Linux-Advocacy Digest #242, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 02:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:16 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:36:46
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 22:56:31
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> I'm sure. No, it has not been done in practice; it is impossible in
>> >> practice to write a program which requires a library that doesn't yet
>> >> exist in any way.
>> >
>> >It's done in pratice since just about forever.
>> >Here is a code that rely on non existing library.
>>
>> It is WITHOUT ANY CONCEIVABLE DOUBT, the case that you misunderstood
>> what "it" is. Perhaps you wish to fudge the concept of a 'non-existent
>> library'. Perhaps you are under the impression this code is
>> 'functional' or 'useful'. I doubt even you would be ignorant enough to
>> believe anyone would pay you for it though. So theoretically, it might
>> be copyrightable, but practically speaking, I don't think you need to
>> waste your time registering it or anything.
>
>It's *my* copyright, I don't need to register it.
>If I wrote it, it's my copyright.
Way to miss the point, dude. That part was rhetoric; I wasn't trying to
fool you, so I can't apologize for confusing you, really.
>> By "in theory" I meant to exclude such moronic ideas as those coming
>> from you right now. This "here is code" is THEORY. PRACTICE is when
>> you make a real program that real people use.
>
>This kind of snippet can and is used in programs that real people use.
And such a program would be derivative of the snippet, in a copyright
sense. NOT because the program "contains a copy of" the snippet; a
literal copy is not necessary to violate copyright. Because the program
is, in the copyright sense, derivative.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:17 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001
11:58:01 -0400;
>On Sat, 5 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:33:45
>>>> You are mistaken about what "it" is.
>>> Programming to an API without implementation.
>> No, creating a program that is derivative of something that doesn't
>> exist.
>
>That's your claim -- and we're saying that mere use of a library
>doesn't imply or cause derivation. Not that you'll pay attention to any
>of this -- you don't listen to anything that differs from what you
>say.
You've ALMOST managed to post an entire message without abandoning your
reason, Austin. I'm almost proud of you.
Yes, you have FINALLY gotten to the BEGINNING of the argument you jumped
in trolling on. The point of the discussion, ultimately, is the fact
that the courts have not made any decisions either way, and so under
current law, the FSF's interpretation of the GPL stands, until someone
has the balls enough to refute it in front of a judge. No amount of
whining on Usenet or calling me clueless is going to accomplish that.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:18 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:40:48
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:33:45
>> [...]
>> >> You are mistaken about what "it" is.
>> >
>> >Programming to an API without implementation.
>>
>> No, creating a program that is derivative of something that doesn't
>> exist.
>
>You can write a program that used a non existing API, whatever it's a
>derivative of a library is another matter.
I don't really think so, though when I try to explain why, I find that
most programmers can't understand it. Regardless, you've at least
gotten down to the original discussion. Whether it is a derivative of
the library is the WHOLE of the matter.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:19 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:43:12
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:33:38
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>01:14:57
>> >
>> >> >For computer programmers, there is a terminology of their own, which
>> >tries
>> >> >not to leave ambiguaties
>> >> >It would help if you told us what you *think* an API is, then we could
>> >> >disillution you.
>> >>
>> >> The issue is not what I think an API is; I have an entirely correct
>> >> understanding of the term. The discussion concerned copyright, and
>> >> whether a program is derivative of a library which it requires.
>> >
>> >State it.
>> >It being what you think API is.
>>
>> I'm tempted to ignore the post, or avoid the question, just to frustrate
>> you, since in fact the issue is entirely off-topic. Still, just so you
>> know: Application Programming Interface, and that is what it is, not
>> just what I think it is. There's nothing about any of those terms which
>> requires additional explanation (though you're probably a tad confused
>> on 'interface', but that's not important now) but if you would like to
>> learn more, feel free to ask.
>
>And HTTP is Hyper Text Transfer Protocol, it doesn't tell me anything about
>what HTTP *is*, T. Max, only what the abbrevation is.
>Therefor, what is Application Program Interface, in your opinion?
I don't understand your point. Hyper text transfer protocol (actually,
I think its *transport* protocol, though that would be a misnomer) tells
me quite clearly what HTTP *is*. And please, call me Max.
So which word is it you don't understand, Ayende; application,
programming (not program) or interface?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:20 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:23:30
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 21:56:59
>
>> >> >What is an API documentation?
>> >> >API can be divided into two parts:
>> >> >Functions declaration.
>> >> >Text that describe what those functions does.
>> >> >
>> >> >You would need to be more spesific about the documentation part,
>> >> >documentation of what?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that was my point.
>> >
>> >That documentation is part of the API.
>>
>> (!)
>>
>> >An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function
>does.
>>
>> You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function call
>> unless the function is documented?
>
>Of course it would work. The problem would be that you wouldn't know what it
>does.
>Similar to standing on an elevator, when the floors' buttons has no numbers,
>or any other identification.
How much you want to bet that I can quickly get to the floor I want,
every time?
>You know *how* to use them, you don't know what they will do.
Many function calls are "self-documenting", in that respect, aren't
they?
>And any of those buttons can open the elevators' floor, killing you. (Equal
>to crashing the program)
The big red one: don't touch it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:21 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:01:10
>Oh, then they program in Basic, then.
No, they aren't as limited as you are.
[...]
>I've *no* idea whaat you were trying to say here, can you make it clearer?
I could, but I'm afraid it would be a waste of time. Your "platonic
object" for API is too concrete in your mind; you have no way of
understanding it correctly.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:22 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:07:39
[...]
>A library isn't an API, get that straighten out, at least.
APIs aren't things that "are" or "are not" other things; get that
straight, at least. I know you have a concrete idea in your mind, but
the rules you extract for whether something "is" or "is not" "the" API
are just too useless. They enable you to know what you know now, but it
would have to be deconstructed to allow you to learn anything more.
This causes defensiveness, and especially in programmers, this causes a
knee-jerk arrogance that is simply not worth my time to try to get
passed.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:23 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> You forgot the smiley, moron.
>> >
>> >No, that time I was serious. I really can't
>> >play the piano worth a damn.
>>
>> You forgot the smiley again, moron.
>
>Damn, you're hard to please. When
>I put smilies in, you complain. When
>I don't put them in, you complain.
>
>Perhaps I should be thankful you
>are being so consistent. :D
You should stop pretending you're the only one who gets the joke. You
should also recognize that you have become the joke.
:-/
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:24 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>> [...]
>> >That would appear to make you, Rick, and Aaron Kulkis the
>> >"reasonable men" of whom there are lots. Right?
>>
>> You still seem to be under the impression you can annoy me with personal
>> insults. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>
>You consider "reasonable" a personal insult? Wow. :/
For the other sixth graders besides Daniel who didn't get the joke: I
consider comparison with Aaron Kulkis an insult, and Daniel knew this,
which is why he is pretending that he didn't mean it as an insult.
>> (No offense, Rick; I'm sure you understand. Daniel's quite the troll,
>> isn't he?)
>
>Damn right I am! :D
No, you're a fucking moron. BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:25 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>>>Couple of months ago we discussed application barrier, remember? If
>>>Windows didn't have backward compatability with DOS, users of DOS
>>>applications wouldn't move to it, period.
>>
>> And application barriers are erected by whom, Ayende? Customers?
>>
>>>So Windows had backward compatability, because the *users* wanted it.
>>
>> Otherwise, how could they maintain the application barrier that was so
>> important to them, right?
>
>One of the great things about OSS is the backwards compatibility. If a
>brand new OS comes out that won't run your old binaries, just recompile.
Precisely why it is anathema to Microsoft.
>>>But NT couldn't handle a lot of the stuff that was written to DOS, so
>>>the
>>>9x beast was born, had a short time of glory, and now is dying.
>>
>> No, 9X was "born" before NT, because 9x is just Win3.x repackaged and
>> somewhat revised.
>
>The revisions are remarkably minimal. With the addition of the Win32S
>DLLs from Win311 (avaliable from MS), Win311 could run almost all 32 bit
>applications and gained the nightmare of the registry [1]. The main
>differences are the lack of DirectX on Win311 and the way they ruined
>icons in MDI apps in Win95.
>
>[1]Because Win311 didn't use the registry for its own initialisation,
>since the registry wasn't native to 311, installing lost apps didn't
>affect the stability nearly as much as Win9X.
Actually, Win 3.1 had a "registry", so you might get some noise from the
sock puppets about whether it is "native". Not even MS apps used it at
that time, though, so your comments are perfectly valid, regardless.
>> NT broke backward compatibility, somewhat, but it
>> also therefore weakened the application barrier somewhat, so MS is now
>> working on XP. This, they swear, will finally provide backward
>> compatibility without requiring backward compatibility: application
>> barrier without any benefit for the consumer. MS seems confused by
>> their inability to generate a lot of interest among consumers. Go
>> figure.
>
>IIRC, Windows 2000 was the great product meant to unify the 9X and NT
>product lines. This was _the_ product for the business and comsumer
>alike. Sound familiar?
Actually, that was the familiar line from Win NT 4.0, and Win SE, too.
Used to be the sock puppets claimed that Win98 and NT used "the same
driver model" (WDM). They've backed off on that, since then, owning up
to whatever everyone else already knew: NT doesn't support WDM. We are
supposed to believe that "what they meant" was that W2K, NT's successor
(and, as you noted, WinDOS's, too) would.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:28 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > Microsoft does not have the strange supernatural
>> > powers you attribute to them.
>>
>> No, they have monopoly power and they abuse it.
>
>Calling them "monopoly powers" does not make
>them any less magical.
A century of law says you're wrong.
>[snip]
>> > No, no, persistance!
>>
>> Yeah, persistant criminal behavior.
>
>I see there's some persistance to admire about you, too! :D
Just consistency.
>[snip]
>> > > I don't think you're interested in an intelligent conversation. Or
>> > > perhaps you are just incapable of one.
>> >
>> > Of course not! I'm talking to you, aren't I? :D
>>
>> Yup... not capable.
>
>Yeah. You'd think I'd learn, but I never do.
Yes, you do. You're still pretending otherwise, obstinate as any other
teenager, but sooner or later you'll grow up.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:31 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >They still offered an unbundled verison, just
>> >in case, until 1995.
>>
>> No, there were no "bundled version" or "unbundled versions". They
>> forced the bundle on every OEM they could. Their internal
>> communications confirm that this was a very strict strategy, that no DOS
>> at all will be sold through OEMs without Windows.
>
>Saying this doesn't make it so. Until 1995, Microsoft
>sold a version of Windows separate from DOS.
The question is not whether they sold it (had it available). The
question is how much people bought it. People weren't buying it, so MS
forced it on them: this is documented by Microsoft's internal documents.
Arguing against it just makes you look stupid.
>[snip]
>> >Microsoft does not have the strange supernatural
>> >powers you attribute to them.
>>
>> There's nothing supernatural about monopoly power, Danieltroll.
>
>C'mon. You've practical got Bill Gates shooting lightning
>out of his fingers here.
No, just breaking the law. Nothing mystical about it.
>[snip]
>> >> What can I say? They just weren't.
>> >
>> >Why not?
>>
>> Because they did not extend DOS, maybe?
>
>Didn't they? They sure added features
>that programs written to them could use.
>What's a DOS extensions if not that?
I don't know; ask the people who wrote the DOS extensions. As far as
the consumer could tell, it's all just "monopoly crapware". 'You might
as well "choose" to buy it, because if you don't we'll force you to.'
[...]
>> No, you're just posting trolls to usenet, buddy. LOL!
>
>I'm glad you're here to tell me these things. :D
I'd rather you weren't. But in case you haven't noticed, this is my
game, not yours. You can pretend to be proud of being a troll if you
want: I don't pretend to be proud about spanking trolls, I just enjoy
it.
More then they do. :-D
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:32 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>> [...]
>> >Like Alice, I try to believe six impossible things before
>> >breakfast. :D
>>
>> Sorry, Daniel, I've lost interest in spanking you for the moment. Troll
>> again in a few weeks, if you need the attention so desperately.
>
>Don't worry about me. I'll always have Rick! :D
Assholes will always have people they annoy, yea. Its a psychological
problem.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:34 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>Think of it as a laugh track. :D
*ZZZZZZZZZ*
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:35 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:36 GMT
Said Bill Vermillion in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Bill Vermillion in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max
>>>Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Anyone here remember [as I do] when Gates thought the future of
>>>computing was in Unix.
>
>>But the future of the PC was MS crapware.
>
>>>He then licensed Unix from AT&T and at that
>>>time only AT&T could call it Unix, so Microsoft's implementation
>>>was named Xenix.
>
>>Xenix had two main purposes:
>
>>A) If anyone wanted Unix on a PC, he could monopolize with Xenix
>>just as he monopolized with DOS.
>
>Xenix was not just on a PC platform. Seeing something like an
>Altos with an 8086 processor, 386K of RAM, a 25MB HD, and 5
>terminals and a couple of printers, running a business
>successfully, shows just how efficient it was.
That far back, what was or was not "a PC" was imprecise enough that this
box might well count. Though I would have to admit that having 5
terminals would disqualify it. Still, running Unix on anything
approaching an 8080 series processor was not going to happen unless Bill
got a cut, in his mind.
[...]
>Of course the DEC platform had more user seats - if you based that
>on totals - but Tandy has more physical machines running.
See, these are "platforms". The PC was not such a platform, which is
why the definition dissolves away if you're not careful. Would MS have
loved to crush DEC with Xenix-based systems? No, they preferred to just
slowly wedge them out with DOS-based systems. Bill was a big BASIC
advocate, remember. He probably still doesn't know squat about the
Bourne shell.
>The Tandy Xenix [they did their own port on the 1.x] was what got
>me hooked in the Unix world 18 years ago. No one ever considered
>a Unix system a viable entity on a PC system in those days. It was
>not until the '386 - where you could forget the 64K paragraph
>limitations - that made *ix really workable on that architecture.
Was it really and truly just this "64K paragraph limitation"? What is
that?
>The Altos used the 8086 - not the 8080 - so at least is was 16
>bits across the board, not the hybrid 8/16 in the 8088.
I'll tell you I'm certainly not interested in such low-level details, in
general. Don't let me stop you; I know there's an audience, and we're
cross-posted. I can appreciate them, when they're worth appreciating,
but most of the time they're meaningless trivia.
>Xenix was also the orignal OS in the Apple Lisa - which you had to
>use to write and OS for the Mac, as the Mac was so limited it
>couldn't do anything as complex as compiling an OS.
To be honest, I find this less then credible.
>>B) To suck enough as a Unix on a PC that they didn't have to work that
>>hard and could get away with easy, crapware, DOS.
>
>We can't totally eliminate point A - Gates wanting to monopolize
>the OS - but at that point in time MS was primarly a language house
>and Xenix was the ONLY OS they produced. They did have the highly
>successful Z80 add-in card for the Apple so the Microsoft licensed
>version of CP/M was a big hit in the Apple world.
This time, it is the definition of "OS" which turns to sand,
historically. I know, the term itself is not variable, but the ROM
BASIC was 'an OS' to Gates; DOS itself only happened on IBM's
insistence. (I say happened because "created" would be overly generous;
it was plagiarized more than it was created, as was BASIC and Xenix, of
course.)
>We can totally elminate point B - 'suck enough on a PC ..' because
>what we call the PC [the iNTEL based platform] had not been
>introduced at that time.
Are you sure we're talking the same Microsoft? BASIC was there first
product Microsoft? I didn't realize Xenix was that old. Just where did
it come from?
>I remember Gates ranting and raving and calling all hobbyiest
>thives for 'stealing' his $150 cassette basci [highly over-priced
>in the 1977 world] while the competition was in the $35 to $50
>range.
And Xenix already existed? Wow. [He wasn't even selling the same thing
as 'the competition', I'll bet, licensing where they actually *sold*.]
>>>Then he had an 'office suite'. Multimate, Multiplan, and Multi???
>>>Then IBM knocked on the door and things changed.
>
>>Office didn't happen until after Win3.1,
>
>"Office" by that name didn't happen until Windows but the 'office
>suite' concept existed in Xenix. MultiMate [Word Processor],
>MultiPlan [spread sheet] and Mulit ???? [I can NOT remember what
>that app was] came long before even PC-DOS 2.0
This was definitely not Microsoft's creation. MultiMate was
Ashton-Tate, IIRC. So I presume Xenix came from somewhere other than
MS, as well. Where?
>> Previously, the app space was only monopolized by directly
>>killing off competition with Windows (Lotus, Wordperfect, dBase).
>>Multimate was Ashton-Tate's (dBase) word processor, IIRC.
>
>I had frined running Vulcan - the predecesor to dBaseII - on their
>CP/M machines. That dates to about 1978 - when MS was only
>producting Cobol, Fortran, Basic and a couple of other languages -
>primarily in the CP/M market, and licensing ROM verison of MS Basic
>to Commodore, Apple, Tandy, et al.
I was going to say that, from what I've read, "producing" would be
over-stating the case (Microsoft is/was notorious for announcing
products they didn't actually have yet, or ever) but then I realized
that your "producting" might not be [sic]. Was that intentional?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
