Linux-Advocacy Digest #232, Volume #28 Fri, 4 Aug 00 21:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Unix user 10yrs + says Linux is bollocks (mlw)
Re: Linux as embedded OS (Andres Soolo)
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ???? (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (mlw)
Re: Linux as embedded OS (Andres Soolo)
Re: Unix user 10yrs + is a fool
Re: Unix user 10yrs + says Linux is bollocks (trem)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Sean LeBlanc)
Re: KDE2 Yahooo!!! ("Rich C")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 19:45:05 -0400
Marcus Turner wrote:
>
> "SemiScholar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:57:00 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >... Can you name one software product which Microsoft has developed
> > >successfully by themselves?
>
> Nope.
> Can You name a PC application in the last ten years that isn't based on
> prior art?
>
> > Are you asking me? If you think I'm a Microsoft fan, you couldn't be
> > more wrong, but I'll take a stab at it.
> >
> > Lessee... there was "Bob". Hmmm... welll, nevermind that one...
> >
> > Excel. They stole the idea of a spreadsheet, but they did write the
> > product. Same with Windows. And NT (although they hired the DEC VMS
> > guy to do it, but I suppose that counts).
> >
> > Ummm... well, they did _write_ a lot of things (as opposed to
> > purchasing them outright like SourceSafe or Visio), but I don't think
> > I can point to anything they can actually claim to have _innovated_.
> > Which is why it's always so comical to hear Bill Gates and Steve
> > Ballmer use the word "innovate". Especially Ballmer, who wouldn't
> > know innovation if it bit him. All MS ever does is see somebody
> > else's clever idea and mimic it. And by about the third iteration, it
> > becomes usable. "Microsoft: Where Quality Is Job 3.1"
>
> Aside from the Bob jokes, Microsoft's claim to fame is the tight and
> pervasive level of integration that it has in the OS to the apps. That is
> why it became so popular.
^^^^^^^
You misspelled "despised"
>
> > But I'm still waiting to hear about that pre-1980 Unix windowing
> > system. (and emacs doesn't count).
>
> So am I.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbough,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 19:48:04 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:35:29 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >For example, if you are a retiree who wants INCOME, then you want
> >dividends.
>
> Care to name some dividend stocks that you believe are good enough ? I'm
> not an expert on dividend stocks ( admittedly having little interest in
> them ) but from what I've seen, it seems that the annual return of a dividend
> stock is fairly poor unless the company is undergoing earnings growth
> ( with dividend stocks, such growth is small or nonexistent ) The dividend
> stocks don't offer true security and they don't perform that well on average.
>
Ask a financial planner. I have no interest in such stocks
myself.
> >Thus, there are investors for whom it makes sense to want dividends,
> >and there are companies for which it makes sense to pay dividends
> >rather than plowing profits into capital purchases.
>
> I can see why it makes sense for the companies, but not for the investors
> ( unless the dividend is very good ). Again, usually, dividend stocks
> have a very poor return unless the company grows.
They tend to be among utilities, which tend to be rather
recession-resistant (their value tends to RISE in economic
downturns, as investors sell of other stocks and migrate
towards utilities).
>
> --
> Donovan
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 19:51:17 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 08:00:42 GMT, Steve Chaney wrote:
> >On 3 Aug 2000 00:52:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>
> >Wanna bet?
> >They can bring the government down on you.
>
> No one got arrested for not using Microsoft.
If you are CEO of a OEM PC manufacturer, if you decide to withhold
from signing a Microsoft eexclusive-sales contract, then you will
suffer from having to purchase OS licenses at 3x that of your
competitors, putting your company out of business (because the
margin on desktop machines is so low to begin with). Thus,
refusal to sign a Microsoft contract is, for a CEO, the
business-world equivalent of signing one's own death warrant.
>
> [ irrelevance snipped ]
>
> The problem with Kulkis's arguments is he has too completely different
> definitions of voluntary consensual agreements -- one that applies to
> Microsoft and their associates, and one that applies to employers and
> employees.
>
> --
> Donovan
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unix user 10yrs + says Linux is bollocks
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 19:59:19 -0400
trem wrote:
>
> This is my second PC that I can't get Linux to work on. This time cos
> I've got a UDMA66 controller. This doesn't trouble Mickeysoft. Win98
> is working fine, but I work with Unix so I need Unix at home.
>
> Linux is frustrating the shit out of me.
What card do you have?
