Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!metro!asstdc.scgt.oz.au!nsw.news.telstra.net!act.news.telstra.net!vic.news.telstra.net!news.mira.net.au!news.vbc.net!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!news1.crl.com!nntp.crl.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!Portugal.EU.net!news.rccn.net!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!sunic!news99.sunet.se!news.uni-c.dk!news.daimi.aau.dk!imv.aau.dk!ra.imv.aau. dk!user From: lassehp@imv.aau.dk (Lasse =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hiller=F8e?= Petersen) Newsgroups: alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc,alt.binaries.warez.mac,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.acorn.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,alt.flame Subject: Re: FIVE GOOD REASONS WHY IBM'S ARE BETTER THAN MACS (only five?) Followup-To: alt.flame Date: 23 Apr 1996 17:06:34 GMT Organization: Information & Media Science, Aarhus University, DENMARK Lines: 242 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <lassehp-2304961718000001@ra.imv.aau.dk> References: <Cyclone-0504961737500001@dial24.trip.net> <31678d59.1170056@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <4k8hkj$o0u@cloner3.netcom.com> <sonikd-0804960027040001@cmh-p062.infinet.com> <avi-0904962303220001@cyber128.cyberspc.mb.ca> <316c1d48.41833268@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <John_Warwick-1004962314430001@news.mindlink.net> <4kq463$7a4@informer1.cis.mcmaster.ca> <Pine.A32.3.91.960417014401.76675F-100000@green.weeg.uiowa.edu> <chrisc-1904961301260001@ppp-69.cet.com> <4lccdm$8pf@janis.virago.org.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: ra.imv.aau.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b4 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc:35302 alt.binaries.warez.mac:3520 comp.os.linux.advocacy:46933 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:125224 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:22994 comp.os.os2.advocacy:196330 comp.sys.acorn.advocacy:8726 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:101726 comp.sys.next.advocacy:35020 comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy:3081 comp.unix.advocacy:19966 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:18038 comp.unix.bsd.misc:831 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3322 alt.flame:196025 [Excessive crossposting slightly reduced. Followups set suitably.] In article <4lccdm$8pf@janis.virago.org.au>, r.polanskis@nepean.uws.edu.au,grove@zeta.org.au wrote: >Hello, >I don't normally participate in advocacy wars, but: Neither do I, but this was too much to pass on. You deserve a thorough bashing. (And I am not talking about your login shell, here.) >1: I support an office split with 50/50 PCs and Macs. > It would appear that both PCs and Macs have their place, but, > when it comes to support, the Mac is a NIGHTMARE. That contradicts the experience of many, many others. Are you sure the nightmare isn't just in your head? >Reason: It is a BLACK BOX. You cannot reconfigure a driver to get around > a defective piece of hardware, nor can you enter the system in > the same way as you can a PC if the software configuration is > wrong or broken. If you want to make a system disk on a PC, > to bypass the C: drive the function is supported no matter what > PC you use. On a Mac you must have the OS available (not always > possible) and then if you do have a boot disk, there is no > guarantee it will work anyway because it may not be the same > architecture as the Mac you are trying to rescue. Oh, THAT is terrible. Well, then make a universal system on an external harddisk. Every competent Macintosh administrator should have such a disk. All Macs have SCSI. If you don't "have the OS available" it is because you are an incompetent admin, not because the Mac is bad. > You might need to have Norton handy, which costs - and even then > it is not always handy either... 99% of the cases can be fixed with Disk First Aid, which is a standard part of the MacOS distribution. > If you have a hardware failure on a Mac, it's off to the repair > shop, with all your work, and your files and maybe it just > happens to be your office too. Macs are expensive to repair > because the parts have to come from a PROPRIETRY SOURCE, and parts > are not always available. Through this time, you are without a > machine, maybe for WEEKS. I manage an installation of 80 Macs. I don't see hardware failures very often. A dead disk can be swapped within a few minutes. And if the motherboard is dead it has to be changed, but that applies to the PC as well. I doubt this takes any less time. Of the few incidents there has been I have never had to wait more than one week for a replacement motherboard. > Hardware wise the Macintrash is a real bother - especially when > it is a mission critical situation. I admit I wouldn't like a Mac to be controlling an airplane I was flying in, but then I would also prefer it was neither a PC nor a Unix box. But how you can conclude from that that the Mac is a bother hardware-wise, or indeed how the one relates to the other, I cannot see. > > >2: Mac Users are the first to put their hands up for help when > problems strike. > >Reason: > Macs do not teach people about computers. Macs do not teach people > good computing practices as a side effect. Huh? Some (definitely not all) people will learn how things work from the things themselves. Be it a Mac, a PC or a Unix box. Other people only learn when they are educated by other people. I cannot see how anyone could say the opposite about PC's, or Unix for that matter. > People on a PC learn Disk Management and the importance of > correct file naming techniques and formats, as it is important to > the architecture of the MSDOS O/S. > > Consequently, it is far easier to demonstrate the benefits and > theory of MIME file naming conventions to a PC user as they already > are familiar with file extension, for example. > Macs do not teach Disk Management as the user is free to stuff > files and "folders" where they like, without regard for any kind > of hierarchical structure. The Finder does it all for them, and > many Mac users don't even know how to use that... Eh, what's your point? We are an all-Mac site, and are having a hard time convincing people _external_ to us, who use PC's, to use MIME mail, which we ourselves have been using for years (since Eudora version 1.something). If you have a fail-proof method for converting PC-users to MIME, I'd like to know about it. And what does this have to do with directory hierarchies?? > Macs do not teach good file management standards - You may make a > file any arbitrary length (up to 32 chars) and it may include > spaces or other non standard character types. But that is good file management standards. The BSD filesystem on my Unix (A/UX, running on three Quadras) servers allows for up to 256 characters. Including space and others. Oh, I see, Unix does not teach good file management standards either, in your silly opinion? > This wreaks havoc with UNIX and MSDOS O/S as they cannot support > this witchery without great pain. DOS cannot support it. However the Mac handles the DOS interaction gracefully. If you put files on a DOS disk on a Mac, it will of course give them 8+3 names. I haven't had any problems with filenames between Mac/Unix. > While Mac users pat themselves > on the back for the "friendly" file conventions - any kind of > interoperability with other systems is precluded. Examples include > PC/Unix users having to deal with Binhex, or truncated file names > with missing extensions (or too many extensions) which spoils By too many extensions, do you mean "foobar.tar.gz.uu"? > registration/association info databases - such as found in MSWindows. If it can be spoiled by legal data, it is broken. I am not surprised. As for conversions, I have not come across anything I couldn't find a Mac converter for. (I admit I haven't had to convert EBCDIC yet, but I guess I could find a converter even for that.) > The result is that PC users struggle to load files received in > email attachments that have no standard extension that either > they or their system can identify meaning that the use of helper > programs to do autoloading of files is prevented. Bad setup of software, or worse: bad software. On the PC. > The other spinoff to this is that the mac users themselves are > oblivious to the fact they are causing problems - and too > shortsighted to anticipate the existence of other Systems. > Mac Users do not know how to spell PORTABILITY or INTEROPERABILITY. > The training of Mac Users in these and the above concepts is > thwarted because of the laxness the Mac O/S allows in file/disk > management strategies. Hmm. I wonder what this babble is supposed to mean: "Laxness in file/disk management strategies"? I don't even understand what you mean by "file/disk management strategies". Disks are for storing data in the form of files: documents and applications. Folders are for organising files in a way that makes sense to the user. Not all users organise their stuff the same way. Some are messy, some even misplace their stuff accidentally. This also happens in the real world. So what? You could educate your users to become better organised, but you seem to prefer to blame the MacOS. If that isn't stupidity... As for your users causing problems, I will share my opinion: from a sysadmin POV that is the *purpose* of users! Without problems, no need for admins. We'd have no jobs! You really shouldn't be an admin with that attitude of yours. > Macs are *not* contrary to popular belief more sophisticated for > this reason. The structures used are PROPRIETRY and therefore not > allowed to be released to other O/Ss. What a load of nonsense. Surely MS WinDOS is as proprietary as the MacOS. portability and interoperability is not a matter of being proprietary or not, just a matter of openness. > Apart from file and Disk management issues - which seem to be > very common calls for help I receive when a Mac user misplaces a > file, or a PC user receives a Mac attachment with a mangled > filename, the very abstraction of the Mac O/S itself often hinders > both the user and the sysop who looks after the machine. Try to tell your users about the Find command in Finder. Or better find a competent person to educate your users in using the Mac efficiently. You do not have that competence, obviously. > This is true because the GUI of the Mac is *not* intuitive as we > are lead to believe - and the single button mouse and combination of > accelerator keys is not very clear to the average user. If you tell your users they are accelerator keys, I can understand why they are confused. They are modifier keys. They modify the action performed by the clicking/dragging. Good applications tend to use them (Shift and Opt) mostly for (discontinous) selection extension. Bad applications overuse this for too many confusing purposes, I agree. > Many of the combinations are non standard even across Windows and > Mac software of the same type (eg. Word processors) > > This abstraction is also apparent if trying to diagnose a Mac error: > Where is the mac equivalent of "Doctor Watson" or Truss? Ah, MacCheck? Apple Personal Diagnostics? TechTool? >I could go on - but i won't. I think I have made my point, but the Mac is >*not* suited to the Mission Critical or heavy usage office environment. >(Neither is the PC, but it *is* a little better). I don't know what you mean by "mission critical" (if you mean ATC systems, airplane con but for heavy office use, the mac is just as suited as a PC. > > While I support macs and Pc's and consider myself proficient in > both (Windows has it's problems too - *I KNOW*) - at both the > Hardware and software levels, My preferred Operating Systems at Proficient????? Is there a special meaning to this word in Australian English that I don't know about? >home? : >SPARC Solaris and Linux. >My home is Apple free and Microsoft free. I can see a point with the latter. MS sucks bigtime. But I wonder how you can cope with Unix, when you don't even know the workings of the filesystem, which you apparently believe to be more strict than it actually is. >Rachel >(who uses a UNIX system to relax at home after fixing all those >"friendly" GUI systems) I wonder why you haven't been fired already. Surely your attitude towards your users and their machines does not help them to work efficiently at all, on the contrary. Are you an obstruction planted by a competitor? What is the address of your manager? He or she might appreciate a hint about your attitude and a suggestion to have you fired. >Never Trust a Computer that Smiles at You. Never trust a supporter/admin who obviously does not know what she is talking about. >-- >Rachel Polanskis Kingswood, Greater Western Sydney, Australia >grove@zeta.org.au http://www.zeta.org.au/~grove/grove.html >r.polanskis@nepean.uws.edu.au http://www.nepean.uws.edu.au/library/ > "When the revolution comes, I will be shot by both sides" -- Lasse Hillerøe Petersen ! Systems Administrator ! "Was der Pöbel ohne Gründe einst Information & Media Science ! glauben lernte, wer könnte ihm durch Aarhus University, DENMARK ! Gründe Das -- umwerfen?" -Nietzsche