Notice that my thread title -- was humorous and self mocking "Even more holy wars on unix", and that the articles that I posted were very funny. Whereas Perry -- the salesman who refused to take yes for ananswer when dealing with Netscape -- is filled with passionate rage. What is up Perry -- do you have piles, or is the sawdust and chickenshit diet putting your temper on a short fuse? One can reasonably argue, as he is now arguing, that unix is a good modern development environment. I think he is wrong -- I was amused at how unix folk were impressed at how I casually put up windows gui interface for a throwaway program that would only be used once. But it is a position that a rational person could reasonably believe, and might reasonably argue if this was the GUI development list and not the cypherpunks list. But to claim, as some have claimed, that unix is as user friendly as Windows or the Mac, when suitably configured -- is a sign of utter irrationality that shows that those who assert such a fantastic claim are incapable or rational thought or rational discussion on the topic. The letters I have received also give ample evidence that those who hold this view are incapable of rational discussion on the matter. The Holy bible attitude to unix is illustrated by the fact that the most flagrant and outrageous unix bugs are held to be correct behavior by definition -- "Unix does this, therefore it is right, and if you destroy your files as a result of this behavior then unix is right, and you are wrong." Now one can argue that unix has bugs and DOS has bugs, but unix people, or at least those of them so irrational as to make the claim that Unix is user friendly, confronted with a unix bug, proclaim that the bug is is right, and DOS is wrong for not having the bug. For example I received numerous letters arguing that the the unix "mv" command is more powerful than the separate DOS "replace" and "rename" commands. This is like arguing that a combination hairbrush and chainsaw is more powerful than having two separate tools, one a hairbrush and one a chainsaw. One can plausibly claim that such a tool is indeed powerful, but that is hardly the point. - --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.catalog.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. | jamesd@netcom.com