Re: OS/2

[Patricia M Godfrey pmgodfrey@xxxxxxxx]

I hope I got that subject right. Thanks for the rundown. I actually have
a system that can run NT--and pretty much ONLY NT in the M$ world, only I
think it requires NT SERVER, and I'm not about to fork over the cash for
that. Right now it has SuSe Linux 6 on it, but I don't have the electric
socket, desk space, or time to play with it. I really like the idea of
Linux: you're not at the mercy of ANY very big corporation. And
WordImPerfect has a Linux version, so I could continue to mesh with my
major client. Only the ones who insist on Word would be a problem, and
one of them is my most prestigious client.
The real stumbling block with both Linux and NT (and I guess OS/2?) is
the fact of a different file system. I suppose there's a profound reason
why that has to be, but it complicates things more than mere
configuration or command line versus GUI does. And I don't like the fact
that everything is off the root in *nix. I like multiple, independent
drives; see my frequent rants on the virtues of partitioning.
Bootlegging their garbage would pay M$ too high a compliment in my view.
Grayware ("only to be sold with a new computer" copies), sure;
out-and-out piracy, no. Jesuitical of me, I suppose.
"...heavily sedated on M$ludge?" Ouch. But then, by you guys' standards,
I suppose it's true. I pass for a guru and techie among my friends and
colleagues, but that just shows where THEY are: In the country of the
blind, the one eyed-man is king. Though I could argue that punch-drunk
from fighting the bully in Redmond would be an equally accurate
characterization. I almost said, "I'm an editor; computers are only a
tool," but that's balderdash, and I cringe when I hear others say it.
Tools are an integral part of how you do your job, and you have to
understand them.
Thanks again.
Patricia