🚀 go-pugleaf

R S Rodgers (rsrodger@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: >	FIX STUPID, NIGGLING BUGS IN WPS.  Why can't I set swapfile paramaters
: >	from a graphical interface?

Not everyone likes a graphical interface. I *hate* them. Nothing wrong
with having a graphical interface of the type you suggest - as long as
it is optional.


> >     Why isn't there a log file of successfully and
: >	unsuccessfully launched drivers/applications at system startup?

How long will it take to boot up then? Have you tried starting Windows
3.1 with the parameter that produces a log file? It takes for ever to
start. I think that the boot up time is long enough already. I have sat
down and watched a Sun Sparc take the best part of 45 minutes to
complete its boot up sequence. I have no desire to see OS/2 go that
route. However, there is nothing wrong with providing logging facilities
as an option (like in Win 3.1).

: >	can't I make a snapshot of my desktop to be used at bootup, and then
: >	make a mess as I work throughout the day, only to have my desk cleaned
: >	up again--whew!--the next morning when I reboot? 
: >

What is wrong with backing up and restoring your WPS manually? - because
this is what you are asking the operating system to do. How long will
that add to the boot up sequence - 5 minutes?

: >	MULTIUSER WPS.  Add ability to have logins and seperate, unique 
: >	desktop arrangements for multiple users.
: >

Personally, I don't want this. If I did, I would buy a multi-user
operating system. Software and operating systems are now in the bad
habit of developing the middle age spread - one million features that
only 0.05% of users will use - and just clog-up-space entities for the
remaining 99.95%. All these things are available as add-ons. That is
where they should be. I don't want to pay for something I don't want,
and will never use. Neither do I want it taking up hard disk real
estate. 

: >	ALLOW DRIVERS TO BE LOADED AND UNLOADED WITHOUT A RESET.  That's
: >	right.  If Windows 3.1 drivers can allow a user to change resolution
: >	without exiting or restarting Windows, why not Os/2?  If Win3.1
: >	can restart so quickly the rest of the time, when that feature
: >	hasn't been implemented, why can't PM? 
: >

Perfect point.

: >	PROTECT SYSTEM FROM ITSELF.  Whoever decided that Os/2 should be 
: >	able to drag the OS2 directory to the shredder and have the command
: >	obeyed ought to be strung up.

It is more humane to shoot the person :)

: >	ALLOW SYSTEM TO MODIFY .INI FILES WITHOUT COPYING THEM.  Last I checked,
: >	OS/2 copies the OS2.INI file to a completely new file (.$$$) whenever
: >	it modifies it.  This gets annoying if your ini file has been growing,
: >	especially if it's doing so due to WPS inefficiencies and bugs.
: >

Seconded.

: >	UNIFIED SHELL WINDOW.  Use same shell window for DOS, OS/2 and
: >	POSIX (it was on this list) programs.  Having seperate command
: >	windows for text mode programs is stupid, especially the way they
: >	are handled now.
: >

Can;t say I understand this point at all.

: >	CLOSABLE SHELL WINDOW.  It's idiotic that you can't use a double
: >	click on the close box to close an idle, at the command line waiting
: >	for a command, DOS or OS/2 window without being asked if you're sure.
: >	Active program? Fine, ask.  Inactive, just a shell?  Close it.
: >

Hmmm ... I disagree. Many times I leave shell windows open simply
because I have types in so many commands. I want to access them later
with doskey. I wouldn't like to close them by mistake.

--
The Chief.
---------
Dr. Abimbola Olowofoyeku ( The African Chief )
Keele University         ( All opinions are not personal and do reflect )
England.	         ( the views of the universe )

Email: laa12@seq1.keele.ac.uk
Tel  : (0782) 621111
Fax  : (0782) 583228
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"As for the wheels, it was said to them in my hearing, 'O wheel!' "
-------------------------------------------------------------------