HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: daynem@byron.u.washington.edu (Dayne Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Avoid RightBrain for RTF ? (Who the heck are you people?)
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:39:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep14.023949.18137
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

A question to ponder:

     By the time this thread runs its course, how many bytes will have
been posted that bash RightBrain compared with the # of bytes in the original
RTF file that started the whole thing in the first place?

     
     It seems to me that the only thing RightBrain has to apologize for
is not labelling their RTF post in the first place. That's now been done. 

     Finis.

                            #########################################
 -Dayne Miller              #  "The headwaters of Shit Creek are a  #
  daynem@u.washington.edu   #   cruel and treacherous expanse."     #
                            #                      -r. zelazney     #
                            #########################################
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 05:00:26 GMT

In article <lao3fdINNkr1@aludra.usc.edu>, malexand@aludra.usc.edu (Michael 
Alexander) writes:
> Backward-compatibility kills innovation! The acclaimed API-mania of OSs like
> NT carries on the barriers for new, innovative software producers to enter 
> the market. For example, the 4 DTP-packages for PCs which dominate now
> are likely to continue being the top-sellers on NT. 
> 
> The losers are the users who end up with "incrementalist" software, which
> can be characterized as >changed icon colors = major new release.< New
> approaches like NextStep in turn give way to new entrants, creating 
>  competitive environments and therefore innovation. 
> 

	Exactly.  So port NeXTSTEP to NT and make it possible to write new,
	innovative software without regard for that old API.  Right?

Opinions expressed are my own.

_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_ _/      _/      _/ _/     _/   _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  cfwaltrip     _/    _/_/    _/ _/_/    _/       _/     _/    _/ _/ _/    _/
_/       _/_/_/    _/  _/  _/  _/ _/_/_/   _/       _/     _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>  _/       _/     _/  _/   _/ _/
_/_/_/_/ _/          _/      _/ _/      _/ _/_/_/_/ _/     _/    _/ _/ _/
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave Griffiths)
Subject: Re: OBJECT Query:  NeXTstep QuickTime Object Developer Interest
Organization: Primitive Software Ltd.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 18:53:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.201404.4494@wire.gwinnett.com> andrew_abernathy@wire.gwinnett.com (andrew abernathy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.050609.454@liveware.com> todd@liveware.com writes:
>> Dear Netland Programmers,
>> 
>> Liveware is seriously considering developing a QT 3.0 Object
>> for developers.  We have contacted the Developer of QT and
>> Apple (one of the same these days) and have begun discussions
>> about bringing QT to NeXTstep.
>
>Am I the only person who feels strongly that this technology
>belongs at the system level?

Agreed. I'm surprised NeXT haven't adopted something similar to QT. (Am I
the only person who feels that where Apple innovate, NeXT follow, eg hot
links? Still waiting for NeXT to catch up with Apple Events...)

But yes, this sounds very much like it should be part of the OS.

Dave Griffiths
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: kris@tpki.toppoint.de (Kristian Koehntopp)
Subject: Re: Jack Reynolds Apologizes to the Net (RTF)
X-Copyright: (C) Copyright 1992 Kristian Koehntopp -- All rights reserved.
		 Reproduktion, auch auszugsweise, ausserhalb elektronischer,
		 nichtkommerzieller Datennetze nur mit ausdruecklichem,
		 schriftlichem Einverstaendnis des Autors.
Organization: Toppoint Mailbox e.V.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 11:46:48 GMT
X-Excuse: X-Copyright wegen Emma, Suedwestpresse und /C'T/DISKUSSIONEN.

In <1992Sep8.203333.17223@adobe.com> asente@adobe.com (A Usenet Pal) writes:
>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.

There is a difference between product information and
advertisement.

I found the posting from Rightbrain valuable and not "entierely
inappropriate" at all.

Kristian
-- 
Kristian Koehntopp, Harmsstrasse 98, FRG W-2300 Kiel, +49 431 676689
"Es gibt wichtigere Dinge als Demokratie und zwar ein funktionierendes
 Fidonetz." -- Tommy Roeder
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: bstone@acs.ucalgary.ca (Blake Stone)
Subject: Re: NeXT vs. (MIDI) Sampler
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 05:43:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

> Presto *IS* a good package.  It will be a pro level application
> as soon as it supports a multiport interface such as the MOTU
> MIDI TimePiece.

Presto is a wonderful package, but it is light years behind
something like Performer 4.01 in terms of being a complete
package.  Part of that is simply something that will evolve over
time, nobody's 1.0 product can have that many features (nor am I
convinced its necessarily desirable... I'd prefer to see multiple
packages working together).

There are some problems that need NeXT's attention though... for
serious applications the MIDI merge feature in Presto is
useless... but that's not Pinnacle's fault, it's the MIDI driver.
3.0's is no better.  No problem, I've got a hardware merge to do
the job, but it's one example of an area where there is work to
be done  Support for multiport interfaces is in a similar boat...
it requires reworking the MIDI driver which is less than trivial
and would need to be ported to NS'486 and the NRW and...

> > As far as NeXT as a sampler goes: Yah.  Under 3.0 you can play a
> > number of stereo sample simultaneously, but exact timing?  Nor
> > pitch control, nor...

> Exact timing can be had via Presto or Ensamble.  Pitch shifting
> is possible and I've heard rumours of it being implemented in
> the new CCRMA MusicKit.

Ahem.  Presto's timing for sample playback is not bad with
monophonic lines if you don't push it.  (It's great with
polyphonic multitimbral synthesized stuff though!).  But it's
hardly a replacement for an S-550 as the original poster was
asking.

The 56001 just doesn't have the horsepower necessary to duplicate
what a state-of-the-art musical instrument does!  (But then
again, maybe I'm spoiled by my K2000).  Nor does the NeXT
architecture give it access to the kind of memory needed for such
applications etc etc...

> > NeXT as a hard disk recording system may be another matter.
> > MetroTrack promises amazing things...  I see no reason why the
> > NeXT shouldn't be at least as well suited as a Mac or PC, and
> > quite possibly better suited.

> Better suited than a Mac or PC since all the hardware except A/D
> is built into the system.

The 56001, yes, I'll agree.  But the D/A on my Cube is soooo
noisy as to be unusable in a serious application.  Maybe newer
monitors and/or soud boxes are better off.

Less well suited in that it runs an operating system that doesn't
guarantee anything (to quote Avie only slightly out of context).
Given the shared resource environment inherent in a multi-tasking
platform you're harder pressed to use the machine to its
potential without risking disaster.  Luckily, we've got so much
potential....

> MetroTracks looks like it will be a great application.

No argument!  I haven't ordered my copy yet, but I suspect I will
eventually.

Blake
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: shiva@vega.Stanford.EDU (Marcos Javier Polanco)
Subject: The Final Word: Mach vs. NT
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 17:43:53 GMT


>So, if the NeXTSTEP environment were available on NT, I could have
>it.  NeXTSTEP applications could be introduced gradually and people
>could be weaned from their DOS and Windows milk.  NeXTSTEP apps could
>run side-by-side with DOS and Windows apps and the better apps would
>eventually win.

OK. I've had enough of opinions. How different ARE Mach and NT? Can a  
Microkernel-Independent Programming Interface (MIOPIA) be developed such  
that it did not much matter which microkernel you were using? All the  
discussions about porting to NT seem pointless without *some* basis in  
technical fact.

-Marcos J. Polanco
-shiva@vega.stanford.edu
From: trevord@polari.online.com
Subject: Re: Open Letter: Don't get rid of UN*X
Followup-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy.
Summary: no unix no next
Keywords: unix lex yacc
Organization: Peanuts
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:15:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.003210.14786@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.233507.12849@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> kenny_leung@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca writes:
>>Although I think that all of the posters so far have valid points, I think  
>>that most of them are looking only from one point of view: That of the  
>>UNIX weenie.  Until I bought my NeXT, I had never even heard of UNIX, and  
>>the same goes for 99.9% of the world.  Although I like the utilities that  
>>UNIX offers, I think that I could have lived without them.  (You never  
>>miss something until it's gone.)

	Brad Cox developed objective-c on a unix machine using lex yacc
and of course cc.  So w/o UN*X there would be no next. As to living w/o
the utilities...start using them and you begin to realize how truly
useful they are. When i have to work on a DOS or Mac machine I feel
truly handicapped. A little awk and sh can go a long way...

>get rid of it. There's a small place for Unix, but in my opinion to hope
>that it becomes a significant force is simply dreaming, as most Unix people
>have been doing for years.
	Actually UN*X has been growing fairly significantly these last few
years .  UN*X workstations have hadthe highest rate of growth of any
category of computer for the last five. Theres also a big market in
minis as a number of companies are shedding their proprietary minis
(WANG just went bankrupt).  

>>
>>I think that NeXT *has* to keep UNIX on their systems for half of their  
>>customers, and it also *has* to strip UNIX off their systems for the other  
>>half.
>It has to keep Unix on their systems for 1/2 of its current customer base.
>NeXt should simply have it as an option for those who want it. The real
>competition for NeXT comes from places other than Unix workstations. If
	Actually I think NeXT has done a great job of hiding UN*X from
those who dont wish to see it.  

	If a programmer is willing to investigate the potentials
and power of UN*X and its utilities it's there. If they choose to work
entirely w/n the NS environment that's fine too. 

>they don't come to grips with this issue they'll remain marginal forever.
>Stuck in an OS that is really a dead end. What a shame.

		I'm intrigued by the idea of a OOFS UN*X has been evolving
for 20 years and there's always room to grow.  A dead end? Not.

-- 
* Trevor Dewey                                                                *
* System Administrator	 			         	 	      * 
* Holland America Lines                             uupsi4!polari!trevord     * 
* Hey!  					   trevord@polari.com         *
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone)
Subject: NT is *NOT* Mach!
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:13:26 GMT


Alex Raftis writes:
>
>For those who are not aware, NT is apparantly built upon a Mach kernal. The
>main reason why it's not "UNIX" is that it doesn't have all the UNIX wrap-
>pers that NeXT added to their Mach kernal. Ie, you don't really have a 
>command line interface, just the windows.
>

NT != MACH !!!!

Do the homework.  NT is architecturally *similar* to Mach, but Billy is
NOT NOT NOT using the Mach microkernel.  That'd make far too much sense.
And if it WAS Mach, they could basically throw in a UNIXalike environment
essentially for free.  No, they hired Dave Cutler of VMS fame (yet another
proprietary OS) to throw together something all of their own.

The Mach API is free and open.  If MS had used it, they wouldn't have been
able to "lock in" the marketplace.

references:  see the Jul-Aug '92 issue of Microsoft Systems Journal, "A
Grand Tour of Windows NT:  Portable 32-bit Multiprocessing Comes to 
Windows" for an architectural overview of this monstrosity.



> 
>I'd much rather see NeXTstep succede than NT, and NeXTstep has one major
>advantage still, it's easier to develope applications. Also, NT is not
>objet oriented, and that's becomming an important industry buzzword, so
>Microsoft will have to address this issue, but it seems that they are 
>preparing to release a solid product and soon. Microsoft is posed to 
>slaughter NeXTstep if NeXT does not keep on it's toes and push back when
>then get pushed by Microsoft. If they do indeed have the better product, 
>they're going to have to prove it or loose.
> 

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...


Sayonara, standard disclaimers.


jb



--
-- Jeff Bone ------------------------------------------------------------
      "Imagination is more important than knowledge."  - A. Einstein
------------------------------------------------------- jbone@dell.com --
                                                                       --
From: jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Object Oriented File System: Huh??
Date: 5 Sep 92 04:30:00 GMT
Organization: ISC - Bunker Ramo, Spokane, WA

In article <60102@mimsy.umd.edu> alex@cs.umd.edu (Alex Blakemore) writes:
>or look at the Mac, where if you write an ASCII file you can't read
>it with another app have the time without hacking the file type.
>type based on the creating app is a bad idea.
>
>NeXT improved this by defining standard types independent of the
>apps that manipulate them.  Using file extensions to denote the type
>is certainly not elegant and can be error prone, but it is simple and
>it works.

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.


-- 
+----------------+
! II      CCCCCC !  Jim Cathey
! II  SSSSCC     !  ISC-Bunker Ramo
! II      CC     !  TAF-C8;  Spokane, WA  99220
! IISSSS  CC     !  UUCP: uunet!isc-br!jimc (jimc@isc-br.isc-br.com)
! II      CCCCCC !  (509) 927-5757
+----------------+
			"PC's --- the junk bonds of the computer industry"
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re: Nike commercial spoof (NeXTStep vs. NT)
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:50:33 GMT

In article <dillon.0nhr@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>, 
dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes:

	[...]

>     Essentially, you are correct.... PC platforms are NOT less complex then
>     unix platforms, people only think they are.  You spend more time
>     juggling memory managers, network severs, and device drivers on a PC
>     then any other platform in existance.
> 
>     EVERY time we get an update for our PC lan, for Windows, for our Cad
>     system, backup system... any time we get an update it takes a WEEK of
>     juggling the system configuration to get all these programs working
>     with each other again.  Not to mention board addresses and interrupts!

	Good points.  I have argued similarly in favor of VMS and UNIX vs.
	PEECEES.  It is a reason I believe NT will be extremely successful:
	it incorporates advanced system and network administration tools.
	It also provides a more stable environment for all those Windows
	apps and native Windows NT apps will be more stable yet.

Opinions expressed are my own.

_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_ _/      _/      _/ _/     _/   _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  cfwaltrip     _/    _/_/    _/ _/_/    _/       _/     _/    _/ _/ _/    _/
_/       _/_/_/    _/  _/  _/  _/ _/_/_/   _/       _/     _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>  _/       _/     _/  _/   _/ _/
_/_/_/_/ _/          _/      _/ _/      _/ _/_/_/_/ _/     _/    _/ _/ _/








Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: vin@netcom.com (Vin Locke)
Subject: where NeXT would be if it DIDN'T have UNIX (was Don't get rid of UNIX)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 19:25:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Keywords: Unix, NeXTstep 

In article <1992Sep2.124037.13464@ms.uky.edu> justin@mik.uky.edu (Justin Sullivan) writes:
> I've often wondered (and maybe it's time to discuss it?)  
>just where NeXT would be if it DIDN'T have UNIX

Perhaps another Macintosh-class box with a proprietary OS and a small number
of installed sites.


-- 
					--vin

vin@netcom.com
From: nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: When Will NeXT Prices Drop?
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:32:08 GMT
Reply-To: nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT

In article <1992Sep13.165814.17701@wam.umd.edu> kkw@wam.umd.edu (Katarina Wong  
O'Gara) writes:
> Question for the Net:  Over the past two years we have seen the cost of
> high-end Pee Cees fall by one-half to two-thirds.  At the same 
> time, my University bookstore's prices for the basic slab (8/105) with 
> starting point kit and monitor have  remained roughly the same -- excecpt
> that you no longer get Improv for free.
> 
> When the slab  came out, it was a great deal in terms of price/performance.
> The main issue two years ago was the viability of the platform.  Well,
> that is still an issue two years later, but the price/performance benny
> is not there (you can get a 486/50 with *color* and with sound and graphics  
ca- 
> pabilities roughly comparable, if inferior, to NeXT's for $1,600).
> 
> What gives?

Great question!

I've been wondering about this too.  Here are some factors
that I thought would make it possible for NeXT to lower
prices:

1. Lowered prices from competing platforms: high-end
PC's, low-end Suns and HPs.

2. New usage of the "turbo" main board for 25 MHz Mono (soon
color) systems.  The newer board cost less to
manufacture, and has slightly better performance as
well!

3. Lower prices for parts since the first NeXTstations (?).

4. Pricing for NeXTstation Turbo 8/250 system (6K) makes
pricing for NeXTstation 8/105 (5K) a poor deal. 

5. Color systems priced too expensive.

I'd like to see NeXT revise the pricing of all the platforms,
increasing the basic configurations and lowering prices.  I'll
assume there will be a 40 Mhz version of the 68040 before Moto
moves on to the 68060.

NeXTstation Mono 25 Mhz 16/250 $4,000/$3,000 (list/edu)
NeXTstation Mono 33 Mhz 16/250 $4,500/$3,500 (list/edu)
NeXTstation Mono 40 Mhz 16/250 $5,000/$4,000 (list/edu)
NeXTstation Color 25 Mhz 16/250 $5,000/$4,000 (list/edu)
NeXTstation Color 33 Mhz 16/250 $5,500/$4,500 (list/edu)
NeXTstation Color 40 Mhz 16/250 $6,000/$5,000 (list/edu)

I think this kind of pricing would bring smaller businesses,
individuals, students, etc in droves...

--
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)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: tpugh@oce.orst.edu (Tim Pugh)
Subject: Re: RightBrain Software File Server: up and running
Organization: University Computing Services - Oregon State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:49:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.162541.10008@cs.yale.edu> nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu  
(Nathan F. Janette) writes:
> In article <1992Sep15.134854.5932@cube.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com  
(Jim  
> > So, usenet is a "tool" for consumer feedback to vendors, but not the 
> > other 'way around?  What a twisted world!
> 
> No, it's a medium for communicating and organizing
> people who may be consumer's, though. You know, exactly
> the kind of thing you (and other businesses) are often
> fighting so hard to stop whenever you can: consumer
> education.  
> 
> --
> 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)
--

Negative feedback like above by Nathan Janette is a untrue generalization and  
was meant to bruise Jim (and other businesses).  His comments serve no purpose  
and adds no value to any discussions.  Be careful, there is a fine line between  
negative feedback and hate mail.  [Waste, waste, waste...]

I apologize for lecturing you.

----
Tim Pugh
Oregon State University
tpugh@oce.orst.edu
From: kls30@cd.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT vs. (MIDI) Sampler
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:29:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <92Sep08.142757.29206@acs.ucalgary.ca>,
bstone@acs.ucalgary.ca (Blake Stone) writes:
>> > Is a NeXT (I don't have one) with his DSP Chip a full
>> > substitute for an of-the-shelf MIDI-driven Sampler (Roland
>> > S-550)?  Do I have to buy additional Software for that use,
>> > or is it included?
>> >
>> > Are there large libraries of digisized sounds for the NeXT?
>
>> No! NeXT as a sampler/harddisk recorder is a toy. So is NeXT
>> as a midi sequencer. NeXT dropped the music kit. Wise decision.
>
>Errr... the NeXT is a wonderful platform for MIDI work, there's
>just relatively little software available.  Try not to equate
>lack of software with lack of ability.  Presto is a good low end
>sequencing package and other will come along.

Presto *IS* a good package.  It will be a pro level application
as soon as it supports a multiport interface such as the MOTU
MIDI TimePiece.
>
>As far as NeXT as a sampler goes: Yah.  Under 3.0 you can play a
>number of stereo sample simultaneously, but exact timing?  Nor
>pitch control, nor...

Exact timing can be had via Presto or Ensamble.  Pitch shifting is 
possible and I've heard rumours of it being implemented in the new
CCRMA MusicKit.
>
>NeXT as a hard disk recording system may be another matter.
>MetroTrack promises amazing things...  I see no reason why the
>NeXT shouldn't be at least as well suited as a Mac or PC, and
>quite possibly better suited.


Better suited than a Mac or PC since all the hardware except A/D
is built into the system.

I use my NeXT as a hard disk based recording system with SoundWorks.
MetroTracks looks like it will be a great application.

I routinely use my NeXT as a DSP for realtime audio.  I have some
custom stereo processing algorithms that run on the DSP.
>
>Blake

-- 
/*  These are only my opinions.  Whose else could/would take credit? */
/*  - If you are anti-abortion you are passing out condoms and doing */
/*  - birth control education, right?  You also aren't trying to     */
/*  - impose your moral views on anyone, right?  I didn't think so.  */
From: wierda@ltb.ltb.bso.nl (Gerben Wierda)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Jack Reynolds Apologizes to the Net (RTF)
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:39:33 GMT
Organization: BSO/LT, Baarn, The Netherlands


Blinded by love. The only version of blindness that is truly beautiful.


-- 
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