Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:29:54 -0500 (EST)
From:      John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu>
To:        Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee>
Cc:        "Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>, m230761@ingenieria.ingsala.unal.edu.co, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: My opinion about freebsd (fwd)
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.970714085438.3129E-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970714152330.25586C-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Narvi wrote:

> > How so?  (No, that isn't a troll, I'm honestly curious.  Also,
> > the difficulty depends quite a lot on the network you are trying 
> > to hook into.)
> 
> Well, have you found a way to assign two different IP numbers to one
> network interface? Using the standard bundled software?
> 
> Even NT worstation allows only 5.

For win95, I would have to ask why you would want to anyway?  The
only reason I can think of is for setting up server applications,
for which win95 is a lousy choice for numerous other reasons.  As
for NT, clearly MS wants you to shell out the bucks for NT
Server.  Yes, I find that repulsive.  It is rumored that you can
twiddle some things in the registry to turn NT Workstation into
NT server....

> Unix is a much better platform to develop software for. At least you know
> what is going to be in the next release.

The unix world isn't immune to directional changes, witness the
SunOS to Solaris shift or Ultrix to OSF/1.  Anybody know where
SCO is headed now that they and HP have joint ownership of UNIX? 
Heck the change from Net2 to BSD4.4 was a rough transition for
some people in the FreeBSD camp.  With Microsoft, it isn't so
much a question of what will be in the next release, but when it
will be.

> What good would be Excel? It with it's macro language (real obfusticated
> version of Basic with the *most* twisted vision of OO) is overly too slow.
> 
> Word I can understand. But Excel?

For me it would be "Excel I can understand, but Word?" 
Seriously, Excel was just an arbitrary example.  You could
replace it with any of thousands of Windows-only applications.

> As is WP for SCO, also, most of the big dos programs imho used to be
> available for unix (at least sco).

"Used to" being the operative phrase here.  Besides, unless you
are in an environment where many users have dumb terminals (I
used to work at such a place), what is the point?  In many
"mission critical application" environments, once the application
is started, the OS ceases to be relevant, so why not use an OS
that is essentially and fits on a 360K floppy with room to
spare? WP for DOS is quite usable on a 80286 with a megabyte of
ram. Can you say the same for SCO WordPerfect?

-john




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970714085438.3129E-100000>