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
I'm glad we disagree, it gives us a fantastic opportunity to be totally
honest.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as embedded OS
Date: 5 Aug 2000 00:01:00 GMT
Tim Magnussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you say that:
> If you link statically to a GPL'ed product (say a database) with your own module
> (developed in C++) that would be a problem (even though you use the standard
> database C/C++ API for communication).
If you link statically, the result certainly contains code from the GPLed
product too and therefore should be under GPL.
If you link your product with a library that uses Unix sockets, IP or
pipes to connect to the server, the product isn't linked to the server
itself and therefore the server's GPL can't affect it. Now, the
communication library's license is what counts.
> But if you use an already existing module
> that is LGPL'ed it wouldn't.
Yes. LGPL 2.1:
| 5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the
| Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or
| linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a
| work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and
| therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
> Also if you link dynamically to a GPL'ed package an
> d
> only uses existing means of communicating (built-in scripting
> facility/user-interface etc) it wouldn't either.
No. If you link to a GPLed library (whether statically or dynamically),
it seems to cause the whole resulting executable go under GPL. If you
don't link to a GPLed package but communicate with it by another means,
it doesn't.
> Now if you make your own module for communicating with the database and use this
> as
> a proxy between your proprietary software and the database will this allow you t
> o
> LGPL only the module (and keep your proprietary software proprietary)?
If my analysis is correct, yes. (Some databases have even more unrestrictive
licenses, for example, mysql says if your communication module is able
to communicate with any other SQL server besides mysql so they can be
freely interchanged, you don't have to GPL the module even if it links
to the mysql communication module. Also, PostgreSQL doesn't seem to have
the `viral' aspect at all.) I guess it can't even be considered a loophole
in GPL since if the communication module is GPLed, the protocol is public
and therefore the freedom of the users isn't violated. The whole point
of differentiating between linking and piping/networking is basically that
the user can modify the free parts and therefore his freedom remains even
if he can't modify the proprietary parts.
>> Which parts?
> Eg. the parts that is used to interpret the sensory input from the measuring
> modules.
I see. Since I don't know the topology of the project, I can't say how
exactly, but I'm fairly sure such specific modules can be interacted
with free parts without violating GPL.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Virtue would go far if vanity did not keep it company.
-- La Rochefoucauld
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ????
Date: 04 Aug 2000 16:38:28 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote in <8mf2k0$159g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Wrong. It would have been correct if you had said "linux doesnt support
> >as many sound cards as windows 2000 does" or something along those lines,
> >but it most certianly supports orders of magnitudes more hardware than
> >any kind of windows does.
>
> I don't believe you.
While I don't necessarily agree with 'orders of magnitude' statement,
Linux certainly runs on more architectures than Windows does. You
can't run Windows (insert version) on Alpha, PPC, Sparc, MIPS, or make
use of any of the components on those platforms using Windows.
Linux can, and that's certainly more impressive, and more important,
than whether or not Linux can use every single soundcard on the x86
platform.
You certainly seem to have a PC bias, Pete. There are other
alternatives you know.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 20:11:41 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > OK, now your turn. Where did you get that bit of information? AFAIK, and
> > I am still in touch with the guys at FAST, there is NO anticipated
> > change in the relationship. Be very careful now, because statements like
> > this can affect the stock market and if they can be proven to be false,
> > you can be sued for damages.
>
> My source says to expect to see less and less use of FAST by Lycos due to
> "recent contractual obligations" but not an end to the relationship (I
> misread her first e-mail about it) due to, again, "contractual obligations"
> but this time on the FAST end. Lycos can't dump FAST because of the
> agreement between them. I'm not privy to those terms but they are not
> forever. I would not expect a renewal.
This is very convenient for you isn't it? You get to say anything you
want about a company and offer no proof. Again I say, you should prove
it or be quiet because you don't know what you are talking about.
Perhaps, Lycos and FAST's agreement may dissolve in the future, but
currently neither you nor anyone else can know for sure.
>
> >
> > Admit it. You are making it up.
>
> of course I'm not. why would I? i have no investment in FAST nor an reason
> to dislike or disparage them. I responded to your original post because the
> word on the vine I had made it sound like the deal was bust - but
> researching before making my second reply gave me some more depth ...
The reason you would/are making this up is because you have vested
interest in NT offer Linux or FreeBSD and would probably say anything to
promote it.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
I'm glad we disagree, it gives us a fantastic opportunity to be totally
honest.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as embedded OS
Date: 5 Aug 2000 00:18:40 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>><Sigh> - things are getting complicated again. I knew i weren't that simple.
> The devil is always in the details. When selling a Linux based
> product, you need to look at the specific license of each product you
> use. When it doubt, ask the developers.
There's another point to be made: since a GPLed product is copyrighted to
its author, you can even in the worst-case scenario try to make a deal
with the author so he/she/they make a special exception to the license.
This is extremely seldom needed though.
> I don't believe GPL distinguishes between static and dynamic
> linking. Most people are going to dynamically link anyways. Once you
> do either, it becomes considered a derived work.
There are some fine points between static and dynamic linking, namely
if you link dynamically, the producing executable doesn't contain any
other GPLed parts than those in the header files that might make the
GPL's ability to `infect' the product questionable. The main reasoning
that GPL still can `infect' binaries through dynamic linking is the
header files and the interface. Still, this would be gray area and
clearly violating the spirit of GPL even if not the letter of GPL.
And if you want to have respect of the free software community, you'd
better not do that even if you might could get away with it in the court.
> If your proxy is just communicating with the database via IP it is
> then a separate work and you can license it any way you want, unless
> the database license is so restrictive it limits client
> connections.
I doubt the database license can limit the licenses of its clients.
It can limit the count of its clients, still--and it can effectively
enforce it if it's proprietary.
> If it uses (including linking to ) any code from the
> database it is considered a derived work, which is what GPL concerns
> itself with.
Exactly.
>>Eg. the parts that is used to interpret the sensory input from the measuring
>>modules.
> I take it your measuring modules will be kernel modules. Those can be
> binary no problem. The parts used to interpret those modules should be
> fine as well as long as you do not use (or link to) any code from a
> GPL'd or other restrictive lisence. You really need to check the
> licensing for any product you use on a one by one basis.
One nice way to achieve that is to let the measuring modules be kernel
modules (or even patches if you can afford publishing them under GPL)
that just create /dev/a-measuring-device and then create a proprietary
program to interact with /dev/a-measuring-device , to interpret the
results and to communicate the interpretation to another module--
if it's under the GPL--via stdout. If the another module is a free
product from yourself, you might license it under modified GPL that
specifically allows it to be linked with your interpretation module.
If it's also proprietary, there won't be any problem on that stage.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.
-- Henry Kissinger
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Unix user 10yrs + is a fool
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 00:24:30 GMT
trem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is my second PC that I can't get Linux to work on. This time cos
>I've got a UDMA66 controller.
SuSE 6.3 or 6.4 will run on a box with UDMA/66. I'm using it on an
Abit BP-6 now, and I boot off the Primary Master of the 66 bus.
>Linux is frustrating the shit out of me.
Don't go into it blind then. There's lots of people to talk to, lots
of books to read, lots of newgroups to ask in, lots of LUGs willing
to install it for you, etc etc. Most of us have no trouble to speak
of, but there are places to get help.
If you're not interested in reading and learning, then linux isn't for
you at the moment. It takes someone who's willing to learn their
tools--but the rewards are excellent.
Steve
------------------------------
From: trem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unix user 10yrs + says Linux is bollocks
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 01:29:49 +0100
Your a grade A prick
First I don't use Linux cos I can't
Second use deja-news for posts I've made before this on linux related
hardware groups, I've researched my ass off.
True, I'll try some other Unix clones, but as this is a linux advocacy
group, I stick my ten pence worth in, it is sucking Oxygen at 60000 feet.
Get off you high horse please I know what F*cking Unix is and what isn't
moron.
Daniel Tryba wrote:
> trem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is my second PC that I can't get Linux to work on. This time cos
> > I've got a UDMA66 controller. This doesn't trouble Mickeysoft. Win98
> > is working fine, but I work with Unix so I need Unix at home.
>
> Linux != Unix, and Linux is not the only unixlike OS.
>
> > Linux is frustrating the shit out of me.
>
> Then don't use Linux but try *BSD, Solaris, SCO or whatever instead.
> Or you could do some research before starting to complain (there are
> patches for certain Ultra66 controllers), or you could hook the disk up
> to a Ultra33 controller (haven't seen any test from which to conclude
> that Ultra66 is indeed faster than 33).
>
> --
>
> Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
From: Sean LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 00:33:20 GMT
I seriously doubt that, esp. considering the state of NT back in 1993,
but I can't come up with any references at the moment.
I am nearly positive that their ftp site(s) ran Solaris, however.
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think so. I read about the history of microsoft.com and I do not
> believe they ever used anything but NT on their site.
>
> "Sean LeBlanc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Whoops, Drestin you just dug yourself a hole with the word EVER;
> > Microsoft used to use Solaris on their website...of course, I
> > don't have references, but that was a long time ago anyway...
> > but they did use it at one time, of that you can be sure.
> > And yes, it was for www.microsoft.com.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Sean
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE2 Yahooo!!!
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:42:40 -0400
"Erik Engheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8mf9qd$3ln$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rich C wrote:
[snip]
> > I found KDE2 a tad slow to start on a P-166 with 64 megs and a Matrox
> > Mystique PCI video card. Do you have XFree86 4.0 installed? I hear it's
> much
> On my Celeron 466 with 192 it runs quite fine. Not sure if it runs better
> than KDE1 though. Keep in mind though that betas never run as fast as the
> final version. My impression is that KDE2 will indeed run faster than KDE1
> did.
I am reserving judgement, because I was having a lot of hangups, which I
believe can be attributed to the fact that I had qt-2.1.1 libraries
installed (for opera) and KDE2 "comes" with 2.1.0. There may be some
problems there. I cleaned out everything (including KDE1.1) and will start
over when I get back from vaca.
>
> > faster with the standard SVGA driver (which is what the Mystique
> dictates.)
> > I might try that too if it's stable enough.
> >
> > Opera broke when I installed it, but if konqueror proves itself, I won't
> be
> > in any hurry to fix it (I think it's just a library pointer.)
To follow up, konqueror won't go out my proxy server. Can find local
intranet addresses ok, but never even sends a packet to the proxy. Oh well,
next time maybe.
> >
> > > I already
> > > like the Koffice better than StarOffice or Corel. Much better support
> > > for Gnome apps.... I'm looking forward to playing and getting to know
> > > the new features!!!
> >
> > I couldn't get Koffice to install. Something about conflicting icon
files
> > with kdelib. Will try it again tomorrow. I am also still cleaning out
the
> > old KDE1.1 stuff too.
>
> I had the same problem too, but I solved it by using the dreaded
> commandline. By typing: rpm -ivh --force name_of_koffice_rpm
> I effectivly told rpm that I don't give a dam about those icon files just
> install the package anyway. You should have a better look at the
> rpm command you can do quite a lot of handy stuff with it that is missing
in
> the GUI version.
>
AHHHH! The command line! Yeah, well, gnorpm ostensibly lets you "override"
warning messages, but it still fails to install. I tried renaming the files
themselves, but it's apparently in the RPM database, because it didn't help.
I have used the command line before, to rebuild the database when all the
GUI tools broke after upgrading to RPM version 3.0, but it's been a while.
--
Rich C.
"Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
intelligent, until you hear them speak."
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:02:08 -0500
"Sean LeBlanc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I seriously doubt that, esp. considering the state of NT back in 1993,
> but I can't come up with any references at the moment.
>
> I am nearly positive that their ftp site(s) ran Solaris, however.
I logged onto MS's ftp site back in about 92/93. And it was definately
running on some kind of MS box, ftp was giving me the . and .. directories
when I did an ls, and it was generally non-standard. I don't remember what
else there was, but it really made me think it was running on DOS. They
ddin't get a web site until like 94.
>
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't think so. I read about the history of microsoft.com and I do not
> > believe they ever used anything but NT on their site.
> >
> > "Sean LeBlanc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Whoops, Drestin you just dug yourself a hole with the word EVER;
> > > Microsoft used to use Solaris on their website...of course, I
> > > don't have references, but that was a long time ago anyway...
> > > but they did use it at one time, of that you can be sure.
> > > And yes, it was for www.microsoft.com.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Sean
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:06:46 -0500
"Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > MS gave away IE since day one. It's always been a free download from
> > their web site.
>
> They started out charging for it, but they noticed that they were trying
> to charge for a crappy product that nobody was buying, so they started
> giving it away.
No, IE has been free since day one. You could also purchase it in the WIn95
Plus! pack, but it was still free for download as well. On August 25th,
1995, the same day Windows 95 was released, you could download IE 1.0 for
free.
> IE was shovelware until at least version 3, and wasn't better than
> Netscape until version 4.0 or so.
IE3 was on a par with Nestscape 3. It wasn't better or worse. IE4 was
better than NS 4.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
