HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: "world"
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:40:57 GMT

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.151416.529@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>What code base does Linux come from?  Is it freely usable, or is it GNU?

>Do you mean to imply that GNU isn't freely usable?  GNU has no
>restrictions on what you can use their product on.  If you want, you
>can have your corporation standardize on GNU, with no license
>violation.  The only restriction is that you can't sell it with a
>license that gives the client less rights to the product than
>yourself. 

>And considering that GNU stuff comes with source code, it has the
>potential to be much more "freely usable" than stuff from companies
>like Lotus and MS (who charge you extra if you install on a LAN, etc.) 

I think there is more to it than that.

I believe they also put restrictions on what you can do with code that
is deveolped using GNU software. This is why many comercial developers
don't use GNU stuff. Read the GNU license agreements for exact info.

>-- 
>   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
>  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
> ((|,)                          patience."
>  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Thursday, 10 Sep 1992 07:17:34 EDT
From: Andrew T. Robinson <ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: What REXX does
 <16857DE60.WILLS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>
 <92Sep9.105807edt.16825@ois.db.toronto.edu> <1992Sep10.035704.11213@fics.uucp>

>The basics of both the mentioned awk program and the grep command line
>is regular expressions. Powerful, but not easy to master. It matches
>unix itself, i guess...
>
>Eirik

  Well, if I could reproduce APL characters here I found an APL program
  that uses even *fewer* characters than the GREP or AWK command lines.
  Oh wait--here's a two-line APL implementation of UNIX! :-)

  If AWK is so great, why do UNIX folks (or anyone else) bother with C?
  And if succintness is the answer, why don't they use APL? :-)

Andy
From: Gary.Woodman@anu.edu.au (Gary Woodman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hercules vs OS/2
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:53:22 GMT
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: gurrung.anu.edu.au

In article <1992Sep2.065623.28800@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>Hercules support would be great for me--it has always been "just one more 
thing">that has kept me from switching to OS/2 (though, by far, it is not the
>biggest thing).

Dare I point out that OS/2 supports all those famous and wonderful Hercules 
apps just the same as DOS/Win did/does? Anyone can run DOS and/or Windows 
apps on their existing Hercules setup, and enjoy all the benefits of 
modern operating system technology with OS/2  - they just need CGA or better 
to launch them :-)

>Just my opinions.

Thanks for sharing them!

--
Gary.Woodman@anu.edu.au         This post made from 100% recycled electrons.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:21:27 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep10.130029.27716@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.132338.8801@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>
>>Do you mean to imply that GNU isn't freely usable?  GNU has no
>>restrictions on what you can use their product on.  If you want, you
>>can have your corporation standardize on GNU, with no license
>>violation.  The only restriction is that you can't sell it with a
>>license that gives the client less rights to the product than
>>yourself. 
>
>No, I'm not implying, I said it flat out.
>If you use a piece of GNU code in you're other large project, then
>you must make that projects source available.  This means that GNU
>code is largely useless in a commercial setting.  Thus it is
>not freely usable.

You're talking about selling someone else's work, not using it.  If I
write a million-line program with gcc, I can sell it and not give away
any source.  I only have to give away sources if I include gnu
sources.  That's still better than companies like MS and Lotus, where
you can't get their source in the first place.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 PR
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:08:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In article <1992Sep13.024201.2214@fcom.cc.utah.edu>,
brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>
>>I don't know what this all means, but, within these few months,
>>vendors are falling all over themselves to support OS/2.
>
>Again... where's the evidence for this?  All I see is 1.X versions
>there... I've seen no new announcements of note in PC Week, or InfoWorld,
>or ComputerWorld, or Computer Shopper... where's this coming from?  Several
>people have said this in the group, but I've seen no evidence outside this
>group.  I can't believe all those rags are anti-OS/2 (as a matter of fact
>ComputerWorld is reasonably pro-OS/2).
>
>Brian

Well, I don't know about anybody elses claims, but all of my info
that I would say on here is straight from the customer support or a
magazine article which is only stating information (in other words,
not articles like Zachmann's so famous for).
From: ak@ananke.stgt.sub.org (Andreas Kaiser)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: >16Mb support 
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 01:16:16 GMT
Organization: ananke


In article <YegEGQ200VAtEm0XFQ@andrew.cmu.edu> Faisal writes:

  > is this true of all systems or only ones with 24 bit dma addressing
  > ie will an eisa system act the same as an isa system in this regard

The DMA controller's address width is *not* the limiting factor, since
only floppies use it. Even IBM PS/2 machines have the DMA controller
limitation. Neither IDE disks nor SCSI controllers use plain DMA (just
XTs did use DMA for disks). It's the ISA bus address width, which
limits bus-master addressability to 16MB. If you have an EISA system
and an EISA bus-master disk controller such as AHA174x, there is not
16MB limit. If you have an AHA154x, you won't be able to use more than
16MB for programs, no matter if the system is EISA or ISA.

