
                  Operating System Comparisons (2) (Fidonet)

                 Saturday, 11-Dec-1999 to Friday, 17-Dec-1999

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: Scott Little                                      09-Dec-99 07:58:26
  To: Jack Stein                                        11-Dec-99 06:20:20
Subj: judge is wrong

 [ 01 Dec 99 07:51, Jack Stein wrote to Scott Little ]

 JS> Slackware and Redhat do that, but historically only bookstores offered
 JS> the OS product.  Sounds like this might be changing, but don't hold
 JS> your breath.

well, it's kinda like those bonus CDs you get with other educational books.

 JS> Yeah, so what?  No different than buy this computer, get a MS OS free
 JS> deal every retailer on earth offers?   It would cost GATEWAY and Dell

indeed - except linux costs the book shop sweet FA to obtain. they'd have to
be nuts to let that opportunity slip by.


-- Scott Little, 3:712/848@fidonet | slittle@bbs.slittle.com

--- FMail/2 1.48a+
 * Origin:  Cyberia: You know you want it. [02-9596-0284] (3:712/848)
128/139
3613/666

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: Scott Little                                      09-Dec-99 08:05:02
  To: Martin Prieto                                     11-Dec-99 06:20:20
Subj: why penguins can't fly on the deskto

 [ 03 Dec 99 00:32, Martin Prieto wrote to Scott Little ]

 MP> Support is quit the same thing for all Linux flavors.

not really. various distros put their files in different places, and have
different libraries, etc. Using the most popular distro means more often than
not, whatever I install will work as intended because it's the same as the
author's.

then there's RPMs and DEBs...

 MP> advanced print spooler, there is already a script called APS, but
 MP> don't work here, since Lpr don't work either.

well, if your /dev/lp doesn't work, then nothing will. ask in the linux echo
for help

 MP> N'ah, I think I may have disconnected the LPT1 cable when installing
 MP> my new hard drive. Windows can't print also, seems it's so good at it,
 MP>  better than nothing!

windows still owns all printing on the pc platform. you just can't get the
same level of function anywhere else. i wouldn't even bother with another os
at all unless i had a postscript printer.

-- Scott Little, 3:712/848@fidonet | slittle@bbs.slittle.com

--- FMail/2 1.48a+
 * Origin:  Cyberia: You know you want it. [02-9596-0284] (3:712/848)
128/139
3613/666

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: Scott Little                                      11-Dec-99 14:32:12
  To: Michael Wendell                                   12-Dec-99 11:27:01
Subj: Y2K

 [ 09 Dec 99 14:32, Michael Wendell wrote to Darrell Salter ]

 MW> could have sworn linux was y2k about 20 years ago.  :)

just like Macs, *nix systems are still vulnerable because eventually there is
a convertion to/from the unix time format from/to human readable. If those
algorithms are broken, then you still got problems.

 MW> right now, im more interested in feb 29 myself and wonder what is
 MW> going to work on that day.

A programmer who knows of the 100 year rule and not the 400 year rule should
be shot. At least there was an excuse for two digit years...

-- Scott Little, 3:712/848@fidonet | slittle@bbs.slittle.com

--- FMail/2 1.48a+
 * Origin:  Cyberia: You know you want it. [02-9596-0284] (3:712/848)
170/302
362/37

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: Jack Stein                                        11-Dec-99 08:44:12
  To: David Bowerman                                    12-Dec-99 20:14:14
Subj: judge is wrong

David Bowerman wrote in a message to Martin Prieto:

 DB> Martin Prieto wrote in a message to David Bowerman:

 DB> VHS?  As promoted by Japan Victor Company?  Beta?  Smaller?  Yes.  Much
 DB> more viewing time?  Hmmmm.... last time I looked, Beta had a shorter

 MP> How much?

 DB> Usual Beta tape was a L-750 good for 4.5 hours at the lowest
 DB> tape speed.  Usual VHS tape was a T-120 good for 6 hours at
 DB> the lowest tape speed. 

It was much worse than that in the early days.  Both had 2 hour tapes, then
VHS came out with 4 hour, then about a year later, Sony came out with the 4
hour speeds, but BHS already had 6 hour speeds.

 DB> Between Beta and VHS audio?  Usual television sound is
 DB> comparable to AM radio despite using FM, Beta and VHS both
 DB> offer better quality reproduction of crap.  On a decent
 DB> television, Beta seemed to give a minor quality difference. 
 DB> Mostly things like the moire effects on a hockey referee's
 DB> jersey being worse on a VHS recording.

I bought a VHS Panasonic system in 1983, Video camera and portable VCR.  It
had full stereo, 4 head recording with slow motion, freeze frame, 3 tape
speeds, 12x zoom and all kinds of features including auto focus, macro, auto
sound leveling, auto editing to eliminate spaces when starting, stoping
recording.

This is STILL my main recorder.  My video tapes always recording perfect at
the slowest speed (6 hour tapes)  I actually got better results at the slow
speeds than the higher speeds, and quality was as good or better than the
pictures shown on the regular news stations.  A year later a friend of mine
bought a Sony Camera (betamax) and it sucked.  Cost more, had NO features, and 
was basically a peice of crap.

 DB> Quite a few movies are now using the extended play speed to
 DB> reduce the amount of tape needed.  I've found those tapes
 DB> playback a very noticeably poorer image and are much more
 DB> sensitive to the VCR than the standard play tapes.  That
 DB> sensitivity may be due to the use of sync modification
 DB> techniques to prevent the tapes from being easily copied. 
 DB> I've put together a couple of sync enhancement devices and
 DB> with some tape, they do give a noticeable quality
 DB> improvement with both contrast/colour and jitter.

This is not the case with my system.  I had more trouble with freeze frame and 
slow motion using the high speed recording than the slowest speed.  I don't
know why, never could figure that one out, but didn't care much, I liked that
fact with my system.  Current CamCorders are not a patch on the ass of my 1983 
VHS recorder, I know, I have one of those also, and it sucks other than the
fact it is easy to carry around.

 DB> You might also want to notice that the majority of VCRs (VHS 
 DB> and Beta) are used to record at the lowest tape speed to allow 
 DB> the longest recording time. The average consumer seems to be 
 DB> either unaware of or unconcered with the quality difference 
 DB> between the various tape speeds.

 MP> And it's worst! The difference is incredible, at least for me. 

Not for me, at least not on my old system.  Pre-recorded tapes are another
issue, but ones I make myself, with my camera actually work perfect on the
slowest speed, no noticible quality difference.

 DB> I have to agree.  But then I have friends who insist that
 DB> they can't see the difference.  A rather disgusting state of
 DB> affairs since even the published specs show the quality loss
 DB> at the lower tape speeds.
I can't see the difference either, nor can anyone that views my tapes.  It is
easy to compare as I can switch speeds on the fly, and no change.  What I do
notice is when in high speed, I would get jiggles in super slow motion, and
would need to adjust the tape alignment to rwmove it.  That may have just been 
a problem with my recording head alignment though.  

At any rate, I was into video pretty much in those days, and VHS had it all
over Sony's crap, and thats why BETA lost the battle.  It would be comparable
to MicroSofts version of OS/2.  A good idea, but the features were not there.  
I guess if you ran OS/2 with CSHELL, and no DOS compatablity, no PMSHELL, no
HPFS and on a 4 or 8 meg 386, it would be comparable to what SONY was trying
to stuff down the consumers throat.  Had Sony had a monopoly on the market,
and no retailers were permited to sell or mention VHS, then, we would have a
situation exactly as we have with WINDOWS.  Everyone would be using crap.

                                              Jack 
--- timEd/2-B11
 * Origin: Jack's Free Lunch 4OS2 USR 56k Pgh Pa (412)492-0822 (1:129/171)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: Jack Stein                                        11-Dec-99 09:09:18
  To: Scott Little                                      12-Dec-99 20:14:14
Subj: judge is wrong

Scott Little wrote in a message to Jack Stein:

 JS> Yeah, so what?  No different than buy this computer, get a MS OS free
 JS> deal every retailer on earth offers?   It would cost GATEWAY and Dell

 SL> indeed - except linux costs the book shop sweet FA to
 SL> obtain. they'd have to be nuts to let that opportunity slip
 SL> by.

What is "sweet FA" mean?   I don't have a clue...  

Anyway, IF the book stores would be charged 20% more for ALL the books they
sell IF they carried LINUX "books", then we would have the situation we have
with all the computer retailers.  Book stores could not afford to sell REDHAT
if that situation were to arise.  That is what MS has done, essentually, and
the consumer has been screwed.

                                              Jack 
--- timEd/2-B11
 * Origin: Jack's Free Lunch 4OS2 USR 56k Pgh Pa (412)492-0822 (1:129/171)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: Ivy Iverson                                       10-Dec-99 18:05:00
  To: Darrell Salter                                    13-Dec-99 21:26:10
Subj: Y2K

-=> On 12-08-99  23:18, Darrell Salter said, <=-
-=> "Hey, All, about Y2K,..." <=-
 
 DS> Hello All!
 
Hi, Darrell;
 
 DS> I'm trying to gather some info as to which OSs, if any, are Y2K
 DS> compliant. 
 DS> DOS - Specifically MS-DOS, but any others as well.
 
I am told that MS-DOS 6.22 is fully compliant, earlier versons are
partly compliant, (only a couple of seldom-used commands in 6.0 which
use external programs aren't).
 
 DS> Windows - 3.1/95/98/NT/4/2000. Are any of these Y2K compliant, and if
 DS> not, are there patches/upgrades to make them so?
 
NO Windoze OSs are Y2K compliant unless you go to the MS website and
get the patches.  I believe there are patches for everything from 3.1
up.
 
 DS> OS/2 - Which fixpaks need be applied, if any, for V.3 and V.4?
 DS> Linux - Is this a kernel issue, and if so, which kernel would be
 DS> required to be Y2K compliant?
 
I don't know about these two.  You might check in the FidoNet 2000
echo.
 
Hopefully all of your programs are also Y2K compatible.  The 2000
echo has those answers too.
 
Good luck!
 
Catch you later... May all your Y2K problems be little ones.
   Ivy
 
 
 
... Y2K problem solved; all there is left to do is panic!
 
     -<Ask your host for INTBBS_WK and help save your favorite BBS!>-
     /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
    < Ivy's WALL BBS, Sheboygan, WI - Netmail to 1:3821/33.1 is faster! >
     \_________________________________________________________________/
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20

--- TriToss (tm) 1.03 - (Unregistered)
 * Origin: Ivy's WALL, Sheboygan, WI 920-457-9255 (1:154/170)
170/302

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: Ivy Iverson                                       10-Dec-99 18:22:00
  To: Michael Wendell                                   13-Dec-99 21:26:10
Subj: Y2K

-=> On 12-09-99  14:32, Michael Wendell (1:278/230) said, <=-
-=> "Hey, Darrell Salter, about Y2K,..." <=-
 
Hi, Mike;
...
 
 MW> right now, im more interested in feb 29 myself and wonder what is
 MW> going to work on that day.
 
I don't think that's an OS problem, it's a firmware, (BIOS), problem.
You can check that by setting your computer's clock to 11:59 pm,
Feb. 28, 2000, then see if it goes to the 29th or Mar. 1, and if
the day of week is correct.  (Feb. 29, 2000 is a Tuesday.)
 
Catch you later... May all your Y2K problems be little ones.
   Ivy
 
 
 
... Y2KY jelly: for sliding four digits into the space of two
 
          -<Hey SysOp!  I want INTBBS_WK and I want it NOW!!!>-
     /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
    < Ivy's WALL BBS, Sheboygan, WI - Netmail to 1:3821/33.1 is faster! >
     \_________________________________________________________________/
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20

--- TriToss (tm) 1.03 - (Unregistered)
 * Origin: Ivy's WALL, Sheboygan, WI 920-457-9255 (1:154/170)
170/302

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: Martin Prieto                                     13-Dec-99 05:22:22
  To: David Bowerman                                    14-Dec-99 01:17:12
Subj: Re: judge is wrong

 DB> Usual Beta tape was a L-750 good for 4.5 hours at the lowest tape
 DB> speed.  Usual VHS tape was a T-120 good for 6 hours at the lowest tape
 DB> speed.

Not bad, not a lot also. I wouldn't mind in having one movie on two 
caset. Most of the movies last an hour and a half anyway.

 DB> At the higest speed, you could tape a two hour special on a single VHS
 DB> tape while a Beta tape would only give you 1.5 hours.

In this case it's problematic, unless there are adds when the tape 
finish.

 DB> Between Beta and VHS audio?  Usual television sound is comparable to AM
 DB> radio despite using FM, Beta and VHS both offer better quality
 DB> reproduction of crap. On a decent television, Beta seemed to give a
 DB> minor quality difference.  Mostly things like the moire effects on a
 DB> hockey referee's jersey being worse on a VHS recording.

Of course TV constructors only mind on building a device which will 
convert a signal into an image. Ho, and sound also, I think this is 
more secondary for them. Also, on our music channel some groups don't 
even mind on giving good sound quality, so it's not only the TV the
problem (which the tape follows!), but everything. Once again, that's 
why I wan't DVD!

 DB> You might also want to notice that the majority of VCRs (VHS and Beta)
 DB> are used to record at the lowest tape speed to allow the longest
 DB> recording time. The average consumer seems to be either unaware of or
 DB> unconcered with the quality difference between the various tape speeds.

Exactly, they simply don't care, as long as it record what's on the 
screen. 

 DB> I have to agree.  But then I have friends who insist that they can't
 DB> see the difference.  A rather disgusting state of affairs since even
 DB> the published specs show the quality loss at the lower tape speeds.

They DON'T wan't to see the difference, that's what I think. For me 
it's big, but they wan't to be entertained, not pay; anyway.

Aren't we going off-topic a bit? It's so dead here even the moderator 
don't even come, but that's part of the debate anyway.


(o_        UIN: 349 806 21                       _o) 
//\      Voice: MARTIN GET YOU ASS IN HERE!!     /\\ 
V_/_    e-mail: riverdale@penguinpowered.com    _\_V 

... Microsoft: Where do you want to wait today?
~~~ ReneWave v2.00 [NR]
--- RG 98-356a/GE 1.20
 * Origin: Mysteria BBS Node 1&2, Montreal (514)257-8043 (1:167/700)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+============================================================================+
