Orphaned OS/2 (Another View) - OS2

This is a discussion on Orphaned OS/2 (Another View) - OS2 ; racqueteer@gmail.com said: >My interest in this thread is not so much about the OS/2 itself, but >about the people who were and are involved with it, Which I will again point out is exactly the opposite of my original comments. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 56

Thread: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

  1. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    racqueteer@gmail.com said:

    >My interest in this thread is not so much about the OS/2 itself, but
    >about the people who were and are involved with it,


    Which I will again point out is exactly the opposite of my original
    comments. I spoke of _OS/2_ and qualified it by saying just sitting with
    a minimal OS/2 system is no problem. I have added the clarification that
    if you want to stay CURRENT it is problematic (otherwise the newsgroups
    would be unnecessary).

    But there are those who apparently want to turn it into a mud slinging
    contest and put words into my mouth (I assume very few of these to be old
    farts). Those will always be here too.

    JimL

    --

    Gun laws really impress crooks and crazies, right?


  2. re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    "Stan Goodman" said:

    >This is the real reason I am writing this. I cannot express the
    >gratitude I have for those on these NGs, for whom you seem to have
    >contempt, who have helped me with problems I couldn't handle myself. I
    >would have been lost without them. Their understanding is much deeper
    >than mine,


    Stan, old man, I guess it is normal for you to equate OS/2 people with
    OS/2, but if you reread my post you will see that it never once said
    technos, nerds and gurus were bad. Without some very smart, very helpful
    and very diligent people on the newsgroups helping me fight the good fight
    I would have had to give up years ago. But THAT is my point. If you want
    certain features or you want to stay current, OS/2 demands them. If they
    like computer problems for breakfast, more power to them - I once did too.
    I don't any more, so I let both OS/2 and Linux (another esoteric, bits and
    pieces system) go.

    Oh believe me, there have been some very putrid personalities on the NGs.
    But try as I might I can't recall them actually making useful
    contributions to anything like the real OS/2 people.

    JimL

    --

    Gun laws really impress crooks, right?


  3. re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:34:39 UTC, inkleput@isp.com opined:
    > "Stan Goodman" said:
    >
    > >This is the real reason I am writing this. I cannot express the
    > >gratitude I have for those on these NGs, for whom you seem to have
    > >contempt, who have helped me with problems I couldn't handle myself. I
    > >would have been lost without them. Their understanding is much deeper
    > >than mine,


    > Stan, old man, I guess it is normal for you to equate OS/2 people with


    I am not your "Stan, old man". I'm sorry you have to defend yourself
    by patronizing me. And please can the "it is normal for you".

    > OS/2, but if you reread my post you will see that it never once said
    > technos, nerds and gurus were bad. Without some very smart, very helpful
    > and very diligent people on the newsgroups helping me fight the good fight
    > I would have had to give up years ago. But THAT is my point. If you want
    > certain features or you want to stay current, OS/2 demands them. If they
    > like computer problems for breakfast, more power to them - I once did too.
    > I don't any more, so I let both OS/2 and Linux (another esoteric, bits and
    > pieces system) go.


    Do you notice that the concensus was that you had expressed contempt
    for the people here, out of frustration with the system? So all the
    responses were more or less the same, including mine; we all read you
    the same way. Isn't possible then that you put more into your tirade
    than you now claim, and maybe more than you intended?

    Beyond that, I have no comment, and won't respond in another round.
    The subject is now stale.

    > JimL
    >


    --
    Stan Goodman
    Qiryat Tiv'on
    Israel


  4. re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    "Stan Goodman" said:

    > please can the "it is normal for you".


    OK, it's abnormal. You are all very, very bad people who will burn in
    hell. Is that better?

    JimL

    --

    Gun laws really impress crooks and crazies, right

  5. re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:51:25 UTC, inkleput@isp.com opined:
    > "Stan Goodman" said:
    >
    > > please can the "it is normal for you".

    >
    > OK, it's abnormal. You are all very, very bad people who will burn in
    > hell. Is that better?
    >
    > JimL


    Did you say that you're leaving?

    --
    Stan Goodman
    Qiryat Tiv'on
    Israel


  6. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    racqueteer@gmail.com wrote:
    > On 09 Jun 2007 09:41:00 GMT, "Stan Goodman"
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:47:43 UTC, inkleput@isp.com opined:
    >>
    >> I need to respond to your posting.
    >>
    >>> This is exactly why, after many years of use (back to well before Warp), I
    >>> have relegated OS/2 to emergency use in the event that my newly acquired
    >>> XP laptop goes down (it hasn't yet, in about a year, which is FAR better
    >>> than I can say for OS/2).

    >> Like you, I am a long-time user of OS/2 -- since v2.0, when IBM was
    >> handing out Parker pens, mouse pads, and video casettes along with the
    >> box of floppies. Although I am by training an electrical engineer with
    >> two degrees, was in the computer industry since 1950, and have built
    >> hardware that has been exhibited in the Smithsonian Institution in
    >> Washington and the Computer Museum in Boston, the years of my
    >> "nerdship" are long behind me; I am a certified Old Fart. I have been
    >> happy with OS/2 from the beginning, despite some frustrations; my
    >> occasional use of Windows operating systems, and observations of the
    >> experiences of neighbors, do not indicate to me that the frustrations
    >> would have been fewer had I gone from DOS/Quarterdeck to Windows
    >> instead of choosing OS/2 -- the opposite is true.

    >
    > It's been a long time since I've read here, much less posted, but I
    > happened on your post and felt compelled to chime in myself. I, too,
    > am a certified "old fart", though not as old as you. I reluctantly
    > left OS/2 a number of years ago after having used it from very early
    > on (I think I still have a copy of v1.5, and certainly v2.0 on). I
    > ended up abandoning it not because of software issues, but because of
    > hardware failure and hardware issues. I got older, busier, and lazy.
    > Even prior to that time, I found it necessary to use WINDOWS with
    > increasing frequency. OS/2 continues, however, to hold a special
    > place in my heart.
    >
    > My interest in this thread is not so much about the OS/2 itself, but
    > about the people who were and are involved with it, as well as those
    > who jumped in early on with LINUX. We old farts remember a time when
    > NOTHING was easy, when you HAD to write your own code, when
    > interfacing a teletype machine to a Sinclair was cause for great
    > celebration, and the IBM pc was a faint glimmer in the mind of someone
    > in the bowels of IBM. That was a generation of true "hackers" in the
    > original sense of the word, and I'm proud to be one of that company,
    > however lapsed my status. What inkleput seems not to realize is that
    > it is FUN to tinker with the code and the hardware! Now that I am
    > retiring, my thoughts go back to OS/2, and my curiosity about LINUX is
    > growing. Maybe I'll put both back on my system and "play" with them
    > again.



    Damn folks! It's turning into a COF (Certified Old fart) convention
    here. While I don't miss toggling in a loader routine just to use a tape
    reader for the rest, I too use OS/2 for all of our day-to-day business
    and rarely need to boot to W2k. I've used it since v2.0 & never looked
    back. My -very slow - migration to Linux is only because of Flash and
    hardware issues that will arise more & more.

    A certain yutz here need to adjust his medication again as usual

    Cheers!
    -----
    Richard W. Budd
    Synchron Laser Service, Inc.
    USA
    Registered ISO 9001-2000
    -Sales and general information-
    ph# 248-486-0402
    fax# 248-486-6460
    email: rbudd@synchronlaser.com
    www.synchronlaser.com

  7. re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    Check out the discussion thread "many flash 8/9 animations with OS/2"
    on the group: mozilla.dev.ports.os2.

    This describes a simple patch that just changes the version number of
    flash 7 to flash 9. I find it works on most animations and will
    extend your use of OS/2.

    Good luck,

    Nate Liskov

    Stan Goodman" wrote:

    > Only now, as more
    > websites require, such things as versions of Flash that are
    > unavailable for OS/2, have I concluded, very reluctantly, that I need
    > to have another real (as distinct from Windows) operating system on my
    > system.



    --
    Message sent VIA Followup and E-Mail --

    --
    nate_NOSPAM@lcs.mit.edu http://nateliskov.kicks-ass.org
    or http://home.comcast.net/~nateliskov

  8. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    I find that antiword (available on Hobbes) is adequate for reading
    .doc files. It converts .doc files to plain ascii text and does a
    reasonable job.

    good luck

    nate liskov

    Peter Brown wrote:

    >
    > I guess if you never need to open a current Word.Doc file or other
    > current "Office" file formats then there is no need to change.
    >



    --
    nate_NOSPAM@lcs.mit.edu http://nateliskov.kicks-ass.org
    or http://home.comcast.net/~nateliskov

  9. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    Further question for you!

    Nathan Liskov wrote:
    > I find that antiword (available on Hobbes) is adequate for reading
    > .doc files. It converts .doc files to plain ascii text and does a
    > reasonable job.
    >
    > good luck
    >
    > nate liskov
    >
    > Peter Brown wrote:
    >
    >> I guess if you never need to open a current Word.Doc file or other
    >> current "Office" file formats then there is no need to change.
    >>

    >
    >


    Will this utility handle plain text pre-snitched .DOC files and just 'convert'
    'text' to text so that you can use this as a 'generic' utility to get around
    the issue as, for example, a called utility for all .DOC files in things like
    File Freedom?

    That would be NEAT for me!


    --


    --> Sleep well; OS2's still awake!

    Mike Luther

  10. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    Mike,

    sorry, but I'm not familiar with "pre-snitched .DOC files". If you
    send me one, I'll try it. Or, why not download the latest
    antiword037.zip from Hobbes, give it a try and let us know.

    Nate Liskov

    mike luther wrote:

    > Further question for you!
    >
    > Nathan Liskov wrote:
    > > I find that antiword (available on Hobbes) is adequate for reading
    > > .doc files. It converts .doc files to plain ascii text and does a
    > > reasonable job.
    > >
    > > good luck
    > >
    > > nate liskov
    > >
    > > Peter Brown wrote:
    > >
    > >> I guess if you never need to open a current Word.Doc file or other
    > >> current "Office" file formats then there is no need to change.
    > >>

    > >
    > >

    >
    > Will this utility handle plain text pre-snitched .DOC files and just 'convert'
    > 'text' to text so that you can use this as a 'generic' utility to get around
    > the issue as, for example, a called utility for all .DOC files in things like
    > File Freedom?
    >
    > That would be NEAT for me!
    >
    >



    --
    nate_NOSPAM@lcs.mit.edu http://nateliskov.kicks-ass.org
    or http://home.comcast.net/~nateliskov

  11. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    Simple ..

    Nathan Liskov wrote:

    > Mike,
    >
    > sorry, but I'm not familiar with "pre-snitched .DOC files". If you
    > send me one, I'll try it. Or, why not download the latest
    > antiword037.zip from Hobbes, give it a try and let us know.
    >
    > Nate Liskov


    Before Microsoft ran off with the .DOC extension for file names which they
    chose to signify their word processing files for their tool, a .DOC file was a
    simple text file which is the text format 'document' file like we would see in
    the README text files for OS/2 and so on. These files are still around and are
    a simple text format 80 column width pure text content.

    In an 'ideal' world now .. for people wanting to convert the M/S word processor
    ..DOC file like this utility you suggest will do, it would be wonderful if it
    would simply handle the text type older .DOC files and display and work with
    them as well. As it is, if you have to work with tons of archived old .DOC
    text format files, as well as you have to work with the M/S word processing
    ..DOC files with a common file handling tool such as File Freedom for OS/2, you
    have to tell the file utility what editor you want to use for a .DOC file.

    If, for example, you use Lotus Smart Suite for OS/2 and tell File Freedom that
    when you want to look at a .DOC file, that you want to use SS to look at it,
    that works fine. But then when you hit the old type .DOC file which is pure
    text .. the Lotus Smart Suite technique isn't good. There is another reason
    why this is bad. While Lotus Smart Suite is a decent product and can handle
    this, it is also a SOM enabled program for OS/2. At least prior to the very
    last fix pack for OS/2, if you used a technique such as using the SS Wordpro
    editor as a called tool to open a file this way, then closed SS after you
    looked at the test file, bad things could happen to your SOM files!

    At least prior to the last fix pack for Smart Suite, for some reason the Smart
    Suite appplication was opening the SOM files for write privilege of all things!
    And this led to issues where other objects in OS/2 which were using SOM
    techniques could get fouled up relative to the SOM files, leaving them
    corrupted and re-written as such when the Smart Suite application did something
    that caused the conflict, however it was caused. The bug is/was officially
    noted in the Lotus tech support forum.

    At that point, if the SOM files were corrupted in just the LOTUSW4\ETC
    directory where they are installed when you install or update Smart Suite, if
    you booted to a command line OS/2 mode, prior to the time where the SOM files
    were first accessed by the system and filed in the system SOM database when a
    use was made for them, you could go in by hand and rebuild the corrupted SOM
    files there from a hand made backup set of them for Smart Suite.

    However .. it also is a fact that depending on .INI file updates and HPFS cache
    action, more than just the Smart Suite SOM files could get corrupted! And THAT
    means, that in some cases, the only hope to recover the system could actually
    be a complete re-install of OS/2. Not good.

    The 'customer has a workaround' for OS/2 for this for those people who have
    Smart Suite for OS/2, I found out, was to simply, right after boot up just open
    up Smart Suite Wordpro and close it, or Lotus 123 and close it. At that point
    the OS/2 op system database appears capable of orchestrating a shell child call
    of things like Wordpro and whatever without corrupting the SOM files. And with
    the last fix pack, I seem to think that this was fixed by IBM along with other
    things. But .. I really haven't had the time to try to drill down into this
    with Theseus and so on to try to test this.

    As noted, for just reading .DOC files, if this utility will handle the M/S
    stuff as well as pure text as just one operation, it would sure simplify
    getting the file utilities to be able to just view both the nice original files
    as well as the 'kidnapped' .DOC files from M/S's actions ... in my opinion.

    I'll grab the utility and test it when I get some time here..




    --


    --> Sleep well; OS2's still awake!

    Mike Luther

  12. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    Here in comp.os.os2.misc,
    "Nathan Liskov" spake unto us, saying:

    >Check out the discussion thread "many flash 8/9 animations with OS/2"
    >on the group: mozilla.dev.ports.os2.
    >
    >This describes a simple patch that just changes the version number of
    >flash 7 to flash 9. I find it works on most animations and will
    >extend your use of OS/2.


    Care to make some of the details available here? If it's simple, the
    information might be useful if archived in Google's USENET archive.

    --
    -Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
    Mainframe/Unix bit twiddler by day, OS/2+Linux+DOS hobbyist by night.
    WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

  13. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    Richard Steiner wrote:
    > Here in comp.os.os2.misc,
    > "Nathan Liskov" spake unto us, saying:
    >
    >> Check out the discussion thread "many flash 8/9 animations with OS/2"
    >> on the group: mozilla.dev.ports.os2.
    >>
    >> This describes a simple patch that just changes the version number of
    >> flash 7 to flash 9. I find it works on most animations and will
    >> extend your use of OS/2.

    >
    > Care to make some of the details available here? If it's simple, the
    > information might be useful if archived in Google's USENET archive.
    >


    Google archives mozilla.dev.ports.os2. See
    http://groups.google.com/group/mozil...66a3e9072c570e
    Hopefully I got the URL right, if not a google search for "many flash
    8/9 animations with OS/2" will show it
    Dave

  14. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    mike luther wrote:
    > Further question for you!
    >
    > Nathan Liskov wrote:
    >> I find that antiword (available on Hobbes) is adequate for reading
    >> .doc files. It converts .doc files to plain ascii text and does a
    >> reasonable job.
    >>
    >> good luck
    >>
    >> nate liskov
    >>
    >> Peter Brown wrote:
    >>
    >>> I guess if you never need to open a current Word.Doc file or other
    >>> current "Office" file formats then there is no need to change.
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    > Will this utility handle plain text pre-snitched .DOC files and just
    > 'convert' 'text' to text so that you can use this as a 'generic' utility
    > to get around the issue as, for example, a called utility for all .DOC
    > files in things like File Freedom?
    >
    > That would be NEAT for me!
    >
    >


    I talked to the Authors about Antiword handling text. They did not want
    to implement it. They said it was too hard to tell if a DOC was just
    plain text.
    Dave

  15. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    A google "groups" search on

    "Many Flash 8/9 animations with OS/2 - NOW!"

    will find the full thread.

    Also, the patched Flash archive is available (courtesy of Steve Wendt)
    at

    http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/Warpzilla.html

    Good luck,

    Nate Liskov


    Dave Yeo wrote:

    > Care to make some of the details available here? If it's simple, the
    > > information might be useful if archived in Google's USENET archive.

    >



    --
    nate_NOSPAM@lcs.mit.edu http://nateliskov.kicks-ass.org
    or http://home.comcast.net/~nateliskov

  16. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    Interesting!

    Dave Yeo wrote:
    > mike luther wrote:


    >> Will this utility handle plain text pre-snitched .DOC files and just
    >> 'convert' 'text' to text so that you can use this as a 'generic'
    >> utility to get around the issue as, for example, a called utility for
    >> all .DOC files in things like File Freedom?
    >>
    >> That would be NEAT for me!
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I talked to the Authors about Antiword handling text. They did not want
    > to implement it. They said it was too hard to tell if a DOC was just
    > plain text.
    > Dave


    Interesting! Plain text is more complicated that M/S .DOC files! Thanks
    anyway Dave..


    --


    --> Sleep well; OS2's still awake!

    Mike Luther

  17. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    In article
    dave.r.yeo@gmail.com "Dave Yeo" writes:

    > I talked to the Authors about Antiword handling text. They did
    > not want to implement it. They said it was too hard to tell if
    > a DOC was just plain text.


    Obviously they are likely to know far more about the Word (spit)
    formats than I. But I do have a vague memory, from around 1990,
    that Word (spit) uses a header which of course plain text won't.
    If they can find a "fingerprint" (common even in simple formats)
    there, that could distinguish the two file types. Such a marker
    is likely to appear _very_ early in the file.
    --
    Andrew Stephenson


  18. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    Yes ..

    Andrew Stephenson wrote:
    > In article
    > dave.r.yeo@gmail.com "Dave Yeo" writes:
    >
    >> I talked to the Authors about Antiword handling text. They did
    >> not want to implement it. They said it was too hard to tell if
    >> a DOC was just plain text.

    >
    > Obviously they are likely to know far more about the Word (spit)
    > formats than I. But I do have a vague memory, from around 1990,
    > that Word (spit) uses a header which of course plain text won't.
    > If they can find a "fingerprint" (common even in simple formats)
    > there, that could distinguish the two file types. Such a marker
    > is likely to appear _very_ early in the file.


    ^^^^^^

    You betcha .. Heck even WordStar files have their header right at the top of
    the file and you can even figure that out from the first 128 bytes or so.


    For example:


    > 000000 1D 7D 00 00 70 4C 51 35 37 30 00 20 20 00 00 00 } pLQ570
    > 000010 80 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Ç
    > 000020 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
    > 000030 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
    > 000040 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
    > 000050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
    > 000060 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
    > 000070 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 7D 00 1D } 



    Here are the first 80 bytes of a M/S .DOC file:


    > 000000 D0 CF 11 E0 A1 B1 1A E1 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ð¤Ó*▒ß
    > 000010 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 3E 00 03 00 FE FF 09 00 >  *
    > 000020 06 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00  
    > 000030 44 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 00 00 45 00 00 00 D  E
    > 000040 01 00 00 00 FE FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 43 00 00 00  * C



    Here are the first 80 bytes of another M/S .DOC file:


    > 000000 D0 CF 11 E0 A1 B1 1A E1 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ð¤Ó*▒ß
    > 000010 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 3E 00 03 00 FE FF 09 00 >  *
    > 000020 06 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00  
    > 000030 30 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 00 00 32 00 00 00 0  2
    > 000040 01 00 00 00 FE FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 31 00 00 00  * 1



    What are the chances that any pure text .DOC file of old are going to have
    those first few bytes like that? That's why I suggested what I did.

    --


    --> Sleep well; OS2's still awake!

    Mike Luther

  19. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    Here in comp.os.os2.misc,
    Dave Yeo spake unto us, saying:

    >Richard Steiner wrote:
    >
    >> Care to make some of the details available here? If it's simple, the
    >> information might be useful if archived in Google's USENET archive.

    >
    >Google archives mozilla.dev.ports.os2.


    Heh. I feel stupid. :-) Thanks!

    --
    -Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
    Mainframe/Unix bit twiddler by day, OS/2+Linux+DOS hobbyist by night.
    WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

  20. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    In , on 06/17/2007
    at 05:07 AM, rsteiner@visi.com (Richard Steiner) said:



    >Here in comp.os.os2.misc,
    >Dave Yeo spake unto us, saying:


    >>Richard Steiner wrote:
    >>
    >>> Care to make some of the details available here? If it's simple, the
    >>> information might be useful if archived in Google's USENET archive.

    >>
    >>Google archives mozilla.dev.ports.os2.


    >Heh. I feel stupid. :-) Thanks!


    There is nothing there.





+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast