[oclug] sco vs. linux cont....

[Brad Barnett]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:50:31 -0400 (EDT)
Ross Jordan <rjordan at student.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> > 
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:35:28 -0400 (EDT)
> > Ross Jordan <rjordan at student.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > I hate to break it to you, but sloppy punctuation is just that. 
> > > > Pretending that you are adhering to something from 20+ years ago
> > > > is just nonsense, and a scapegoat.  If we did that, we'd never
> > > > include attachments in email, and we'd be bemoaning 10b worth of
> > > > data as if it was worth of million bucks.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I suggest you take the lead. Upgrade from your 20+ year old 
> > > operating system, use a nice GUI mail reader, send html mail with
> > > colours, pictures and large attachments (cause we all have the
> > > bandwidth these days).
> > 
> > Everyone considers 10b to be virtually *NOTHING* in terms of data
> > these days.  Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?  Furthermore, no
> > where above did I suggest wasting space just for the heck of it.  I
> > won't even respond to the rest of that paragraph, for its inclusion
> > was there as a flame.
> > > 
> > > Why do you use an operating system (*nix) that hasn't significantly 
> > > changed in over twenty years; especially when there are newer
> > > alternatives: windows, plan 9, inferno, etc.
> > 
> > Wow.  Could you be any more off target?
> > 
> > Linux is new.  Linux didn't exist 20 years ago.  A large number of the
> > applications I use every day with Linux didn't exist 20 years ago. 
> > Virtually all of the applications that I use, that did exist 20 years
> > ago, have undergone massive code changes since then.
> > 
> > 20 years old?  Do a little research! 
> 
> Of course Linux isn't 20 years old, but it is essentially Unix which
> hasn't significantly changed in over 20 years. Yes of course there is
> new applications, but the programming paradigms and basic OS 
> functionality is largely the same. Pipes, redirection, "everything is
> a file", forking, everything launched from init, directory/fs structure,
> permissions, etc. haven't changed. Face it, you are using an improved,
> polished 20 years old OS with new Bells and whistles. That doesn't make
> it bad, it makes it mature, robust, well defined.

It's like we're not even talking about the same thing, Ross.

This forked thread has nothing to do with people using improper
punctuation, specifically capitalization.  For some reason you think this
has to do with "Brad thinks old things are bad" or some such silliness.

Old things are bad, IF they are maintained for no logical reason.  A lack
of capitalization because "some people did it 30 years ago" is definitely
not a logical or valid reason to render your correspondence like a 3 year
old.

Stop trying to make this into something that it isn't.  This is about
sloppiness.  This is about excuses for sloppiness, and shabby ones at
that.