Why Unix is MUCH better than Mac
John Goerzen
ki...@ist.flinders.edu.au (Andrew C. Kirby) writes:
>
>Lets just quickly have a look at the results of Mac's singlemideness of their
>omnipotent singular perfection.
>
>eWorld. Broke. No-one wanted their closed mindeness.
>Pricing themselves out of the market - Apple almost broke.
>
>The machines themselves are good, but I never find them as versatile as a PC.
>I also
>find the price/speed ratio of the Macs absolutely appalling.
>
>And anyway, is this an IBM vs Mac flame group?
I think I'd also like to point out that as of 1969 with the invention of
Unix, it had multi-user and multitasking capabilities. Today, 27 *YEARS*
later, MacOS still has not even come close to approaching the technology in
Unix. 27 years is quite a long time, folks!
Not nearly as versatile!
PS...Check out the Bell Labs web page on the 1960s for info about invention
of Unix...http://www.att.com/timeline/tline60b.html
--
John Goerzen, programmer and owner | Freedom..liberty..justice..democracy|
Communications Centre, Goessel, KS | ..limits on free spech on the Net...|
Main e-mail: jgoe...@complete.org | Which one doesn't belong? |
Joe Ragosta
> I think I'd also like to point out that as of 1969 with the invention of
> Unix, it had multi-user and multitasking capabilities. Today, 27 *YEARS*
> later, MacOS still has not even come close to approaching the technology in
> Unix. 27 years is quite a long time, folks!
And UNIX has had 27 years to catch up with MacOS in terms of usability. It
still hasn't come close.
BTW, Apple hasn't even been in business for 27 years, so your statement is
wrong. Furthermore, please tell me why a desktop OS needs multi-user
capability? Or why you think Macs don't multitask?
>
> Not nearly as versatile!
For the two hundredth time--what can you do on your UNIX box which can't
be done on a Mac. I'm sure you'll decline to answer for the 200th time.
--
Regards, Joe Ragosta
Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1996. Non-exclusive, royalty free
license to distribute this post granted to any service provider
except Microsoft. By posting this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per
posting.
ANDREW GRYGUS
<shi...@voyager.stanford.edu> writes:
>
>I'd also like to point out that the PaperOS, which was originally
>developed in China around 2nd century BC and runs on anything from a
>Post-It note to the entire archive at the Library of Congress,
>features complete language independence, is completely immune from
>software crashes, offers multiuser, multitasking and multiprocessing
>capabilities, supports a robust filesystem that withstands any sort of
>crash, power surge or blackout, user friendliness that makes a joke
>out of Macs,
> . . . .
> Today, more than 20 *CENTURIES* after its invention, the
>computer world still has not even come close to approaching the
>technology in the ancient PaperOS. 20+ centuries is quite a long time,
>folks!
That may be well and good, but China is come rather late in the game.
PapyrusOS predates PaperOS by at least another 20+ centuries, and, with
superior, oriented fiber media, has shown greater data integrity.
PaperOS is simply a clone of PapyrusOS, but has largely replaced it
(except for a few niche markets), due to cheaper media cost.
ClayTabOS (CuniOS), now used only for archival storage, is probably
even older and shows the greatest data integrity, because it is largely
immune to fire - a weakness of PapyrusOS, PaperOS, and computer storage
media. It should be revived for its greater utility in political
campaigns, as PapyrusOS and PaperOS can only virtualy damage opponents,
while CuniOS features both physical and virtual damage.
Andrew Grygus - California Republic
---------------------------------------
Resist Microsoft!
Shimpei Yamashita
>
>In article <4i42jp$q...@baggins.cc.flinders.edu.au>,
> ki...@ist.flinders.edu.au (Andrew C. Kirby) writes:
>>
>>Lets just quickly have a look at the results of Mac's singlemideness of their
>>omnipotent singular perfection.
>>
>>eWorld. Broke. No-one wanted their closed mindeness.
>>Pricing themselves out of the market - Apple almost broke.
>>
>>The machines themselves are good, but I never find them as versatile as a PC.
>>I also
>>find the price/speed ratio of the Macs absolutely appalling.
>>
>>And anyway, is this an IBM vs Mac flame group?
>
>Unix, it had multi-user and multitasking capabilities. Today, 27 *YEARS*
>Unix. 27 years is quite a long time, folks!
>
>Not nearly as versatile!
>
>PS...Check out the Bell Labs web page on the 1960s for info about invention
>of Unix...http://www.att.com/timeline/tline60b.html
I'd also like to point out that the PaperOS, which was originally
developed in China around 2nd century BC and runs on anything from a
Post-It note to the entire archive at the Library of Congress,
features complete language independence, is completely immune from
software crashes, offers multiuser, multitasking and multiprocessing
capabilities, supports a robust filesystem that withstands any sort of
crash, power surge or blackout, user friendliness that makes a joke
out of Macs, a cost-to-utility ratio that mocks even the cheapest
garage-factory PC, graphics support transparently embedded in the OS,
best portability in the market (try folding up and stuffing your
Thinkpad in your shirt pocket), math equation/typesetting support that
makes a mockery out of TeX and its ilk, and non-data processing
capabilities (swatting insects, wiping spaghetti stains off of tables,
blowing nose) which even the most powerful computers can only dream
of. (Yeah, your SPARCserver might hit 200 SPECInt92, but try hitting a
fly with it!) Today, more than 20 *CENTURIES* after its invention, the
computer world still has not even come close to approaching the
technology in the ancient PaperOS. 20+ centuries is quite a long time,
folks!
Not nearly as versatile!
--
Shimpei Yamashita <http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~shimpei/index.html>
Nevin :-] Liber
<shi...@voyager.stanford.edu> wrote:
> I'd also like to point out that the PaperOS, which was originally
> developed in China around 2nd century BC and runs on anything from a
> Post-It note to the entire archive at the Library of Congress,
> features complete language independence, is completely immune from
> software crashes, offers multiuser, multitasking and multiprocessing
> capabilities, supports a robust filesystem that withstands any sort of
> crash, power surge or blackout, user friendliness that makes a joke
> out of Macs, a cost-to-utility ratio that mocks even the cheapest
> garage-factory PC, graphics support transparently embedded in the OS,
> best portability in the market (try folding up and stuffing your
> Thinkpad in your shirt pocket), math equation/typesetting support that
> makes a mockery out of TeX and its ilk, and non-data processing
> capabilities (swatting insects, wiping spaghetti stains off of tables,
> blowing nose) which even the most powerful computers can only dream
> of. (Yeah, your SPARCserver might hit 200 SPECInt92, but try hitting a
> fly with it!) Today, more than 20 *CENTURIES* after its invention, the
> computer world still has not even come close to approaching the
> technology in the ancient PaperOS. 20+ centuries is quite a long time,
> folks!
You left out a few features:
Animation (just flip the pages of the pad):
Encryption (tear it in half)
Compression (crumble it up)
Cheap networking (turn it into a paper airplane)
Impact-resistant (so what if you drop it)
Handwriting recognition
Instant screen refresh
Inexpensive color
No artifacts due to antialiasing
Persistant storage
Etc., etc.
I bought a Nuttin'(TM) (it looks like a Newton, but used the PaperOS
instead), and I've never looked back.
--
Nevin ":-)" Liber ne...@CS.Arizona.EDU (520) 293-2799
Brendan McKeon
[...]
> You
> like a close interface with your OS? How about LIVING in it! Sure, others
> might call it a cave [...]
"Primitive Operating Environment".
FWIW, early versions did have mice, but it was a long time before
support for windows became commonplace.
(BTW - it's commonly believed that human skeletal remains found in such
caves are the earlies example of a class of utilities known as TSR's
[Terminate and Stay Resident])
> Now you go around bragging about the portability of your OSs and
> how you can find all of the software for them. [...]
Portability wasn't really an issue then anyway - most of the systems
tended to be monolithic fixed installations.
> Plus those are not anywhere as stable as the StunixOS is. PapyrusOS is
> notorious for burning. Does the Library of Alexandria ring a bell?
No, AFAIK it only acted as a file repository. Multimedia support wasn't
then commonly available.
> And what about the ClayOS.
A bit thin on the ground these days, but great for building mud's.
> Candide
Brendan.
--
char c[39],i,j;main(){srandom(time(0)/*/ Brendan McKeon /*/);for(
;i++<11;){for(j=39;j--;)printf((c[j]/*/ bmc...@alf2.tcd.ie /*/=random
()%2)?"/ ":" \\");putchar('\n');for/*/ http://alf2.tcd.ie/~bmckeon /*/(j=39;j;
)printf(c[--j]?" /":"\\ ");putchar/*/ /*/('\n');}}
Candide
GRYGUS ) wrote:
> In <4iltij$3...@apollo0.Stanford.EDU> Shimpei Yamashita
> <shi...@voyager.stanford.edu> writes:
> >
> >I'd also like to point out that the PaperOS, which was originally
> >developed in China around 2nd century BC and runs on anything from a
> >Post-It note to the entire archive at the Library of Congress,
> >features complete language independence, is completely immune from
> >software crashes, offers multiuser, multitasking and multiprocessing
> >capabilities, supports a robust filesystem that withstands any sort of
> >crash, power surge or blackout, user friendliness that makes a joke
> >out of Macs,
{DELETED}
> ClayTabOS (CuniOS), now used only for archival storage, is probably
> even older and shows the greatest data integrity, because it is largely
> immune to fire - a weakness of PapyrusOS, PaperOS, and computer storage
> media. It should be revived for its greater utility in political
> campaigns, as PapyrusOS and PaperOS can only virtualy damage opponents,
> while CuniOS features both physical and virtual damage.
>
> Andrew Grygus - California Republic
> ---------------------------------------
> Resist Microsoft!
Well, now THERE, are some OSs that bring back some memories!... But
both of you are talking about the relatively new Clay and Papyrus OSs.
Where would you be with those OSs, and would there be an StoneNet at all,
were it not for the Stunix OS. Now there is the mother of all OSs! You
like a close interface with your OS? How about LIVING in it! Sure, others
might call it a cave but it is the damn best and reliable data storage
media/OS. Now you go around bragging about the portability of your OSs and
how you can find all of the software for them. Think about the days when
we got things done, with CLIs mind you! No fancy mice or pretentious
pens/plumes or bamboo sticks for us, the StunixOS crew!
No, we had to do it THE HARD WAY, let me tell you!...Do this, do that...
we had to tell the damn thing WHAT/WHEN and HOW to do EVERYTHING!...That's
how we separeate the Stunix Users from the boys (your Papyrus/Clay and
PaperOSs). Besides, with those you are confined by stupid GUIs which
force you to do everything as Papyrus, Clay or Paper mouse/plume/sharp
stick commands!
Plus those are not anywhere as stable as the StunixOS is. PapyrusOS is
notorious for burning. Does the Library of Alexandria ring a bell? It
should!... And what about the ClayOS. You subject it to a mechanical shock
and there goes HALF of your OS! Not so with the Stunix OS! It keeps on
ticking, even if you give it a licking! Which you cant do because it is
off limits for the public...Plus its too dark and damp in those place,
anyway...
So, if you want to talk about a REAL OS, I suggest you look at the one
that is the most versatile (any more or less flat surface will do) and
most stable (stick and stone WILL NOT break the bones of a StunixOS, but
they WILL crash/burn or break your fancy OSs!)
It takes a REAL caveman...ahem, I mean a REAL Stunix Administrator to
run the big boy's OS! Your OSs are for kids!...And kids will break
things!...Ha! Let them try that with the StunixOS!
Candide
:)
--
"Eritis sicut Deus, scientes bonum et malum"
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
khc...@maths.unsw.edu.au
: In <4iltij$3...@apollo0.Stanford.EDU> Shimpei Yamashita
: <shi...@voyager.stanford.edu> writes:
: >
: >I'd also like to point out that the PaperOS, which was originally
:
: PapyrusOS predates PaperOS by at least another 20+ centuries, and, with
: superior, oriented fiber media, has shown greater data integrity.
: PaperOS is simply a clone of PapyrusOS, but has largely replaced it
: (except for a few niche markets), due to cheaper media cost.
: ClayTabOS (CuniOS), now used only for archival storage, is probably
: even older and shows the greatest data integrity, because it is largely
: immune to fire - a weakness of PapyrusOS, PaperOS, and computer storage
: media. It should be revived for its greater utility in political
: campaigns, as PapyrusOS and PaperOS can only virtualy damage opponents,
: while CuniOS features both physical and virtual damage.
Note that CuniOS is rather slow though... needs to be fired in an oven
or else it may crumble.
Cheers,
Kin Hoong
ANDREW GRYGUS
>
>ANDREW GRYGUS (a...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: ClayTabOS (CuniOS), now used only for archival storage, is probably
>: even older and shows the greatest data integrity, because it is
largely
>: immune to fire - a weakness of PapyrusOS, PaperOS, and computer
storage
>: media.
>
>Note that CuniOS is rather slow though... needs to be fired in an oven
>or else it may crumble.
Hey! but so is Windows - and there you don't have the option of firing
it in an oven. It just crumbles. period.
Andrew Grygus - California Republic
----------------------------------------
Resist Microsoft!
Paul Christenson
: >Post-It note to the entire archive at the Library of Congress,
: That may be well and good, but China is come rather late in the game.
: PapyrusOS predates PaperOS by at least another 20+ centuries,
: ClayTabOS (CuniOS), now used only for archival storage, is probably
: even older and shows the greatest data integrity,
However, the oldest still in use is SpeechOS. It's built-in networking
capability, natural language interface, and installed user base even
larger than PaperOS account for its popularity even today. Although
its data permanence leave something to be desired, it's high speed can
make up for it in many situations.
There was a prototype version, called GruntOS (name in development: UGH).
A derivative of this, called BabyTalk <TM>, is used around the world in
developing systems.
Eric Remy
Christenson) wrote:
>
> However, the oldest still in use is SpeechOS. It's built-in networking
> capability, natural language interface, and installed user base even
> larger than PaperOS account for its popularity even today. Although
> its data permanence leave something to be desired, it's high speed can
> make up for it in many situations.
>
> There was a prototype version, called GruntOS (name in development: UGH).
> A derivative of this, called BabyTalk <TM>, is used around the world in
> developing systems.
GruntOS was actually developed side by side with ClubOS [1], which in turn
was developed from a combination of RockOS and StickOS. Although mostly
used in special situations such as aggression displays, defense from large
animals, and mate selection, ClubOS proved to be a highly robust system
with a large impact on both its users and victims. In general, it was
shown to affect the target audience far quicker than any form of SpeechOS
or GruntOS.
ClubOS is still with us today, and is still able to get the message
across. However, society has been listening far too much to SpeechOS
advocates, to the extent that the use of ClubOS is often banned.
Personally, I've been asking the US Justice Department to legalize the use
of ClubOS for certain problems [2] where SpeechOS seems to lamentably
fail.
Support ClubOS now!
[1] Not to be confused with The Club <tm>, although The Club <tm> can
easily be interfaced with ClubOS with quite good results.
[2] Primarily telemarketers, MAKE.MONEY.FAST posters, and folks who can't
seem to keep .advocacy flamerwars out of alt.folklore.computers.
[3] This footnote intentionally left blank. [4]
[4] Well, almost blank.
--
Eric Remy edr...@chem1.usc.edu
"See, I told you that they'd listen to Reason."- Fisheye, _Snow Crash_
I have no idea what (or how) USC thinks, so I certainly can't be expressing its opinion
Chad Irby
> to...@soho.ios.com (Candide) writes:
> > You like a close interface with your OS? How about LIVING in it! Sure,
> > others might call it a cave [...]
> >
>
> "Primitive Operating Environment".
>
> FWIW, early versions did have mice, but it was a long time before
> support for windows became commonplace.
Mice may have been in widespread use in early Operating Environments, but
it wasn't until much later, during the CheeseOS era, that the mouse became
a well accepted input device. As a matter of fact, many mice even *now*
are still inscribing comments on various cheeselike media...
--
Chad Irby | My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@magicnet.net | for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
Craig Maloney
: immune to fire - a weakness of PapyrusOS, PaperOS, and computer storage
: campaigns, as PapyrusOS and PaperOS can only virtualy damage opponents,
: while CuniOS features both physical and virtual damage.
Yes, but PaperOS and PapyrusOS are more resistant to crashes than ClayTabOS.
Although recovery can be quick after a crash, provided it doesn't shatter
the file system. :)
: Andrew Grygus - California Republic
: ---------------------------------------
: Resist Microsoft!
--
||| Craig Maloney | Phone: [313] 390-8096 | Automotive Safety Center |||
||| Opinions expressed are my own. | Ford Motor Company |||
||| "This message rated [R]. May contain violent punctuation, explicit |||
||| grammatical errors, misspelled language and a shocking ending with |||
||| a preposition." -- Michael Patterson | Censor Congress. |||
Ravi K. Swamy
Craig Maloney <cmal...@sld024.cpd.ford.com> wrote:
>: ClayTabOS (CuniOS), now used only for archival storage, is probably
>: even older and shows the greatest data integrity, because it is largely
>: immune to fire - a weakness of PapyrusOS, PaperOS, and computer storage
>: media. It should be revived for its greater utility in political
>: campaigns, as PapyrusOS and PaperOS can only virtualy damage opponents,
>: while CuniOS features both physical and virtual damage.
>
>Yes, but PaperOS and PapyrusOS are more resistant to crashes than ClayTabOS.
>Although recovery can be quick after a crash, provided it doesn't shatter
>the file system. :)
It seems that PaperOS is the secret code name of Hamilton 96 in its
upgraded 45-bit form. I'm sure some of you remember Ham95 from
last summer...
Ravi
--
Ravi K. Swamy http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rkswamy/www/
rks...@eos.ncsu.edu ro...@genom.com
Old Man Kensey
> : >I'd also like to point out that the PaperOS, which was originally
> : >developed in China around 2nd century BC and runs on anything from a
> : >Post-It note to the entire archive at the Library of Congress,
>
> : That may be well and good, but China is come rather late in the game.
> : PapyrusOS predates PaperOS by at least another 20+ centuries,
>
> : ClayTabOS (CuniOS), now used only for archival storage, is probably
> : even older and shows the greatest data integrity,
>
> However, the oldest still in use is SpeechOS. It's built-in networking
> capability, natural language interface, and installed user base even
> larger than PaperOS account for its popularity even today. Although
> its data permanence leave something to be desired, it's high speed can
> make up for it in many situations.
>
> There was a prototype version, called GruntOS (name in development: UGH).
> A derivative of this, called BabyTalk <TM>, is used around the world in
> developing systems.
You're wrong when you say SpeechOS is the oldest. Before SpeechOS was the
infinitely superior, inherently graphical WaveOS (also known as View
(tm)). With adaptable objects, WaveOS was the most expandable OS ever...
-- Joe
--
Joe Thompson | Cornerstone Networks | Opinions expressed here may or
ken...@cstone.net | 410 E. Water St. | may not be those of Cornerstone
On-Site Service & | Charlottesville, VA | Networks, Inc.
Technical Support | 804.984.5600 | http://www.cstone.net/~kensey
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>That may be well and good, but China is come rather late in the game.
>PapyrusOS predates PaperOS by at least another 20+ centuries, and, with
>superior, oriented fiber media, has shown greater data integrity.
>PaperOS is simply a clone of PapyrusOS, but has largely replaced it
>(except for a few niche markets), due to cheaper media cost.
>ClayTabOS (CuniOS), now used only for archival storage, is probably
>even older and shows the greatest data integrity, because it is largely
>immune to fire - a weakness of PapyrusOS, PaperOS, and computer storage
>media. It should be revived for its greater utility in political
>campaigns, as PapyrusOS and PaperOS can only virtualy damage opponents,
>while CuniOS features both physical and virtual damage.
...and given properly shaped media had possibly the first support for
Compact Discs.
>Andrew Grygus - California Republic
>---------------------------------------
>Resist Microsoft!
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
C Pronunciation Guide:
y=x++; "wye equals ex plus plus semicolon"
x=x++; "ex equals ex doublecross semicolon"
Joe Sloan
Joe Ragosta <jrag...@dca.net> wrote:
>
>And UNIX has had 27 years to catch up with MacOS in terms of usability. It
>still hasn't come close.
Joe, have you actually used a modern Unix machine such as an SGI?
or any other Unix system (Linux, FreeBSD, etc) with X11R6 and a
decent window manager? It seems awful usable to me -
One might argue that the mac is "more" usable, and for a lot of people
that may well be so - but come on, to say Unix "hasn't come close"?
that's a bit extreme.
--
Joe Sloan Happily running Unix!
j...@ModernMan.com
Joe Sloan
Unknown
wrote:
>For the two hundredth time--what can you do on your UNIX box which can't
>be done on a Mac. I'm sure you'll decline to answer for the 200th time.
>
rm -rf /
:-)
Doctor Z.
mrkite
>
> In article <4idejj$9...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) wrote:
>
> > Unix, it had multi-user and multitasking capabilities. Today, 27 *YEARS*
> > Unix. 27 years is quite a long time, folks!
>
> And UNIX has had 27 years to catch up with MacOS in terms of usability. It
> still hasn't come close.
>
Unix is designed for power and versatilty...not clickability.
> >
> > Not nearly as versatile!
>
> For the two hundredth time--what can you do on your UNIX box which can't
> be done on a Mac. I'm sure you'll decline to answer for the 200th time.
I've answered this many times. I want to see you redirect the output of
a program to a file on a mac. How about redirecting the output of one
program to the input of another?
-mrk
Nevin :-] Liber
> Unix is designed for power and versatilty...not clickability.
Good copout.
> I've answered this many times. I want to see you redirect the output of
> a program to a file on a mac. How about redirecting the output of one
> program to the input of another?
This has no meaning? Should I take a snapshot of my screen? Since we
aren't stuck with one-directional streams of text, what input and output
are you trying to redirect?
tkachev
> BTW, Apple hasn't even been in business for 27 years, so your statement is
> wrong. Furthermore, please tell me why a desktop OS needs multi-user
> capability? Or why you think Macs don't multitask?
>
Oh, sure. I don't need multi-tasking because my computer isn't networked.
It makes perfect sence. Sure I don't want multi-tasking when I'm
downloading a 10Mb file...
Real name? What's that?
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > And UNIX has had 27 years to catch up with MacOS in terms of usability. It
> > still hasn't come close.
> >
>
> Unix is designed for power and versatilty...not clickability.
And has done it's job and is great for high-end systems, but not the
novice user that now inhabits the Internet. ;)
>
> > For the two hundredth time--what can you do on your UNIX box which can't
> > be done on a Mac. I'm sure you'll decline to answer for the 200th time.
>
> I've answered this many times. I want to see you redirect the output of
> a program to a file on a mac.
Two words: Screen shot. <g> (No, I'm *NOT* serious.)
>How about redirecting the output of one
> program to the input of another?
Two words: AppleScript and AppleEvents (Yes, I'm serious.)
And my eternal questions: DOES IT REALLY F*CKING MATTER? Every computer
does what it was meant to do (Yes, even Win95). UNIX was meant for
multitaskinga nd server capabilities. Voila. The Mac for DTP,
multimedia, compatablity (no, I'm not starting a war with that, they've
only just begun that feature QUITE recently), and usability aka
'clickability'. They do what they were designed to do.
<A HREF:"http://always.apple.com/">Netscape users! Click me! >;-) </A>
A. Knight
7636...@compuserve.com
mrkite
>
> In article <31532A81...@nowhere.com>, mrkite <mrk...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Unix is designed for power and versatilty...not clickability.
>
Copout? that's what it's for. Unix is the most versatile os available.
There's NOTHING it can't do.
>
> > I've answered this many times. I want to see you redirect the output of
> > a program to a file on a mac. How about redirecting the output of one
> > program to the input of another?
>
> This has no meaning? Should I take a snapshot of my screen? Since we
> aren't stuck with one-directional streams of text, what input and output
> are you trying to redirect?
I dunno, maybe this news message... i want to redirect it to a spelling
program to check for spelling. Then direct it to a mail program to mail
it to all my friends.
You use streams of text all over the internet. Your postmaster uses
news-streams, etc...etc...
-mrk
Admiral
> > For the two hundredth time--what can you do on your UNIX box which can't
> > be done on a Mac. I'm sure you'll decline to answer for the 200th time.
>
> I've answered this many times. I want to see you redirect the output of
> a program to a file on a mac. How about redirecting the output of one
> program to the input of another?
>
> -mrk
You can re-direct output via apple events. Apple scripts can easily do
this. No, the mac does not have a command prompt, but it can re-direct
output and input.
--
*
* *
* * Admiral ...
Old Man Kensey
<tka...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
You've completely failed to make sense here. What he's just told you is
that Macs *do* in fact multitask. That they don't do it preemptively is
true, but they do it.
You then proceeded to ignore the large clue you were handed and make a
fool of yourself.
For that matter, Macs even have multi-user capability: simple stuff like
file-sharing is built-in, or you can use a product like Timbuktu for
actual remote control. -- Joe
QuiksilveR
>Joe Ragosta wrote:
>>
>> In article <4idejj$9...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) wrote:
>>
>> > I think I'd also like to point out that as of 1969 with the invention of
>> > Unix, it had multi-user and multitasking capabilities. Today, 27 *YEARS*
>> > later, MacOS still has not even come close to approaching the technology in
>> > Unix. 27 years is quite a long time, folks!
>>
>> And UNIX has had 27 years to catch up with MacOS in terms of usability. It
>> still hasn't come close.
>>
>
>Unix is designed for power and versatilty...not clickability.
>
>> >
>> > Not nearly as versatile!
>>
>> For the two hundredth time--what can you do on your UNIX box which can't
>> be done on a Mac. I'm sure you'll decline to answer for the 200th time.
>
>I've answered this many times. I want to see you redirect the output of
>a program to a file on a mac. How about redirecting the output of one
>program to the input of another?
>
>-mrk
Since all of really appear to know what you are talking about, I'll
just keep this short, but 1) I use UNIX, MacOS, WinNT, and Win95 on an
almost day-to-day basis because of my work, but for you wannabe
experts, the MACOS IS BASED ON UNIX, so stop bragging about one or the
other. The Mac can be stripped of it's GUI, to a command prompt based
computer, it is possible to change it so much that it can't even be
recognizable. I know because I did it. Sure, any avberage Joe Schmo
can't do it, but trust me, they are very similar once stripped of all
the little whistles bells and tweeters. Sostop whining and SHUT UP.
QuiksilveR
Ingo Paschke
jrag...@dca.net (Joe Ragosta) writes:
>In article <4idejj$9...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) wrote:
>For the two hundredth time--what can you do on your UNIX box which can't
>be done on a Mac. I'm sure you'll decline to answer for the 200th time.
Come on, Macs don't even have a shell.
You can't do such simple tasks as backing up host1 using host2 to
compress the data on host3's streamer with
"tar cvf - * | rsh host2 'gzip -9' | rsh host3 'cat >/dev/rst0'"
which is quite useful if host1 and host3 are slow machines and host3
is the only one with a streamer attached.
This is _one_ example.
MacOS's fault is that it's _ONLY_ a GUI and _NOT_ a serious operating
system. It doesn't even implement the simplest mechanisms to prevent an
erratic program to mess up the whole system, the filesystem's a joke and
you don't really want to call _that_ multitasking, do you?
Ciao,
Ingo.
--
Ingo Paschke
Braunschweig, Germany
[MIME, Nextmail welcome.]
Tim Harris
>a program to a file on a mac. How about redirecting the output of one
>program to the input of another?
Redirection is more of a tool available on a UNIX system rather than something
that you want to use it for. I do not often sit down at a computer and think
'What am I going to do today?' "I know, I'll redirect some files".
Given a task such as creating a list of people matching certain criteria I
may do so on UNIX with, say, grep and redirection. On a Mac I may do so
using a database program.
Both have their own strengths. UNIX provides, imho, a better environment for
multiple users (afaik the mac does not claim to do this) and for programing
network applications. On the other hand, mac applications like Photoshop
and QuarkXPress provide what I think are some of the best designed
user interfaces currently available and for publishing are clear leaders
over UNIX applications.
Newsgroups list trimmed appropriately.
tim
--
finger tl...@elara.chu.cam.ac.uk | "These rivers run too deep with schemes
for more info + postal address | of men for days that lay ahead"
David K. Every
> >For the two hundredth time--what can you do on your UNIX box which can't
> >be done on a Mac. I'm sure you'll decline to answer for the 200th time.
>
> Come on, Macs don't even have a shell.
For the 200th time WE HAVE MANY!
> You can't do such simple tasks as backing up host1 using host2 to
> compress the data on host3's streamer with
> "tar cvf - * | rsh host2 'gzip -9' | rsh host3 'cat >/dev/rst0'"
Yes we can... you just are ignorant of the Mac.
--
David K. Every
Sr. Software Engineer
Jostens Learning Corp.
Geoffrey Alexander
>In article <31532A81...@nowhere.com>, mrkite <mrk...@nowhere.com> wrote:
{debates on MacOS vs. Unix are useless and counter-productive. I personally use both, I
personally love both. But to answer another useless and counterproductive argument...}
>> I've answered this many times. I want to see you redirect the output of
>> a program to a file on a mac....
Choose "save" from the menu.
>> How about redirecting the output of one
>> program to the input of another?
Select the contents of one application's window and drag it to the icon of another
application.
Both of these tasks can be scripted.
Really, it's not a matter of what you can do on os 'y' that you can't do on os 'z' -- it's
a matter of what platform is best suited to a particular way of working. I find that if I
know exactly what I want to do, I have a broader range of tools to do it with and a better
way of automating the work on Unix than anywhere else. If I'm not sure of what I want to
do, but want all the options I might have immediately available to use and experiment
with, the modeless & visual interface of the Mac is perfect. The Mac is for tasks which
require that I experiment, one step at a time, picking up the tool I need as though it sat
on my easel. The Unix is for those times when I have to process data in a fairly
stereotypical way, where performing each step individually would be wasteful.
To use an OS intelligently requires you know it's strengths and weaknesses. To use
computers intelligently, means using the tools you have at hand with the greatest skill
and effectiveness. I like having a large and diverse toolbox. The work is the point of it
all -- not the 'gestalt' (as it were :) of the particular tool. And anyone who has real
talent at using either OS can easily become exceptionally adept at the other.
I guess my ideal environment will be a CHRP box running AIX and Copland, with OpenDoc
between them... :)
Someday I will probably actually migrate entirely to some version of Xwindows; but for
now, a fast little box running MacOS is easy to maintain, and does what I need it to when
Unix can't as easily (and vice versa). Seriously, people -- can't we promote the use of
Unix over it's REAL competition without denigrating systems which are complementary to it?
Jeesh.
--
geoffrey alexander : http://www.netins.net/showcase/sahaja
If you can talk brilliantly enough about a problem, it can
create the consoling illusion that it has been mastered...
stanley kubrick
dabudman
nothing to do with UNIX or MAC. Now get this shit outa here NOW. If
you aint runnin an ibm or compat, what the hell are you even doing in
here?
Candide
We are trying to figure out if your newsreader has a KILLFILE option, or
if it's just YOU who doesn't know how to use it?
Candide
--
"Eritis sicut Deus, scientes bonum et malum"
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Gladhe Ateher
I use Unix "Solaris, Linux, BSDI, SCO" and am happy to say that my mind
isn't so narrow as to think it is the only thing available. If it was,
everyone could use it and I wouldn't make so much damned money... I AM
happy to come home to my Mac, and I have a PC sitting here as well....
They all have their place...
In article <4iums3$5...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, j...@taipei.ucr.edu (Joe Sloan) wrote:
> In article <jragosta-180...@ppp-2016.dca.net>,
> Joe Ragosta <jrag...@dca.net> wrote:
> >
> >And UNIX has had 27 years to catch up with MacOS in terms of usability. It
> >still hasn't come close.
>
Jacob Waltz
>
>
> For the two hundredth time--what can you do on your UNIX box which can't
> be done on a Mac. I'm sure you'll decline to answer for the 200th time.
>
I'm not the 'you' you're talking about but ... i recently did the following on an
SGI - i was managing a data extraction process for all of the data that our
experiment took in 1995 - about 300 4GB DAT tapes. I had a perl script driving
a 4mm autoloader - the perl script basically made sure the tape drive was ready,
loaded new tapes as it had to, told the user when a new nagazine had to be loaded,
skipped around the tape as needed, etc. Of course it also new which files had
to be extracted from which tape. So this script cruised along, un-tarring 30 MB
files from DAT tapes. A second script was running in an infinite loop. WHenever
a new file appeared, this second script fired up a FORTRAN program to examine
the data file and get the data out of it that we needed. When the fortran
program was done, the script deleted the file that had been pulled off the tape
and moved the data that had been extracted from the FORTRAN program accross
the network to an NFS mounted disk. Also note that from one SGI, I managed this
process on three machines simultaneously - three SGI's, all w/ 4mm autoloaders.
Can one do something like this on a Mac? I don't know, that's why I'm asking...
ciao,
j.
--
j a c o b w a l t z wa...@nue.lampf.lanl.gov
erau/los alamos nat'l lab jwa...@physics.pr.erau.edu
Woofer
>ok now I have HAD IT. This newsgroup is titled warez ibm pc. It has
>nothing to do with UNIX or MAC. Now get this shit outa here NOW. If
>you aint runnin an ibm or compat, what the hell are you even doing in
>here?
Yup it's in yer newsgroup, allright. and a dozen or so more, as well.
That's called CROSSPOSTING... get it? OK, maybe it's minispam, but so
what? It's as valid as any of the other platform warz going around, ain't
it?
I mean, YOU know, and I know that it's just apples to oranges, but what
the Hell- it's turning into a fine old time-honored tradition. My Mac's
faster than your PC. My Windows shreds your Warp. My Chevy eats your
Ford. My dick's bigger than your dick.
What are you trying to do, dood? Promote intelligent use of bandwith?
Ferget it! Go home!
--
Candide
Mog) wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:57:14 -0500, jrag...@dca.net (Joe Ragosta)
> wrote:
>
> >For the two hundredth time--what can you do on your UNIX box which can't
> >be done on a Mac. I'm sure you'll decline to answer for the 200th time.
> >
>
> rm -rf /
>
>
> :-)
>
>
> Doctor Z.
rm -rf /
There, I just did it on my Mac! What's so hard about that? Here , I'll
even do it backwards:
/ -rf rm
It's a bit slower to type in but no big deal. I still don't get it... Is
Unix supposed to be able to do this and not my Mac?
:-)(-:
Candide
--
-- Introducing Windows 95 --
- It lets you use more than eight characters to name you files.
- It has a trash can you can open and take things out again.
- It lets you drop files anywhere you want on the desktop.
-- Imagine that.--
"Eritis sicut Deus, scientes bonum et malum" Goethe
Big M. Fasola
>
> John Goerzen <jgoe...@complete.org> writes:
> >
> >I think I'd also like to point out that as of 1969 with the invention of
> >Unix, it had multi-user and multitasking capabilities. Today, 27 *YEARS*
> >later, MacOS still has not even come close to approaching the technology in
> >Unix. 27 years is quite a long time, folks!
> >
> >
> I'd also like to point out that the PaperOS, which was originally
> developed in China around 2nd century BC and runs on anything from a
> Post-It note to the entire archive at the Library of Congress,
> software crashes, offers multiuser, multitasking and multiprocessing
> capabilities, supports a robust filesystem that withstands any sort of
> crash, power surge or blackout, user friendliness that makes a joke
> out of Macs, a cost-to-utility ratio that mocks even the cheapest
> garage-factory PC, graphics support transparently embedded in the OS,
> best portability in the market (try folding up and stuffing your
> Thinkpad in your shirt pocket), math equation/typesetting support that
> makes a mockery out of TeX and its ilk, and non-data processing
> capabilities (swatting insects, wiping spaghetti stains off of tables,
> blowing nose) which even the most powerful computers can only dream
> of. (Yeah, your SPARCserver might hit 200 SPECInt92, but try hitting a
> fly with it!) Today, more than 20 *CENTURIES* after its invention, the
> computer world still has not even come close to approaching the
> technology in the ancient PaperOS. 20+ centuries is quite a long time,
> folks!
>
> Not nearly as versatile!
>
> --
> Shimpei Yamashita <http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~shimpei/index.html>
ROFL ROFL. S.Y. has a nice sense of humour. Seriously, I'm not kidding.
Shimpei, please, post a similar reply to all Mac vs. PC vs. *n*x vs.
everything flame threads around, and I'm quit sure they'll stop fighting
like children.
(BTW, the Newton message pad is the closest thing to paper I can think of)
Thank you, I really laughed!
Biggo.
(useless characters follow)
weiu hfweaésokvbàlkefdjàopireè0oih34è¨08erhonl resdfjnm-lkah géom ihy-lknaer
rjgk moèigqha nèpéolkjngavdf poilkn gvasemydfhj péolikjtq faàcwreéokhnb. atdnbfy
j '9puiqjghavnlsbkj VFa<izktjhvrfBCA<pèyéoilkh ngAv.y<,jk ikjhmbna wégfl8vihkn
g p8ilkjavy léi.kgu sjxliukmjbnsmyexv hd xél.klujhmgnybvdé.klhbdf
pèéolaiwkysdjfa-wlkhfwoéeilkjgareèéàoljearvé .kjydfmng.-selédfshs
p9oiueéoaeikgéoaieuhjéoglkdfj-.ldfskn-l.kfhélkbdfàoihgàoiae-lnrkd
weiu hfweaésokvbàlkefdjàopireè0oih34è¨08erhonl resdfjnm-lkah géom ihy-lknaer
rjgk moèigqha nèpéolkjngavdf poilkn gvasemydfhj péolikjtq faàcwreéokhnb. atdnbfy
j '9puiqjghavnlsbkj VFa<izktjhvrfBCA<pèyéoilkh ngAv.y<,jk ikjhmbna wégfl8vihkn
g p8ilkjavy léi.kgu sjxliukmjbnsmyexv hd xél.klujhmgnybvdé.klhbdf
pèéolaiwkysdjfa-wlkhfwoéeilkjgareèéàoljearvé .kjydfmng.-selédfshs
p9oiueéoaeikgéoaieuhjéoglkdfj-.ldfskn-l.kfhélkbdfàoihgàoiae-lnrkd
</bandwidth waste, thank you netscape>
--
*** Two heads are better than none ***
Kevin B. Hayes
: Joe Ragosta wrote:
: > BTW, Apple hasn't even been in business for 27 years, so your statement is
: > wrong. Furthermore, please tell me why a desktop OS needs multi-user
: > capability? Or why you think Macs don't multitask?
: >
: Oh, sure. I don't need multi-tasking because my computer isn't networked.
: It makes perfect sence. Sure I don't want multi-tasking when I'm
: downloading a 10Mb file...
Uhm, your reply has NOTHING to do with what Joe asked. He asked two
distinct questions
1) Why does a desktop OS need multi-user capability?
Apparently, you conveyed the notion that people should be using Unix
because it has multi-user capability - or maybe you brought that up as an
advantage over MacOS.
2) Why you think Macs don't multitask?
Joe must have got the idea that you think MacOS does not multitask. If true,
where did you get that ridiculous though?
Nowhere did Joe say MacOS does not multitask, and the reason being it
doesn't need to because it does not have multi-user capability.
Now the facts:
MacOS is not a multiuser OS. Why should it be?
MacOS does multitask - not preemptively (yet) - but it still multitasks.
Kevin B. Hayes
: Nevin :-] Liber wrote:
: >
: > In article <31532A81...@nowhere.com>, mrkite <mrk...@nowhere.com> wrote:
: >
: > > Unix is designed for power and versatilty...not clickability.
: >
: > Good copout.
: Copout? that's what it's for. Unix is the most versatile os available.
: There's NOTHING it can't do.
-It can't be set up and used quickly.
-It can't offer me consistency and intuitiveness between apps. (I guess
-that's not the fault of Unix, but even the utils that ship with it differ
in command line switches)
-It can't have devices added and immediately work with no configuring.
-It can't let novice to intermediate users get their work done sooner and
more efficiently that on a Mac. Or expert users for most tasks, for that
matter.
-It's productivity software solutions are few and far between - how about
a decent drawing program. What have you got? XFig? Not exactly the
pinnacle of computer drawing.
Unix is good for a server or multiuser environment - that's about it.
There's a reason why most organizations have Macs and PCs instead of
XTerminals on their employees desks.
: >
: > > I've answered this many times. I want to see you redirect the output of
: > > a program to a file on a mac. How about redirecting the output of one
: > > program to the input of another?
: >
: > This has no meaning? Should I take a snapshot of my screen? Since we
: > aren't stuck with one-directional streams of text, what input and output
: > are you trying to redirect?
: I dunno, maybe this news message... i want to redirect it to a spelling
: program to check for spelling. Then direct it to a mail program to mail
: it to all my friends.
OK, I choose Thunder 7 from the Apple Menu - Voila! I'm spell checking my
document. I then click the mail icon, enter the address, and click send.
If I do this often, I can write an AppleScript to do this with one menu
selection or key press.
: You use streams of text all over the internet. Your postmaster uses
: news-streams, etc...etc...
Your postmaster doesn't redirect output manually. The mail daemon
receives the mail, and sends it along to the address. As does a Mac based
mail server - with no user interaction required.
: -mrk
Torsten Poulin Nielsen
>ANDREW GRYGUS (a...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <4iltij$3...@apollo0.Stanford.EDU> Shimpei Yamashita
>: <shi...@voyager.stanford.edu> writes:
>: >
>: >I'd also like to point out that the PaperOS, which was originally
>[deleted]
>:
>: PapyrusOS predates PaperOS by at least another 20+ centuries, and, with
>: superior, oriented fiber media, has shown greater data integrity.
>: PaperOS is simply a clone of PapyrusOS, but has largely replaced it
>: (except for a few niche markets), due to cheaper media cost.
>:
>: ClayTabOS (CuniOS), now used only for archival storage, is probably
>: even older and shows the greatest data integrity, because it is largely
>: immune to fire - a weakness of PapyrusOS, PaperOS, and computer storage
>: media. It should be revived for its greater utility in political
>: campaigns, as PapyrusOS and PaperOS can only virtualy damage opponents,
>: while CuniOS features both physical and virtual damage.
>Note that CuniOS is rather slow though... needs to be fired in an oven
>or else it may crumble.
Which is why we used to run RUNICOS-16 (tm). It was later abandonded due
to severe portability problems, though. As a media used for archival storage,
it is still unsurpassed. The MTBF is estimated to be in the range of billions
of ys. RUNICOS-16 and its predecessor RUNICOS-24 were also sold under
the name Futhark/OS. Attempts were made to port the GUI of RUNICOS to
PaperOS as late as the 15th century, but competition from the widespread
LATIN for PaperOS GUI was too stiff. Today only a few afficionados use
the RUNICOS GUI, but it is almost always the PaperOS port ...
-Torsten
--
"Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas" - Virgil
"Den, der tror, at alle ting er lette, vil faa mange vanskeligheder" - Lao Tse
tor...@diku.dk pou...@cphling.dk http://www.diku.dk/students/torsten/
Kevin B. Hayes
: Hi!
: jrag...@dca.net (Joe Ragosta) writes:
: >In article <4idejj$9...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) wrote:
: >For the two hundredth time--what can you do on your UNIX box which can't
: >be done on a Mac. I'm sure you'll decline to answer for the 200th time.
: Come on, Macs don't even have a shell.
For the bazillionth time, YOU CAN GET MANY SHELLS FOR MACOS!!! THEY DO
EXIST!!!
What's so hard to understand about that?
: You can't do such simple tasks as backing up host1 using host2 to
: compress the data on host3's streamer with
: "tar cvf - * | rsh host2 'gzip -9' | rsh host3 'cat >/dev/rst0'"
So, you want to backup host1 running a compressor on host2 and saving to
host3. Why do you assume this can't be done on a Mac network. You don't
need any third party utilities to do this at all. A simple AppleScript
will do this. You could also simply use Retrospect Remote which offers more
features, but that is moot point - we'll stick with standard OS solutions.
: which is quite useful if host1 and host3 are slow machines and host3
: is the only one with a streamer attached.
I bet. It's very useful, except what do you define as streamer? What
device is it. I'll pretend it's a tape drive.
: This is _one_ example.
With a Mac solution:
tell application "DropStuff" on computer host2
stuff disk "myDisk" on computer host1 to file "Backup of myDisk" of
disk "rst0" on computer host3
end tell
This is a standard AppleScript. Yes, you can send and receive Apple
events on remote machines. So, you still failed to provide an example.
: MacOS's fault is that it's _ONLY_ a GUI and _NOT_ a serious operating
: system.
It lets me get serious work done faster than in Unix - I'd call it a
serious OS.
: It doesn't even implement the simplest mechanisms to prevent an
: erratic program to mess up the whole system, the filesystem's a joke and
Hmm... I can name a file using every character except : and still use
them easily. Spaces in Unix filenames are a disaster. I also have file
types and creators so I'm not restricted to put extensions at the end of
all my files just so I can manage them in a limiting CLI.
: you don't really want to call _that_ multitasking, do you?
Hmm.. it runs different things at once. Yes, I call it multitasking.
: Ciao,
: Ingo.
You've still failed to prove your point. Try again.
mrkite
> Hmm... I can name a file using every character except : and still use
> them easily. Spaces in Unix filenames are a disaster. I also have file
> types and creators so I'm not restricted to put extensions at the end of
> all my files just so I can manage them in a limiting CLI.
I can put spaces in unix filenames... works fine.
Here type this:
touch "lame filename with spaces"
or how about:
touch "this file has \"special\" characters"
Unix filenames can use EVERY character.
-mrk
Warren S. Baker III
<wa...@nuebar.lampf.lanl.gov> wrote:
God I hate these threads but...
So what. The Mac, like a PC, is basically a personal productivity tool. In
the Mac's case, it is designed around the concept of improving the average
individual's productivity and not as a process automation machine. I use
Unix machines all the time and I like the power of the shell environment
but I don't want one on my desktop at the office or at home. I have better
things to do than screw with a Unix machine when my needs are writing
letters, using a spreadsheet or drawing a diagram. People whose needs are
not centered around the capailities of a personal computer should use
other kinds of computers. So, what makes one machine better than another
outside of its fitness for the purpose for which you use it? Nuttin!
Regards
mrkite
>
> mrkite (mrk...@nowhere.com) wrote:
> : Nevin :-] Liber wrote:
> : >
> : > In article <31532A81...@nowhere.com>, mrkite <mrk...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > > Unix is designed for power and versatilty...not clickability.
> : >
> : > Good copout.
>
> : Copout? that's what it's for. Unix is the most versatile os available.
> : There's NOTHING it can't do.
>
> -It can't be set up and used quickly.
Wrong, it takes only a little time to setup. You create your partition,
install the packages, set a root password and you're ready to go... the
reason it may take so long is because the installer doesn't know what
he's doing.
> -It can't offer me consistency and intuitiveness between apps. (I guess
> -that's not the fault of Unix, but even the utils that ship with it differ
> in command line switches)
Again, this is wrong. Motif provides VERY consistent Xwindows programs,
and GNU providers consistent commandline switches... --help ALWAYS works
--version ALWAYS gives you the version... redirection ALWAYS works.
In fact, check out the man page to simple programs like ps... there are
dozens of commandline switches to be compatible with old formats.
> -It can't have devices added and immediately work with no configuring.
Some devices (modem, video card, cdrom) need no configuring except for
compiling support into the kernel... no irq setting required.
> -It can't let novice to intermediate users get their work done sooner and
> more efficiently that on a Mac. Or expert users for most tasks, for that
> matter.
Simply unprovable... i can get things done MUCH faster under unix than
on a mac or than in dos, it vary's with what people know or don't know.
> -It's productivity software solutions are few and far between - how about
> a decent drawing program. What have you got? XFig? Not exactly the
> pinnacle of computer drawing.
Drawing isn't everything... i wanna see a mac deliver a decent
compiler.. thinkC sucks dick.
-mrk
Tom Watson
Please explain to me how to create (and use) a single file called 'I/O'
and I might believe you. Note: the file name has a forward slash in its
name.
Good luck!!
p.s. I can do it on a Mac!
--
Tom Watson
t...@3do.com (Home: t...@johana.com)
mrkite
> Please explain to me how to create (and use) a single file called 'I/O'
> and I might believe you. Note: the file name has a forward slash in its
> name.
touch "I//O"
duh.
-mrk
John Goerzen
: You can re-direct output via apple events. Apple scripts can easily do
: this. No, the mac does not have a command prompt, but it can re-direct
: output and input.
Give an example, please. So you can redirect the output from your StuffIt
expander to something else, such as your word processor?
--
John Goerzen Custom programming | Freedom..liberty..justice..democracy|
| ..limits on free spech on the Net...|
Main e-mail: jgoe...@complete.org | Which one doesn't belong? |
Chad Irby
> No for UNIX we have Photoshop, Amazon Paint, XV, and other programs that
> even Mac users don't have equals for.
"Equals?"
You got that right.
Mac paint and drawing programs tend to be a *heckuva* lot better than
their unix "equivalents." Look at Photoshop on unix and compare it to the
Mac version... PS on a Mac has a lot more features, and gets much better
performance- even when PS is running on a much faster unix box.
I think a lot of unix folks have been using the command line for so long
that when they see a graphics program on their machine, it's the next best
thing to the Second Coming. "Look," they say, "we have Photoshop on our
machines! So now they're better than Macintoshes (even though we've never
spent any time using anything like that under unix)."
--
Chad Irby | My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@magicnet.net | for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
Ravi K. Swamy
>-It can't be set up and used quickly.
Depends who is doing the setup up and using it. I installed Linux on
a box, configured X, set up the networking, and ftp'ed over a few
of my config files in 25 minutes. Of course I have done this about
9 times. I'm sure I'd have to spend more time with win95 since I've
never installed it.
>-It can't have devices added and immediately work with no configuring.
Depends on the device. My 3Com 503 died on me one day so I popped
a 3Com 509 in. My kernel already had support for it so I needed
no additional configuring. I popped in the card, rebooted, and it
was autodetected and everything worked fine. Then I added an IDE
CDROM drive to a machine and the default kernel already had support
for it. It was autodetected as well and the device in /dev was
already there. No need for mknod. Sure there are some things that
you may have to configure but personally I find the automatic hardware
detection in Linux makes it much easier to set up a device in it
than in DOS/Windows. I'm sure the Mac is much better, but I haven't
tried win95 but have heard plenty of stories about plugging and praying...
>-It's productivity software solutions are few and far between - how about
>a decent drawing program. What have you got? XFig? Not exactly the
>pinnacle of computer drawing.
I've used xfig to draw circuit diagrams. It's better than Paintbrush
and the built in drawing stuff in Word 6. How much do you want
to spend? Go buy AutoCAD. :)
Ravi
--
Ravi K. Swamy http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rkswamy/www/
rks...@eos.ncsu.edu ro...@genom.com
Candide
lsto...@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) wrote:
> >On Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:57:14 -0500, jrag...@dca.net (Joe Ragosta)
> >wrote:
> >>For the two hundredth time--what can you do on your UNIX box which can't
> >>be done on a Mac. I'm sure you'll decline to answer for the 200th time.
>
> The ONE thing that makes Unix superior to MAC's is the ability
> to do something like this:
>
>
> ps -ef | grep ragosta
>
> Cut the pids and send the results to a kill -9 script.
>
> While one is at it:
>
> cd ~ragosta
>
> rm -rf ./*
>
> cd ..
>
> rm ragosta
>
>
> This ability alone should be enough to make EVERY reader of all the
> newsgroups you keep prattling and crossposting on rush out and
> immediately by a unix variant.
Including the ones from alt.folklore.computers where YOU crossposted this to?
And don't flatter yourself too much with your killfiles. It's OLD news on
most Mac newsreaders. I did not expect you to know that, though. Not when
you are busy typing so many /s and *s...
Candide
--
-- Introducing Windows 95 --
- It lets you use more than eight characters to name your files.
sdmeyers
~In article <jragosta-180...@ppp-2016.dca.net>,
~Joe Ragosta <jrag...@dca.net> wrote:
~>
~>And UNIX has had 27 years to catch up with MacOS in terms of usability. It
~>still hasn't come close.
~
~Joe, have you actually used a modern Unix machine such as an SGI?
~or any other Unix system (Linux, FreeBSD, etc) with X11R6 and a
~decent window manager? It seems awful usable to me -
~
~One might argue that the mac is "more" usable, and for a lot of people
~that may well be so - but come on, to say Unix "hasn't come close"?
~that's a bit extreme.
~
~--
~Joe Sloan Happily running Unix!
~j...@ModernMan.com
As someone who uses both Mac's and Unix's I can honestly say that both do
a whole lot of things better then the other. One may argue (successfully I
might add,) that an SGI can do anything a mac can, but at a significant
price(>10X) differance and the Mac still does have advantages.
I actually feel that the Mac and Unix complement each other wonderfully...
examples...
Unix Web servers with web pages developed with Macs.
Take a look animation... (ie Toy Story) textures and backgrounds done on
Macs and 3D rendering done on Unix.
A large scale publishing house using Macintosh workstations networked with
a large Unix Server.
... The list goes on, but the bottom line is using what is best for the
best results possible (note, that I can not think of anything that MS
anything does best... well except marketing)
--
sdmeyers
sm...@iquest.net
Joe Ragosta
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> >
> > In article <4idejj$9...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John
Goerzen) wrote:
> >
> > > I think I'd also like to point out that as of 1969 with the invention of
> > > Unix, it had multi-user and multitasking capabilities. Today, 27 *YEARS*
> > > later, MacOS still has not even come close to approaching the
technology in
> > > Unix. 27 years is quite a long time, folks!
> >
> > And UNIX has had 27 years to catch up with MacOS in terms of usability. It
> > still hasn't come close.
> >
>
> Unix is designed for power and versatilty...not clickability.
I didn't say clickability. I said usability. UNIX doesn't come close.
>
> > >
> > > Not nearly as versatile!
> >
> > For the two hundredth time--what can you do on your UNIX box which can't
> > be done on a Mac. I'm sure you'll decline to answer for the 200th time.
>
> I've answered this many times. I want to see you redirect the output of
> a program to a file on a mac. How about redirecting the output of one
> program to the input of another?
Try AppleScript.
--
Regards, Joe Ragosta
Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1996. Non-exclusive, royalty free
license to distribute this post granted to any service provider
except Microsoft. By posting this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per
posting.
Joe Ragosta
Nielsen) wrote:
> Which is why we used to run RUNICOS-16 (tm). It was later abandonded due
> to severe portability problems, though. As a media used for archival storage,
> it is still unsurpassed. The MTBF is estimated to be in the range of billions
> of ys. RUNICOS-16 and its predecessor RUNICOS-24 were also sold under
> the name Futhark/OS. Attempts were made to port the GUI of RUNICOS to
> PaperOS as late as the 15th century, but competition from the widespread
> LATIN for PaperOS GUI was too stiff. Today only a few afficionados use
> the RUNICOS GUI, but it is almost always the PaperOS port ...
Interestingly, the oldest OS is being studied as the possible newest:
DNA-OS. Studies are being done to demonstrate whether reactions of DNA in
a test tube can simulate calculations. It has been done at a very crude
level and some afficianados believe that it will be useful some day.
tobp
tobp
[snip]
> NULL is a pointer in C. You want NUL (the ASCII character).
[snip]
First: NULL is not TRULY a pointer in C. It is only called a NULL
pointer but is, in fact, a constant defined in the standard
header files. If you don't use:
#define NULL '/0'
or
#define NULL 0
at least somewhere in a program, be it in the C source, or by
#include'ing a header file with it defined there, then NULL
doesn't have ANY meaning at all to the compiler!
Second: No where is it said that it is "used in C". The C language uses
it as a standard constant to express "empty". However, almost all
programming languages use a form of "empty" and you almost always
have the ability to define ANY constant (NULL, EMPTY, NOTHING, SHIT,
etc) that you want to use to express that state. And MANY of those
languages also use the same standard constant, because it makes
sense.
[snip]
>C Pronunciation Guide:
> y=x++; "wye equals ex plus plus semicolon"
> x=x++; "ex equals ex doublecross semicolon"
Third: Why on earth would you ever want to use:
x=x++;
in a C program? it seems to me that the result of x=x++; is the
same as x++;. At least it was when I learned C, and my programms
still seem to see them as the same. y=x++; I can see, but the other?
I don't see the reason behind it.
/* is_ambiguous.c */
int main()
{
if (is_ambiguous() == TRUE)
{
exit (1);
}
exit (0);
}
int is_ambiguous ()
{
int x, y;
x = y = 0;
x=x++;
y++;
if (x == y)
{
return TRUE;
}
return FALSE;
}
kingston_04
>Unix over it's REAL competition without denigrating systems which are complementary to it?
>Jeesh
Thankyou! I've just read this whole thread - and amongst all the "I know better than you" and "I'm more important or do more
important things than you" chat this is the first really intelligent comment I have read.
Different strokes for different folks - and more importantly, different OSes for different tasks!
peace
Jeff Johnson
hay...@is.dal.ca (Kevin B. Hayes) writes:
>mrkite (mrk...@nowhere.com) wrote:
>: Nevin :-] Liber wrote:
>: >
>: > In article <31532A81...@nowhere.com>, mrkite <mrk...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>: >
>: > > Unix is designed for power and versatilty...not clickability.
>: >
>: > Good copout.
>
>: Copout? that's what it's for. Unix is the most versatile os available.
>: There's NOTHING it can't do.
>
Linux and NetBSD can be installed in about 10 minutes per machine. Trust
me, I did a whole lab of Linux P90's.
>-It can't offer me consistency and intuitiveness between apps. (I guess
>-that's not the fault of Unix, but even the utils that ship with it differ
>in command line switches)
Get the GNU utils. They compile on anything, and have the same command
line switches and interface. GNU Emacs is GNU Emacs on a Cray running
Unicos/MK or a SPARCStation 2 running SunOS or a 286 running Minix.
>-It can't have devices added and immediately work with no configuring.
RAID/Linear. RAID/0. RAID/1. That is what is was *designed* for. If I
need more space, I just plug in a hard drive, and tell my raid driver (md
in my case) to start using it.
>-It can't let novice to intermediate users get their work done sooner and
>more efficiently that on a Mac. Or expert users for most tasks, for that
>matter.
X Windows. I want to see you send a binary file as fast as I can. If I
want to send knews-0.9.6.tar.gz to b...@fpl.com, I don't have to click a
million times. I just "uuencdoe knews-0.9.6.tar.gz knews.uu; cat
knews.uu | mail -s Knews b...@fpl.com" and it quietly encodes it and sends
it in the background with nothing else for me to do. Nothing to click ok
to a million times, yes I'm really sure, and all that.
>-It's productivity software solutions are few and far between - how about
>a decent drawing program. What have you got? XFig? Not exactly the
>pinnacle of computer drawing.
No for UNIX we have Photoshop, Amazon Paint, XV, and other programs that
even Mac users don't have equals for.
>Unix is good for a server or multiuser environment - that's about it.
Not true. At my school we run Netscape, WordPerfect, and lots of other
common applications under UNIX/X. I have a unix machine on my desktop at
home.
>There's a reason why most organizations have Macs and PCs instead of
>XTerminals on their employees desks.
>
>: >
>: > > I've answered this many times. I want to see you redirect the output of
>: > > a program to a file on a mac. How about redirecting the output of one
>: > > program to the input of another?
>: >
>: > This has no meaning? Should I take a snapshot of my screen? Since we
>: > aren't stuck with one-directional streams of text, what input and output
>: > are you trying to redirect?
>
>: I dunno, maybe this news message... i want to redirect it to a spelling
>: program to check for spelling. Then direct it to a mail program to mail
>: it to all my friends.
>
>OK, I choose Thunder 7 from the Apple Menu - Voila! I'm spell checking my
>document. I then click the mail icon, enter the address, and click send.
>If I do this often, I can write an AppleScript to do this with one menu
>selection or key press.
click, click, click, click, drag, click, drag, click... haha!!! I pitty you.
>
>: You use streams of text all over the internet. Your postmaster uses
>: news-streams, etc...etc...
>
>Your postmaster doesn't redirect output manually. The mail daemon
>receives the mail, and sends it along to the address. As does a Mac based
>mail server - with no user interaction required.
>
>: -mrk
You are right on that one. But I want to see your Mac run an whole
department. I have HTTP, FTP, POP3, SMTP, X, a Novell Server, NFS, and
my doom game all on a 486 DX2/66.
--
Jeff Johnson GCS d- s: !a C+++ UA++(+++) P+ L+
t...@gate.net E---- W+++ N+++(+++++) K- w(+) O(-)
KE4QWX M- V-(--) PS+ PE Y++ PGP+++(+++++) t-
http://www.gate.net/~trn 5 X+++(+++++) R tv+ b++ DI-- D G++ e* !h r y?
Nerdity Test = 66% Hacker Test = 45%
1024/3397E001 1995/06/10 5B 92 8B 34 84 E9 42 26 DC FB F7 C4 1E 0E 80 29
Kazimir Kylheku
>ge...@mindlink.bc.ca (Gene Wirchenko) wrote:
>[snip]
>> NULL is a pointer in C. You want NUL (the ASCII character).
>[snip]
> First: NULL is not TRULY a pointer in C. It is only called a NULL
> pointer but is, in fact, a constant defined in the standard
> header files. If you don't use:
> #define NULL '/0'
> or
> #define NULL 0
> at least somewhere in a program, be it in the C source, or by
> #include'ing a header file with it defined there, then NULL
> doesn't have ANY meaning at all to the compiler!
That is true. However, the NULL definition _is_ part of the ISO/IEC C language
standard, and therefore part of the language itself. The definition of the
language is such that you can use NULL if and only if you include <stdio.h>, in
a hosted implementation.
> Second: No where is it said that it is "used in C". The C language uses
> it as a standard constant to express "empty". However, almost all
It is frequently defined as a constant zero-valued integral expression cast to
void *. It is simply a pointer value that is guaranteed to be different from
the address of any object.
>>C Pronunciation Guide:
>> y=x++; "wye equals ex plus plus semicolon"
>> x=x++; "ex equals ex doublecross semicolon"
>
> Third: Why on earth would you ever want to use:
> x=x++;
> in a C program? it seems to me that the result of x=x++; is the
> same as x++;. At least it was when I learned C, and my programms
> still seem to see them as the same. y=x++; I can see, but the other?
> I don't see the reason behind it.
The expression-statement x=x++ invokes unspecified behavior. An object is
written to twice in the same expression, with different values. The outcome
depends on which one is written last.
It's poor practice, indeed, to write code that depends on unspecified
evaluation order.
The above .sig actually hints at the evaluation order ambiguity. Notice the
double entendre of ``doublecross''. Get it? It's pretty sneaky.
>/* is_ambiguous.c */
>int main()
>{
> if (is_ambiguous() == TRUE)
> {
> exit (1);
> }
> exit (0);
>}
>
>int is_ambiguous ()
>{
> int x, y;
> x = y = 0;
> x=x++;
> y++;
> if (x == y)
> {
> return TRUE;
> }
> return FALSE;
>}
That is_ambiguous() will return TRUE on some compilers, FALSE on others.
However, the evaluation order ``is ambiguous'' regardless!
Under x86/Linux/GCC:
latte:~>if a.out ; then echo success ; else echo failure ; fi
success
Under HPPA-RISC/HP-UX/GCC:
anvil:~>if a.out ; then echo success ; else echo failure ; fi
failure
Though I don't have the standard handy, the experiment affirms my intuition.
comp.lang.c is a good place for further discussion!
--
Randolph Chung
>and I might believe you. Note: the file name has a forward slash in its
>name.
Please explain to me how this affects the way you use your OS. To use an
example similar to yours, you cannot create a file on a Mac with a control
character in it. But you ask, what would you want to do that?
I don't believe Unix is "superior" than a Mac or a PC. Just like what
others have said, it is just more suited for some tasks than others. I can
collect statistics on what people visited my web server (hit counts,
percentage, etc) using a ONE-LINE command on my unix machine, something
that cannot be done on a mac or a PC without some programming. But that's
not something everyone needs to do. Similiarly you can easily do
simple desktop publishing on a Mac or a PC, something that is difficult to
do on a unix box.
Accept it: no OS is perfect, that's why MacOS/DOS/Unix have all survived
till this date.
randolph
p.s. I regularly use all three OSes myself, but my own computer runs unix.
===
Randolph Chung @..@ .........................................
Cornell University (----) ."How a person manages his fate is more .
Ithaca, NY, USA ( >__< ) . important than what his fate is."-anon.
http://tausq.ithaca.ny.us/ ^^ ~~ ^^ .........................................
Paul Christenson
: On the other hand, mac applications like Photoshop and QuarkXPress
: provide what I think are some of the best designed user interfaces
: currently available and for publishing are clear leaders over UNIX
: applications.
I don't know about Quark, but Photoshop isn't a "Mac application".
It's available on the PC (Windoze) and X/*nix platforms as well, and
as far as I know, they work exactly the same on all systems.
mrkite
> Photoshop is available on both platforms - except I can get more third
> party filters for the Mac version.
Wrong, photoshop addons are photoshop addons anywhere... we can use
Alienskin, Kais Power Tools and any photoshop addon you have.
> Why don't you list some of these Unix only apps - give me a description,
> we'll see if there is no Mac equivalent. I would seriously doubt it for
> anything except some of the SGI graphics software.
Raydiance is a high quality raytracer for *nix.
Brl-cad is a 3d autocad like program for *nix...
> More like, click, click, type, click.
>
> How about tap-tap-tap-tap-tap- Damn! Typo - bs-bs-bs-tap-tap-tap-tap...
>
> I pity you.
Oh I see, and would you like to demonstrate a better way to write a
paper? You make typos in there, yet it's the fastest way to write apart
from a stenographer.
Besides a mac is click click, drag drag drag drag *DRAG*
> Well, I'll substitute Novell for an AppleShare server. And Yep, this can
> be done on a Mac.
aren't you lucky.. we can handle appleshare, novel, smb all at once.
and virtually ANY protocal known to man.. this may seem useless but i've
been on some funky networks, and have yet to find one I can't connect
to.
-mrk
mrkite
>
>
> You are obviously as clueless are you are rude. This does not work
> under any Unix I have ever used (AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, Linux), and I
> suspect not under any I haven't used either.
Woops... note of appology, i thought you meant backslashes...(i dunno
what i was thinking) anyways.. you're right... you can't use forward
slashes... but that is the only character I know of that you can't
use...
I guess that's the equivelent of : on a mac.
-mrk
Mark D. Roth
>Unix filenames can use EVERY character.
Except NULL and "/".
--
Mark D. Roth - ro...@uiuc.edu | Wally: "You're mighty brave in
http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/roth | cyberspace, Flame-Boy!"
Chair, UIUC Linux Users' Group | Dilbert: "Step inside..."
Mark D. Roth
>Tom Watson wrote:
>> Please explain to me how to create (and use) a single file called 'I/O'
>> and I might believe you. Note: the file name has a forward slash in its
>> name.
>touch "I//O"
>duh.
You are obviously as clueless are you are rude. This does not work
under any Unix I have ever used (AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, Linux), and I
suspect not under any I haven't used either.
"Duh" indeed.
Gene Wirchenko
>mrkite <mrk...@nowhere.com> writes:
>>Unix filenames can use EVERY character.
>Except NULL and "/".
NULL is a pointer in C. You want NUL (the ASCII character).
>--
> Mark D. Roth - ro...@uiuc.edu | Wally: "You're mighty brave in
>http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/roth | cyberspace, Flame-Boy!"
> Chair, UIUC Linux Users' Group | Dilbert: "Step inside..."
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
mrkite
>
> : Wrong, it takes only a little time to setup. You create your partition,
> : install the packages, set a root password and you're ready to go... the
> : reason it may take so long is because the installer doesn't know what
> : he's doing.
>
> CD-drives, hard disks, and other devices working in 15 minutes? I doubt it.
yes i can.. in fact I did it on my friends computer yesterday. It took
10 minutes to partition, format, and install the precompiled kernel w/
net support and cdrom support. It'd probably take another 10 minutes to
customize for any strange devices he had (he didn't have any)
> : > -It can't offer me consistency and intuitiveness between apps. (I guess
> : > -that's not the fault of Unix, but even the utils that ship with it differ
> : > in command line switches)
>
> : Again, this is wrong. Motif provides VERY consistent Xwindows programs,
> : and GNU providers consistent commandline switches... --help ALWAYS works
> : --version ALWAYS gives you the version... redirection ALWAYS works.
>
> Really? At school, different menu commands have different keystrokes, the
> commands are in different menus, and some commands, named the same,
> perform different actions.
I'm sure, you're probably using programs that your school wrote. Most
every X11 program has File Edit Options Window... Alt-W closes the
window, Alt-Q always quits the program. And under EVERY X11,
ctrl-alt-backspace kills the server, and ctl-alt-+ and ctl-alt-'-'
changes the video mode.
> GNU may provide consistent switches, but the Unix world has more than gnu
> software. and -help is a switch in some apps. -h and -? in others. Some
> take it as arguments without the -. e.g. myProg ?
>
> It's not consistent.
It's consistent... -help -h --help -? will all give you help... if you
can't specify the file directly -f will specify it (make & tar for
example)
> : > -It can't have devices added and immediately work with no configuring.
>
> : Some devices (modem, video card, cdrom) need no configuring except for
> : compiling support into the kernel... no irq setting required.
>
> Compiling support into the kernel??? I'd call that more than configuring.
> Is linux really that bad? I would think I could just add a driver to a
> /dev or /bin directory and run it. (and put the command in a script in
> case of rebooting).
Have you ever compiled support into the kernel? All you do is say "yes"
"no" to the prompts...i.e. "3c509 support? yes" then you reboot. How
hard is that? And actually, ENTER is yes and ESC is no
-mrk
Nevin :-] Liber
wrote:
> Give an example, please. So you can redirect the output from your StuffIt
> expander to something else, such as your word processor?
I have no clue what that means, since the output of StuffIt Expander is a
bunch of files, not a stream of text.
Care to explain how to redirect the output of tar -x to something else,
such as your word processor?
You really are an idiot, aren't you?
--
Nevin ":-)" Liber ne...@CS.Arizona.EDU (520) 293-2799
Nevin :-] Liber
> X Windows. I want to see you send a binary file as fast as I can. If I
> want to send knews-0.9.6.tar.gz to b...@fpl.com, I don't have to click a
> million times. I just "uuencdoe knews-0.9.6.tar.gz knews.uu; cat
> knews.uu | mail -s Knews b...@fpl.com" and it quietly encodes it and sends
> it in the background with nothing else for me to do. Nothing to click ok
> to a million times, yes I'm really sure, and all that.
Of course, since you misspelled the command, it doesn't work. Good thing
you didn't have to click; after all, it's better to type something in fast
than to get the results you actually wanted.
Kevin B. Hayes
: Kevin B. Hayes wrote:
: > -It can't be set up and used quickly.
: Wrong, it takes only a little time to setup. You create your partition,
: install the packages, set a root password and you're ready to go... the
: reason it may take so long is because the installer doesn't know what
: he's doing.
Can you set up Linux, have it connected to the net, have all your
CD-drives, hard disks, and other devices working in 15 minutes? I doubt it.
: > -It can't offer me consistency and intuitiveness between apps. (I guess
: > -that's not the fault of Unix, but even the utils that ship with it differ
: > in command line switches)
: Again, this is wrong. Motif provides VERY consistent Xwindows programs,
: and GNU providers consistent commandline switches... --help ALWAYS works
: --version ALWAYS gives you the version... redirection ALWAYS works.
Really? At school, different menu commands have different keystrokes, the
commands are in different menus, and some commands, named the same,
perform different actions.
GNU may provide consistent switches, but the Unix world has more than gnu
software. and -help is a switch in some apps. -h and -? in others. Some
take it as arguments without the -. e.g. myProg ?
It's not consistent.
: In fact, check out the man page to simple programs like ps... there are
: dozens of commandline switches to be compatible with old formats.
In ps maybe - but not in everything - that's what I mean by not consistent.
: > -It can't have devices added and immediately work with no configuring.
: Some devices (modem, video card, cdrom) need no configuring except for
: compiling support into the kernel... no irq setting required.
Compiling support into the kernel??? I'd call that more than configuring.
Is linux really that bad? I would think I could just add a driver to a
/dev or /bin directory and run it. (and put the command in a script in
case of rebooting).
: > -It can't let novice to intermediate users get their work done sooner and
: > more efficiently that on a Mac. Or expert users for most tasks, for that
: > matter.
: Simply unprovable... i can get things done MUCH faster under unix than
: on a mac or than in dos, it vary's with what people know or don't know.
Yes - some tasks, but very few.
: > -It's productivity software solutions are few and far between - how about
: > a decent drawing program. What have you got? XFig? Not exactly the
: > pinnacle of computer drawing.
: Drawing isn't everything...
So, the only thing that counts are the tasks you do? Drawing is one of
many examples.
- page layout
- photo editing
- interface design
- education software
are some others. I could go on.
: i wanna see a mac deliver a decent
: compiler.. thinkC sucks dick.
Are you really this ignorant of the Mac programming environment? THINK C
hasn't even been made in 3 or 4 years. How about:
- MPW <--- I'd bet this would be your favorite, it's CLI based and
offers quite powerful CLI editing and scripting
- CodeWarrior <--- IMO, the best development environment I've
ever seen.
Those are two C environments. (they also provide C++, Pascal, Fortran,
and others for those two.)
There are many other environments for other languages too.
So are you basing your opinions on your knowledge of THINK C, or do you
actually know anything else about the Mac environment?
: -mrk
Kevin B. Hayes
: Kevin B. Hayes wrote:
: > Hmm... I can name a file using every character except : and still use
: > them easily. Spaces in Unix filenames are a disaster. I also have file
: > types and creators so I'm not restricted to put extensions at the end of
: > all my files just so I can manage them in a limiting CLI.
: I can put spaces in unix filenames... works fine.
: Here type this:
: touch "lame filename with spaces"
: or how about:
: touch "this file has \"special\" characters"
: Unix filenames can use EVERY character.
Thanks for proving my point. Now you have to worry about quotes and
backslashes. I'm willing to bet that you don't use filenames with quotes
or slashes - because they become a pain to work with. Filename completion
also doesn't work when you use these characters, making you type the
complete filename.
So, by excluding one character ":" (BTW, the OS automatically converts it
to "-" when I type it, so I can't enter it by accident) I can work easily
with spaces and slashes, accented characters, etc.
I don't have to use kludges to work around them like I do in Unix.
Kevin B. Hayes
: In article <4j6abj$s...@news.dal.ca>,: >
: >-It can't be set up and used quickly.
: Linux and NetBSD can be installed in about 10 minutes per machine. Trust
: me, I did a whole lab of Linux P90's.
I'd like to see that. Everyone I talked to takes hours or days to get a
fully working machine.
: >-It can't offer me consistency and intuitiveness between apps. (I guess
: >-that's not the fault of Unix, but even the utils that ship with it differ
: >in command line switches)
: Get the GNU utils. They compile on anything, and have the same command
: line switches and interface. GNU Emacs is GNU Emacs on a Cray running
: Unicos/MK or a SPARCStation 2 running SunOS or a 286 running Minix.
So, to get consistency, I have to stick with a certain set of tools. That
kinda proves my point. I don't stick to one brand of apps on my Mac, but
yet they all behave the same way.
: >-It can't have devices added and immediately work with no configuring.
: RAID/Linear. RAID/0. RAID/1. That is what is was *designed* for. If I
: need more space, I just plug in a hard drive, and tell my raid driver (md
: in my case) to start using it.
RAID devices. How about non-RAID drives? Scanners? CD-ROMs? Removeable media?
: >-It can't let novice to intermediate users get their work done sooner and
: >more efficiently that on a Mac. Or expert users for most tasks, for that
: >matter.
: X Windows. I want to see you send a binary file as fast as I can. If I
: want to send knews-0.9.6.tar.gz to b...@fpl.com, I don't have to click a
: million times. I just "uuencdoe knews-0.9.6.tar.gz knews.uu; cat
: knews.uu | mail -s Knews b...@fpl.com" and it quietly encodes it and sends
: it in the background with nothing else for me to do. Nothing to click ok
: to a million times, yes I'm really sure, and all that.
Okay, I drag the file onto my "MailFile" icon, type in the address and
away it goes. (I wrote an AppleScript, it is pretty much the same
commands as you showed, except my mail program automatically encodes it
while sending) - all this goes on in the background.
: >-It's productivity software solutions are few and far between - how about
: >a decent drawing program. What have you got? XFig? Not exactly the
: >pinnacle of computer drawing.
: No for UNIX we have Photoshop, Amazon Paint, XV, and other programs that
: even Mac users don't have equals for.
I haven't seen Amazon Paint so I can't comment on that. How does it
compare to XRes? Painter 4?
Photoshop is available on both platforms - except I can get more third
party filters for the Mac version.
XV is simple file viewer/converter - along the lines of GraphicConverter Pro.
Why don't you list some of these Unix only apps - give me a description,
we'll see if there is no Mac equivalent. I would seriously doubt it for
anything except some of the SGI graphics software.
: >Unix is good for a server or multiuser environment - that's about it.
: Not true. At my school we run Netscape, WordPerfect, and lots of other
: common applications under UNIX/X. I have a unix machine on my desktop at
: home.
I've run those under Unix/X as well - I prefer to use them on my Mac instead.
: >
: >: I dunno, maybe this news message... i want to redirect it to a spelling
: >: program to check for spelling. Then direct it to a mail program to mail
: >: it to all my friends.
: >
: >OK, I choose Thunder 7 from the Apple Menu - Voila! I'm spell checking my
: >document. I then click the mail icon, enter the address, and click send.
: >If I do this often, I can write an AppleScript to do this with one menu
: >selection or key press.
: click, click, click, click, drag, click, drag, click... haha!!! I pitty you.
More like, click, click, type, click.
How about tap-tap-tap-tap-tap- Damn! Typo - bs-bs-bs-tap-tap-tap-tap...
I pity you.
That argument looks a little more silly now, doesn't it?
: >
: >: You use streams of text all over the internet. Your postmaster uses
: >: news-streams, etc...etc...
: >
: >Your postmaster doesn't redirect output manually. The mail daemon
: >receives the mail, and sends it along to the address. As does a Mac based
: >mail server - with no user interaction required.
: >
: >: -mrk
: You are right on that one. But I want to see your Mac run an whole
: department. I have HTTP, FTP, POP3, SMTP, X, a Novell Server, NFS, and
: my doom game all on a 486 DX2/66.
Well, I'll substitute Novell for an AppleShare server. And Yep, this can
be done on a Mac.
Yes, until Copland, those server apps will suffer while playing doom, but as
I said - Unix is good for some things - one of them is being a server. If
I was an MIS manager in a large company, I could probably afford a Unix
Guru to maintain a Unix server, and probably would. In a smaller company,
I'd much rather buy a Mac and use it as a dedicated server and let my
employees play doom on another machine (on their coffee breaks, of course).
I'd save money by not having a full time support person.
However, when Copland comes, that will probably all change. Unix's big
advantage will diminish then - maybe not down to no advantage, we'll see.
But Copland will be a big shot in the arm for Mac servers.
Brian Wheeler
>
>mrkite (mrk...@nowhere.com) wrote:
>: Kevin B. Hayes wrote:
>
>: > Hmm... I can name a file using every character except : and still use
>: > them easily. Spaces in Unix filenames are a disaster. I also have file
>: > types and creators so I'm not restricted to put extensions at the end of
>: > all my files just so I can manage them in a limiting CLI.
>
>: I can put spaces in unix filenames... works fine.
>: Here type this:
>: touch "lame filename with spaces"
>
>: or how about:
>: touch "this file has \"special\" characters"
>
>: Unix filenames can use EVERY character.
>
>Thanks for proving my point. Now you have to worry about quotes and
>backslashes. I'm willing to bet that you don't use filenames with quotes
>or slashes - because they become a pain to work with. Filename completion
>also doesn't work when you use these characters, making you type the
>complete filename.
use is the /. Can you create a filename with a : in it? Not converted, I
mean. the outside quotes are required because in a command line environment,
more than one parameter can be sent to a program.
Not a flame, just a question: Do mac programs have flags and/or
switches? How do the mac shells handle multiple arguments? Do mac programs
take multiple arguments? I've never really tried to do that...
>
>So, by excluding one character ":" (BTW, the OS automatically converts it
>to "-" when I type it, so I can't enter it by accident) I can work easily
>with spaces and slashes, accented characters, etc.
>I don't have to use kludges to work around them like I do in Unix.
Well, if you're running an app in Unix under X and it has a file
selector, chances are it will remove the "kludges" that you so despise. Its
not a matter of the operating system, its a matter of the applications. In
this case, the escaping sequence used above to add quotes is what the shell
uses to generate quotes. Its conceivable that an application could handle
file specs like:
touch 'this is my "special" file'
without needing any \'s to escape the quotes.
I guess what it all boils down to is that everyone should pick the
OS that they are most comfortable with. Mine is Unix. I don't care for Macs,
because a GUI-only system limits me sometimes.
Each OS has its own limitations as well. None of them are perfect, or
the OS writers would be out of a job :)
Brian Wheeler
bdwh...@indiana.edu
Gregory L Hansen
Jacob Waltz <wa...@nuebar.lampf.lanl.gov> wrote:
>I'm not the 'you' you're talking about but ... i recently did the following on an
>SGI - i was managing a data extraction process for all of the data that our
>experiment took in 1995 - about 300 4GB DAT tapes. I had a perl script driving
>a 4mm autoloader - the perl script basically made sure the tape drive was ready,
>loaded new tapes as it had to, told the user when a new nagazine had to be loaded,
>skipped around the tape as needed, etc. Of course it also new which files had
>to be extracted from which tape. So this script cruised along, un-tarring 30 MB
>files from DAT tapes. A second script was running in an infinite loop. WHenever
>a new file appeared, this second script fired up a FORTRAN program to examine
>the data file and get the data out of it that we needed. When the fortran
>program was done, the script deleted the file that had been pulled off the tape
>and moved the data that had been extracted from the FORTRAN program accross
>the network to an NFS mounted disk. Also note that from one SGI, I managed this
>process on three machines simultaneously - three SGI's, all w/ 4mm autoloaders.
>
>Can one do something like this on a Mac? I don't know, that's why I'm asking...
Yes, assuming you have the hardware set up. It's easier if the hardware
comes with some sort of scriptable drivers. Your FORTRAN program might
have to be redesigned a little to work with Apple events. You probably
can't get pre-packaged software that does all that on a Mac, if that's
what you mean.
Basically, the Mac, like most other computers, can do any computer task
you give it. It might take weeks to do something that will take seconds
on a supercomputer, but it could study crack propogation and fluid
dynamics if you want to wait that long. It can control any hardware you
can plug into it if you have the software, like a SCSI interface running
a radiation counter. Redirecting I/O isn't as easy on a Mac as it is in
UNIX, since the Mac software has to deal with Apple events but UNIX just
uses a < or > or | in the command line, but you can write your software
to get and send I/O anywhere you want. Your software needs to be
scriptable if you want scripts to do anything besides move the file
around or start it, but if it is, your script can have as much control
over the software as a user has.
I hope this pretty much answers your question. You can do anything on a
Mac, but you might have to do it differently than you would on another
machine.
Bob Nelson
On Mon, 25 Mar 1996 22:57:51 -0800, mrkite wrote:
>> > Please explain to me how to create (and use) a single file called 'I/O'
>> > and I might believe you. Note: the file name has a forward slash in its
>> > name.
>> touch "I//O"
>> duh.
$ touch "I//O"
touch: I//O: No such file or directory
$ uname
Linux
Doh.
--
=============================================================================
Bob Nelson: Dallas, Texas, U.S.A. - bne...@netcom.com
Linux for fun, M$ for $$$...and the NFL for what really counts!
=============================================================================
Jacob Waltz
>
> : install the packages, set a root password and you're ready to go... the
> : reason it may take so long is because the installer doesn't know what
> : he's doing.
>
> Can you set up Linux, have it connected to the net, have all your
> CD-drives, hard disks, and other devices working in 15 minutes? I doubt it.
>
yes, i can do this, no problem. of course the install itself usually takes
more than 15 minutes, even from cd-rom. but if i know what kind of hardware
i'm dealing with and if the hardware how-to has been checked for compatability
(both of these should *always* be done) then this is a simple task. you just
have to be prepared for the task.
>
> Compiling support into the kernel??? I'd call that more than configuring.
> Is linux really that bad? I would think I could just add a driver to a
> /dev or /bin directory and run it. (and put the command in a script in
> case of rebooting).
>
compiling the kernel is a rather simple task. you print out a copy of the
help file so you know what all the questions are, browse through it,
followed by make config, make dep, etc ....
the key in both this case and the setup case is to read, Read, READ.
it's obvious that a newbie can't just hop down in front of a pc,
isntall linux, and recompile the kernel without looking at any
documentation. but my experience has been that most "help" type of
questions posted to the c.o.l groups could be answered simply
by reading the how-to documents. the first time i installed linux,
i read everything i could get my hands on. i had *no* problems
during installation. i even got X working on my first try. why was
i successful? because i did my homework. sounds rather simple to me ...
> : > -It can't let novice to intermediate users get their work done sooner and
> : > more efficiently that on a Mac. Or expert users for most tasks, for that
> : > matter.
>
> : Simply unprovable... i can get things done MUCH faster under unix than
> : on a mac or than in dos, it vary's with what people know or don't know.
>
> Yes - some tasks, but very few.
>
well, in my case, there isn't *one* task that i could get done faster on a
mac or in dos/win. there may be some which would take about the same amount of
time (like writing letters or something), but nothing that would make a
noticeable decrease in time to completion...
hell, the other day i was trying to set up a mac (absoulte nightmare) to
serve as a dummy terminal for an SGI. THe sgi is a server, so it doesn't
have video - just a serial connection for this ancient vt100 terminal
we have. i was trying to use this software called versaterm pro or
something. needless to say, i failed miserably, and after numerous software
hangs (i couldn't even get the damn thing to *shutdown*) and 30-40 minutes
wasted i just pulled the plug out of the wall. what i ended up doing is
plugging a spare xterminal into the ethernet line, setting it up,
and just telnetting into the sgi box. took all of about 5 minutes. so much for
mac ease of use, eh? and yes, i know this is an extreme example...
> : > -It's productivity software solutions are few and far between - how about
> : > a decent drawing program. What have you got? XFig? Not exactly the
> : > pinnacle of computer drawing.
>
ever take a look at brl-cad?? if you want solid-geometry modelling,
this is definitely some heavy-duty software. i haven't played around with
it much because i still haven't received the manuals, but i've seen images
of what it can do and i must say i'm impressed... there also is sis-cad, povray
if you like to to ray-traycing, xpaint ... we don't have anything simmilar
to, say, corel draw though.
> : Drawing isn't everything...
>
> So, the only thing that counts are the tasks you do? Drawing is one of
> many examples.
> - page layout
> - photo editing
> - interface design
> - education software
> are some others. I could go on.
here are my examples:
- data analysis (using software from CERN)
- programming (c, fortran, perl)
- writing (w/ latex)
- cpu-intensive simulations (again with software from CERN)
- mathematics (mostly with MuPAD)
- occassional spreadsheet (Wingz)
- netscape, ftp, etc ...
in my case, i don't want - or don't need - a mac or dos/win box. i need
the equivalent of a unix workstation to be productive. and since i don't have
$10-$20k to shell out for one, i use a pentium box running linux instead. i have
no need for shrink-wrapped dos/win/mac apps. therefore, i have no need for
dos/win/mac ....or os/2 for that matter.
--
j a c o b w a l t z wa...@nue.lampf.lanl.gov
erau/los alamos nat'l lab jwa...@physics.pr.erau.edu
James Seymour
[snip]
>
>And my eternal questions: DOES IT REALLY F*CKING MATTER? Every computer
>does what it was meant to do (Yes, even Win95). ... [snip]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You mean to tell me that Gates actually *intended* Windoze
to turn-out the way it has!?!!?
Wow. Now *that* sheds a whole new light on things.
Jim "sorry, I couldn't resist :-)" Seymour
--
Jim Seymour | "Unix is a general purpose operating
jsey...@medar.com | system (e.g DOS, except unix is a
Systems & Network Administration | much better version of DOS)."
Medar, Inc., Farmington Hills, MI. | cs91...@ariel.cs.yorku.ca
Reid Ellis
> Give an example, please. So you can redirect the output from your StuffIt
> expander to something else, such as your word processor?
Nevin :-] Liber <ne...@CS.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> I have no clue what that means, since the output of StuffIt Expander is a
> bunch of files, not a stream of text.
Hey, hold on there. Maybe you *can* redirect output from Stuffit to a word
processor. Just use Stuffit Deluxe 3.5 or later and drag-and-drop a stuffed
word-processor document onto the word-processor app's icon. Does it work? I'd
be intrigued to know [I only have v3.0 of Stuffit Deluxe, so I can't test for
myself.]
Reid
--
Reid Ellis,<r...@aw.sgi.com> http://reality.sgi.com/employees/rae/
at home... <r...@interlog.com> http://www.interlog.com/~rae/
Christian Smith
> In article <4j69jo$s...@News.Dal.Ca>, hay...@is.dal.ca (Kevin B. Hayes) wrote:
>
> >MacOS is not a multiuser OS. Why should it be?
>
> Actually, MacOS does have multiuser support. Not only that, it is
> network-secure multiuser support, unlike UNIX. Every Mac running System
> 7.0 or later includes peer-to-peer file sharing and process-to-process
> communication ("program linking") facilities built into the OS.
>
> Both of these facilities are authenticated via usernames and passwords.
> You can separately enable each user for either file sharing or program
> linking, or both. You can separately turn each feature off and on for the
> machine as a whole (machines are shipped with both capabilities off by
> default).
>
> Passwords are validated across the network using two-way random-number
> encryption, so an eavesdropper on an insecure network cannot learn
> anything of value. You can't do this with UNIX passwords.
Well, actually you can do this under unix as well. It involves
implementing kerberos on the server and using a kerberos enabled client.
You can also implement kerberos for appletalk.
--
Christian Smith
And the beast shall come forth surrounded by a roiling cloud of vengeance. The house of the unbelievers shall be razed and they shall be scorched to the earth. Their tags shall blink until the end of days.
From The Book of Mozilla, 12:10
Joe Sloan
>Jeff Johnson (t...@bluebox.gate.net) wrote:
>
>: Linux and NetBSD can be installed in about 10 minutes per machine. Trust
>: me, I did a whole lab of Linux P90's.
>
>I'd like to see that. Everyone I talked to takes hours or days to get a
>fully working machine.
Then you've been talking to lamerZ.
I and other people I know have installed Linux in entire labs of
computers and had them set up in a couple of hours.
What would take days? Are they ftp'ing all the packages and hacking
together a custom distribution on each machine?
Simply set up a Slackware nfs install, and run all the machines at
once. Each machine will need about 3 minutes of attention when it
comes to the "setup" portion of the install, and perhaps another
5 or 10 minutes for the X configuration. (Once you have X set up on
one machine, just copy XF86Config to all identical machines)
>I'd much rather buy a Mac and use it as a dedicated server and let my
>employees play doom on another machine (on their coffee breaks, of course).
Are you kidding? A coffee break is just not enough time for a
satisfying round of doom!
--
Joe Sloan Happily running Unix!
j...@ModernMan.com
Bill Vermillion
>mrkite (mrk...@nowhere.com) wrote:
>: Nevin :-] Liber wrote:
>: >
>: > In article <31532A81...@nowhere.com>, mrkite <mrk...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>: >
>: > > Unix is designed for power and versatilty...not clickability.
>: >
>: > Good copout.
>
>: Copout? that's what it's for. Unix is the most versatile os available.
>: There's NOTHING it can't do.
>-It can't be set up and used quickly.
Last one I set up only had to be plugged in to be running. I
did have to configure it to have the proper IP address on the
network. I did add some public domain software that I like to
use. That was just bring up the install menu and type "i" for
the packages I wanted to install.
>-It can't offer me consistency and intuitiveness between apps. (I guess
>-that's not the fault of Unix, but even the utils that ship with it differ
>in command line switches)
Aps aren't OS'es and it the vendors who offer the same look and
feel. Mac software vendors do a better job than most others
who target other platforms.
>-It can't have devices added and immediately work with no configuring.
Hm. If I plug in a CD or DAT and reboot the system I get icons
for those devices on my screen that weren't there before. No
configuring. On another system that uses CLI if I change tape
devices it will automatically reconfigure for the proper IDs
and relink the devices to the appropriate names.
I was recently beta testing the new single floppy boot from
Caldera's Linux and it properly identfied every piece of
equipment in the system. Much better than the Plug an Pray
OSes from MicroSoft. Modern Unix system are not what used to
be around in the past.
>-It can't let novice to intermediate users get their work done sooner and
>more efficiently that on a Mac. Or expert users for most tasks, for that
>matter.
It all depends on the ap and work that needs to be done. There
are aps that just wont work on Macs and conversely there are
aps that are better suited to the Mac than other platforms.
There is no machine that does it all - just my obsergation from
19 years with small home type computers and larger.
>-It's productivity software solutions are few and far between - how about
>a decent drawing program. What have you got? XFig? Not exactly the
>pinnacle of computer drawing.
Hm. The best drawing program I've ever seen have been on Unix
platforms. Did you happen to see Jurassic Park - the dinosaurs
were Unix generated? How about Toy Story?
>Unix is good for a server or multiuser environment - that's about it.
It's good multi-user. But whether it is good for a server
depends on what type of serving you are doing. There are
file-servers, application servers, database servers. Pick the
system that handles it best.
>There's a reason why most organizations have Macs and PCs instead of
>XTerminals on their employees desks.
Unix does not imply XTerminals. One group I work with was
moved from a small Unix environment onto a Novell network.
They miss the 16Mhz 386 box, because it was so much faster for
their data base work than the Pentium/EISA servers and the
486/25s they have on their desktop.
And for my flame bait line "Real computers don't use iNTEL" :-)
--
Bill Vermillion - bi...@bilver.oau.org | bill.ve...@oau.org
Tony the Pig
mrkite
>
> In article <4j6ian$3...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen)
>
> > Give an example, please. So you can redirect the output from your StuffIt
> > expander to something else, such as your word processor?
>
> bunch of files, not a stream of text.
>
> such as your word processor?
>
Uh... tar -xf blahfile | lpr
will untar and print out the files...
-mrk
mrkite
>
> In article <4j7dgn$f...@news.gate.net>, t...@gate.net wrote:
>
> > X Windows. I want to see you send a binary file as fast as I can. If I
> > want to send knews-0.9.6.tar.gz to b...@fpl.com, I don't have to click a
> > million times. I just "uuencdoe knews-0.9.6.tar.gz knews.uu; cat
> > knews.uu | mail -s Knews b...@fpl.com" and it quietly encodes it and sends
> > it in the background with nothing else for me to do. Nothing to click ok
> > to a million times, yes I'm really sure, and all that.
>
> you didn't have to click; after all, it's better to type something in fast
> than to get the results you actually wanted.
Hit the up arrow and fix the command. Not hard... I think it's better
to use two hands to tell the computer what to do than one finger.
-mrk
Jacob Waltz
Gregory L Hansen wrote:
>
> In article <31558B86...@nuebar.lampf.lanl.gov>,
> Jacob Waltz <wa...@nuebar.lampf.lanl.gov> wrote:
>
>
[big snip]
> >Can one do something like this on a Mac? I don't know, that's why I'm asking...
[more snip]
> dynamics if you want to wait that long. It can control any hardware you
> can plug into it if you have the software, like a SCSI interface running
> a radiation counter.
see, this is the thing i'm curious about ... under unix it's trivial
to integrate the 'mt' and 'tar' programs into a perl or shell script.
it seems that with windows, at least, tape drives have special 'backup'
software that comes with them, and i don't fully understand how one could
access that backup software from inside a script. now, to extend this
example to a mac, okay, suppose i do have software to drive a 4mm autoloader.
i assume that software will let me archive files, un-archive files, rewind
the tape, etc ... basically everything one does with the 'mt' and 'tar'
commands under unix (at least on a superficial level anyway). could you then
write a script on a mac that would call the software and get it to do
different things in different cases - e.g. the code says "okay, i'm at the
end of the tape, time to load the next one" or "i just pulled a file
off the tape, now i need to skip over the next four files before i
grab the next one" or "oops, there seems to have been a read error -
i better rewind the tape and try to get the file again". the perl script
i wrote had to do all of this. it also had to create a "catalog" listing
which basically told us which files were on which tape. when a user then
input the list of files that he/she wanted to extract, the script would determine
which tapes were needed and print out a list of the required tapes. this last
step simply required a system("lpr -P$printer $tape_list") in perl ... how
would one do this on a mac from within a script?
since i'm not very familiar with macs (i know how to turn them on at least ;) )
it's difficult for me to see this happening under a mac. the automation is
the key thing here - when i ran this big job, i started it and left it.
i changed tapes when my perl script told me to, which was every 5 or 6 hours,
and that was it. the whole thing took about a week running on three machines
simultaneously. sure, i could sit down with a mac, load some software to control
my tape drive, and get each file by hand. but that would take months.
the real question i have is whether or not i can access other software
on a mac from within a script, like one can do with unix. it's not just
a matter of accessing hardware - it's a matter of automating this access
and doing it from within a script. and if, on a mac, i can't just
open a command line and tell the computer to rewind the tape, i don't see how
one could do that from within a script. unless of course there's a way to
open up a window, move the mouse pointer around, and emulate a mouse
click from within a script on a mac ;) ... you do mention scriptable
drivers ... now if that means what i think it means, then yes, i probably could
have done this on a mac with scriptable drivers. without them, i'm not
so sure ...
i also should point out that this job i ran does *not* require a lot of cpu
horesepower - it typically ran at about 10-15% cpu time, since the script
was limited to the speed at which files could be pulled of tape.
Daniel L. Taylor
<wa...@nuebar.lampf.lanl.gov> wrote:
I'm not very familiar with Mac OS tape backup software simply because I
don't have a tape drive.
However, any backup application which fully supports AppleScript should be
able to do what you describe. I can't really see a general macro program
handling the task because of all the mousing around, eventually the macro
is going to click in the wrong spot (or it seems that way) no matter how
carefully you produce the macro. But I can definetly see AppleScript
handling it just fine.
In case you are unfamiliar with it, AppleScript is a system-wide scripting
architecture which allows Mac applications to work together and/or be
controlled by other applications and scripts. It's very powerful and
flexible but goes a bit unused today because most Mac users don't take the
time to fully explore and apply it and because not all programs are
scriptable. Copland will introduce intelligent assistance based on this so
perhaps it will be more fully utilized when the Mac can script itself
based on your input or its observations.
A Mac could handle the task you describe given an AppleScript backup
application. In fact, my guess is that most examples of automation on
other OSes can be duplicated on Mac OS with AppleScript and the right
apps. Since the release of AppleScript, scripting and automation on Mac OS
went from being a weakness to a strength.
--
Daniel L. Taylor
ltay...@ix.netcom.com
mrkite
> Thanks for proving my point. Now you have to worry about quotes and
> backslashes. I'm willing to bet that you don't use filenames with quotes
> or slashes - because they become a pain to work with. Filename completion
It's obvious you've never programmed in C before... C works identical to
that for special characters... \" is a quote... \\ is a slash etc...
it's second nature for me.. and I do use them...
and unix uses filemasks for everything..
say there's a directory called "bitch of a \"directory\" to change to"
i can type:
cd bitch* and get there..
what if there's 2 files? the 1st one, and "bitch of your mom"
then I simply do:
cd bit*m and get where i want to go...
-mrk
Carl R. Friend
>
> In article <4j974p$4...@madrid.visi.net>, tobp <we'r...@tired.of.bad.posts> wrote:
> >> y=x++; "wye equals ex plus plus semicolon"
> >> x=x++; "ex equals ex doublecross semicolon"
>
> double entendre of ``doublecross''. Get it? It's pretty sneaky.
>
> >/* is_ambiguous.c */
> >int main()
> >{
> > if (is_ambiguous() == TRUE)
> > {
> > exit (1);
> > }
> > exit (0);
> >}
> >
> >int is_ambiguous ()
> >{
> > int x, y;
> > x = y = 0;
> > x=x++;
> > y++;
> > if (x == y)
> > {
> > return TRUE;
> > }
> > return FALSE;
> >}
>
> That is_ambiguous() will return TRUE on some compilers, FALSE on others.
> However, the evaluation order ``is ambiguous'' regardless!
In fact, it's not. Under the standard rules of C, the placement of the "++"
operator determines "when" in the computation the operation is carried out.
In x=x++; x (on the left side of the "=") is assigned the value of x, _then_
x is incremented. If the syntax had read x=++x; the left-side x would have received
the incremented value of x.
The rule can be summed up as: (operator)<variable>, perform operation on variable
then use result for assignments; <variable>(operator) use variable for assignment,
then perform operation.
In this program x is supposed to equal y. As a test, I shovelled in a printf()
statement to examine the values just prior to the computation. On my Linux (gcc
2.6.3) x shows as equal to y, correctly.
> Under x86/Linux/GCC:
>
> latte:~>if a.out ; then echo success ; else echo failure ; fi
> success
>
> Under HPPA-RISC/HP-UX/GCC:
>
> anvil:~>if a.out ; then echo success ; else echo failure ; fi
> failure
> Though I don't have the standard handy, the experiment affirms my intuition.
>
> comp.lang.c is a good place for further discussion!
> --
--
______________________________________________________________________
| | |
| Carl Richard Friend (UNIX Sysadmin) | West Boylston |
| Minicomputer Collector / Enthusiast | Massachusetts, USA |
| mailto:carl....@swec.com | |
| http://www.ultranet.com/~engelbrt/carl/museum | ICBM: N42:21 W71:46 |
|________________________________________________|_____________________|
Chad Irby
>
> I don't know about Quark, but Photoshop isn't a "Mac application".
> It's available on the PC (Windoze) and X/*nix platforms as well, and
> as far as I know, they work exactly the same on all systems.
When the yported the Mac version of Photoshop to the other platforms, they
pretty much left the design and command structure intact... so when you
run PS on your SGI, you're just running a really expensive Mac emulator...
Of course, the other versions are a generation or so behind the Mac
version when it comes to feature sets.
--
Chad Irby | My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@magicnet.net | for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
Chad Irby
> Kevin B. Hayes wrote:
>
> > Photoshop is available on both platforms - except I can get more third
> > party filters for the Mac version.
>
> Wrong, photoshop addons are photoshop addons anywhere... we can use
> Alienskin, Kais Power Tools and any photoshop addon you have.
Nope. They're machine-specific. For example, you *can't* run the the
oddly-named (but very nice) Sucking Fish filters on an SGI. Really. If
you think you can, download them from your nearest Mac archive on the net
and try to get them to work on anything but a Mac.
Ravi K. Swamy
>
>: Wrong, it takes only a little time to setup. You create your partition,
>: install the packages, set a root password and you're ready to go... the
>: reason it may take so long is because the installer doesn't know what
>: he's doing.
>
>Can you set up Linux, have it connected to the net, have all your
>CD-drives, hard disks, and other devices working in 15 minutes? I doubt it.
It took me 25 minutes last time. Nearly all of that time was spent
copying stuff to install via NFS. If I decreased the amount to copy then
I could probably do it in 15.
>: > -It can't offer me consistency and intuitiveness between apps. (I guess
>: > -that's not the fault of Unix, but even the utils that ship with it differ
>: > in command line switches)
>
>: Again, this is wrong. Motif provides VERY consistent Xwindows programs,
>: and GNU providers consistent commandline switches... --help ALWAYS works
>: --version ALWAYS gives you the version... redirection ALWAYS works.
>
>Really? At school, different menu commands have different keystrokes, the
>commands are in different menus, and some commands, named the same,
>perform different actions.
I got a good laugh from the "Motif provides VERY consistent, etc." too.
>GNU may provide consistent switches, but the Unix world has more than gnu
>software. and -help is a switch in some apps. -h and -? in others. Some
>take it as arguments without the -. e.g. myProg ?
>
>It's not consistent.
I try to always use the GNU version of a program if there is one. They
are almost always better.
>: > -It can't have devices added and immediately work with no configuring.
>
>: Some devices (modem, video card, cdrom) need no configuring except for
>: compiling support into the kernel... no irq setting required.
>
>Compiling support into the kernel??? I'd call that more than configuring.
>Is linux really that bad? I would think I could just add a driver to a
>/dev or /bin directory and run it. (and put the command in a script in
>case of rebooting).
I don't know what the previous poster is referring to. I can't see
how modem support would involve anything more than serial device support
and I don't know if you can even get rid of that if you want to...
Video card? How can you *not* get plain text out of a video card?
Configuring X doesn't requiring recompiling the kernel. CD-ROM drive
support is the only one that requires you to recompile anything, and
nearly all of the CD-ROM drivers can be compiled as loadable modules.
You only have to compile the module, not the kernel. It works for
most proprietary drives and SCSI drives. Unfortunately the most popular
drives these days and IDE/ATAPI and I believe this hasn't been
modularized yet.
>: > -It can't let novice to intermediate users get their work done sooner and
>: > more efficiently that on a Mac. Or expert users for most tasks, for that
>: > matter.
>
>: Simply unprovable... i can get things done MUCH faster under unix than
>: on a mac or than in dos, it vary's with what people know or don't know.
>
>Yes - some tasks, but very few.
Depends on your tasks and how often you do them. If I'm typing a paper
I'm not going to be any more productive using WordPerfect on a Mac
than I am on Unix. It depends on your mindset as well. There are
people out there still using Lotus 123 v2 and WordPerfect 5.1.
These people are literally scared of a mouse...
>: > -It's productivity software solutions are few and far between - how about
>: > a decent drawing program. What have you got? XFig? Not exactly the
>: > pinnacle of computer drawing.
>
>: Drawing isn't everything...
>
>So, the only thing that counts are the tasks you do?
To me yes. Why should I care that someone else can do task R faster
on his machine running S, when I need to do task T in the first place
and have absolutely no desire at all to ever do task R? No if T
runs better on his machine that's a different story.
> Drawing is one of
>many examples.
> - page layout
I can run Framemaker on this Solaris box if I want to.
> - photo editing
I've got Photoshop too.
> - interface design
You mean a GUI builder? We may have some at school, I really don't know.
> - education software
Geez, rather vague... I consider compilers and digital logic simulators
to be "education software" because that is the software I use for
my education.
Ravi
--
Ravi K. Swamy http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rkswamy/www/
rks...@eos.ncsu.edu ro...@genom.com
Ravi K. Swamy
>Jeff Johnson (t...@bluebox.gate.net) wrote:
>: In article <4j6abj$s...@news.dal.ca>,
>: hay...@is.dal.ca (Kevin B. Hayes) writes:
>: >
>: >-It can't be set up and used quickly.
>
>: Linux and NetBSD can be installed in about 10 minutes per machine. Trust
>: me, I did a whole lab of Linux P90's.
>
>I'd like to see that. Everyone I talked to takes hours or days to get a
>fully working machine.
Then go on over to his place and watch him do it. Or come over to mine
and watch me. The reason you are hearing this is because for the
most part it is true, but only for newbies. When you've done it ten
times it gets rather easy and can be set up rather quickly.
>: >-It can't have devices added and immediately work with no configuring.
>
>: RAID/Linear. RAID/0. RAID/1. That is what is was *designed* for. If I
>: need more space, I just plug in a hard drive, and tell my raid driver (md
>: in my case) to start using it.
>
>RAID devices. How about non-RAID drives? Scanners? CD-ROMs? Removeable media?
Depends. The SCSI driver in Linux is split up into various modules or
it can be one big driver compiled into the kernel. Your choice for the
most part. There were four things last time I checked. Hard drive support,
CD-ROM, tape, and a misc. type thing for scanners and such. A lot of
removable media looks just like a regular SCSI hard drive to Linux. That's
the way my optical drive is. Didn't need to recompile anything, it was
autodetected the first time.
>: >-It can't let novice to intermediate users get their work done sooner and
>: >more efficiently that on a Mac. Or expert users for most tasks, for that
>: >matter.
>
>: X Windows. I want to see you send a binary file as fast as I can. If I
>: want to send knews-0.9.6.tar.gz to b...@fpl.com, I don't have to click a
>: million times. I just "uuencdoe knews-0.9.6.tar.gz knews.uu; cat
>: knews.uu | mail -s Knews b...@fpl.com" and it quietly encodes it and sends
>: it in the background with nothing else for me to do. Nothing to click ok
>: to a million times, yes I'm really sure, and all that.
>
>Okay, I drag the file onto my "MailFile" icon, type in the address and
>away it goes. (I wrote an AppleScript, it is pretty much the same
>commands as you showed, except my mail program automatically encodes it
>while sending) - all this goes on in the background.
What does it encode it in? MIME? Ideally you could select the files
by clicking the mouse on them, drag the thing as a group to the icon
and be able to select the encoding method. I know a lot of people
that can't read MIME but have no problem with a uuencoded tar file.
>: >-It's productivity software solutions are few and far between - how about
>: >a decent drawing program. What have you got? XFig? Not exactly the
>: >pinnacle of computer drawing.
>
>: No for UNIX we have Photoshop, Amazon Paint, XV, and other programs that
>: even Mac users don't have equals for.
>
>I haven't seen Amazon Paint so I can't comment on that. How does it
>compare to XRes? Painter 4?
Heck, I haven't seen any of the above three.
>Photoshop is available on both platforms - except I can get more third
>party filters for the Mac version.
>
>XV is simple file viewer/converter - along the lines of GraphicConverter Pro.
>
>Why don't you list some of these Unix only apps - give me a description,
>we'll see if there is no Mac equivalent. I would seriously doubt it for
>anything except some of the SGI graphics software.
Well that is what so many of the Hollywood movie guys are using. It's
not like it isn't important.
>: >Unix is good for a server or multiuser environment - that's about it.
>
>: Not true. At my school we run Netscape, WordPerfect, and lots of other
>: common applications under UNIX/X. I have a unix machine on my desktop at
>: home.
>
>I've run those under Unix/X as well - I prefer to use them on my Mac instead.
I've run them under win3.1 and Unix and I prefer to use them under Unix.
>: >: I dunno, maybe this news message... i want to redirect it to a spelling
>: >: program to check for spelling. Then direct it to a mail program to mail
>: >: it to all my friends.
>: >
>: >OK, I choose Thunder 7 from the Apple Menu - Voila! I'm spell checking my
>: >document. I then click the mail icon, enter the address, and click send.
>: >If I do this often, I can write an AppleScript to do this with one menu
>: >selection or key press.
>
>: click, click, click, click, drag, click, drag, click... haha!!! I pitty you.
>
>More like, click, click, type, click.
>
>How about tap-tap-tap-tap-tap- Damn! Typo - bs-bs-bs-tap-tap-tap-tap...
I just hit tab for everything and let the shell complete my file names.
Candide
(Joe Ragosta) wrote:
> In article <oconnelm-270...@ad06-106.compuserve.com>,
> ocon...@icomsim.com (Mike O'Connell) wrote:
>
> > In article <4jcbsv$i...@nntpa.cb.att.com>, mjj...@cbnews.cb.att.com
> > (michael.jones) wrote:
> >
> > >I found it! I found it! I found something I can do on UNIX that can
> > >never EVER be done on a MAC. This is only one example.
> > >Try launching your favorite app more than once. (Not editing multiple files
> > >at the same time, but actually have two copies of WordPerfect (e.g.)
> > >running at the same time.
> > >Try it.
> > Okay. Before launching "Microsoft Word" I make a copy of "Microsoft Word"
> > and launch both it and the original. Voila. However, since this is a
> > serious waste of MEMORY (even moreso since it's a Microsoft product) it's
> > absolutely POINTLESS to work this way. That's why Microsoft operating
> > systems suck - they constantly load multiple copies of the app into
> > memory, rather than sharing the same memory space for two documents. I
> > don't know about you, but most documents I work with are MUCH smaller than
> > the memory used by each instance of the app.
>
> No. He's right. If you try to do this, you get an error message saying
> that you can't open the preferences file since it's already open (at least
> with normal apps--I don't know about MS Word).
>
>
> But, I agree with you--why would you want to do this?
>
What if you copy Word and rename it Word1 and then do the same to the
preference file (Word Preference1) then launch one and after that, the
other?
Candide
--
-- Introducing Windows 95 --
- It lets you use more than eight characters to name your files.
- It has a trash can you can open and take things out again.
- It lets you drop files anywhere you want on the desktop.
-- Imagine that.--
"Eritis sicut Deus, scientes bonum et malum" Goethe
Luci Ellis
sm...@iquest.net (sdmeyers) wrote:
> As someone who uses both Mac's and Unix's I can honestly say that both do
> a whole lot of things better then the other. One may argue (successfully I
> might add,) that an SGI can do anything a mac can, but at a significant
> price(>10X) differance and the Mac still does have advantages.
>
> I actually feel that the Mac and Unix complement each other wonderfully...
> examples...
>
> Unix Web servers with web pages developed with Macs.
>
Indeed, but taking this from one of those Guy Kawasaki Evangelist
things.... Macs are the second-most used Web *server* platform (20%) as
found by that GIT survey. Although that's probaby achieved by counting the
different Unices separately.
That on top of being the most popular platform for actually authoring the pages.
> ... The list goes on, but the bottom line is using what is best for the
> best results possible (note, that I can not think of anything that MS
> anything does best... well except marketing)
>
I agree.... why are we tied up in this stupid Unix-vs-Mac spat? The real
threat to our productivity is that triumOSate each starting with the
syllable "Win". Have all the Winadvocates gone to ground or are they off
picking on Team OS/2 again? *Both* Unix and Mac are bastions against the
monopolising urges from Redmond, seeking to stifle competition and
technical progress.
Cheers,
Luci
--
Luci Ellis eli...@ipacific.net.au
Living proof that one should never drink and netsurf
Please email as well as post, I'm more likely to notice it.
Joe Sloan
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>Actually, MacOS does have multiuser support. Not only that, it is
>network-secure multiuser support, unlike UNIX. Every Mac running System
>7.0 or later includes peer-to-peer file sharing and process-to-process
>communication ("program linking") facilities built into the OS.
So you can telnet into your mac and fix hung processes?
this I gotta see....
>Passwords are validated across the network using two-way random-number
>encryption, so an eavesdropper on an insecure network cannot learn
>anything of value. You can't do this with UNIX passwords.
xterms have had encrypted passwords for years...
Luci Ellis
Christenson) wrote:
> Tim Harris (tl...@cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>
> : On the other hand, mac applications like Photoshop and QuarkXPress
> : provide what I think are some of the best designed user interfaces
> : currently available and for publishing are clear leaders over UNIX
> : applications.
>
> I don't know about Quark, but Photoshop isn't a "Mac application".
> It's available on the PC (Windoze) and X/*nix platforms as well, and
> as far as I know, they work exactly the same on all systems.
QuarkXpress is also available for Windows. But both of them came out for
the Macs first. They have _pretty much_ the same features, although there
will be the odd Mac-specific feature not supported on the other platforms.
Whether there are non-Mac, PC-specific or Unix-specific features in the
other versions, I don't know. It's still not that unreasonable to refer to
them as Mac applications because the focus of the developers and the bulk
of the users' platform choice is on the Mac. 76% (and growing) of colour
prepress is on the Mac according to a 1995 study by Griffin Dix Research
Associates.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>MacOS is not a multiuser OS. Why should it be?
Actually, MacOS does have multiuser support. Not only that, it is
network-secure multiuser support, unlike UNIX. Every Mac running System
7.0 or later includes peer-to-peer file sharing and process-to-process
communication ("program linking") facilities built into the OS.
Both of these facilities are authenticated via usernames and passwords.
You can separately enable each user for either file sharing or program
linking, or both. You can separately turn each feature off and on for the
machine as a whole (machines are shipped with both capabilities off by
default).
Passwords are validated across the network using two-way random-number
Sangria
>> Please explain to me how to create (and use) a single file called 'I/O'
>> and I might believe you. Note: the file name has a forward slash in its
>> name.
>
>touch "I//O"
>
>duh.
Ummm, which Unix is this?
None I've worked on so far will allow this.
-- Sang.
********************************************************
* Sang K. Choe san...@inlink.com *
* http://sangria.inlink.com/index.html *
* finger: sa...@sangria.inlink.com *
********************************************************
IceTiger
}} Kevin B. Hayes wrote:
}} >
}} > mrkite (mrk...@nowhere.com) wrote:
}} > : Nevin :-] Liber wrote:
}} > : >
}} > : > In article <31532A81...@nowhere.com>, mrkite
<mrk...@nowhere.com> wrote:
}} > : >
}} > : > > Unix is designed for power and versatilty...not
clickability.
}} > : >
}} > : > Good copout.
}} >
}} > : Copout? that's what it's for. Unix is the most
versatile os available.
}} > : There's NOTHING it can't do.
}} >
}} > -It can't be set up and used quickly.
}} Wrong, it takes only a little time to setup. You create
your partition,
}} install the packages, set a root password and you're
ready to go... the
}} reason it may take so long is because the installer
doesn't know what
}} he's doing.
Um...even an experienced computer user who isn't a nuxi hack
will take better than two hours to install Linux on an
interesting system. Interesting defined as having more than
the minimum hardware. Mac OS takes how long to install? (I
don't know the answer...that would explain the question
mark. ;))
}} > -It can't offer me consistency and intuitiveness
between apps. (I guess
}} > -that's not the fault of Unix, but even the utils that
ship with it differ
}} > in command line switches)
}} Again, this is wrong. Motif provides VERY consistent
Xwindows programs,
}} and GNU providers consistent commandline switches...
--help ALWAYS works
}} --version ALWAYS gives you the version... redirection
ALWAYS works.
}} In fact, check out the man page to simple programs like
ps... there are
}} dozens of commandline switches to be compatible with old
formats.
Actually this has *NOTHING* to do with the OS. Mac apps can
be just as non-standard as any others. It is a matter of
choice on the programmer's part how standard, consistant and
intuitive any given app is. Skill, experience and good taste
are the factors involved, not the flavor of OS
}} > -It can't have devices added and immediately work with
no configuring.
}} Some devices (modem, video card, cdrom) need no
configuring except for
}} compiling support into the kernel... no irq setting
required.
Listen to yourself, man. "except for compiling support into
the kernel" That is better than having to set a few things
in a dialog box?
}} > -It can't let novice to intermediate users get their
work done sooner and
}} > more efficiently that on a Mac. Or expert users for
most tasks, for that
}} > matter.
}} Simply unprovable... i can get things done MUCH faster
under unix than
}} on a mac or than in dos, it vary's with what people know
or don't know.
Again, the OS isn't the point in this example. A nuxi system
set up with easy to use apps and a friendly environment will
allow just as much productivity as the Mac system. Mind you,
on the Mac some of that environment can be taken for
granted. On the other hand, nuxi allows for some
alternative methods that Mac OS doesn't (to the best of my
limited knowledge), so if a user *does* know how to hack a
bit, she can get things done (possibly) more efficiently.
}} > -It's productivity software solutions are few and far
between - how about
}} > a decent drawing program. What have you got? XFig? Not
exactly the
}} > pinnacle of computer drawing.
Well...go tell the boys at SGI that their Unix box can't
draw pretty pictures. While you're at it, go tell Lucas and
Spielberg (sp?) as well. And their accountants. Granted,
nuxi doesn't have the wealth of apps that Wintel systems do.
(or is that scourge of apps...depends upon your opinion of
the apps I suppose. <g>) 'course, neither does the Mac. I'd
have to give the edge to Macs over Nuxi here.
}} Drawing isn't everything... i wanna see a mac deliver a
decent
}} compiler.. thinkC sucks dick.
<sigh> nothing like intelligent, thoughtfull discourse.
Symantec's c++ v8 isnt bad at all. For that matter, even
thinkC wasn't *that* bad.
For the record, I prefer a CLI to a GUI, and nuxi to Mac.
However, I'm not blind or stupid. The point of a system is
that it gets the job done for an individual or group. 'nuff
said.