"Anthony J. Albert" wrote: > > On 26 Dec 2003 at 12:53, howard schwartz wrote: > >Call me a ludd-ite, but I still prefer dos to linux as a command based shell > >for an OS. Unix of all kinds has a lot of extra stuff built in designed for > >being multi-user, multi-taking, running on larger machines, and supporting > >developers. Single users on PCs do not need this overhead, even if 20 gig > >hard disks are now common place. > > True, pretty much all flavors of UNIX were designed for more > flexibility than most of the flavors of DOS. ( Though there are least a > couple of multi-user DOS versions out there!) However, there really > isn't that much overhead, if you strip down to the essential kernel, > only the needed modules, and don't run unecessary services. Since I've > mentioned it in another reply this evening, I'll briefly note that > BasicLinux does a good job of this, and there are other distributions > which do the same. A good starting point to look at distribution > descriptions is: > http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/distributions/ That's an impressively informative link.
The flip side of flexibility is a lack of uniformity, as might be inferred from all the options cited on the link. My first home pc was a FRANKLIN, an apple ][ clone, and with only 8bits, a pretty simple file system. The transition from it to dos was not nearly as difficult for me as going from dos to Linux because of all these options. However, I have seen how the installation CDs for Linux have gotten a lot better, and as time goes on, more continuity for the single user desktop will evolve... as it has done in dos. I was struck by the GoboLinux outline, which copies the dos method of having each app load in its down directory. Presumably, it could also include the doc/faq files which relate to any given app in that same directory. Rather than dumping it all togather in something as massive as the Linux man file. The Gobo setup would seem to solve the chronic dependancy problem as well. What I have seen is that the distros are not consistent in where they expect to find dependancies, and that even when you do have them in the right place, you find that some of those you have are either not up to date, or the later versions lack backwards compatability. Dos has been rather better at maintaining backwards compatability. Inevitably, the inclusion of network routines complicates life for the single user desktop. Another thing I liked about dos, as for example arachne, was that the app worked out by itself how to handle the GUI; if you screwed it up, you only lost functionality of that app, not the whole damn desktop, which so often happens with xwin. And from the standpoint of functionality, there is no particular advantage to the GUI in managing/installing apps. part of the reason that the Linux installs routinely use ANSI color scrollbar menus like MC or CFDISK. Today, I just installed FREEDOS on a 1.2gig ide; with DN.EXE (directory Navigator) I had the source/destination panels displayed like with MC, but DN had functionality that MC lacks. (like copying only files which dont exist in the destination) And with dos, with the apps in the directories that I stipulated, it was straightforward to identify my personal files (txt, jpg, gif, html, etc) from the rather more generic executables. Trying to backup my bookmarks and pending mail from Linux Netscape is not so simple. It rather looks like the browsers want to make it easy to 'upgrade' to their tools, but make it hard for you to find your personal files so that you cannot so easily 'upgrade' from them. Much of it has been driven by Microsoft policy in selling ISP servers. MS does not want users to use what they already have, but wants us to each buy a new system. The ISP people are too stupid to see how they are inconveniencing their own customers, but again, many of the ISPs now want to sell hi speed, higher bandwidth connections. There is a synergy in the market, hosting services sell spam blockers and sabotage filters; MS continually gets people to download patches, but in doing so gets their current email addresses, and Goddess only knows what other personal data. Which can be sold. The Linux distros solve many of these problems, but if the problems didnt exist, the distros would not be selling so many new instlal CDs. The webpages are increasingly setup with flash popups and crap, and rather than giving us the info we came for, keep adding links (with more popups/popunders) that have to be clicked. And of course, all the advertising slows down the interface, making more of us shell out for faster connections. Making it harder to get anything done with a survpc. The functionality of text like this is being impaired by the evolution of market forces. And this will continue until we users establish a global NGO to provide newsgroups and email without spam. Just like the old BBS networks. There is also a security issue. With the BBS networks, because the sysop had his BBS on a machine in his own house, he *did not need, nor use* a logon procedure with 'encrypted passwords' to maintain his system. So long as we have people who dont actually live with the systems they are using as hosts, we will continue to see hackers break into the networks. This is not possible with the standard BBS because the *only* access was thru his own keyboard. Yes, there were ANSI bombs and some infected software. But the problem was trivial, whereas the problem with sabotage now is beyond any reasonable calculation; the software has gotten to large and complex for any scanners to really cope with. A survpc could easily host a BBS, receive and send email, and it was just too stupid to be infected by the kind of sabotage software that is continually showing up these days, and for the foreseeable future. To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
