I have already beaten myself profusely with an old IDE cable...wrote a
script 100 times on the chalkboard and revoked my superuser
priviledges...what else do you want from me?
J B wrote:
[OS/2]
> Nobut it would have died anyway...M$ would never have agreed to
continue
> to update it, an
"Deidre L. Calarco" wrote:
>
> > When I say 68000 macs I mean like the macplus.. last I checked mac 68k
> > linux required atleast a 68030 or at the VERY least an mmu which the 68000
> > doesn't support.. or atleast the macplus motherboard doesn't support..
>
> I think the SE30 is the earliest M
> When I say 68000 macs I mean like the macplus.. last I checked mac 68k
> linux required atleast a 68030 or at the VERY least an mmu which the 68000
> doesn't support.. or atleast the macplus motherboard doesn't support..
I think the SE30 is the earliest Mac that can run Linix.
Deidre Calarco
J B wrote:
[OS/2]
> Nobut it would have died anyway...M$ would never have agreed to continue
> to update it, and IBM did not have the programming resources to support it.
I must have imagined versions 2, 3 and 4 then. Silly me.
--
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +64-21-870-425
ICQ: 56325
curious wrote:
>
> if the architect OWNS that building.. yes he has the right to blow it up..
>
Perhaps. But the argument was that the program in question was work-for-hire.
Which means the hirer owned it - not Microsoft. And thus, the hirer was the
one with the right to 'blow it up'.
Jenn V
if the architect OWNS that building.. yes he has the right to blow it up..
/"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/
/ \ - NO Word docs in e-mail"This quot
I am an ID-10-T. I guess I should learn to not believe the hype!...
oh wellbeat me with a wet noodle.
J.B.,
>
> Nobut it would have died anyway...M$ would never have agreed to
continue
> to update it, and IBM did not have the programming resources to support
it.
This is flat out wron
When I say 68000 macs I mean like the macplus.. last I checked mac 68k
linux required atleast a 68030 or at the VERY least an mmu which the 68000
doesn't support.. or atleast the macplus motherboard doesn't support..
/"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
\ / ASCII
> > Also, all you M$ bashers for OS/2did not M$ have the right to kill OS/2,
> > since they WROTE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, under agreement from IBM?
>
> By that argument, an architect has the right to bomb a building he
> designed, no?
Things to remember -- creating does not give one the right
J.B.,
>
> Nobut it would have died anyway...M$ would never have agreed to
continue
> to update it, and IBM did not have the programming resources to support
it.
This is flat out wrong. All the reasonable successful versions of OS/2 Warp
were pure IBM. They did and do have the resources, and
J.B,
>
> Also, all you M$ bashers for OS/2did not M$ have the right to kill
OS/2,
> since they WROTE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, under agreement from IBM?
This is *not* accurate. They wrote versions 1.0 and 1.1 only, which were 16
bit. The later 32 bit versions were almost pure IBM.
No, they d
J B wrote:
> Also, all you M$ bashers for OS/2did not M$ have the right to kill
OS/2,
> since they WROTE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, under agreement from IBM?
>By that argument, an architect has the right to bomb a building he
>designed, no?
Nobut it would have died anyway...M$ would ne
> IIRC, MS bought Excel from another company. It's possible that it was
> already made for the Mac, but did they keep on updating it for the Mac?
> I certainly didn't see it till 98, and I used Macs quite a bit back in
> college. Also, Macs were very popular up till the 90s, making programs
> fo
> g>it run/installs on everything I own... (except for some 68000 macs I
> still have)
Check this out:
http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/
Deidre Calarco
Robert Darvas Associates
(734) 761-8713 (ext. 16)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
As J B stated:
> Also, all you M$ bashers for OS/2did not M$ have the right to kill OS/2,
> since they WROTE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, under agreement from IBM?
It was a joint development effort. Hundreds or thousands of IBMers worked on it
too, and IBM continued the development effort after MS
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, J B wrote:
> I will say...it is not correct. The whole reason Bill invested $100
> Mil was to have access to the source for MacOS. And Win2K is the first
> Windows to have Mac code in it. Yes, he was attempting to copy Mac,
> but he could not get it...the code was missing.
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Neil ''Fred'' Picciotto wrote:
> Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
> > Actually, they paid Apple for source code and the right to create a
> > derivative work. In fact, Windows is a derivative work of the MacOS.
>
> hm... i'm not going to say that that's incorrect because i don't know
J B wrote:
> Also, all you M$ bashers for OS/2did not M$ have the right to kill OS/2,
> since they WROTE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, under agreement from IBM?
By that argument, an architect has the right to bomb a building he
designed, no?
--
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +64-21-870-425
ICQ
>Actually, they paid Apple for source code and the right to create a
> derivative work. In fact, Windows is a derivative work of the MacOS.
hm... i'm not going to say that that's incorrect because i don't know for
sure, but i've never heard this before... i suppose it's possible.
__
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> so I'm just going to mention the errors make a small remark then move on
> :)
>
> > > fufilling what they percived customers wanted... note: Macintosh computers
> > > probably wouln't have grown as fast as they did in the begining if it
> > > wasn't for Micro
> Ahh I was wrong about the date of MSexcel for macintosh...
> The first version of excel written was for the macintosh 512K back in
> 84-85 according to:http://dss.cba.uni.edu/dss/sshistory.html
Wow... something relatively innovated by Microsoft... Thanks for the
link.
> > Yeah but they also
> Me again
>
> > Ahh something I know about... YIPPIE!! MS Excel came out on the Macintosh
> > platform BEFORE any other platform... and it came out aleast sometime
>
> IIRC, MS bought Excel from another company. It's possible that it was
> already made for the Mac, but did they keep on updat
curious wrote:
>
> > Hi, everyone,
> >
> > Is anybody as happy about the finding of facts as I am? I really hope that
> > this will limit Microsoft's ability to try and crush Linux as a competitor.
>
> I'm actualy worried about what restrictions may be placed on microsoft..
> computer technolog
Me again
> Ahh something I know about... YIPPIE!! MS Excel came out on the Macintosh
> platform BEFORE any other platform... and it came out aleast sometime
IIRC, MS bought Excel from another company. It's possible that it was
already made for the Mac, but did they keep on updating it for the
> the whole thing wasn't resolved until two years ago when micros~1 invested
> $150 million in apple and committed to developing over the next 5 years as
> many releases of office for mac as for windows, in exchange for which apple
> agreed to make explorer the default browser installed with MacOS
Caitlyn Martin wrote:
>> No, they bought an operating system, then designed a GUI for it based on
>> what was already being done by other GUIs (as in MacOS,
Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
> Actually, they paid Apple for source code and the right to create a
> derivative work. In fact, Windows is a deriva
*sigh* some people just don't GET it... (I guess that's why we have
discussions)
> > > what practice do you consider to be illeagle that they commited?
> >
> > Tying in their products. That's the BIG thing. Say you owned 80% of the
> > gas stations, and you were 1 of 50 car manufacturers. S
lots of snippage in here...
> > It's cobbled together from pieces they bought and modified, or outright
> > copied.
>
> Welcome to the commercial version of opensource :)
Last I checked, open source people don't rip off others' code, stick it
in their own product, and charge out the ass for it
Alright after my last long post where I realized I realy need to read more
before replying... I decided I was going to read before replying to this
thread any more.. untill I found this email with little errors that just
IRK me!
so I'm just going to mention the errors make a small remark then mov
> but right now I am so burnt out on econ issues...I think if anyone says
> 'WTO' to me one more time I will bite their nose off)
what does that Anac mean?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
> Curious -- I am curious as to why you are being such a strong advocate for
> Microsoft on a Linux list. It sounds as if you think Microsoft is has
> pretty great products. So why do you use Linux?
a> because linux makes sense to me (btw I was originaly raised a Mac freak
:))
b> it's more sta
> No, they bought an operating system,
I thought I corrected myself on this one.. sorry if I haven't..
>then designed a GUI for it based on
> what was already being done by other GUIs
>(as in MacOS, or Presentation
> Manager, the precursor to IBM's Workplace Shell in OS/2).
which they all cop
Curious -- I am curious as to why you are being such a strong advocate for
Microsoft on a Linux list. It sounds as if you think Microsoft is has
pretty great products. So why do you use Linux?
_Cat
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> > > If a corporation breaks a law.. what would you like to
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> well trade press seem to think either A> microsoft will be limited to
> developing it's own tech.. or B>broken into pieces ala MaBells
hey..what..you mean nothing about code reviews?
> These are MY arguments thank you very much... why would I do otherwise?
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> laws are subject to interpretation
yes. but you (and I) are not lawyers (which is not to say that we are
completely incompetent to judge, but *is* to say that our opinions
aren't the really important thing here)..plus a lot of this is not
grey area stuff...I
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> The problem here is no one wrote anything for it.. and it wasn't
> everything it claimed to be... and (for me atleast) confusing to navigate
> around...
it could run most windows apps, and anything with a gui is confusing for
me..interface is a personal issue
> 1. I know you know that OS/2 was the superior OS
The problem here is no one wrote anything for it.. and it wasn't
everything it claimed to be... and (for me atleast) confusing to navigate
around...
> 2. Several wrongs don't make a right
I don't belive I implied that
> 3. I don't think a case
> > If a corporation breaks a law.. what would you like to see happen... going
> > for an extreme here... if microsoft hires an assasan to kill Linus.. what
> > should happen?
>
> Actually, corporations are not protected if someone within them commits
> murder. However, I think the point is that
> > I was asking for a personal viewpoint.. not what the DOJ or a judge said..
>
> Illegal is not an opinion -- illegal is a fact
> morals and ethics can be debated..laws exist
laws are subject to interpretation
> 1. that wasn't the case two years ago, and in a large part came about
> becaus eo
> two questions:
>
> 1. Do you know what the most likely things that will happen are?
well trade press seem to think either A> microsoft will be limited to
developing it's own tech.. or B>broken into pieces ala MaBells
> 2. Are you coming up with these arguments yourself or are you pulling the
> > It feels new to me though even though I've been using computers since the
> > atari800 :)
>
> Right, Computing as we know it today is new. "desktop computing" to be
> specific, has gone from the "early adopter" stage to more mainstream.
however we are in the proccess of changing from "desk
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Caitlyn Martin wrote:
> No, they bought an operating system, then designed a GUI for it based on
> what was already being done by other GUIs (as in MacOS,
Actually, they paid Apple for source code and the right to create a
derivative work. In fact, Windows is a derivative wor
Hi, Cat,
> > want to lable it.. and they wanted more people to use thier product as
> > apposed to IBM's product... so they ask thier competitor to leave a
> > product behind... ok...
>
> No, they *forced* their competitor to leave a product behind. In fair
> practice, IBM would have been force
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> > No, they *forced* their competitor to leave a product behind. In fair
> > practice, IBM would have been forced to leave their product behind because
> > of market pressure by consumers, not by pressure from Microsoft.
>
> If OS/2 was marketable enough of
Here we go again...
Chris, please, at least spell check your messages before you send them.
>
> They came up with an operating system that would run on intel based
> hardware... that people would want to run the applications they also
> wanted to run.
No, they bought an operating system, then de
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> If OS/2 was marketable enough of a product... it wouln't have had to be
> dumpted... however Microsoft's marketing unfortunatly won... I'm surprised
> your being so defensive of IBM... if any company could be acused of being
> strong armed against compeditors.
Argh!
OK, one more go...
>
> If a corporation breaks a law.. what would you like to see happen... going
> for an extreme here... if microsoft hires an assasan to kill Linus.. what
> should happen?
Actually, corporations are not protected if someone within them commits
murder. However, I think t
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> I was asking for a personal viewpoint.. not what the DOJ or a judge said..
Illegal is not an opinion -- illegal is a fact
morals and ethics can be debated..laws exist
> Ahhh I'm guessing VAlinux systems must have either signed the agreement or
> are going to
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> Ahhh I'm guessing VAlinux systems must have either signed the agreement or
> are going to blowup now.. and howabout that recent deal with a motherboard
> company and corel... now if a MS person wants to buy their motherboard..
> they have to deal with (I'm ass
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> If a corporation breaks a law.. what would you like to see happen... going
> for an extreme here... if microsoft hires an assasan to kill Linus.. what
> should happen?
How about the actual people behind the decisions are punished? Jail time,
personal fines (a
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> If a corporation breaks a law.. what would you like to see happen... going
> for an extreme here... if microsoft hires an assasan to kill Linus.. what
> should happen?
I'm not going to answer the second. However, if I personally hurt someone,
you could sue ME
More :)
> It feels new to me though even though I've been using computers since the
> atari800 :)
Right, Computing as we know it today is new. "desktop computing" to be
specific, has gone from the "early adopter" stage to more mainstream.
> They came up with an operating system that would run
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> > READ the judgement. The judge DID have a clue.
>
> The judge indeed seems to have some level of understanding.. however he
> seems to be the exception as apposed to the rule.. and I doubt he will be
> seening every case broght up against microsoft.. or any
> No, they *forced* their competitor to leave a product behind. In fair
> practice, IBM would have been forced to leave their product behind because
> of market pressure by consumers, not by pressure from Microsoft.
If OS/2 was marketable enough of a product... it wouln't have had to be
dumpted
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
>
> > They came up with an operating system that would run on intel based
> > hardware... that people would want to run the applications they also
> > wanted to run.
>
> you mean they bought an OS that the guy who wrote it now regrets
> writing...and the res
> Individuals in a corporation are not individually accountable legally for
> their actions (except for certain crimes committed by officers). Thus,
> corporations are exempt from 90% of what can happen to any other legal
> person.
Ahh so they are protected in terms of the punishment recived.. I
> want to lable it.. and they wanted more people to use thier product as
> apposed to IBM's product... so they ask thier competitor to leave a
> product behind... ok...
No, they *forced* their competitor to leave a product behind. In fair
practice, IBM would have been forced to leave their produ
> I misstated (I'm trying to do too much this morning..sorry) --
> Corporations aren't protected, they protect people -- specifically the
> people who make and implement the 'corporate' decisions -- i.e. if I,
> Vinnie, choose to break a law, I, Vinnie, get punished. If a corporation
> breaks a la
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> They came up with an operating system that would run on intel based
> hardware... that people would want to run the applications they also
> wanted to run.
you mean they bought an OS that the guy who wrote it now regrets
writing...and the rest of your senten
Here is my take on it...
If you really want insight into the case, you really need to READ the
case : http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html
It is NOT a case about people being jealous of Bill Gates and Microsoft
for being successful and making a lot of money. It is a case about
Microsoft's flag
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> > Actually, what innovate new technologies is Microsoft coming up with,
> > honestly?
>
> They came up with an operating system that would run on intel based
> hardware... that people would want to run the applications they also
> wanted to run.
THEY BOUGHT
> > I'm actualy worried about what restrictions may be placed on microsoft..
> > computer technology is still a very new field..
>
> It's been around since the 1930s actually. PCs are now 18 years old, too.
It feels new to me though even though I've been using computers since the
atari800 :)
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> > you know what I think sucks -- that the government creates this protected
> > class called a 'corporation', and then folks complain when it puts a few
> > rules on it, even though the humans have many many rules on them...
>
> how exactly is a corporation "
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> how exactly is a corporation "protected" as a class?
I misstated (I'm trying to do too much this morning..sorry) --
Corporations aren't protected, they protect people -- specifically the
people who make and implement the 'corporate' decisions -- i.e. if I,
Vi
Hi,
>
> I'm actualy worried about what restrictions may be placed on microsoft..
> computer technology is still a very new field..
It's been around since the 1930s actually. PCs are now 18 years old, too.
> placing restrictions on it
> now is a bad thing..
Actually, what innovate new technolog
> > I don't think microsoft should be punnished for being a sucessful
> > company... even if it blow up a few compeditors...
>
> you know what I think sucks -- that the government creates this protected
> class called a 'corporation', and then folks complain when it puts a few
> rules on it, even
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> I don't think microsoft should be punnished for being a sucessful
> company... even if it blow up a few compeditors...
you know what I think sucks -- that the government creates this protected
class called a 'corporation', and then folks complain when it puts
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Caitlyn Martin wrote:
> Is anybody as happy about the finding of facts as I am?
Yep! This has really positively affected Red Hat's stock too (up 16 as of
now).
> Also, as a former OS/2 loyalist, considering what Microsoft did to my
> former favorite OS, and *how* they did it
My take is that judge Jackson completely ignored the open source movement by
his wording. He said that there is no commercial alternative to a microsoft
operating system.
Hi, everyone,
Is anybody as happy about the finding of facts as I am? I really hope that
this will limit Microsoft's abi
> Hi, everyone,
>
> Is anybody as happy about the finding of facts as I am? I really hope that
> this will limit Microsoft's ability to try and crush Linux as a competitor.
I'm actualy worried about what restrictions may be placed on microsoft..
computer technology is still a very new field.. p
Hi, everyone,
Is anybody as happy about the finding of facts as I am? I really hope that
this will limit Microsoft's ability to try and crush Linux as a competitor.
Also, as a former OS/2 loyalist, considering what Microsoft did to my former
favorite OS, and *how* they did it, this doesn't both
71 matches
Mail list logo
