From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-24 18:31:21 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!news-out.nibble.net!news-in.nibble.net!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!out.nntp.be!propagator-dallas!news-in-dallas.newsfeeds.com!newsfeed.onecall.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Progress on AdaOS
Date: 24 Aug 2001 20:31:15 -0500
Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation
Message-ID: <QzMRgPYPkyBy@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <9IFe7.12813$6R6.1221214@news1.cableinet.net>
 <9lghqu$ac6$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B7C3293.76F49097@home.com>
 <9lhefg$lgd$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B7D47F1.25D6FC78@boeing.com>
 <5ee5b646.0108171856.18631c4c@posting.google.com> <3B7F624B.7294D24F@acm.org>
 <lK8g7.7817$2u.56850@www.newsranger.com> <9lr6je$5hj$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <Pine.A41.4.10.10108201848570.29818-100000@acs5.bu.edu>
 <9ltoi7$4is$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B82789B.8D195045@home.com>
 <9ltuo8$70n$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B829450.879B0396@home.com>
 <Pine.A41.4.10.Organization: LJK Software
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 998702629 26383 192.135.80.34 (25 Aug 2001
 01:23:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 01:23:49 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12404
Date: 2001-08-24T20:31:15-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <9m6isb$8201@news.cis.okstate.edu>, David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> writes:

> If your goal is to produce a new operating system for the general
> public, then making major visible changes is a bad idea, unless there
> are huge associated improvements. I use Blackbox under X under Linux; I
> find Windows and MacOS and even other X enviroments sometimes annoying,
> since they don't react the way I expect. An OS that differed massively
> from Unix and Windows probably wouldn't be worth the time for me to wrap
> my mind around, unless I was just in the mood to play with a new OS.

For me, an OS that resembled either Windows or Unix would not be of
interest.  The only thing that would interest me in an experimental
operating system is if it had significant new capablities.

Thus Linux wasn't it.  I never saw BeOS or NexT -- perhaps they were it.

> (The general public is _never_ in the mood to play with a new OS.) (For
> an analogy, would you buy a car where you steered with your feet?

Yes, but for some of us, Unix is like steering with your feet.
I understand that David feels the opposite.  My point is not
to win him over, but to point out there is no unanimity.