On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:46:24 -0800,
Day Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Al Davis wrote:
At the time, I believed like the majority, that Henderson was just
jealous of his competition, because he couldn't keep up. In
hindsight, now I see it Henderson's way.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 07:46:51AM +0100, Jan Minar wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:41:30AM -0800, Day Brown wrote:
[...] DR-DOS, since at
least 5, have had taskswitching.
Well, sort of. AFAICR, it was a bleeding edge feature, and it
Thus spake Pigeon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 07:46:51AM +0100, Jan Minar wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:41:30AM -0800, Day Brown wrote:
[...] DR-DOS, since at
least 5, have had taskswitching.
Well, sort of.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 07:38:36PM -0800, Deryk Barker wrote:
Yes - Desqview/QEMM wasn't it? I actually wrote an application to run
under DV and had the developer's SDK. It was as I recall pretty good,
although text only as you suggest. Funnily enough I moved house last
month and the DV
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 04:58:20AM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
The radical libertarian in me enjoys the concept of an O/S where user
apps can trash the system. Protection faults just seem anti-democratic.
I'd love to see a modern equal-opportunity O/S :-)
AFAIK, Linux 2.6 port for an MMU-less
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 08:48:34PM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
Also, he says that it runs on the PDP-11 and the Interdata 8/32, which
contradicts my memory that it was developed on an earlier model DEC
computer. But he does say that work on UNIX started in 1971. so maybe
my memory is OK.
Micha Feigin wrote:
Dos people haven't figured out how to get more then one program running
at a time and windows haven't figured out how to get a program running
for more then five minutes without going into the infamous blue screen
of death.
I dont do windoz, never have. But you are not
Al Davis wrote:
At the time, I believed like the majority, that Henderson was just
jealous of his competition, because he couldn't keep up. In hindsight,
now I see it Henderson's way.
How is this case different from GPL violations today?
http://www.esva.net/~thom/philkatz.html
Monique Y. Herman wrote:
On 2004-01-24, Day Brown typed a lot of stuff.
You're very clearly aware of the fact that most of the community,
particularly most of the developer community, *wants* all of the
safeguards and complexities that you find so inconvenient.
Sure. Did I not make it
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:48:34 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
Also, he says that it runs on the PDP-11 and the Interdata 8/32, which
contradicts my memory that it was developed on an earlier model DEC
computer. But he does say that work on UNIX started in 1971. so maybe
my memory is OK.
IIRC,
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:41:30AM -0800, Day Brown wrote:
[...] DR-DOS, since at
least 5, have had taskswitching.
Well, sort of. AFAICR, it was a bleeding edge feature, and it felt like
one. You just didn't really expect it to work like we
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:43:56PM -0800, Day Brown wrote:
Linux comes from Unix, which was designed for mainframes.
windows comes from dos, which was designed for personal desktops.
Well technically Unix was designed for mid-sized computers...
And wasn't DOS designed for the workstation?
Hi,
* Haines Brown wrote (2004-01-25 13:21):
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:43:56PM -0800, Day Brown wrote:
Linux comes from Unix, which was designed for mainframes.
windows comes from dos, which was designed for personal desktops.
Well technically Unix was designed for mid-sized computers...
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:44:02PM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote:
* Haines Brown wrote (2004-01-25 13:21):
I kind'a miss DOS.
With a decent shell it might have been just endurable.
Like 4/dos?
The radical libertarian in me enjoys the concept of an O/S where user
apps can trash the system.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 07:21:02 -0500, Haines Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:43:56PM -0800, Day Brown wrote:
Linux comes from Unix, which was designed for mainframes.
windows comes from dos, which was designed for personal desktops.
Well technically Unix was designed for mid-sized
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 07:21:02AM -0500, Haines Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:43:56PM -0800, Day Brown wrote:
Linux comes from Unix, which was designed for mainframes.
windows comes from dos, which was designed for personal desktops.
Well technically Unix was designed for
Thus spake Bijan Soleymani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 07:21:02AM -0500, Haines Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:43:56PM -0800, Day Brown wrote:
Linux comes from Unix, which was designed for mainframes.
windows comes from dos, which was designed for personal
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 07:21:02 -0500 (EST),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Haines Brown) wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:43:56PM -0800, Day Brown wrote:
Linux comes from Unix, which was designed for mainframes.
windows comes from dos, which was designed for personal
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 12:06:05PM -0800, Deryk Barker wrote:
Thus spake Bijan Soleymani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 07:21:02AM -0500, Haines Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:43:56PM -0800, Day Brown wrote:
Linux comes from Unix, which was designed for
On 2004-01-24, Day Brown typed a lot of stuff.
...
You're very clearly aware of the fact that most of the community,
particularly most of the developer community, *wants* all of the
safeguards and complexities that you find so inconvenient.
If you really care so much for a single-user linux,
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:43:56PM -0800, Day Brown wrote:
Linux comes from Unix, which was designed for mainframes.
windows comes from dos, which was designed for personal desktops.
Well technically Unix was designed for mid-sized computers...
I *never* get told I dont have 'permission' to
Day Brown wrote:
Yes, Linux is terrific for networks. And if you are a sysad, by all
means rely on it. If however, you are trying to run a single user
desktop, then the whole business of having to logon and enter your
password are a pain in the rectal orifice.
The big problem with Corel is their
Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The big problem with Corel is their relationship to SCO, who are
actively trying to kill Linux as we all now know it. Of course, they
won't be successful, but who wants to be in bed with the enemy.
What relationship does Corel have to SCO? I remember
On Saturday 24 January 2004 01:43 am, Day Brown wrote:
There is one other example from computer history that applies to our
power to control our own system: .zip. Years ago, the BBS networks
were setup with archived files available with the .PAK extension.
It was .arc .
When Phil Katz
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:43:56PM -0800, Day Brown wrote:
Linux comes from Unix, which was designed for mainframes.
windows comes from dos, which was designed for personal desktops.
No. The original work on UNIX was done on a PDP 7, not a main frame.
Its overall design was largely fixed
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:28:17PM -0500, Al Davis wrote:
You may copy and distribute this program freely, provided that:
1) No fee is charged for such copying and distribution, and
2) It is distributed ONLY in its original, unmodified state.
How is this case different from GPL
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:43:56PM -0800, Day Brown wrote:
Linux comes from Unix, which was designed for mainframes.
windows comes from dos, which was designed for personal desktops.
One of the reasons I like to run the Corel version of debian, is that
because they wrote software for the
On Saturday 24 January 2004 07:11 pm, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:28:17PM -0500, Al Davis wrote:
You may copy and distribute this program freely, provided that:
1) No fee is charged for such copying and distribution, and
2) It is distributed ONLY in its
Alan Shutko wrote:
Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The big problem with Corel is their relationship to SCO, who are
actively trying to kill Linux as we all now know it. Of course, they
won't be successful, but who wants to be in bed with the enemy.
What relationship does Corel have to
29 matches
Mail list logo
