SEO

In article <86r6cd5832.fsf@apshai.pienet>,
Greg Menke <gusenet@comcast.net> wrote:

> Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> writes:
>
> > On May 6, 6:18 pm, Chris Mattern <sys...@sumire.gwu.edu> wrote:
> >> On 2008-05-05, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The best server OS in the history of computing, together with the best
> >> > desktop.
> >>
> >
> >> Yes, but what would Apple contribute?
> >>
> >
> > (1) The best desktop OS
>
> lol!
>
> In its own way OSX is as miserable as Windows. Which would be fine if
> it wasn't also so weird on the command-line. Leopard is a lot better
> than prev editions but theres a LOT of weirdness in OSX. Authentication
> & daemon management to name two are bizarre, poorly or undocumented and
> quite user-unfriendly- the XML you have to wade through in OSX is a real
> PITA- and don't get me started on how obnoxious Finder is.
>
> Give me Gnome any day- and I'm no great fan of Gnome either.
>
> Just got through bringing up an exim & courier-imap combo on a new OSX
> box. Complete pain compared to Solaris/Linux.
>
> Gregm

Yes, but I wouldn't setup a Solaris workstation for my mom to browse her
needlepoint web sites and send email or talk to her grandson who's on a
mission in Malaysia. You want something else that's entirely different
from what she would need.

All she wants is for it to work.

--
DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically by ignored]

Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> writes:
> In article <86r6cd5832.fsf@apshai.pienet>,
> Greg Menke <gusenet@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> writes:
>>
>> > On May 6, 6:18 pm, Chris Mattern <sys...@sumire.gwu.edu> wrote:
>> >> On 2008-05-05, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The best server OS in the history of computing, together with the best
>> >> > desktop.
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Yes, but what would Apple contribute?
>> >>
>> >
>> > (1) The best desktop OS
>>
>> lol!
>>
>> In its own way OSX is as miserable as Windows. Which would be fine if
>> it wasn't also so weird on the command-line. Leopard is a lot better
>> than prev editions but theres a LOT of weirdness in OSX. Authentication
>> & daemon management to name two are bizarre, poorly or undocumented and
>> quite user-unfriendly- the XML you have to wade through in OSX is a real
>> PITA- and don't get me started on how obnoxious Finder is.
>>
>> Give me Gnome any day- and I'm no great fan of Gnome either.
>>
>> Just got through bringing up an exim & courier-imap combo on a new OSX
>> box. Complete pain compared to Solaris/Linux.
>>
>> Gregm
>
> Yes, but I wouldn't setup a Solaris workstation for my mom to browse her
> needlepoint web sites and send email or talk to her grandson who's on a
> mission in Malaysia. You want something else that's entirely different
> from what she would need.
>
> All she wants is for it to work.


I have little doubt that if all one does is buy OSX software and install
it OSX probably works pretty well. But thats pretty much where the
pleasant experience ends- much like Windows in that respect.

So wrt the "merge", I'd say have Apple contribute the optional gui and
have Solaris do the rest. The launchctl business in Leopard is a mess.

Gregm

On Thu, 8 May 2008, Michael Vilain wrote:

> Yes, but I wouldn't setup a Solaris workstation for my mom to browse her
> needlepoint web sites and send email or talk to her grandson who's on a
> mission in Malaysia. You want something else that's entirely different
> from what she would need.

Interesting, because my (non-technical) wife uses Solaris as her sole
desktop doing just that: emailing, surfing the web (she loves Pogo),
and creating the occassional document in StarOffice.

> All she wants is for it to work.

Indeed, which is why Windoze is not an option!

--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA

CEO,
My Online Home Inventory

URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer
http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com

In article <Pine.SOL.4.64.0805090831270.21948@marrakesh>,
Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 8 May 2008, Michael Vilain wrote:
>
> > Yes, but I wouldn't setup a Solaris workstation for my mom to browse her
> > needlepoint web sites and send email or talk to her grandson who's on a
> > mission in Malaysia. You want something else that's entirely different
> > from what she would need.
>
> Interesting, because my (non-technical) wife uses Solaris as her sole
> desktop doing just that: emailing, surfing the web (she loves Pogo),
> and creating the occassional document in StarOffice.
>
> > All she wants is for it to work.
>
> Indeed, which is why Windoze is not an option!

No argument there. I'd get her a Macintosh which I can support a lot
easier than XP. How old is your wife? My mom is 83.

--
DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically by ignored]

Greg Menke <gusenet@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> In its own way OSX is as miserable as Windows. Which would be fine if
> it wasn't also so weird on the command-line. Leopard is a lot better
> than prev editions but theres a LOT of weirdness in OSX. Authentication
> & daemon management to name two are bizarre, poorly or undocumented and
> quite user-unfriendly- the XML you have to wade through in OSX is a real
> PITA- and don't get me started on how obnoxious Finder is.

So how is that different that Solairs 10? It uses XML in places where
its not need as well.
At least in OS X it looks like the people who wrote the command
line tools at least talked to the other guys in the project about
how to name the arguments.

And how about Sun's version numbers.... In many places in the world
where you tell them it includes a date, Solaris 10 8/7 appears
newer than Sol 10 5/8.

-tim
http://web.abnormal.com

quoting Tim Hogard (Sat, 10 May 2008 05:06:07 +0000 (UTC)):
> And how about Sun's version numbers.... In many places in the world
> where you tell them it includes a date, Solaris 10 8/7 appears newer
> than Sol 10 5/8.

Tell them *American* software by nature uses *American* dates.
What's wrong with that?

So far universal languages/dates are only used in SF books.

--
Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D
++ http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u4 08/07 ++

Tim Hogard <thogard@abnormal.com> writes:
> Greg Menke <gusenet@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> In its own way OSX is as miserable as Windows. Which would be fine if
>> it wasn't also so weird on the command-line. Leopard is a lot better
>> than prev editions but theres a LOT of weirdness in OSX. Authentication
>> & daemon management to name two are bizarre, poorly or undocumented and
>> quite user-unfriendly- the XML you have to wade through in OSX is a real
>> PITA- and don't get me started on how obnoxious Finder is.
>
> So how is that different that Solairs 10? It uses XML in places where
> its not need as well.
> At least in OS X it looks like the people who wrote the command
> line tools at least talked to the other guys in the project about
> how to name the arguments.

In Solaris theres no need to mess with XML to handle OS services. OSX
is quite the reverse, no way to see whats running, whats not, (aside
from ps and fuser perhaps) where the logfiles are and if the config
prerequisites are in place for things to run. In OSX you either have to
hand-code the XML to handle starting a service or download & run a
"wizard" to do it for you. Best place for docs on the tags that I found
was a Wikipedia page- which is pathetic. OSX even goes so far as to
deprecate cron in favor of the poorly documented and probably transient
"launchctl" system.

wrt to command-line tools, OSX basically lacks everything except the
minimum possible manpages. The authentication systems are poorly
documented and can be destructive- at least to authentication data,
thankfully they don't automatically delete home directories too or I
would have been in a world of s&@t.

I'd rather Solaris get rid of XML entirely in all human modifiable
config files, but its quite possible to run & admin a Solaris box (thats
set up for more than a simple desktop) without seeing it at all, which
is not the case w/ OSX.

Gregm

On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:43:25 +0200, Dick Hoogendijk <dick@nagual.nl> wrote:
> quoting Tim Hogard (Sat, 10 May 2008 05:06:07 +0000 (UTC)):
>> And how about Sun's version numbers.... In many places in the world
>> where you tell them it includes a date, Solaris 10 8/7 appears newer
>> than Sol 10 5/8.
>
> Tell them *American* software by nature uses *American* dates.
> What's wrong with that?
>
> So far universal languages/dates are only used in SF books.

Hmm. I don't mind too much consistent use of left-to-right or
right-to-left. right-to-left is the most common outside of the USA (and
excepting ISO). And this case as also right-to-left. It's only when you
thow in the days that the US system becomes a nonsense of both
left-to-right AND right-to-left at the same time.

Personally, I use something like ISO 8601 whenever I can.

A bientot
Paul
--
Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr

On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:43:25 +0200, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:

> So far universal languages/dates are only used in SF books.

And units, too. I had a friend in Vancouver, BC, who after hearing the
weather forecast using SI units on radio asked what the temperature was in
REAL units.

On 2008-05-10, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:43:25 +0200, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
>
>> So far universal languages/dates are only used in SF books.
>
> And units, too. I had a friend in Vancouver, BC, who after hearing the
> weather forecast using SI units on radio asked what the temperature was in
> REAL units.
>
I'm sorry, but I'm with your friend on this one. I can't understand
whether I need to wear a coat or not until I convert the temperature
to Fahrenheit.


--
Christopher Mattern

NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities