begin quoting Doug LaRue as of Wed, May 14, 2008 at 09:32:56AM -0700: > ** Reply to message from SJS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 14 May 2008 08:42:32 > -0700 > > > I'm wondering what you think I'm trying to say. > > It sounded like you were comparing DOS/Windows to UNIX/X. I was saying
I related the experience I had with running MSWindows and Linux/X on underpowered hardware. (Except it wasn't underpowered: it had 20 times the RAM and 5 times the speed of my little dual-floppy Amiga 1k.) I think you may have mistaken me for an MS apologist. Don't. > that they were and are two entirely different animals unless your only need > was the minium DOS provided( single tasking and nothing more ). I'm saying > you can not compare these kinds of things when you disregard the main > purposes for the other products. For UNIX it was networking and multi user. Sure it was. And when you tried to run X, it might as well have been a brick, since it couldn't even manage single-application very well. > Trying to say that it didn't work for you in 5MB is like saying a Formula-1 > car sucks on the old El Cajon 1/4 mile dirt track and midgets are better. Exactly! You have to take what you're running on in consideration when you look at what to run. > I brought up OS/2 because if you knew how to work with it, it could be > trimmed down to do as much and more than DOS/Windows on that same > hardware. If you trim away the GUI, sure, but that's what I did with Linux. Getting OS/2 trimmed down was neither easy, nor obvious, nor, I assert, pratical if you didn't have a high-end machine on which to become expert with OS/2 before trimming it down. We work with the resources we have, not with the resources we want. I *wanted* a SPARCStation. -- Or an A4k tower, mmmm. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