		Gruss, Andreas
  
:::::::::::::::::::: subnet:  ak@ananke.stgt.sub.org
:: Andreas Kaiser :: fidonet: 2:241/7220.9
::::::::::::::::::::
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: GNU software
Date: 11 Sep 92 09:15:58 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Sep10.212739.23947@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> In <1992Sep10.130029.27716@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Sep10.132338.8801@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
|> >>
|> >>Do you mean to imply that GNU isn't freely usable?

|> >No, I'm not implying, I said it flat out.

|> Well, that's not exactly true.  First, I had heard that RMS was
|> looking at modifying the Copyleft somewhat to help address this
|> problem.

So there *IS* a problem!

|> And it is a semantic issue, but it is still "freely usable" -- you
|> simply have to comply with the license requirements,

This seems to use a rather interesting definition of the word "free".

"You are free to do anything you like as long as you follow the rules"

GNU software has a very open license, but the only freely usable software is
PD software.

|> just as you do with any other piece of software.

Wrong. PD software, by definition, has no restrictions one what you may do
with it.

	Tim.

Tim Glauert, Olivetti Research Limited,		| EMAIL	thg@cam-orl.co.uk
24a Trumpington Street, Cambridge, England.	| TEL	+44   223  343232
						| FAX	+44   223  313542
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Monday, 14 Sep 1992 14:29:00 EDT
From: Andrew T. Robinson <ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 + Mach 3.0 ?
Distribution: comp
 <1992Sep12.042910.6722@fcom.cc.utah.edu>

Mach is *not* a dog and a pig... It's been doing things for years that
are supposedly new and whiz-bang in NT--and it does all this using fewer
resources than the most optimistic NT estimates.

You're starting to sound like Zachman, Brian...! :-)

Andy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Stop loading unwanted apps
From: ghdai@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:20:14 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

->>
->><tweaks deleted>
->>
->>Argh. This finally broke my back.. 
->>After I applied the tweaks, WINOS2 locked up on me. The OS itself was
->>  (original poster text deleted)
->DELETE  MATERIAL 
->>Erik
->Well, I applied the windows tweaks on a session last night and had
->the same thing happen.  My windows program just hung the system with
->exactly the same side effects that you describe above.  This is the
->first problem that I have had with OS/2.  I am running on a 33MHz 486
->with a 230 MByte drive and really had no complaints about the speed of
->getting into windows - at least before I tried these tweaks.  Finally
->I just reinstalled OS/2. There did not seem to be anything else that I
->could do with a frozen mouse and keyboard.   Can anyone help with
->this?
->
->Alan Sandercock
->
->
>
>I beleive there is a way to stop any previously opened programs from
>loading during bootup.  It involves holding down some combination of
>keys while the computer is booting.  (I briefly looked for the info
>but could not find it.)  If anyone knows what the keys are, please
>post.
>
>Garrett Drysdale

Hold Ctrl-F1 for, say, about 15 seconds.

G.H. Dai
-- 
GHDai@VAX1.UMKC.Edu   |**** Happy user of only OS/2 2.0!!/HPFS entire HDD ****|
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Beta period length (was: Microsoft claims a 4Q92 delivery for NT)
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:01:27 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep14.095928.27700@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>
>One reason why both DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.1 had very long beta periods was
>because both had extensive backward compatability requirements.  Microsoft
>isn't claiming NT will run *all* your Windows 3.x or DOS apps, just most of
>them.  This reduces the amount of testing required substantially, although
>I have no inside information on whether the palnned NT testing period is
>sufficient.

True.  But it still seems to me that any December-92 shipment will (at
least partly) go out untested.  Much like OS/2 2.0 did in March.  If
it ships then (and it may do so, if the date hasn't slipped by now),
you'll be seeing reviews comparing a debugged OS/2 (the CSD will be
out by then) with the newly released NT.  

We'll then see how good MS's alpha (meaning in-house) testing is.

