HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfr@glitter.RedBrick.COM
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Object Oriented File System: Huh??
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:18:01 GMT
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA

In article <3488@ra.nrl.navy.mil> pitre@n5160d.nrl.navy.mil (Richard Pitre) writes:
>In article <Btvzus.678@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> asd@sage.cc.purdue.edu  
>(Kareth) writes:
>> 
>> The subject pretty much says it all.  What the hell is an Object
>> Oriented File System and why do we even want it?  What's so superior
>> about it?  Is it totally revolutionary and will make me wonder how I
>> got along without it (like I do about my NeXT, Engage, and Virtspace).
>> Will it make my life a breeze in keeping stuff organized?  With 1Gig
>> storage capacity, I've got to constantly try and be organized, or
>> loose everything.
>
>I think that you will wonder how you got along without it.
>
>A problem with UNIX type file systems is that a file is just an  
>unspecified pile of information that the user has to remember the meaning of. 
  
  Right on.  Anyone who has worked with anything resembling a databased
  file system (Pick, AS/400) realizes the advantages of such an
  approach.  In these systems, files are merely tables of information,
  capable of being handled/managed just like any other table in a database,
  queried, etc.  Considering a file to be a real object (with potentially 
  greater dimensionality than a mere table) is simply the NeXTstep in 
  the natural evolution.  Adding a sophisticated knowledge base to the
  file system is, IMHO, the step after that.  

  Jon
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: rs05@asylum.gte.com (Russ Sasnett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: RightBrain Software File Server: up and running
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:15:38 GMT
Followup-To: rs05@gte.com
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA

score one for Jim De Arras.

in the included post, it's clear than Nathan wants to
have his cake (a usenet free of commercial advertising
from vendors) and yet eat it too (use it to organize a
commercial action against a vendor). 

an advertisement tries to influence people to buy a product. 
a call to boycott tries to influence people NOT to buy a product.

either way, it's commercial traffic for commercial purposes.
Nathan is guilty of the very sins he flames RightBrain about: 
a misuse of usenet resources.

now that RightBrain has come clean, I demand a public apology 
from Nathan to the universe at large. 

oh, what shame, what SHAME you both have brought on our heads! 
(sob) I weep for our lost innocence. :( :(

--Russ "not speaking for GTE" Sasnett
rs05@gte.com

[[ note to moderator: please cross out all references to GTE above,
replacing them with "XXX", in order to avoid giving subsidized 
publicity to a commercial interest. ]]

==================

=In article <1992Sep15.134854.5932@cube.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim  
=De Arras) writes:
=> In article <1992Sep14.161850.26684@cs.yale.edu>  
=nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu  
=> (Nathan F. Janette) writes:
=> > You don't think the people who *pay* Glenn and others to
=> > develop those contributions by purchasing the
=> > software have a right - no - an obligation to use the tools
=> > available to consumers to give strong negative feedback
=> > to a company?  Tough luck, because I (and others) do! 
=> > 
=> So, usenet is a "tool" for consumer feedback to vendors, but not the 
=> other 'way around?  What a twisted world!
=
=No, it's a medium for communicating and organizing
=people who may be consumer's, though. You know, exactly
=the kind of thing you (and other businesses) are often
=fighting so hard to stop whenever you can: consumer
=education.  
=
=--
=Nathan Janette		"I'm a NeXTstep man,
=Dept MB&B, Yale Univ	 I'm a NeXTcube guy"
=New Haven, CT
=nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (NeXT)
From: neuss@igd.fhg.de (Christian Neuss )
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: RTF Compression
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:22:37 GMT

Dear fellow netters,

prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave Griffiths) writes:

>One way to make people feel better about RTF posts would be to make them
>use less bandwidth. Since the majority of RTF posts consist only of text
>in a variety of fonts, the current NewsGrazer format is maybe a little
>inefficient. It repeats the entire body of the text at the end in uuencoded
>RTF format.

>Surely a more efficient way of doing this would be to include at the end
>just the font change information, with suitable pointers to the positions
>in the preceding ascii text? I reckon five characters could encode each
>position/run-length. In effect you'd be saying for example:
>{font=Courier{typeface=bold{size=24{start=230,run=14;start=260;run=8}size=...}
>except that it would all be encoded to save space. Since the same program
>is writing and reading it, you can also compress the RTF header and font
>info quite a lot.
[munch]

Ah! At last! Somebody comes up with a reasonable idea!

Really folks, this has made me quite upset. All these flame wars about
huge RTF posts are only there because of the *stupid* format that
newsgrazers uses. It is completely unnecessary to double the whole
posting just because there is one little part which I want to typeset
in italics! It would be sufficient to simply "index" into the ASCII 
part, like Dave proposed it.

I *can* understand that people are upset about huge postings. 
I can also understand that on such a beautiful machine like 
the NeXT, people want to post rich postings and use different
font sizes, small PostScript icons etc.

Hell, we can have both. Lets support Daves idea.

Chris
/*
 *  Christian Neuss  %  neuss@igd.fhg.de  %  ..in the humdrum
 */

like


>Dave Griffiths
From: mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Avoid RightBrain for RTF ? (Who the heck are you people?)
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:20:55 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep10.170756.6292@julian.uwo.ca> vesely@next.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Ivan Vesely) writes:
>In article <timm.716098845@void> timm@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Tim McClarren)  
>writes:
>>glenn@rightbrain.com (Glenn Reid) writes:
>> 
>>> ......A handful of people (essentially
>>>all of them in college, for what it's worth) have decided that we are
>>>evil and wanton in our disregard for the net rules, when in reality it is
>>>not the least bit clear what is right and wrong......
>> 
>>No, you're evil and wanton because you show no consideration for other
>>folks.  That's my complaint. 
>
>With RTF postings? Are you for real?
>
>When will you people stop whinning about the evils of RTF posting?  Many
>of the silent news readers out there actually LIKE RTF!  It brightens up
>their day. Isn't this one of the joys of owning a NeXT?  Having fun with
>it, doing things that others CAN'T do?  Avoiding RTF altogether, and
>using only plain boring ASCII is sinking to the lowest common
>denominator.  I refuse to do that!  So it costs a little bit more,
>that's the price of using this newsgroup. This is the way THIS newsgroup
>has naturally evolved.  Don't spoil it for the rest of us just because
>you're a tight wad.

Yes! (Oh, I'm no longer a silent news reader.)

I wish these guys would stop wasting the most precious bandwidth I
have (my brain) with their rantings.

FWIW: I read this newsgroup with "rn", not on a NeXT.  If I want to see
what something looks like, I mail it to my NeXT - even got me a little
macro in .rnmac:  @s |mailx -s "%s" cheshire!mdw\012.

Oh, and I'm *NOT* going to boycott RightBrain.  Where else could we have
gotten fancy-dancy Adobe fonts at half price?

Mark
-- 
Mark Wuest                            *MY* opinions, not AT&T's!!
mark.wuest@att.com
mdw@cheshire.att.com (NeXT Mail)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re: NT is *NOT* Mach!
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:39:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.232934.9649@microsoft.com>, edwardj@microsoft.com 
(Edward Jung) writes:

	[...]

> 
> Also, you should all be aware that I would be more than happy to
> have NeXT run NeXTstep on NT. It is certainly far less-likely now
> that it was a little while ago, but one can always hope... in
> general, Steve seems less interested in moving NeXTstep to NT
> than in having MS license NeXTstep for NT for mucho bucks per
> copy, something that is more of the workstation economics than
> the PC economics.

	Well, perhaps the NeXT developer community might be able to suggest
	a few benefits to Steve.  Not to mention NeXT users.

Opinions expressed are my own.

_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_ _/      _/      _/ _/     _/   _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  cfwaltrip     _/    _/_/    _/ _/_/    _/       _/     _/    _/ _/ _/    _/
_/       _/_/_/    _/  _/  _/  _/ _/_/_/   _/       _/     _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>  _/       _/     _/  _/   _/ _/
_/_/_/_/ _/          _/      _/ _/      _/ _/_/_/_/ _/     _/    _/ _/ _/
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone)
Subject: Re: The Final Word: Mach vs. NT
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:31:36 GMT

shiva@vega.Stanford.EDU (Marcos Javier Polanco) writes:
>
>OK. I've had enough of opinions. How different ARE Mach and NT? Can a  
>Microkernel-Independent Programming Interface (MIOPIA) be developed such  
>that it did not much matter which microkernel you were using? All the  
>discussions about porting to NT seem pointless without *some* basis in  
>technical fact.
>

Okay, I give. ;)  Truthfully, I don't much care *what* is down in the
bowels of my box, be it Mach or NT or AmigaDOS v10.0...  *as long as*
I have a standards-conforming, *complete* UNIX-comfortable environment
on top.  AND as long as the choice of microkernel isn't going to hinder
or limit third-party developers in any way.  

NT will not be UNIX-comfortable, so there goes that...  NT+NeXTStep *might*
be, but then there's a question of NeXT allocating resources for that.  If
it's a matter of penetrating the desktop, Intel-based market, well, the
answer for NeXT would appear to be *SELL NEXTSTEP 486 AS AGGRESSIVELY AS
POSSIBLE!*

As for the second, Microsoft has had a long-standing tradition of buggy
implementations of dated technology.  Look at how bad DOS has been, and for
how long.  Now, you trust those guys to deliver a hand-crafted, from-scratch
microkernel?  Why?  I personally don't want the apps I buy constrained by
some kernel quirkiness...  and, given the openess of Mach, I trust NeXT
a whole lot more to "fix" problems in the kernel.  

Bottom line, really, there's little technical basis for argument of
kernel technologies, right now.  But the other arguments are compelling
enough that kernel technology just isn't even that important yet...


standard disclaimer.


jb



--
-- Jeff Bone ------------------------------------------------------------
      "Imagination is more important than knowledge."  - A. Einstein
------------------------------------------------------- jbone@dell.com --
                                                                       --
From: jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Software patent will hurt NeXT...
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:59:56 GMT
Organization: Dell Computer Co

wierda@ltb.ltb.bso.nl (Gerben Wierda) writes:
>
> We're trying to find publications
> which describe such a system and is out in the public domain.  It
> must predate the Toshiba claim of April 24, 1981.  
				              ^^^^

Is this date correct?  I find this slightly but not extremely tough to
believe...  hope that's supposed to be a 91.  If so, the job is somewhat
easier --- didn't some of the ATK/Andrew stuff at least *describe* em-
bedded sounds in messages?  And surely there's *something* that was
done under US government contract that dealt -w- this prior to that date.


Keep us posted on this issue!!  Good Luck!!  Standard disclaimer.


jb




--
-- Jeff Bone ------------------------------------------------------------
        NT...  Just say N0T.   Skate UN*X!   Standard disclaimer. 
------------------------------------------------------- jbone@dell.com --
                                                                       --
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Rumor control (was Re: Open Letter: Don't get rid of UNIX
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:02:57 GMT

jfr@glitter.RedBrick.COM writes:
> And DOS was developed by Seattle Microcomputer (before BG bought them out
> to sell it to IBM).  Not to mention the Mac OS which was developed by a
> very small group of developers.

Nearly correct....MS-DOS was orignally a clone of CP/M (with a
different file system) and CP/M was essentially due to one person
(Gary Kidall [sp?] ).
-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)		"int - God's own type"
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: izumi@pinoko.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: OBJECT Query:  NeXTstep QuickTime Object Developer Interest
Date: 13 Sep 92 02:07:36 GMT
Reply-To: izumi@pinoko.berkeley.edu
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: moica.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep12.050609.454@liveware.com> todd@liveware.com writes:

>Liveware is seriously considering developing a QT 3.0 Object
>for developers.


Excuse me, but what is QuickTime and what does it do?
All I can guess is that it is a Mac program.

--
Izumi Ohzawa             [ $BBg_78^=;(J ]
USMail: University of California, 360 Minor Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720
Telephone: (510) 642-6440     Fax:  (510) 642-3323
Internet: izumi@pinoko.berkeley.edu (NeXT Mail OK)
From: rpomeroy@aunext3.amd.com (Ron Pomeroy x(Coop))
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Avoid RightBrain for RTF ? (Who the heck are you people?)
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:39:59 GMT
Reply-To: rpomeroy@aunext3.amd.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas

In article <1992Sep11.162305.2865@ccu.umanitoba.ca>  
tacchi@next01.cc.umanitoba.ca. (Mark G. Tacchi) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep10.170756.6292@julian.uwo.ca> vesely@next.heart.rri.uwo.ca  
>>(Ivan Vesely) writes:

>>I also believe that RTF should be allowed, why not?  My NeXT at work is used  
>>for the fancy stuff while my terminal at home is for the plain ASCII.  So if  
>>anybody has the need to use RTF go ahead, I'm sure there are plenty of people  
>>that are pro RTF posters.
	   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>>-Mark
>>=========================================================
>>Mark G. Tacchi
>>tacchi@next01.cc.umanitoba.ca   
>>(NeXT Mail Welcome)     "Why meow when I can bark? Woof!"
>>=========================================================

Pro :-)

--
Ronald Pomeroy		[Objective-Cruntime: [SmallTalk runtime]];
Advanced Micro Devices	[self dream-on];
CAM Applications Group
rpomeroy@aunext3.amd.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: jeffo@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson-Owens)
Subject: Re: PasteUp vs PageMaker vs Quark (RTF)
Reply-To: jeffo@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 03:46:00 GMT

This really didn't belong in comp.sys.next.software.  When will
everyone post to the proper newsgroup?

jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>This is comp.sys.NEXT.*  This set of usenet groups is ONE BIG COMMERCIAL  
>PROMOTION FOR NEXT.  We `push' NeXT sales here.

You'd better speak for yourself on this one.  "WE" don't do this by
and large as "we" are NeXT users, for the most part, who speak about
how to get things done on the NeXT.

>To draw a line and say it's ok  
>to blatently promote NeXT as a group, but not permit a developer to describe  
>his NeXT supportive wares here is to draw a line in a far too grey area.

Firstly, women can write software too.  Secondly, No it isn't.  If I
wish to read a product review pro or con a piece of software, the last
place I would look would be the author(s) of the software.  I would
want the review to be as objective as I would try to be about
comparing what's available to me.  Any remarks from the publisher,
developer(s) or beta testers (possibly not them, but possibly so)
would not fall into the category of being objective.  Given this, what
anyone at RightBrain says about RightBrain products is not objective.
Therefore, I would not want to read them.  Let RightBrain ship their
product and allow reviewers to fully analyze and produce reviews on
the product.  Then, I will be interested in what they have to say.  If
a no-save, no-export version is made available on the archives, I will
review it for myself.

>NeXT  
>needs these wares available in order to survive and to maintain the reason

You act as if RightBrain is the only app developer for the NeXT.  The
NeXT doesn't have tons of developers making marketable apps, but
RightBrain is only one of them.  Also, exactly how many people can
honestly say they have a need for products like LockScreen and Rulers
when Backspace is free and there's already a ruler that comes with the
NeXT?

>And he ain't taking any orders here, folks.  No mention of price at all.

So, simply because it hasn't a price yet it (admittedly so by Reynolds) is
basically the substance of an ad, it isn't an ad?

>Fortunately, it seems to me (as always, my opinion only) that the complainers
>while they are loud, are always the same select few.

So?  What has that to do with anything?

>And I admit I am a loud proponent, there needs to be balance in the 'coverage'

There needs to be a balance?  No, decisions need to be made, and
ultimately RightBrain personnel will make them.  However, what they do
will severely cut into their profits if it is the wrong decision.  As
they have stated, a boycott of them would hurt them.
-- 
-- Jeff (jeffo@uiuc.edu)
-- No NeXTmail please
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re:   Nextstep on NT
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:54:00 GMT

In article <dillon.0nkt@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>, 
dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes (in response to a post
of mine):

	[...]
> 
>     I'm sorry, let me be clear.
> 
>     I *USE* MS Windows (3.1 currently) every day.
> 
>     It's a piece of crap.
> 

	Clarity's a good thing.  I'll try too 8^)

	I distinguish between NT (the pre-emptive multi-tasking, microkernal
	OS) and the various flavors of user interface (Windows, OS/2, POSIX,
	DOS) that sits on top.  When I say NT is a nice piece of work done by
	a top flight group of professionals, I refer to the OS and not the
	UIs.  For someone used to NeXTSTEP, Windows probably does seem like a
	piece of crap.  When I advocate porting NeXTSTEP to NT to avoid having
	to use the Windows and other alternative UIs, I am NOT advocating
	porting NeXTSTEP on top of Windows.  Instead, NeXTSTEP would be an
	alternative UI built directly on top of the NT OS.

