get rid of UNIX
In-reply-to: pfkeb@kaon.SLAC.Stanford.EDU's message of 1 Sep 92 03:51:59 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Organization: Department of Physics, UC Irvine, CA 92717-4575, USA
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:30:11 GMT

In article <PFKEB.92Aug31205200@kaon.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> pfkeb@kaon.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Paul Kunz) writes:
<among other things>
"   P.S.
"
"      While I'm at it here's an interesting thought.   As far as a standard
"   UNIX environment goes, the next best thing to a SUN is a NeXT.   Many
"   people have reported that in porting software between flavors of
"   UNIX, the SUN is the easiest, and the NeXT is the second easiest.

IMHO the reason "SUN is the easiest to port to" is not Sun's intrinsic 
user-friendliness but the fact that most PD software (at least in
Academe) was developed on Suns (and NeXT-OS is close to BSD 4.2). 
I found compiling things under HP-UX (which I learned before I got the
NeXT) not any harder than on the NeXT, as long as the software is
carefully written with an Imake-file (for X) or a config file (for GNU
software). 
Hopefully, by the time Sun goes SysV and HP-UX goes Mach (reminds one
of K^0 systems, does'nt it?-), and NeXT
becomes "not Unix" GNU ("Gnu is not Unix") will be
available as an alternative kernel from the FSF, thanks to Stallman
and his determined volunteers.

--
Hardy 
-----
Meinhard E. Mayer,  Department of Physics, UC Irvine 
e-mail: hardy@golem.ps.uci.edu (preferred) or MMAYER@UCI.BITNET