f



IBM wants OS/2 users to transition to Linux?

Then why dont they show this support by offering it pre-loaded
on their PCs?


http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/08/HNmsdominance_1.html


0
dave_frank (2243)
10/10/2003 10:25:21 AM
comp.os.os2.advocacy 1530 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

28 Replies
618 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 43

> Then why don't they show this support by offering it pre-loaded
> on their PCs?
> 

Thanks for the article. Interesting to see "what is going on". 

AFAIK, IBM does pre-install Linux on *some* of their E-Server and/or
NetFinity Server computer systems. (They may have a different brand name
by now.), for instance as a choice between a Microsoft product or the
Red Hat Linux product. (IBM is(was?) a major name owner/shareholder of
Red Hat.)

Lars
0
myname9457 (83)
10/10/2003 11:54:56 AM
Hello World,

( On http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/08/HNmsdominance_1.html )

David Frank:
>Then why don't they show this support by offering it pre-loaded
>on their PCs?

Lars wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the article. Interesting to see "what is going on". 

I've read this article several times now... They sure have a way with 
numbers! For instance:

"Microsoft's Windows accounted for 55.1 percent of new shipments of 
server operating systems in 2002, up from 50.5 percent in 2001, while 
paid versions of Linux accounted for 23.1 percent of new shipments in 2002"


I've got a number of problems with this.

First, the 100% isn't round. Hence, I don't know who else is playing. 
AIX? HP-UX? Solaris? Or is this a Microsoft/Linux party?

Second, they don't define what a "shipment" is. One box most likely, but 
other OSes reckon by CPU or by seats served.

Third (or maybe 2a), one Windows box shipped doesn't equal one AIX or 
HP-UX or Linux box shipped by a long run!

Fourth, you don't necessarily *need* to pay to put Linux on your server. 
If you happen to have competent Linux staff on board, you need only one 
set of CDs, for convenience. (Except when you're installing it on the 
"big boys", because they sometimes do have a per-processor fee for the 
system specific parts).

All of this makes it completely unclear what you can tell from these 
numbers. But the unwary reader could take it to mean that MS has half 
the server market already, and is closing in on the rest. In your 
dreams, Mr. Ballmer!



Oh two more paragraphs, then...

"But sales of OS sever software running over mainframes and other large 
systems declined sharply when comparing 2002 to 2001. According to IDC 
estimates, vendors shipped 50,000 copies of these large datacenter SOEs 
in 2002, a decline of 58 percent over 2001."

"IDC attributed the decline to the phasing-out of older network 
operating systems such as OS/2 from IBM Corp. IBM has said that it will 
end support of its aging OS/2 operating system after 2006, and has 
recommended that OS/2 customers migrate to Linux rather than Windows."

This doesn't make any sense to me no matter how many times I read it. 
OS/2 (wonderful though it is) has next to nothing to do with mainframes 
or other large machines. How can phasing out OS/2 affect mainframe 
sales? OS/390 maybe?

So this is what you get when you let an Infoworld copywriter loose on an 
IDC report.

> AFAIK, IBM does pre-install Linux on *some* of their E-Server and/or
> NetFinity Server computer systems. (They may have a different brand name
> by now.), for instance as a choice between a Microsoft product or the
> Red Hat Linux product. (IBM is(was?) a major name owner/shareholder of
> Red Hat.)

Quick translation table:

e-Server:
I-series=AS/400
X-series=Intel
Z-series=Mainframe
P-series=RS/6000


> Lars

Cheers/2,
Menno

0
flexor1 (485)
10/10/2003 8:08:15 PM
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:08:15 UTC, Menno Willemse <flexor@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>This doesn't make any sense to me no matter how many times I read it. 
>OS/2 (wonderful though it is) has next to nothing to do with mainframes 
>or other large machines. How can phasing out OS/2 affect mainframe 
>sales? OS/390 maybe?

All their minis and mainframes ship with a console. It runs OS/2.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *
* http://consultron.ca                         irc.ecomstation.ca *
* Kingston Ontario Canada               news://news.consultron.ca *
-------------------------------------------------------------------

0
spam4278 (131)
10/10/2003 8:54:48 PM
"My Name" <myname@someplace.com> wrote in message
news:3F869E10.44A64485@someplace.com...
> > Then why don't they show this support by offering it pre-loaded
> > on their PCs?
> >
>
> Thanks for the article. Interesting to see "what is going on".
>
> AFAIK, IBM does pre-install Linux on *some* of their E-Server and/or
> NetFinity Server computer systems. (They may have a different brand
name
> by now.), for instance as a choice between a Microsoft product or
the
> Red Hat Linux product. (IBM is(was?) a major name owner/shareholder
of
> Red Hat.)
>
> Lars
>

But why dont they offer it as a choice for their desktops, notebooks ?

Perhaps (like many have found) its because the price effectively is
same as providing a superior OS like Windows XP ?

IDC says IBM recommends OS/2 users migrate to Linux instead of
Windows,
can anyone produce a link where IDC got that as a IBM recommendation?


0
dave_frank (2243)
10/11/2003 11:59:29 AM
Jack Troughton wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:08:15 UTC, Menno Willemse <flexor@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> 
> 
>>This doesn't make any sense to me no matter how many times I read it. 
>>OS/2 (wonderful though it is) has next to nothing to do with mainframes 
>>or other large machines. How can phasing out OS/2 affect mainframe 
>>sales? OS/390 maybe?
> 
> All their minis and mainframes ship with a console. It runs OS/2.

Yeah OK, but those things can support thousands of users, one of whom is 
an administrator who types on the OS/2 management console. They could 
probably replace it with a Linux box if they really wanted. No reason to 
do that, though. OS/2 does the job there admirably.

In fact, when someone orders a mainframe, it's not the customer's 
decision to put OS/2 on there, it's IBM's. So even if a customer were 
phasing out OS/2, it wouldn't affect the mainframe.

Cheers/2,
Menno

0
flexor1 (485)
10/11/2003 8:42:53 PM
David Frank <dave_frank@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "My Name" <myname@someplace.com> wrote in message
> news:3F869E10.44A64485@someplace.com...
> > > Then why don't they show this support by offering it pre-loaded
> > > on their PCs?
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the article. Interesting to see "what is going on".
> >
> > AFAIK, IBM does pre-install Linux on *some* of their E-Server and/or
> > NetFinity Server computer systems. (They may have a different brand
> name
> > by now.), for instance as a choice between a Microsoft product or
> the
> > Red Hat Linux product. (IBM is(was?) a major name owner/shareholder
> of
> > Red Hat.)
> >
> > Lars
> >
> 
> But why dont they offer it as a choice for their desktops, notebooks ?

That is indeed an interesting question.

For some reason IBM have made the decision to stop offering OS/2 as an
alternative for Windows a long time ago. They not only stopped marketing
it agressively but they also stopped even mentioning OS/2 as an
alternative to Windows at all.

It would be good (for OS/2 and the OS market) to see IBM selling PCs
with OS/2 again, even if only as an option or a dual boot setup, but it
seems to me that IBM rather want people to use GNU/Linux, AIX, Windows,
and Mac OS than OS/2.

> Perhaps (like many have found) its because the price effectively is
> same as providing a superior OS like Windows XP ?

Is it? I don't know how much IBM pay for a Windows licence and I don't
know how much IBM have to pay for parts of OS/2 that they don't own per
copy. Do you?

> IDC says IBM recommends OS/2 users migrate to Linux instead of
> Windows,

Probably for different types of users. Those users of OS/2 that have
remained are probably one-application users or users of a computer that
is acting as a terminal only. Moving them to GNU/Linux is certainly
better for IBM than moving them to Windows.

The general purpose users of OS/2 have switched to Windows a long time
ago.


-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
0
andrew5549 (1164)
10/12/2003 1:47:06 AM
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:42:53 UTC, Menno Willemse <flexor@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>Jack Troughton wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:08:15 UTC, Menno Willemse <flexor@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>This doesn't make any sense to me no matter how many times I read it. 
>>>OS/2 (wonderful though it is) has next to nothing to do with mainframes 
>>>or other large machines. How can phasing out OS/2 affect mainframe 
>>>sales? OS/390 maybe?
>> 
>> All their minis and mainframes ship with a console. It runs OS/2.
>
>Yeah OK, but those things can support thousands of users, one of whom is 
>an administrator who types on the OS/2 management console. They could 
>probably replace it with a Linux box if they really wanted. No reason to 
>do that, though. OS/2 does the job there admirably.
>
>In fact, when someone orders a mainframe, it's not the customer's 
>decision to put OS/2 on there, it's IBM's. So even if a customer were 
>phasing out OS/2, it wouldn't affect the mainframe.

There are a LOT of large customers who use OS/2 who are pissed with
IBM over their treatment; I've even heard rumours that one of the
customers threatened to sue them if they went ahead with their
original plan to pull the plug next year (as detailed in that now
infamous document they put out a few years ago).

Some of them may be deciding that if IBM hangs 'em out to dry on
their OS/2 investment, they'll hang 'em out to dry on their other
technology investments, and are looking at other solutions.

As Sun said recently, they estimate that there are 15 million
business users of OS/2 still extant, most of whom probably have no
idea what they're actually running their computer on. If even ten
percent of those high margin business customers decide to hang IBM
out to dry themselves, that could represent some serious dents in
their revenue in other systems; as was said recently, OS/2 figures
in billions in sales a year for IBM. Warp doesn't sell billions, but
is part of packages that are worth billions.

I believe that's referred to as the law of unintended consequences:)

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *
* http://consultron.ca                         irc.ecomstation.ca *
* Kingston Ontario Canada               news://news.consultron.ca *
-------------------------------------------------------------------

0
spam4278 (131)
10/12/2003 2:58:32 AM
> But why don't they offer it as a choice for their desk tops, notebooks ?
> 
> Perhaps (like many have found) its because the price effectively is
> same as providing a superior OS like Windows XP ?
> 
> IDC says IBM recommends OS/2 users migrate to Linux instead of
> Windows,
> can anyone produce a link where IDC got that as a IBM recommendation?
> 


IBM used to offer the "dual-boot" option on their IBM computers. But,
when they customer got the computer home, the customer had to choice
*either* PC-DOS with Windows 3.1x  *or* OS/2 Warp 3.0. Well, guess which
one most people choice? By the time OS/2 2.0 was released, Windows 3.0
had already started to corner the market, and MS was requiring MS-DOS to
only be preloaded on computers with Windows 3.x. Not one or the other,
but both. This was the basis of the first FTC investigation. 

Since OS/2 had never been sold by Microsoft in retail software stores
for the public, by the time IBM's OS/2 2.0 was released, the users were
already becoming thrilled with Windows 3.0. Windows 3.0x provided the
ability to run completely in protected mode, and made use of the extras
features of the 386 chip. (Hence, Standard Mode or Enhanced Mode.) And
guess what?, people wanted to multi-task DOS programs with Windows
Enhanced Mode; something that 16-bit OS/2 1.0 could NOT do no matter
what computer it was used on. 

When I tried to buy an IBM computer with OS/2 on it, the IBM sales
persons, said that nobody had ever asked for that before. 

Remember, years ago, OS/2 was way too expensive for most people to use
on their "home computers". An OS/2 setup could cost thousands of
dollars. And apparently nobody so much need text-mode with a large about
of memory. The word wanted Macintosh-style graphics and ease of use, on
a cheaper IBM-compatible computer. Large businesses continued to buy IBM
(and Compaq) products at much higher prices. And Compaq offered MS OS/2
at first. But, time moved on. 

No body tries to buy something they've never seen or seen before. Humh.
(g) 


> > IDC says IBM recommends OS/2 users migrate to Linux instead of
> > Windows,
> > can anyone produce a link where IDC got that as a IBM recommendation?


Sorry, I don't know the exact location/time/place, etc. But some years
ago when IBM announced the end of their updating of OS/2, their
announcement suggested and mentioned other technologies, such as Linux
and Java that IBM thought their customers should consider moving to,
since OS/2 was not going to be continued with any new versions. Fixes,
and updates: Yes, but not whole new versions. And free updates became
Software Choice and/or now Passport Advantage (paid subscriptions). 

Now, since then, IBM has again, announced that they will continue to
support OS/2 for a few more years. But, still no new versions. 

Lars
0
myname9457 (83)
10/12/2003 1:45:42 PM
Jack Troughton wrote:
> There are a LOT of large customers who use OS/2 who are pissed with
> IBM over their treatment; I've even heard rumours that one of the
> customers threatened to sue them if they went ahead with their
> original plan to pull the plug next year (as detailed in that now
> infamous document they put out a few years ago).
> 
> Some of them may be deciding that if IBM hangs 'em out to dry on
> their OS/2 investment, they'll hang 'em out to dry on their other
> technology investments, and are looking at other solutions.

Well, there's that. Maybe the InfoWorld were slugging OS/2 out of habit 
or something.

I wouldn't mind having a look at the original IDC report, because they 
do not generally go in for Microsoft cheerleading. Infoworld doesn't 
seem er... entirely objective to me.

Cheers/2,
Menno

0
flexor1 (485)
10/12/2003 7:25:11 PM
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:25:11 UTC, Menno Willemse <flexor@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>Jack Troughton wrote:
>> There are a LOT of large customers who use OS/2 who are pissed with
>> IBM over their treatment; I've even heard rumours that one of the
>> customers threatened to sue them if they went ahead with their
>> original plan to pull the plug next year (as detailed in that now
>> infamous document they put out a few years ago).
>> 
>> Some of them may be deciding that if IBM hangs 'em out to dry on
>> their OS/2 investment, they'll hang 'em out to dry on their other
>> technology investments, and are looking at other solutions.
>
>Well, there's that. Maybe the InfoWorld were slugging OS/2 out of habit 
>or something.

That would not surprise me.

Infoworld used to be good, but they're a laughingstock now. Most of
the Infoworld old-timers attribute that to Sandy Reed's time at the
helm, and feel that it was accelrated when the MBAs came in
afterwards to clean up the mess.

The entire industry-specific press is in major trouble.

>I wouldn't mind having a look at the original IDC report, because they 
>do not generally go in for Microsoft cheerleading. Infoworld doesn't 
>seem er... entirely objective to me.

If you read that article, it doesn't have to be MS cheerleading, but
is written to help that interpretation.

Part of the issue is that the report simply talks about receipts.
Needless to say, in businesses that have clue, they aren't paying
for a linux distro; they're paying someone to download, install, and
admin debian for them. Those installs will never show up in the kind
of statistics that IDG is presenting here, because there are no
receipts.

I think that the IDC was right in attributing that decline to the
phase out of "older network operating systems such as OS/2"; like I
said, these customers are looking for a vendor that they can trust,
because they don't feel they can trust IBM after IBM hung them out
to dry on the massive investments they made in OS/2 and OS/2
software development. The thing is... they aren't going to Windows.
They're going to linux. The problem for IBM is that eventually these
companies will figure out that by using linux and hiring expertise
in house, they will be able to save money over having IBM Global
Services come in and manage their information infrastructures for
them, while affording themselves a much greater degree of control
and freedom over their environment and what it does for them.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *
* http://consultron.ca                         irc.ecomstation.ca *
* Kingston Ontario Canada               news://news.consultron.ca *
-------------------------------------------------------------------

0
spam4278 (131)
10/14/2003 1:24:47 AM
Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:

> Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy,
> andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) spake unto us, saying:
> 
> >> IDC says IBM recommends OS/2 users migrate to Linux instead of
> >> Windows,
> >
> >Probably for different types of users. Those users of OS/2 that have
> >remained are probably one-application users or users of a computer that
> >is acting as a terminal only.
> 
> Not necessarily.  I'm a general desktop user myself -- I just know
> where to find the software I need under OS/2, that's all.  :-)

I don't think that's true for most "users" in corporations where most
OS/2 machines now seem to be dedicated terminals.

> (Hint: lots of older stuff can be found on eBay)
> 
> >Moving them to GNU/Linux is certainly better for IBM than moving them
> >to Windows.
> 
> I suspect there are good reasons to go in either direction.

For IBM GNU/Linux is better. If they have a choice they probably don't
want their customers to pay for Windows licences.

> >The general purpose users of OS/2 have switched to Windows a long time
> >ago.
> 
> Not true.  I'm still here, for example, using OS/2 for web surfing,
> word processing, CD burning, database stuff, checkbook management,
> etc., just as I always have.

You are not very representative. I don't think there is such a large
number of OS/2 general purpose users left.

> Windows doesn't cut it for me.  I like having a real command line and real
> DOS support, and I also have a lot of OS/2 stuff I enjoy using.

I like having a _real_ real command line (tcsh and bash) and I don't
need DOS support (but if I do, Virtual PC does fine).

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
0
andrew5549 (1164)
10/14/2003 5:10:12 PM
"Andrew J. Brehm" <andrew@netneurotic.de> wrote in message
news:1g2u2dm.1glswm8vzzsucN%andrew@netneurotic.de...
> Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:
>

> > Windows doesn't cut it for me.  I like having a real command line
and real
> > DOS support, and I also have a lot of OS/2 stuff I enjoy using.


> I like having a _real_ real command line (tcsh and bash) and I don't
> need DOS support (but if I do, Virtual PC does fine).
>

You guys are obviously not Windows knowledgeable..
A command line that can run ALL Windows executables is easily
accessible.  just click toolbar's START then RUN and keyin: CMD

any app written for windows is then runnable:

1. DOS       Windows XP has excellent support for DOS apps.
2. Win16     (where would OS/2 be all these years without the apps
               written for Windows 3.X and NOT OS/2 ?)
3. Win32     and OS/2 doesnt run these at all "out of the box"
             and precious few even with ODIN..






0
dave_frank (2243)
10/14/2003 5:35:30 PM
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> 
> You are not very representative. I don't think there is such a large
> number of OS/2 general purpose users left.

People have been telling us for years on end that we don't exist... So 
let me tell you here and now: I am also an OS/2 General purpose user! So 
were about five hundred people who visited WarpStock Europe last year. 
You may not notice us, but that doesn't mean we're not there, dude.

>>Windows doesn't cut it for me.  I like having a real command line and real
>>DOS support, and I also have a lot of OS/2 stuff I enjoy using.
> 
> I like having a _real_ real command line (tcsh and bash) and I don't
> need DOS support (but if I do, Virtual PC does fine).

Both have been compiled for OS/2. For a sizable list of command line 
interpreters:

http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/cgi-bin/h-browse?dir=/pub/os2/util/shell

You will see that both bash and tcsh are there.

As for DOS support: I don't use any DOS programs anymore. In fact, I'd 
say that at least 95% of what I use at any time is OS/2 native. (Mind 
you, portlings like Mozilla and Innotek's version of Acrobat Reader are 
bordering on the edge of emulation).

Cheers/2,
Menno

0
flexor1 (485)
10/14/2003 10:40:05 PM
"David Frank" <dave_frank@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
> 1. DOS       Windows XP has excellent support for DOS apps.
<snip>

NT-based Windows' DOS compatibility has been always a joke compared to
OS/2's. I still play DOS based Steel Panthers game (SPWW2 - still in
development). The only guys that cry for help in the forums are
NT-based Windows users. No Win9x users, no OS/2 users. Although case
of one game is not quite representative, it still shows something :-)

Cheers,
Martin
0
mmi (557)
10/15/2003 7:42:46 AM
David Frank <dave_frank@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Andrew J. Brehm" <andrew@netneurotic.de> wrote in message
> news:1g2u2dm.1glswm8vzzsucN%andrew@netneurotic.de...
> > Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:
> >
> 
> > > Windows doesn't cut it for me.  I like having a real command line
> and real
> > > DOS support, and I also have a lot of OS/2 stuff I enjoy using.
> 
> 
> > I like having a _real_ real command line (tcsh and bash) and I don't
> > need DOS support (but if I do, Virtual PC does fine).
> >
> 
> You guys are obviously not Windows knowledgeable..

Are we not? How do you know?

> A command line that can run ALL Windows executables is easily
> accessible.  just click toolbar's START then RUN and keyin: CMD

Noone claimed otherwise.

Our point(s) was (were) that UNIX shells are better than Windows' shell
and that OS/2's DOS support was better than Windows'.

I know ports of Bash etc. exist for Windows but they are not as flexible
as the UNIX versions (as they lack many external commands). And I know
that OS/2's DOS support really is better than Windows XP's.

> any app written for windows is then runnable:
> 
> 1. DOS       Windows XP has excellent support for DOS apps.

You think? I disagree. But I believe there are enough OS/2 users around
to correct you on this.

> 2. Win16     (where would OS/2 be all these years without the apps
>                written for Windows 3.X and NOT OS/2 ?)

On the top? Seriously, I have for some time now considered WinOS/2
OS/2's greatest weakness. WinOS/2 guaranteed that ISVs would develop for
Windows since it meant writing for Windows and OS/2 customers without
having to port.

> 3. Win32     and OS/2 doesnt run these at all "out of the box"
>              and precious few even with ODIN..

I am curious. Noone even spoke about Win32. Why are we "obviously not
Windows knowledgeable" when you are not even refering to our points?

If what we said about Windows (UNIX shells are better, OS/2 has better
DOS support) is wrong, then please address the specific statements and
tell us why we are wrong. Your short essay about what applications
Windows can run has nothing to do with our argument.

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
0
andrew5549 (1164)
10/15/2003 8:58:16 PM
Menno Willemse <flexor@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > 
> > You are not very representative. I don't think there is such a large
> > number of OS/2 general purpose users left.
> 
> People have been telling us for years on end that we don't exist...

I think people have been telling you for years on end that there are
very few of you and that your number is shrinking.

> So let me tell you here and now: I am also an OS/2 General purpose user!
> So were about five hundred people who visited WarpStock Europe last year.
> You may not notice us, but that doesn't mean we're not there, dude.

No, but when you are not noticed it implies there are very few of you.

> >>Windows doesn't cut it for me.  I like having a real command line and real
> >>DOS support, and I also have a lot of OS/2 stuff I enjoy using.
> > 
> > I like having a _real_ real command line (tcsh and bash) and I don't
> > need DOS support (but if I do, Virtual PC does fine).
> 
> Both have been compiled for OS/2. For a sizable list of command line 
> interpreters:
> 
> http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/cgi-bin/h-browse?dir=/pub/os2/util/shell
>
> You will see that both bash and tcsh are there.

I know that and I have used bash and other shells on OS/2. However, it's
really not comparable to a UNIX system which comes with all the external
commands and the shells by default.
 
> As for DOS support: I don't use any DOS programs anymore. In fact, I'd say
> that at least 95% of what I use at any time is OS/2 native. (Mind you,
> portlings like Mozilla and Innotek's version of Acrobat Reader are
> bordering on the edge of emulation).

Fine. And what exactly does that say about the number of OS/2 users?

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
0
andrew5549 (1164)
10/15/2003 9:00:49 PM
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:58:16 UTC, andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> Seriously, I have for some time now considered WinOS/2
> OS/2's greatest weakness. WinOS/2 guaranteed that ISVs would develop for
> Windows since it meant writing for Windows and OS/2 customers without
> having to port.

I agree.  It probably took a lot of momentum out of OS/2, especially in the 
beginning.

-- 
Best regards
Sten Solberg

.... Also sprach Zarathustra: "Have a Good Day!"

0
stens (553)
10/15/2003 11:18:02 PM
Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:

> Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy,
> andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) spake unto us, saying:
> 
> >
> >You are not very representative. I don't think there is such a large
> >number of OS/2 general purpose users left.
> 
> Some of them don't have my requirements and find Linux adequate for
> their needs (for the record, I don't...yet...at least on the desktop),
> and others left in frustration for Windows.
> 
> I do, however, represent a nonzero population, and I know that there
> are other general-purpose users of OS/2 like me here on USENET, so at
> least I'm not alone.  :-)
> 
> >> Windows doesn't cut it for me.  I like having a real command line and
> >> real DOS support, and I also have a lot of OS/2 stuff I enjoy using.
> >
> >I like having a _real_ real command line (tcsh and bash) and I don't
> >need DOS support (but if I do, Virtual PC does fine).
> 
> I've already discussed my opinion of the whole 4OS2 versus bash/tsch
> question (I consider 4OS2+REXX to be a superior combination to ANY of
> the Linux shells I've used for a number of reasons), and OS/2 users
> have access to native versions of bash and tcsh if they want them.
> 
> The CLI advantage goes to OS/2, I'm afraid.
>

No, it doesn't. Just because you consider 4OS2 and REXX to be superior
to any of the "Linux shells" (I assume you mean the UNIX, BSD, and GNU
shells) doesn't mean that OS/2 has an advantage.

OS/2 would have an advantage if your theory was true and if people knew
it and would use 4OS2 rather than Bash. But they don't and it isn't.
Even if REXX is so flexible most people seemed to disagree and Perl was
developed which people now use instead of REXX. And 4DOS and 4OS2 were
never popular enough to be ported to other systems, the GNU shell was.
(Although non-UNIX-like systems usually lack many of the external
commands. Does OS/2 have netcat?)

> Virtual PC is just great if you want to pay for it.  I don't.

How great would OS/2 be if you didn't pay for it? The OS I use would be
somewhat great, a mikrokernel, a BSD compatible server, XFree86, and KDE
or Gnome. The result would be something looking like GNU/Linux. OS/2
offers NOTHING for free.

Many a software is only great if you pay for it, Virtual PC and OS/2 are
specific examples. Other software is great even when you don't want to
pay for it, like GNU/Linux or Mac OS X minus all of it that makes it
different from a pure Mach-based BSD system.

> Besides, if you want to use that argument we're tied at best -- you can
> run the Linux version of Virtual PC and boot OS/2 if you want to, and I
> could run the OS/2 version of Virtual PC and boot Linux if I wanted to.

There is no Linux version of Virtual PC.
 
> That'd make us even.  :-)
> 
> (Okay, I'd be behind because my system would be based on proprietary OS
> code while yours would be based on Linux, but I can't admit that on an
> advocacy newsfroup because that would undermine my whole argument <vbg>).

:-) 

My OS is based on Mach and BSD and a completely free system (Darwin)
with proprietary software on top of it.

There are also technical issues, of course.

IBM once seemed to think that Mach (the OS X kernel) was superior to
OS/2's kernel, when they tried to port OS/2 to the IBM version of Mach
in 1994. :-)

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
0
andrew5549 (1164)
10/16/2003 12:45:59 AM
Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:

> Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy,
> andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) spake unto us, saying:
> 
> >Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I've already discussed my opinion of the whole 4OS2 versus bash/tsch
> >> question (I consider 4OS2+REXX to be a superior combination to ANY of
> >> the Linux shells I've used for a number of reasons), and OS/2 users
> >> have access to native versions of bash and tcsh if they want them.
> >> 
> >> The CLI advantage goes to OS/2, I'm afraid.
> >
> >No, it doesn't. Just because you consider 4OS2 and REXX to be superior
> >to any of the "Linux shells" (I assume you mean the UNIX, BSD, and GNU
> >shells) doesn't mean that OS/2 has an advantage.
> 
> Perhaps "shells that are common to POSIX-compliant OSes" would be a
> somewhat more accurate phrase to use.

But I was talking about the Bourne shell, the Bourne Again shell, and
tcsh. They actually are the UNIX, GNU, and BSD shells.

> >OS/2 would have an advantage if your theory was true and if people knew
> >it and would use 4OS2 rather than Bash. But they don't and it isn't.
> 
> Linux or BSD would have an advantage of your theory was true and if
> people knew it and would use Linux or BSD rather than Windows.  But
> they don't and it isn't.  :-)

But people do use GNU/Linux or BSD instead of Windows when it comes to
fields where I claim GNU/Linux and BSD are better.

That's the difference. You claim 4OS2 was as excellent a shell as any
but I know few people who use OS/2 instead of Windows because of it. But
I know many many people who use GNU/Linux because of Bash and other
shells.

> (Only partially written tongue-in-cheek)
> 
> In my eyes, the comparison between 4OS2 and bash isn't even close, with
> 4OS2 having a very clear advantage from an interactive usage standpoint.

How so?

> Others might disagree, and that could be fine based on their experience
> and their usage context, but I know my own tastes in CLIs VERY well. 
> 
> I've had a couple of decades by now to formulate them, after all.  :-)

But the point is that most other users do disagree. And that's, of
course, OS/2's problem.

> Since I tend to spend a lot of time in a fullscreen console in any OS, be
> it mainframe or workstation, except in Windows where the GUI seems to
> rule, that console had better "feel" good to me and also better do what I
> want or I'll quickly become very frustrated or unhappy with it.

Does 4OS2 do filename and command completion, support pipes (for more
than the "more" command), redirect input and output from and to files
and devices?

> The bash shell is okay, perhaps more than just okay, but there are a
> few key elements missing that I *expect* to see in an advanced command
> shell (and that I've had in DOS, Windows, and OS/2 for over a decade),
> and the lack of many of those things really makes Linux (or FreeBSD, or
> whatever) feel very limited to me when I use it from the command-line.

What are these things?

> Why can't I select executables or history items from a visual picklist
> using simple arrow keys?

You can select history items from a picklist using arrow keys. A visual
picklist would not work with all terminals.

>  Why doesn't it provide a selectable list of directory names for me when I
> type a partial directory name?

??? It does.

> Where is a good equivalent for the SELECT command so I can extend
> point-and-shoot target selection to any command?

What exactly does SELECT do?

> Why doesn't a command executed in a directory with 1,000,000 files pick up
> all files in the directory?

??? Never encountered such a problem.

> There are historical reasons for the last item, which illustates the
> difference in wildcard expansion methods in Unix-like and DOS-like
> operating systems, but that doesn't mean I have to like the results.

Could the historical reason be that you tend to use glob wildcards while
UNIX shells can also use regexps?

> >Even if REXX is so flexible most people seemed to disagree and Perl was
> >developed which people now use instead of REXX.
> 
> Perl was developed in a context where REXX was not commonly available
> (REXX was mainly found on IBM systems and on AmigaDOS).

Yes. And Perl was found mainly on UNIX and GNU systems. IBM and Amiga
were not so rare when REXX began.

> >And 4DOS and 4OS2 were never popular enough to be ported to other
> >systems, the GNU shell was.
> 
> A 4OS2-like shell was probably never ported to POSIX operating systems for
> a number of reasons, but mainly (I suspect) because JP Software never saw
> a potential for profit in the endeavor, and they were the only entity with
> the power to do so.

It's the issue of essential profit that shows me that people apparently
didn't feel 4OS2 was so great. If it was, people would pay for it.

> 4DOS and 4OS2 were proprietary products, and the former still is.

But proprietary products tend to be sold to people who think they are
worth money.

> There's also a tremendously strong mindset amongst Linux developers
> (perhaps rightly so given their context) to do things the same way as is
> done on more traditional Unix flavors, and the JP Software shells do not
> always follow that approach.  That isn't their history.

And I assume that the traditional UNIX way has simply convinced more
people, don't I?

> I think the bash shell's popularity is due to four major factors:
> 
>  (1) It was (and is) free (as in gratis)

But the Bourne shell wasn't, and it was the Bourne shell that set the
standard.

>  (2) Its source was freely available for porting to other platforms

But the Bourne shell's wasn't, until some time after it was born.

>  (3) It's sh-compatible (for the most part), and

That's the bit. People were so convinced by sh that they wrote free
replacements.

>  (4) The most widespread POSIX-centric operating systems have seemingly
>      decided (for the most part) to choose bash as the default shell,
>      and that has been true for over a decade (even the first SLS distro
>      of Linux I tried in 1992 used bash, I think).

All GNU systems (Linux, Hurd) use bash as their default, since bash is
the GNU shell. Solaris uses csh, Mac OS X uses tcsh.

> I also think its popularity is due to some level of feature comparison
> with other shells in the POSIX arena, but I really don't think that the
> shells used by other platforms had much of an impact.

Exactly.

> >(Although non-UNIX-like systems usually lack many of the external
> >commands. Does OS/2 have netcat?)
> 
> A port exists on Hobbes, but it's not currently part of the OS/2 client
> distribution.  I don't know about OS/2 server or eComStation.
> 
> What is it used for?  Why would I want it?

It's like cat for network connections. You can use it to connect to
servers from a shell script. I last used it for a shell script that
logged on to a POP server and deleted all mails that were 100 KB or more
in size.

> >> Virtual PC is just great if you want to pay for it.  I don't.
> >
> >How great would OS/2 be if you didn't pay for it?
> 
> When I paid for OS/2, I paid for the base operating system with support
> attached (just like I did when I purchased the various Linux distros I
> have here, when I purchased various Windows flavors, when I purchased
> BeOS, when I purchased Solaris/x86, etc.).

Ok.

> When you pay for Virtual PC, you're paying for an add-on to the base
> operating system.  It's a commercial application developed by a third
> party and unrelated to the core OS.

So is XFree86.

> >> Besides, if you want to use that argument we're tied at best -- you can
> >> run the Linux version of Virtual PC and boot OS/2 if you want to, and I
> >> could run the OS/2 version of Virtual PC and boot Linux if I wanted to.
> >
> >There is no Linux version of Virtual PC.
> 
> That's right -- I forgot that the x86-specific Virtual PC product has
> only been released for Windows and OS/2.  Sorry...

Ok.

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
0
andrew5549 (1164)
10/16/2003 10:26:40 AM
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:26:40 UTC, andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. 
Brehm) wrote:

> > In my eyes, the comparison between 4OS2 and bash isn't even close, with
> > 4OS2 having a very clear advantage from an interactive usage standpoint.
> 
> How so?

That is because it gives command history, command and filename 
extension, aliases, uses the well known syntax of cmd.exe but with 
lots of extensions, even as it has its own batch processor with its 
own extensions it is compatible with anything you knows since OS/2 1.0
or even DOS. It understunds REXX, OREXX ......
 
> > Since I tend to spend a lot of time in a fullscreen console in any OS, be
> > it mainframe or workstation, except in Windows where the GUI seems to
> > rule, that console had better "feel" good to me and also better do what I
> > want or I'll quickly become very frustrated or unhappy with it.
> 
> Does 4OS2 do filename and command completion, support pipes (for more
> than the "more" command), redirect input and output from and to files
> and devices?

Really, yes.
 
> >  (4) The most widespread POSIX-centric operating systems have seemingly
> >      decided (for the most part) to choose bash as the default shell,
> >      and that has been true for over a decade (even the first SLS distro
> >      of Linux I tried in 1992 used bash, I think).
> 
> All GNU systems (Linux, Hurd) use bash as their default, since bash is
> the GNU shell. Solaris uses csh, Mac OS X uses tcsh.

So you has even on linux another shell than on linux and another on 
linux. This looks like that there are no 2 single computers that use 
the same shell.

Some questions left over:
Where is WPS for linux? As the WPS is the most used graphical shell.

No, neither gnume nor kde is able to reach the WPS water. There is 
nothing on other OSes that comes near the usability and flexibility 
the WPS gives you - both, the user AND the developer.

-- 
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

eComStation 1.1 Deutsch wird jetzt ausgeliefert!
0
os2guy1 (1090)
10/16/2003 5:30:57 PM
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:46:25 -0500, rsteiner@visi.com (Richard
Steiner) wrote:

>Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy,
>andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) spake unto us, saying:
>
>>Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've already discussed my opinion of the whole 4OS2 versus bash/tsch
>>> question (I consider 4OS2+REXX to be a superior combination to ANY of
>>> the Linux shells I've used for a number of reasons), and OS/2 users
>>> have access to native versions of bash and tcsh if they want them.
>>> 
>>> The CLI advantage goes to OS/2, I'm afraid.
>>
>>No, it doesn't. Just because you consider 4OS2 and REXX to be superior
>>to any of the "Linux shells" (I assume you mean the UNIX, BSD, and GNU
>>shells) doesn't mean that OS/2 has an advantage.
>
>Perhaps "shells that are common to POSIX-compliant OSes" would be a
>somewhat more accurate phrase to use.
>
>>OS/2 would have an advantage if your theory was true and if people knew
>>it and would use 4OS2 rather than Bash. But they don't and it isn't.
>
>Linux or BSD would have an advantage of your theory was true and if
>people knew it and would use Linux or BSD rather than Windows.  But
>they don't and it isn't.  :-)
>
>(Only partially written tongue-in-cheek)
>

I don't see your point, however tongue-in-cheek.  OS/2's shell by the
criteria of *popularity* or usage is a dysmal failure.  

>In my eyes, the comparison between 4OS2 and bash isn't even close, with
>4OS2 having a very clear advantage from an interactive usage standpoint.
>
>Others might disagree, and that could be fine based on their experience
>and their usage context, but I know my own tastes in CLIs VERY well. 
>

That's great, but like you say, that doesn't extend beyond the
boundaries of your own head.

>I've had a couple of decades by now to formulate them, after all.  :-)
>
>Since I tend to spend a lot of time in a fullscreen console in any OS,
>be it mainframe or workstation, except in Windows where the GUI seems
>to rule, that console had better "feel" good to me and also better do
>what I want or I'll quickly become very frustrated or unhappy with it.
>

Which is why ksh/bash and the ilk are used so very, *very* much.

>The bash shell is okay, perhaps more than just okay, but there are a
>few key elements missing that I *expect* to see in an advanced command
>shell (and that I've had in DOS, Windows, and OS/2 for over a decade),
>and the lack of many of those things really makes Linux (or FreeBSD, or
>whatever) feel very limited to me when I use it from the command-line.
>

Really?  What kinds of things?  In my experience *nix has by *far* the
greater flexibility and functionality.

>Why can't I select executables or history items from a visual picklist
>using simple arrow keys?  

Because you're using a dumb vt100 terminal over a 9600 baud console
connection?

Although, of course,  you *can* just use arrow up/down to access your
..sh_history  (but I prefer vi mode as I'm used to searching/editing
using /,x etc).

>Why doesn't it provide a selectable list of
>directory names for me when I type a partial directory name? 

If you want it, it's there.

> Where is
>a good equivalent for the SELECT command so I can extend point-and-shoot
>target selection to any command?  

Not sure what you mean by this.  If you are looking to perform
commands on files which fit particular criteria try using "find"

find . -name "noobie[0-9].[aA-zZ].*$" -exec cp {} /var/bogus \;
find /var/log -mtime +15 -exec gzip {} \;
find . -mtime +60 | cpio -oc | gzip -c >archive.cpio.gz

There's not much you *can't* do with find and one or two others :)

>Why doesn't a command executed in a
>directory with 1,000,000 files pick up all files in the directory?
>

Beats me - I've never needed to perform an operation on 10^6 files in
one directory.  When did you last do that?

>There are historical reasons for the last item, which illustates the
>difference in wildcard expansion methods in Unix-like and DOS-like
>operating systems, but that doesn't mean I have to like the results.
>

Whatever - you can always just do an ls | while {}

>>Even if REXX is so flexible most people seemed to disagree and Perl was
>>developed which people now use instead of REXX.
>
>Perl was developed in a context where REXX was not commonly available
>(REXX was mainly found on IBM systems and on AmigaDOS).
>

So why not just port REXX if it was so good?  To be honest, I think
that comparing REXX and perl is like comparing a butter-knife to a
swiss-army knife.  They do much the same thing, but one of them can be
do pretty much *anything*.

Perl outperforms REXX, too.  A lot :)

http://www.ipd.uka.de/~prechelt/Biblio/jccpprt_computer2000.pdf

>>And 4DOS and 4OS2 were never popular enough to be ported to other
>>systems, the GNU shell was.
>
>A 4OS2-like shell was probably never ported to POSIX operating systems
>for a number of reasons, but mainly (I suspect) because JP Software
>never saw a potential for profit in the endeavor, and they were the
>only entity with the power to do so.
>
>4DOS and 4OS2 were proprietary products, and the former still is.
>
>There's also a tremendously strong mindset amongst Linux developers
>(perhaps rightly so given their context) to do things the same way as
>is done on more traditional Unix flavors, and the JP Software shells
>do not always follow that approach.  That isn't their history.
>

I think it's more to do with the fact that it's not as flexible,
extendible or as cross-platform as *nix shells.

>I think the bash shell's popularity is due to four major factors:
>
> (1) It was (and is) free (as in gratis)
> 
> (2) Its source was freely available for porting to other platforms

As well as *improving* for other platforms.  Cross-platform is
certainly key.

>
> (3) It's sh-compatible (for the most part), and

A lot of stuff would break otherwise :)

[snip]

Have you looked at cygwin on Windows - it's a pretty complete
implementation of the unix shell for windows (and others).  The
included suite of commands is good, too:

$ cd /bin
$ ls -1
a2p.exe
addftinfo.exe
afmtodit
apropos
awk.exe
basename.exe
bash.exe
bashbug
bc.exe
c2ph
c_rehash
captoinfo.exe
cat.exe
chgrp.exe
chmod.exe
chown.exe
chroot.exe
cksum.exe
clear.exe
clearn.exe
cmp.exe
comm.exe
conv2gdbm.exe
cp.exe
cpan
crontab.exe
csplit.exe
cut.exe
cygcheck.exe
cygcrypto.dll
cygform5.dll
cygform6.dll
cyggdbm.dll
cyghistory4.dll
cyghistory5.dll
cygiconv-2.dll
cygintl-1.dll
cygintl-2.dll
cygmenu5.dll
cygmenu6.dll
cygncurses++5.dll
cygncurses++6.dll
cygncurses5.dll
cygncurses6.dll
cygpanel5.dll
cygpanel6.dll
cygpath.exe
cygpcre.dll
cygpcreposix.dll
cygreadline4.dll
cygreadline5.dll
cygserver.exe
cygssl.dll
cygwin1.dll
cygz.dll
date.exe
dc.exe
dd.exe
df.exe
diff.exe
diff3.exe
dir.exe
dircolors.exe
dirname.exe
dprofpp
du.exe
dumper.exe
echo.exe
egrep
env.exe
eqn.exe
ex
expand.exe
expr.exe
factor.exe
false.exe
fgrep
file.exe
fileman-stat.exe
fileman.exe
find.exe
find2perl
fmt.exe
fold.exe
funzip.exe
gawk.exe
getfacl.exe
grep.exe
grn.exe
grodvi.exe
groff.exe
grog
grolbp.exe
grolj4.exe
grops.exe
grotty.exe
groups
gunzip.exe
gzexe
gzip.exe
h2ph
h2xs
head.exe
hostname.exe
hpftodit.exe
id.exe
igawk
indxbib.exe
info.exe
infocmp.exe
infokey.exe
infotocap.exe
install-info.exe
install.exe
join.exe
kill.exe
ld2
less.exe
lessecho.exe
lesskey.exe
libperl5_6_1.dll
libzsh-4.0.4.dll
lkbib.exe
ln.exe
locate.exe
login.exe
logname.exe
lookbib.exe
ls.exe
makeinfo.exe
man.exe
man2html.exe
md5sum.exe
mkdir.exe
mkfifo.exe
mkgroup.exe
mknod.exe
mkpasswd.exe
mmroff
more.exe
mount.exe
mv.exe
ncurses-test-dll
neqn
nice.exe
nl.exe
nohup
nroff
od.exe
openssl.exe
passwd.exe
paste.exe
pathchk.exe
pcre-config
pcregrep.exe
pcretest.exe
perl.exe
perl5.6.1.exe
perlbug
perlcc
perldoc
perlld
pfbtops.exe
pgawk.exe
pic.exe
pinky.exe
pl2pm
pod2html
pod2latex
pod2man
pod2text
pod2usage
podchecker
podselect
post-grohtml.exe
pr.exe
pre-grohtml.exe
printenv.exe
printf.exe
ps.exe
pstruct
ptar
ptx.exe
pwd.exe
refer.exe
regtool.exe
reset.exe
rl-stat.exe
rl.exe
rltest-stat.exe
rltest.exe
rlversion-stat.exe
rlversion.exe
rm.exe
rmdir.exe
rview
rvim
s2p
scp.exe
sdiff.exe
sed.exe
seq.exe
setfacl.exe
sftp.exe
sh.exe
sha1sum.exe
shred.exe
sleep.exe
slogin
soelim.exe
sort.exe
splain
split.exe
ssh-add.exe
ssh-agent.exe
ssh-host-config
ssh-keygen.exe
ssh-keyscan.exe
ssh-user-config
ssh.exe
ssp.exe
strace.exe
stty.exe
sum.exe
sync.exe
tac.exe
tail.exe
tar.exe
tbl.exe
tee.exe
test.exe
testdbm.exe
testgdbm.exe
testndbm.exe
texi2dvi
texindex.exe
tfmtodit.exe
tic.exe
toe.exe
touch.exe
tput.exe
tr.exe
troff.exe
true.exe
tset.exe
tsort.exe
tty.exe
umount.exe
uname.exe
unexpand.exe
uniq.exe
unzip.exe
unzipsfx.exe
updatedb
users.exe
vdir.exe
vi
view
vim.exe
vimdiff
vimtutor
wc.exe
whatis
which.exe
who.exe
whoami.exe
whois.exe
xargs.exe
xxd.exe
yes.exe
zcat.exe
zcmp
zdiff
zegrep
zfgrep
zforce
zgrep
zip.exe
zipcloak.exe
zipgrep
zipinfo
zipnote.exe
zipsplit.exe
zless
zmore
znew
zsh-4.0.4.exe
zsh.exe

What is it I'm missing again?  :)


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)
0
David
10/16/2003 9:17:13 PM
The Real OS/2 Guy <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:26:40 UTC, andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. 
> Brehm) wrote:
> 
> > > In my eyes, the comparison between 4OS2 and bash isn't even close, with
> > > 4OS2 having a very clear advantage from an interactive usage standpoint.
> > 
> > How so?
> 
> That is because it gives command history, command and filename extension,
> aliases, uses the well known syntax of cmd.exe but with lots of
> extensions, even as it has its own batch processor with its own extensions
> it is compatible with anything you knows since OS/2 1.0 or even DOS. It
> understunds REXX, OREXX ......

None of that is a particular advantage over an sh-compatible bash.

> > > Since I tend to spend a lot of time in a fullscreen console in any OS, be
> > > it mainframe or workstation, except in Windows where the GUI seems to
> > > rule, that console had better "feel" good to me and also better do what I
> > > want or I'll quickly become very frustrated or unhappy with it.
> > 
> > Does 4OS2 do filename and command completion, support pipes (for more
> > than the "more" command), redirect input and output from and to files
> > and devices?
> 
> Really, yes.

Good.

> > >  (4) The most widespread POSIX-centric operating systems have seemingly
> > >      decided (for the most part) to choose bash as the default shell,
> > >      and that has been true for over a decade (even the first SLS distro
> > >      of Linux I tried in 1992 used bash, I think).
> > 
> > All GNU systems (Linux, Hurd) use bash as their default, since bash is
> > the GNU shell. Solaris uses csh, Mac OS X uses tcsh.
> 
> So you has even on linux another shell than on linux and another on 
> linux. This looks like that there are no 2 single computers that use 
> the same shell.

Most UNIX installations seem to feature more than one shell. My Mac came
with bash and tcsh at least.

> Some questions left over: Where is WPS for linux? As the WPS is the most
> used graphical shell.

But we weren't discussing GUIs. Anyway, I have used the WPS until 1998.
Unless it has improved dramatically since then, I don't see so many
advantages over Aqua.

> No, neither gnume nor kde is able to reach the WPS water. There is nothing
> on other OSes that comes near the usability and flexibility the WPS gives
> you - both, the user AND the developer.

Windows seems to allow for skinning. Does OS/2?

As for Gnome and KDE, I have them installed but I use Aqua.


-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
0
andrew5549 (1164)
10/16/2003 11:34:02 PM
In article <l21uovsopo7s5jbcnobp0kvgqt34ob5t4t@4ax.com>, 
sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com says...
> What is it I'm missing again?  :)
> 
> 
> Regards,
> David Sutherland
> (note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)
> 
 
Did you get the XWindows port for cygwin. I do Java work and have to 
deploy to a monitor-less server. I use cygwin and the Xwindows port to 
run some of the apps.
-- 
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy


--------------------------------------
0
fake6979 (595)
10/17/2003 3:42:58 AM
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:34:02 UTC, andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. 
Brehm) wrote:

> The Real OS/2 Guy <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:26:40 UTC, andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. 
> > Brehm) wrote:
> > 
> > > > In my eyes, the comparison between 4OS2 and bash isn't even close, with
> > > > 4OS2 having a very clear advantage from an interactive usage standpoint.
> > > 
> > > How so?
> > 
> > That is because it gives command history, command and filename extension,
> > aliases, uses the well known syntax of cmd.exe but with lots of
> > extensions, even as it has its own batch processor with its own extensions
> > it is compatible with anything you knows since OS/2 1.0 or even DOS. It
> > understunds REXX, OREXX ......
> 
> None of that is a particular advantage over an sh-compatible bash.

You've listed in another artikle a lot of commands crying that they 
are bash commands - ignoring the fact that they are useable even with 
REXX, cmd, and any other possible shell. Now let us know the buildin 
commands bash knows. No, not the tools once can call of it, only the 
build ins.
 
> > Some questions left over: Where is WPS for linux? As the WPS is the most
> > used graphical shell.
> 
> But we weren't discussing GUIs. Anyway, I have used the WPS until 1998.
> Unless it has improved dramatically since then, I don't see so many
> advantages over Aqua.

It is improved drastically. Anybody who can develop in C, C++, 
Fortran, Cobol, .... can improve it. I've seen prior lots of 
extensions where none was ever gone public because the developer 
wouldn't do that.

But what is Aqua? Nobody ever had heard of it. I can't find a single 
word about a GUI named aqua on linux.org. It seems that there is a 
gnome theme named aqua - but that is not a shell, it's only a theme.
 
> > No, neither gnume nor kde is able to reach the WPS water. There is nothing
> > on other OSes that comes near the usability and flexibility the WPS gives
> > you - both, the user AND the developer.
> 
> Windows seems to allow for skinning. Does OS/2?

Why not? I see you've not a developer. The WPS can more than wincrap, 
gnome, kde and other shells together. 
 
> As for Gnome and KDE, I have them installed but I use Aqua.
> 
A think even linux.org knows nothing about. 


-- 
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

eComStation 1.1 Deutsch wird jetzt ausgeliefert!
0
os2guy1 (1090)
10/17/2003 5:51:01 AM
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:35:17 -0500, rsteiner@visi.com (Richard
Steiner) wrote:

>Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy,
>David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com> spake unto us, saying:
>
>>>The bash shell is okay, perhaps more than just okay, but there are a
>>>few key elements missing that I *expect* to see in an advanced command
>>>shell (and that I've had in DOS, Windows, and OS/2 for over a decade),
>>>and the lack of many of those things really makes Linux (or FreeBSD, or
>>>whatever) feel very limited to me when I use it from the command-line.
>>
>>Really?  What kinds of things?  In my experience *nix has by *far* the
>>greater flexibility and functionality.
>
>Since both you and Andrew seem to not have any experience with 4OS2's
>real strengths, I will supply some screenshots to demonstrate what I
>mean by a "visual picklist" (something 4OS2 uses heavily that bash does
>not have, at least AFAIK):
>
>(1) This is an example of the visual picklist invoked by the PgUp (or
>    PgDn) key which allows me to use the keyboard to visually select
>    a command from the shell's command history:
>
>      http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner/4os2history.gif
>
>    Please note that this is a fullscreen fully navigatable selection
>    dialog which is traversed by using the keys, and the selection is
>    made visually via the Enter key.  Note also the presence of a scroll
>    bar to show the current position of the cursor in the list.
>
>    One can also do somethinglike this (the next picture is the result
>    of typing the letter "c" at the prompt followed by the PgDn key):
>
>      http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner/4os2history2.gif
>
>(2) This is an example of the visual directory picklist that 4OS2 will
>    provide when I enter the "cd infiles" command on my box:
>
>      http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner/4os2changedir.gif
>
>    Note that this is another example of a fully-traversible dialog
>    box where one is able to visually select the result in context
>    (unlike the primitive method bash uses to display its selection
>    list).
>
>    Note also that it provides all occurrences of the string I was
>    searching for regardless of its nesting level in the tree.  To
>    show how this might be more useful, consider the results of the
>    "cd doc" command:
>
>      http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner/4os2changedir2.gif
>
>I hope that helps to explain what I mean by a "visual picklist".
>

That's all very pretty, but it's not going to be as fast as typing
/<str> to pull up the last command that contained <str>.   It's also
going to have issues on a dumb terminal.

I can see how 4OS2 is good for someone who likes to have visual clues
as to what's going on, but I'm quite happy with things like "cd
\in*tr*" to get where I need to be!  Also, I don't think that visual
pretties are what makes a shell powerful - but I'm sure that some
people do :)

>>> Where is
>>>a good equivalent for the SELECT command so I can extend point-and-shoot
>>>target selection to any command?  
>>
>>Not sure what you mean by this.
>
>I will illustrate.  The following is the result of my typing the
>command "select (*.*) list" at the 4OS2 command line and then using
>some keys to move down a few pages in the display:
>
>  http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner/4os2selectlist.gif
>
>You can see that 4OS2 nicely color-codes files in a manner somewhat
>similar to the color-coding of some ls command variants (in 4OS2, as
>in 4DOS, the "DIR" command is an internal command by default, not an
>external program as with most *nix shells).
>

Ugh - more colours.   Pretty, but hardly a compelling feature.

>Notice that the display is a scrollable multi-page full-screen visual
>listing of all of the files in the directory that match the wildcard
>"*.*", and that I've used the spacebar to arbitrarily tag the various
>files I've decided to view.  The little triangles on the left margin
>show the files I've tagged.  This isn't a filemanager like Midnight
>Commander, mind you, it's built into the shell.
>
>Notice also that I've skipped one .txt file and decided for some weird
>reason to add one .cmd file and one .htm file as targets for the "list"
>command.
>
>This would be the results of the command "select (*.[a-d]??) del" under
>4OS2, which should allow me to visually select files to delete from the
>list of files with an extension starting with a, b, c, or d:
>

Hmmm...it looks like a lot of the things you want to do require you to
"drive" from one thing to the next.  With *sh I just string the
commands I want together.  A lot of the stuff I want to happen I want
to do late at night - compressing a hundred large log files for
example.   I need to be able to use cron to do it, and I'm not going
to be there to see the gee-whiz colours, nor press the space-bar.

>  http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner/4os2selectdel.gif
>
>In this example, I've decided I don't like a small group of files in
>the middle of the display -- when I hit enter, the tagged files will
>die a horrible death.  Oh, and my Axis&Allies rules file, too.  :-)
>
>Does that help illustrate the "select" command for you?  It lets you
>arbitrarily select (via a fullscreen piclist) which files to use as
>the target for a command.  This allows for simple aliases like:
>
>  tdel=select (*.*) del
>
>or
>
>  tunzip=select (*.zip) unzip
>
>etc., which can make life in a CLI reletively nice in some ways.
>

And all of which can be done (with more flexibility) using find.  Same
with aliases.  You seem to have missed my examples.  

I get the feeling that a lot of your preference for 4OS2 comes from
unfamiliarity with the *nix shell.  I've used both and I know which
one gives the more powerful environment.

>>Have you looked at cygwin on Windows - it's a pretty complete
>>implementation of the unix shell for windows (and others).
>
>Yes, I have.  The main thing I miss in Windows at this point is a good
>way to cut-and-paste directly between two fullscreen sessions.  I can
>use SNIPPER under Win95, CLIPIT under OS/2, and gdm under Linux, but I
>don't know of an equivalent for NT or XP...

Cygwin.  Select the text you want and paste it using the right mouse
button.

Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)
0
David
10/17/2003 8:14:29 AM
Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy,
andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) spake unto us, saying:

>Windows seems to allow for skinning. Does OS/2?

Skinning is little more than eye candy.  The WPS has things like

  * object templates (which allow for the drag-and-drop creation of
    any number of copies of a given object from a base object),

  * workgroup folders (which opens or closes a group of folders and/or
    programs when the controlling folder is opened or closed)

  * shortcuts/aliases that dynamically update themselves when the
    target file is moved

Personally, I prefer substance over style.  The makers of Windows (and
many of the window managers for Linux seem to lean the other way...

-- 
 -Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
    OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
 Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment (again).
       See web site in my signature for current resume and background.
0
rsteiner (797)
10/17/2003 7:07:19 PM
Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:

> Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy,
> andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) spake unto us, saying:
> 
> >Windows seems to allow for skinning. Does OS/2?
> 
> Skinning is little more than eye candy.  The WPS has things like
> 
>   * object templates (which allow for the drag-and-drop creation of
>     any number of copies of a given object from a base object),

No problem with Aqua.

>   * workgroup folders (which opens or closes a group of folders and/or
>     programs when the controlling folder is opened or closed)

Handy and always mentioned when it comes down to OS/2's advantages.
There is no other such feature, is there?

>   * shortcuts/aliases that dynamically update themselves when the
>     target file is moved

I don't know how Windows handles this, but OS X handles aliases the way
OS/2 does, except that they are visible to command line shells.

> Personally, I prefer substance over style. 

So do I. This is why I don't find OS/2's shadows very dynamic. They are
style, but they lack substance.

> The makers of many of the window managers for Linux seem to lean the other
> way...

How so?

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
0
andrew5549 (1164)
10/17/2003 8:11:12 PM
Richard Steiner wrote:
> Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy,
> David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com> spake unto us, saying:
> 
>>It's also going to have issues on a dumb terminal.
> 
> True, but that's usually not an issue on a local console.  :-)

Actually, this may not be the case.  CMD terminals recognize ANSI codes 
to do color and cursor positioning.  If 4OS2 is implemented in this way 
(as opposed to direct VIO manipulation), it will work fine in a remote 
session.

It might be worth testing out.

0
mamodeo (309)
10/18/2003 3:49:12 AM
Reply: