HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11! : -)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:52:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov24.021310.29331@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:

>Goodness, there goes Shakespeare and Dickens, right in the crapper. 
>After all, neither of them ever mastered the dot matrix printer, let
>alone the laser!  :-)

>I'm nominating the quote above as the absolutely stupidest thing I've
>seen posted on the net this month.  (Although the guy who claimed that
>TeX lacks bugs was a strong contender.)  Comments?  :-)



	I nominate the quote above for the comp.sys most 
	moronic flame award.  

	Here's a hint:  What the guy was talking about is, 
	in the context of your response (...), if you had the
	choice between buying an excellently typeset well-bound
	collection of Shakespears works or a cheaply-layed
	out, everything in one point size [no headings...] 
	and typeface -- which would you consider more professional?




-- 
 Robert Stephen Rodgers  ||  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  || IRC: Yamanari
 --------NeXTmail-preferred!!--------------------------------------
 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?  
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8684 comp.os.os2.misc:37446
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 is NOT Crashproof!
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:45:15 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <mcdonald.531@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:
>Exactly. Brevity man, brevity. OS/2 is presently simply not ready for prime 
>time .. it be ready, it has **at a minimum ** to be able to run Windows
>3.1 programs ... every last one ... properly .. and this includes 
>printing documents which use True Type fonts.

What?!?!  Since when was Windows 3.1 compatibility in the
specification for OS/2 2.0?  It is being tested as an add-on for a
future release.  You're telling me that an OS is useless unless it has
features that it wasn't meant to have!

>Second, it has to **fully** support all my video cards at the
>resolutions and modes I desire to use;

Why does this make OS/2 "not ready".  It works.  I'm sorry if you have
hardware that isn't supported, but this is to be expected with a new
product.  There are so many video boards out there that one vendor
cannot possibly support them all directly.

>It should be able to switch modes without rebooting the computer.

Why?  I don't think I've ever had a need to regularly change the
desktop resolution.  As for applications, full-screen apps have been
able to run in any mode they want without error.  I've never seen a
system that can switch it's desktop screen resolution without a
restart. 

>It also has to get the reputation that when some company like ATI 
>comes out with a hot new video card, that card will come with drivers
>for OS/2 ... fully supported ... in the box, just as it does for Windows.

If ATI wants to screw its customers over, it's not IBM's fault.

>Actually, we  ... the world ... can easily tell if and when OS/2 
>is a success .... when it meets that last test, its a success. That means
>that manufacturers take it seriously. Today they don't.

You should be testing things like DOS box stability and memory usage
and not-crashing.  The existence of drivers and support for Win 3.1
(which isn't supposed to be there yet anyway) is not a fair benchmark
and you know it.


-- 
  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
 /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
 ~|~
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8490 comp.os.os2.misc:36626
From: gnash@ee.uts.edu.au (Greg Nash)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:43:14 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
NNTP-Posting-Host: rossi.ee.uts.edu.au

>Example 2: 
>From programming, it is TRIVIAL to hang the OS.  Write a PM application and
>before starting the StdWindow, create a named pipe and wait for another process
>to access the pipe.  Hang city - the machine is long GONE!  Can't switch to any
>other application.  And try this one after loading the CSD.  SubClass the
>FrameWindow in a PM application to modify the RESIZE message.  Pass minimize
>and maximize message unchanged to original routine.  Resize works correctly,
>however, minimizing the window (only after the CSD is installed) will hang the
>sytem - full reboot time again!  With 400 MB of HPFS partitions to chkdsk, the
>mean time between debugging attempts is about 5 minutes.

>It seems odd that in a multitasking environment one can write any application
>that can crash the whole OS.  

How about Unix? I have a friend that wrote a 2-line program (of course could
have compressed it to 1 line) that has brought down every unix system he
has tried it on (with permission. half a dozen different breeds/versions
of unix when I last heard, a couple of years ago).  I'm not excusing OS/2
for being crashable despite claims to the contrary, but it doesn't shock
me that it happens.  I wonder if anyone will ever crash NT?

 -- Greg Nash
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 17 Nov 1992 12:27:02 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov16.085907.28213@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <7870@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
>> So what about those of us who say, "I like my system, because I've tried it
>> and your system, and your system sucks, and mine doesn't"?
>You like your system because mine sucks????  I think that would
>most probably fall under "bigots trying to disguise themselves
>as advocates".  

Read what I wrote. I like my system because, after evaluating it and your
system, I decided that yours sucks and mine doesn't. This isn't just
randomness, but based on my experience.

>I like my system because it does what I want it to do, and
>whether your system sucks or not has no bearing on whether I like
>my system.

I went looking for a system that does what I need it to do. I tried your
system. It failed miserably. If the alternatives are your system and my
system, and yours sucks, then where am I left, especially if my system does
the job and does it well?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
           "Cat: Four legs and an attitude." -- Jim Reese
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: My last letter
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:02:32 GMT

My apologies for forgetting to truncate my last letter.  Sorry.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. : -)
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:29:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.215338.27815@grebyn.com> mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.225957.10025@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>I would remind you that OEM's are not Forced by MS to include any MS product
>>in their systems.  They are responding to the fact that people want DOS/Win
>>on their systems.  The fact that OEM's want to put that Ready To Run Windows
>>stickers on their machines and in their adds means that they think windows
>>is a selling point for their machines, and that they will sell more machines
>>by doing so.  Suprisingly enough, many of these OEM's are still in business,
>>so they must know something about their market...
>>
>>petesk@microsoft.com
>
>Of course, until just recently, there wasn't much in the way of an
>alternative to DOS/Windows on PCs, as the average user didn't want Unix,
>and OS/2 1.x really wasn't very useful, IMHO, so if you bought a PC, you
>planned to run DOS on it, and possibly Windows.  So it made perfect
>sense to bundle these with the system.  Now that choices are emerging in
>terms of the OS, such as OS/2 2.0, an automatic bundle of DOS/Win is not
>necessarily so desirable.
>-- 
>Marc Fraioli
>mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)

Well, I think we can, in fact, credit Windows (and Microsoft's amazing
marketing skills) for creating something of a 'need' for Windows among
people who otherwise would have settled for DOS.  As an alternative to
DOS/Windows, some enterprising vendor might have offered a bundle that
included, say, DR-DOS and Desqview, a real alternative to MS-DOS and
Windows.  But nobody did (at least I never saw such an offer, and such
offers were not mainstream).  Give MS some points for vision, at least.

Of course, I have my own theory about GUI's for the average person. I
proceed from the observed fact (in my experience on the average liberal
arts college campus) that most people neither need nor really want
multitasking.  Most people do one thing, stop, do another, an go back,
perhaps, to the first job.  (I'm not suggesting this is the *best* way
to computer, only that this is how most real live end-users work). 

What does a multitasking GUI offer?  Heck, what with all those cute
little pictures and WYSIWYG screens and wallpaper and so on, well, your
computer looks like it doing something even when you're not!

;-)

Joe
jmalloy@hamilton.edu


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Borland C++ for OS/2 features
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:15:19 GMT


There was an earlier discussion about Borland C++ for OS/2. I will try to put
a small summary. The information is taken from "IBM OS/2 Developer."

Borland C++ for OS/2 will feature 32-bit C and C++ compiler, a PM-based
integrated development environment (IDE), a 32-bit version of Turbo Assembler,
and all tools necessary to support OS/2 2.0 application development. The tools
range from command-line tools like the compiler, linker, and assembler to
fully integrated environment that speeds up the edit-compile-debug cycle. It
will also include resource tools ("You won't have to count pixels, you'll be
able to set up interactive editors"). It will include bitmap dialog boxes,
which will generate resource files that define binary, and a resources linker
which allows programmers to do binding. They are alos planning to include a
stand-alone graphical debugger to debug PM applications (DOS and Windows
versions use character mode, so this will be the first graphical one by
Borland). Another feature of Borland C++ for OS/2 will be the variety of
precompiled headers. According to the Borland Quattro Pro team, they were
enjoying "something like a 65% increase in compilation speed." There will be
very good online help, the same you enjoy in OS/2.

The magazine features more information (in-depth) as well as color screen
shots.

Best Regards,
Mark K.




Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: joshi@cs.uiuc.edu (Anil Joshi)
Subject: Re: OS/2 is NOT Crashproof!
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:00:04 GMT

mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:

>Oh my not this again. Brevity. Brevity. I just didn't say "until it is
>bug and problem free enough that it works OK for me". And you last
>statement is PURE POPPYCOCK. There are lots of very non-trivial programs
>that are bug-free. TeX for example. The latest versions of some of the

What you are saying is POPPYCOCK. TeX is severely crippled,
syntactically ancient, does it's own memory management that is very
limiting and has arbitrary limits on several things (eg. the number of
levels of nesting in list environment) etc.... If I think more I would
be able to comeup with a lot more problems with it's design and user
unfriendlyness.

What if it is bug free (which I don't believe) with all these problems.

>programs I have posted to the net for another. My production scientific

I haven't tried your programs (whatever they may be) but curious to
know how you came to the conclusion that your programs do not have
bugs? BTW, somebody mentioned Unix and related utilities. They don't
have bugs, they have elephants :-).


Anil
-- 
Sathsangatve    nissangatvam   From good company to no company
Nissangatve      nirmohatvam   From no company to lack of desire
Nirmohatve    nischalatatvam   From lack of desire to concentration of mind
Nischalatatve  jeevanmuktihi   From concentration of mind to liberation of life
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 support is late
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:40:09 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Nov20.093958.17197@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>In article <1efsf4INN946@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE>, lars@cs.tu-berlin.de (Lars With) writes:
>|> Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will always get the latest version
>|> of Windows a couple of months later than Windows NT users will get it.
>
>Hmm, so March to December is "a couple of months" is it?

This brings a smile to my lips.  I remember back in April when this group
was full of crowing about how IBM had "Win 3.1 running only 24 hours
after it's release".  I recall pointing out that they had a DEMO running,
and that about 5 months after IBM received a code complete distribution,
but - evil being that I am - I was shouted down by the yahoos.

Funny, the yahoos seem a bit quiet on this point today.  Let me guess;
IBM did the work in 24 hours, but it's taken 10 months to decide what
color to paint it....

	gordon letwin
	not a spokesbeing
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 Easier?
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:07:12 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Nov23.030427.21635@netcom.com>, timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
> In article <1992Nov22.144550.6518@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>
>>	Is the WPS easy to use?
> 
> ...
> 
>>	For example, the #1 question I get from people concerning windows:
>>"I just loaded program x on my hard drive but where is it now? how do I
>>load it?"
> 
>      Any windows program with half a brain is going to install itself into
> program manager and make it pretty obvious to the user how to load it.


	Most users have by far more DOS programs than Windows programs.
One cannot live entirely in Windows very easily and most of our customers
have some windows programs but still a great deal of DOS software.

> 
>>	I then have to take them through the process of explaining
>>that the program manager is just a bunch of pictures representing programs
>>on the computer.  They are not really the programs.  Then I have to
>>show them how to put a new program in the program manager which means
>>(if they have windows 3.1) loading the file mananger and dragging it
>>to the program manager or going to file, new item, find it on the hard
>>drive and then place it.
>>
>>	No one ever asks "where's my program" on os/2.  They go to their
>>drives and just find it on their hard disk.  If they want to add it
>>to their os/2 system folder they just makea  shadow of it but they
>>do not have to do that to find it relatively easy.
> 
>      What's the difference between finding the program with the file
> manager, or finding the program with the drives icon?  (Other than the
> fact that the drives icon is slower)

	For one thing, the disk drives are right on the side of the
screen.  Norton desktop for Windows helps this bquite a bit but
we speak of program manager.  To get to their hard drive they have to
first get to the file manager.  Try to put yoruself back as a new user.
Our customers aren't morons, they are simplynew to computers.


> 
>      And which is easier -- dragging an item from the file manager to the
> program manager, or finding something with the drives icon and creating
> a shadow of it on the desktop?
> 
>      I *do* think the WPS is easy to use, but I think this is NOT a good
> example of it.  The WPS is nice, and certainly more flexible than the
> progman/fileman combination, but there are lots of things it can't do and
> lots of things it can do, but they're hard as hell to find out about.
> 
>      - Mike
> 

				-Brad


Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8533 comp.os.os2.misc:36791
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 17 Nov 92 09:24:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov17.092422.6180
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

[This is off topic now, but what the heck.  The following is about Unix]

In article <mg.721965321@tyrolia> mg@tyrolia (Michael Golan) writes:
>Your friendly system administrator would be happy to stop all of these jobs
>and then nuke em.

Of course, if you want to have fun with that system administrator, you'll
make a couple of these unnukeable.  Most system administrators seem quite
surprised when they "kill -9 12345" and have process "12345" come back
and say "Ha!  You need something stronger than signal 9 to kill me!"


As to how one does this, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
(hint: make sure you look at all the system calls that affect signal
handling)

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: janovetz@eehp3 (Jacob W Janovetz)
Subject: Re: Bug? Virus? Feature? -- Big mistake.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:08:43 GMT

weinkam@fraser.sfu.ca (James Lawrence Weinkam) writes:

>I believe that this was a bug in os/2 that has been fixed.  Does it report
>the 2 errors being in the file swapper.dat, if so it has been fixed, and
>installing the SP will correct the problem.  If not, I do not know what
>the problem is since I do not get any errors when I run chkdsk on my
>system.  

>James Weinkam 

  Hmm. I DO have the SP.  However, the bug still occurs because of Lazy
Writing.  I am just wondering why no one else can recreate this 'bug.'
Lemme know of any 'happenings'

      /
   / * /   Jake Janovetz
  *   *

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: btf57346@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Byron "Bohr" Faber)
Subject: Lockheed Revamps Shuttle Worker's Software System (uses os/2)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:13:30 GMT

The following is a little info I picked up from SPACENEWS.

**********************************************************************

Lockeed Space Operations Co. is developing a new computer software package   
to help distribute instructions to workers who refurbish U.S. space 
shuttle orbiters between flights.        

The software uses the OS/2 operating system from IBM that . . . . . 

(The text trails off to describe what os/2 is.  Basically says it
multi-tasks and can combine text/graphics/photos)

**********************************************************************

So obviously when it has to be done right.

It has to be done with os/2 !!!!!
Personally I want to see them use it in the Space Station, but I guess
that's dreaming.

Byron Faber
-- 
Please Note:  Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest that When the Reader   
              Is Not Directly Observing This Message, It May Cease to Exist
              or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State.
Internet:  btf57346@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu  & btf57346@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:05:20 GMT

grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
>So can mainframe operating systems that have been around for a long time
>and are critical. I _accidently_ brought our IBM 3090 (actually an
>Hitachi clone) running MVS to its knees by hogging up all free memory.

I did in a VM system (4381 L14) with a over-enthusiastic REXX script!

-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!  : -)
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:05:28 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Nov18181145@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>
>   i don't think that I agree with that.  In the world of business,
>   the average business letter uses a fairly straight PICA or ELITE
>   font.  Letters of this type can easily be done with an 80286, a
>   copy of multimate, and a daisywheel printer.  Or a laser or 24 pin
>   dot matrix printer if you want to use bold, etc.
>
>And nothing looks quite so unprofessional as a letter set in a fixed
>width font printed on a dot matrix printer.  I see that and I say,
>what a bunch of dweebs.  I was doing that 15 years ago, haven't they
>grown up yet?

Well, that's entirely a matter of opinion.  I much prefer a neatly
typed, error-free text of substance in courier 10 or 12 point to most of
the over-fontified creations I see.  It seems that some people cannot
resist the urge to fontificate.  To be sure, tasteful use of non fixed
spaced fonts looks quite nice (I use that sort of thing in the weekly
announcements of a lecture series I run), but it is finally *what*
people say that matters most.  Let me put it this way: when I was
notified that I'd been awareded a grant I'd applied for, the
notification had been done in a Courier font.  Did I sputter, fume, and
turn down the money?  Ha!  No chance of that happening...

Using fancy fonts has nothing to do whatsoever with 'growing up.'
Indeed, one might argue just the opposite (I have seen *many* student
papers submitted to me in which the writer spent far more time choosing
the font than it actually composing the thing; I might be tempted to
give the font choice a high mark, but that doesn't count for anything
and is seriously undercut by bad writing).

>
>   There is nothing more stupid to look at than a document prepared by
>   someone who feels that they have to use 47 different fonts in 12
>   different sizes to get their point across.
>
>Agreed.
>
>--
>Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | Call to mind the sentiments which Nature

jmalloy@hamilton.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 support is late
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 04:17:54 GMT

In article <By16HK.CD9@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:

< Previous discussion deleted >

>     Another thing which would be good for IBM to spend time on is a
>program like "Mirrors" which will allow developers to easily port
>programs from one API to the other (OS/2 -> NT).  Then more programs
>would come out for OS/2 and NT, and developers wouldn't have to
>spend their hard-earned profits hiring extra programmers to write
>two versions of an equivalent program.
>
>Timothy Miller

While I can see your point, one factor that works to Mirror's
detrement and to the performance of any application using it under
OS/2 is the thunking of 16 bit calls that take place. Why thunk 16
bit calls in a 32 bit environment, when you could rewrite those
calls to use 32 bits and gain the additional performance leap?
Granted it takes longer, but the job is done, not half done.

JMHO

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------