On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Ivan Krsti�~G wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO: history can be lie by s/o written it and I see it very often.
BUT kept evidence cannot be lie.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/historic-linux/distributions/sls/1.03/ChangeLog
Yes. Someone went and rewrote the ChangeLog. It's all part of a global
conspiracy, to, uh, make SLS appear to be released in '92. Anyway, EOD.
--
Ivan Krstić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GPG: 0x147C722D
If you has old archive of usenet then you will see that I post to
social.culture.thai using linux machine named "supanee.animal.uiuc.edu"
since 1991. At that time NO linux dist exist and I have to ftp linux from
some where. The first linux dist I see officially is SLS and later
Slackware that contain identical in feature. It was my careless to assume
that the first one is Slackware. But undeniable fact is I used linux since
1991. And that is the main objective in original argument not 2001 as s/o
accused. It was my mistake that linux I used is slackware because at that
time no one claimed linux dist belong to some organization.
The diskette I kept is not original first copy but recent copy before I
leave UIUC so, its date was in 1992.
At this moment, most persons in Thailand think the first linux dist is red
hat but that is distorted poison knowledge. And that is reason why I
prefer to use slackware instead off fedora that come from red hat.
Sorry to say too much on off-topic.
supat
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
