Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
This part of the reason why the IT folks and us research/testing folks tend to get at loggerhead!
I like to put it in terms of "configuration management."
Sometime in the past I used this with Netscape 7, perhaps?
Yes, and Netscape 6. They are all Mozilla 5-based. Mozilla 5 being the version after 4 -- i.e., Netscape Communicator codenamed Mozilla 4. ;->
Mozilla is now a set of products, most well known as Firefox (HTTP, browser) and Thunderbird (SMTP/NNTP, mail/news) and lesser known as Sunbird (calendar) and Nvu (composer, HTML editor) among other projects.
I see that running multiple Thunderbirds doesn't work according to this article, but I wonder if this is a
windows
centric answer, not applying to unix.
Yes, although it has worked -- to a point -- for me under Windows. The problem is that when you click on "mailto:" in any Windows program, which profile does it know to sent it to? ;->
And when you did, you brought the network to a standstill. I 'caught' some of our unix support people doing this with our network sniffer. After that we got a LOT more memory
for
those X-terminals so that they were not always getting refreshes from their clients (it was always a lot of fun
with
Xwindows and SNMP in explaining that they had the
client/server
model reversed).
Okay, now I understand where you're coming from. Very good.
The concepts have not changed. The hardware finally caught up.
Right. Sorry I made an assumption there.
Did you see that John Diebold passed away. Now THERE was a man proposing solutions a decade or more before they became 'real'.
And now Diebold sells Windows solutions. Why? Because banks think they are easier to support, not because they don't believe Linux is better. Sigh, I don't think John would have allowed that.
Maybe I should move to KDE now? 8-)
Why? The .NET object framework is very UNIX-like in approach. CORBA is overkill. KParts is underkill.
On Windows, .NET is already turning into little more than a Java-like sandbox for Internet servers and nothing else. It's suffering the same fate as Win32 -- MS is poking holes in it for compatibility.
But on Mono, now that's a future.
The thing that killed OS/2 was the lack of TCP/IP support.
No, 2 things killed OS/2 ...
1) OS/2 users (myself included) were convinced that IBM couldn't fight NT and Win32. Unfortunately, NT/Win32's undoing was MS' own Windows 95. I saw this first hand in 1994 -- Gates' killed NT and Win32, and wished I wouldn't have believed a word about NT back in 1991-1992.
2) IBM still had an informal licensing agree with Microsoft after their 12 year agreement expired in 1993. Microsoft continued to leech OS/2 through Windows 95's initial release -- the Alpha tests even used OS/2 files and code -- and IBM's PC division gladly signed away all rights to sue in the Windows 95 licensing agreemnt.
There were other things, like Microsoft basically stealing Micrografx porting kit for OS/2 so Win32 GUI apps could be written almost overnight (after adopted for the GDI), etc...
IBM should have gotten out of the PC market 12 years earlier. Their PC division is why IBM was basically a "free R&D foundary" for all Microsoft code -- much like Apple in the mid-'80s because of the applications Apple wanted from MS.
And I won't go into the many problems this caused me. Mostly becuase the scars are healed on only the memory of them are left.
They are core NT design problems. NTFS is a core NT design problem.
"Cairo", "CairoFS" and "Cario Technologies" a decade ago sounds a lot like "Longhorn", "WinFS" and "WinFX Technologies" today.
They were vaporware, and they still are very much vaporware.