From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: To brian and other interested parties
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:57:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.015426.20650@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.210248.9991@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.091901.27462@cs.brown.edu> wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni) writes:
>>>
>>>   (2) Unix guys, though ignorant of what NT is, really don't care about
>>>       it. Few of my classmates show interests in NT. The stereotype is
>>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>       basically from the bad image of MS (who produces, huh, MSDOS and
>>>       MS-Windows). Many of the Unix guys are using workstations and
>>>       they loathe the interface of MSWindows. What MS to them is a
>>>       big company producing lousy software. Brian Sturgill *might* know
>>>       this. Many MS employees *might* know this.
>>
>>Well, now, there's a standard for determing facts!  Who do your
>>classmates think will win the superbowl (I'll get my bets in now!)  
>>
>>[deletions galore]
>>>
>>>Wen-Chun Ni, wcn@cs.brown.edu         (401) 863-7669
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>>
>
>Care to cut me in on the action ? :):)
>
>One thing these students don't realize, is that Unix and DOS come
>from two completely separate worlds. You cant compare a 16 bit
>program loader designed for a single user, with a multi-user
>multi-tasking operating system. They can snivel about it all they
>want, but it does not hold water in the real world.
>
>To wit:
>
>Because DOS is such a simplistic interface/control program in
>comparision to UNIX, it takes me far less time to develope simple
>applications on it that do very powerful things. When the apps want
>to share their data and execution with more than one person, they
>are either copied and run on a separate machine, or are managed
>under something really silly like Netware. So, to a limited extent,
>they can simulate distributive processing.
>
>Now UNIX on the other hand, is designed to do just that:
>distributive processing, which has very little functional use in
>the single user world, though, until OS/2, I would have given my
>right arm for multi-tasking. It's made to be used by Groups of
>People, not just a single person.
>
>Probably preaching to the choir here, but it really annoys me when
>people start comparing things they don't understand and trumpet it
>loudly as the gospel truth...
>
>JMHO...
>
Ok, for false assumptions about job status, I give you an F (we have a
grade of FF here, but I'll withhold that for now :)

For being able to discern meaning from humor, well, I'm tempted to
assign another F, but, hey, maybe it wasn't funny.  I'll give you a C.

My (jmalloy) comment had to do with the standard of measurement the
original poster took, to wit, 'few of [his] classmates show interests
[sic] in NT."  By that standard, I might readily conclude that OS/2
doesnt' exist except for the one copy I have, for I know not another
single soul who's using it.  Indeed, I have never met, face-to-face,
anyone using anything other than Mac, Unix, DOS, or Windows (well, there
was an Amigan out there and I know someone who still has his VIC-20 and
his own PDP-11, but you catch my drift?).  The point is that merely
anecdotal experience is not a substitute for data.  Experience is, to be
sure, how we each may determine what we do; if someone else sees that no
one s/he knows is interested in OS/2, then s/he's welcome to draw
the personal conclusion desired.  But to suggest that that is somehow a
standard by which one should publicly measure anything is just plain
silly.

Unlike many around here, I'm basically an OS-agnostic (well, except when
it comes to the Mac, which I do recommend from time to time, but I
shudder aftwerwards).  I currently use Windows 3.1 and DOS 5 and am well
aware of the advantages OS/2 could offer me (I tried it, too, in June,
but gave up for many reasons).  If I could find a reasonable Unix clone
to try, I'd probably do that, too, but time does limit me and I'm not a
multi-user system myself.  I'll happily try OS/2 2.1 when I get it
(lessee, if it's released on 31 March I'll see it in June, if the GA
experience is any guide...).  Indeed, from what I read, either OS/2
and/or NT, when it's released, sound marvelous.  To each his/her own.

Season's Greetings...

jmalloy@hamilton.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy