Linux-Advocacy Digest #277, Volume #34 Mon, 7 May 01 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Steve
Sheldon")
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (GreyCloud)
Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux (George Peter Staplin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (GreyCloud)
Re: WinTrolls and advocates are the ones who are geeks! (Donn Miller)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (GreyCloud)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Tom Wilson")
Re: To Aaron (Orest Zarowsky)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Chad Everett)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Ed Allen)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Erik Magnuson)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 22:55:15 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Yes, I know this. It is not as convenient as just dragging the window
> to a new size and it doesn't really do the same thing either. Making
> it smaller just adds scroll bars, IIRC, but doesn't change the actual
> size that apps think they are working with. An xterm notifies the app
> running in it of the new size.
Hmm, I just took my mouse dragged my cmd window to be the size of my screen
and ran edit.com in there. Now edit didn't like the size and decided to
change it to an 80x50 window, but that's still larger than the default
80x25.
You know Bob, have you ever stopped and considered that maybe this isn't all
that important of a feature?
At least it isn't in the Windows 2000 world, where a GUI means a lot more
than a way to open up multiple xterm windows and cut and paste text between
them, like X11 represents.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 03:53:45 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:1TiJ6.11642$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> >> No in the number of extra steps you need to do to make it work.
> >>
> >
> > That is - excusez le mot - bull. The important thing to look at is if
> > the user has a "clear path" through the steps, i.e.: are they logical
> > (*), do they require unnatural bending of the limbs, does the same kind
> > of action always have the same kind of result, and more of that
> > ergonomic stuff. The number of steps to do something features pretty low
> > on the list.
>
> Which is precisely my point. With Word you start Word, you create your
> letter, you print it. With LyX you have some extra steps, but do
> essentially the same thing.
>
> > (*) a rather famous example of how _not_ to do things is to make a user
> > click a button marked "start" to actually stop the machine.
>
> Say "Start shutdown". Does that sound illogical?
Oxymoronic is a better description.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:58:27 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 00:42:05
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001 15:10:51
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >I won't argue that point!!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Flatfish
> >> >>
> >> >> BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! As if you've ever 'argued a point'. LOL.
> >> >>
> >> >> You go troll, now, little flatfishie. Go insult some more people who
> >> >> know more than a tired old man who never really was very good with
> >> >> computers.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks a lot!
> >>
> >> You're welcome.
> >>
> >> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
> >
> >No help needed.
>
> I take it you're an old man with a self-depricating opinion of his
> computer skills? Sorry. It's not my fault! :-)
>
I've got excellent computer skills. Been successfully doing it since
the 60's to 1993. Then I successfully retired and still stay in the
game. Old... only in others' minds.
Hopefully, you won't get too worried when you get there (Old that is).
Everybody that tries to stay in good health get to be old. Its not my
fault if others get sick and I have to start doing all the foot work.
Of course I'm tired at this point in time. As soon as I go on a nice
vacation I'll be rested.
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 21:01:21 -0700
Terry Porter wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001 15:10:51
> >>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> >>> [...]
> >>> >I won't argue that point!!!
> >>> >
> >>> >Flatfish
> >>>
> >>> BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! As if you've ever 'argued a point'. LOL.
> >>>
> >>> You go troll, now, little flatfishie. Go insult some more people who
> >>> know more than a tired old man who never really was very good with
> >>> computers.
> >>
> >>Thanks a lot!
> >
> > You're welcome.
> >
> > Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
> Did I miss something Max ?
>
> I like Greybeard, hes got an adventurous spirit and a
> sense of humour, why the accusation of 'tired old man'
> ????
>
Because I screwed up in his eyes once. I later mentioned that I have to
go thru care-giver hell to give help to my mother-in-law in her need.
Apparently he hasn't had too much in the line of responsibilies yet or
obligations to meet. But that's ok, I do admire his argumentative
skills even if he makes an occasional mistake. I like him even more
when he trounces and spanks a few trolls now and then. :-))
>
> --
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
> 1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
> Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
--
V
------------------------------
From: George Peter Staplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 22:03:58 -0600
kosh wrote:
>
> Richard Thrippleton wrote:
> The answer is probably simpler then what you think. Some of the programs I
> have written may not run on windows or on other cpu platforms. However I
> don't know if that is true because I don't have those other platforms to
> test it with.
>
> How is someone to know if the code won't work on a ppc, mips, sparce, etc
> without having one to test it on?
Well, there are several good documents on the net about writing portable
C programs. Basically don't make any assumptions about the size of
types.
Enabling -ansi and -pedantic with gcc is a must. Unfortunately many
popular programs and libraries will dump oodles of warnings when you do
so, but the more programmers that follow the ANSI and POSIX standards
the better.
-George
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 21:04:38 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 May 2001 20:43:59 GMT, Pete Goodwin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >You think those distros are making huge profits? Yet some are collapsing.
>
> I think SOME people involved with them are/have made fortunes off of
> Linux.
> IBM will be making a fortune off of Linux as well by boosting it's
> hardware sales.
>
> Is any of this money going back to the people working hard to make and
> support Linux?
>
> Flatfish
>
> >When I chose recently to make the sources for my 3D scene editor "open
> >source" (see http://mse.sourceforge.net/), I did it for a few simple
> >reasons: (i) I'm realistic, I'm never going to make money out of this
> >project and (ii) I'm getting stale and need the input from others on this
> >thing.
> >
> >Previously, there have been around 5000 downloads of my scene editor. 10
> >people contacted me, some offering to pay money for it. It's an interesting
> >project (to me anyway) but it's not commercial. So why not open source?
Well, we made a killing off of linux last year. As soon as GreenSpan
moved in we cashed out. I knew from experience what happens when the
Feds move in on a good thing.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 21:07:25 -0700
Terry Porter wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 May 2001 06:21:36 GMT,
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because, flatfish, you appear to change name and ID quite regularly. There
> > is an accusation that you do so, so as to appear to be a new user
> > experiencing problems with Linux. It calls into question your sincerity, so
> > therefore a certain number ignore what you and focus on your deception.
> >
> > Grammer/spelling is just an irritation - you can accept that in a message -
> > though it can make the message difficult to read. However, it does not
> > indicate insincerity.
> >
> > --
> > Pete
> >
> Now why'd you have to say that Pete ?
> I had you all nice and cozy in a Wintroll box!
>
> --
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
> 1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
> Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
Pete was never a wintroll, he's just approaching linuxs' problems from a
devils advocates position. In the beginning he sounded like one, but
after a while it becomes clear.
--
V
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 00:09:08 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WinTrolls and advocates are the ones who are geeks!
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> Every Windows developer I have chatted to cannot stand using Win32 API,
> however, due to market constraints, they are forced to. One mate of
> mine (mate = friend) for 15 minutes bitched on about how shit-house the
> Windows API is, and unfortunately, I, who is very willing to listen, was
> his only out-let, and my god, the problems he listed! Microsoft has the
> money, why doesn't it create a nice new API, without all the crap and
> ensure that it is clean, efficient and fully documented, then maybe I
> would be able to go with out a week of Windows developers bitching about
> how bad the Win32 API is!
There's a lot to hate about the Win32 API. I think the worst part is
the non-standard file operation and thread-handling functions, as well
as the Winsock API. The GDI functions are pretty nasty as well. I
think Xlib's API better conceived, although it tends to have more gorey
excruciating details in it. Windows has its own toolkit built-in, and I
think it's primative in that it uses old-fashioned callbacks for event
handling, as opposed to X, which puts the burden of implementing
callbacks in the X toolkit. This allows you to use more modern methods
of event handling using signals and slots, ala Qt and Gtk if you so
choose. Motif did use callbacks, but it's possible to implement
signals/slots now that the source is open, as the newer versions of Xt
(AFAIK) support sig/slots. With Win32, you still (AFAIK) have to use
callbacks, even if you use the Win32 version of Qt, because every Win32
program/toolkit must have a WindowProc function, which is a callback. X
has no such requirements, although the older toolkits all had them
AFAIK.
I guess the Win32 API isn't as much a problem as the fact that Windows
forces you into a specific type of window manager. I think the GDI32
functions aren't so bad if you can program in C++, and thus create your
own classes. I can create some wrappers for the Win32 API, so my main
concern after that would be would I really want to program under
Windows?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 21:22:46 -0700
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > Well Pete, I don't know what you'd do, but Wife and I are going to
> > remove Win98Se off of the HP Pavillion and try RedHat 7.1. I can't see
> > buying a new computer just to get XP when the current machines only
> > problem is the Win98SE. There's nothing wrong with the hardware so why
> > through it out for XP? We don't need it for demanding games, just
> > business software. Win98SE has been nothing but a major headache in
> > getting things done.
>
> I'm trying out SuSE 7.1 on a dual boot system. That way I get to use both
> systems and evaluate the differences.
>
> I've fooled around with XP and it seems fairly robust. It'll happily work
> on my current system - however I'm not sure I want to have XP with it's
> registration of my hardware. Especially since recently I changed mobo and
> CPU.
>
> --
> Pete
XP won't run on this HP... neither will Win2k. My IBM is dual-boot
Win98SE and Sun Solaris 8 x86. I stay pretty much inside Solaris but I
keep a couple of card games around in windows. I probably will end up
using Suse 7.1 only if it now has the drivers to the lucent winmodems.
The drivers do exist. Eventually will install a NIC if we ever get
broadband in our area.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 04:48:58 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d4map$3c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>
> > > Actually, I think that the reverse is true.
> > > I know a little of Pascal, and the pointers that Pascal have can stump
> you
> > > if you are transferring your Pascal knowledge to C/C++.
> > > Pointers aren't an easy concept in the first place, and C & C++ way of
> doing
> > > it are nearly identical to the way the machine does it, so it's easier
> to
> > > learn the C's way, and then learn Pascal, which limits your ability to
> use
> > > them.
> > > As a note, a good C++ programmer shouldn't have much use for raw
> pointers.
> > > The standard library provides for nearly everything that you need to
use
> a
> > > pointer for, and it does it much better than the average programmer
can
> hope
> > > to do. More safely, too.
> > > The big plus of C++ is that you don't have to pay for things that you
> don't
> > > need.
> >
> > That's exactly my point. Pascal properly hides what shouldn't be
> > normally used by an application developer (i.e. dirty tricks with
> > pointers). You can do in Pascal anything you can do in C, but you must
> > state very explicitly, so that you're made aware of what you're doing.
> > Once you've learned, you may start playing with C++, if you feel like,
> > but your background will make you avoid all the trivial errors you can
> > do with C++, without the compiler telling you, and learning only at run
> > time.
>
> I don't think so, I think that it's better to know *how* it's done, and
> except assembler, C is the best way to learn how it's done, and then move
to
> the restrictions of Pascal.
> And I'm talking as someone who did Pascal first.
While I'll agree with the earlier assessment that you can do anything in
PASCAL you can in C (Especially using Borland's implementation which I have
since v3.0), you'll miss out on key points of C/C++ if you stick to that
mindset. Dealing with templates and smart-pointers can be rather difficult
if you're thinking PASCAL - Particularly when you get into OLE VARIANT
types. Data can be far more abstracted than PASCAL will allow and your
clients need not know or care what's being tossed at them. This sort of
thing seemed anethma to me when I started out and I had to fight to make
sense of it. You see the beauty of it eventually, but, strong-type thinking
will slow the process.
------------------------------
From: Orest Zarowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Aaron
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 04:56:32 GMT
I have followed this thread and it is most interesting on a number of levels, not
the least of which is its parochialism. However, this thread has absolutely
nothing to do with Linux Advocacy, Windows/MS bashing (or otherwise) or anything
else related to computers. Perhaps you all might consider moving to a more
appropriate news group - there a large number of them specifically devoted to
discussions of politics, trade, social policy, etc.
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Ian Pulsford in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001 04:34:30
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said Matthew Gardiner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
> >
> >> >Its called "free trade on the US's terms", aka, fuck everyone else, we are
> >> >going to use tarriffs and subsidies then bitch and moan because China does
> >> >the same thing!
> >>
> >> Free trade does not require international free trade. Its called "free
> >> trade for US firms within the US", and whether foreign companies get to
> >> participate is entirely up to the US, and whether we think it would
> >> benefit us; it is presumed if allowed that it would benefit the foreign
> >> company, which is why we use tariffs and subsidies rather than simple
> >> regulation. If it is worth their while to overcome this 'uneven playing
> >> field' (actually an even playing field, taking both the international
> >> capital and the international production into account) then they can
> >> benefit from the opportunity of free trade within the U.S.
> >>
> >> When it comes down to it, if you are unable to say "fuck everyone else"
> >> if it is necessary to avoid "fuck me", then you are simply not being
> >> honest, or reasonable.
> >>
> >> I'm not claiming that every aspect of the U.S. position on tariffs and
> >> subsidies is reasonable, or even honest. I'm merely pointing out that
> >> presuming otherwise is begging the question.
> >>
> >
> >So what you're saying is that the rhetoric does not match the practice.
>
> What "the rhetoric" are you referring to?
>
> >That has been obvious for a long time but I guess it is too much to ask
> >politicians to say what they really mean. There is no such thing as a
> >"level playing field" or "free trade", never has been, probably never
> >will be.
>
> Not in an absolute sense, of course not. These are abstractions,
> metaphors, even. Tariffs and subsidies are used to ensure a level
> playing field (its effects on those outside the playing field are not of
> direct concern) to allow free trade (within that playing field), as I've
> said. Sometimes they do that well and sometimes they're used
> counter-productively. Whining about politicians as a handy "them" to
> demonize is just rhetoric.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 6 May 2001 23:24:46 -0500
On Mon, 07 May 2001 02:53:44 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Pancho Villa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >
>> COM is obviously a smoke-screen for combining that
>> > with CORBA-like functionality, as part of Bill Gates' "everybody will
>> > have to pay me money" campaign.
>> >
>> The fact of the matter is that COM and DCOM were MS ripoffs of IBM's
>> SOM and DSOM. OLE is simply bloated, buggy, 2nd-rate technology. To
>> this day, SOM and DSOM kick COM and DCOM's butt! Tragically, along
>> with IBM's OpenDoc, another fantastic technology, SOM and DSOM have
>> been pretty much destroyed by a criminal monopoly, and we are all
>> suffering. :(
>
>It's so amusing to watch people go to all lengths to ensure that Microsoft
>never gets any credit for anything.
>
What do you mean? Microsoft gets credit for stealing lots of innovative
ideas.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:00:38 GMT
In article <x2oJ6.8764$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 06 May 2001 23:26:36 GMT, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > (not to mention that Bash isn't really superior to cmd.exe except in
>> > scripting, but then, WSH seems better at that)
>>
>> Yes, bash may be inferior to cmd.exe, if you only use things that
>> cmd.exe also has and have just started using bash. OTOH, here are a
>> few things that bash has that cmd does not (without getting into
>> scripting where bash is _far_ superior to cmd):
>>
>> 1. Filename globbing always works the same way...doesn't depend on the
>> app to do it.
>>
>> 2. Globbing is also more flexible than what most NT apps support.
>> Things like "foo file.aa[abc]" and "bar file.{txt,doc}" don't normally
>> work on NT.
>>
>> 3. Tab completion doesn't replace what you typed, just completes it.
>>
>> 4. Window resizing works correctly.
>>
>> 5. Creating aliases and shell functions is easier.
>>
>> 6. Unix programs understand the difference between stdout and stderr.
>
>So do Windows cmd-line programs.
>
>cmd.exe supports stdout, in, and err redirection. 2>&1 works, so does
>2> stderr.txt, etc.
>
>Just had to point that out.
>
>All the rest is correct, though.
>
>But in general, for 99% of the things you're doing, bash is annoying.
>cmd.exe is much better. When you need to get serious, bash comes in
>handy. This is the way I have it set up on my box at work.
>
So far that just reads as "I am more comfortable with it because I
am more familiar with it".
Give some examples of how cmd.exe is less annoying.
--
Microsoft Motto: Illegal we do immediately.
Unconstitutional takes a little longer.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Magnuson)
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: 07 May 2001 05:01:58 GMT
On Sun, 6 May 2001 14:20:41 GMT, Bill Vermillion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Bill Vermillion in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
>[older attribs between Max and I removed. wjv]
>
>>>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.
>
>I'd have to go back and search but I'm fairly certains Gates'
>involvement with Xenix pre-dated the IBM/PC-DOS affair.
The June 1981 issue of Byte, theme of 16 bit OS's, had an article about
Xenix. The only mention of what was to become MS-DOS was a Lomas Data
Products ad referring to SCP-DOS (SCP = Seattle Computer Products). My
recollection was that MS conned SCP for the 86-DOS license about the ned
of 1980.
>
>Part of the limits of the original 8088/8086. I should have said
>pages, sorry about that. You could have a 16 byte offset in each
>page - so their were 16 byte paragraphs in 64 byte pages.
>
>That gave you the 'models' for the compile. Small model where
>both the program and data resided in a 64K block. Medium with one
>64K for program and one 64K for data. Large with one 64K for
>program and many 64K blocks for data, and huge with multiple blocks
>for program and data. I have NOT been near any of that stuff for
>about 15 years - nor do I want to revisit it. If this is wrong
>anyone please feel free to correct it.
Close enough. I remember writing a Fortran program for HP-UX after using
MS-Fortran for several years and suddenly realizing that I didn't have to
go through any gyrations to use an array larger than 64K.
>
>>>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.
Using the CP/M card first designed and built by Seattle Computer Products!
Wonder how much different the PC world would be if SCP had wised up about
Gates in 1980 instead of 1984.
>
>And the OS part of DOS was stretching it a bit IMO. It was really
>more of a 'file-handler' than an operating system. The very first
>PC's [I got to try out DOS 1.0 on a PC about 6 weeks after they
>were introduced and I was quite un-impressed. 160K drives when
>everyone else had 360K. 64K memory limit. A warmed over CP/M and
>the screen display method made the sucker really creep compated to
>the memory mapped screen displays in most of the other CP/M
>systems].
86-DOS was designed to make it easy to translate Z-80 prgrams running on
CP/M.
>
>As to producing, MS had written their versions of the above
>languages. When the PC first came out they cross-compiled their
>8080 code to the 8088/8086. Made for some very sluggish
>performance as I recall. I don't know how long it took them to
>write native code. In those days everything was typically written
>in assembler - so cross-compilers were the norm - and not every
>efficient.
I recall seeing some stuff in PC Magazine about the ROM-BASIC looking as
if it was simply translated 8080 code. The first versions of MS Fortran
and Pascal used the MS floating number format.
>
>Looking back no one would have guess where we'd be today. It's
>sort of interesting to look back at this [my secondary major was
>history in college so that may account for my fascination with the
>past]. I'd surely NOT like to go back there. I try to keep
>history from being re-written to badly [as far as my memory
>permits] but I'm not one who builds old computers, or wants to go
>back. I'm having enough trouble just keeping up with a small
>subset of today's world.
>
Amen.
>--
>Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
--
Erik Magnuson
== erik AT cts DOT com ==
Another satisfied nedit user
Running UNIX since 1992
To try to find perfection in any institution is a recipe for disaster
and endless litigation. -- James Madison, President 1809-1817
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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!
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:03:25 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d4a9e$dlo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:XIeJ6.7026$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>
> > > Define "like other DOS programs".
> >
> > Programs that use DOS services to do their
> > thing. You know, programs written to *DOS's*
> > API.
>
> DOS didn't have API.
The int 21h calls were an "API" of sorts, I guess.
You have to squint just right to see it that way though...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
