On 2022-07-14 05:04, Peter Duffy wrote:
On Wed, 2022-07-13 at 15:49 -0500, hal wrote:
On July 13, 2022 3:31:37 PM CDT, Syeed Ali <syeed...@syeedali.com>
wrote:
:: Microsoft has a great interest in embracing Linux via WSL with the
:: intent to obsolete the need to dual boot. With many critical
:: distributions and software requiring systemd, it only makes sense
to
:: make sure that WSL has complete support; indeed better support
than on
:: Linux. Combined Windows and WSL can thereby be extended nicely in
ways
:: pure Linux cannot.
::
:: _______________________________________________
:: Dng mailing list
:: Dng@lists.dyne.org
:: https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Microsoft has only an interest in not having any competition. from
DOS, to Internet Explore vs. Netscape, to SCO Linux. Every few years
they try again. this is all just another example.
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
I'm sure that is correct. M$ were obviously behind the SCO thing. Thank
heavens for groklaw - without Pamela Jones, SCO's legal action might
have succeeded, and we might now be paying them for linux licences (or
using something else).
I do find it interesting that Red Hat haven't commented on Poettering's
departure as yet (or at least, I haven't seen any comment from them so
far). M$ and IBM haven't always been rivals - worth remembering that
OS/2 was originally a joint venture. Then they decided to go their
separate ways and fork the OS/2 project: IBM carried on developing
OS/2; M$ hacked their version into Windows 95 (remember they took over
the front page of the Times to advertise the launch of it?). (Shame
that OS/2 vanished off the radar. I used it daily for a number of
years: it was infinitely better than windows.)
Obviously something's going on. I guess time will tell what it is. For
now, it at least seems extremely good news that systemd is now firmly
tarred with the M$ brush.
As I recall, and I was an OS/2 user, OS/2 was miles ahead of windows,
but both started with the same codebase. The Microsoft fork became
Windows NT. You could still see the underpinnings in the early versions
I started with 3.5 and 3.51. Windows 95 was MSDOS and Windows for
Workgroups 4.0 (which is why they stepped from windows 3.5 to 3.51 to
fix that little bug. IBM complained, at the time, that they were
teaching Microsoft how to write an operating system (Microsoft purchased
MS-DOS). OS/2 had the benefit of the AS/400 (now iSeries) OS developers
in there.
I miss OS/2.
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
