thelinuxlink.net

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-ha ... aster.html

From the UNIX-Haters Handbook. What do you guys have to say about this?

Wally Balljacker wrote:http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-ha ... aster.html

From the UNIX-Haters Handbook. What do you guys have to say about this?

Most of the information there is ancient and no longer valid, or just plain wrong. It might have been funny at one point, but now it's just irrelevant. The footnote says the author deliberately used the term X-Windows (which is incorrect) to annoy "X fanatics."

Agreed, this is old sh|t! Look at the system dates: 1991!
Anyone remember what windows or mac looked like back then?

Patrick wrote:Anyone remember what windows or mac looked like back then?

Oh my lord, that Windows 3.1 was the most god-awful thing to use, it was slow, it wasn't very useful, darn I rather use paper and pencil than that ugly thing!

Tsuroerusu wrote:

Patrick wrote:Anyone remember what windows or mac looked like back then?

Oh my lord, that Windows 3.1 was the most god-awful thing to use, it was slow, it wasn't very useful, darn I rather use paper and pencil than that ugly thing!

Per Wikipedia, Windows 3.1 was released in March 1992.

I'm not even old enough to remember Windows 3.0. I know it was pretty bad, though. I was using DOS 4.0 in those days.

Gomer_X wrote:Per Wikipedia, Windows 3.1 was released in March 1992.

I'm not even old enough to remember Windows 3.0. I know it was pretty bad, though. I was using DOS 4.0 in those days.

Then it must be Windows 3.0 I remember using at school, damn, I tell ya, hat thing was just ugly as all hell, even FVWM looks better than Windows 3.0!!!