From: "Robert Comer" 

> If the tool now allows you do the same things in a better way, would
> accommodating that be acceptable? There's only one way to find out.

You wouldn't have to accommodate it if it did the same things better...
It's arguable whether XP does much better than W2K -- it sure seems like
they made it harder to admin, recover from disaster, and they made it UGLY
by default.)

> FWIW I've been finding modern Unix extremely frustrating. I'm almost
happier
> at the raw console where I can operate reflexively. Accommodating XP is
very
> low impact itself by comparison with any of the X desktops.

I agree 100%, I've never been wild about any UNIX variant -- it seems
obscurity is valued highly in UNIX circles, but there's one thing at least
Linux has over XP -- it's WAY lower cost up front makes it a lot easier to
want to accommodate it than XP.

- Bob Comer


"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:3dce8c40$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> If the tool now allows you do the same things in a better way, would
> accommodating that be acceptable? There's only one way to find out.
>
> FWIW I've been finding modern Unix extremely frustrating. I'm almost
happier
> at the raw console where I can operate reflexively. Accommodating XP is
very
> low impact itself by comparison with any of the X desktops.
>
>  Paul
>
> "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
> news:sgvssu8hn475778ecau1mjv4bb44ea6d4e{at}4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 00:07:44 -0000, "Paul Ranson"

> > wrote:
> >
> > >I think it's quite possible to reach an accommodation with XP...
> >
> > I remain to be convinced that I have to accomodate my computer.  The
> > computer is my tool, not vice versa.
> >
> >  /m
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4