Linux-Advocacy Digest #894, Volume #27 Sun, 23 Jul 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) (tholenbot)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: LOREN PETRICH, CRYPTO-COMMIE (Bloody Viking)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Perry Pip)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Perry Pip)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Perry Pip)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the USS
Yorktown) (Perry Pip)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the USS
Yorktown) (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:12:30 -0400
In article <Yz8e5.61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <kvWd5.133$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> tholenbot wrote, quoting Timan and Slava Pestov time and again:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> [never mind what he wrote, shouldn't we pass the
> >> >> hat around to buy him a long-sleeved pajama top, though?]
> >> >>
> >> >> Leave those two young people to their budding tryst, you miserable
> >> >> bot with a thpeech impediment!
> >> >
> >> > Typical invective.
> >>
> >> I see no invective here.
> >
> > Predictable, given your reading comprehension problems.
>
> The only thing that is predictable is your continued unsubstantiated
> claims.
Illogical.
> >> > How predictable, coming from one of the antagonists.
> >>
> >> I see no antagonist here.
> >
> > See above.
>
> Proof by irrelevant reference, eh Eric?
Obviously not.
> >
> >> Gearing up to lose another argument, eh Eric? How predictable.
> >
> > You erroneously presuppose that I could lose "another" argument.
> >
>
> Are you implying that you have already lost all possible arguments?
Obviously not. Meanwhile, where is you logical argument? Why, nowhere
to be seen!
--
Prove that African swallows are non-migratory, if you think you can.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:41:10 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > [...]
> > >Because, to compete with "the browser" (primarily Netscape) which
> > >threaten[ed,s] to make the OS obselete, Microsoft have turned Windows
> into a
> > >delivery system for Internet Explorer.
> >
> > That is illegal.
>
> I see. It's illegal to compete with a superior product ?
It's illegal -- regardless of the product. You shouldn't even
acknowledge MS has a product called internet explorer.
Calling MS Internet Explorer a product is counterproductive for MS's
position which is MS IE is a part of windows.
The crime of tying requires two products, MS says there is ony one -
Windows.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: LOREN PETRICH, CRYPTO-COMMIE
Date: 23 Jul 2000 20:44:02 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: By the way, you STILL haven't answered the question about how your
: ideology differs from the communists.
: We're waiting! [tapping foot].
And what does this quarrel have to do with Linux?
--
DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 23 Jul 2000 20:51:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:40:51 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But you are forgetting that without the military's
>receiving those tax dollars, Americans might have made
>such things on their own.
>
Except that the private sector simply isn't willing to make huge up
front investments in new technologies that won't pay off till decades
later. Two good additional examples are the railroads and civillian
aviation, both of which were fisrt invested in heavily by the
Government and later privitized when people realized their was money
to make off of it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 23 Jul 2000 20:52:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:33:07 +0200,
David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Drestin Black wrote in message
><8RJd5.36990$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>
>>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> On 18 Jul 2000 18:08:13 -0500,
>>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>
>Why don't you just translate the C directly into VB?
>
>sub endian_flip (w as integer)
> dim i as integer
> dim temp as integer
>
> temp = w
> w = 0
> for i = 1 to 4 ' or 2 for 16 bit VB
> w = w * &H100
> w = w or (temp and &HFF)
> temp = temp / &H100
> next
>end sub
>
That's nice but now you are using math. It won't work on a floating
point value. For that you will need to either typecast it to an
integer (does VB have typecasting??) or use a shift operation (does VB
have have shift operations??).
>Of course, neither C nor VB compares with the assembly version:
> bswap eax ; Endian swap of 32-bit register
Well for one, you just threw portability totally out the window, as
that's an x86 specific instruction. I don't even know if the RISC
architectures I work with (MIPS and Sparc) have such an
intruction. You could, though, use #defines and multiple asm linkages
in a portable c program. (Does VB even support asm linkages??)
>Byte and bit manipulation is often far easier to write and understand, and
>much smaller and faster, when written in assembly rather than VB or C.
But not portable.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 23 Jul 2000 20:53:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:28:44 +0200,
David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>This is easy in VB, as shown in other posts.
I addressed it in your other post.
>
>The only sane uses of variable argument lists in C are for printf -
>style functions (equivilent to VB's print statement), which you would
>never write yourself,
Not even a wrapper function like
logmsg(int msg_level, const char *format, ...); ??
Which would check your level of logging (defined elswhere) againts the
msg_level passed to it, and if the logging level is high enough print
a log entry to a logfile some date and time information plus the
format string passed.
>and for parsing command line arguements - VB has
>the Command$ function for that.
Or for being able to exlplicity define the members of an array in a
function call, which I find usefull sometimes.
>The most serious limitations of VB are a lack of pointers.
Yes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 23 Jul 2000 20:54:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:16:44 -0400,
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
>>
>> Traditionally, most UNIX programmers do take up a project with
>> portability/POSIX compliance in mind. But most Windows programmers
>> do not concern themselves with anything outside of Win32, because
>> in most cases, they do not need to.
>>
>
>And it is quite unfortunate that those people can't see beyond the
>one platform >Windows mentality. I didn't say it doesn't happen. I
>said decent programmers >don't make that mistake. Don't take this the
>wrong way. In my youth I used to be >one of those single platform
>programmers. In my case it was VM/CMS, not Windows. >But I am older
>and a bit wiser now and I have had to port many of my old programs >as
>well as programs written by many others. Many times I have found it
>easier to >just scrap the old code and start from scratch. Times
>change, machines change, >operating systems change. A good programer
>plans for change.
>
>Gary
>
Well, unfortunately, what portable development tools are there for
Windows?? VB is not portable. VC++/MFC is not portable. Java is
portable, but not if you use Microsofts tools. Delphi is supposedly
coming to Linux, but what about other Unices? It seems windows
developers don't have many choices. Lack of portability is just
another form of Vendor lock-in. And claiming Windows programmers
mostly don't need portability is just another evasion of vendor lockin
being the real problem.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 23 Jul 2000 20:54:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 22 Jul 2000 01:04:59 GMT,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>8<SNIP>8
>
>: And if you don't like all the good things the Government is doing for
>: you, you can petition it with your grievences. You can also assemble
>
>LOL!@# How about wonderful things like multiple-taxing of incomes...
>should I be thankful for that too? How about politicians who care more
>about getting pussy and money over helping their nation?
Oh please...like you have someone that can do better, Stephen??
>Should I get all
>glassy-eyed, and praise them as well?
Nope. Apparently, enough people are already doing that already in the
form of their votes. Now who's fault is that??
>Perry, you are quite naive.
Really?? We in the U.S have it better off both economically and
politically than almost anyone in the world. Our biggest problem is
all the discontented whiners like you who will never be happy no
matter what.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 23 Jul 2000 20:55:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 22 Jul 2000 00:59:50 GMT,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Go GWB! :-)
>
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the
USS Yorktown)
Date: 23 Jul 2000 20:55:53 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 13:48:09 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The first space shuttle went up with 6 redundant IBM computers that were
>several generations outdated, due to government contracting leadtimes.
>
Not quite. The fault tolerant computers were "several generations
outdated" becuase of the years required for avionics design, testing
and integration, radiating hardening, thermal and shock testing, etc.,
etc. that you have to put into a manned spacecraft before you risk
someone's life with it. Embedded systems generally don't require large
amounts of processing power anyways, so why do you need to be current
generation especially when reliability is what matters most. The
processors on civilian aircraft aren't quite current generation
either, but they do the job.
For more information see:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computers/Part1.html
>An astronaut had a laptop with him that was immensely superior to the IBM
>computers.
Not on the first flight, they didn't have a laptop. And the laptops in
future flights were immensely superior in terms of processing power,
not fault tolerance. Those redundant IBM computers have logged over
15,000 hours flight time with a failure.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 07:04:21 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> That isn't what you said. You said that proper definitions are
> >> meaningless.
> >
> >No, I said "The computer science definition of an "operating system" is
moot
> >in the consumer world". Jedi's expected context snip removed that last
part. As
> >usual, Max, you're jumping into discussions wihtout performing your basic
> >research.
>
> Jumping into a discussion *is* basic research, if you have more than
> half a brain.
I guess you must be lacking in that latter department, then ?
> >> The "real world" (the market) knows what it calls an OS,
> >> and that is a completely accurate and correct definition for the
market.
> >
> >And Windows quite easily meets that definition. As do MacOS, BeOS and
Linux
> >distributions.
>
> IE doesn't, and that appears to be the whole of the argument.
IE certainly does, since it is now the shell.
> >> CS knows likewise what its own rigorous definition is. Neither agree
> >> with Microsoft that it is "whatever we want to call an OS and force you
> >> to accept in order to use whatever you call an OS." Your point is
moot.
> >
> >Last I checked, Microsoft weren't forcing anyone to buy Windows.
>
> Last I checked, they were convicted of doing just that.
If that's what it distills down to, yet more reason why the whole case is a
crock.
> >> We agree that the CS definition is not the same as the market's
> >> definition. You assume that they need to be.
> >
> >On the contrary, I'm trying to enlighten jedi to the fact they *aren't*
and
> >*will never be*.
>
> No, you're trying to confuse people by pretending that Jedi's position
> is wrong because it is based on the CS definition being the "right" one,
No, Jedi's position is wrong because he flips between the two definitions
depending on which argument he wants to present, *not* on the context of the
discussion.
> and you, being an MS droid, (or at least a troll), are using the
> marketing definition to pretend that he's "wrong".
Because in the context of a discussion about the market, the CS definition
is wrong, and irrelevant.
> >> In fact, you assume that
> >> they are, but disagree with both the CS and the market's definition.
> >
> >You haven't a clue, Max. I agree with both the CS and market definition,
> >but which one is used is entirely a matter of the context of the
discussion.
> >And coming from the field of CS, I'm acutely aware the two are worlds
apart.
>
> You're switching back and forth to whichever one will make the other
> side "wrong" by taking advantage of the difference in definitions to
> obscure the issues, just as MS does.
You must have me mistaken for jedi, as I am doing no such thing.
> >> Sounds like you are making stuff up so that you can try to support a
> >> moot point, to be honest.
> >
> >I have yet to make anything up.
>
> Your inability to synthesize information and derive from it the basis of
> independent thought is clear.
Is this your typical response when you can't respond on topic ? Wander off
into some philosophical ponderings ?
> >> 90% of the things shipped are necessary for the market to find purchase
> >> or acceptance of a kernel desirable.
> >
> >As is IE.
>
> Only according to Microsoft. Not according to the market.
You seriously think you could sell an OS or computer to the consumer market
today without a browser ?
> >> Including a text editor, as well
> >> as shells and APIs for core OS services. Which is to say, not
> >> middleware or browser services.
> >
> >Please demonstrate why a text editor, graphics viewer, movie player and
> >sound recorder have more "right" to be included in an OS distribution
than a
> >web browser.
>
> I don't consider the last three to be necessary for an OS.
Ah, that would explain your apparent difficulty in seeing the end user's
point of view in other discussions.
> Neither did
> the market until MS bundled some in with the monopoly OS in order to
> restrain trade.
I think you'll find Microsoft weren't the first to bundle such things, ever,
or at the very least, did it at the same time everyone else did.
IBM, for example, were bundling a browser in OS/2 before Microsoft were in
Windows.
I'd wager MacOS had a sound recorder long before Windows did. The Amiga
probably did as well.
> It won't surprise me if the market continues to expect
> movie players and graphic viewers, and most probably web browsers even
> after MS, but that doesn't make MS's restraint of trade legal, it merely
> means the market is allowed to define whatever it wants however it wants
> for whatever reason it wants.
So now you've decided the market *has* decided that browsers, media players
and the like are required components ?
> And the producers have the choice to
> supply it, or lose business. Restraint of trade and monopolization is
> not an option.
>
> >Then explain why everyone except Microsoft should be allowed to do it.
>
> Nobody should be allowed to force any choice on their customers.
In a perfect world, that might be a valid option.
> Only
> Microsoft has been convicted of doing so.
Another example of why the case is a crock. Microsoft do exactly what
everyone else does. Much less so if you want to consider a company like
Apple.
> The typical justification for
> targeting MS is their monopoly, which makes tying all the more obvious.
> To many, the fact that Windows is a monopoly is the whole reason
> integrating IE was considered wrong. They oversimplify the case, but it
> isn't a real problem.
>
> [...]
> >Please explain why there should be a distinction between the applications
an
> >OS can run, and the ones that ship with it. Then reconcile this with,
say,
> >a Linux distribution, where the applications that ship with the OS are a
> >fairly large chunk of those avalable for it.
>
> The Linux distributor does not own the code as intellectual property.
> They are a distributor, not a developer. Linux is not a product; a
> Linux distribution is a product. A producer is entitled to decide how
> he wants to present his product to the market. A producer is not
> allowed to tie two products together if the market shows any inclination
> or desire to acquire them separately.
The market had shown very strong leanings towards having browsers bundled
with their OSes. Ditto for TCP/IP stacks when they made it into Windows 95.
Ditto for disk maintenance utilities.
You're doing a fine job of undermining your own arguments.
> If you don't like one Linux
> distro's bundled application selection, then buy someone else's Linux
> distro, or make a new one. None of these apps are "tied", even the ones
> like GNOME or even KDE, which are as "integrated" with the OS as
> Microsoft's browser supposedly is, if not in the same manner. If you
> wish to acquire GNOME separately to add to some Linux installation which
> doesn't include it in the distro, you are free to do so.
However, you can't get a distro that does have GNOME in it *without it*,
from the supplier.
> Likewise, even
> in those distros which include GNOME, you can easily get rid of it
> completely, which you can't do with IE now that MS has "welded" it into
> the OS.
You can jimmy IE out if you really, really want to.
Naturally it requires replacing all system components that are dependant on
IE with ones that aren't, just like jimmying KDE out of Mandrake Linux would
require replacing all the software and utilities that depend on KDE, with
ones that don't.
> >> There was no previous "market" for TCP/IP.
> >
> >Really ? Trumpet made quite a lot of money selling Trumpet Winsock,
IIRC.
>
> YRI. Trumpet made money selling TCP/IP stacks to *developers*, who
> would bundle it with their apps which required networking.
Ie, trumpet was getting paid.
> I got
> trumpet for free, as most other people did.
Well if you believe that, why do you have a problem with Windows being
included "for free" with new computers ?
> I wasn't even aware it was
> being sold as a commercial product by itself. How much did you pay for
> it?
I have no idea. It was *way* too long ago.
Heck, I would have been using OS/2 way back then, so I doubt I even had it
on my own machine.
> >> There were markets for
> >> communication packages of a great variety, all of which included
TCP/IP,
> >> because TCP/IP was robust *and* freely available to anyone.
> >
> >Trumpet winsock was a dialer and TCP/IP stack, nothing more. Although it
> >was often bundled with Netscape.
>
> Hmmm... I wonder if that's important?
That's up to you to decide. But be careful what you decide, because it's
going to have ramifications for any other arguments you use for and against
bundling.
> >> Leave it to
> >> Microsoft to try to "de-commoditize" it by playing games with dialers
> >> and applications, and for MS droids to use it as a fictional example of
> >> MS supporting "interoperability".
> >
> >Please try to stay on topic. Just to remind you, we were discussing why
it
> >was ok for Microsoft to include TCP/IP and disk maintenance software in
> >their OS, despite it being available from third parties.
>
> I didn't say it was OK for MS to do this, and I was fully on topic. Try
> not to direct the discussion away from the point, which is that MS
> develops their software to deter competition more than to provide
> functionality to consumers.
They develop their software to provide the functionality customers think
they want, at a price they are prepared to pay. This is simply good
business sense. They have been *wildly* successful at doing it.
> That some functional benefit accrues to the
> user when MS attempts to monopolize is potentially an important issue,
> but you are going to have to recognize that MS bundled IE in order to
> cut off Netscape's air supply before you can engage in such a
> discussion.
Since I think the killing of Netscape was just a (desirable) fringe benefit,
rather than the primary objective, that would be rather dishonest on my
part.
> >So Microsoft aren't even allowed to have control of the software they
have
> >spent decades and millions of dollars developing ? Wow, I can't think of
a
> >better incentive to be successful than that.
>
> The hope that you will be able to continue selling it is all the
> incentive you need. Profits are about making money, not controlling
> things. MS can spend all the money they want on developing their
> product; it is either technical value or market demand which should have
> "control of the software", not anti-competitive strategies.
The market has constantly demanded Windows.
> Producers
> are supposed to be at the mercy of the market, yes.
Microsoft are at the mercy of the market. Or, at the very least, they
believe they are - their actions clearly demonstrate this.
> Is it "unfair" that
> it is possible the demand for their product will disappear? Maybe, but
> that's the way the market works. If you want to make money, you have to
> risk spending decades and millions of dollars developing something that
> nobody wants to buy. Ensuring that they need to buy it, whether they
> want to or not, is not just criminal, but is literally "wrong".
And what have Microsoft ensured that people "need to buy" with any methods
other than giving the market what they wanted, and continuing to do so ?
> >Of course, no-one seems to harass Apple or any other proprietry OS
developer
> >for doing the same thing. Must be that Anti-Microsoft Dichotomy.
>
> More likely its that Apple has a proprietary hardware platform, as well.
Which should be even more reason to do so. Not only do they control the OS,
but the hardware it runs on, as well.
> >> More misdirection. Don't you know any other tricks?
> >
> >I am merely trying to the extent to which jedi (and the rest of the
> >anti-Microsoft brigade) is hypocritical.
>
> Yet more misdirection! Apparently I was right, unless you include
> flagrantly dishonest use of insulting terms like "hypocritical" as a
> 'different trick' from simple misdirection.
I am unaware of any use I have made of the word hypocritical, which does not
fit it's dictionary definition.
> There is no "anti-Microsoft brigade" anymore.
Heh. Don't get out much, do you ?
> We're just part of the
> general population again.
The general populance couldn't care less. As long as they get what they
want, they're happy.
> Now there's just the "MS droids", who are too
> naive or simple-minded to understand what Microsoft did that was
> criminal and wrong.
No, there's just people who don't have blind faith in the law and who can
see the gaping holes in all the "evidence".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the
USS Yorktown)
Date: 23 Jul 2000 20:56:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not one word this post has an iota of truth in it, simon/heather/teknite.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computers/contents.html will
shed some light.
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 00:52:59 GMT,
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Facts are correct, but the missions are a little
>mixed up.
>
>The Apollo series had seriously outdated computers
>due to the fact that they wanted to be able to
>component repair any failing item down to the last
>transistor. IBM SMS technology allowed that. IBM
>MST technology did not, hence the semi IBM
>360/quasi 370 computers that were used for the
>later Apollo missions. These were conglomerations
>of IBM 's standard computers tweaked for NASA.
>
>Space shuttles didn't get laptops until the mid
>1990's as far as I know. The puters' were still
>somewhat component repairable. The laptops were
>for data collection and not for running th
>shuttle. They were also highly customized units
>able to withstand the rigors, not to mention gamma
>rays (smile) of space.
>
>You have to understand the philosophy of NASA
>which is much like the that of the NYSE. Total
>redundant and able to be repaired on the fly.
>
>The NYSE was using IBM 3330 disk drives well into
>the 1990's simply because they were able to remove
>a pack (physically) from a string and slap it into
>another string on the fly. This could easily have
>been performed with mirroring or RAID, or under
>VM, but they liked the security blanket of being
>able to hold the data in their hands.
>
>
>Sounds strange but that's what I have been told.
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:15:48 -0400, Gary Hallock
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>2 + 2 wrote:
>>
>>> The first space shuttle went up with 6 redundant IBM computers that were
>>> several generations outdated, due to government contracting leadtimes.
>>>
>>> An astronaut had a laptop with him that was immensely superior to the IBM
>>> computers.
>>>
>>
>>Are you sure about that? The first shuttle was launched in April 1981. Did
>>laptops exist back then?
>>
>>Gary
>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
