Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/01/28/04:38:12
> >Yeah, FreeWin95 seems cool, but what we need is a cool OS that
> >actually works.
> If you're that worried about something working, you can usually find a
> way to fix it yourself. Almost every bug in DOS has a work-around
> (although they could be rather expensive).
I was referring to Linux here. I have full faith in OpenDOS, which is
an offshoot of DR DOS, an operating system that I used for years. I was
probably an expert at getting that thing to pull the most it could out
of my system. But for the most part, DR DOS is one OS that worked out
of the box. Linux doesn't do that -- it requires some thinking.
> > We need it to take up less memory. And we need it to make
> >full use of the computer's processing power. Linux works well at this, but
> >let's face it: Linux is a joke when it comes to the end user. Who
> That's just because the average end user doesn't know crap about UNIX.
> Linux, AFAIK, is simply UNIX written specifically for the 386 processor.
No kidding. That's why it is not an end-user product. And I think it
could be. Other Unices work out of the box, why can't Linux do
that?
> >wants
> >to fool around editing /etc/* files when they can just use the Control
> >
> >Panel? Now, perhaps this idea seems a little funny, but ****, you
> wouldn't believe how much I hate that Control Panel. It's so much easier
> just to change a line or two in config files (the problem with Windoze is
> finding the right .ini file - I've got hundreds, and they all seem to be
> necessary :(
Yeah, you call that easy, but how much time does it take for you to find
the right file? I could probably go into Control Panel and change all
that stuff on my own easily. I could, if I wanted to, edit the registry
or those .ini files. But I don't want to. Call me lazy if you wish,
but I'll call it productivity.
Paul Brannan
brannanp AT musc DOT edu
- Raw text -