From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...>
Date: 2007-07-24T15:37:40+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Editor

Todd Benson wrote:
> I'm not sure why -- maybe a change in OS philosophy on my part -- but
> I think Windows 2000 server was a Microsoft high watermark for
> stability/reliability/useability in my opinion.  We had plenty of
> those guys sitting around with nary a problem.
Well ... aside from the fact that they weren't hyperthreading aware,
they were indeed solid beasts and still are. If Windows 2000
Professional was still supported and would do RDC server, I would never
have upgraded to XP. But I do think Windows Server 2003 is better than
2000 (at least now, after four years). :)
> 
> I'm a minimilast, so I run with BSD and vim.  BSD is a bit weird in
> the OSS world.  They put a sturdier cap on the open source zeal
> present in most linux distros.

I used to be a *real* minimalist. I did some of my best hacking in Forth
on an HP-100 Pocket PC. Darn thing ran Perl 4 too at an acceptable
speed, doubled as a VT100 with a usable keyboard and an almost visible
80x24 screen. I'll bet it will run Ruby, although I'm not sure what kind
of script you could cram into 640K.

Then again, with the older Forths you didn't even need the OS -- it was
part of the language. :)

> I think it was the writer Neal Stephenson that attempted to compare
> OS's to vehicles.  Well, if his Linux is a tank, the former BeOS a
> batmobile, Windows a Saturn, then I guess BSD would be like a
> locomotive -- sturdy, but you have to follow the track.

I like games like this, so let's do it with languages. Forth is what? A
Dodge Colt? Scheme is a motorcycle? No ... the other way around. Forth
is a motorcycle and Scheme is a Dodge Colt (or Volkswagen Beetle). And
Ruby is ??
> 
> Todd
> 
>