On 6 Apr 2004 at 20:10, Roy wood wrote: > (...) > And this is different from having it start up with the O/S ? It certainly is different from having it start up IN the OS, yes.
(...) > It is a simple graphic, point and click operation. One of the first > things I ever learned to do with w3.11 and it is still the same. RIght. But YOU also learned to make a boot file. I doubt that it is a "simple" point and click operation for the user you have been describing who doesn't even know what a file extension is. (...) > Well some things like Explorer are part of the O/S because they are > multifunctional and that is why they are prey to security flaws. They > leave the hooks in so it can be used and it is used by the wrong people Not so. Explorer was made "multifunctional" in a explicit attempt to integrate is entirely into the OS. (...)> None I would imagine. Then we disagree, and as it is a hypothetical question, there is no way to prove either point of view. (...) > >That is simple because the OS has so much more functionality that is > >doesn't fit in the > >machine. But this functionality is OS functionality, not more user programs. > > > Both Not in SMSQ/E itself. (...) > > > 'WE' , maybe not but we are tinkerers and that is different. That all depends on what yu are selling. If you sell, say, QPC, you could easily make a boot file and sell it with it as a premade disk... > >> >And finally, try eradicating IE from a windows computer, and you will see > >> >that it is FAR from easy. > See above Exactly. (...) >But that's the hole poin tof this discussion, isn't it? WHY should an > >internet browser > >become part of the system? For me, this is a perfectly identifiable > >separate application. > >The pointer environment is not. > But it is in modern terms. This is the crux of what I started ages ago. > Our concept of a computer lives in the past. Today that idea is not want > is wanted by Joe public. I still disagree. the crux of the matter sin't whether the ppublic wants this or not - I'd agree with you that they probably do want it. Teh question is whether you make the individual applications, such a browsers, media players etc an interral part of the whole system (I hesitate to call it an OS, because it wouldn't be) or whether you leave them as individual applications. In both cases, you can make it happen that the average user will have all of his applications loaded. But there is a fundamental design diffference and philosophy - and not intergrate them gives you the choice of - not using any software - using another person's software. Wolfgang _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
