Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!hub!6600pete
From: 6600pete@hub.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXT not open architecture?
Message-ID: <3392@hub.UUCP>
Date: 21 Dec 89 22:23:44 GMT
References: <7362@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@hub.UUCP
Lines: 19

From article <7362@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, by eht@f.word.cs.cmu.edu (Eric Thayer):
> In article <3362@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP writes:
>>Rather, I was trying to show that putting Ether on the motherboard and not
>>also including enough open architecture features was probably not the best
>>design decision.
> In what way is the NeXT lacking in open architecture features?

Well, I could say that 4 slots is not enough. But that's a lame scramble
to keep the egg off of my face.

Rather, I direct you to the message headed "Egg on my face" somewhere around
here.

If you would like to argue this point in its current incarnation, take a
look at alt.religion.computers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Gontier   | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa
Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription
Hire this kid  | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills