In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:01:59 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:28:19 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Chicago was announced in 1993, and it was expected to ship in late 1994. >>It slipped to August 1995. Windows 95 was not meant to compete with Unix. > > If I remember, some of the promised features never showed up either. > The same thing happened with Cairo, and also Longhorn. > > Announce early, release late, and keep the feature set morphing.
Ahh..but smell the air! Smells like...smells like...vaporware. :-) > >>took for OS/2. Windows 3.1 was designed as a gateway from >>DOS to OS/2, and probably would have been successful if IBM >>had not grown jealous of the >>success of Windows and sabotaged OS/2 at every turn. > > Your interpretation of events is as bizarre as Rex's. Where do you get > this stuff? Plus, why would IBM shoot *itself* in the foot like that? Windows, at least, was aiming at others (e.g., the 4DOS debacle). > >>More fabrication, Rex. Even if the above were true, which I can find no >>evidence of, there is no way in HELL that you would know the details of it. >> >>Why is it that only YOU seem to be privy to all the inside financial >>details of things that are kept secret? > > The CIA leaked it to him. Darn. Hope Karl Rove doesn't find out. Or was it Scooter Libby? :-) -- #191, [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's still legal to go .sigless. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
