Linux-Advocacy Digest #32, Volume #29 Sat, 9 Sep 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: philosophy is better than science (Richard)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they (lyttlec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 21:52:10 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Wrong.
> >Your allowed to agree to the EULA or not. That's it. If you don't agree
you
> >don't get to use the software.
>
> Tell that to Lasercomb America. They'll be happy to hear it.
>
> http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html
>
> The question, BTW, 'J', is on what the EULA says, not whether you have
> to agree to it to legally own your copy of the software product.
Actually, if you legally purchase a piece of software, you legally own it
regardless of the EULA (Own here means to own a copy of the liscense and
media upon which the software has been placed). Whether or not you have the
right to USE that software is an entirely different matter and is what the
EULA is all about.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within.
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 22:39:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Pim van Riezen in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On 8 Sep 2000, Loren Petrich wrote:
[...]
>You earned 4 trollpoints. You have defeated me and won another battle for
>the Redmond Army of Righteousness. You will sleep well, dream well and
>awaken the next day with a smile on your face, realizing you made the
>world a Better Place!
The jokes on you. Not only is Loren not a Microsoft fan, but he
actually *is* a communist (OK, well, he's a socialist)! :-)
The joke was that Loren was skewering the 'commie' rants of other
posters; none of his statements were 'trolls', precisely.
Thanks for your time. Post more often!
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:40:05 GMT
Zenin wrote:
>
> lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Zenin wrote:
> >snip<
> :> Applications don't have access to BIOS functions under most OSes
> :> that run in protected mode. At least this is the case under unix
> :> systems and AFAIK it is the case under NT as well.
> :>
> : Almost but not quiet true. Bios can still be accessed undet NT4.0, just
> : not very easily. The old DOS function calls are still included in NT
> : albeit with different names.
>
> Give even *ONE* example, I dare you.
>
> : They definately made it difficult for users to access them. But to aid
> : their own and other porting tasks, they had to leave them in.
>
> Again, name just one.
>
> : I haven't tried to access the BIOS in Linux, I haven't had too. But if
> : that turns out to be possible, it is a new big security hole. I'll have to
> : research that one.
>
> You can run DOS apps under Linux that make "BIOS calls" for
> days...but they have once talk directly to BIOS. Same with NT.
>
> :> : Whether NT uses the BIOS or not isn't revelant. It does, but that is
> :> : another thread.
> :>
> :> Beyond bootstrapping and general initialization of the hardware,
> :> what services does the BIOS provide in a modern OS such as NT?
> :> Please, you can name at least one, can't you?
> :>
> : Many legacy applications still use int21.
>
> Which is caught with a hardware trap and handled by the KERNEL, not
> the BIOS. It isn't a real INT21. You know absolutely knothing
> about system design.
>
> :> AFAIK, real mode DOS under NT run in a VM and satisfy things like
> :> direct BIOS requests via hardware traps. That is, the processor
> :> throws an exception which the OS (in protected mode) catches and
> :> services how it likes. The DOS app may "think" it's "talking to the
> :> BIOS", but it really is talking to the OS.
> :
> : I think that is the way the MS-DOS prompt window is suppose to work. But
> : Word doesn't run in a MS-DOS prompt window.
>
> What's your point?
>
> :> : The BIOS is still there and something that accesses it can still be
> :> : running.
> :>
> :> That's just it; nothing can access it without going through the
> :> kernel.
> :>
> :> : NT does make it difficult for naif users to use the BIOS, but has
> :> : preserved the ability to access BIOS for its "friends".
> :>
> :> Such as?
> :>
> :
> : Word, Excel, AOL, look at their "partners" list.
>
> What would Word, Excel, and AOL possibly use BIOS calls for...even
> if they had access to them (which they don't)?
>
> :> >snip<
> :> :> Crackers can exploit nearly anything in very creative ways and have
> :> :> for ever. I remember an old ProDOS virus that wrote most its self
> :> :> *between* the tracks of the disk so it could not be detected by
> :> :> scanning any file.
> :> :>
> :> : MS still does that. They write data on tracks on your hard drive that only
> :> : MS is intended to be able to read.
> :> You've got to be joking. Even the most extreme of conspiracy
> :> theorists wouldn't typically go this far...
> :
> : Nope. They used to simply mark some sectors "BAD" and use them. Now they
> : are more subtile. This is an old copy protection trick from 5-1/4" days.
> : Such tricks included tracks hidden after the last track, tracks that could
> : be read/written only if the drive speed were changed (drive speed is under
> : software control), writing between tracks. If you have security concerns,
> : the best bet is to break your hard drive disk.
>
> You're on drugs man, give it up.
>
> :> :> : None of this means that the hardware would ever be usable for standard
> :> :> : OS installation again. But there are commercial companies that make a
> :> :> : profitable business of hacking data from systems with the OS blown up.
> :> :>
> :> :> Typically when an "OS blows up", it halts the processor. I'd be
> :> :> very interested to see any CERT advisory notices about such attacks.
> :> :> You wouldn't care to provide a URL, would you? Thanks.
> :> :>
> :> : Depends on how the OS blows up. You would want it to stop the processor,
> :> : but results are unpredictable.
> :>
> :> Since when are hardware traps unpredictable?
> :
> : Sence even watch dog timers aren't guaranteed to always work. To work they
> : have to be tied to a hardware interrupt that will be recognized for a jump
> : to BIOS. Considering that the BSOD sits there forever, this isn't
> : happening.
>
> What do you think painted the BSOD on your screen?
>
you make my point. NT after it blew up. Ever wonder why it isn't just
random pixels of color as it was under DOS? So something was still
running to paint blue to the video card. Other failures result in just
freezing the video. BSOD sometimes signals an orderly shutdown of the
OS, but not always. Freezing the display seems to mostly leave
everything else running.
> :> : Some OS (or applictions running on them. I will name no names)
> :>
> :> You'll name nothing because there are none.
> :
> : OK NT when it BSODs. Explorer.exe when it performs an illegal operation
> : (about twice a week for me). MSWord. Netscape. For some reason, I can kill
> : Netscape and it sometimes leaves a zombie running that doesn't register in
> : task manager.
>
> Lay off the drugs man...
>
> :> : will blow up due to known bugs that leave not only the processor running,
> :> : but the application running also. When that application happens to handle
> :> : the network connection....
> :>
> :> If the OS is dead, all services it offers to applications are dead
> :> with it, including any and all network services. But that's ok, if
> :> by some fluke your application could still "run" without the
> :> OS...you'd still drop dead pretty quick some trivial things, like a
> :> page fault that can't be serviced.
> :
> : The OS can blow up without being completly dead. Sometimes the OS may
> : appear to be dead, but the scheduler is still running. The BSOD is one
> : example. The main thing that seems dead there is the user interface. In
> : truth, most OS are fragile and will die completely 99% of the time. But
> : just because you got a BSOD, don't walk away and leave the system on. One
> : of my friends got a $800 monthly bill from the phone company because his
> : BSOD system spent the night pinging his isp. The phone companies position
> : was "it isn't our fault. Talk to MS. And next time be sure to power down
> : your computer"
>
> "Don't smoke crack son; it's a ghetto drug."
> --Bob Roberts
>
So, as you ask, what painted the BSOD on the screen?
> --
> -Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
> BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
> Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
> medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
> more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 22:42:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> Government functions are not 'monopolies'.
>
>Proof by decree?
No, simply a fact.
>> I'm good at figuring these things out, but the most I can come
>> up with is that neither of you is thinking very clearly and can't
>> rationally respond to my argument in any way.
>
>A government using force to shut down a private school and likewise
>using force to coerce all parents into using public schools is "anti
>competitive," no matter what quibbling over labels you'd like to
>engage in.
No, its not 'anti-competitive'. You obviously have no idea what the
word means.
>The "most you can come up with" is patronization and denegration;
>a bit of deep introspection on your behalf will reveal to you what
>that says about the strength of your arguments.
My 'deep introspection on my behalf' comes up with: public education is
a public responsibility.
>That you like to strut about your intellectual ability doesn't do
>you any service either. Your intellectual abilities aside, this
>says little for your ability to discern what is wise, and accomplishes
>nothing at all in this forum.
Nothing at all can be accomplished in this forum. I'm wise enough to
know that. Other than discussion and learning, and your kind of
attitude helps neither, apart from providing me a never-ending stream of
teaching examples of narrow-minded and immature thinking.
>All *I* can come up with is that you say such things to make yourself
>feel good. Literary masturbation, it seems to me.
*Sploink*.
Oops, sorry. You were saying....?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 22:02:27 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> How long is it gonna take before you learn how to *think*? No, there
> was no court that ever "agreed it was OK to integrate the browser".
> They said it wasn't a prima facia violation of the consent decree, and
> nothing more.
They also published a rather long winded set of comments which defined the
criteria of acceptable integration, which included showing a valid benefit.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: philosophy is better than science
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:48:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Sewers
>
> are ancient (literally) and of more than minimal use only in and for large
> cities, and even there they aren't all that useful. Sewage treatment plants
> on the other hand are extremely useful. And believe it or not they are
> not the same today as they were 100 years ago, or 50 years ago or ...
Crud. Many large cities *still* don't use sewage treatment plants.
It's *water* treatment plants that are useful, sewage treatment plants
are comparatively useless.
As for sewers being ancient; that was the whole fucking point!
> >and penicilin.
> >Penicilin isn't exactly a new invention.
>
> Yeah, I know, and you apparently also think we are going to be immune
> to all diseases... look up the word evolution as it applies to microbes.
And I suppose that animals have "evolved" the ability to outrun a bullet?
Oh, let me check, no they haven't. Technology will beat evolution any day.
If you're too dumb to think this is *trivially* obvious, maybe you would
care to explain why humanity is eradicating species at such a rapid rate?
We'll only be competing with biological organisms so long as we stick to
the same rules as biological organisms. In the case of inimical microbes,
we are currently engaging in the same biochemical warfare that they have
already engaged in for hundreds of millions of years. OF COURSE we are
bound to lose playing like that. Pharmaceuticals have no more bearing on
our ultimate abilities than the speed of cheetahs and eagles have to do
with the speed of cars and airplanes.
But then, facts don't exactly fit in your rhetorical agenda. And you
accuse *me* of rhetoric???
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:52:01 +1000
"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It appears that on Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:53:44 +1000, in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I use both setups on a regular basis, and I heartily disagree. Alt-Fx
> >> is a lot easier than alt-tab*x till you find the right window.
> >
> >*shrug*. I use both setups as well and I find Alt+TAB (or an equivalent)
> >far easier than Alt+Fx or Alt+<arrow keys>. Plus there's the high res
> >advantage.
>
> Going straight to the term I want with one keystroke is a lot handier
> in my view than cycling through all the running apps to find the one I
> want. However, if you are really used to windows style circulate-raise
> then perhaps it's easier for you to continue using it than to learn
> something new. I would bet that if you really can't get the hang of
> alt-fx you could even remap the keys.
The problem comes in remembering which app is running on which term when
you've got 8+ of them going at once. Plus with a bunch of xterms you get
visual cues if something actually happens in a window.
Not to mention Alt+Fx moves your fingers well away from the home row.
> There's no high res advantage, my console terms are at a higher res
> than my Xterms. You just need to edit lilo.conf.
Yes, I know - I use hi res terminal fonts as well. X is still better (and
given the crappiness of X fonts that's saying something).
> >> If
> >> we were talking about dos you would have a point, but we aren't. You
> >> don't even need multiple consoles to multitask, extra consoles are so
> >> that you can deal with multiple outputs.
> >
> >You do realise I'm talking about *interactive* multitasking, right ?
>
> You didn't specify that. As I said above, you do need extra consoles
> to deal with multiple outputs - you do not to multitask.
>
> >Multiple apps like word processor, spreadsheet, graphics viewer,
newsreader,
> >browser etc and moving data between them type of thing. Starting up a
few
> >file copies, compresses and compiles in the background is not something I
> >really call multitasking from a usability point of view.
>
> *shrug* Whether you call it that, it's multitasking. I am not capable
> of interacting with two apps at the same time myself, I don't think
> I've ever seen anyone that is, and you certainly can't do it with any
> system I've ever seen. What you are talking about is not multitasking
> but task-switching. It may include multitasking, of course, but it
> doesn't even have to. You could do that on a system that offered
> task-switching but not multitasking.
Not really, because when you switched out of one app to move onto the next
it would stop processing. So the console I leave logged onto irc, and
another I leave logged into another machine with some monitoring tools etc
would just stop.
Then there's things like drag & drop between apps. Still very embryonic and
basic in Linux (and Unix in general) but getting better.
> >I can assure you, however, NT is extremely picky about its hardware.
'Tis
> >one of the oft-made complaints about it and why so many crashes are
blamed
> >on hardware and/or dirvers.
>
> In comparison to the DOS based line, sure.
In comparison to _anything_.
I sincerley doubt you'll find many people who share your opinion about Linux
vs NT sensitivity about hardware. As I said, it's one of the complaints
most often aimed at NT.
> >> >Erm, one of the commonly stated advantages of Linux over Windows
> >> >(particularly NT) is that it is _less_ picky about hardware. Better
get
> >> >your story straight :).
> >>
> >> Depends on what the grounds for the pickiness is. Linux doesn't deal
> >> well with fake modems, some newer hardware that requires proprietary
> >> drivers, and that sort of thing.
> >
> >I can only presume you're being deliberately obtuse, here.
>
> Deliberately obtuse? Not at all.
You should be well aware I'm talking about the quality of hardware, not
whether or not drivers exist for it.
> >> However it is far pickier about mild
> >> memory subsystem problems, for instance.
> >
> >Evidence ?
> >
>
> *shrug* besides my own experience? Do a search on "signal 11 signal 13
> linux" if you are really interested.
So ? That's like me saying do a search on "BSOD".
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 22:05:13 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I can guarantee that you'll get at least one error message, and at that
> >point the app will fatal-out. Because without the browser, you've got no
> >FUCKING UI.
>
> Then it isn't a browser, is it? Maybe Microsoft, since they wrote the
> software, might have been able to continue providing a user interface
> (sexually active or not) without requiring the end user to accept their
> browser software in order to get a workable product. Then again, maybe
> they're as moronic as you are, and wouldn't understand what that means,
> either.
The quicken 2000 and 2001 user interface is entirely written in HTML. It
uses the embedded IE browser control to view and use that interface. Take
away the control, you take away the ability for Quicken to function.
Please, tell me how you're going to keep HTML rendering and link resolving
without having the browser present? After all, a browser is simply a
program which resolves links (URLs) and renders HTML into a window. Which
is exactly what Quicken uses for it's interface.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:57:36 +1000
"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It appears that on Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:07:02 +1000, in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Not even then. It would support an argument that one system is more
> >flexible, however.
>
> I think it's perfectly fair if you are comparing stability to compare
> the most stable setup each system allows.
No, to be fair you would have to compare with a parity on *functionality*.
After all, a DOS machine sitting at C:\> not doing anything is pretty
stable, no ?
> >> I use the web for research fairly often, and I really like having the
> >> MDI interface. Just open 8 different pages with either of the big
> >> browsers and try to switch back and forth between them efficiently and
> >> you'll see why that's an advantage. After getting used to Opera every
> >> other browser out there seems positively paleolithic on this one point
> >> alone.
> >
> >Ugh. I *hate* MDI, and I'm glad to be seeing the end of it as
application
> >stop using it. I can't think of a single advantage it has. Just the
idea
> >of having to have an enormous parent window open just so I could see the
> >content of multiple browser windows and drag & drop/copy & paste stuff
out
> >of them is making me cringe.
>
> Well that's your choice. But when you need to load multiple windows
> and switch between them efficiently, there is no better way to do it,
> so if you ever need to do that your personal preference will cost you.
I do it all the time <counts> right now I have 13 browser windows open.
Since they don't have to be captured inside a parent window, I can actually
have several of them open at a usable size and see bits of windows doing
stuff in the background. Plus I can drag & drop between them if I want.
MDI is just A Bad Idea.
> >> I'm not talking about ones that are "up there" and can't easily be
> >> replaced. I'm talking about systems being used on the space shuttle,
> >> which can be upgraded anytime they want. They put in a fresh chip,
> >> just to take no chances - but it's still a 386 chip.
> >
> >Um, I think you'll find upgrading a system in the space shuttle would be
a
> >little more involved than dropping in a new chip, if you wanted to
upgrade
> >it from a 386.
>
> A little. But it wouldn't be any big deal at all, if it was desirable.
I'd say that since you'd have to replace everything about the machine and
probably severla of its interfaces with the rest of the ship, plus give it
an extremely thorough stress test, it'd be quite involved. Not that there's
any reason to, if the 386s do the job.
> >> They use 386s because they are *more reliable.* The MTBF is higher.
> >> They are more resistant to interference, and less given to isolated
> >> errors. That's why. It's the KISS imperative at work.
> >
> >Do you have any documentation to back this up ? I have no doubt 386s are
> >still in use, it's your reasons I question.
>
> I got this from a NASA spokesman, on a show on the NASA channel (on
> satellite.) I believe the discovery channel has also aired a show
> where this was mentioned. I don't see why it's hard to believe, it's
> perfectly logical that a less complicated device will be more
> reliable.
Indeed it is. I wonder if these 386s are manufactured with the same old
process they would have been using 10 - 15 years ago, or more updated ones.
> >> >Depends. I would imagine someone like Redhat isn't running their
> >corporate
> >> >firewall on an old 386 shoved in the corner.
> >>
> >> I doubt that too, but RedHat is a very high traffic site. For many
> >> networks, a 386 is perfectly capable of handling the traffic. Why
> >> throw away the 386 and buy a PIII NT box just to do the same job, but
> >> not as well? How rational is that?
> >
> >Well, for just a firewall on that scale you're not going to need a PIII.
An
> >old pentium will do the job just fine.
>
> A 386 will do the job just fine too.
If you can find one that works, and is likely to keep working.
And really, are there that many places only starting to decomission 386s ?
> >> >I ran NT 3.51 (and 4) quite happily on a 486. NT4 on a 386 would be
> >> >stretching, but I can't see why 3.51 wouldn't. Especially for
file/print
> >> >duty.
> >> >
> >> >Netware would probalby have been faster,
> >>
> >> Hey, look, I ran those boxes, I know what I'm talking about, I'm not
> >> going to argue with you, you can choose to disbelieve if you want.
> >
> >I'm only disbelieving you because I also ran NT4 and 3.51 *as a
workstation*
> >quite happily on a 486 and a Pentium 100.
>
> Well I'm obviously not talking about a desktop, I'm talking about a
> server.
A file/print server is going to be less stressful than a workstation,
assuming you ahve fast hard disks & enough memory.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 03:06:57 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Given that this post was written this year, I suggest we use today's
> > > definition for the internet, rather than jump in a supposed timewarp
> back to
> > > 1995 where the "Internet" actually meant exactly the same as it does
> today.
> > >
> > > (AOL/Compuserve/FidoNet and Intranets were not considered part of the
> > > internet -- however, JANet, BitNet, etc etc. were considered separate
> > > portions of the internet)
> > >
> > I was just quoting where the 40,000,000 number came from. It was all the
> > users who eventualy merged into what we know as the "internet" today.
> > The number wasn't made up from thin air, but has some foundation in
> > fact. Because the number does have some foundation it is fair to say
> > "40,000,000 Windows 3.1 users using trumpet winsock and Mosaic or
> > Netscape". They just weren't necessarily connected to the "internet" as
> > it defined today, but the "intercommunications networks" as they existed
> > then. Even today, most of my use of browsers and winsock have nothing to
> > do with todays "internet".
>
> I'm sorry, but BBS's were not using Netscape in 1995, and Intranet hadn't
> even been coined yet. I doubt many companies were using Intranets and
> Netscape much in 1995, certainly not 30+ million users
IIRC, the 40,000,000 number originated with MS. The word "Intranet"
hadn't been coined yet, but IBM and MS were competing for the business
of connecting up business'. One bank at the time was trying to hire
20,000 programmers to build their system. We were all like "yeah, right"
about their ads. Cisco was doing good already. IBM was marketing
software to permit corporate headquarters to monitor the amount of
memory in PCs at remote offices ( memory was expensive). I had a lot of
work during that time wiring buildings for "internal computer networks".
I don't know how many users Netscape had, but Mosaic and Crimera had a
lot. Tim O'Rielly had already launched his "Web Crawler" and "Internet
in a box" products. AOL was doing good and Sears had launched its
unspeakable service. So 40,000,000 connected to some kind of network and
using winsock wasn't so unreasonable as to be dismissed out of hand. It
was probably inflated though.
One interesting aside. IBM launched its own service. But they didn't
have local numbers in all the major cities. I found I could connect from
Las Vegas using an 800 number. However, if I used that number, I had to
pay $1.00/minute extra "remote fee" for a 4k connection. IBM could never
understand why they failed. One of my good friends and co-workers quit
his job to start a company offering what today would be called a
"wireless internet" service. His outfit put a T/R setup on Black
MOuntain and could connect up to 100 channels at a time at 10meg. Some
doings in those days.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
