Linux-Advocacy Digest #251, Volume #29 Thu, 21 Sep 00 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (2:1)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Roberto Alsina)
Re: "Overclocking" Is A Bad Idea (Jim Broughton)
Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Peter Ammon)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 20:37:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For most early-era operating systems, there was not much of a
> difference between binary and source code.
Have you ever written anything in machine language. The difference
between machine language and even a primitive assembler is HUGE.
> Writing operating systems
> in high-level languages is a pretty recent development. :)
Only if you consider late '50s and early '60s to be recent.
--
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
"A BIND is a terrible thing to waste"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 20:54:27 GMT
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am of the opinion that helping users (even the "incompetent"
> users) and helping yourself is not an either-or proposition. By
> helping users, you are helping yourself.
But helping incompetent users does not necessarily help you, if you have
to simplify the system, you might have to remove some of the power of
it.
>
> Users have legitimate /universal/ grievances against the system.
> The problem is that;
> 1) users aren't able to verbalize their grievances, and
> 2) programmers are used to ignoring, defending and even
> accepting whenever the system /they/ created misbehaves.
^^^^^^^^^^
That's to do with bugs. That is entirely different from the model uses
for interaction.
> How do you expect to get an objective opinion if you alienate the
> only people who don't have an emotional investment in the current
> state of software?
The programmers, especially OSS ones, *are* the users. They have the
emmotional attachment to the software. Why should they bend over
backwards to change something that they created and they like,
considering that noone is paying them to do it.
> > The other problem is that it is very difficult to make a universally
> > liked, foolproof program, since taastes vaary so much.
>
> It *isn't* subjective! Even beauty is universal among humans.
> That's right, there are universal principles of beauty. Christopher
> Alexander writes about these principles in On The Nature Of Order.
Well, that's just damn wrong. Beauty is subjective. Take the example of
that group of (black) people, where the women stretch their bottom lips
until they are very big (I forget the name of those people). I,
personally find that deeply unattractive, but those peopls seem to
really like it. If that isn't a difference of opinion anout beauty,
then what is? Even *birds* display different taste when it comes to
artistic appreciation.
There may be some things universally regarded as beautiful. Others are
definitely not. Judging by discussion on this group, OS interfaces are
not of the universally appreaeciated kind. Compare a known windows
advocate to a command line junkie (me). That's a real, unresolvable
difference in taaste. We just like different things.
> > Seriously,
> > though, if the (esp. free software) programmmers loathed users so
much,
> > they wouldn't give the users the programs.
>
> Because this is a side-effect of sharing software among fellow
> programmers?
> Because this is a way of promoting the education of new
> programmers? (*)
> Because they got it into their head that this is what they're
> Supposed To Do but they still don't understand why?
> Because deep down they hate users and inflicting horrible
> software on them is a good way to express that hatred? (**)
As a programmer, I don't share the code just to spiet users. If the
users don't like the code, then they can use something else, or (group
together and) pay someone else to make something that thay like. They
can't expect the world to get better with no financial or labour
contributions (complaining doesn't actually get the work done).
> *: note how much more tolerant <programmers/academics>
> are to uneducated and incompetent people who intend to join
> the ranks of the <programmer/academic> class.
It is usually because the other kind of user is unwilling to even try to
learn, so the programmer/academic has to keep going over the same points
over again. That irks some people.
> **: as I pointed out elsewhere; if you are responsible for a
> person's welfare and mental well-being then merely not
> giving a damn about what happens to them is tantamount
> to being deliberately nasty to them.
Programmers are not responsible for the users mental well being at all.
In fact, the OSS programmmers (esp. GPL ones) are not responsible for
anything. No fitness for a particular purpose guarntees. Since the
programmer is coding for himself, and merely allowing the user to take
what advantage of his work that they can, it is in no way up to him to
make sure that the user likes it.
If someone gave you a box of hard drives and said 'these are a faulty
batch, some might work, some might not, take them if you want them', you
wouldn't complain if some didn't work or gave corrupted data.
> Programs are plain data, and they /cannot/ operate on data; a
> "non-running executable object" cannot operate on data. Only
> processes can operate on data and so only processes are operators.
I thought that you were trying to blur or eliminate the difference
between processes and programs (ie persistence). Besides, a function
definition is just a bit of data on a page describing how the function
works. It is still an operator. A sequence of commands operates on data.
It does not matter if they are resident in memory or not. That is an
artificial abstraction necessitated by computer architecture and OSs.
> > The problem with good OS design is that there is a balance to be
struck
> > between many different goals. Many of them are mutually exclusive.
>
> A lot fewer than most people believe. Programmers are just used
> to rationalizing their failure to meet all the goals by claiming that
> they are mutually exclusive. They never actually provide proof of
> that claim and they don't go to a lot of effort to try to achieve all
> their goals.
Compatibility is very important, so is good design. Trying to make a
brand knew OS compatible with an older, nastier, but fairly different
version is bound to involve nasty hacks. Besides, that is a very
negative point of view of yours. In the case of a commercial OS, money
is put in one end and a (say) substandard product gets out the door.
That is a failure. With free software, nothing goes in, something comes
out, that is only success.
> > 3Dsia also offers things like multiuser worlds. That is not the job
of
> > a filesystem. UNIX does provide multi-user interaction programs. It
> > also does lan/wan visualisation. Again, the local fs doesn't need to
> > provide that.
>
> Sure it does. As long as you understand that "local fs" means "any
> fundamental component of the OS that provides a filesystem interface"
> and you know that Plan 9 got away with turning almost all components
> in the OS into filesystem servers.
Plan 9 looks like a very interesting OS. I will look in to it when I
have time.
> Of course, they had to kludge it
since
> the Unix filesystem semantics are weak, ugly and pathetic.
How do you know they kludged it in. It's inspired by unix, but it is in
no way unix, so it has no probelems involving unix FS progbems.
> In a good OS, the user storage component (the filesystem analogue)
> would provide portals (powerful versions of mounts) to other storage
> components on networked machines.
What's wrong with mounts. How are these protals more powerful?
> The only thing left for 3Dsia
> to do would be to visualize what's already there; 3Dsia wouldn't need
> to collect information from inconsistent interfaces (network, FS,
etc).
> Even avatars can be implemented by the shell if you have bidirectional
> links.
BASH makes symbolic links to directories look bidirectional. It's very
useful.
> > Yes it is. The UltraSpracs running Solaris in my department can be
> > suspended. It saves the state, shuts down and powers off. When you
wake
> > it up, it even seems to remember where the mouse was: all running
> > processes are restored in to the state they were left in. Personally
I
> > like this feature and wish Linux had it.
>
> There you go. I wonder how they do it though.
It's probably not too complicated to save the state of eaach process and
kernel table, as long as you have enopugh disk space.
> It doesn't. But making a new vi process by executing the program
> a second time doesn't make sense either (the code segment will
> be the same in either case). And you have to realize that if you
> turn vi into a server then it will have to be coded differently (and
> I don't want to get into authentication of users and security since
> that's just proof of the weakness of the Unix security scheme).
Unix can authenticate users. Besides, you would either need threading or
multiple processes. the advantage of multiple processes is that if a bug
causes the process to overwrite something it shouldn't, the process
dies. With threads the whole lot can die. Multiple processes are easier
to write (and likley, therefore more bug free) and more robust. Threads
use elss resources. I don't understand why one is `wrong' and the other
is `right'.
> > You can run secure server processed under unix.
>
> Not easily, let alone *trivially*; in Unix you have to reimplement
> authentication for each secure process. Why not just have security
> for /all/ processes? (and access control lists don't give you
security)
Why can't you just use the authentication library calls avaliable in
linux?
> > What about those who like the status quo. Why not maintain it? If I
like
> > the way a system works, why should I go out of my way to make it
harder
> > for me, but easier for someone else? That doesn't make sense to me.
>
> If you like the status quo then you have a twisted definition of what
> "harder" means. The status quo is not easy for *anyone*. Those who
> don't believe this just haven't been exposed to good alternatives.
I don't necessarily care about anyone. If the status quo is easy for
*me* to use, then why should I make it harder for *me* to use. I know
it's not easy for anyone, I didn't say that. I find the status quo
fine---I do not find that I am fighting against the OS to get my work
done. I am willing to try alternatives, though when I have time.
> > If the programmers get hurt, there will be no programs for users to
use.
> > I also don't think that there is a class war, noone I know tries to
> > scare away users,
>
> No one has to /try/ since it's a fait accompli. Would you agree with
the
> sentiment if I phrased it "no one is too heartbroken when users run
> away screaming into the night?" Maybe it's a little harder to
understand
> why programmers /should/ care about the users that run away screaming.
> Possibly because programmers are so used to rejection that they've
> grown insensitive to it, which causes them to write bad software which
> causes users to reject their software, and so on in a vicious cycle.
That's one way of looking at it. So are you saying that all the OSS
programmers who wrote stuff for themselves to use should never have
allowed anyone else to use it, just in case someone couldn't use it
(nevermind those who could). The coders write for themselves, and their
aquantainces. They don't just churn out code to spite people.
> Note also that I drew a distinction between software developers and
> programmers. I'm not concerned with the distinction between people
> who write and don't write software, that's just technical. I am
concerned
> with the distinction between people who accept the limitations of
> software and those who can't tolerate them.
All softwaer will have limitations. If you can't tolerate them, then
computing is the wrong field for you.
> > I don't agree with the exclude part. Languages are only exclusive if
> > people are not willing to learn. I can not expect to be able to
> > communicate with a Chinaman, because I am not willing to learn
Chinese
> > (I don't have time amongst other things). I should not expect him to
> > learn English just so I can communicate. Likewise if the users of a
> > computer system aren't prepared to learn the language, then
expecting
> > other people to change their language for the user is a little
arrogant.
>
> Ahhh, but you're only looking at the result of language differences,
> not at the causes of language differentiation. Languages differentiate
> for many legitimate reasons but one of the illegitimate reasons is to
> support cliques and classes, to exclude people. The Jargon file
mentions
> people who use 'grep' instead of 'search' for looking through their
bags!
Only a serious lapse would cause someone to say `grep' to someone who
wasn't a fellow hacker. I also don't see why programmers should be
forces to use an inefficient language so that people who have no
interest in understanding can understand.
> > Programmers talk the language that is natural to them. They should
be
> > permitted to do that, just like you would let a chinaman talk
Chinese.
>
> C++ and Unix are not natural. They are artificial constructs. And
judging
> by the number of people who find them difficult, burdensome and are
> generally revolted by them, they certainly aren't a good fit for the
human
> mind.
There are plenty of people who do like them and do understand them. Why
shouldn't the people who find them a powerful communication medium be
allowed to use them? Hell, me and most of my aquantainces at school
couldn't get the hang of French or German, bu tnoone proposed that the
language should be abolished because it suopported a minority clique of
`superior' French speakers.
> Sure they would. English makes no sense at all and hundreds of
> millions of people use it. English is an amalgam of other languages
> and that's why it's so inconsistent, arbitrary and inelegant when
> compared to Japanese, French, German, Italian ....
If you think English is inelegent, then you could do with reading more.
Many books, plays, poems are written very elegently. In fact, the
extermely broad vocabulary and range of things allows you to do many
things elegently.
> No one language fits all. And I agree completely.
But you seem to think that the language that fits programmers and the
like should be abolished for the sake of the users, because it doesn't
fit them.
> Programmers are stuck in a rut and they're unwilling to make
> the effort of getting out of it. And then they (#) hypocritically
> bash users for not making the effort to join the dark side of the
> force. Programmers complain about "Back in my days ..." and
> make users want to scream "Choke and die old timer."
There are plenty of braod minded programmers out there. One thing
programmers object to is incessent whining by users that everything
should be `better' with out any help. The users od seem to complain
endlessly about something that is free and that they choose to aquire.
> Additionally, I despise the "good enough solution" effect where
> a half assed solution to a problem will come to predominate. The
> path of least resistance is not a legitimate reason to entrench the
> status quo. Any effort to make a half-assed solution /better/ (eg,
> improving Linux in any way) is anti-social and destructive in the
> extreme (##). Unix's time has come and gone.
Improving linux is in no way anti social or destructive. it hurts noone.
You can't know that all these people who work on linux would be
implementing your one-true-way system if they weren't working on linux.
How on earth does contributing to linux hurt anyone? It in no way
hinders the development of a persistent OS. The people who want to write
that aer still free to do so if others choose to work on linux.
> I guess it's deep seated resentment. Here I am taking the moral
> and ethical high ground by choosing Smalltalk and working on
> a revolutionary OS and other people work hard at deliberately
> undermining me (or even worse, they *casually* undermine me).
> How would you feel? The worse part of the whole thing is that
> I understand why they're doing it, so I can't actually feel hatred
> for them.
Who is undermining you. How are they doing this? And other people
working on a big project that they like and enjoy (linux) does not count
other people as undermining you, unless you are very paranoid.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). He got there before Von Neumann too| eng.ox.ac.uk
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 18:19:51 -0300
El jue, 21 sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> For most early-era operating systems, there was not much of a
>> difference between binary and source code.
>
>Have you ever written anything in machine language. The difference
>between machine language and even a primitive assembler is HUGE.
Z80 machine language inserted in a REM statement in a Sinclair 1000
(ZX81 clone) counts?
Usually we just did the asm in paper, then converted to opcodes (by memory
after a few months of practice ;-) on paper, then injected the opcodes through
diverse misterious mechanisms, usually involving a self modifying BASIC
program :-)
Even the most rudimentary asm would, indeed have cut development time
by 10 or so.
>> Writing operating systems
>> in high-level languages is a pretty recent development. :)
>
>Only if you consider late '50s and early '60s to be recent.
In the early 50s there was a huge difference between hardware and software:
hardware was made out of glass and metal, software usually had plastic or
rubber coatings :-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "Overclocking" Is A Bad Idea
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:40:43 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What can be more arithmetic than calculations involved in ploting
> > and then rendering a full motion scene in todays fast paced 3d FPS
> > games.
>
> Scientific simulation. Those guys use whopper supercomputers for a
> good reason, and those computers don't use Intel CPUs for a good
> reason too, namely floating-point performance. By way of some
> illustration, I was in a discussion on another group on the fastest
> way to shuffle (IOW randomly permute) a list, and there were several
> algorithms proposed. However, it turned out that while recent Intels
> were fastest when an algorithm was written using mainly integer math,
> an UltraSparc with a nominally lower clock speed would kick the pants
> off that Intel chip if the algorithm used floating point comparisons
> instead of integer ones.
>
> Intel FP is not as bad as it used to be, but it is still nothing to
> write home about. That gamers haven't figured this out doesn't
> surprise me; they tend not to be anything nearly so hot-shot technical
> people as they like to believe themselves to be...
>
> Is that an insult to those people? Yes. Is it true? You betcha! :^)
>
> Donal.
> --
> Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -- Actually, come to think of it, I don't think your opponent, your audience,
> or the metropolitan Tokyo area would be in much better shape.
> -- Jeff Huo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That another makers chip can beat intel in floating point operations
(desktop type systems) does not suprise me at all. You of course must
understand that we can only play the games that developers produce
(asside from writing our own anyway. To big a project) and developers
produce games that run on intel systems for windoze. Windoze is a great
game platform other than that it sucks. Now were can I get half-life for
a sparc system?
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
Following Air and Water the third most abundant
thing on the planet is Human Stupidity.
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:52:59 GMT
Tholen tholes, unfortunately for everyone save him:
> > My second point: show some goddamned originality.
>
> Why should I waste originality on someone like Mark Kelley?
Nathaniel, you have to realize, Tholen *can't* be original, he *must* employ
his stock phrases because that's all he has. If ever he were to enter into
the spirit of a debate, he'd be lost...which, come to think of it, isn't
that bad of an idea...
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:52:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:35:18 -0400, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:30:19 -0400, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:21:56 -0400, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Timberwoof wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "samurai"
> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Facts don't really change anything for brainwashed Mac people. You
> >> >> >> > had to go to APPLE's web site and find the information for them...
> >> >> >> > and they will still go back to OSTRICH MODE. Damn capslock key (must
> >> >> >> > be my cheap beige keyboard).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > --Samurai
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> > > Peter Ammon wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > Mike Byrns wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > You mean Jeff Goldblume? The same Jeff Goldblume that has
> >> >> >> > > > > appeared in several Apple Computer television commercials? The
> >> >> >> > > > > one that's on the Apple payroll? Do you know that Apple pays
> >> >> >> > > > > big bucks in hollywood to get it's computers in "cool" movies
> >> >> >> > > > > like Independence Day?
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > I don't believe you. Can you back this up?
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Sure! Here you go.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > http://www.info.apple.com/pr/press.releases/1996/q3/960628.pr.rel.fo
> >> >> >> > > x.ht ml
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Heh.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But for the rest of us Mac people who aren't brainwashed, facts work.
> >> >> >> What's the big deal about Apple paying for product placement? You know,
> >> >> >> if Apple *didn't* do that, someone somewhere would be throwing a hissy
> >> >> >> fit that Apple isn't following up this most obvious marketing technique.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I take issue with the implication that Apple has to seek out producers
> >> >> >and ask them to add their machines. On the contrary, it looks as though
> >> >> >the producers are falling over themselves to get Macs into their films.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >-Peter
> >> >>
> >> >> Then please explain the purpose of the Apple Product Placement Team
> >> >> refered to in the article. If everyone is falling all over themselves
> >> >> why does Apple need a team dedicated to getting their products placed?
> >> >
> >> >At the very least, they need a team to interact with producers who want
> >> >to place their products.
> >>
> >> If you think that's all they're doing then you need to think again.
> >
> >If you think that Apple doesn't need a team to interact with producers
> >who want to place Apple products, you need to think again.
>
> Again I say if you think that's all they do you need to think again.
> They are also activiely seeking opportunities to place Apple's
> products. I don't know why this is so hard for you to accept. Its not
> an unusual practice.
I do accept that. But the point is that such a team is not proof that
producers aren't eagerly trying to place Apple products, as you implied.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >> Also the movies are a business not an Apple welfare office. Do you
> >> >> realy think that if Compaq made a better offer they'd turn them down?
> >> >
> >> >Yes, frankly, I do.
> >>
> >> Peter Ammon- Cornell student and RDF sufferer. Please give generously
> >> so that we may rid this poor boy of his affliction. Mail your checks
> >> to:
> >>
> >> The Peter Ammon Help Fund
> >> PO Box 104
> >> Middletown, IN 47356
> >
> >I don't see why this is hard to accept.
>
> Because its bullshit.
>
Are you willing to write Apple and accuse them of lying, then?
>
> > There's an image and a symbolism associated with Apple that isn't there for Compaq
>or HP.
> >Producers can take advantage of that to help develop the characters and setting.
>
> How many characters do producers really want to come across as
> semi-computer literate mindless members of cult that worships a
> company?
I'm guessing that most people don't think of "mindless members of a
cult" when they think of Apple.
>
> >
> >Here's an analogy. A man, tired from a hard day of work, is shown at a
> >drive through. He orders a burger, some fries, and a Coke. The
> >audience nods assent...they've been there before.
> >
> >The next man orders a burger, some fries, and a Safeway Select Cola.
> >The audience looks confused.
>
> And how does that relate to Apple? The confusion (Such as it is.
> People going into a movie are already suspending a large amount of
> rationality in order to enjoy those movies about aliens, ghosts and
> characters who are able survive situations that would kill 100 people
> in real life.) in that situation would be that fast food joints don't
> sell grocery chain house brands. If anything the prescence of Apples
> everywhere would be confusing since everyone knows thats not the case
> in real life.
The point is that Apple is widely associated with a lifestyle and
mindset. Packard Bell is not.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:50:13 GMT
In article <00092118232402.01744@pc03>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Z80 machine language inserted in a REM statement in a Sinclair 1000
> (ZX81 clone) counts?
Well, at least it was more sophisticated than a PDP-5 ;-)
> Even the most rudimentary asm would, indeed have cut development time
> by 10 or so.
Exactly my point.
> In the early 50s there was a huge difference between hardware and
software:
> hardware was made out of glass and metal, software usually had plastic
or
> rubber coatings :-)
Well, first, I said late 50s, not early 50s. Second, there were magnetic
tape drives and key-to-tape machines in the early 50s.
I can't guaranty that there isn't an older example, but the earliest
commercial operating system that I know to have been written in a high
level language was the MCP for the Burroughs B 5000. I believe that
there were earlier noncommercial systems written in NELLIAC and in
JOVIAL.
--
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
"A BIND is a terrible thing to waste"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
