Linux-Advocacy Digest #297, Volume #30 Sat, 18 Nov 00 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: wahoo! I'm running now ("Les Mikesell")
Re: wahoo! I'm running now ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: All hail the Konqueror development team ("Les Mikesell")
Re: It's even worse than I thought. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge? (mlw)
Re: It's even worse than I thought. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity (mlw)
Re: It's even worse than I thought. (David Dorward)
Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge? (kiwiunixman)
Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge? (kiwiunixman)
Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge? (kiwiunixman)
Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge? (Doug Mast)
Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge? (Moderator)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: It's even worse than I thought. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity (JoeX1029)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:11:12 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NvBR5.577$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > How do you manage to drive a car? or change channels on TV with such a
poor
> > long term memory?
>
> It's clear how to drive a car or to change a channel on the TV with or
without
> the remote.
>
> The commands are obvious, and non-cryptic.
Hmmm, what's a PRNDL and how do you drive if you
can't pronounce it? That's about as obvious as stomping
on the right-mouse button.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:17:01 GMT
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8v60gs$262$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > That's a kewl feeling isn't it, that's the moment where you think :
> > "Damn, it was harder than Windows, but I don't worry about anything
> > anymore, I can do anything I want, I can go anywhere I want today."
>
> This statement contradicts 90% of the cola mantra that linux is no harder
to
> use\learn than windows.
> Which is it guys?
It is however you want it to be. You can accept the default configuration
from a variety of distributions, which alone gives you a lot more
choice than you can get from windows without doing any changes
yourself. Or you can tune it to your specific needs to any degree
you want. If you think someone else is going to prevent you from
improving your setup by learning more and using what you learn
you must have Linux confused with that other system. You are
the one in control here.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:25:33 GMT
"Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:sMvR5.91$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I've tested RedHat 7.0 on a couple of servers and now
> I am back installing 6.2 one instead. I think 7.0 shouldn't
> even have come out. Don't like a GNU/Linux company
> shipping such kind of shit.
Keep in mind that people have said that about *every* RH x.0
release and six months later everyone is happily running the x.2
release with all the major problems solved. And, whether
anyone else wants to admit it or not, if RH had not shipped
what they did, we still would not have working versions
of any of it - we'd still be stuck at about the level of products
that existed at the time of the 4.0 release. Having said that,
I'll admit that I would never install any of their x.0 versions
on a server either. However I have generally had good luck with
the VALinux patched versions that you can find on their
ftp server.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:38:59 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You
> > want work to get done and showing them how to debug their code is more
> > beneficial then letting them bring the machine down. What they do at
> > home is of no consequence to the lab. You don't let them take down a
> > machine everytime they write some code that fills memory up. The point
is
> > that your script doesn't work on a machine set up to avoid letting
runaway
> > processes take over.
>
> Can you tell me how to do such a setup on my Linux box?
> I'd like to see it for myself, and maybe learn something.
> Thanks!
If you do a 'man bash', then /ulimit you will see the limits you
can change/view. In most cases root can change the limits either
way, normal users can only lower them. They are system-enforced
limits but the shell commands are the easiest way to access
them.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:52:37 GMT
Or the grossly overpriced distributions in the superstores like
CompUSA.
There is one that is in this big fat box (Professional Linux?)that
includes all kinds of archive CD's, various distributions and
essentially a collection of junk that you can get for free on the net.
It sells for $149.00.
What a gross rip off.
claire
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:52:36 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Go to www.netmax.com
>
>They offer several Linux distributions with nice firewall and server
>configuration packages. Except for one thing. They don't offer their
>products for download. It seems that they are selling a GPL'd OS without
>offering a freely available version or source code to that version.
>
>Interesting how it's so easy to violate the GPL and nobody does anything
>about it.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: All hail the Konqueror development team
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:52:51 GMT
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8v6374$l9j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You've hit the nail on the proverbial head. I don't usually stereotype,
> but,..
> most *nix users I meet fall into three categories.
> > .
> Middle aged user - ( 36 - 50) Deep down despises advancements such as KDE
> because they know what they are --a means by which to bring windows users
> to linux-- but uses them anyway. First to write anti-windows rhetoric
while
> never admitting that they really starting using linux to simply be
different
> and it became habit.
You forgot the ones that have used unix systems for years who don't
see any reason to port their still-running programs to a fragile
operating system where they will probably break anyway.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's even worse than I thought.
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:56:08 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The Linux community is so out of touch with reality as far as the home
> user /desktop Jane is concerned it is comical.
Fortunately Linux is doing just fine in all markets without
you acting as the spokesperson.
> So this is what you expect to market Linux to? You have to be kidding.
> These folks ARE the home market, like it or not. The only hope Linux
> has is pre-loads and the hope that each one of them has some geek
> friend to help them when they want to upgrade the system.
Do any of them have a Tivo? They are already running Linux.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge?
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 16:58:26 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Go to www.netmax.com
>
> They offer several Linux distributions with nice firewall and server
> configuration packages. Except for one thing. They don't offer their
> products for download. It seems that they are selling a GPL'd OS without
> offering a freely available version or source code to that version.
>
> Interesting how it's so easy to violate the GPL and nobody does anything
> about it.
No one is violating anything.
Under the GPL you are allowed to make money on the distribution of GPL
software, but not the software itself.
I my choose to create a distribution which is only available, from me,
via mail-order. However, I have no right to stop anyone from copying my
distribution and doing the same, I can require they change the name and
state if they make modifications to my distro, but as a GPL work, they
can do what they want with it.
For instance:
I can download the redhat iso file, I can burn a million of them, but I
can't sell it as "Official RedHat 7.0" merchandise. I can sell it as
Linux based on RedHat. The difference being, and quite fairly, that
RedHat has a brand name, which they must legally protect, and since they
have no control over the CD's I create, I can be damaging their brand if
I have a QA problem on my CD production process.
But I can still use the software as the GPL intends, and this behavior
is within the GPL guidelines and is fair and reasonable.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's even worse than I thought.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 22:00:48 GMT
No I'm saying that you Penguinista's live in a fantasy land where you
think everyone else has nothing better to do but read How-To's in
order to try and make Linux functional. Every single person I know who
has tried Linux, most made serious attempts, has dumped it and
returned to Windows.
They simply got sick and tired of spending hours searching for answers
to what would be trival to do under Windows. And even if they found a
solution, more often than not, it was half assed and required even
more reading to implement.
Some people design operating systems. The rest of the world prefers to
run applications and Linux is dismal in that area.
claire
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:43:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:52:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The Linux community is so out of touch with reality as far as the home
>>user /desktop Jane is concerned it is comical.
>
>[snip examples of gross stupidity]
>
>So...you're saying that Windows is for morons?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights?
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 22:05:06 GMT
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8v61q9$jdj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ditto here.
> And the KDE news reader core dumps every time I use it. Not to mention
it's
> not a very good news client. NN's messenger is so broken as to be
ludicrous.
I use Netscape messenger all day at work, what's broken on your
system?
> Why is it that Netscape can ship a product that is broken in SO many areas
> (address book, Java, dysfunctional menu items,etc,.)
The address book works great against an LDAP server. What is
broken on your system? Java can be a problem, but I've always
blamed that on some Microsoft extension in the applet - do you
have some evidence that isn't the case? The worst problem I
see is the design obviously inherited from the windows version
where all windows are running in threads of the same process.
Starting on unix/linux no one would do that because it means
that *just like in the windows version* a problem in any
window locks them all up unnecessarily.
> but if a windows
> product had one tenth as many out of the box problems it would be laughed
> out of existence?
I have many more problems under windows - generally they lock the
whole machine instead of just one program - and yes I usually do
laugh about them.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:08:43 -0500
JoeX1029 wrote:
>
> >JoeX1029 wrote:
> >
> >> or how about: UNIX (PDP-8 ver.) UNIX System V, NeXTSTEP or the other
> >systems
> >> that help set the foundation for most of todays useful systems?
> >
> >I don't recall ever seeing a PDP-8 version of UNIX. AFAIK it was written
> >for a PDP-11. The PDP-8 was cool, 12 bits and all, but I don't think it
> >ever had a UNIX.
> >
> >
>
> It apperars that we are both wrong. The first version of UNIX was written on a
> PDP-7. After some time (after Dennis did the C thing) it was rewritten (in C)
> and ported to an 11.
Yes, but I don't think what they wrote on the PDP-7 for "Space travel"
was considered UNIX. I think it was the re-write in C and cleanup on the
PDP-11 which was the first UNIX, but hey that would just be splitting
hairs.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's even worse than I thought.
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 22:13:13 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No I'm saying that you Penguinista's live in a fantasy land where you
> think everyone else has nothing better to do but read How-To's in
> order to try and make Linux functional. Every single person I know who
> has tried Linux, most made serious attempts, has dumped it and
> returned to Windows.
Every single person who I know who has tried Linux, is still using it.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge?
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:22:45 +1300
Distribution companies donot need to open source any of their own
in-house designed software that is included with Linux, nor do they
necessarily have to offer their distro as a free download. The phase
"linux is cheap" is derived from the fact that upgrades and patches are
free of charge, or can be purchsed on a CD-ROM for a small nominal fee.
Unlike the Microsoft model where by they charge for upgrades but donot
charge for patches, this is where Linux has the advantage over the
"Microsoft model" of software distribution.
kiwiunixman
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Go to www.netmax.com
>
> They offer several Linux distributions with nice firewall and server
> configuration packages. Except for one thing. They don't offer their
> products for download. It seems that they are selling a GPL'd OS without
> offering a freely available version or source code to that version.
>
> Interesting how it's so easy to violate the GPL and nobody does anything
> about it.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge?
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:24:07 +1300
Distribution companies donot need to open source any of their own
in-house designed software that is included with Linux, nor do they
necessarily have to offer their distro as a free download. The phase
"linux is cheap" is derived from the fact that upgrades and patches are
free of charge, or can be purchsed on a CD-ROM for a small nominal fee.
Unlike the Microsoft model where by they charge for upgrades but donot
charge for patches, this is where Linux has the advantage over the
"Microsoft model" of software distribution.
kiwiunixman
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Go to www.netmax.com
>
> They offer several Linux distributions with nice firewall and server
> configuration packages. Except for one thing. They don't offer their
> products for download. It seems that they are selling a GPL'd OS without
> offering a freely available version or source code to that version.
>
> Interesting how it's so easy to violate the GPL and nobody does anything
> about it.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge?
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:26:12 +1300
Distribution companies donot need to open source any of their own
in-house designed software that is included with Linux, nor do they
necessarily have to offer their distro as a free download. The phase
"linux is cheap" is derived from the fact that upgrades and patches are
free of charge, or can be purchsed on a CD-ROM for a small nominal fee.
Unlike the Microsoft model where by they charge for upgrades but donot
charge for patches, this is where Linux has the advantage over the
"Microsoft model" of software distribution.
kiwiunixman
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Go to www.netmax.com
>
> They offer several Linux distributions with nice firewall and server
> configuration packages. Except for one thing. They don't offer their
> products for download. It seems that they are selling a GPL'd OS without
> offering a freely available version or source code to that version.
>
> Interesting how it's so easy to violate the GPL and nobody does anything
> about it.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Mast)
Subject: Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 22:27:47 GMT
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:52:36 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Go to www.netmax.com
> They offer several Linux distributions with nice firewall and server
> configuration packages. Except for one thing. They don't offer their
> products for download. It seems that they are selling a GPL'd OS without
> offering a freely available version or source code to that version.
Yeah, and there's nothing wrong or illegal about that. The GPL
merely says that whenever they distribute GPL'd code (e.g., by selling
their distribution), they must make source code available to the
recipient. It doesn't say that the distributor has to make the
binary software freely downloadable or otherwise publically available.
But then, of course, any recipients can then legally redistribute the
GPL'd software, offer it as a free download to others,
or even sell it, under the terms of the GPL.
> Interesting how it's so easy to violate the GPL and nobody does anything
> about it.
As stated above, this is not a violation of the GPL. But of course,
GPL violations do occur. In one issue of Maximum Linux, I noticed
a Microsoft-style EULA that supposedly applied to the Linux
distributions included on CD with the magazine. This had clauses
limiting reverse engineering, redistribution, etc. etc. That was
a clear violation of the GPL. The latest issue I've seen didn't seem
to include such a license, so someone must have set them straight.
Doug.
------------------------------
From: Moderator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge?
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:31:48 -0500
mlw wrote:
>
> No one is violating anything.
>
> Under the GPL you are allowed to make money on the distribution of GPL
> software, but not the software itself.
Yes, you are allowed to make money off the software under the GPL. Open
Source does not mean free. Read the GPL.
--
-Moderator
"Unfairly but truthfully, our party has been tagged as
being against things. Anti-immigrant, for example."
-George W. Bush, New York Times, 7/2/2000
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:40:32 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:05:29 +0200,
> > Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> > >
> > >"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:16:51 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Let me see, of the top of my head, things that you *have* to remember in
> > >> >order to handle linux.
> > >>
> > >> Wrong.
> > >>
> > >> >Lot of commands and their parameters.
> > >>
> > >> Again, you don't have to know a "lot of commands" to use Linux.
> > >
> > >I don't want to refer to the man page every time I need to issue a command,
> > >it slows productivity.
> > >
> > >How hard to understand is that?
> > >Therefor, I need to remember a lot of commands.
> >
> >
> > How do you manage to drive a car? or change channels on TV with such a poor
> > long term memory?
>
> It's clear how to drive a car or to change a channel on the TV with or without
> the remote.
>
> The commands are obvious, and non-cryptic.
attrib
>
> The same could not be said for most unix commands.
cp copy
rm remove
mkdir make directory
Quite mnemonic.
>
> Shining example: man Why not "help"? Or even "manual"?
>
> Yes, I know a user could create an alias, but then, how would they
> know that alias existed if they couldn't even find the help system?
>
> -Chad
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's even worse than I thought.
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:47:25 +1300
Have to agree with you Lynn. Until Linux is made totally "halfwitt
proof", the average Joe or Jane moron will never move to Linux. Windows
is almost there (after seeing the latest clips of Windows Whistler), and
from what I have heard (through the developer grape vine) it is pretty
stable. The best bet would be if Solaris had better hardware support on
the x86 platform. The installation already pretty easy (when compared to
Linux), throw in the first CD-ROM and the java jump start wizard guides
you through the mystical world of UNIX. Installation of software is
done through the admin tool (found in one of the CDE menu's), click on
add/remove software, throw in the cd-rom and away ya go, the installer
instantly starts. Although the "pure" UNIX environment is not every
ones cup of tea, it is a very powerful and efficient OS and the fault
tolerant benefits UNIX has (no DLL hell when upgrading software, cannot
delete system files when using a standard user account, thus, the user
can experiment to their hearts content) would help first timers out by
not allowing them to stuff up settings. Although fsck can take a long
time if a computer is not shut down properly, I never shut down my
computer, it only uses as much power as a light bulb so why turn it
off? there is no point, hence, never suffered from any filesystem wowe's.
kiwiunixman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The Linux community is so out of touch with reality as far as the home
> user /desktop Jane is concerned it is comical.
>
> I just got back from a trip to CompUSA this morning and I took a good
> look around to see what type of people are buying computers, software
> and hardware. This is the Saturday crowd here in NYC, not the
> businessman who is on a trip and forgot his ethernet card at home.
> These are the home users. So what did I see?
>
> 1. A man trying to buy a Network card for his laptop and kept coming
> back to the counter with Modem boxes asking if they would work. When
> asked what kind of network he had to connect to (Ethernet/Token Ring)
> he didn't know.
>
> 2. A guy returning a PCI sound card because it didn't fit in his
> laptop. Duhhhh.....
>
> 3. A person paying $198.00 for a stick of 128mb PCI-100 memory. About
> double the going rate.
>
> 4. A lady with a DTK 286 motherboard still half connected to the power
> supply, looking to get it repaired. You had to see this one to believe
> it. It looked like she pried it out with a crowbar. This is one lady I
> would NOT want to get mad at me.
>
> 5. A lady and her son buying one of those fantasy games (didn't catch
> the name but looked like Quake or Diablo, but was something else) and
> then asking the salesman if her machine met the requirements on the
> side of the box. Not a bad idea except the kid had an iMac and the
> software was for Windows only.
>
> 6. A man who couldn't figure out why his machine was running slow
> compared to his son's and when the salesman asked him how much memory
> he had, the guy said he had just bought 30 gig last week.
>
>
> So this is what you expect to market Linux to? You have to be kidding.
> These folks ARE the home market, like it or not. The only hope Linux
> has is pre-loads and the hope that each one of them has some geek
> friend to help them when they want to upgrade the system.
>
> In closing, I did see one older gentleman holding a Linux box and
> talking to a salesman. When I wandered over, I heard him asking the
> salesperson if Linux would run Windows programs. The salesman said no.
> I thought about mentioning Wine, which was even listed as included on
> the box cover, but after seeing what I had already seen in this store,
> I kept quiet.
> He put it back.
>
> claire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Date: 18 Nov 2000 22:49:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity
>JoeX1029 wrote:
>>
>> >JoeX1029 wrote:
>> >
>> >> or how about: UNIX (PDP-8 ver.) UNIX System V, NeXTSTEP or the other
>> >systems
>> >> that help set the foundation for most of todays useful systems?
>> >
>> >I don't recall ever seeing a PDP-8 version of UNIX. AFAIK it was written
>> >for a PDP-11. The PDP-8 was cool, 12 bits and all, but I don't think it
>> >ever had a UNIX.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It apperars that we are both wrong. The first version of UNIX was written
>on a
>> PDP-7. After some time (after Dennis did the C thing) it was rewritten (in
>C)
>> and ported to an 11.
>
>Yes, but I don't think what they wrote on the PDP-7 for "Space travel"
>was considered UNIX. I think it was the re-write in C and cleanup on the
>PDP-11 which was the first UNIX, but hey that would just be splitting
>hairs.
>
it mosst certainly was. they created it and called it UNIX, theredore it was
the first UNIX.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