	Thus, I think we have similar goals:  use NeXTSTEP instead of
	Windows.


>>>     How many
>>>     releases will they have gone through to get the most basic multitasking
>>>     that NT is to provide?  How many more before the OS is stable?  How
>>>     many more before processes stop crashing the machine?
>>
>>	I believe I can answer that.  If the first release is as good as the
>>	developer's pre-releases:  ONE.
> 
>     Huh?  You are resetting the count to zero so 'NT' is #1 ??  As if all
>     the previous releases didn't count.  See my point?  Try counting the
>     number of releases again...
> 

	No, I don't see your point.  I am simply counting releases.  The
	pre-releases are already stable.  When the actual release is
	available, it should be stable unless they start regressing.  If
	I've somehow missed your point, perhaps we could discuss via email.

	[...]
> 
>     Porting NeXTSTEP to Windows would yield a hopelessly slow NextSTEP.
>     Windows simply does not have the capabilities of Mach in either
>     process management or protection and NextSTEP depends on that
>     heavily.
> 
>     Porting NeXTSTEP to OS/2 2.0 might be more doable, though.

	I believe I showed above that porting to NT (which has real multi-
	tasking, multi-user process protections) is not the same as porting
	on top of Windows 3.1 (which would not be possible).  Porting to
	OS/2 would be less doable (no microkernal design).

Opinions expressed are my own.

_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_ _/      _/      _/ _/     _/   _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  cfwaltrip     _/    _/_/    _/ _/_/    _/       _/     _/    _/ _/ _/    _/
_/       _/_/_/    _/  _/  _/  _/ _/_/_/   _/       _/     _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/  Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>  _/       _/     _/  _/   _/ _/
_/_/_/_/ _/          _/      _/ _/      _/ _/_/_/_/ _/     _/    _/ _/ _/
From: cew6@po.CWRU.Edu (Carlin E. Wiegner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: PowerPC and the brick....???
Date: 15 Sep 1992 18:46:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


I was wondering what the current rumors around the brick are?
Is it still looking like a release date in the next 6 months?
Please email any replies to these questions...

Also, when is the PowerPC line supposed to be coming out?
I heard they well ahead of schedule but far enough for NeXT?
Thakns...
CW
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: ricardo@finn (Ricardo Parada)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re:   Nextstep on NT
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:54:05 GMT
Organization: Pencom Software

In article <dillon.0nkt@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>  
dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes:

>     Porting NeXTSTEP to OS/2 2.0 might be more doable, though.

Interesting, not that I think that it should be done but from what I've  
read OS/2 is more Mach than windows NT.  Yes, more doable.
 
--
- Ricardo J. Parada
  "Real Objects Today!" -- OBJECTWARE Catalog
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: bstone@acs.ucalgary.ca (Blake Stone)
Subject: Re: NeXT vs. (MIDI) Sampler
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 14:27:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

> > Is a NeXT (I don't have one) with his DSP Chip a full
> > substitute for an of-the-shelf MIDI-driven Sampler (Roland
> > S-550)?  Do I have to buy additional Software for that use,
> > or is it included?
> >
> > Are there large libraries of digisized sounds for the NeXT?

> No! NeXT as a sampler/harddisk recorder is a toy. So is NeXT
> as a midi sequencer. NeXT dropped the music kit. Wise decision.

Errr... the NeXT is a wonderful platform for MIDI work, there's
just relatively little software available.  Try not to equate
lack of software with lack of ability.  Presto is a good low end
sequencing package and other will come along.

As far as NeXT as a sampler goes: Yah.  Under 3.0 you can play a
number of stereo sample simultaneously, but exact timing?  Nor
pitch control, nor...

NeXT as a hard disk recording system may be another matter.
MetroTrack promises amazing things...  I see no reason why the
NeXT shouldn't be at least as well suited as a Mac or PC, and
quite possibly better suited.

Blake