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: 15 Dec 92 20:41:44 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec13.051805.17455@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
 writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec12.215037.43052@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (S
T
>ACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>
>
>        Tip for the net crowd: when you quote, EDIT.

Tip for you.  When you quote DON'T EDIT.

>
>>"biggies" products are within the next three months, your statement is going
>>to be very wrong in a very big hurry.
>
>
>        That's your guess, but my statement was made in the now and it is
>        100% on target.  Lots of promises, no deliveries.  I specifically
>        pointed out that I was discussing the now, you are discussing
>        some time 3 months (or more) in the future.

Sorry no.  Here are some examples.  Lotus 123 is to be released (latest word)
by the end on january.  Lotus notes is to be released in mid march.  In fact
every product of Lotus's is supposed to be released within 3 months.  Those
are not my words those are theirs.  Same with CA.  Those aren't guesses, those
are official company statements.  From the looks of things, they will live up
to them too.  Aparently the products were reasonably complete at Comdex which
should mean that getting them out the door isn't very far away.


Deliveries as promised: Describe 3.0 and 4.0, Borland ObjectVision, Spinnaker
PFS:Works, Novell- Novell Requestor, IBM has delivered scads of stuff,
Gammatech Utilities, Norton Commander, Watcom c9.01 and Fortran, CorelDRAW!
and about 400-500 more.
>
>
>>Not at all.  Putting OS/2 on Mach is hardly retrofitting.  Remember Mach is
>
>
>        You don't think so?  The OS/2 that sits on Mach, will--by
>        necessity, be a total rewrite (unless they're planning on running
>        OS/2, as a whole, through some sort of emulator--and no one
>        is that stupid).

No,no,no,no....  They will not have to do anything remotely close to rewriting
OS/2 to put it on Mach.  OS/2's design is reasonably portable.  Not a hell of
a lot worse than NT's portability in fact.  This means that the vast majority
of the code currently in use will work just fine under Mach.  The only major
rewites will be in the kernel and a few other critical systems.  And this has
to be done regardless of the system being ported.

>
>        But I was not addressing OS/2-on-Mach, since that is so far
>        off into the future it's not even worth discussing. It's
>        not even in alpha yet, and how close or far from that point
>        it is, no one is saying.  At least 12 months, probably more,
>        will pass before it is released.

IBM has said alpha and maybe beta in 6-12 months.  This is out of thir mouth,
not mine.

>
>        Putting SMP into OS/2, as it stands (as they've done,
>        in a really weak and pathetic way, to the version
>        of 1.3 that runs on the 295--i.e. "SMP, not even" might
>        be a good title...) would be retrofitting, and that
>        *never* works right.

OS/2 won't have SMP Mach will.  That is the reason they are putting OS/2 on Mach.
Mach will give OS/2 SMP.  You are right, that putting SMP on the current OS/2
would be foolish, but then no one has even suggested trying this as is would
be futile and everyone knows it.
>
>
>
>>Then why do all NT advocates (like yourself) just love to hold this over
>>OS/2's head?  Like you said though, SMP is fairly irrelevant for the current
>>Intel platform.  Nor will it be very important for most desktop systems.
>        ^right                                          ^Big-time wrong
>
>        The problem with implementing SMP on an Intel system, and
>        implementing it in *user* systems (which is where it's going
>        to have to be, eventually), is that it makes it pretty
>        damn hard to maintain backwards compatibility (i.e. bootup
>        and run) with DOS and other PC operating systems.
>

Eventually meaning 5-10 years down the road.  (not counting the pentium)
However maintaining backwards compatibility aparently isn't too difficult.  NT
does an ok if not good job of it and could do better if MS decided so sacrifice some of
the system security.  It isn't really all that bad, particularly when the
system is as simplistic as DOS.


>        SMP systems are *not* _necesarily_ expensive any more than
>        harddisks were. Christ, I remember the family spending over $1000
>        for a 5 megabyte harddisk, now more than a decade ago, and
>        I remember how much a 10 megger cost soon after ('81).  That
>        was back when they were first getting into the consumer market,
 (rest deleted)

Balony SMP systems aren't expensive.  There is a big gap between a $30,000+
SMP system and a $2000 hard drive.  No they won't stay expensive forever, but
they aren't going to get cheap in the next few years either.  I'm not so
stupid as to think that any piece of hardware will stay expensive forever,
that isn't the way things work, but they aren't going to be cheap for some
time yet to come.


>
>        At first, they'll be enourmously expensive (anyone here
>        want to remember what the first EISA 386 machines cost?
>        Even the ISA ones--I can remember '386's running = or >
>        $10,000).  The '386 was "more than anyone would ever
>        really need, that much speed is nice, but..".  486 systems
>        started cheaper (tho I remember them coming in at ~$8k
>        at first--but they fell--rapidly--to the mid $4k range).

486's started off around $12,000 at first.  They stayed there for a little
while and then dropped.
Guess where the Pentium systems will start?  $10,000-$25,000.  How long will
it stay there?  A few months, then it will fall to somewhere around
$6000-8000 for another year or so and then will drop pretty steadily after
that.  That is the way every new processor works.  Due to the design hassles
of a multiprocessor machine though, those are going to remain consistantly
higher.  They are harder to design, fewer people need them and companies make
less money on them.  Hell with some notable exceptions, most people don't
*need* more than a 286 or 386sx.  Hell how fast do you need you machine to be
to enter text?
>
>        SMP is, in many ways, cheaper than waiting for the next
>        super-fast monoprocessor.  The problem was getting
>        a machine that was, but still had software (and didn't
>        suffer the same fate as other technically-superior-but
>        unsupported-machines).
>
I can absolutely gaurantee you that the Pentium will be cheaper than an
equivelant SMP machine.  Why?  Simple cost of manufacturing.

>        SMP isn't here now (well, actually, it is--just not for
>        less than $20k--Yes, Intel) but with something that it can
>        run out of the box, it will be here soon at prices
>        people will start to be able to afford (Hell, who'da thought
>        we'd see affordable Sparc machines?  Next few months, we'll
>        see a *lot* of'em).

Affordable Sparcs.  That does sound funny doesn't it?
I do not think that we will see a "lot" of them in just a few months however,
in a year or so though who knows?
>
>        And _that_ is why I consider SMP important.  Frankly,
>        it just gives me one more reason to finally get off an
>        Intel platform.

Not really.  You didn't state one reason to get off the Intel platform.  In
fact you argued for SMP *on* the Intel platform.  It isn't necissarily a bad
base to be on.  A bit quirky perhaps, but certainly useable and adequately
fast for at least the next 4-8 years.
>
>        The best philosophy, for just about anything, is to do it
>        right the first time.  NT has this, OS/2 doesn't.  I'd
>        prefer that IBM put their best into the PowerPC, because the
>        future--by any stretch of the imagination--is not OS/2
>        (nor is it necessarily NT, but it'll be something like it.)
>
NT isn't doing it right the first time.  It doesn't have a decent GUI, it is
lacking a number of pieces in the networking puzzle, it has large hardware
requirements, doesn't run my current applications all that well, it is way too
integrated for a desktop user, and it looks to be a bit on the expensive side.
This is getting it right the first time?  I don't think so.

Furthermore, IBM is a VERY big company.  They aren't like MS and can only
concentrate on a few big projects at a time.  IBM had over 10 times the
revenue of MS last year.  They are putting the appropriate people in the
appropriate places.  If you think that the future doesn't have OS/2 in it,
then I sincerely believe you are deluding yourself.  Already too many people
like it for it to dissapear now.  And given IBM's almost idiotic devotion to
supporting and pushing their products even long after their time and the
number of people who still buy IBM equipment, OS/2 isn't going away because
IBM isn't going away.  MS may be a talented company but they are nowhere near
the only game in town.
>
>
>>Again, you are not telling the truth here.  I am compiling a list of "modern"
>>OS/2 apps.  So far I am at over 100 *released* commercial 32-bit applications,
>
>
>        I looked at the list that was posted here (if possible,
>        could the poster also post a list that is sorted by
>        the product name as well as the company?  In some ways,
>        that's more convienient).  I AM telling the truth--look
>        at that list and tell me honestly how many of those
>        "applications" is the average desktop (read, non-hacker,
>        non-programmer) going to be interested in?  Now take that
>        number (miniscule) and take out the apps that the user would
>        be better off buying Windows versions of and running through
>        WINOS2.  The remainder is pathetic.
>
I'll keep that in mind for my list.  Would by product catigory be even easier?
I can assure you that if you were to introduce someone to these apps they
would have no problem using them.  Besides what do you think the "huge"
application base for Windows is made up of primarily?  It sure as hell isn't
just MS's line of products.  Also, I suggest you learn something about the
products you are criticizing.  I have tried a goodly little number of them, at
shows, at stores, and in demos and I can honestly say that many of them are
good products that could be very useful to the average desktop user.  The
Windows versions of these products are generally no better and often worse
because even if they are the same, they are 16-bit apps.  Your comments lack
substance and can be contradicted simply by looking over the list.


>>list of applications for OS/2.  I suggest you look at it before you make such
>>a foolish statement again.
>
>
>        I suggest you make an honest appraisal of your list before accusing
>        others of dishonesty.  If you consider than an impressive list of appli
cations,
>        you have truly been warped in some way.


I think that is about enough.  I have attempted as a rule of thumb to be as
polite as I could on this group.  Sometimes I don't succeed, but I always
attempt to concentrate on the issue.  I occasionally direct a comment driectly
at someone when I feel they have made a particularly insulting remark or some
particularly ignorant statement.  You sir have done both and done them
regularly.  You have deleted large portions of what I wrote and responded to
me as well as others out of context.  I have refrained from saying anything to
this point because I had assumed that since you appeared to be new to this
group that you might get the hint and show some respect for others but I have
seen no attempt to do any such thing.  This is a forum for debate.  Debate
about OS/2 and other competing operating systems.  I suggest to you that you
start debating and leave the petty insults out of it.

Now back to the regularly scheduled program:

>
>
>>All we know about NT is "under $500".  Until we hear something else, you are
>>wasting your breath trying to predict the price.  Stick with truth, not with
>>baseless predictions.
>
>
>        Exactly.  So putting "$500" is just as wrong.  I still recommend
>        $??? (since I don't think anyone believes that it will get below
>        3 figures), because it's the most honest.

No one said it was "$500", we all said "Under $500".  That potentially means
$.01 or it means $499.99.  Will it be either one?  Not likely.

>
>>Again your statements about OS/2 having SMP "tacked on" are baseless and
>>wrong.  Putting OS/2 on Mach is about the best way I can think of to give a
>>system SMP capabilities.  It is a *proper* way to do it, regardless of what
>>you might think of Mach itself.
>
>
>        Take a breath, John.

My name is Stacy.  I sign my name with John to avoid problems with people
mistaking me for a female.

>
>        You obviously do not understand the difference between OS/2 and
>        OS/2 Mach.

I may be a lot of things, but stupid and ignorant aren't two of them.  I have
worked on a Mach based machine before.  I am more than aware of Mach's
capabilities.

>
>        Dumping the current Intel OS/2 for a portable OS/2 based on the Mach 3.
0
>        kernal would be about the stupidest thing IBM could possibly do.  The
>        present kernel is not the acme of efficiency, and putting OS/2 on top
>        of the Mach 3.0 kernel (designed to be *portable*) is going to make
>        the situation worse, not better.  It would be downright insane to
>        dump the current OS/2, which works and is a damn lot more efficient
>        than any of the alternatives (DesqView, WinDOS AND WinNT), in favor
>        of a layered system like OS/2MACH.

I hate to say it, but how is putting NT on a portable kernel a good idea and
OS/2 on Mach a bad one?  The answer is that it isn't.  To have a future OS/2
needs to continue to improve and be more flexible.  Leaving it the way it is
would be the worst thing IBM could do to it, becuase it would be a stagnant
product like DOS and Windows.  Putting a version of OS/2 on Mach does not
preclude IBM for keeping a future version of the operating system in its
current form in order to keep the lineup intact.  IBM needs a new higher end
portable OS/2 if they wish to compete with NT on the workstation market.
This is the best way to do this.

>
>        It would also be pretty stupid because there's no reason to do
>        so.  The whole point of OS/2MACH is to add portability to OS/2, since
>        porting OS/2 as it is would take 2/3rds of forever and be 100%
>        incompatible.

I suggest you read the redbooks as well as the appropriate references in the
technical library, as well as any other book which details the construction of
OS/2 and you will invariably find that OS/2's design is inherently portable.
There will be no massive code redesign, nor will it take an excessivly long
time for such a product, nor will it be incompatible.  The only thing that
portability comes at the expense of is time and some system resources.  The
Mach kernel enables more than just portability though.  It gives it a better
base for a secure system, SMP, and the ability to integrate other platforms
such as the MacOS onto the same platform.  Expect to see a late alpha or beta
before the end of '93.  The base of the system is apparently already there
even though it obviously isn't nearly as far along as NT.

>
>        Any SMP version of OS/2 that runs on Intel hardware is likely
>        to be a retrofit of the current OS, not OS/2 MACH.  Making a
>        version of OS/2Mach for Intel would be akin to reinventing the
>        wheel and doing a poor job.

Now think about that.  Why would IBM go though the hassle of designing a
version of OS/2 with SMP when they already have a Mach based version
that will do much more in the works?  IBM is going to do no such thing because
of the enormous stupidity of the idea.  Furthermore, I'm curious as to how
this is reinventing the wheel.  They have done nothing like this before and
most of OS/2's high end competitors are doing exactly what IBM is doing.  Also
putting something on Mach in no way means that if will be a poor piece of
code.  Look at NeXT, their system is based on Mach and it is one of the best
systems out there.  I would expect more or less the same out of IBM.


>
>
>
>>somewhat worse to somewhat better, but it is a beta and it isn't bulletproof.
>
>
>        I can bring OS/2 down rather easily.  Bringing down the NT beta
>        depended on targeting specific bugs in the DOS subsystem and
>        exploiting them.  I have only brought the whole beta down
>        twice, non-reproducable.

You can bring down any system rather easily if you know the system.  I don't
give a damn how secure NT is, I am 100% certain that if I put my mind to it, I
could crash it in fairly short order.  Same with any other system, take your
pick.  That proves nothing.  Hell, people here used to play a little game
called "let's crash the network server".  It simply isn't tough to do and I am
certain there are more ways than just though the DOS subsystem.

>
>
>>problem I've had with NT is that the apps just aren't stable yet.  Several
>>apps of mine crashed with normal use.  Granted, some were a little touchy
>
>
>        An operating system cannot keep a bug in the application from
>        crashing the application.  That is not the point of crash protection.
>        What crash protection should do--what it's *supposed* to do
>        (and OS/2 does a good, if deficient, job) is keep a task
>        gone bezerk (due to a bug in that code, for which the OS is
>        not responsible) from harming the system or other tasks.

They weren't bugs in the applications.  The programs crashed with normal use
doing things that work fine under DOS and OS/2 and Windows.  The crashes were
due to deficencies in NT.

(story deleted)

>        OS/2's "crash protection" needs a *lot* of work.  NT's beta,
>        if you ignore the subsystem bugs, is already a lot more
>        robust than OS/2's.
>
You can't ignore the bugs.  Despite that, I don't care how bloody robust a
system is if over 1/3 of my apps won't run (42% of the ones I tried to be
precise)  OS/2 at least runs the vast majority of my apps, NT doesn't at this
point.

>
>
>>Remember, these are *minimum* requirements.  We all know what the real
>>requirements are.
>
>
>        Then let's discuss real requirements.  It's just plain stupid
>        to discuss these bogus minimums--you could claim that OS/2
>        will run on any 386 system with 4 megs and an MDA--is this
>        relavent in any way to reality?
>
Yes it is.  That is the minimum system you can run OS/2 on.  It isn't nearly
as bad if you drop the WPS.

>
>
>>tougher time selling to the business crowds.  Those are people who will not
>>take kindly to lots of broken promises and continually pushed back release
>>dates.
>
>
>        Are you nuts?  Do you think MS's big profits come from Mr. and
>        Mrs. Joe User?  Hell no.  MS's big profits come from offices who
>        buy Excel, Word and Windows all at retail price--and buy it
>        for hundreds of machines at once.  Mr. Typical User typically
>        has 3 or 4 brand-name big-money apps, with a lot more pirated.
>        (I, for one, believe the numbers claimed about piracy--I see
>        it almost everywhere I go)

Sorry yes they do.  MS makes a huge chunk of their profits in the mass market.
Sure they have corporate accounts, but they are only a part of what they make.
They still are in the process of breaking into the fortune 500 accounts.  Not
to say they aren't there, but they aren't even close to IBM.
IBM made more money selling software last year than MS
did.  About 5X as much money.  You didn't see to many IBM applications on the
sales floors though did you.  Face it, IBM still has a virtual death grip on
certain major segments of the corporate market and they make every aspect of
the computers not just software.  MS still has a *long* way to catch up before
they will change this.

>
>        MS is not going to have a hard time at all selling to the business
>        crowds.  They're MS's bread and butter, and no one squeezes'em
>        better than MS does, except maybe IBM and it's mainframe operation..

As I said before, IBM is far more than just a "mainframe" operation.  Here are
some numbers in gross revenues from last year and I'll just list the ones
where IBM tops MS total gross revenue for '91
                           IBM
Large scale systems     $9,100,000,000
Workstations            $2,455,200,000
Midrange systems        $5,870,000,000
Software                $10,524,000,000
Personal Computers      $8,505,000,000
Periferals              $10,278,000,000
Maintenance             $7,414,000,000

MicroSoft Total Revenues for 1991   $2,275,900,000

Now notice IBM's two single biggest sources of revenue.  Software and
Periferals.  They also make about as much on PC's as they do on mainframes.
Still think that IBM is just a mainframe company?  Still think that MS is even
close in the corperate accounts?  They aren't and that won't change.  Except
on PC's MS is not a known or respected entity.  They are going to have to earn
that respect a bit at a time and it will not be easy.  Not impossible, but by
no means easy.
>
>
>>Again depends on the system.  On a theoretical level I might agree with you,
>>but right now my experience is that it is roughly comperable to OS/2's.  OS/2
>
>        In other words, a beta of product X is equal to a
>        bug--patched near-1-year old release version of product Y?
>
In most cases yes.  Remember NT was designed to be a better system than the
current incarnation of OS/2 from the start.  That shouldn't be suprising.

>
>>is able to keep apps from crashing at all, much better than NT right now, and
>>that is an important point to keep in mind.
>
>
>        Why do you feel that it is the OS's job to keep applications
>        from crashing?  I have never *seen* an OS that did that.

I didn't say that.  The OS's job is to provide the services the application
needs to keep running.  There is a difference.  NT doesn't do this.  Sometimes
OS/2 doesn't.  It *is* the operating system's job to keep the applications
from crashing each other and crashing the system.  That is what I said.  Go
back and read it carefully.

>
>
>>Let's not be confusing NT with Windows 3.x.  Win3.x is NOT a previous version
>>of NT.  They are a pair of related products, but the the biggest thing that is
>
>
>        That was exactly my point, which you gracefully missed.  He listed
>        the previous Windows sales as some sort of installed base, and I
>        pointed out that while this deserved mention, it would be much more
>        appropriate to do under the category applications.

Not really.  There have been supposedly over 100 million copies of DOS sold.
Still think they are all in use?  Same with any application of your choice.
I'd be willing to wager that there aren't too many copies of WordPerfect 1.0
still in use.
>
>
>>the same is the name.  Win32 provides a convienent cross over between the
>>systems, but it in no way makes 3.1 a previous version of Windows.
>
>
>        Thank you for repeating my point.
>
>
>>Also the comments about OS/2 only having "one real commitment" are pure
>>unmitigated BS.  CA is porting their whole product line.  That's trivial?
>
>
>        I guess you don't know the cow poo when you smell it.
>

Maybe not, but I do know when I read it.

>
>>WordPerfect has commited to releasing a version for OS/2.  Same with Borland,
>
>
>        See my previous message about Wordperfect and their bullshit.

And see mine to see why you are wrong.

>
>>Lotus, Novell, and almost every major developer except Microsoft.  You are
>
>
>        Lotus, yes--I'll give you them even though they're still as
>        vapor as NT.  Novell has declared their future in UNIX--OS/2
>        takes a back seat no matter what.

Lotus I believe is releasing one of their apps (cc:Mail) "any day now". In any
case these apps will be here long before NT.  Have a little faith.

>
>
>>calling their *stated commitments* trivial?  Please do a little research next
>>time.
>
>
>        Damn right I'm calling their "statements" trivial.  Please
>        do a little research on these statements and the history of
>        OS/2 1.x and the events of the last year--lots of claims,
>        promises--almost none fufilled.

OS/2 1.x was a joke.  2.0 is a whole new ball of wax.  Regard these statements
as no more trivial than any Windows announcements.  If you look a bit, you'll
notice that most of those companies really were intending to release OS/2
stuff and in fact a fair number did.  But due to stupid marketing OS/2 never
took off and when Windows did, many of them were left with their butts hanging
in the wind.  I'm not talking about minor developers here, Lotus, WordPerfect
and Borland were among them.  Look at the reasons behind why a particular even
occured, not just what soley what happened.

>
>        In other words, get real.
>
Learn your history first.

>>Under $500.  That is all they have said and that typically means $499.95.  Now
>
>
>        We were speaking of unmitigated bullshit?
>
Why don't you read the entire paragraph before replying?  I quite clearly
claimed that this is almost certain not to happen.
>
>>Talk about a loaded statement.  If an OS/2 advocate responds to this, he looks
>
>
>        In other words, too on the mark to respond to.

Hmm, I seem to have responded to it. But then you seem to have deleted it.  If
you are going to respond to something repost what you are responding to IN ITS
ENTIRETY.  I wrote this and I honestly can't remember what exactly I was
responding to.  I do remember however that you were using a clever little word
trap instead of real arguements.  If I think you were right I'll tell you so.
 You Were Not.

>
>
>
>>Again, that is a not really true.  The apps run, they run usually how they are
>>supposed to, and the difference in speed is negligable in most cases.  How
>
>        Obviously, you need to try Win31 with a real video card.  The speed
>        difference is disgusting.  (Less than four months ago I was a raving
>        OS/2 fanatic--if you read the RIME OS/2 groups, you might have seen
>        me promoting it with all sorts of cutesy pro-OS/2 or anti-Windows
>        taglines and all the rest of the crap--until I started trying to
>        do real work.)

I've used Win3.1 on an ATI Graphics Ultra Pro.  Fast enough for you?  I've
also used it with a TIGA 34020 based Graphics accerator.  If 25 million
WinMarks isn't fast I don't know what is.  The difference isn't all that
astounding when things work right.  I've also used OS/2 with the same ATI card
and was not overly impressed with the speed difference.  Try an XGA card, and
Windows is actually a bit slower, but it depends on the hardware.

>
>        Let's see.
>
>        Points you made:
>
>        1.  NT, even though we don't know the price and any guesses
>                are dishonest, is too expensive.

Is *likely* to be fairly expensive.  Get it right.
>
>        2.  The NT _beta_ is comparable in stability to OS/2.

The base system not the DOS and 16 bit windows sub systems.

>
>        3.  SMP is not important, but IBM is going to release it
>                anyway.

SMP isn't important on the desktop market, nor will it be.  Servers are a
slighlty different matter.  In any case the system should have it availlable
for a truly high end system.  OS/2 is not one as of yet.
>
>        4.  Stating that the systems will be compared on
>                speed, simplicity and stability is a loaded
>                statement.

No, and if you hadn't deleted it, everyone could see otherwise.
>
>        5.  Promises about software (vapor) for OS/2 are
>                more reliable (despite the ongoing history
>                of the lies by developers to OS/2 users)
>                than promises about NT.

When did I *ever* say that?  Don't start putting words in my mouth, that get's
me pissed in a big hurry.  You've done it 5 times so far in this paragraph and
I'm getting angrier with each one.
>
>        6.  We all know what the real-world requirements
>                are, but we should compare minimal requirements
>                anyway.

To an extent yes.  I do need to know what kind of configuration my system will
run on of something goes wrong.  What will you do with OS/2 if you only have 4
megs and a SIMM goes bad?  You're basically screwed.  You need to know what
will run and what won't.

>
>        7.  Net readers really need to edit the excessive quoting.
>                it is _never_ necessary to quote a .sig.
>
You need to learn that it is extremely rude to delete what you are responding
to.  That makes you more of a jerk than anyone who quotes too much.






-- 
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]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||