Microsoft is severely limited by the installed base. What you hypothesize simply would not happen. When a new Office version supports a new format, it takes a long time for the new format to gain widespread use. By the time any such changes were important enough to matter, third parties would have them covered. Heck, that is even how it worked when the formats were completely undocumented.
According to the people who developed WINE, it is an emulator. The "Wine Is Not an Emulator" means its not a hardware emulator.
According to the Bob Amstadt, the first name he considered was "winemu", but he didn't like that, so shortened it to wine.
The first use of "WINE Is Not an Emulator" was suggested in a 1993 Usenet post, prompted over concern that "Windows Emulator" might run into trademark problems with Microsoft. This suggestion was not adopted, however, and the release notes each month continued to announce new releases as new releases of "Wine, the MS Windows emulator".
It wasn't until 1997 that the "not an emulator" phrase started gaining widespread use, as an alternative interpretation of the name. The WINE FAQ said that WINE stands for WINdows Emualtor or Wine is Not an Emulator, and said both were right and you should take your pick.
The 2008-12-11 release was the first to drop emulator. It announced a new release of "Wine, a free implementation of Windows on Unix".
As far as I've been able to tell from old mailing lists, and digging through Usenet archives, there were two reasons for stopping calling it an emulator.
First, WINE was useful for more than just taking Windows binaries and running then on Unix. If you had source for a Windows program, you could recompile and relink on Unix, linking with the WINE libraries, to get a more native Unix port of the application. Just calling it an emulator would tend to deemphasize that aspect of WINE.
Second, there was an explosion of hardware emulators, emulating both old systems (such as old gaming consoles, old 8-bit personal computers, and the like), and emulating new hardware (e.g., x86 emulators). Some of these were slow (especially the x86 emulators). When people heard the word "emulation", they would tend to think "slow". Most people were not aware of the distinction between emulating hardware and emulating software, and so WINE, which emulates software, would get tainted by the slow reputation of things that emulate hardware. Given the choice between trying to educate the general user on the distinction between hardware and software emulation and the performance characteristics of the two, and just not saying the "emulator" word around WINE, they chose the latter.
Note that this was purely a name change, not a technology change. WINE was an emulator before December 11, 1998, and so remained an emulator afterwards. The "not an emulator" stuff is essentially marketing/PR. On a technical forum like Slashdot (pause for the laughter to die down) it's probably best to stick with the technically accurate description, and call it an emulator.
They could choose to withhold permission for it being included in the standard.
That wouldn't work. For instance, company A develops a new drug for boneitis. They patent it. They aren't even interested in licensing it. However, the other drug companies all start manufacturing it anyway, without licenses. Company A sues them.
They point out that since the whole industry is making this drug, it is an industry standard, and the patents cannot be enforced according to the proposed stupid law.
Or is the law only meant to apply to standards that are formally develped by an industry group, as opposed to de facto industry standards? If so, company A is still out of luck. The other companies get together and form the Boneitis Treatment Standardization Committee, and approve a variant of A's drug as the standard treatment. Now it's a de jure, not just de facto industry standard, and the stupid law applies.
Or does it only apply when the standardization involves the whole industry? In that case, it would not apply to H.264 because not everyone in the industry participated in the standardizaion.
The net effect of the proposed law is to get rid of patents, except in the case where only the patent holder is interested in using the invention (e.g., there is some other factor besides the patent that stops others from using the invention), or there are sufficient alternative ways to accomplish what the patent covers that no one needs to license it. In both of these cases, there is no point in getting th patent in the first place.
If we want to get rid of patents, the legislature has the power to do so.
The Constitution allows a patent system.
It does not mandate a patent system.
The proposed law is simply brain dead.
Use it to produce a indie movie, even with "pro" grade equipment and you're not.
Producing the movie does not require a license. Distributing the movie for pay would require a license.
Use it to produce a demo reel for your work, and you're not.
Producing with H.264 does not require paying a license fee. Demo reels generally are not distributed for pay or in quantities large enough to meet the thresholds for which licensing fees kick in.
Engadget had a good article that dealt with much of the H.24 licensing FUD that is going around.
Perhaps evilbessie is religious, and prefers Godly integers to the decimals of Man. After all, "God made the integers; all else is the work of man"--Leopold Kronecker.
When I saw the headline, I thought it was about Welsh porn, and figured they just wanted to save resources. A list of Welsh porn would take up way too much space, with titles like "Goleuddydd does Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch".
The trick is to not bother with the forums directly. Use a couple sites like reddit or hacker news. When something worthwhile shows up in forums, someone will post a link to reddit or HN (and a week later to Slashdot...). If you want to discuss it, discuss it on reddit or HN. The threading is better than most forums and the discussion is generally better.
How about we version control the legal code, consider amendments to be patches, new laws to be insertions into the relevant sections, and deprecated text removed in a deletion patch?
That's close to how it works now. See the long comment I just submitted about the US Code for details.
The US Code is kind of what you are asking for.
Before the US Code, the way Federal law worked was that the Congress would pass bills.
Once a year, the Government Printing Office prints a volume containing the laws for that year, in chronological order.
These are called the Statutes at Large.
The law at any given time was the net result of applying all of the Statutes at Large up to that point, plus any bills that had been passed since the cutoff for the latest Statutes at Large and whose effective date had passed.
Bills are often written as essentially diffs to previous bills.
Figuring out the law at a given time under this system could be a pain in the ass, of course.
To make it a lot easier to find and understand the law, the House or Representatives started producing the US Code.
Essentially, this takes all the laws from the Statutes at Large, and arranges them by topic, rather than chronologically, applying all the diffs, resulting in an organized statement of the law.
Note that a given bill from the Statutes at Large might end up going into the Code in several parts, because the bill might cover affect multiple topics.
The Code was not official.
If there was a conflict between something in the code and a bill from the Statutes at Large, the latter won.
However, for some sections of the code, Congress has passed bills saying that those sections of the code ARE the offical statement of the law, superceding the Statutes at Large.
This is called "enacting into positive law".
An example of a section of the US Code that has been enacted into positive law is 17 USC, which covers copyrights.
Thus, if you want to find the current copyright law, you could start with the version of the US Code that had 17 USC enacted into positive law.
You'd still have to check the Statutes at Large, but only for bills that came after the enactment of 17 USC.
On the other hand, 26 USC, the Internal Revenue Code, has not been enacted into positive law, so for the definitive statement of US tax law, you need to dig through the Statutes at Large for it all.
The above is what the government does.
There are third party companies that provide more.
West Publishing, for instance, publishes the "United States Code Annotated" (USCA).
USCA reprints the US Code, but for each section it gives citations to the legislative history, and citations to court cases that concerned that section, along with short summaries of the relevant points of those cases.
This is a great resource for legal research, but its not cheap.
The complete set is $7663, although you can buy individul volumes.
Copyright, for example, is covered in two volumes at $159 each.
I don't know if its still around or used much, but West also had a classification system of law, where they basically had a giant outline of all the topics that law might cover.
They published annotated volumes that reprinted court cases, with each case preceeded with a summary written by West employees, which included references into that giant outline for all the topics that case covered, with short summaries of those particular points.
They also published a big series of volumens that basically consisted of that giant outline, giving for each topic the case cites to the cases that involved that topic, and short summaries.
If you were trying to resarch something, you could figure out where your topic appeared in West's outline, find it in those volumes, and quickly see the leading relevant cases and what they said.
West is not authoritative, of course, so you'd then have to go read those cases.
Another company, The Frank Shepard Company, published a set of volumes that listed cases for each year, along with citations to all subsequent cases that cited those cases, with a summary of whether they were cited favorably or disfavorably.
Once you found a case that you thought you might want to use (say, through West's resources), you could look
Whoa. Did I just read "Marshall, TX" and "patents were invalid" in the same sentence? Someone should check that the earth's polarity just didn't go through a reversal
Defendants have been doing well in patent suits in Texas for a few years.
The notion that EDT somehow unduly favors plaintiffs is a myth.
Note that the expected outcome of a patent suit is a win for plaintiffs, pretty much in any district, for the simple reason that it is plaintiffs who decide to bring suit.
It costs a lot of time and money to get a case to the point of filing a patent suit, so the only ones that make it to court are ones where the plaintiff has spent considerable effort in determining that they have a decent chance of winning.
Plaintiffs choose EDT not because they think it favors them.
They choose it because many other plaintiffs chose it, and so the courts there have experience with patent litigation.
Patent litigation is complex, so both plaintiffs and defendants really want judges who are experienced in it.
Of course, that raises the question of how EDT got started in patents in the first place.
I believe that it started when a particular judge there, with a background in computer programming, worked on a complex patent case as a lawyer, before he became a judge.
He enjoyed the challenge, and when he became a judge, he made it a point to try to be assigned any patent cases that came up in EDT.
That in turn caused more people to file in EDT, and so on.
Another factor is that there is not much federal crime going on in EDT.
Patent suits are civil, not criminal.
Criminal cases take priority over civil cases, because of the Constitutional right to a speedy trial in criminal cases.
In a district with a busy criminal element (and the braindead "war on drugs" has ensured that there is a steady supply of federal crime in many districts), it can take years to get court time for a civil case.
Hence, plaintiffs seek out districts that have light criminal calendars.
The letter said not open, not proprietary.
The most accurate way to think of the App Store is it is analogous to a distribution In the linux world (roughly). If I want my software included in Ubuntu, I need their approval.
No, that's not what jury nullification is for. Jury nullification is for dealing with a bad law when all the other mechanisms for dealing with a bad law, such as getting the legislature to change the law, have broken.
Jurors aren't told about nullification because to do so would lead to widespread injustice. Juries would not only use the power to let people off who are guilty (often for reasons other than a bad law, such as because the person is white and the victim is not), but they would also use it to convict people who are not guilty because the jury doesn't like something about the defendant (see the South from the mid 19th to mid 20th centuries for many many examples). Since juries don't have to say why they convicted, those wrongly convicted would not be able to count on an appeal to save them--the appeals court won't know that the jury convicted based on, say, race rather than on the evidence.
Microsoft doesn't tell *you* which ones. That doesn't mean they haven't told others, such as HTC, Amazon, Samsung, LG, and the others who have decided to license their patents.
Free software doesn't have just one revenue stream, there are numerous different ways to get money. The fundamental problem is that music does not require support. Most of the revenue streams either assume you're paying for physical media or support
I'd say the fundamental problem is that support as a revenue stream incentivizes the wrong thing. Being good at programming and being good at providing support are not the same skill. In fact, good programmers are often lousy at dealing with customers and their problems. Why should a programmer's income be based on how well he provides support, instead of how well he programs?
Even worse, if a particular programmer is good at providing support, he makes the most money by making sure his software isn't as good as it could be. It should have bugs and problems, just as long as they aren't enough to drive people to his competitors, so that he can sell more support.
Similarly for music. Many musicians are great in the studio, but suck at concerts. For some kinds of music, the whole notion of a concert doesn't even make sense.
A good system for paying creative people (programmers, musicians, artists, and so on) should make their money be tied to their creative output, not some ancillary thing. Programmers should be paid to program. Musicians should be paid to make music. etc.
Given how large the universe is, we don't even have to hide. As it seems hard to travel faster than light, we should be pretty safe
Faster than light travel is only necessary for the aliens if they wish to come here, kick our asses, and get back home without too much time having passed at home. If they don't intend to go home (for instance, they are nomads), then there's no need for FTL. All they have to do is go fast enough for time dilation to make the journey for those on the ship short enough for their lifetimes and supplies. If the ship has a self-sustaining population, they don't even need to approach the speed of light--although they probably would want to, so as to beat competitors to the target.
There was an option to appeal the takedown notice, and I filled it out, providing as a reason "Parody is a recognized fair use under US copyright law."
That's a common misconception, largely due to the press doing its usual poor job of reporting Supreme Court decisions (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.). An accurate statement of the law is that parody may be fair use. Basically, the district court said parody was fair use. The appeals court said it wasn't. The Supreme Court said it could be--it's one of the things you consider when considering that nature of the work, and send the case back down to the district court to try again.
My wife has called bars, stores, restaurants, and cabbies to track down her crappy LG. You're telling me this guy never thought to call the bar the next day? Or that the bar sold it off before the guy could claim it?
The bar had nothIng to do with the finding of the phone, nor with the selling of it. For all we know, the guy did call the bar.
Re:your first sentence is technically flawed
on
Ubuntu on a Dime
·
· Score: 1
There was in fact a port of System III to the original IBM PC. It was called PC/IX, and was developed for IBM under contract by INTERACTIVE Systems Corp.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is severely limited by the installed base. What you hypothesize simply would not happen. When a new Office version supports a new format, it takes a long time for the new format to gain widespread use. By the time any such changes were important enough to matter, third parties would have them covered. Heck, that is even how it worked when the formats were completely undocumented.
According to the people who developed WINE, it is an emulator. The "Wine Is Not an Emulator" means its not a hardware emulator.
According to the Bob Amstadt, the first name he considered was "winemu", but he didn't like that, so shortened it to wine.
The first use of "WINE Is Not an Emulator" was suggested in a 1993 Usenet post, prompted over concern that "Windows Emulator" might run into trademark problems with Microsoft. This suggestion was not adopted, however, and the release notes each month continued to announce new releases as new releases of "Wine, the MS Windows emulator".
It wasn't until 1997 that the "not an emulator" phrase started gaining widespread use, as an alternative interpretation of the name. The WINE FAQ said that WINE stands for WINdows Emualtor or Wine is Not an Emulator, and said both were right and you should take your pick.
The 2008-12-11 release was the first to drop emulator. It announced a new release of "Wine, a free implementation of Windows on Unix".
As far as I've been able to tell from old mailing lists, and digging through Usenet archives, there were two reasons for stopping calling it an emulator.
First, WINE was useful for more than just taking Windows binaries and running then on Unix. If you had source for a Windows program, you could recompile and relink on Unix, linking with the WINE libraries, to get a more native Unix port of the application. Just calling it an emulator would tend to deemphasize that aspect of WINE.
Second, there was an explosion of hardware emulators, emulating both old systems (such as old gaming consoles, old 8-bit personal computers, and the like), and emulating new hardware (e.g., x86 emulators). Some of these were slow (especially the x86 emulators). When people heard the word "emulation", they would tend to think "slow". Most people were not aware of the distinction between emulating hardware and emulating software, and so WINE, which emulates software, would get tainted by the slow reputation of things that emulate hardware. Given the choice between trying to educate the general user on the distinction between hardware and software emulation and the performance characteristics of the two, and just not saying the "emulator" word around WINE, they chose the latter.
Note that this was purely a name change, not a technology change. WINE was an emulator before December 11, 1998, and so remained an emulator afterwards. The "not an emulator" stuff is essentially marketing/PR. On a technical forum like Slashdot (pause for the laughter to die down) it's probably best to stick with the technically accurate description, and call it an emulator.
That wouldn't work. For instance, company A develops a new drug for boneitis. They patent it. They aren't even interested in licensing it. However, the other drug companies all start manufacturing it anyway, without licenses. Company A sues them.
They point out that since the whole industry is making this drug, it is an industry standard, and the patents cannot be enforced according to the proposed stupid law.
Or is the law only meant to apply to standards that are formally develped by an industry group, as opposed to de facto industry standards? If so, company A is still out of luck. The other companies get together and form the Boneitis Treatment Standardization Committee, and approve a variant of A's drug as the standard treatment. Now it's a de jure, not just de facto industry standard, and the stupid law applies.
Or does it only apply when the standardization involves the whole industry? In that case, it would not apply to H.264 because not everyone in the industry participated in the standardizaion.
The net effect of the proposed law is to get rid of patents, except in the case where only the patent holder is interested in using the invention (e.g., there is some other factor besides the patent that stops others from using the invention), or there are sufficient alternative ways to accomplish what the patent covers that no one needs to license it. In both of these cases, there is no point in getting th patent in the first place.
If we want to get rid of patents, the legislature has the power to do so. The Constitution allows a patent system. It does not mandate a patent system. The proposed law is simply brain dead.
Correct.
Producing the movie does not require a license. Distributing the movie for pay would require a license.
Producing with H.264 does not require paying a license fee. Demo reels generally are not distributed for pay or in quantities large enough to meet the thresholds for which licensing fees kick in.
Engadget had a good article that dealt with much of the H.24 licensing FUD that is going around.
Perhaps evilbessie is religious, and prefers Godly integers to the decimals of Man. After all, "God made the integers; all else is the work of man"--Leopold Kronecker.
When I saw the headline, I thought it was about Welsh porn, and figured they just wanted to save resources. A list of Welsh porn would take up way too much space, with titles like "Goleuddydd does Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch".
The trick is to not bother with the forums directly. Use a couple sites like reddit or hacker news. When something worthwhile shows up in forums, someone will post a link to reddit or HN (and a week later to Slashdot...). If you want to discuss it, discuss it on reddit or HN. The threading is better than most forums and the discussion is generally better.
Large parts of .NET, namely those that are using in the .NET Micro framework, have been released under the Apache license.
IE9 will continue to support other codecs via plugin.
Without copyrights, how do you require that anyone distributing binaries also distribute source?
That's close to how it works now. See the long comment I just submitted about the US Code for details.
The US Code is kind of what you are asking for. Before the US Code, the way Federal law worked was that the Congress would pass bills. Once a year, the Government Printing Office prints a volume containing the laws for that year, in chronological order. These are called the Statutes at Large.
The law at any given time was the net result of applying all of the Statutes at Large up to that point, plus any bills that had been passed since the cutoff for the latest Statutes at Large and whose effective date had passed.
Bills are often written as essentially diffs to previous bills. Figuring out the law at a given time under this system could be a pain in the ass, of course.
To make it a lot easier to find and understand the law, the House or Representatives started producing the US Code. Essentially, this takes all the laws from the Statutes at Large, and arranges them by topic, rather than chronologically, applying all the diffs, resulting in an organized statement of the law. Note that a given bill from the Statutes at Large might end up going into the Code in several parts, because the bill might cover affect multiple topics.
The Code was not official. If there was a conflict between something in the code and a bill from the Statutes at Large, the latter won.
However, for some sections of the code, Congress has passed bills saying that those sections of the code ARE the offical statement of the law, superceding the Statutes at Large. This is called "enacting into positive law". An example of a section of the US Code that has been enacted into positive law is 17 USC, which covers copyrights. Thus, if you want to find the current copyright law, you could start with the version of the US Code that had 17 USC enacted into positive law. You'd still have to check the Statutes at Large, but only for bills that came after the enactment of 17 USC. On the other hand, 26 USC, the Internal Revenue Code, has not been enacted into positive law, so for the definitive statement of US tax law, you need to dig through the Statutes at Large for it all.
The above is what the government does. There are third party companies that provide more. West Publishing, for instance, publishes the "United States Code Annotated" (USCA). USCA reprints the US Code, but for each section it gives citations to the legislative history, and citations to court cases that concerned that section, along with short summaries of the relevant points of those cases. This is a great resource for legal research, but its not cheap. The complete set is $7663, although you can buy individul volumes. Copyright, for example, is covered in two volumes at $159 each.
I don't know if its still around or used much, but West also had a classification system of law, where they basically had a giant outline of all the topics that law might cover. They published annotated volumes that reprinted court cases, with each case preceeded with a summary written by West employees, which included references into that giant outline for all the topics that case covered, with short summaries of those particular points. They also published a big series of volumens that basically consisted of that giant outline, giving for each topic the case cites to the cases that involved that topic, and short summaries. If you were trying to resarch something, you could figure out where your topic appeared in West's outline, find it in those volumes, and quickly see the leading relevant cases and what they said. West is not authoritative, of course, so you'd then have to go read those cases.
Another company, The Frank Shepard Company, published a set of volumes that listed cases for each year, along with citations to all subsequent cases that cited those cases, with a summary of whether they were cited favorably or disfavorably. Once you found a case that you thought you might want to use (say, through West's resources), you could look
No copyrights would mean no Free Software.
Defendants have been doing well in patent suits in Texas for a few years. The notion that EDT somehow unduly favors plaintiffs is a myth.
Note that the expected outcome of a patent suit is a win for plaintiffs, pretty much in any district, for the simple reason that it is plaintiffs who decide to bring suit. It costs a lot of time and money to get a case to the point of filing a patent suit, so the only ones that make it to court are ones where the plaintiff has spent considerable effort in determining that they have a decent chance of winning.
Plaintiffs choose EDT not because they think it favors them. They choose it because many other plaintiffs chose it, and so the courts there have experience with patent litigation. Patent litigation is complex, so both plaintiffs and defendants really want judges who are experienced in it.
Of course, that raises the question of how EDT got started in patents in the first place. I believe that it started when a particular judge there, with a background in computer programming, worked on a complex patent case as a lawyer, before he became a judge. He enjoyed the challenge, and when he became a judge, he made it a point to try to be assigned any patent cases that came up in EDT. That in turn caused more people to file in EDT, and so on.
Another factor is that there is not much federal crime going on in EDT. Patent suits are civil, not criminal. Criminal cases take priority over civil cases, because of the Constitutional right to a speedy trial in criminal cases. In a district with a busy criminal element (and the braindead "war on drugs" has ensured that there is a steady supply of federal crime in many districts), it can take years to get court time for a civil case. Hence, plaintiffs seek out districts that have light criminal calendars.
The letter said not open, not proprietary. The most accurate way to think of the App Store is it is analogous to a distribution In the linux world (roughly). If I want my software included in Ubuntu, I need their approval.
No, that's not what jury nullification is for. Jury nullification is for dealing with a bad law when all the other mechanisms for dealing with a bad law, such as getting the legislature to change the law, have broken.
Jurors aren't told about nullification because to do so would lead to widespread injustice. Juries would not only use the power to let people off who are guilty (often for reasons other than a bad law, such as because the person is white and the victim is not), but they would also use it to convict people who are not guilty because the jury doesn't like something about the defendant (see the South from the mid 19th to mid 20th centuries for many many examples). Since juries don't have to say why they convicted, those wrongly convicted would not be able to count on an appeal to save them--the appeals court won't know that the jury convicted based on, say, race rather than on the evidence.
Microsoft doesn't tell *you* which ones. That doesn't mean they haven't told others, such as HTC, Amazon, Samsung, LG, and the others who have decided to license their patents.
Free software doesn't have just one revenue stream, there are numerous different ways to get money. The fundamental problem is that music does not require support. Most of the revenue streams either assume you're paying for physical media or support
I'd say the fundamental problem is that support as a revenue stream incentivizes the wrong thing. Being good at programming and being good at providing support are not the same skill. In fact, good programmers are often lousy at dealing with customers and their problems. Why should a programmer's income be based on how well he provides support, instead of how well he programs?
Even worse, if a particular programmer is good at providing support, he makes the most money by making sure his software isn't as good as it could be. It should have bugs and problems, just as long as they aren't enough to drive people to his competitors, so that he can sell more support.
Similarly for music. Many musicians are great in the studio, but suck at concerts. For some kinds of music, the whole notion of a concert doesn't even make sense.
A good system for paying creative people (programmers, musicians, artists, and so on) should make their money be tied to their creative output, not some ancillary thing. Programmers should be paid to program. Musicians should be paid to make music. etc.
Given how large the universe is, we don't even have to hide. As it seems hard to travel faster than light, we should be pretty safe
Faster than light travel is only necessary for the aliens if they wish to come here, kick our asses, and get back home without too much time having passed at home. If they don't intend to go home (for instance, they are nomads), then there's no need for FTL. All they have to do is go fast enough for time dilation to make the journey for those on the ship short enough for their lifetimes and supplies. If the ship has a self-sustaining population, they don't even need to approach the speed of light--although they probably would want to, so as to beat competitors to the target.
FTFL: "multiAVCHD is free and no one can charge you, should you decide to obtain/download it."
Hence, spikeb is correct. It is not Free Software. It is software that costs $0.
There was an option to appeal the takedown notice, and I filled it out, providing as a reason "Parody is a recognized fair use under US copyright law."
That's a common misconception, largely due to the press doing its usual poor job of reporting Supreme Court decisions (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.). An accurate statement of the law is that parody may be fair use. Basically, the district court said parody was fair use. The appeals court said it wasn't. The Supreme Court said it could be--it's one of the things you consider when considering that nature of the work, and send the case back down to the district court to try again.
My wife has called bars, stores, restaurants, and cabbies to track down her crappy LG. You're telling me this guy never thought to call the bar the next day? Or that the bar sold it off before the guy could claim it?
The bar had nothIng to do with the finding of the phone, nor with the selling of it. For all we know, the guy did call the bar.
FUCK THIS SHIT, and fuck all the Apple astroturfers like Paska
He is not an astroturfer. Maybe you should actually learn what the word means before tou try to use it.
It's a pretty terrific porn browser. So I'm told.
There was in fact a port of System III to the original IBM PC. It was called PC/IX, and was developed for IBM under contract by INTERACTIVE Systems Corp.