On Wednesday 07 February 2007 06:45, Dominik Jais wrote:
> Yeah, thats the problem with the technical and physical directon. They
> differ. Dominik
>
> >>> Rajko M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 19.11.06 23.09 Uhr >>>
>
> On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:35, James Knott wrote:
> ...
>
> > Well, for starters, ele
Basically there are two ways. the physical and the technical one. technical is
the flow of the protons, physical its the
flow of the electrons. so, thats it.
Dominik
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 19.11.06 23.35 Uhr >>>
into electronic streams flowing thru the cosmos On Sunday 19 November
2006 6:44 a
On Sunday 19 November 2006 18:09, Doug McGarrett wrote:
> At 05:09 PM 11/19/2006 -0600, Rajko M wrote:
> >Content-Disposition: inline
> >
> >On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:35, James Knott wrote:
> >...
> >
> >> Well, for starters, electricity i.e. electrons flows from negative to
> >> positive.
> >
On Sunday 19 November 2006 17:52, Doug McGarrett wrote:
> At 04:02 PM 11/19/2006 -0600, Rajko M wrote:
> >Content-Disposition: inline
> >
> >On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:32, Saill White wrote:
> >...
> >
> >> You can do this yourself by going here and entering a company name for
> >> "Term 1" and
At 05:09 PM 11/19/2006 -0600, Rajko M wrote:
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:35, James Knott wrote:
>...
>> Well, for starters, electricity i.e. electrons flows from negative to
>> positive.
>
>I thought too, but this makes my knowledge obsolete ;-)
>
>
>--
>Regards,
a traditional problem with geeks has always been that they are very
opinionated, especially sitting in their undies typing away in a dark
room on a back lit keyboard.
however, when geeks start to interpret law and pretend to be lawyers
-- now that takes the cake.
:-)
--
jjgitties,
"Precious Fa
On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:53, Anders Johansson wrote:
> I'm not good enough at physics to be able to decipher it, but from general
> principles, it seems to me that a discovery like that, if it had any merit,
> would have been more publicised
Sure.
> When I first read it though, it did look
On Sunday 19 November 2006 12:14, Doug McGarrett wrote:
> At 11:16 PM 11/18/2006 -0600, M Harris wrote:
> >Content-Disposition: inline
> >
> >On Saturday 18 November 2006 06:37, James Knott wrote:
> >> Well, I bought my first computer (an IMSAI 8080 in 1976 and when the
> >> PC first came out, ma
At 04:02 PM 11/19/2006 -0600, Rajko M wrote:
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:32, Saill White wrote:
>...
>> You can do this yourself by going here and entering a company name for
>> "Term 1" and choosing "Assignee Name" for "Field 1":
>> http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml
into electronic streams flowing thru the cosmos On Sunday 19 November
2006 6:44 am, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> John Andersen wrote:
> > On Sunday 19 November 2006 01:28, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> >> What would happen if MS were able to coerce
> >> Novell into actually sneaking some of its IP into lin
On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:35, James Knott wrote:
...
> Well, for starters, electricity i.e. electrons flows from negative to
> positive.
I thought too, but this makes my knowledge obsolete ;-)
--
Regards,
Rajko M.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail
On Sunday 19 November 2006 12:49, M. Fioretti wrote:
...
> > If there were patented algorithms in the (open source, as in
> > everybody can read it !! ) kernel ( or FSF core ) then it would
> > have surfaced long ago... SCO would have won...
>
> This is just what I meant when I said "confusion": S
On Sunday 19 November 2006 23:02, Rajko M wrote:
> Does anyone can explain this one:
> Apparatus and method for generating and using multi-direction DC and AC
> electrical currents #7,041,203
>
> I know that current can flow from + to -, also one can reverse polarity and
> than current will go in o
Rajko M wrote:
> On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:32, Saill White wrote:
> ...
>
>> You can do this yourself by going here and entering a company name for
>> "Term 1" and choosing "Assignee Name" for "Field 1":
>> http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html
>>
> ...
>
> Interesting li
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 23:36 -0500, James Knott wrote:
> M Harris wrote:
> > You guys heard it your selves... Ballmer *believes* that Linux contains
> > M$
> > innovation... wait... the roccos laughter is almost as explosive as the
> > night
> > ALGORE claimed to have invented the Internet..
On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:32, Saill White wrote:
...
> You can do this yourself by going here and entering a company name for
> "Term 1" and choosing "Assignee Name" for "Field 1":
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html
...
Interesting link.
I have feeling that this looks mor
On Sunday 19 November 2006 12:06, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> imnsho, this is a *petty* argument from both sides.
I agree that it *is* petty for someone to post an inaccurate, unwarranted and
OT political smear in a technically oriented list and thread. IMHO, it is
*not* petty to clarify the recor
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 01:31:30 AM -0600, M Harris
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> You counter point proves my point precisely... Stallman and the FSF
> (and thousands of others) have made sure that the GPL core code
> (kernel, gcc, *nix util packages, etc) are clean.
Mike,
please re-read the message
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 05:28:50 AM -0500, Mark Hounschell
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> M. Fioretti wrote:
>
> > For anyone to think that the great majority of end users can
> > financially survive till they see the _end_ of such a trial is
> > ridiculous. Microsoft doesn't need to be right. It only
At 11:16 PM 11/18/2006 -0600, M Harris wrote:
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>On Saturday 18 November 2006 06:37, James Knott wrote:
>> Well, I bought my first computer (an IMSAI 8080 in 1976 and when the
>> PC first came out, many considered a step backwards from what 8 bit CP/M
>> systems were
On 11/19/2006 07:35 AM, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> On Sunday 19 November 2006 04:31, Anders Johansson wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Patent violations, of course, don't even need source code access
>
> How do you figure? Patents are about how something is accomplished as
> much as what is accomplished. They
* Ken Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [11-19-06 11:00]:
...
> Whoever wrote that page is just engaging in left wing spin to split
> hairs and make Gore look smart.
...
imnsho, this is a *petty* argument from both sides.
This is _not_ addressed _at_ ken only...
Why is it necessary to discuss politic
On Sunday 19 November 2006 10:54, Ken Jennings wrote:
> > http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>
> Whoever wrote that page is just engaging in left wing spin to split hairs
> and make Gore look smart.
Below are facts you can't dispute, Ken, without looking biased and uninformed:
* Gore didn
On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:54, Ken Jennings wrote:
> He's telling us to believe he could see the end result of hundreds of
> little bills, pork projects, defense appropriations, and research requests
> while he was in congress, and that he is responsible for these myriad
> efforts that helped cr
On Sunday 19 November 2006 06:39, John Andersen wrote:
> On Sunday 19 November 2006 02:05, Anders Johansson wrote:
> > On Sunday 19 November 2006 06:16, M Harris wrote:
> > > And then there was BASIC... basically stolen also... Billy Gates
> > > inventing BASIC is almost as laughable as ALGORE in
On Sunday 19 November 2006 07:43, Anders Johansson wrote:
> On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:35, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > On Sunday 19 November 2006 04:31, Anders Johansson wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Patent violations, of course, don't even need source code access
> >
> > How do you figure? Paten
On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:43, Anders Johansson wrote:
> on the patent is to throw out the patent (or, naturally, invalidating the
which of course should have read "...to throw out the feature..."
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:35, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> On Sunday 19 November 2006 04:31, Anders Johansson wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Patent violations, of course, don't even need source code access
>
> How do you figure? Patents are about how something is accomplished as
> much as what is accompli
On Sunday 19 November 2006 04:31, Anders Johansson wrote:
> ...
>
> Patent violations, of course, don't even need source code access
How do you figure? Patents are about how something is accomplished as
much as what is accomplished. They are about specific mechanisms, not
just specific outcomes.
Anders Johansson wrote:
> On Sunday 19 November 2006 14:38, Mark Hounschell wrote:
>> I now even wonder if MS was somehow involved in the purchase of SuSE by
>> Novell.
>
> Given the historic animosity between the two companies, this is so unlikely
> you can't even begin to spell it. The one majo
Mark Hounschell wrote:
>> If microsoft has plans like that, it would be far simpler to put out some
>> "undercover" developers, submitting patches from home
>>
>
> Thats probably true. Unless they wanted to insure it was done right??
> And sometimes it's easier to buy company then it is to bu
On Sunday 19 November 2006 14:38, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> I now even wonder if MS was somehow involved in the purchase of SuSE by
> Novell.
Given the historic animosity between the two companies, this is so unlikely
you can't even begin to spell it. The one major thing about the Microsoft
deal
Anders Johansson wrote:
> On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:28, Mark Hounschell wrote:
>> The _end_ would be sure and swift. There would be no trail. It would be
>> dismissed as frivolous.
>
> The SCO trial is still running, and no one outside that company believes they
> are right. Microsoft has peo
On Sunday 19 November 2006 13:51, Mike wrote:
> Where do you come up with this stuff? Unless you live in a very
> protected world, you would know that PJ has had nothing to do with OSRM
> for quite some time. At one time she did, but has long since given it
> up. You are about 2 years behind times
Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:
> Sat, 18 Nov 2006, by [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>
>> On Saturday 18 November 2006 06:37, James Knott wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I bought my first computer (an IMSAI 8080 in 1976 and when the
>>> PC first came out, many considered a step backwards from what 8 bit CP/M
>>> sys
On Sunday 19 November 2006 13:29, Anders Johansson wrote:
> On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:28, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> > The _end_ would be sure and swift. There would be no trail. It
> > would be dismissed as frivolous.
>
> The SCO trial is still running, and no one outside that company
> believes
On Sunday 19 November 2006 14:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/11/18/1838229.shtml
>
> Please, that slashdot story turns "Novell contributes code to a free
> software project" into FUD, even the commenters see past it.
Yeah, but there's a valid bit of 'reasonabl
On Sunday 19 November 2006 12:44, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> But Novell, nor anyone else, has the access to MS code that could enable
> such a find.
The shared source thing may not be open source, but it is still "source
availability". There are quite a few governments and universities out there
w
On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:28, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> The _end_ would be sure and swift. There would be no trail. It would be
> dismissed as frivolous.
The SCO trial is still running, and no one outside that company believes they
are right. Microsoft has people like Groklaw's PJ on their sid
> http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/11/18/1838229.shtml
Please, that slashdot story turns "Novell contributes code to a free
software project" into FUD, even the commenters see past it.
> So Novell is really asking the community to believe in their
> capability to detect violations. Plus, we'd h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Hounschell wrote:
> John Andersen wrote:
>> On Sunday 19 November 2006 01:28, Mark Hounschell wrote:
>>> What would happen if MS were able to coerce
>>> Novell into actually sneaking some of its IP into linux (glibc/kernel etc)
>>> only to be 'dis
John Andersen wrote:
> On Sunday 19 November 2006 01:28, Mark Hounschell wrote:
>> What would happen if MS were able to coerce
>> Novell into actually sneaking some of its IP into linux (glibc/kernel etc)
>> only to be 'discovered' at some time convenient to MS?
>>
>> Mark
>
> That seems pretty fa
On Sunday 19 November 2006 02:05, Anders Johansson wrote:
> On Sunday 19 November 2006 06:16, M Harris wrote:
> > And then there was BASIC... basically stolen also... Billy Gates
> > inventing BASIC is almost as laughable as ALGORE inventing the
> > internet... now that I think of it... BASIC i
On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> See Q3, and 4 in the FAQ
> http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html
>
> Novell's position is that the software they are distributing does not
> infringe, and if it is found to they will remove the infringing part.
Yes,
On Sunday 19 November 2006 06:16, M Harris wrote:
> And then there was BASIC... basically stolen also... Billy Gates
> inventing
> BASIC is almost as laughable as ALGORE inventing the internet... now that I
> think of it... BASIC is the *only* program Billy ever "wrote" hmmm.
The diff
On Sunday 19 November 2006 01:28, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> What would happen if MS were able to coerce
> Novell into actually sneaking some of its IP into linux (glibc/kernel etc)
> only to be 'discovered' at some time convenient to MS?
>
> Mark
That seems pretty far fetched. Why do it so publicl
M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 07:55:15 AM -0500, Mark Hounschell
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>> Microsoft can allege all they want. Novell is the only linux
>> distributer that would listen to them. For anyone to think Microsoft
>> might actually be able to prove any patent infringe
Sat, 18 Nov 2006, by [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Saturday 18 November 2006 06:37, James Knott wrote:
> > Well, I bought my first computer (an IMSAI 8080 in 1976 and when the
> > PC first came out, many considered a step backwards from what 8 bit CP/M
> > systems were capable of. For example, back t
> From what I've read, this is not the case at all. My understanding is
that what Novell is trying to do is make sure that ONLY the variety of
Linux controlled by Novell can be used (paying!) where it really matters
and makes a difference (public administrations, schools and businesses).
If that w
On 2006-11-18 16:44, Doug McGarrett wrote:
>
>
> It would seem to be relatively simple to find patent violations: just
> wait until MS sues RedHat.
Does that mean we now know just what parts of Linux violate SCO's
patents/copyrights/whatever? :-)
--
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTEC
On Sunday 19 November 2006 01:18, M. Fioretti wrote:
> If you were right (both in theory and in practice), Stallman and the
> FSF would not spend half their time worldwide to scream against sw
> patents. The reasons they do is exactly because they have effects like
> the ones I have described.
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 07:55:15 AM -0500, Mark Hounschell
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Microsoft can allege all they want. Novell is the only linux
> distributer that would listen to them. For anyone to think Microsoft
> might actually be able to prove any patent infringement on any
> current linux
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 23:06:33 PM -0600, M Harris
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:38, M. Fioretti wrote:
> >
> > This is correct, because forking is useless or undoable when the
> > problem is software patents. See my other message in this thread.
> No...
>
> The
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 12:14:26 PM -0900, John Andersen
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'm not confusing anything Marco, I'm simply pointing out that
> the reasons for forks in the past have been MUCH LESS than
> the MS/Novell situation.
>
Duh. Of course they happened for much less, like which desk
On Saturday 18 November 2006 06:37, James Knott wrote:
> Well, I bought my first computer (an IMSAI 8080 in 1976 and when the
> PC first came out, many considered a step backwards from what 8 bit CP/M
> systems were capable of. For example, back then, there was even an
> multiuser version called
On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:38, M. Fioretti wrote:
> > But to fork suse now? Mistake ...
>
> This is correct, because forking is useless or undoable when the
> problem is software patents. See my other message in this thread.
No...
The fork (done properly) removes the patent is
At 09:24 AM 11/18/2006 +0100, M. Fioretti wrote:
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 00:24:03 AM -0500, JJ Gitties
>([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>> The sooner they fork SUSE the sooner they can get a head start on
>> the project. For all the SUSE fans here, you should be happy of a
John Andersen a écrit :
using Ldap as the primary authentication means, and allowing the hosting
of huge numbers of mail accounts with no underlying user accounts.
All of this you can of course do in opensuse if you want,
could you elaborate how? eventually making a fork to this
endless discu
On Saturday 18 November 2006 11:08, Anders Johansson wrote:
> 10.1 and SLES10 are indeed based on the same code base, the main difference
> is that 10.1 contains a ton more stuff, which isn't supported (and in most
> cases not supportable)
And SLED contains tons less. Which is not to say you can
Anders Johansson wrote:
> On Saturday 18 November 2006 20:43, J Sloan wrote:
>> Well, fedora has always been bleeding edge, and redhat has always
>> denigrated it, saying that it's for hobbyists only. OTOH suse has
>> historically been perfectly suitable for corporate use, but novell does
>> enco
On Saturday 18 November 2006 03:13, M. Fioretti wrote:
> > > Indeed, apart from being an entirely pointless exercise as the fork
> > > would be just as illegal to distribute as the original, it would also
> > > never happen.
> >
> > Really? Never?
> > Go look at how many linux distros have sprung
On Saturday 18 November 2006 20:43, J Sloan wrote:
> Well, fedora has always been bleeding edge, and redhat has always
> denigrated it, saying that it's for hobbyists only. OTOH suse has
> historically been perfectly suitable for corporate use, but novell does
> encourage the use of sles instead, a
Kai Ponte wrote:
> On Friday 17 November 2006 23:25, Primm wrote:
>> On Saturday 18 November 2006 05:29, M Harris wrote:
>>> On Friday 17 November 2006 14:13, Peter Nikolic wrote:
OpenSuse should fork and it should Retain the SuSe trademark and the
Original ideals . Novell was a ba
On Friday 17 November 2006 23:25, Primm wrote:
> On Saturday 18 November 2006 05:29, M Harris wrote:
> > On Friday 17 November 2006 14:13, Peter Nikolic wrote:
> > > OpenSuse should fork and it should Retain the SuSe trademark and the
> > > Original ideals . Novell was a bad idea from day one
On Friday 17 November 2006 22:52, Rob Hutton wrote:
> Do you remember "OS/2 is the operating system of the 90s!!!"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmiwiUeEn4k
--
Glenn Holmer (Q-Link: ShadowM)
http://www.lyonlabs.org/commodore/c64.html
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
On 11/18/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "*We* need to convince OpenSUSE to fork, or let 'em die. To bad, it is
> a wonderful Distro. But their parent company is NOT our friend."
A tip, if you're going to use a sig that makes you sound like an idiot
anyway, at least try to use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So if Microsoft alleges patent infringement in specific code it must be
> removed, Novell cannot continue to distribute it (to the US) neither can
> Debian, or Ubuntu, or a SUSE fork, as they cannot grant their distributees
> the right to freely distribute it. Forking or
M Harris wrote:
> On Friday 17 November 2006 22:52, you wrote:
>
>> Do you remember "OS/2 is the operating system of the 90s!!!"?
>>
> Are you kidding...?
>
> I was *there* (at IBM) from the beginning with OS/2 1.0... and the big
> IBM M$
> divorce, and the death of MicroChan
Rob Hutton wrote:
> Do you remember "OS/2 is the operating system of the 90s!!!"?
>
>
Yes, and it all goes to show you can't trust Bill Gates & MS to follow
through on anything they promise their customers.
Around the time he was making that claim, he was diverting IBM's money
from OS/2 develop
M Harris wrote:
> On Friday 17 November 2006 22:32, James Knott wrote:
>
>> Actually, it was 640K. Prior to the IBM PC, 8 bit computers were
>> generally limited to 64k. The PC could access 640K at that time
>>
> You are correct... I was alive then... I remember. Do you guys reali
Hi guys!
Don't you think that Suse has a strong community worldwide? I believe
that the community of Suse can make the fork happens, and sustain it. I
see how much difficult it should be, but we can forget how our movement
is organized. We are a movement of colaboration, and i believe we are
able
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 02:38:49 AM -0900, John Andersen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I will be first to admit, I have no clue as to how much work and
> > > effort is involved in creating a fork of a distro.
> >
> > Indeed, apart from
On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I will be first to admit, I have no clue as to how much work and
> > effort is involved in creating a fork of a distro.
>
> Indeed, apart from being an entirely pointless exercise as the fork would
> be just as illegal to distribute a
> The sooner they fork SUSE the sooner they can get a head start on the
> project. For all the SUSE fans here, you should be happy of a fork.
> You will still have a SUSE.
If Novell were to become unable to distribute the software, then so would
every other linux distributor, a fork would not save
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 00:16:43 AM -0900, John Andersen
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Friday 17 November 2006 23:24, M. Fioretti wrote:
> > E.g., to get Centos from RHEL you must, more or less, only strip
> > and replace all the occurrences of Red Hat strings, logos and
> > similar from the sourc
On Friday 17 November 2006 23:24, M. Fioretti wrote:
> E.g., to get Centos from RHEL you must, more or less, only strip and
> replace all the occurrences of Red Hat strings, logos and similar from
> the sources and recompile. A semi-automatic process.
Who says you have to do this?
Surf on down to
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 13:43:51 PM -0600, Peter Van Lone
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I personally want linux to make headway into the corp world. That's
> what Novell is trying to do.
>From what I've read, this is not the case at all. My understanding is
that what Novell is trying to do is make su
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 00:24:03 AM -0500, JJ Gitties
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The sooner they fork SUSE the sooner they can get a head start on
> the project. For all the SUSE fans here, you should be happy of a
> fork. You will still have a SUSE.
>
Forking is either useless or very, very expen
On Friday 17 November 2006 23:08, M Harris wrote:
> > Do you remember "OS/2 is the operating system of the 90s!!!"?
>
> Are you kidding...?
Actually, within IBM in the 90s, OS/2 was *the* OS on the desk---
period.
Of course IBM is often its own best customer... and OS/2 wa
On Saturday 18 November 2006 01:25, Primm wrote:
> Is opensuse a fork? Or is the Novell too?
"fork" , a play on unix terms just means a legal copy
When a unix process is forked, it is copied precisely, only the process
number changes. Sever parent/child sockets applications fr
On Saturday 18 November 2006 05:29, M Harris wrote:
> On Friday 17 November 2006 14:13, Peter Nikolic wrote:
> > OpenSuse should fork and it should Retain the SuSe trademark and the
> > Original ideals . Novell was a bad idea from day one
>
Is opensuse a fork? Or is the Novell too?
Confused.
On 11/17/06, John E. Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Uh, guys, suse was a _commercial_ enterprise, not a community effort.
Novell bought a _commercial_ company, therefore owns that _commercial_
trademark. As do a number of other _commercial_ linux vendors, who have
done a great deal of good fo
On Friday 17 November 2006 22:52, you wrote:
> Do you remember "OS/2 is the operating system of the 90s!!!"?
Are you kidding...?
I was *there* (at IBM) from the beginning with OS/2 1.0... and the big
IBM M$
divorce, and the death of MicroChannel, and the birth of M$ BloatWare, a
Do you remember "OS/2 is the operating system of the 90s!!!"?
On Friday 17 November 2006 23:47, M Harris wrote:
> On Friday 17 November 2006 22:32, James Knott wrote:
> > Actually, it was 640K. Prior to the IBM PC, 8 bit computers were
> > generally limited to 64k. The PC could access 640K at t
On Friday 17 November 2006 22:32, James Knott wrote:
> Actually, it was 640K. Prior to the IBM PC, 8 bit computers were
> generally limited to 64k. The PC could access 640K at that time
You are correct... I was alive then... I remember. Do you guys realize
that
there are young comp sc
So since the tabbed browsing of IE7 has been in Firefox and Opera and others
for a while, is Microsoft going to sue itself to stop itself from using
tabbed browsing?
After all, aren't patents are about protecting IP in the first place, so maybe
they should sue themselves for using a GUI at all
M Harris wrote:
> On Friday 17 November 2006 14:13, Peter Nikolic wrote:
>> OpenSuse should fork and it should Retain the SuSe trademark and the
>> Original ideals . Novell was a bad idea from day one
> Peter... this really is true... and I'm not being sarcastic.
>
> Linux must co
M Harris wrote:
> You guys heard it your selves... Ballmer *believes* that Linux contains
> M$
> innovation... wait... the roccos laughter is almost as explosive as the night
> ALGORE claimed to have invented the Internet I'm sick to my stomach.
>
>
>
And that's why the software u
Darryl Gregorash wrote:
> On 2006-11-17 16:04, Hans Witvliet wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW, who claimed that 640KB was enough resource for everybody ;-)
>>
>> hwit
>>
>>
> No one. The number cited was 64KB :-)
>
>
Actually, it was 640K. Prior to the IBM PC, 8 bit computers were
generall
On Friday 17 November 2006 14:13, Peter Nikolic wrote:
> OpenSuse should fork and it should Retain the SuSe trademark and the
> Original ideals . Novell was a bad idea from day one
Peter... this really is true... and I'm not being sarcastic.
Linux must come from all directions
On 2006-11-17 16:04, Hans Witvliet wrote:
>
> BTW, who claimed that 640KB was enough resource for everybody ;-)
>
> hwit
>
No one. The number cited was 64KB :-)
--
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11/17/06, Patrick Shanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* JJ Gitties <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [11-17-06 17:03]:
>
> yup. it there a good reason why YOU is still breaking everytime I update?
>
Probably has something to do with your sig!
Really..!! Did you come up with that all on your own or did yo
On Friday 17 November 2006 12:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ballmer: Linux users owe Microsoft
> He says the open-source operating system infringes on his company's
> intellectual property
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&art
>icleId=9005171&source=NLT_AM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What I'm saying is, in the context of all the doom and glooming that's
been going on on this list, there is a place between kissing Microsoft's
rear and holding annual Bill burning parties on our front lawn.
J Sloan wrote:
>
> John Meyer wrote:
>> Ma
John Meyer wrote:
> Maybe he can ask SCO how far that argument went.
>
> Look, I'm not saying that everybody in the Microsoft office isn't Satan
> Spawn, but Microsoft is more than Gates and Ballmer
OK, I'm with you so far...
> and to imagine that
> we can make a large impact in the computer
Maybe he can ask SCO how far that argument went.
Look, I'm not saying that everybody in the Microsoft office isn't Satan
Spawn, but Microsoft is more than Gates and Ballmer and to imagine that
we can make a large impact in the computer world without them is absurd.
Doug McGarrett wrote:
> At 09:3
At 09:36 AM 11/17/2006 -0800, Russbucket wrote:
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>On Fri November 17 2006 09:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Ballmer: Linux users owe Microsoft
>> He says the open-source operating system infringes on his company's
>> intellectual property
>>
>> http://www.computerworl
* JJ Gitties <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [11-17-06 17:03]:
>
> yup. it there a good reason why YOU is still breaking everytime I update?
>
Probably has something to do with your sig!
--
Patrick ShanahanRegistered Linux User #207535
http://wahoo.no-ip.org
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 18:19 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ballmer: Linux users owe Microsoft
His claim is correct, but on other grounds
If it wasn't for the resource hungry products of M$,
we would all be using 80386 with 640KB memory.
Disk-storage of over 1TB would be something for the f
On 11/17/06, Peter Nikolic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You talk of headway into the corperate sector well .. Fix the miriad of
major show stoppers that were 10.1 and as far as i can see they are still
there infesting 10.2 .
yup. it there a good reason why YOU is still breaking everytime I u
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
