Robert,Thanks for taking the time to compose this rich reply. I agree with you (except about "bloodsucking"), but haven't been able to do anything useful in Terminal. It's not just my *nix ignorance, which is vast, it's my not understanding the relation of what I see in the terminal and what is going on "up there" in the GUI. I even have a lot of difficulty grasping the damn thing's tree structure.
Is there a good, simple "Unix and your Mac" reference you'd recommend? --Harry
** Reply to message from Harry Binswanger <hb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> on Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:50:49 -0400 > And that raises my unanswered question: is there any reason to prefer XP > over Win7 for either XyWrite or things like Word and Excel? Win7 is getting good reviews, mostly compared to Vista. Vista is simply huge, and although I've tuned my machines to work pretty snappily & inexpensively (killed a million background services), the damn thing is still a monster. I'm for slim & trim. If not for the fact that a few important programs work under XP but not 2K, I would recommend the latter, simply because it's inexpensive -- by which I mean, it doesn't chew up resources and it does the job, fast, with little overhead. Increasingly I use *nix for the critical, task-focused 24x365 stuff, and Windows to run the gamut of GUI stuff. I also have a couple of Mac boxes -- mainly for testing cross-platform database interfaces that I maintain -- and I must say, familiarity has bred a genuine disdain. It's a schizophrenic operating system, on the one hand the most childish and impotent GUI around, on the other a potent underpinning. When I use a Mac, I find myself drifting toward Terminal, and basically staying put. (You can't keep a command line guy down! Not after 40 years. Only one of my Linux boxes even has X installed.) So, without direct experience of Win7, I can't answer your question. But I'm leery of the direction Windows is taking. I think XP remains a viable option, even 9 years down the road. The ramped-up security on the newer OpSyses is a total PITA, a hindrance to everything you try to do -- it's also the only drawback to Linux, which is simply ridden with it, from bottom up. (Bottom-up is the right way to do security. Windows and its developers all build their applications "in the clear" and then wrap them in a security cocoon, usually purchased from a third party. A fatal mistake, because at some point everything must be unveiled in order for the software to deliver the goods, and smart crackers can always hook the machine at these moments and peer at the unprotected code. Whereas in Linux, security is at the core, and everything is built on top of that. The right way, if you want to be really secure. But it's still a PITA/hindrance.) I should say that most users really need security up the wazoo. It's amazing to me that most have no idea how to look at email headers, for example, to determine whether a message from your bank, or Ebay, or PayPal, is legitimate. They just click on the supplied link! Game over. XP is troublefree, every software supports it, and "it just works". A phrase usually applied to Macs. They work too, but they're mainly aimed at (and, in my experience, used by) computer illiterates -- there are signal exceptions, but most Mac users I know have a real aversion to tech. Things might be different if there were a larger and geekier universe of Mac users, because these are very capable boxes, if you ignore the GUI that Apple sticks you with. And the proprietary nature of everything, especially hardware. (My Mac boxes are all recycled Dells and Thinkpads, just to thumb my nose at Apple. I really respect the open source concept -- spent most of my life supporting it, under different guises. That's what a maillist like this is all about. Or U2. It's despicable that OS X enables use of *nix packages, but denies *nix users access to Apple packages. Bloodsuckers! Wealthy bloodsuckers.) ----------------------------- Robert Holmgren holmgren@xxxxxxxxxx -----------------------------
Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxxxxxx