Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.sys5.r4:8889 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:7848 comp.unix.misc:15197 comp.unix.bsd:15686 comp.sys.powerpc:30289 comp.sys.intel:26170 comp.os.misc:3554 comp.os.linux.misc:32169 comp.os.linux.development:21613 comp.os.386bsd.misc:4509 comp.os.386bsd.development:2874 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!agate!library.ucla.edu!galaxy.ucr.edu!jjs From: jjs@dostoevsky.ucr.edu (Joe Sloan) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd,comp.sys.powerpc,comp.sys.intel,comp.os.misc,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.386bsd.development Subject: Re: Interested in PowerPC for Linux / FreeBSD / NetBSD? Date: 21 Dec 1994 05:21:25 GMT Organization: University of Calfornia at Riverside Lines: 41 Message-ID: <3d8e0l$6ve@galaxy.ucr.edu> References: <3d7vel$442@galaxy.ucr.edu> <NEWTNews.29112.787985328.muzaffer@omer1.smixedsignal.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dostoevsky.ucr.edu In article <NEWTNews.29112.787985328.muzaffer@omer1.smixedsignal.com>, <muzaffer@smixedsignal.com> wrote: >You can't comprehend what you read let alone comment on something. Where did I >say NT is a better U**x than U**X ? Please, sir! do not let this discussion degenerate into a shouting match! As for the above comment, Mr Bill Gates proudly announced NT with the boast that it would be "a better UNIX than UNIX".... I seems odd that you, obviously a microsoft fan, would have known about that.... > >> I have daily access to NT machines, and I am all too familiar with their >> shortcomings... > >> but NT lacks the basic OS infrastructure needed to be able to support a >> full-on implementation of X. >> The day I can telnet in to an NT machine, set the display to my desktop, >> run excel on the NT machine and have it display on my desktop, THEN you >> can say that NT runs X! just because you can display the "X" logo on your >> NT desktop doesn't mean you are running X! > >The fact that you can't do it doesn't mean it's not possible. Obviously you >couldn't find/put all the pieces to make what you want work. I didn't say NT >could do it out of the box or that it would be easy but it is possible. Sir, I must say something to you concerning the "control M" at the end of each line - I know it is a trait of dos/windoze machines, but - well, really, it is most distracting.... As to your assertion that it is possible to have a full implementation of X on NT, I will allow that it may someday be possible - but the radical changes required to accomplish this would be extremely costly, and in the end, we would probably have something very different from NT as we know it... Have you tried linux, Sir? or are you discussing something you know not of? Email to: | Running Linux! (Slackware) jjs@dostoevsky.ucr.edu | because a 486 is a terrible jjs@ucrengr.ucr.edu | thing to waste...