Linux-Advocacy Digest #141, Volume #34 Thu, 3 May 01 03:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (GreyCloud)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Adam Warner")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: article on Windows 2002 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Bought out by MS geeks... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Importance, or lack, of Marketshare? (GreyCloud)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Greg Cox)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 18:17:26 +1200
> :> What an absurd statement, you're the one being completely illogical. If
> :> a hetrosexual can be "converted" then clearly they already have
> :> homosexual leanings.
> :
> :Proof?
>
> Know anybody who 'came out of the closet' who said ``I honestly had
> absolutely no desire for guys before and got turned on by women only, and
> I wasn't just acting.'' ?
>
> Why is it called 'coming out of the closet' as in their personality
> was hidden, rather than, ``changing my mind about what gender I wanted
> to boink.''
Also take this logic as well. Would some one wakeup one day and say, "I'll
join one of the most despised groups, lose most of my friends and then to
top it all off, get rejected by my family". Doesn't sound logical, does it?
Homosexuality is not a new thing, it has been around for millions of years
(since man has existed), and in some cultures, it is seen as perfectly
normal, aka, thats how nature made you. Unfortunately, the US is riddled
with religious extremists that try to demonise people who are homosexual.
In the New Zealand parliament, we have a transexual MP, and several openly
gay MP's, a rastafarian MP (the same religion as Bob Marley). I wonder if
there is that sort of deversity in the house of representatives? when there
was the Hero Parade in Auckland, the Prime Minister went along to support
Gay Rights, yet, in the land of the free, I don't see that happening.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:23:14 -0700
Greg Cox wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001 22:40:26
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > >> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 25 Apr 2001
> > >> >Actually, IBM offered three OSes originally: MS-DOS, CP/M,
> > >> >and one other- I think it was Xenix or something like that.
> > >
> > >Actually, IBM sold IBM-DOS (basically the same as MS-DOS), CP/M-86, and
> > >the UCSD P-System, but not Xenix.
> > >
> > >> Xenix was Microsoft's repackaging of SCO, so that would have been years
> > >> later.
> > >
> > >As usual, Max, you've got it backwards. Microsoft developed Xenix in-
> > >house with SCO as one of its biggest distributors. This was underway
> > >when I joined Microsoft in late 1980 and predates the contract with IBM
> > >for PC software. Later, Microsoft sold Xenix to SCO. I believe part of
> > >the price got Microsoft a minority position in SCO.
> >
> > I didn't realize this had begun so early. Nor did I realize that the
> > actual facts (Xenix is Microsoft's repackaging of SCO) could be so
> > warped, even by those who believed all the MS press releases.
> >
> > >> >MS-DOS was the early favorite because it worked, it was cheap
> > >> >in both money and memory, and most importantly, it was
> > >> >available immediately.
> > >>
> > >> Mostly, it was cheap. In price; MS gave IBM a single fixed price for
> > >> unlimited licenses; that's how they managed to get IBM to agree to
> > >> include BASIC on every system, even if they didn't include MS-DOS on
> > >> every system. The agreement obviously didn't last long, and was
> > >> replaced within a few years by the standard cliff's-edge, per-processor
> > >> licensing scam which most directly secured the illegal monopoly.
> > >
> > >Wrong again Max. IBM paid a royalty to Microsoft for each copy of IBM-
> > >DOS sold. I believe it was somewhere in the $4 to $7 per copy range.
> >
> > Not initially, no. Initially, it was a bulk license costing a couple
> > hundred thousand dollars, with the requirement that IBM would bundle
> > MS-BASIC with every PC. This according to the biography GATES, which
> > has a great wealth of details on this period. The per copy licensing
> > must have come later, after BASIC was trashed. But DOS was licensed the
> > same way, originally.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "after BASIC was trashed" since ROM BASIC
> was shipped in every IBM PC and IBM XT box. Or are you talking about
> the MS-BASIC that shipped with every version of DOS?
>
> I wouldn't be that surprised if IBM got a flat fee license for ROM BASIC
> from Microsoft but I believe IBM always paid a (very low) royalty on
> each copy of IBM-DOS sold. You have to realize that Bill Gates wanted
> every contract for Microsoft products to be on some kind of royalty
> basis and all contracts for products Microsoft bought (QDOS for example)
> to be on a flat fee basis.
>
> >
> > >It was so cheap compared to what other OEMs paid for MS-DOS because IBM
> > >participated in the development of IBM-DOS/MS-DOS from the beginning
> > >through the development of OS/2 version 1.0.
> >
> > Such vague and obviously carefully neutral bullshit terms as
> > "participated in development" lead me to believe that you are unaware of
> > what really happened to begin with.
>
> Well, since Microsoft's development on DOS 1.0 occurred in the office
> across the hallway from my office I really do have a better idea than
> you do how it happened. By "IBM participated in the development of IBM-
> DOS/MS-DOS from the beginning through the development of OS/2 version
> 1.0" I mean that IBM developers worked on parts of all versions of DOS
> and OS/2 1.0 while Microsoft developers worked on other parts with daily
> communication between them to coordinate development. It was completely
> a joint development effort.
>
> >
> > >> It's all the same story, I'm afraid. Microsoft has never been
> > >> competitive, though some of their products might have accidentally had
> > >> to compete at some point. Windows certainly wasn't one of them.
> > >
> > >Strike three. When IBM released the PC and until sometime after the IBM
> > >AT was released, you had to buy the OS seperately.
> >
> > Because MS-BASIC was in the PROM, according to the information I have.
>
> So what? The ROM BASIC was very limited and only used if you bought a
> PC without floppy drives or a hard drive and loaded BASIC programs
> through the built-in cassette tape port. As it turned out, virtually no
> IBM PCs were ever purchased in this configuration.
>
> > I don't see what this has to do with my comment, though. Are you saying
> > having to select the cheapest from a list of three entirely unknown
> > alternatives means that DOS "competed"? You're a pretty incredulous
> > guy, you know that?
>
> Yea, right. No one ever heard of CP/M before it was released for the
> IBM PC. And if I remember correctly, the UCSD P-System had a magazine
> devoted to it prior to 1981. Of the three OSs, IBM-DOS was the only
> unknown one.
>
> IBM releases a PC with no OS included, says "Here are three operating
> systems for it that you can buy from us if you wish.", and you think
> that's not competition? You really are a blind fanatic.
>
> >
> > >Well, Windows competed directly against OS/2, the Mac, Amiga, and GEM.
> > >There are probably some others in there that I've forgotten about... It
> > >wasn't until version 3.0 that Windows finially started to sell well.
> >
> > You don't seem to understand the use of the term "compete". Your
> > ingenuous perspective aside, Windows never had to compete against any of
> > these, because MS had a DOS monopoly to leverage, and did so without
> > reservation, and only moderate restriction (since they knew it was
> > illegal, they had to maintain plausible deniability).
>
> You really don't have clue one, do you?
>
> So when did this "DOS monopoly" start that magically prevented all the
> other GUI based OSs of the day from competing with Windows 1.0 through
> 3.0?
>
> >
> >
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmmm... that's strange... When I bought my IBM PC when it was first
released, I purchased it with two floppy disk drives. At that time no
one even considered cassette tapes as a viable way to do computing.
This paradigm was left to the Radio Shacks and others that used 8-bit
processors. In order to use the floppy drives you had to have an O/S or
you would have a non-functioning floppy drive sitting there. CP/M was
the rage before IBM PC showed up on the market. I saw my first IBM PC
at computerland and they offered PC-DOS first. A few months later
CP/M-86 came out and was priced almost double that of PC-DOS. Later
came UCSD P-System and this was even more expensive. At that time what
little software that was being written worked only under PC-DOS as
people "perceived" it to be IBMS' O/S and "It must be better than the
others" perceptions.
CP/M-86 had software ready to go also .... but later on and it still
fell to the "perceptions" of IBM... Especially when PC-DOS 2.0 came out
with big improvements.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:25:35 -0700
Greg Cox wrote:
>
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >
> > I refuse to be a member
> > of any organization that will have me.
> >
>
> If you're going to use someone else's line (Groucho Marx) at least give
> them the credit...
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Never heard it from Groucho Marx... heard it from a Piano player cousin
of mine.
Besides, why should I??
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 18:26:46 +1200
Eric,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:a40I6.22012$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This was *5* months ago.
Matthew linked to an extemely recent vulnerability that gives root access to
virtually all Win2k/IIS5 servers on the Internet.
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18664.html
I am extremely surprised you wouldn't have heard about it.
Do you subscribe to NT BugTraq?
http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Advisories/AD20010501.html
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 02:32:12 -0400
On Wed, 2 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:06:41
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
>>> A program which *requires* a library cannot be written until the library
>>> has been sufficiently designed (whether this is coding or documentation
>>> of the API is meaningless, which is the point you guys keep tripping
>>> over) to *base* the program on the functionality provided by the
>>> library. Thus, a program is derivative, in a legal copyright sense, of
>>> the library, and no time travel is required to make it so.
>> No, a program that *requires* a library cannot be written until the
>> library's API are known, nothing more is required.
> In theory. Not in practice. How many times do we have to go through
> this: YOU ARE JUST BEING IDEALISTIC.
In practice, not in theory. You've been told this several dozen times
now, and it's obvious that you're a fuckup without a clue. We don't
need any more demonstrations, Maxie.
Copyright has nothing to do with functionality; I can write a program
that uses an API for a library that doesn't yet exist. Until it exists,
the program is (probably) useless. That doesn't mean that (a) I can't
write the program and (b) it isn't covered by copyright. To restate it
and make it explicit for Maxie the idiot:
* I -CAN- write to an API's specification. The program that uses the
library that implements the API might not be useful until the
library exists, but that's okay.
* The program is not a derivative of the library, and it is
protected under copyright.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: article on Windows 2002
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:29:24 -0500
"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/567993.asp
>
> Is it just me or does Microsoft have trouble figuring out a consisten
> naming scheme for their operating systems?
>
> I think they have an identity crisis or something. I wish it would stop
> whatever it is.
I don't see how it's a big deal. They're keeping the year naming scheme for
the enterprise products, such as the Server, SQL Server 2000, Exchange 2000,
etc...
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bought out by MS geeks...
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:32:11 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001
> [...]
> >But regardless, that wasn't what I meant. I meant that most Unix
> >programmers that write Windows code, tend to do so with a Unix mindset,
[...]
>
> Either most do, or all tend to, Erik. Your abstraction error is
> showing.
What are you talking about? I never said all.
> [...]
> >Indeed, it might be said that most Unix programmers will need to have
> >windows experience within a few years, since some level of interaction
will
> >probably be necessary.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! Sounds like a quote that could have come from 1992.
> "Interaction" with Windows is the problem, you see. Microsoft pretends
> to support it, but they're a monopolist, so...
You don't understand my point. No matter what your position is, my point is
likely to be true. If you believe that Linux/Unix will dominate the future,
then you'll need Windows experience to port apps from Windows to Unix, if
you believe the opposite, you'll need the experience to go the other way.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 02:36:26 -0400
On Wed, 2 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:51:00
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>> Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>>>>>> Well, one of my colleagues is writing an application to a Java
>>>>>> .jar that's not yet implemented (I finished the spec, he started
>>>>>> on his application after about the third draft, when we felt it
>>>>>> was stable enough). I'll have the classes implemented when he'll
>>>>>> start testing. Hint: writing a program != coding. There's a lot
>>>>>> to do before the first line of code is written, or before the
>>>>>> first test is run.
>>>>> That's like saying "writing a book != authoring", and illustrates
>>>>> clearly why everyone gets so confused by software copyright.
>>>> Here is a perfectly legal API:
>>> [...]
>>> My consideration regards real APIs, not "legal" ones, or any other form
>>> of thought experiment.
>> That is a real API.
>> It's just expressed in a language neutral language.
> I'm afraid you've opened up a can of worms with "language", there. Do
> you consider ASN a 'language'?
For the moment, I'm going to have to assume that you've typoed there --
and you meant ASL (American Sign Language). If that's not the case,
then you'll have to explain what you meant by ASN.
Assuming that it IS the case, then yes, it is a language and it is
recognised as a full language by linguists. It's not a creole, it's not
a dialect, it's a language.
Language is much easier to define than you think, and you likely know
as little about linguistics, natural language, and constructed language
as you do about programming and intellectual property -- which is
practically nothing, as you've so amply demonstrated.
Chances are, though, that you won't let your lack of knowledge stop you
from making an even bigger ass of yourself than you have so far.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Importance, or lack, of Marketshare?
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:39:40 -0700
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> >> But fortunately, history will repeat itself. Remember back in the dark
> >> ages when books became more wide spread, and people began to read, and
> >> become educated, the ending result, the church no longer had the strong
> >> grip on society it once had. As users become more knowledge-able, people
> >> will start to question Windows, and become bored of its limitations.
> >> Users will then look for alternatives, and there, waiting in the side
> >> line will be Linux, an OS that users can keep on learning, expanding,
> >> customising to
> >> what ever they want it to be. There are no limitations. I have been
> >> using Linux for around 4 years, and I am still learning new things, thus,
> >> it is an exciting OS to use and it is always improving.
> >
> > True. I've been using Unix for 18 years, and am still learning more and
> > more powerful ways to do things
> >
> Quite an interesting study was done on old people who stayed mentally fit,
> aka, reading, learning etc, had a lower chance of developing age related
> mental disorders. I would hate to see the result of 20 years of Windows on
> the general populous.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
LOL! The results are starting to come in... mouse carpal tunnel
syndrome... mouse elbow.
--
V
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 02:41:47 -0400
On Wed, 2 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
>> On Tue, 1 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance. (See below.)
>>>>> Quit being a troll, goofball.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> It says that he wrote the specification. Perhaps the little bit of
>>>>>> batch file putzing that you've done hasn't introduce you into the
>>>>>> concept of a specification separate from the implementation. This is
>>>>>> quite common in C++ and in various other languages (Ada, PL/SQL, etc.).
>>>>>> Yes, you write some code; no, it isn't functional without a body (the
>>>>>> implementation). It's an API to the functions within that package.
>>>>> No, it is documentation for the API to the functions within that
>>>>> package. Get over your abstraction error, and get back to me.
>>>> No, that wasn't documentation, that was API. [...]
>>> Please define the difference.
>> An API is not an API if it doesn't have function specifications. There
>> is usually documentation on the API that describes *what* (not *how*)
>> things are done on data passed into the function. The documentation,
>> however, is not the API.
> Metaphorically, you might be correct, as I understand your point.
There is no metaphor in what I said; what I said was fact.
> But
> when someone wants to know "what is the API?" the answer is
> interchangeable with the documentation, is it not?
Not really. The API is the interface definition code; the API
documentation is the documentation that describes the API.
> So the documentation
> is as much "the API" as any other concrete thing is.
No.
> That an API is not
> a concrete thing, but an interface, is understood.
It *is* a concrete thing inasmuch as a lock with a keyhole is a
concrete thing. It's the actual interface. I could, theoretically,
build two locks that work very different internally that will be
unlocked by the same key. This is, by stretched analogy, an API.
> What seems
> misunderstood is what, then, 'the API' really "is".
Only by you.
> What it "is" is the
> sum total of how the *library* works.
Incorrect. An API is the *interface* to that library, and is better
described as the way of using the library. The API documentation
restates the use of the library and explains *what* (but not *how*,
necessarily) the library does.
> That there are some choices the
> library programmer can make which do not cause changes in the API might
> be true, but it might also be true that this is a measure of the
> inefficiency of the code and the API.
Inefficiency is an incorrect word here. Design choices are made, and
one may be more efficient than the other, but the true measure of
efficiency is found with a particular need, most of the time.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:41:19 -0700
"Richard J. Donovan" wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
> > >
> > > Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
> > > >>
> > > >> >> And I was under the impression in the cases of questionable
> > > >> >> paternity that a DNA sample could be demanded.
> > > >>
> > > Aaron> Nope. Paternity is still judged on English common law: whoever
> > > Aaron> the mother CLAIMS is the father *IS* the father, until proven
> > > Aaron> otherwise.
> > > >>
> > > >> Can you cite a single state that has a law like this?
> > >
> > > Aaron> All 50, as they have no statutory law to supercede the common law.
> > >
> > > You failed to provide a single citation.
> > >
> > > Aaron> Hope that helps, leftist feeb.
> > >
> > > Please name a leftist position of mine.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew Hall
> > > (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
> >
> > He doesn't need to. Ever hear of "Common Law Wife"??
> > Get used to it.
> >
> > --
> > V
>
> When did these dopes pass the bar? Better stick to flamewars concerning
> Linux and Windows.
What's your problem??
--
V
------------------------------
From: Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 06:42:58 GMT
In article <B748965769C77DB2.2CBBD1F3F392FFA7.C5A6578BA192EAD3
@lp.airnews.net>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> Hmmm... that's strange... When I bought my IBM PC when it was first
> released, I purchased it with two floppy disk drives. At that time no
> one even considered cassette tapes as a viable way to do computing.
> This paradigm was left to the Radio Shacks and others that used 8-bit
> processors.
As I said, very few machines were sold without at least one floppy drive
installed but the cassette tape support was built into the motherboard.
The minimum configuration for an IBM PC you could buy was 16K memory, a
monochrome or color video card, and no disk drives. On the other hand,
at that time there were many like me in the hobby market that couldn't
afford floppy drive(s) so we were stuck using paper tape or cassette
tape. On the other other hand, the IBM PC was damn expensive compared
to the hobby machines on the market. I don't remember exact numbers for
the PC but the IBM XT (an IBM PC with one floppy and a 10MB hard drive)
I bought shortly after its release cost me $6000.
> In order to use the floppy drives you had to have an O/S or
> you would have a non-functioning floppy drive sitting there. CP/M was
> the rage before IBM PC showed up on the market. I saw my first IBM PC
> at computerland and they offered PC-DOS first. A few months later
> CP/M-86 came out and was priced almost double that of PC-DOS.
Yep, that sounds correct. CP/M-86 was late getting out of the starting
gate and Digital Research wanted a premium for it. As I remember IBM-
DOS 1.0 retailed for around $60 while the first CP/M-86 release retailed
for around $250. Considering they were pretty equivalent it's no wonder
that IBM-DOS sold better...
> Later
> came UCSD P-System and this was even more expensive. At that time what
> little software that was being written worked only under PC-DOS as
> people "perceived" it to be IBMS' O/S and "It must be better than the
> others" perceptions.
Except for all the ports of existing CP/M code to CP/M-86. It could be
ported very easily but the end result was you had 8 bit software running
on a 16 bit machine.
> CP/M-86 had software ready to go also .... but later on and it still
> fell to the "perceptions" of IBM... Especially when PC-DOS 2.0 came out
> with big improvements.
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:39:53 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cqfpu$7vi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > This was *5* months ago.
> >
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9cpb35$fkt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Yes, just when you thought Microsoft security couldn't possibly get any
> >> worse, they pull out this little doosie:
> >>
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18664.html
> >>
> >> Matthew Gardiner
> >
> But the news just keeps on truck'in. Had this been a Linux article, and
the
> patch had been out for 2 years you would have said, "see, see, I told you
> Linux was un-secure", double standards in the purist form.
You have never heard me make such an argument. I have argued about the
recent bout of Linux Worms based primarily on patched fixes, but only to
point out that bitching about MS security patches not being applied is the
pot calling the kettle black.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:43:12 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 08:28:59
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> Mind you, how hard is it to:
> >>
> >> - fire up an xterm, if necessary
> >> - type in 'lyx' or click on a LyX icon
> >> - File>New from Template
> >> - select a filename
> >> - select a template ('letter.lyx')
> >> - Type in what's needed on the provided template
> >> - print it out
> >
> >- Fire up word.
> >- Select letter template
> >- Start writing letter
> >- Print it out
> >
> >Sounds like a few _less_ steps than LyX.
>
> Guffaw.
>
> Fire up word.
> Hope word doesn't crash PC.
> Select letter template.
> Hope selecting template does not crash PC.
> Start writing letter.
> Turn off annoying paperclip.
> Go to hospital for wound to hand from punching keyboard and monitor when
> you find out that turning off the annoying paperclip is not as obvious
> as it seems.
> Continue writing letter.
> Start from step 1 when the first key you hit causes your PC to crash.
> Back to continuing the letter, having avoided trip to hospital by
> screaming into pillow for twenty minutes.
> Save letter.
> Hope you can get the letter back after saving it causes the PC to crash.
> Print letter.
> Hope printing letter doesn't cause PC to crash.
> Edit letter, after realizing word "corrected" your spelling,
> substituting a reference to genitalia for the customer's executive's
> last name.
>
> A few more steps, it seems to me.
>
> >As for clippy, I use the cat. He may ask _once_ if I'm writing a letter,
> >but only the once.
>
> Why?
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
LOL!!
--
V
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
