Linux-Advocacy Digest #263, Volume #29 Fri, 22 Sep 00 14:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Matt")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (westprog 2000)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Matt")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Re: Computer and memory (mark)
Re: Computer and memory (mark)
Re: Computer and memory (mark)
Re: Computer and memory (mark)
Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused (mark)
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? (mark)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:09:23 -0500
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:51:50 -0500, Bryant Brandon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>@On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:09:52 -0500, Bryant Brandon
>@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@
>@>In article
>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@>
>@>@On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:35:43 -0500, Bryant Brandon
>@>@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@>@
>@>@> Well, it's been put in all the labs at UNT, so far nothing works. I
>@>@>suppose that's a "feature." My machine in the Tech Writing Lab give me
>@>@>a "Disk Full" error whenever I try to log in. From what I hear all the
>@>@
>@>@Geee..what do you think that means?
>@>@
>@>@C'mon, guys. Think!
>@>@
>@>@Obviously whoever installed that didn't - or students are having fun
>@>@putting files where they shouldn't. It's trivial to fix, though - log
>@>@in over the network (from another machine) and toss a few files away.
>@>
>@> Obviously, except that the C: drive is hidden. We can only save
>@
>@Then someone got around it...
> Another security bug in windows?
More likely, the C: drive isn't really hidden - or doesn't use
WinNT/2k's security mechanisms to do so, but instead uses a third
party's. I'm not aware of any way in 2k to completely hide a drive,
so I suspect the data we're being given is tainted.
------------------------------
From: "Matt" <[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: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:12:09 -0700
> Isn't Apple tied in with Speilberg and Gates in some graphics company?
> Gates wouldn't care because he supplies 90% of the software run on Apples.
> Dreamworks SKG is it? The S is Speilberg, the G is Gates. Isn't the K
> someone tied in with Apple?
>
Nope Dreamworks SKG is Spielberg, Katzenberg, and Geffen. My proof is at
http://www.spielberg-dreamworks.com/DreamWorks_SKG.htm
There is a tie-in with M$, it is paul allen.
Check the facts before you post!
Matt
an excerpt:
DreamWorks SKG was formed by movie producer Steven Spielberg, former Disney
film executive Jeffrey Katzenberg, and music industry wizard David Geffen to
produce films, TV programming, interactive software, and records. While the
company's first spate of films did less than dreamy at the box office,
DreamWorks rebounded in 1998 with such films as Deep Impact, Saving Private
Ryan, Antz and The Prince Of Egypt. Principals Spielberg, Katzenberg, and
Geffen each initially invested $33 million for a 22% stake apiece. Microsoft
co-founder Paul Allen is DreamWorks' largest shareholder with a 24% stake of
the company.
------------------------------
From: westprog 2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:12:44 GMT
In article <8qfmmg$j4n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> In article <8qelsd$l92$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Osugi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >And I think Gates would care, even though his company does make a lot
> >of money off of mac software. It just seems so in character for him
> >to
> >care about windows more than profits.
> I don't think Microsoft ever got a whole lot of money for Windows.
> Not
> compared to apps. But Windows was a lever for apps and MSN and etc.
> Depending on how that DoJ thing turns out, Microsoft might wind up
> with no
> reason not to develop everything for Mac and Linux, as well as
> Windows.
That is presumably the reason for the .Net idea - software will port to
any system where .Net is implemented with just a recompile.
IIRC Microsoft is prohibited from working with Unix following their
sale of Xenix in the early '80's. (I can find no evidence of this). If
they are split up, will this obligation (if there is one) cease to
apply? Is the .Net idea a way for MS to cover all the possibilities -
Linux, Mac X, or BeOS winning?
--
J/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Matt" <[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: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:29:42 -0700
> I don't think Microsoft ever got a whole lot of money for Windows. Not
> compared to apps. But Windows was a lever for apps and MSN and etc.
> Depending on how that DoJ thing turns out, Microsoft might wind up with no
> reason not to develop everything for Mac and Linux, as well as Windows.
>
HAHAHAHHAHAHaHaHAHHAHAHa
The operative word is THINK! You are making this up to support you point a
of view.
The Facts:
from microsoft's site:
"WINDOWS PLATFORMS revenue was $4.92 billion, $6.28 billion, and $8.50
billion in 1997, 1998, and 1999."
"PRODUCTIVITY APPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPER revenue was $5.62 billion, $7.04
billion, and $8.82 billion in 1997, 1998, and 1999."
"CONSUMER COMMERCE AND OTHER revenue was $1.40 billion, $1.94 billion, and
$2.43 billion in 1997, 1998, and 1999." This includes the MSN site.
now granted the income from the other 2 segments is grater than windows, the
19.7 BILLION for windows IS a whole lot of mony.
The artical
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/ar99/mdna.htm
This is reliable data, I dobt that even M$ lies on their SCC filings.
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:34:07 -0500
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 19:01:01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(C Lund) wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >*You're* the one with your knickers in a bunch, not me. That makes it your
>> >problem.
>> I am? You're the one whining because I won't explain it to you, so
>> it's pretty obvious it's your problem, CLund.
>
>You're the one who keeps accusing me of being ignorant. But when you're so
>very incapable of producing any kind of information on your own (re the
>difference between W98 and W2K), it would seem you're just as ignorant as
>I am.
LOL. It isn't for me to prove my knowledge whenever you ask, CLund.
If you want to learn about MS's OSs, go to www.microsoft.com and look
for yourself.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:50:48 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:00092210093302.27004@pc03...
> El vie, 22 sep 2000, D. Spider escribió:
> >It appears that on Thu, 21 Sep 2000 18:19:51 -0300, in
> >comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>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?
> >
> >Hahah you too? I did the same thing, well, not on the 1000, but on the
> >related Timex/Sinclairs, the 2068 in particular.
>
> You rich guys with 16 colors and over 16KB of RAM ;-)
We used to do the same thing with the TRS-80 Model I, only rather than REM's
we would load the machine code into string variables.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 01:00:58 +0100
In article <ui5u5.32585$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Do you understand, Chad, that Europeans are not the only ones to blame
>> for a bad (and slow) transcontinental link? "2:1" told you that his
>> local transfer rates are entirely satisfactory. Which I find out every
>> day, as having sunsite.org.uk (that's the host that's situated in the
>> Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine at the University
>> of London) as my favourite mirror. You know, the entire Central Europe
>> is in between me and the college, and the transfer rates can still be
>> as high as 80 to 150KB/sec.
>
>I understand that it's all European's fault for a slow transcontinent link.
>
>America has no incentive to build a bigger one.
What does this mean?
>
>When European countries give their citizens better control over their
>telcos and consequently Internet options, American companies will have
>more incentive to build a bigger link.
Microsoft are one of those ISPs in the UK. I'm not sure I like the
idea of relying on the Government to give citizens control over
companies - this seems to smack of some kind of strange communism.
>
>Conversely, if European corporations were on the ball, they'd be laying
>more fiber themselves.
They are, all the time, like everyone else.
>
>How come the Americans have to do everything for you?
>
>
>> >Why do you wait for us to do something for you?
>>
>> Because it takes two to fix a cross-atlantic link.
>
>No it doesn't. Most of the link that are there right now are from MCI
>Worldcom, Sprint, AT&T and a few others, all of which have US and
>British offices.
The ownership of TAT-8, 9, 10, 11, 12 AND 13 is largely with BT and
AT&T as the largest co-owners, but many hundreds of other carriers
from all over the world own portions of these cables.
This approach goes right back to the very first Atlantic cable,
jointly laid by GPO and US Government (Bell Telephone co?). The
satellite buses are owned by Satellite consortia, such as Intelsat
(based in Washington), Inmarsat (London), Eutelsat (Belgium I think)
and so on. Capacity within the satellites is leased in the same
way that cable capacity is.
MCI Worldcom and Sprint do not have wholly owned transatlantic cables.
Nor does AT&T.
AT&T and BT's international capacity (leased cable, satellite) is all
now owned by Concert, the joint venture of AT&T and BT (hence the very
large co-ownership, see above). Concert is headquartered in Bermuda.
BT is one of Europe's largest Telcos, in case you were not aware.
Sweden is the worlds most deregulated telecoms market, by the way.
Deustche Telekom is busy trying to buy Sprint, the EU is threatening
the US to make sure it does not continue with trying to keep ownership
of US-based telcos in the US, something the EU regards as higly non-
competitive (ie., rigged market).
>
>I don't see any European companies clammoring to lay more fiber.
Everyone is laying cable all over the world all of the time - you
just don't know about telecoms.
>
>It seems you are the one who is closed minded. You'd rather sit back,
>do nothing and blame the Americans the whole time.
Microsoft do seem to expect everyone to make huge downloads. As a
part owner of at least one UK ISP, they have certainly made no clear
effort to increase bandwidth from their own customers in the UK to
their own servers in the US. In that sense, I would certainly blame
Microsoft.
It is the view of Oftel in the UK that the UK has the worlds cheapest
internet access rates, incidentally. Oftel is the Government agency
responsible for ensuring proper and effective competition in the UK's
telecoms market. Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe their assessment
of the UK telecoms market than the Chad view.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 01:05:25 +0100
In article <7shw5.7515$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ps7ce$hma$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : Ok, so? My point:
>>
>> : Instead of whining about your connections and blaming it on everyone
>> : but yourselves, why don't you fix it?
>>
>> He just said - its a link BETWEEN the US and the UK. How on earth is
>> it that you think it's possible to improve the link by just having the
>> UK work on it from their end only? It doesn't do a damn bit of
>> good for them to just drop some fiber-optic cables halfway across
>> the ocean and then stop when they reach US territorial waters.
>
>Why is it the US's fault that there's a small link between here and
>there?
>
>American companies have no incentive to build one because the UK laws
>are so restrictive that demand for Internet in the UK is low -- or rather
>the availability and fesability of getting Internet access is low.
This is pure invention. There is no law whatsoever in the UK about how
fast or slow any internet link should be.
>
>Besides, why is it completely America's responsibility to build a bigger
>link. What have the brits done besides bitch that we don't spend all our
>money and build them a bigger link to us?
Always paid for half, that's what.
>
>Who's stopping the Brits? Like I said, quit whining about us and just do
>it.
There's nothing wrong with UK-USA subsea capacity. If ISPs like eg.,
Microsoft will not buy it, then that is Microsoft's customers problem.
>
>> Oh, man are you being thick. I'm not just ashamed to be in the
>> same country as you, I'm ashamed to be the same species as you.
>
>I'm being thick because I can't understand why the Brits want to
>sit back and make us do all the work, spend all the money and take
>all the risk just so they can charge more for Internet access and
>screw us over?
Illogical statement at best. Internet access is cheaper in the UK
than anywhere else, at least according to Oftel.
>
>Here's a hint: I'm not being the thick one.
>
>> Oh, and the satellite solution isn't any good - it's not as fast
>> as actual cables. It's adequete for when the infrastructure
>> isn't there, like on a ship at sea or a person off in the
>> wilderness, but it isn't as good as a permanent physical line.
>
>THEN BUILD A BETTER CABLE INFRASTRUCTURE! QUIT SITTING AROUND
>WAITING FOR US TO DO IT!
new cables are always being laid - it's never stopped. Putting
this in capitals will have no effect whatsoever on telcos investment
decisions, but does highlight your lack of knowledge on this.
>
>Jesus, it's not that hard to comprehend folks! I've only been
>saying the exact same thing for the 3rd week in a row now.
>
>But, as I predicted, you're prefectly happy to sit back, blame
>us for everything and call us stupid and do absolutely nothing
>to solve the problem you yourself have created.
>
>I'm still not understanding why you seem to think that American
>companies should do everything for you so YOU can make all the money
>and tax it to death.
what?
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 01:10:52 +0100
In article <5kMt5.37033$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9oMt5.978$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Maybe you should have made that point more clear in the first post then, and
>> you're writing still is descriminating ("whiny brits")
>>
>> Amon_Re
>
>I did, that's whats so frustrating about dealing with you people. I have
>to make the point about 10 times before it sinks in.
Which might be interesting if you knew anything about telecoms, but you
don't. I'm sick of your whining on this stuff.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 01:09:20 +0100
In article <gapw5.3684$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8pt3mu$hkn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The US won't let the UK build a like from the UK to the US without
>> permission, so we can't `just build a better link' to the US.
>
>You're the first person to have said this.
>
>What, EXACTLY, do you mean by "US won't let the UK build..."
>
>What's preventing you? What bill, law, etc is preventing you?
in fact this is quite correct. It is the same legal requirement which
applies virtually everywhere - you need something called 'wayleave',
ie., a kind of right of way to put your cable into. You're really
not very expert on this, Chad.
>
>> Is that concept really that hard for you to understand?
>
>Well, so far, I have only your word to go on, so it's more a matter
>of believing than understanding.
>
>> We can't `just do it' because once the cable laying ships get as far as
>> the US territorial waters, they'll have to turn back and go home.
>> Strangely enough, the US doesn't let anyone with some $$$ to spare`just
>> build a fiber link to the US'.
>
>Ah yeah, right. These cable laying ships charged blindly into the Atlantic
>spending millions of dollars laying cable only to find out the Coast Guard
>wouldn't let them enter huh? They had to turn back and abandon everything?
If you don't have wayleave, that is exactly what will happen.
>
>Give me a fucking break. Now I KNOW brits aren't _THAT_ stupid. Any
>3rd grader will tell you that you check with the requisite authorities
>on both end to get clearance before you spend ANY money.
No, it'll happen to US companies coming to Europe as well.
>
>This is complete bullshit and you know it. If not, please provide a URL
>documententing such an action.
>
>Please show me a specific law in the U.S. which forbids foreign cable laying.
You need wayleave - it is a legal requirement.
>
>You can't, because their isn't one and you're full of shit.
No, there is.
>
>> If you can't understand this, then I'm surprised that you have the
>> ability to use a keyboard.
>
>Like I said, it's not a matter of understanding, it's a matter of beleiving
>your bullshit. Provide one SHREAD of documentation or proof of any of this.
Personally, I work in this industry - you clearly don't.
>
>-Chad
>
>
>
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:03:21 +0100
In article <3rlt5.8920$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8p3st1$bd8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : The numbers may or may not be accurate, but it is ridiculous to assume
>that
>> : ALL domain sqatters are using apache.
>>
>> It's also ridiculous to assume that each domain squatter has a website up
>> at all. You don't have to have use a name to reserve it. If I were
>> in the name squatting biz, why would I bother paying to have a computer
>> hooked up all the time to host the domain when it's much cheaper to
>> just pay the squatters penalty? (It costs more to get a domain name
>> when you don't actually use it, but not by enough to make it more than
>> the cost of running your own website.)
>
>Why? Apparently you've never happened across a domain squatter. Typically
>they have a site that says "You can buy this domain" and proceeds to give
>you information about how to do so. If you don't have a site there, most
>people would just assume the name is taken and try a different one, not
>knowing that it was for sale.
>
>
>
Agreed - basically domain squatters are just another so called e-business,
indicative of the thriving nature of web-based markets. What's the problem
with this particular e-business using Apache, then?
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:07:19 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Perry Pip in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 01:10:41 -0400,
>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>>>I wouldn't go that far. He identified the failed system *by* their OS,
>>>which indicates, of course, that there was some sort of link.
>>
>>You snipped the quote. His specific words were:
>>"shutdowns that resulted from NT."
>>and
>>"numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown"
>>That to me seems like a prettey strong link.
>
>Those of us familiar with the real-world implementation of NT are aware
>that the link is, indeed, strong. Stronger than the MS-droid protesters
>will admit to, certainly, using the same kind of "precisely how?"
>bullshit that you are using. People implementing computer systems don't
>have time to chase down every possible bug regardless of who's "fault"
>it is. Those with experience are more than capable of identifying that
>NT is a problematic operating system, to say the *least*.
Since with NT you don't have its source, you cannot expect to be able
to find the root cause of this problem. I suppose that is a great
advantage for Microsoft - they can always claim that something was not
their fault since without the source its very difficult to prove that
your 'preferred supplier' or whatever is actually supplying unsuitable
goods (eg., NT).
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:51:28 -0000
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 03:15:32 GMT, Tyler Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8q7ql8$2hcg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Yeah, right - the average computer user can't work an ftp client unless it
>>looks *exactly* like Windows explorer, so I'm sure they'll get along just
>>*grand* with Linux.
>
>Exactly. Linux, *BSD, and Unix is not for everybody. Microsoft releases
>Windows for a reason: people who don't know much about computers and who aren't
>smart enough to buy a Macintosh need an operating system to run.
No, Microsoft releases subsequent versions of DOS merely because
they can get away with it and consumers either don't know any
better or think they can't get away from it.
>
>Assuming that Linux was run by everybody, more energy would be expended on
>making it easier to use. Energy which, IMHO, could be used better elsewhere.
That presumes that the HID types would do something else.
[deletia]
Not everyone is a systems programmer or cares to be.
--
Creditor, n.:
A man who has a better memory than a debtor.
Democracy becomes a government of bullies, tempered by editors.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 14:57:08 -0300
El vie, 22 sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:00092210093302.27004@pc03...
>> El vie, 22 sep 2000, D. Spider escribió:
>> >It appears that on Thu, 21 Sep 2000 18:19:51 -0300, in
>> >comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>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?
>> >
>> >Hahah you too? I did the same thing, well, not on the 1000, but on the
>> >related Timex/Sinclairs, the 2068 in particular.
>>
>> You rich guys with 16 colors and over 16KB of RAM ;-)
>
>We used to do the same thing with the TRS-80 Model I, only rather than REM's
>we would load the machine code into string variables.
The funny thing about those REMs in a sinclair was that that thing used a sort
of insane ASCII where the higher chars contained lots of things, from
semi-graphic characters to actual basic keywords!
So, for example, if you had a 0xF0, it could display as a "THEN", which was, of
course, something entirely different from the 4 chars THEN :-). In fact, it
*was* possible to enter any opcode by hand directly, only that it would have
been even MORE insane ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
