X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f996b,9ba64c635b2340c1 X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-25 11:47:42 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!amsnews01.chello.com!nlnews00.chello.com.POSTED!tanya. From: ppunk@damthatspam.chello.nl (Peter Punk) Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art Subject: Re: Dead or alive... Organization: Total Disorganisation Message-ID: References: <4tcuqt0h924vpaid8ue9g8h33bl2pj7o0n@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.168.0.75 X-Original-Trace: 25 Sep 2001 20:46:43 +0200, 192.168.0.75 Lines: 80 X-Authenticated-User: donderfliegen Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:42:02 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.93.74.225 X-Complaints-To: abuse@chello.nl X-Trace: nlnews00.chello.com 1001443322 213.93.74.225 (Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:42:02 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:42:02 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:7952 On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 02:44:14 -0000, anonymous@bogus_address.con provoked the following text: > >Why would you want to use DOS anyway? It's the worst OS there is. > >Not so. DOS is a small, relatively efficient O.S. ...unlike >that bloated pointee-clickee abomination. But i like pointy-clicky abominations! >But more importantly, DOS allows the =user= to make the >decisions about how he wants his machine to look, act and >perform. It's a much more 'down-to-the-metal' O.S., where >the =user= is in control...not some megalomaniac in Redmond, >Washington, U.S.A. Ahem, may i be so blunt as to ask you just _what_ DOS you use? MS-DOS? 4DOS? DR-DOS? NDOS? FreeDOS? Novell DOS? IBM DOS? PC DOS? Caldera DOS? Those pretty much all the DOS'es i can think of. Perhaps there are more? >Besides, DOS is ten times faster than WinDoze on any given >machine. That should have read _over_ ten times faster. >Plus, the DOS executable files for any productivity software >programs are 20 to 50 times smaller than a comparable WinDoze >program. A 500 meg hard disk is =more= than sufficient for >a DOS-based machine. You simply don't need a mega-gigabyte >drive. Unless you are running a BBS. >And we haven't yet mentioned security. I think we all know >how 'secure' WinDoze is. Not! :) So what facilities does (any) DOS have to prevent your kid brother to delete all of your files? > >If you're going to use the console, at least use something decent > >like Linux. > >Although it's a 'techie' O.S., and therefore not everyone's >cup of tea, Linux is okay. But it suffers from many of the >same ailments that afflict WinDoze: bloat, Then unbloat it, it shouldn't be too difficult, just delete al the daemons you don't need, uninstall all of the packages you don't want to use, and you should be able to run it more than comfortably on a 100MB HDD with room to spare. >hogging of system resources, How? >etc., plus a relative dearth of software choices. Same goes today for DOS based programs. -- Peter Punk \ / ---\\\\--- / \ Op zoek gaan naar buitenaards leven? Kijk op http://home.hetnet.nl/~setiathomegroep/index.html voor tips, antwoorden, discussies. links, downloads en meer. 1680wu/2.415yrs Universe, n.: The problem.