🚀 go-pugleaf

In <hotelca-0308950243500001@192.0.2.1> hotelca@cris.com (Hotel California) writes:

>In article <MARTUS.95Aug2055814@w20-575-33.mit.edu>, martus@mit.edu wrote:
>
>> can set up something more custom/relavant to his network. But in any
>> case, in both UNIX, and MacOS, there are "users" who only need to know
>> how to start apps, and "admins" who have to know a bit more. 
>
>No not in any case.  Most Macs don't have sysadmins.  I'd say pretty much
>all Unix computers have sysadmins.  At least on a Mac I don't have to hire
>sysadmins, they add so much to the price.

Bullshit.  The large companies using Mac's do have sysadmins, exactly like
the large companies using Unix.  The life of the Mac sysadmin is made
considerably harder by the fact that Joe Mac User can screw his machine.
Joe Unix User can't.

The home Unix user doesn't hire any kind of sysadmin, exactly like the
home Mac user.
>
>> Once you have started the application, ease of use is the burden of the
>> software, not the OS it is running on. It could be true that some UNIX
>> apps may not be "obvious", but Netscape on a Mac or Windows or UNIX/X11
>> is the same, as is WordPerfect, Matlab, etc.
>
>The OS bears alot of ease of use burden.  The Mac OS is designed so that
>all apps running on it are very similar.  Ever hear of the Godsend the
>Toolbox?  It's a big part of what makes Mac so easy to use and similar
>across various apps, that and the Apple Human Interface Guidelines.

Bullshit again.  The OS has nothing to do with the similarity of the
applications.  Many vendors of Mac apps have already proven this.

Unix has the X toolkit library and Motif to ensure similarity between
GUI based applications.  And the Xt and Motif scollbars are _correctly_
designed, unlike the brain dead Mac scrollbars.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland