HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:01:13 GMT

In article <C0CpF5.DrD@cs.uiuc.edu>, wang@cs.uiuc.edu (Eric Wang) writes:
|> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >The fact is that if McDonald's has the right to refuse to sell to
|> >anybody who won't just sell exclusivly McBurgers then Microsoft has the
|> >right to offer discounts to anybody willing to sell Windows
|> >exclusively.
|> 
|> Bad analogy, doesn't fit. 

You're about the 5th to call it an analogy, and I never meant it as one.

|> If vendor X decided to become a "Microsoft
|> franchise" (let's assume for now that such a thing even exists), and
|> thereby to go by the name of Microsoft and sell ONLY Microsoft products
|> straight from Redmond (albeit with on-site copying and bundling :-)),
|> then anything Microsoft requires vendor X to do as part of its franchise
|> license would be OK.  But for all X, vendor X is NOT calling itself
|> "Microsoft", and it dang well does sell things that do NOT originate in
|> Redmond, namely computer systems. 


OK, let me get this straight--you would have no objection if Microsoft
exercied EVEN MORE controll over the cloners than they do now, and you 
would have no objection if Microsoft didn't controll them at all.  Its 
just this intermediate level of control that you have an objection to?

|> Microsoft's only relationship with X
|> is as a supplier of a system component, not as a controlling
|> corporation.  In that light, I'd say Microsoft is overstepping its
|> bounds when it tries to levy its royalty on systems that don't include
|> its components.

I don't like it any more than you do.  But I'm not setting either myself
or the FTC or the Federal Goverment up as God to tell Microsoft and the
Clones how they should sleep together.  Just because I don't like what
someone is doing doesn't mean that I should be able to force them to stop
doing it.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tommy@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Mike Thompson,332,54714,2734927)
Subject: Re: ibm tcp/ip a ripoff?
Originator: tommy@snoopy.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:28:26 GMT

In <1iratf$aqq@agate.berkeley.edu> ucbked@athena (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes:

>a) expensive (150 pounds after educational discount);

You get what you pay for (or hopefully).  My hope is that IBM will continue
to support the product - updates, new versions, new improvements ...

>>b) hard to get (took nearly a month after order was placed);

THis is a common complaint and IBM seems to becoming aware of the problem.

>c) few ethernet cards supported (compared to wattcp with clarkson ...

We are using Micon Interlan.  Got drivers from them with no problem.  If
you are careful, you even get the correct .NIF files so the install works
properly.

>d) common tcp/ip programmes not or badly implemented (rsh does ...

But most work.  Better yet, fixes are being made generally available on
Hobbes.  I've yet to see any fixes for FTP's offering.  Are they so good
that they don't need to release interim fixes, or just unwilling.  So far,
I prefer IBM's approach.

>f) screen redraws with remote logins through telnet are very spastic;

Yes, my wish list is that they would support the xterm terminal type.

>g) dos programmes executed from an os2 window through a telnet login lockup

Who still has DOS programs?  That should not a problem in the future.

>i) hard to setup (xenix tcp/ip took me about three hours from
>openning the box to a reliable anonymous ftp service; wattcp took
>about an hour from loading to basic operation; with os2, i'm
>still at it weeks later).

Well, it took me only 30 minutes to bring up the whole business.  Perhaps
since it looks very similar to UNIX, I knew what was meant.  Fill in all
the blanks in ICAT, IBMCOM, and reboot and it worked.

A positive experience in general.  Now for the wish list:
  a. xterm telnet client support
  b. faster NFS, both client and server
  c. AFS support
  d. pseudo-color X-window support
  e. 2.0 support including printer queues to remote machines (nice little
     printer icons that have physical printers on remote UNIX hosts)
  f. Extended attribute support on remote mounted disks.

------------
Michael O. Thompson            tommy@msc.cornell.edu
Cornell University             (607) 255-4714

OS/2:  For the few, the proud, the devoted!

-- 
Michael O. Thompson            tommy@msc.cornell.edu
Cornell University             (607) 255-4714

OS/2:  For the few, the proud, the devoted!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: A radical idea
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 00:21:57 GMT

In article <726685274.AA00000@blkcat.UUCP> Kurt.Westerfeld@f347.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Kurt Westerfeld) writes:
>RA> out there hear this:  Goverment can produce GREAT software-- 
>RA> ADA is far superior 
>RA> to any bastard hack like C or C++ that AT&T (a private  
>RA> industry) ever developed! 
> 
>I have NO experience with ADA; however, my experience with other 
>seasoned programmers from the DC area is that ADA is much like the 
>United States government, in that it is a large language that takes you 
>a long time in to get something done.  Does this statement hold any 
>truth? 
> 
>ADA also happens to be designed by committee.  I know for a fact that 
>this NEVER works with software.  The best software is developed by lone 
>wolf or small teams. 
> 
>I'd just like to hear some thoughts on this issue. 
> 
>    Kurt 
> 
> * KWQ/2 1.0C * 
>                                              

Lightning never strikes twice in the same place. What Grace Hopper
did for COBOL, no government committee could hope to match the
second time around. COBOL for all it's banality provided a common
solution to business problems that is still in use to day. ADA only
survives because DoD mandates it. IF it was such a good thing, the
private sector would have hopped on the bandwagon years ago and we
would all be coding in ADA, not C or C++.

JMHO...

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: -= Signature Recommendations =-
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:01:59 GMT

kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski) writes:
[....]
: Another addition...
: 
: Windows: It's not pretty. It's not ugly. It's pretty ugly!

By my calculations the quoted material in your posting account for
appx 97% of it. Could you learn to use a delete key please?

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: cantor@puffer.cis.ohio-state.edu (scott eric cantor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:32:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan01.191213.9963@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.214648.549@cis.ohio-state.edu> cantor@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (scott eric cantor) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec31.035545.3621@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec29.194318.27886@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>>>>
>>>>And if the fact that DRDOS's emulation is imperfect because of
>>>>information held back by Mircrosoft?
>>>>
>>>
>>>    Oh, this is rich.  The only way that DR-DOS could get perfect
>>>MS-DOS emulation is if they had the source code.  This source
>>>code wasn't provided to them by Microsoft.   Therefore, Microsoft
>>>is a grand evil company for not turning over the hard work of
>>>hundreds of engineers to their competitors.
>>>    Makes sense to me.
>>>
>>>					-Phil
>>
>>	Isn't this the fundamental issue here?  Should Microsoft be required,
>>urged, or forced into giving the OS source to other companies for development?
>
>     I doubt that even the most hardcore MS-basher would
>say yes to this statement.  I may be wrong, though - I'm sure we'll
>find out.
>
>
>>I don't know, frankly.  Has Microsoft ever stated, "DOS is an open system that
>>we want to be fully accessible at the source code level"?
>
>     Not to the best of my knowledge.
>
>
>>  If so, then the
>>anti-MS side has a valid point to make.  If not, then it seems clear that it is
>>not entirely unethical for MS App people to talk to OS people.
>
>     Check your second sentence and tell me if it says what you meant
>it to say.  I find myself in full agreement as it stands.

	Yes, that's what I meant.  I don't claim to be an expert on ethics, so
I`m not making a blanket statement that it is totally ethical if the intent is
to limit competition. But as a practice in and of itself, I see nothing wrong
with it.



[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Scott Cantor			     UNIX is a small, fast, efficient     ]
[ Ohio State University		     operating system upon which every    ]
[ Columbus, Ohio		     graduate student in the universe has ]
[ 				     played pin the tail on the donkey.   ]
[ cantor@cis.ohio-state.edu		          ---- a UNIX guru        ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Best Hardware for OS2
Date: 12 Jan 1993 01:25:12 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuro.usc.edu

>Well... I do not think Unix is what you want :-) There is a 386/40 here that
>runs with Unix, and it crashes at least 2 or 3 times a day :-)))))

Geesh, what version of unix are you running?  I have run IBM Xenix,
SCO Xenix, SCO UNIX SYSV/386 3.2r2.0, and SCO UNIX ODT 1.1 for many
years on multiple systems in several laboratories.  Apart from work
involving development and debugging of new device drivers, the IBM
and SCO unix systems never seem to crash.  Even the 386BSD-0.1 beta
BSD 4.3 unix operating system for 386 machines hardly ever crashed
on me -- and that platform is considered pretty unstable in a unix
system developer's perspective.

My own experience so far with OS/2 2.0 is that, although I can get
it to freeze up on me (perhaps this is a crash -- or perhaps there
is something preventing the system from recognizing keyboard and/or
mouse input) the system rarely crashes.

Nevertheless, IT WOULD BE VERY NICE FOR IBM TO INCORPORATE A MEANS
FOR ESCAPING A HUNG WIN-OS2 SESSION without simply power cycling a
machine.  I have had more trouble with hung WIN-OS2 sessions than
with any other aspect of OS/2 2.0 system operations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander-James Annala
Principal Investigator
Neuroscience Image Analysis Network
HEDCO Neuroscience Building, Fifth Floor
University of Southern California
University Park
Los Angeles, CA 90089-2520
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: NT won't run in 8 megs: Try OS/2 2.1 in 4 megs!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:56:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.095615.26907@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1hr7tsINN544@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>> In <1992Dec29.212551.18659@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>> 
>> ...First there's Steve Withers
>> ]proclaiming that NT requires 90 megs (but at least he's tried it), and
>> ]now you say it takes up "alot [sic] of that 100 meg HD, if not all".
>> [ .. and so on ] 
>
>Having not installed NT on the hard disk in question, I may have erroneously
>assumed that all the 90 megs in use on the disk was NT and its swap file.
>Certainly, my co-worker in Auckland who actually did the NT install told me
>that he had installed nothing else on the disk........so whatever SDK's etc.,
>may have been there, I considered to be "NT". Certainly, the 27meg swap file
>seemed consistent with such a conclusion.....:-)
> 
>Without the "SDK", just how big is it? It won't even start on my 386DX/40 with
>8128K, so I haven't had a chance to examine it closely. It does work on the
>the 8384K 486DX/25 at work....*just*......but I haven't had time to get back
>to it. That extra 256K seems to make or break the start-up.

Without the SDK, the October Beta of Windows NT requires a little over
30 MB for its files, plus 20 MB for a swap file.  It *DOES* run on an
8 MB machine, but is apparently having a problem with yours.

>> It doesnt run well at all in 8 megs.  If you've run it, you SHOULD know
>> that.  He is definitly wrong saying one would want 8 megs for NT. 
>> There is nothing wrong with my comparisons when he says they both
>> perform APPROXIMATLY the same in 8 megs.  I say hes wrong.
>
>I'd agree with you that such a statement by Petzold is not  consistent with
>reality as I know it.......
>
>> ]I don't see why certain people persist in spreading this misinformation
>> ]and trying to discredit people like Petzold who simply don't share your
>> ]narrow viewpoint.  But I suppose that if you say them often enough,
>> ]you'll start to believe them.
>
>I don't deal in FUD. I may make mistakes now and again......but FUD isn't my
>style at all. Thankyou for pointing out that NT takes less than 90 megs of
>disk space. I realise it is more likely to be 60-70 megs.....without the
>SDK.... (Am I getting closer?)

Well, you are getting closer :)  Your friend may have done a full install,
so you can check the size of all the files in the \winnt directory and its
subdirectories.  That should give you the size needed for NT without the
SDK.  Then add the swap file size.

>NT doesn't even run in 8128K....not on the machines I have tried it
>on.....maybe with FAT it might (certainly not NTFS). But then if you run it on
>FAT, there goes the file security and the many performance advantages!

NT does run on an 8 MB machine.  Not terribly fast, but it runs.

>Steve

     - Mike
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre)
Subject: Re: Programming journals
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:21:09 GMT

In article <C0ptvr.Msp@panix.com> os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:
>In <1993Jan11.191816.28924@kvamdata.no> ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre) writes:
>
>>Consider "Computer Language". In the January 1993 edition, Thomas Murphy,
>>who is product review editor for the magazine, ends an article called
>>"Speeding development with 32 bits" with the following quote:
>
>>   "OS/2 is the best $100 a developer could ever spend"
>
>>In general, I think "Computer Language" is one of the greates programmings
>>journals around. Their stuff is first-class, and they've got some great
>>columnists hanging around. Recommended!
>
>>Eirik
>
>Is the editor reachable via the Internet?  If so, could you please either
>post his address or send it to me via email?  Thanks.
>
>Cheers,
>Q
>-- 
>"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
> still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
>------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been browsing the latest issue to see if I could find an internet
address. I could not. However, Computer Language has its own forum on
CompuServe, if you are connected there. The forums is called CLMFORUM.
(GO CLMFORUM). Computer Language is published by Miller Freeman Inc, 
in San Fransisco, on (415) 905-2200. They should be able to give you a
pointer to whoever you want to talk to.

Aside, I would recommend that you picked up a copy of the magazine. It
truly is a great *programming* journal. And, they don't just do listings,
but real stuff, like thorough stories on object-orientation, case,
development tools, etc. I'd like to quote from the editor's notes in
the latest edition:

  "Eight years ago, Carl Landau and Craig LaGrow launched COMPUTER
   LANGUAGE, a magazine for professional programmers. At the time,
   it was considered foolish; computer magazines were folding left
   and right, and the ones that were left were scrambling for ad
   pages. But Carl and Craig knew that there was a need for a
   programming magazine that concentrated on two essentials: pro-
   fessional (not hobbyist) programming and multiple platforms."

										 Larry O'Brien, Editor

This quote describes the magazine. Go get it!

Eirik

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eirik Lygre                                     Phone:    +47 4 623766
Kvam data as                                    Fax  :    +47 4 623985
PO Box 1101 Lura                                Email: ekl@kvamdata.no
N-4301  SANDNES, NORWAY
======================================================================
From: ken@kgwcal.UUCP (Ken Wiens)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 06:15:45 GMT
Organization: Ken Wiens Consulting

> |My opinion on why so much has been focused on GUIs is that multitasking is
> |not as important without a GUI.  Case in point, Unix has had multitasking
> |abilities for years--but unless one was a programmer, programs were more
> |or less run "serially"; and multitasking was basically used by a novice
> |user (if one could say Unix _had_ any novice users) for drudgery such as
> |pipes or servers... PEOPLE didn't multitask with computers, PROGRAMS did.
> 
> I tend to agree with you here, but people did multi-task implicitly
> under unix.  If a program did A|B|C  A, B, and C were run
> concurrently.  This type of behavior gets output to the user a lot
> sooner than the DOS method of creating intermediate scratch files and
> running the programs sequentially.  You didn't need to be a programmer
> to do this, but I agree that the skill level of the operators was
> quite a bit higher than the average GUI user.

Users of SCO unix or Xenix, explicity multitasked whenever they utilized the
multiscreen function.  It acted like multiple windows (except that each window
was a full screen).  IMHO the only advantage of the GUI is a nice way to select
among multiple tasks.  The main difference between SCO's multiscreens and
windows, is that changing among multiscreens was typically extremely fast 
(ie immediate -even on a '286) while changing among windows, can be rather
painful without fairly up to date hardware.  The points are:

1.  You can multitask without having to be graphical to select among the tasks, and


2.  novice users can easily make use of this capability.

 
****************************************************************************
*  Ken Wiens                             *                                 *
*  Ernst & Young                         *    Using OS/2 and UUPC/extended *
*  Calgary, Alberta, Canada              *                                 *
*                                        *                                 *
*  via ken@kgwcal.uucp                   *                                 *
*  voice  403-251-2980                   *                                 *
****************************************************************************
*                                                                          *
* ack  - A signal indicating that the error-detection circuits have failed *
*                                                                          *
****************************************************************************
From: rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: No TrueType Fonts in OS/2 2.1 ?!
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:08:27 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1993Jan7.193312.16367@clark.dgim.doc.ca> tennesen@mars.dgrc.doc.ca  
(Andy Tenne-Sens) writes:

Some stuf deleted:

:I'm disturbed, however, that a recent posting stated that IBM has decided
:not to support TrueType scalable fonts.  Does anyone out there know if
:this is so?  Will IBM depend on Adobe for scalable-font capability?
:If I run OS/2, will I still be able to use Word for Windows 2.0 and
:some kind of scalable fonts?  Will I still be able to embed equations
:and graphics into my documents?

more deleted:

Why wouldn't IBM depend on Adobe, along with many other companies?  TrueType is  
is pure Microsoft.  It seem to me that IBM would rather pay royalties to Adobe  
than to Microsoft.  Looks to me like Microsoft developed TrueType to keep from  
paying royalties to Adobe and Apple.  October 27 PC Magazine has an informative  
bit on fonts.  Looks to me like ATM is better technology too.

Doug
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: Bill Gates:  What a weenie...
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 14:19:42 GMT

>> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>> [A childish diatribe full of personal attacks deleted]

> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>> Well, that does it for Mr. Kovarski -- he's the first one to earn his very
>> own spot in my comp.os.os2.advocacy kill file.  Maybe he won't care, but
>> at least it'll increase the signal-to-noise ratio in this group for me.

[While Mr. Kovarski is indeed in my kill file, trn kindly showed me a
 followup to my own article, which I duly checked out...]

Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> Interesting, indeed. I believe you were the person who send me several
> "hate" mail messages a few weeks ago.

Really?  I don't send hate mail.  Period.  The only mail I recall sending
to Mr. Kovarski was a request for some more objectivity a few weeks ago.

> First of all, and most users will not know this. You are a Waterloo
> student. Mr. Gates invests a lot of money into Waterloo since he
> recruits many Waterloo students from there. Furthermore, some of the
> users in your University are very obsessed with the idea that 
> Microsoft buys their minds as well. No offense, I've been there and
> I know how it works.

First, I'm not a Waterloo *student* -- I'm an alumni (BMath '86).  Second,
as far as I know, Microsoft does not invest any special amounts of money
in Waterloo -- no donations, and only the usual academic pricing for their
software.  While Microsoft does hire a handful of top grads each year 
(they are the only major US corporation to do active recruiting here, so
they get a better choice of grads than they might get hiring at, say, MIT),
this is quite irrelevant.  While at Waterloo, the only Microsoft-written
product I ever used was IBM's PC-DOS -- and current computer science
students don't use even that.  Unix is by far dominant, and there most
certainly is no Microsoft Bias at UW.

Of course, it appears that Mr. Kovarski would define anyone who doesn't
drool at the sight of OS/2 and IBM as a Microsoft fanatic.  Sigh.

For the record, we use Windows, OS/2 2.0, Mac and Unix -- we're hardly a
Microsoft-only shop.

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy