🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <18570@netnews.upenn.edu> hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Josh Hodas) writes:
>God forgive me..
>I swore I was going to stay out of this argument.  I thought I had resisted it 
>long enough, as the volume was down to a trickle. But this note just P-sses me
>off. (It's not the first one, its just the straw that broke the camel's back.
>Alan, you clearly have no idea what this conversation is about.

I don't know what you mean by "this conversation".  I stayed out of
the holy war part of things.  My only posting in this whole thread
was to refute David O'Rourke's very specific flame that complained
that PC's lacked the Mac's ability to use "multi-screens", and his
specific example was debugging with multiple screens.  PCs are quite
capable (DOS or UNIX) of using multiple screens, and it doesn't take
a bionic hardware geek to set such a thing up.  That's ALL I said.

>Yes, it is certainly true you can run your debugger on two screens. I wont
>deny that, I do it all the time when I do PC development.  But the point is
>that this debugger had to be specifically designed for that use, and it is one
>of a very few applications that knows how to do it on the PC.  On the mac
>any application can run on anny monitor (caveat, a very few poorly written 
>programs may map their window to a particular location, this is a serious flaw
>in those programs).  

So, are you saying that the vast majority of Mac applications can make
automatic, full use of an indeterminate number of screens?  
I'm impressed.  I never claimed otherwise.  I never claimed anything
about the Mac, period.

>...
>THe point is that you have no idea how useful a general feature it is
>until you have used a well designed system that lets you use it at will.
No, the point is that *you* have no idea what I do and don't know about
the usefullness of such a feature.  I have used the concept on DOS and 
UNIX; I was the first to QA support for dual-screen debugging in our 
4GL-RDS DOS port.  I know damn well that there are even wider uses in 
other environments (e.g. WingZ on the Mac).  You don't have a clue of
what I do and don't know.

>Josh Hodas    (hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu)

Look, Josh, if you must resort to posting personal flames, at least
get your facts straight; I don't care how "P-ssed off" you are about
the rest of this thread.  If you really feel the need to flame like
this, take it to email -- my address is always in my .sig.

One thing that the Mac Holy Warriors need to consider before flaming
the PC architecture is that DOS AND PCs ARE TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS.
This is comp.sys.ibm.pc, NOT comp.os.dos.  Most of the feature
arguments in this thread have little or nothing to do with the hardware
and don't apply to other operating environments (OS/2, UNIX, etc.)
IMHO, DOS is dying and has been on life support for years -- it's
huge installed base is becoming a detriment.  (Do you get people in 
comp.sys.mac comparing 486s running UNIX with the Mac 512K this often?) 
Please keep this in mind when you post in this group.  Thank you.

--
  Alan S. Denney  @  Informix Software, Inc.    "We're homeward bound
       {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland               ('tis a damn fine sound!)
 --------------------------------------------    with a good ship, taut & free
  Disclaimer:  These opinions are mine alone.    We don't give a damn, 
  If I am caught or killed, the secretary        when we drink our rum
  will disavow any knowledge of my actions.      with the girls of old Maui."