1

"austin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

1,

A creative system that generates a 1? Add a 0 and at least become a
binary system

2, II, two, dos.......

Doug Freese said:

"austin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

1,

A creative system that generates a 1? Add a 0 and at least become a
binary system

2, II, two, dos.......

3

Doug said:

2, II, two, dos.......

Oof! C'mon Doug, you don't want to mess with DOS version 2.x. At
least 3.x! Still ridiculously primitive compared to any legitimate
OS, but relatively usable and stable, best I recall.

"Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Doug said:

2, II, two, dos.......

Oof! C'mon Doug, you don't want to mess with DOS version 2.x. At
least 3.x! Still ridiculously primitive compared to any legitimate
OS, but relatively usable and stable, best I recall.

Believe it or not IBM had DOS operating system(called Disk OS) which
was circa 1970 which is different then PC DOS system as we grew up on.
Now we have Unix and Linux which in my mind is just a roll your own 20
year old DOS with and equally ugly interface. GREP this! AWK that! 🙂

-Doug - Insane after 30 years working on OS's, and some that really
sucked!

Doug Freese said:

"Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Doug said:

2, II, two, dos.......

Oof! C'mon Doug, you don't want to mess with DOS version 2.x. At
least 3.x! Still ridiculously primitive compared to any legitimate
OS, but relatively usable and stable, best I recall.

Believe it or not IBM had DOS operating system(called Disk OS) which
was circa 1970 which is different then PC DOS system as we grew up on.
Now we have Unix and Linux which in my mind is just a roll your own 20
year old DOS with and equally ugly interface. GREP this! AWK that! 🙂

-Doug - Insane after 30 years working on OS's, and some that really
sucked!

You are comparing Linux and Unix to DOS? Well you're using Outlook
Express, after all; it's probably unfair of me to expect you to know
any better 😉

(Yes, I realize you probably know more about this stuff than I
do...)

--
Mark Shroyer
http://markshroyer.com/

"Mark Shroyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You are comparing Linux and Unix to DOS?

Albeit the eunuch pair have more power but they are still at best crude
in interface and once you ask them scale up(run fast) they [censored] the bed
big time. Let me know when a banking system uses linux or unix for
their online transactions that expects 99.9999% up time through all
peaks.

Quoted message said:

Well you're using Outlook
Express, after all; it's probably unfair of me to expect you to know
any better 😉

I'm not a Gates( both Bush's Gates and Microsoft honcho ) fan and I
have used many others but I find OE works just fine to read my mail and
play with USENET and the interface is trivial. At this point in my
computer life I want simplicity and maybe a bell or two.

Quoted message said:

(Yes, I realize you probably know more about this stuff than I
do...)

Maybe yes, maybe no, but I probably have a lot more years of biasness.
🙂 Arguing or discussion OS's is almost like religion, politics and
sexual orientation.

-Doug

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug Freese said:

Now we have Unix and Linux which in my mind is just a roll your own
20 year old DOS with and equally ugly interface.

I'm using unix (well, actually Free BSD) with one of the, if not the,
best interfaces known to humanity.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug Freese said:

Albeit the eunuch pair have more power but they are still at best crude
in interface and once you ask them scale up(run fast) they [censored] the bed
big time.

Hi - I spent a bunch of years writing operating systems and
in particular supercomputer operating systems, and that's
actually not true at all. The system time on X/MP Unicos
averaged well under 5%, which is comparable to (or better
than) some other supercomputer operating systems. Also,
downtime was minimal, which is what you'd expect when a
machine cost ~$35 million in 1986 and had several support
engineers from the manufacturer onsite at each installation.

Also, I think it's quite incorrect to say that DOS and Unix
are comparable under the hood. DOS (both the mainframe one
and the microcomputer one) were essentially program loaders
with filesystems. They lacked process management
capabilities, virtual memory, networking (and network
abstractions) and so on. Your complaint seems to be about
the user interface, which really isn't part of the operating
system (as nearly any Macintosh user will tell you).

Quoted message said:

Let me know when a banking system uses linux or unix for
their online transactions that expects 99.9999% up time through all
peaks.

A number of banking and financial transaction systems run on
several different version of Unix, particularly AIX.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - [email hidden]

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Doug Freese said:

Albeit the eunuch pair have more power but they are still at best crude
in interface and once you ask them scale up(run fast) they [censored] the bed
big time. Let me know when a banking system uses linux or unix for
their online transactions that expects 99.9999% up time through all
peaks.

What exactly do the Unixes "[censored] the bed" in comparison with? Truly
mission-critical applications may still be better suited to
special-purpose mainframe operating systems, but Solaris is renowned
for its scalability and Linux is used on more than 60% of the
world's top 500 supercomputers.

As for user interface, there's nothing out there to beat the
effectiveness of Bash and the standard Unix CLI toolchain once you
know how to use them (although Microsoft PowerShell shows some
promise; it's good to see MS finally getting on the ball and coming
up with a usable shell). And I'd take GNOME or XFCE over the
Windows GUI any day.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well you're using Outlook Express, after all; it's probably
unfair of me to expect you to know any better 😉

I'm not a Gates( both Bush's Gates and Microsoft honcho ) fan and I
have used many others but I find OE works just fine to read my mail and
play with USENET and the interface is trivial. At this point in my
computer life I want simplicity and maybe a bell or two.

Good philosophy... I was only speaking tongue-in-cheek / trying to
be a jerk 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(Yes, I realize you probably know more about this stuff than I
do...)

Maybe yes, maybe no, but I probably have a lot more years of biasness.
🙂 Arguing or discussion OS's is almost like religion, politics and
sexual orientation.

Oh yeah? I bet I could hold my own against you in terms of biasness
any day, any time.

--
Mark Shroyer
http://markshroyer.com/

Melinda Shore said:

Also, I think it's quite incorrect to say that DOS and Unix
are comparable under the hood. DOS (both the mainframe one
and the microcomputer one) were essentially program loaders
with filesystems. They lacked process management
capabilities, virtual memory, networking (and network
abstractions) and so on. Your complaint seems to be about
the user interface, which really isn't part of the operating
system (as nearly any Macintosh user will tell you).

Ah, the good old days when you had to tell your video games which
IRQ your sound card wanted because your "operating system" was
incapable of loading a driver for the thing itself...

--
Mark Shroyer
http://markshroyer.com/

Doug Freese said:

"Mark Shroyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You are comparing Linux and Unix to DOS?

Albeit the eunuch pair have more power but they are still at best crude
in interface and once you ask them scale up(run fast) they [censored] the bed
big time. Let me know when a banking system uses linux or unix for
their online transactions that expects 99.9999% up time through all
peaks.

I agree with Melinda Shore that you seem to be a bit hung up over the CLI --
the existence of a CLI is about the only thing DOS and *N*X have in common.
It surprises me that you'd make such an off-target remark, I would have
expected that you would know better.

As for banking systems, I was recently interviewing for financial positions --
banks, equity desks, hedge funds, trading systems etc.

To put it simply -- Linux everywhere. The bottom line is, it works, and it's
cost effective (not so much OS price which isn't really an issue for $$$
installations, but also that it runs on commodity hardware), the developers
love it, so it gets used.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Shroyer said:

Ah, the good old days when you had to tell your video games which
IRQ your sound card wanted because your "operating system" was
incapable of loading a driver for the thing itself...

Yeah, exactly. Although *way* back in the day (before my
time, even) operating systems consisted of card decks that
you'd link to your program - i/o libraries, basically.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - [email hidden]

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Doug said:

Albeit the eunuch pair have more power but they are still at
best crude in interface

As others have pointed out, not really the case. Sure, a command line
is a command line. (1) But you have other interfaces available -
quite a variety of looks and feels you can slap on top of "X Windows"
running on *nix. Not so dissimilar from the early days of Windows
when DOS was really still the OS but you had a graphical layer running
on top of it.

Quoted message said:

Let me know when a banking system uses linux or unix for their
online transactions that expects 99.9999% up time through all peaks.

Like, say, the company I worked for until last year? :-)

(1) And even then, to the hardcore nerd, the various *nix shells are
miracles of sophistication and refinement compared to what MS-DOS gave
you.

don't mind 1.
He just a cook.

dang I went to warm up onmy tash bike and just snap the plastic gear
shift.
probe not leno.
she told me Not to if I want to no what is good for me.

the cable is hanging I bare touch it.

sing a country song. were the rec can here yah and you might end up in A
texas. number 1 0

42°N,83°W
45° North, 270°160°
Have good day.
Lowtuc Zow

one is the lonelier number that you can ever use.

now the 2nd finger.

got to go. see yah. lol

42°N,83°W
45° North, 270°160°
Have good day.
Lowtuc Zow

"Melinda Shore" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug Freese said:

Albeit the eunuch pair have more power but they are still at best
crude
in interface and once you ask them scale up(run fast) they [censored] the
bed
big time.

Hi - I spent a bunch of years writing operating systems and
in particular supercomputer operating systems, and that's
actually not true at all.

And so did I work on Supercomputer stuff and let me tell you that with a
Unix OS the reliability was very poor. I have been reteired since 2001
and maybe they have got all the kinks out. I can remeber once we added
more cpu power we would more holes.

Quoted message said:

Also, I think it's quite incorrect to say that DOS and Unix
are comparable under the hood. DOS (both the mainframe one
and the microcomputer one) were essentially program loaders
with filesystems. They lacked process management
capabilities, virtual memory, networking (and network
abstractions) and so on.

You took my sarcasm to literal. Yes they are very different but still
ugly systems.

Quoted message said:

Your complaint seems to be about
the user interface, which really isn't part of the operating
system (as nearly any Macintosh user will tell you).

The user interface is not part of the OS? We must have different ideas
of UI.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let me know when a banking system uses linux or unix for
their online transactions that expects 99.9999% up time through all
peaks.

A number of banking and financial transaction systems run on
several different version of Unix, particularly AIX.

AIX? Now that flavor I played with for years and was very poor. I used
to monitor the bugs for that OS and it wasn't a pretty sight. I only
hope since I left the OS settled down. Linux was just off the breast and
I be surprised to find it that reliable for all but a desk top or two
wired together.

Fun to chat.

-Doug

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug Freese said:

And so did I work on Supercomputer stuff and let me tell you that with a
Unix OS the reliability was very poor. I have been reteired since 2001
and maybe they have got all the kinks out. I can remeber once we added
more cpu power we would more holes.

No, it was really very stable back in the 1980s. IBM
had/has an unfortunate habit of glomming a bunch of
workstations together on a fast network and calling it a
"supercomputer" and boy, the SP/1 and SP/2 were not stable,
but I don't tend to think of anything that's running 512
copies of sendmail as something that merits being treated as
a singular noun. Anyway, I'm not sure which "supercomputer"
you're referring to, but what you're claiming was generally
not my experience. Well, I had a KSR/1 for a while and it
used to crash a lot, but that was invariably hardware.

Quoted message said:

The user interface is not part of the OS? We must have different ideas
of UI.

I guess so. One of the nice things about Unix is that you
can put pretty much any user interface on it you want, so
you've got those heinous desktop environments that look like
Windows, you've got MacOS Aqua, you've got glass tubes with
a command line interface, and so on. There are a bunch of
tty system calls that enable a user interface but they
certainly don't enforce any particular interaction style.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - [email hidden]

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Doug Freese said:

And so did I work on Supercomputer stuff and let me tell you that with a
Unix OS the reliability was very poor.

I call [censored]. poor reliability? compared to what?

"Melinda Shore" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Shroyer said:

Ah, the good old days when you had to tell your video games which
IRQ your sound card wanted because your "operating system" was
incapable of loading a driver for the thing itself...

Yeah, exactly. Although *way* back in the day (before my
time, even) operating systems consisted of card decks that
you'd link to your program - i/o libraries, basically.

Not before my time. 😉 I used the card punch(5081's) and before
Extended Binary. I started on a very slow machine and finished in AIX
1024 +boxes wired in parallel vying for the fastest, with a stint
sandwiched betweem on other OS's. And I still think Linux/Unix has a
[censored] user interface and command set.

-DF