Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
> Well, this is an old as world argument used to take your freedom away -
> 'law obeying citizens have nothing to fear'
except that you are opting in, by purchasing the product.
> Why not all
Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
Well, this is an old as world argument used to take your freedom away -
'law obeying citizens have nothing to fear'
except that you are opting in, by purchasing the product.
Why not allow police to search
On Saturday 30 June 2001 16:22, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
> Well, this is an old as world argument used to take your freedom away -
> 'law obeying citizens have nothing to fear'
While I'm as interested as anyone else in the exact steps Microsoft takes to
drive users to us, I don't see what this
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
> Well, this is an old as world argument used to take your freedom away -
> 'law obeying citizens have nothing to fear'
except that you are opting in, by purchasing the product.
> Why not allow police to search your car at every moment they wish ?
>
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 07:50:36PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > More likely, Microsoft will display escalating suspicion with
> > each install, If they find out that a key is definitely being
> > abused, they will stop issuing unlock codes for it. In
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 07:50:36PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> More likely, Microsoft will display escalating suspicion with
> each install, If they find out that a key is definitely being
> abused, they will stop issuing unlock codes for it. In other words,
> they will cause great
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 07:50:36PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
More likely, Microsoft will display escalating suspicion with
each install, If they find out that a key is definitely being
abused, they will stop issuing unlock codes for it. In other words,
they will cause great
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 07:50:36PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
More likely, Microsoft will display escalating suspicion with
each install, If they find out that a key is definitely being
abused, they will stop issuing unlock codes for it. In other
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
Well, this is an old as world argument used to take your freedom away -
'law obeying citizens have nothing to fear'
except that you are opting in, by purchasing the product.
Why not allow police to search your car at every moment they wish ?
If
On Saturday 30 June 2001 16:22, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
Well, this is an old as world argument used to take your freedom away -
'law obeying citizens have nothing to fear'
While I'm as interested as anyone else in the exact steps Microsoft takes to
drive users to us, I don't see what this has
Lew Wolfgang wrote:
> It is something that I read somewhere. If memory serves, Microsoft
> will allow two installs on the same CD-key. Note that this is
> different from the old MS key manager, all you had to do there
> was enter the CD-key. There were no real-time checks on how
> many times
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
> > If the
> > CD key is used again they just refuse to send the final key.
>
> Do you have any evidence to support this statement or is it an assumption?
> This is almost never the way such schemes are implemented. The policy is to
> send the final key
> If the
> CD key is used again they just refuse to send the final key.
Do you have any evidence to support this statement or is it an assumption?
This is almost never the way such schemes are implemented. The policy is to
send the final key unless there's clear evidence of abuse (such
P. Schmiedehausen;
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.
> >
> > > Is this accurate? I never knew NT was mach-based. I do not think NT
> > > 1-3 were actually ever shipped, first was NT 3.5 right?
>
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > The biggest improvement would be that users could remain with a version
> > that works for them and NOT be forced to pay more money for the same
> > functionality (watch out for the XP license virus... also known as
> > a logic bomb).
>
> What is XP
>
>I still have my 3.1 package all boxed up in the basement. I remember
>impatiently waiting for its arrival. What a disappointment it turned
>out to be.
>
>Mark
To say the least. The big thing in the current Windows OS's these days is
FAT 32.
NT 3.1 and NT 3.5 won't even acknowledge this
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Fulghum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:02 PM
> To: Pavel Machek; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Schilling, Richard;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Henning P. Schmiedehausen;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The latest Microsof
> Is this accurate? I never knew NT was mach-based. I do not think NT
> 1-3 were actually ever shipped, first was NT 3.5 right?
> Pavel
NT 3.1 was the 1st to ship.
Paul Fulghum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Microgate Corporation www.microgate.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Hi!
> > I'm unimpressed with what Microsoft calls an operating system and
> > I'm equally unimpressed with what Unix calls an application layer.
> > For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
> > and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong. Seems like
>
Hi!
> Hmm. This *is* the company that has at least one guy full-time working on
> merging their changes back into gcc (with the right Copyright
> assignments), and where the guy in question does discuss how to make gcc
> work nice with both Apple's application framework and the GPL clone
Hi!
> I wouldn't be at all suprised if they did. It'd fit in with the history of
> NT. (Version numbers really approximate, I don't have my notes with me.)
>
> NT 1.0: the inherited OS/2 1.x code ported to 32 bit mode, sort of.
>
> NT 2.0: 1.0 didn't work so let's try porting it to the mach
Hi!
I wouldn't be at all suprised if they did. It'd fit in with the history of
NT. (Version numbers really approximate, I don't have my notes with me.)
NT 1.0: the inherited OS/2 1.x code ported to 32 bit mode, sort of.
NT 2.0: 1.0 didn't work so let's try porting it to the mach
Hi!
Hmm. This *is* the company that has at least one guy full-time working on
merging their changes back into gcc (with the right Copyright
assignments), and where the guy in question does discuss how to make gcc
work nice with both Apple's application framework and the GPL clone of
Hi!
I'm unimpressed with what Microsoft calls an operating system and
I'm equally unimpressed with what Unix calls an application layer.
For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong. Seems like
there is
Is this accurate? I never knew NT was mach-based. I do not think NT
1-3 were actually ever shipped, first was NT 3.5 right?
Pavel
NT 3.1 was the 1st to ship.
Paul Fulghum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Microgate Corporation www.microgate.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
-Original Message-
From: Paul Fulghum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:02 PM
To: Pavel Machek; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Schilling, Richard;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Henning P. Schmiedehausen;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Pavel Machek wrote:
The biggest improvement would be that users could remain with a version
that works for them and NOT be forced to pay more money for the same
functionality (watch out for the XP license virus... also known as
a logic bomb).
What is XP license
I still have my 3.1 package all boxed up in the basement. I remember
impatiently waiting for its arrival. What a disappointment it turned
out to be.
Mark
To say the least. The big thing in the current Windows OS's these days is
FAT 32.
NT 3.1 and NT 3.5 won't even acknowledge this file
]
Subject: Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.
Is this accurate? I never knew NT was mach-based. I do not think NT
1-3 were actually ever shipped, first was NT 3.5 right?
Pavel
NT 3.1 was the 1st to ship.
I still have my 3.1 package all boxed up in the basement
If the
CD key is used again they just refuse to send the final key.
Do you have any evidence to support this statement or is it an assumption?
This is almost never the way such schemes are implemented. The policy is to
send the final key unless there's clear evidence of abuse (such as
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
If the
CD key is used again they just refuse to send the final key.
Do you have any evidence to support this statement or is it an assumption?
This is almost never the way such schemes are implemented. The policy is to
send the final key unless
Lew Wolfgang wrote:
It is something that I read somewhere. If memory serves, Microsoft
will allow two installs on the same CD-key. Note that this is
different from the old MS key manager, all you had to do there
was enter the CD-key. There were no real-time checks on how
many times it
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 08:05:41PM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:21:18PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Name one thing Microsoft actually invented. Other than Microsoft Bob.
>
> were listed and where they bought or stole it from. The only things
> that were really
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 08:05:41PM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:21:18PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
Name one thing Microsoft actually invented. Other than Microsoft Bob.
were listed and where they bought or stole it from. The only things
that were really
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:21:18PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> Name one thing Microsoft actually invented. Other than Microsoft Bob.
I remember there being a web page where all of Microsoft's "innovations"
were listed and where they bought or stole it from. The only things
that were really
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:21:18PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
Name one thing Microsoft actually invented. Other than Microsoft Bob.
I remember there being a web page where all of Microsoft's innovations
were listed and where they bought or stole it from. The only things
that were really
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > Do they include the source? There's a CD of source that you can buy
> > > for $20 but gcc isn't listed
> >
> > I'm not sure if they are allowed to do that. See clause 1 (c):
> >
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/516/eula_mit.htm
>
Minor note:
1) The
Alan Cox wrote:
Do they include the source? There's a CD of source that you can buy
for $20 but gcc isn't listed
I'm not sure if they are allowed to do that. See clause 1 (c):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/516/eula_mit.htm
Minor note:
1) The above link is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Landley) wrote on 22.06.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thursday 21 June 2001 18:49, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because
> > > they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to
> > > the techies.
> >
> > A
On Thursday 21 June 2001 18:49, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because
> > they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to
> > the techies.
>
> A company that seems to write 'you shall not work on open source projects
> in your spare time'
>Did I mention I'm writing a book on all this? (The history of linux and
the
>computer industry, going back to World War II...) This makes me the only
>person I know who's excited about finding ~50 issues of "Compute" and
>"Compute's gazette" from the mid 80's at a garage sale. An the
Did I mention I'm writing a book on all this? (The history of linux and
the
computer industry, going back to World War II...) This makes me the only
person I know who's excited about finding ~50 issues of Compute and
Compute's gazette from the mid 80's at a garage sale. An the university
On Thursday 21 June 2001 18:49, Alan Cox wrote:
Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because
they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to
the techies.
A company that seems to write 'you shall not work on open source projects
in your spare time' into its
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Landley) wrote on 22.06.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thursday 21 June 2001 18:49, Alan Cox wrote:
Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because
they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to
the techies.
A company that seems to
On Thursday 21 June 2001 17:49, Schilling, Richard wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rob Landley
> > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 9:25 AM
>
> [snip]
>
> > BSD forked to death in the 80's. Everybody from AT to Sun
> > to IBM who saw
> > money in it spun off their own incompatable,
> Apple's doing it right now.
Hardly..
> Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because
> they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to
> the techies.
A company that seems to write 'you shall not work on open source projects
in your spare time' into its employment
On Thursday 21 June 2001 04:50, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Ooh, do I get to say "I told you so"? (LinuxToday buried my submission
> > way back under a blurb about caldera, but still...)
>
> And the quote of "stealing the TCP stack from BSD" is
On Thursday 21 June 2001 04:37, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> Devils' advocate position: If Linux would not be under GPL but under
> BSD license, M$ may have already done so. But consider them porting
> one of their monster applications and release it just to find out that
> they've linked
On 21 Jun 2001 15:48:11 +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Thursday 21 June 2001 10:46, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > My last LinuxExpo talk was also made with PP,
>
> This makes about as much sense as going to a cocktail party with nose glasses
> on.
One of the mantras that get
> > You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> > of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> > your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
>
> I think this is an unfair generalization.
Not really. In Linus's book he describes that his
> > Do they include the source? There's a CD of source that you can buy
> > for $20 but gcc isn't listed
>
> I'm not sure if they are allowed to do that. See clause 1 (c):
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/516/eula_mit.htm
Slight oops on their part, but then that license is
On Thursday 21 June 2001 10:46, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> My last LinuxExpo talk was also made with PP,
This makes about as much sense as going to a cocktail party with nose glasses
on.
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
Larry McVoy wrote:
> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
Never used powerpoint. If I need slides I use a (linux-based) word
processor and a bigger
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
> >
> > Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> >
> > Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
> >
> > Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> >
> > Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite
Alan Cox wrote:
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
>
> Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
>
> Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...
Do they include the
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 05:53:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Not I. The slides for my last meeting were done as TIFF files and I used xv to
> display them. Plus, the most recent documentation I wrote for one of our
> mainframe applications was done with vi and LaTeX. "What, in addition
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 05:53:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not I. The slides for my last meeting were done as TIFF files and I used xv to
display them. Plus, the most recent documentation I wrote for one of our
mainframe applications was done with vi and LaTeX. What, in addition to
Alan Cox wrote:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
Of course the URL that goes with that is :
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...
Do they include the source?
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
Of course the URL that goes with that is :
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
Of course the URL that goes with that is :
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part
Larry McVoy wrote:
You can scream all you want that it isn't free software but the fact
of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
Never used powerpoint. If I need slides I use a (linux-based) word
processor and a bigger font
On Thursday 21 June 2001 10:46, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
My last LinuxExpo talk was also made with PP,
This makes about as much sense as going to a cocktail party with nose glasses
on.
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
You can scream all you want that it isn't free software but the fact
of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
I think this is an unfair generalization.
Not really. In Linus's book he describes that his presentations used
On 21 Jun 2001 15:48:11 +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Thursday 21 June 2001 10:46, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
My last LinuxExpo talk was also made with PP,
This makes about as much sense as going to a cocktail party with nose glasses
on.
One of the mantras that get hammered into
On Thursday 21 June 2001 04:37, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Devils' advocate position: If Linux would not be under GPL but under
BSD license, M$ may have already done so. But consider them porting
one of their monster applications and release it just to find out that
they've linked to
On Thursday 21 June 2001 04:50, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ooh, do I get to say I told you so? (LinuxToday buried my submission
way back under a blurb about caldera, but still...)
And the quote of stealing the TCP stack from BSD is still wrong.
On Thursday 21 June 2001 17:49, Schilling, Richard wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rob Landley
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 9:25 AM
[snip]
BSD forked to death in the 80's. Everybody from ATT to Sun
to IBM who saw
money in it spun off their own incompatable, proprietary
Do they include the source? There's a CD of source that you can buy
for $20 but gcc isn't listed
I'm not sure if they are allowed to do that. See clause 1 (c):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/516/eula_mit.htm
Slight oops on their part, but then that license is fairly new.
Apple's doing it right now.
Hardly..
Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because
they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to
the techies.
A company that seems to write 'you shall not work on open source projects
in your spare time' into its employment
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 18:31, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2001 23:33, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 20 Jun 2001, Miles Lane wrote:
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
> >
> > Yes, he sure knows how to bring Linux to the attention
> > of people ;)
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 03:33:45PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
I think this is an unfair generalization.
I'm not
On Thursday 21 June 2001 00:33, Larry McVoy wrote:
> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
Bad example Larry, most of us do our talks with MagicPoint.
Larry McVoy writes:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
> >
> > Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> >
> > Yes., Microsoft
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Larry McVoy wrote:
> For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
> and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong. Seems like
> there is potential for a win-win.
I've been hoping for this ever since the rumors of "Microsoft
Linux"
Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
At the Linux SuperClusters 2000 Conference, MadDog and I were the the
only ones with slides
>You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
>of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
>your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
Or AppleWorks (Mac), in my case. Or, if I wanted to be flashy, I'd
make the slides up in CorelXARA (which
On 06/20/2001 at 05:33:45 PM Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
>of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
>your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
Not I. The slides for my last meeting were
> What would be wrong with Microsoft/Linux? It would be:
>
> a) the Linux kernel
> b) the Microsoft API ported to X
> c) Microsoft apps
> d) Linux apps
Providing they follow the standards, the GPL and work with the community I
certainly have no problems with it. Its not really
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
>
> Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
>
> Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 23:33, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2001, Miles Lane wrote:
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
>
> Yes, he sure knows how to bring Linux to the attention
> of people ;)
Not to mention the GPL, which I can guarantee you, before today my
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
>
> Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
>
> Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
Of course the URL that goes with that is :
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On 20 Jun 2001, Miles Lane wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
Yes, he sure knows how to bring Linux to the attention
of people ;)
Rik
--
Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release:
"we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)"
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
On 20 Jun 2001, Miles Lane wrote:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
Yes, he sure knows how to bring Linux to the attention
of people ;)
Rik
--
Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release:
we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 23:33, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 20 Jun 2001, Miles Lane wrote:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
Yes, he sure knows how to bring Linux to the attention
of people ;)
Not to mention the GPL, which I can guarantee you, before today my mom
On 06/20/2001 at 05:33:45 PM Larry McVoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can scream all you want that it isn't free software but the fact
of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
Not I. The slides for my last meeting were done as
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Larry McVoy wrote:
For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong. Seems like
there is potential for a win-win.
I've been hoping for this ever since the rumors of Microsoft
Linux started
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 03:33:45PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
You can scream all you want that it isn't free software but the fact
of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
I think this is an unfair generalization.
I'm not even
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 18:31, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 23:33, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 20 Jun 2001, Miles Lane wrote:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
Yes, he sure knows how to bring Linux to the attention
of people ;)
Not to
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
Of course the URL that goes with that is :
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...
As
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
Of course the URL that goes with that is :
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their
What would be wrong with Microsoft/Linux? It would be:
a) the Linux kernel
b) the Microsoft API ported to X
c) Microsoft apps
d) Linux apps
Providing they follow the standards, the GPL and work with the community I
certainly have no problems with it. Its not really any
You can scream all you want that it isn't free software but the fact
of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
Or AppleWorks (Mac), in my case. Or, if I wanted to be flashy, I'd
make the slides up in CorelXARA (which originated on
Larry McVoy wrote:
You can scream all you want that it isn't free software but the fact
of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
At the Linux SuperClusters 2000 Conference, MadDog and I were the the
only ones with slides done
Larry McVoy writes:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
Of course the URL that goes with that is :
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite
On Thursday 21 June 2001 00:33, Larry McVoy wrote:
You can scream all you want that it isn't free software but the fact
of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
Bad example Larry, most of us do our talks with MagicPoint. I'll
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
Of course the URL that goes with that is :
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
100 matches
Mail list logo
