HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Date: 23 Nov 92 03:54:10 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov21.182944.4050@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>, jmalloy@itsmail1.hamil
ton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <93722@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer
) writes:
>>=====================PRESSREL   Recent IBM Press
>>Releases======================
>>
>> IBM OS/2 2.0 SWEEPS TRIPLE CROWN OF PC INDUSTRY
>> November 19, 1992
>>
>> LAS VEGAS, November 19 . . . IBM's OS/2* 2.0 advanced
>> operating system recently received top honors from three
>> flagship PC industry publications, including two awards
>> presented here at COMDEX/Fall '92.
>
>First off, there's no doubt that even I, a confirmed Windows 3.1 user,
>can agree to the technical achievement OS/2 2.x represents (it's only in
>reality that it can be a pain, as I learned in my time with OS/2), so
>congrats to IBM.

But not half the pain Windows is...
>
>But I find it quite humorous: when these magazines were critical of
>OS/2, they and all their writers were a bunch of bigoted bums.  Now that
>OS/2 gets some good press, it's trumpeted among the OS/2 folks.
>
>Guys, if they were bums before, they're bums now.  What this really
>demonstrates to me is that they have been doing their jobs all along,
>giving praise when due, criticizing, when appropriate.  If the only
>measure of a journalist is how much she or he supports OS/2, we've got a
>problem.  Besides, your critics will help you more (to improve the
>product, say) than the blind supplication of your rabid zealots (who
>are, after, quite off-putting).

Yes they still are bums.  It used to be they loved to criticize it before they
used it.  That can't be forgiven.  But any good press will be accepted.  This
is hardly hypocritical.  A large percent of the time, I find the presses
attitudes towards software to be strait out of companies marketing
departments.  I've seen far too many articles for which the only source was a
press release from one or a few companies.  Now that OS/2 seems to be getting
the press it really deserves, those of us who are supporters of the system are
happy about it.  We can't help that so many people actually seriously listen
to these fools.
>
>Besides, there's room for more than one true way or more than on OS.
>I'm holding out for Unix/X windows on an HP95...
>
>Joe
>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11! : -)
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:19:38 GMT

There is a difference between glitz and neat presentation.  To me, a
neat presentation is one that is done on a laser printer with
proportional fonts.  Anything less than that is sloppy and detracts
from what is being said.  This in no way implies that the content of 
a properly prepared document is superior to the improperly prepared
document.  However, and I repeat, that anyone who has not mastered
such simple techmologies as laser printers and proportionally spaced
fonts probably does not have anything worth reading.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | Why has government been instituted at all?
Field Robotics Center,          | Because the passions of man will not con-
Carnegie Mellon University      | form to the dictates of reason and justice
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | without constraint.  Alexander Hamilton
(412) 268-3856                  | 
                                | 
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!  :-)
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:11:45 GMT
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
 <1992Nov12.213651.18170@netcom.com> <GERRY.92Nov13123205@onion.cmu.edu> <1992Nov18.062421.17519@frog.CRDS.COM>
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

In article <1992Nov18.062421.17519@frog.CRDS.COM> rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly) writes:

   In article <GERRY.92Nov13123205@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
   >Loo, I don't want to insult your mon, but she's pretty stupid.  With
   >the exception of TeX, which I assume she doesn't use, no text based
   >editor even comes close to looking as good as the worst windows based
   >editor.   Some people are still living in the dark ages, and think of
   >computers as typewriters with built in spell checkers.  Luckily, that
   >breed will soon die off.


   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?

   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
Field Robotics Center,          | has engraved in the heart of every citizen,
Carnegie Mellon University      | and which take a new force when they are
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | solemnly recognized by all: -For a nation
(412) 268-3856                  | to love liberty, it is sufficient that she
                                | knows it; and to be free, it is sufficient
The opinions expressed are mine | that she wills it.  Marquis de Lafeyette
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: Borland C++ for OS/2=====Tell us how it is coming along!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: comp.os.os2.programmer
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 08:27:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.215311.760@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <3325@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>>Borland is spending a lot of energy on supporting Win32 and Win32s. I
>>suspect them to use time of the OS/2 project for this. Win32 will be
>>released 12 weeks after NT (the product is part of EEP just like the
>>OS/2 version).
>
>Read the anouncement on comp.os.os2.apps.  Borland C++ for OS/2 2.0
>has now been released.  The anouncement says nothing about
>availability dates or pricing, however.

Sorry, but your first statement is simply incorrect -- Borland C++ for
OS/2 2.0 has *NOT* been released yet.

>As for the rest of your post, why do you think Borland is using time
>allocated for OS/2 development to work on Win32?  Considering that
>Win32 will be released 12 weeks after NT, which is now scheduled for
>June/July '93, and BC++/2 will be out real soon now, your accusation
>makes no sense.

This part I'm curious about.  I can understand your mistake about BC++ for
OS/2 2.0 (due to the "announcement"), but I'm wondering where you're
getting your June/July '93 date for Windows NT.  Care to fill me in?

>  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to

- Mike
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:31:07 GMT

sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

>In article <1992Nov13.164155.14309@msc.cornell.edu> tommy@msc.cornell.edu (Mike Thompson) writes:
>>As a programmer trying to develop a 32 application for OS/2 2.0, I am 
>>increasingly finding it difficult to remain dedicated to OS/2 development.
>>I find it VERY funny that IBM should try to sell OS/2 as crashproof
>>operating system.  

>Actually, the finest Unices can be brought to their knees rather
>easily.  The Internet Worm is but one example.  As an unintentional
>side effect, the Worm soaked up so much CPU time so as to make the
>systems it invaded virtually inoperable.

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.
See, MVS provides virtual file storage in something called VIO datasets.
I had a production job which sorted a huge disk file and it specified 4
work datasets of 250 cylinders each (total about 675M).  An editing
error (change all SYSDA VIO) caused theses work datasets to be
designated for virtual datasets.  As my job ran, it continued to request
more RAM to satsify this request.  As people logged off, I'd get the
physical RAM as well as eating up more and more swap storage.  The end
result was that no one could log on, no jobs could run (I had all system
memory resources), the systems programmers couldn't even fire up their
tools.  After about 10 minutes I realized waht was happening and I cancelled
my job (I could still do that).  I ran into the system's office and they
were all clustered around one terminal, and I said "It's OK now."  They
were ready to IPL (reboot) until I stopped them and explained it all.

Nothing is crashproof.

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John E. Brock)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jbrock
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:26:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.164438.27020@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
|> 
|> VM/CMS is much more limited.  You don't have the ability to spawn
|> additional processes or create additional virtual machines (that
|> requires editing system parameter tables and re-IPLing the system).
|> Under Unix, any process can spawn additional processes, each getting a
|> slice of CPU time.
|> 
|> This will kill any Unix system:
|> 
|> 	while (1) fork();
|> 
|> Such a thing can be done on most multitasking systems, and will kill
|> any OS that allows user-level processes to spawn child processes.

I understand why unlimited forking will kill UNIX.  What I don't
understand is why operating systems of more recent design don't protect
themselves from such obvious dangers.  It doesn't seem that hard to me
conceptually.  In the above example the forks should begin to fail
before they have eaten up all the resources that the operating system
needs to function.  In other words, the operating system should reserve
sufficient resources to guarantee its own operation, and it should know
when it needs to begin turning down requests from resource hogs.  Is
this really impossible?

There are certainly other things that might be done.  For example,
where is it written that all user processes must get equal time
slices?  If I am one of ten users in a machine, and I decide to launch
100 processes, why shouldn't the operating system balance things out so
my processes only compete with each other for my ten percent of the
user time slice, while other users are unaffected?  If the OS can
protect user memory, why can't it protect other resources?

I don't know, maybe it's impossible to do this kind of thing
efficiently.  But somehow I can't help thinking that somebody somewhere
just decided that it wasn't worth the effort.  I can't believe it's
impossible to better what we've got, and it's not as though people
haven't had plenty of time to think these things through!

-- 
John Brock
uunet!csfb1!jbrock
jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8657 comp.os.os2.misc:37368
From: gnash@ee.uts.edu.au (Greg Nash)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 22 Nov 92 23:40:31 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
NNTP-Posting-Host: rossi.ee.uts.edu.au

jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock) writes:

>I'm sorry, but I do a lot of work on an IBM mainframe running VM/CMS,
>and an application running in a virtual machine just does not crash the
>system (unless the machine has special privileges), no matter how badly
>behaved it is.  I can forgive UNIX for being crashable (it's *old*),
>but I don't think a normal application (as opposed to a device driver
>or something that touches the hardware directly) should ever be able to
>crash a fully modern operating system.  We should have *something* to
>show for all these years of operating system experience, shouldn't we?

Yes, I would hope things are on the improve. I have discussed the principle
of the unix-crashing trick with someone from microsoft who is keen to push
anything onto the NT team that might help them.
  Somewhere along the line one must face the question of responsibility.
Some people must be given priveleges (writers of the OS, definitely!), and
virtually everyone should be protected from themselves to some degree. eg
to write a device driver, you need direct access to certain hardware, yet
you should ensure your own code is ok, and that your code cannot be abused.

The unix-crashing trick I mentioned is much more severe than the
while true fork someone posed, and has nothing to do with user priveleges
other than access to a c compiler!

 -- Greg Nash


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tdukes@eng.auburn.edu (Todd J Dukes)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:07:46 GMT

In article <clements-191192184605@bwayman.abq.bdm.com> clements@abq.bdm.com (Eric Clements) writes:
>In article <BxMG8q.LFD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
>(Ravikuma Venkateswar) wrote:
>
>>    Of course, there are also many problems with them, price being
>>one of them.  If you were to buy a Mac and an IBM compat, and spend
>>the same amount of money on both of them, you could get a lot more
>>computer for the money (or a lot more peripherals) if you chose the
>>IBM compatible.  And, you could have the same abilities as a Mac
>>(multimedia, GUI,etc.).
> 
>Actually, I've done tests with my Quadra 700 - 25 MHz 68040 against a 50
>MHz
>486 DX.  I wrote a simple program in C that did 2 sin calls and 2 cos
>calls,
>1 million times.  The 486 was only 25% faster than my Quadra.  Even though
>it should be at least twice as fast.  So that shows how Motorola is ahead
>of 
>Intel.  (Note: don't forget IBM went to Motorola to fabricate their RS/6000
>chips for the new PowerPCs.  Why would they drop Intel? )
> 
Not exactly. I believe the 68040-25 uses an internal clock doubler like the
new Intel chips. So a good comparison would be the 68040-25 vs the 
Intel 486-50DX2. 

Todd

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cscks@luxury.latrobe.edu.au (Kamal Shaker.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:09:18 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

sherman@unx.sas.com (Chris Sherman) writes:
: In <1992Nov16.071632.9886@cs.joensuu.fi> jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen) writes:
: 
: I would like to know how the different operating systems handle a crash...
: 
: Under MS-DOS, when the system crashes, it just goes away, and you have
: no idea what went wrong.
: 
: Under Unix, if a program or the operating system itself crashes, you get a
: nice core file (usually) that gives you all the information you need to
: track down what happened.  In the case of an operating system, you can send
: this core file to the vender, and maybe a week or two later a patch tape
: will show up.  You system will never crash that way again.  In terms of a
: normal program, you can enter the source level debugger, load in the core
: file, and you can see what the environment looked like at the moment of the
: crash (stack, variables, everything).  It will tell you what line of code
: the program crashed on too.
: 
: Now, how does OS/2 handle crashes?  Windows?  Amiga?  Mac?
: 
: (I have seen on a Mac where a debug window comes up and you can then look
: at hex, but I'm not sure how useful this is in tracing code, or even
: finding out what happened to make it crash).
: 
: I would think that if an operating system preserved the state of everything
: when it died, debugging it would be a heck of alot easier.  I consider the
: core file mechanism to be one of the main reasons why Unix systems are so
: reliable.  When they crash, you can find out exactly why very easily.
: 
: Comments?  Any reason why OS/2 couldn't do something like this? 
: 
: -- 

Well under OS/2 you can get the memory dump of the system
by creating a dump disk with createdd, then when it crashes
press control-alt-numlock twice and insert the disk....

But then I've never gone all the way through with it..
I just use it to get to do a c-a-d....

As for programs... thats up to programming environment isn't it..
just like it should be, eg Borlands is the best I've seen, but
it's up to the programmer to decide which one to use....


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamal Shaker,        | cscks@luxury.latrobe.edu.au or shaker@latcs1.lat.oz.au
Student Vax Cluster, | %SYSTEM-F-EXQUOTA, Alcohol quota exceeded,
La Trobe Uni,        | stomach dumped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's enough water on earth to drown the human population 87.6 million times
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8652 comp.os.os2.misc:37356
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald)
Subject: Re: OS/2 is NOT Crashproof!
Organization: UIUC SCS
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:01:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.150101.6519@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:

f I were to put my crashings on a relatively # I would put it like this:

>Windows 3.0 crashed on me probably 1 per every hour of use.
>Windows 3.1 crashed one me 1 per every 3 hours of use.
>OS/2 2.0 GA crashed on me 1 per every 72 hours of use.
>OS/2 2.0 SP crashes on me 1 per every 24 hours of use.
>Amiga 2000 crashed on me 1 per every 12 hours of use.
>Mac system 7 crashes on me 1 per every 120 hours of use.

>       This is just MY OWN EXPERIENCE

Here is mine:

Windows 3.0  .... once a week
Windows 3.1  .... once a month or less (I've had both DOS sessions and 
                  Windows programs crash, but they don't bring down Windows
                  or the computer. It's true that if our NNTP server
                  dies while I'm using News that Trumpet crashes, and 
                  thereafter it (Trumpet) becomes very 
                  unreliable until I reboot the computer 
DOS          ....  once a month, except when debugging device code
OS/2 pre-GA  .... once every ten seconds (literally)
OS/2 later   .... never tried it, don't intend to until its bug free
Mac  (system 6) .... about once every hour, but I gave up after a couple
                  of days

I think it fair to say that Windows 3.1 is stable enough for me that
I don't worry about it at all. Same for DOS .... except when writing
device code. And I do a lot of code development ... but using a 32 bit 
compiler, instead of crashes, I get hangups (cured with a button on the
back connected to INT10 and triggering a DOS kill program interrupt) or
"Illegal memory reference traps" but very seldom crashes of DOS itself.

I can .... and have  .... crashed everthing I have used (*), including the
Arpanet, predecessor of the Internet. Yes, I crashed the whole net, 
worldwide, three times in one memorable day in 1974, and all the IBM 360's
attached to it along with it. The third time the net gurus found the bug 
in the 360 network code. (*) except Unix machines I have used only formail 
and News.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: The Press is Biased.  Let's move on.
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:33:00 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University



	In response to people saying that the media is not biased
toward Microsoft...

	Keep in mind, we have seen whole articles on NT -- an OS
that may not be about for another 6 - 8 months.  
	
	Byte magazine had its cover story about NT vs Unix.  Nevermind
OS/2 or even Taligent.  

	PC Magazine refers to NT a lot more than OS/2.  Just count
the number of occurances in a casual reading of it if you doubt this.

	There's no doubt, the press is trying to push people towards
NT.  Nevermind that it willnot support DOS particularly well or run
all Windows programs.  Forget that it requires 8 megs of memory to
turn on or 60 megs hard drive space.  But when they mention OS/2,
they condemn the memory usages and hard drive space which are a lot
worse than OS/2's requirements.

	So let's not waste too much bandwidth on whether the press
people are bums or not.  They are biased and they are bums but they
also have to go by what they perceive are market forces.  Even Ziff
can't ignore 1.5 million OS/2 users.  Every magazine each month has
letters from OS/2 users blasting them for their lack of support.  So
OS/2 is getting more attention than before...almost as much as NT.

						-Brad



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jardined@qucis.queensu.ca (Donald Jardine)
Subject: Re: "v8514a.sys" BAD!  Help!
Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:26:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.143917.28046@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>	Having finally gotten OS/2 to work properly (_but *not* WIN-OS2, and
>	there are still problems) I get the following message at bootup:
>
>	"Line 61 in config.sys contains the statement 
>	DEVICE=C:\OS2\MDOS\v8514a.sys   Driver is either bad or
>	missing.  Ignored"
>
> Robert Stephen Rodgers  ||  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  || IRC: Yamanari



I was able to solve this problem as follows: 
Originally in my config.sys file, the line DEVICE=.....vvga.sys   
physically followed the line above that loads v8514a.sys and I kept getting the 
message that you get. (Note: I had manually altered config.sys to add 8514
support).

I solved the problem by reversing the two lines in config.sys.  Black magic :-).