>Incidentally, when evaluating "how good" the current NT is, remember that
>the CD-ROMs went into duplication in mid-June, three months ago!  Surely
>the NT development team hasn't been sitting on their collective butt for
>all that time...  :)

True again.  I wonder if there is a real beta program going on in
secret somewhere.  After all, you didn't hear from their beta testers
on other products until after the release.  The real beta testers
probably have strict non-disclosure contracts, and couldn't say
anything if they wanted to.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5219 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2157
Organization: European Academic Research Network (EARN)
Date: Thursday, 10 Sep 1992 14:30:36 GMT
From: Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: SOMFIX.ZIP, WPS, drive-object, HPFS

Rony: (Hi, btw :)

  The WPS speed doesnt bother me - I dont care if it takes a second or two
to open an application. Perhaps we are too spoilt by the snappy appearance
of Windows - which provides probably 2% of what OS/2 does. Its not
really reasonable to expect much more speed than this, given its flexibility..

My two cent's worth.. -turgut
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: NT guys STAY!!! (was Re: NT guys OUT!!!)
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:50:09 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

>>This is has really gone to far.
>>Why don't all of you NT zealots start up comp.os.nt.advocacy and get the
>>hell out of here.
>>
>>Or perhaps comp.os.os2.anti
>>
>
>I totally agree with you.  You dammed NT guys are undermining our OS/2 groups.
>Why not Kick yourselves out of here!!!

I disagree with both of you here.  I welcome NT guys in C.O.os2.advocacy
(as well as MS not-a-spokesmodel employees, too, BTW).  I find that
knowing more about NT is interesting.  Besides, if an NT guy has a
criticism about OS/2, at least we will be able to defend OS/2.

Excuse me... let me lock the doors.  I'll lock the NT guys *in*
before any of them escape...   ;)

-- 
====== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ======
"I believed what I was told, I thought it was a good   .--.
life, I thought I was happy.  Then I found something  (OS/2)
that changed it all..."  --  Anonymous, 2112  [Rush]   ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Window 3.1 undocumented calls
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:50:16 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <22033@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, ahummel@ems.cdc.com (H. Austin Humme
l) writes:
>In today copy of InfoWorld an artical talked about undocumented calls
>that Microsoft is using for it products (exel, Word for Win 2.0, etc)
>
>My question: Does any one have excel or Microsoft Word for Windows 2.0
>running under OS/2?
>
Yes, both.  (Excel because it is the best, and Word because I don't have Ami
Pro 3)  They both work like a dream.  (at least on my machine)


                                                Stacy John Behrens
                                                *===)-------------

                                                
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith)
Subject: Re: Honestly, people...how do you find the new OS/2 ads?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:22:40 GMT

Well, they're no worse than the last series of print ads ("Buy OS/2 because
we give you inspiring pictures of black athletes").  Or the current series
("OS/2 Crash Protection (tm) can sort of kind of tend to help somewhat
reduce the number of crashes.")

Actually, they remind me a little of the original Osborne ads.  "The
executive on the left has a briefcase that contains his lunch. The executive
on the right has a brightcase that contains an Osborne-1 with 64K of RAM,
full CP/M, and PerfectCalc.  The executive on the left hasn't got a chance."

It's a good ad -- IF -- you actually believe that the average business PC
user will increase his/her productivity simply by installing OS/2.

:-)


-- 
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbsmith@world.std.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 5 Sep 92 15:29:02 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Sep5.204303.18257@news.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:
>Brian Sturgill writes:
>
>> 	Has seamless support for 16-bit Windows apps on XGA and 8514 displays.
>>		Someone said that OS/2 2.0 has this now... but I thought
>>		otherwise.  Does the shipping version of OS/2 2.0 come
>>		with seamless XGA support? (I'm certain it doesn't for
>>		the 8514.)
>
>Well, I've seen only one posting about this, and it was mine, so I'm going
>to assume that your "Someone" is referring to me.  What I clearly said in
>that posting is that OS/2 2.0 right now has just as much support for
>seamless 16-bit Windows application on XGA and 8514 displays as Windows NT,
>in the sense that the drivers exist for both, but neither has been released.
>In the case of OS/2, it's just the drivers that haven't been released; in
>the case of NT, it's the whole operating system that hasn't been released,
>including the drivers.  I fully expect the OS/2 drivers to be released well
>in advance of NT's release, so...

The comparison here is between the prebeta SDK and OS/2 2.0 GA... these
beta drivers are not in OS/2 2.0 GA.


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
From: Spartacus At Cuny <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 14 Sep 1992 15:22:19 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <c0xn=8d.xtifr@netcom.com>, xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) says:
>all that would happen is that people would see that OS/2 costs $150, NT
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>costs $500.  OS/2 is competing with DOS+Windoze, rather more than it is
 ^^^^^^^^^^^

I would like to add something a little off topic in this thread, but
I think it should be said.  Although I'm an OS/2 supporter all the
way, I hope we don't rely on the above statement.  Microsoft has
always given its Windows users upgrade offers.  I know because prior
to switching over to OS/2 I've been a registered user of Windows since
version 1.03.  I have always received upgrade offers from MS.

Now take into account all the OEM versions of Windows packaged
with micros nowadays.  Whether the users of these machines use
windows or not they will still be eligible for NT upgrades if
Microsoft seems fit to offer them.  Many of these users are many
of us who have moved to OS/2 via $49 dollar upgrade offer.
Microsoft can even offer upgrades to NT for OS/2 users.   So
I expect most people who decide to try NT won't pay the full <$500
price.

I add this because I don't want IBM or OS/2 users to lay back and
feel to confortable believing NT will die because of its higher price.
If OS/2 is going to win the OS war, it has to win it based on its
merit.  This $150 vs <$500 price argument won't wash, period.
IBM! make those CSD damn good!  Because you don't have much
room to fuckup again.
-------
------------------------------+      All The Best,
Reply To:                     |
                              |      Edward Galarza,
     I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    |      Brooklyn College Of The
     I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      |      City University Of New York
------------------------------+      "Que viva el OS/2!"
New accounts above 8-)
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: SOMFIX.ZIP, WPS, drive-object, HPFS
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:20:52 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep11.204252.6114@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>Windows doesn't integrate the GUI and File System.  Everything shown in
>the GUI has nothing to do with the actual file, other than a one-way
>association.  This means Windows stores all this GUI drawing information
>in one place.  This means Windows is fast.  This also means Windows is
>not very intuitive when it comes to file management.  This means Windows
>will never gain wide acceptance among people who haven't the foggiest
>idea, nor will to learn how files and subdirectories work (read the
>average human being).

For example, I saw one user who was completely perplexed why a program
didn't appear in the Program Manager when he copied an application to
the Windows directory.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:45:12 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

> 
> Ok, NT DOS support will be good, OS/2's DOS support is excellent but hard
> for the average user to use.


	Hard?  These are based on opinion of course.  Our company sells
machines with OS/2 (and windows also) preinstalled and we got a lot fewer
Tech support calls from the OS/2 users than the Windows users.  I suppose
you consider the Pif Editor "easy" to use?  Those Dos boxes are
extremely easy to configure.  Besides, they don't have to fool with them
unless they want to do something complicated and in this case they
had better know a bit about computers.

					-Brad
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hard future for OS/2 2.0 ....
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:33:14 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

juan@noyles.pha.pa.us (Juan J. E. T. Noyles) writes:
>marten@feki.toppoint.de writes in article <716296545snx@feki.toppoint.de>:
>> The time is counting to zero for OS/2 2.0.
>> Here in Germany a big computer newspaper (ComputerWoche) is VERY
>> sceptical about the success of OS/2 2.0. During the last weeks the
>> comments on this OS are getting worse.

>Well,there in Germany, people are getting killed, maimed and otherwise harassed
>because they want to live in Germany.Why should German criticism of an American
>operating system matter to anyone?

[Large amounts of similarly useless invective deleted]...

>Like I said, who cares what they say?

>The above has been a solicited commentary about the alleged
>Windows-OS/2 war in Germany, from an American perspective.
>I'm not trying to relive any other wars, and some of my best friends
>are German.  But I don't base my purchasing decisions on the
>opinion of any uninformed person, German or otherwise.  Most
>OS/2 users share this view.  Have a good life, and learn not to
>believe the hype!

Please, you answered in the most obnoxious manner possible, with zero
informational content. If you have to reply, try adding something 
intelligent, and *don't* qoute the whole damn original. Where the 
hell did the FAQ on Netiquette go? Where did manners go? And, to top it
off, your sig is almost too ironic to believe after that post:
>Has anyone seen my sanity?				Juan@Noyles.pha.pa.us

Tom
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy