🚀 go-pugleaf

Paul Womar <{$PW$}@pwomar.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Rebecca and Rowland <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> 
> > That doesn't mean that it couldn't have pushed Rhapsody forward as a
> > useful Intel PC OS; after all, with all those Linux users around, plenty
> > of them would like to try something with a bit more flexibility and
> > usability and more software, wouldn't you think?
> 
> I wouldn't have though Rhapody was more flexible and Linux users are
> normally very into the GNU software ethos, I wouldn't have thought Apple
> would be distributing it's software FOC with source somehow.

Well, no, but given that Rhapsody was/is a strict superset of a species
of Unix, it should be exactly as flexible as Linux with a few
advantages, like working properly straight out of the box without having
to spend ages getting everything configured exactly as you want it.

The way it would obviously not be free is a different matter, of course.

> That said I would still have liked to have seen it but I don't imagine
> it being much more than another OS/2.

It would have been much more than OS/2 because it would have been a
proper GUI Unix: the best of both worlds.

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for my email address:   rebecca@astrid.dog.u-net.com
Sorry - the spam got to me.                       PGP pub key A680B89D
UK biker?                    Join MAG and help keep bureaucracy at bay
                          http://dredd.meng.ucl.ac.uk/www/mag/mag.html