From: adhir@wam.umd.edu (Al Dhir)
Subject: Re: tell me i'm wrong (braindead design in os2)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:29:06 GMT

>Uh, is it just me, or does the fact that an operating system which has
>case retentive filenames but is not case sensitive to those same filenames
>bother you as well?  This isn't just OS/2, but Windows NT as well.  My
>opinion is that this is incredibly stupid.  Why would anyone want to bother
>naming a file "Foo" instead of "fOO" if the operating system can't
>differentiate between the two?  If the difference in those filenames confuses
>you, I suggest you go back to the all too secure and primitive world of
>MS/LOSS.

It's just you.  I use both Unix and OS/2, and far prefer non case sensitive
filenames.  How often in a Unix system does ANYBODY USE the fact that it
is case sensitive, other than trying to avoid that little annoyance by
doing everything in lower case.  How often have you found the need to have
a file named Foo AND a file named fOo in the same directory?  This is about
the only thing case sensitivity is good for, and it never arises.

As far as OS/2 preserving case goes, I see no reason why it shouldn't.  I
like the directories to come out the way I named the file...  I just don't
feel like I need to make sure I hit the shift key every time I refer to it.
>
>And another thing... OS/2 seems to me like a 32bit MS/PC DOS... almost
>identicle except for the fact that OS/2 has built in multitasking abilities.
>Isn't that kinda stupid?  Shouldn't we be trying to get away from the
>droll of MS/DOS and try to get into a more modular, usable, and yet powerful
>operating system?  Windows NT attempts to breach some of the real borders
>of DOS, but isn't that great, yet.

IMHO, OS/2 is nothing more than the next incarnation of DOS.  It provides
all the features of advanced systems like Unix, but retains backwards
compatibility.  THAT is the real reason for it.  If you want a great Unix
OS, and don't care about DOS and don't want to be saddled to any of it's
DOS-ness, forget OS/2, it's not for you.  Go buy Sunsoft's Solaris and 
install that on your 486.  For those of us who want to be able to multi-
task our DOS programs, use the new multi-threaded OS/2 apps, and have
access to our Windows apps all side by side will be MORE than happy with
OS/2.  I am.  If I install Unix, sure I'll have a nice OS, but I'll have
to write every damn application myself.  IMHO, the only place Unix is
really worth anything is in a networked environment, and even there it
falls far short of the bjillions of excellent software available on the
DOS/OS/2/Win (yes, even Windows) platforms.

>Personally, I think I'll wait until the fanciful release of OS/2 v3.0,
>when IBM gets a REAL kernel into there, Mach.  Hopefully they won't
>disable case sensitivity to filenames as a "feature".  If you want those
>kinds of features, get a Mac.

Like I said before, forget OS/2, it's not for you.  Install Unix since that's
what you seem to want.

I don't understand why all these Unix-mongers are trying to tell us how OS/2
should be.  OS/2 has a few shortcomings, but it has DEFINITELY more than
fulfilled it's promise to the large majority of users.  If you want Unix,
USE Unix!!  It's not like there's any shortage of Unix ports for the 386/486
chip.  Geez!

-- 
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Al Dhir                      			   Technical Consulting Staff
 Internet: adhir@cygnus.umd.edu	  	 University of Maryland, College Park
 Bitnet:   adhir%cygnus.umd.edu@Interbit      (301) 405-1500 * (301) 405-3014
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc