Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:06:15 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>, <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: As usual, I disagree. Message-ID: <15367.44663.511557.67023@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <040c01c179b0$c01ff790$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <15366.58396.746782.116282@guru.mired.org> <036901c17949$335163b0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15367.35596.70893.123850@guru.mired.org> <03fa01c179ac$e85cdba0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15367.40254.191788.665077@guru.mired.org> <040c01c179b0$c01ff790$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> types: > Mike writes: > > That NT has to provide the same functionality > > to be compatible with W9x is a sad thing. > I suspect that, even if NT provided the option of filtering messages (and > actually it does, to a limited extent, as do all Win32 environments), > programmers would just whine about it. Most Windows programmers have never been > beyond a desktop, and have no concept of multiprogramming, multiuser systems in > which they must actually share resources with other software and respect > security mandates. Any restriction on what they can do would upset them. I've noticed that. One of the things that makes Windows an unpleasant desktop for me is that many of the applications act like they are the only thing running, which make using the multitasking ability of the system much more painfull than it is on Unix. > > That may make the desktop more flexible and > > functional, but not the underlying windowing system > > which we were discussing. > Maybe, but you need both to get anything done. True. Unix has enough applications to be flexible enough to get the job done. > > Unless you can demonstrate an application which > > can't be done on X, the sheer number don't matter. > The sheer number matters a lot, when you are looking for something on the > shelves of a computer store. A _theoretical_ ability to do the same thing on X > is worthless to the average user; it's meaningful only if it comes on a CD in a > box. That's true for only one of the users I know. For the rest, it only matters if they can download a copy from the net, or get one from a friend. > > Just out of curiosity, if I'm using one of > > the remote access methods for NT, is there > > anything that prevents me from running a > > program that opens a window on the screen > > and thus get access to the same information? > > You'll have to be more specific. As a general rule, NT and Windows overall make > little provision for remote graphic interfaces to the machine, or for interfaces > of any kind, except for sharing of files and printers and other non-interactive > services. One of the horrors of NT administration is trying to do _anything_ > from a distance; all administrative tools are graphics-based, so you have to be > running a Windows machine to use them, and the protocols used to connect them to > a server are so complex and bandwidth hungry that very often you can't do > anything at all. In many cases I've resorted to pcAnywhere (which just exports > entire screens from the host machine) to do things, but it is dog-slow compared > to a simple command-line interface. First, you might try VNC instead of pcAnywhere. VNC seemed faster than pcAnywhere in the cases I've tried it. You can also access it from X, or any java-capable web browser. They claim that on PC's you can use it with the SVGA library, but I've not been able to get that to work. Basically, I'm not interested in opening a window and *doing* anything with it. I'm interested in being able to get the flow of events, and possibly manipulating other windows on the screen. > In some cases, I recall having to send an engineer to a distant customer site in > person in order to accomplish anything, since no attempt to communicate with his > servers remotely could be made to work. That's one of the things one pays for RISC hardware for. If you don't plug in a screen, it will assume the PROM access is via a serial console. This means you can do everything that doesn't require actually touching the CPU box remotely. > > In other words, the Windows approach is no more > > flexible or functional than the X approach, just > > a lot more expensive. > You get what you pay for. If you want access to 100,000 applications, you have > to pay something for that. Can't argue with that. Since even heavy users seldom use more than a few hundred applications, having access to a few thousand is usually sufficient, and doesn't require the cpu resources of windows. Of course, to make sure that your critical applications run on the platform you're chosing, you should select those first, then select the OS they run on best, *then* chose the hardware platform that will best support that OS. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Q: How do you make the gods laugh? A: Tell them your plans. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15367.44663.511557.67023>