Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Low Productivity of Knowledge Workers Summary: Old times Message-ID: <745@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Date: 3 Oct 89 12:47:02 GMT References: <9676@venera.isi.edu> <189@crucible.UUCP> <291@voa3.UUCP> <7916@microsoft.UUCP> Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) Organization: GE Corp R&D Center Lines: 31 In article <7916@microsoft.UUCP>, philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) writes: | I guess we just plain disagree. By the way, don't confuse the person with | the company. The statement -- everything just plain works is maybe true for | a limited set of applications but I find it odd coming from a *NIX support | guy. How many times has uucp gotten wedged on you? On SysV? It doesn't happen. And if you applied the patches not on SysIII either. V7 was bad, but that's no more realistic than mentioning Dos 2.0 bugs today. | How many times have you | gotten some SW and discovered it hadn't been implemented for or tested on | your flavor of *NIX? There used to be a lot of net stuff which was BSD only, but the people who wrote it are now finding that portability is important, and most runs on SysV. Commercial software of any quality runs BSD and SysV. I suppose you could find some that doesn't, but then you can find DOS software which doesn't work, too. And *dozens* of TRS which all say "load me last." Portability isn't the problem it was even a few years ago in the UNIX world, while DOS has become less stable. Windows, Desqview, DoubleDOS, NetWare... all have things which don't run under the other, and all have some TSR's which mess them up. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon