Re: OS/2 & Cyrix

[Peter Evans peterev@xxxxxxxx]

Harmon Seaver:
>I don't know what version of unix [PC Rag] were talking about, it
>certainly is untrue of either Solaris or Linux.

IRIX and Solaris.

PC Rag:
>> Those of you used to the easy installation of applications expected in the
>> Windows and Mac worlds can forget it with Unix.

Harmon Seaver:
> As I said: Nope -- or at least not for anyone who knows unix

PC Rag is a bit vague when it comes to what and how severe the difficulties
are, but says that some or many commercial packages are arranged so the
clock ticks as you use them. The more you use, the more you pay. Is this
untrue?

If I buy a commercial Windoze package on CD-ROM, for example *WordPerfect
Suite*, I can have it up and running within fifteen minutes or so if I
bother to read the "custom" (or similar) installation dialogue and read,
evaluate, and bother to check on or off each of the options. OK, let's say
half an hour if, like MS Office, it has many such options. If I take the
"standard" installation, it can be done in half the time. I can then, of
course, use them for an unlimited time. How does this compare with Unix in
expert hands? (Let's not worry about the time it takes to gain this
expertise.)

>I gave up reading PC Magazine years ago.

As it happens, I'm about to give it up myself. (My subscription is running
out.) I certainly wouldn't have bothered to do all that plagiarizing--er,
I mean quoting, if I imagined that many people here did read it.

>But why do you bother to read trash like [PC rag] for info on unix? Why
>not read Linux Journal, Unix Review, Byte, or something appropriate?

Till recently I had a subscription to the excellent and modestly priced
Byte CD-ROM; this seems to have run out. Thanks for reminding me to renew
it. (I'm only sorry that so much of Byte is devoted to Jerry Pournelle,
IMHO one of the boringest journos on the planet.)

Of course I don't read PC rag for info on UNIX. (Usually I don't read it
at all.) I'm content to have little or no knowledge of UNIX until
something I hear inspires me to gain more. I haven't heard such news yet.
Yes, I believe that I could set up Linux for little money and perhaps with
not so much effort, if I wanted to (particularly since I have a large hard
drive and am already using *System Commander*). I switched from CP/M to
MS-DOS, and later to Win31 (plus MS-DOS), and later still to Win95 (plus
MS-DOS) because each change allowed me to do more of what I wanted to do,
or to do more of what I wanted to do with less effort. Now, if for example
TTG [hello Kenneth Frank!] brings out a debugged XyWrite 5 for Linux, I'll
rush to install Linux.

PC Mag on a translator:
>most Windows application [sic] won't run with Wabi--in fact, we couldn't
>get a few of the applications it does support running at all

PC Mag on emulators such as SoftWindows:
>the overhead of an OS running under an OS leaves a high-priced workstation
>running about as well as a 486/66

Paul, aka PMYG, on the latter product:
>the performance of the emulator has always been miserable, even after
>several upgrades

Harmon Seaver's reply to the first of these charges:
>Sounds like a pretty incompetent bunch there at PC Rag.

And elsewhere, apropos of installation, Harmon Seaver:
>I'd just as soon that it all remained a bit difficult -- more
>job security and higher salaries for me!

As I've said, I'm willing to believe that PC Rag's editors are biased. As
for the testers' alleged incompetence, yes, I'm also willing to believe
that they're less competent than they might be. But when I read here of an
experienced person (Paul) being mystified--and he, surely, has no interest
in portraying UNIX as more difficult than it is--and of Harmon Seaver as
(even just jokingly) content to let this kind of thing remain a mysterious,
I lose interest in UNIX (etc.) real fast.

Which is sad, as I'm not at all happy to see Microsoft moving toward
domination of all significant software markets.

Yes of course it needs experience and care to set up an NT server, to
reconstruct files after a disaster on a compressed 'Doze disk, and to do
various other things imaginable with mainstream Microsloth products. But
if I want to have a standalone (aside from I'net access) system for myself,
and am willing to back up often, Win95 makes it easy and cheap. I don't
have to spend the time needed to become a guru, and I don't have to
importune or pay other gurus for necessary nuggets of wisdom.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Peter Evans