On 6 Apr 2004 at 20:10, Roy wood wrote:
It certainly is different from having it start up IN the OS, yes.(...) And this is different from having it start up with the O/S ?
(...)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.
And it is STILL NOT a Part of the OS, only locked to LOOK like it is ;-) (Plus there are alternatimes 1000 times better than Exploder ie Opera or FireFox, or even Konqueror (plus they are original software attempts not stolen code from competitors ;-)
(...)> 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.
>
Nope it ain't. OS functionality changes are very few and have been available for years now only not released to the public. OS functionality means better memory protection, driver software, that kind of thing... not embelishments...
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.
Not really ;-) It CAN be done
See aboveExactly.
(...)
>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.
Exactly right. I agree with Wolfgang 1000 %
Phoebus _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
