I only posted it so much because there are so many claiming it's a hoax, and I know it isn't. I was expecting people to post stuff complaining about how old and irrelevant (which it most certainly not irrelevant) it was, not about how it was a hoax.
Someone managed to find a good link, and here's the post
It was interesting to learn that the 640k comment is an urban legend. I'll have to remember to tell people that.
But, it's also too bad that your love for a meglomaniac renders you unable to see the truth about his character. Someone managed to find a source I would consider authoritative, a major academic journal. Here's the post:
The snippet is an honest rendition of the total interview. It is an excerpt from the part that is most damaging to Bill Gates, but it is not excerpted such that it distorts what he said.
The total interview actually went really well for Bill Gates until the interviewer started asking hard questions. Then Bill Gates started getting really hostile.
The interviewer eventually backed off a little and went on to another topic, but it still took Bill 2-3 questions to calm down. I wish I still had the magazine I originally saw it in. *sigh*
I was largely responding to repeated claims that the interview was a hoax. I wish FOCUS kept better archives, but they appear to be an MSN site now, so I shouldn't be surprised. It might help if I knew more than a few words of German.
Since neither 'Time' nor 'Wired' are German magazines, and I remember that the original articles stated that the interviewer was German, I would guess then that one of them reprinted it. I recognized the article immediately from reading the Slashdot news article, and never bothered to follow the article link. I knew that it was incredibly old, but was quite surprised to find so many people on here claiming it was a hoax.
Inside the kernel, Linux is something of a mess. But, they have a relatively narrow (compared to Windows anyway) interface between user space and the kernel. That's a huge part of why most Unixes (and Linux in particular) are so stable.
The interface between user space and the kernel is crufty in places (particularly legacy signal support, or System V IPC) but in large part it is beatiful and elegant.
*rolls eyes* Maybe, sometime when I feel like spending an hour or more hunting through my house to find it I'll satisfy your curiosity. It's actually reasonably probable I threw it out when I moved into my house in 2001.
Oh, shut up. If you bother to actually go to my website, you might realize that my hatred of Microsoft goes back to around 1992. I ran SCO from 1992-1994, UnixWare from 1995-1998, an Linux from then on. I've always felt their OSes were pathetic, and their interfaces horrible. I remember trying to program it and being horrified by the stupidity and messiness of their APIs. My comment to a friend was "They'll never make this stable. They've got too many entry points into the OS and they overlap a lot, but are all subtly different. It's too much to maintain."
Since Windows 2000 came out, I've almost been proved wrong, but it took them long enough, and I still don't trust it.
I can vouch for having read it in a magazine 8 years ago. I believe it was 'Time' or 'Wired'. I remember because of the intense conflicting emotions it stirred in me. I was amused, outraged, felt like my worst suspicions were confirmed, and sad because I knew people would use their software anyway.
It's an actual article. Just goes to show how little vision and foresight good old Bill really has.
It is a real interview. I disinctly remember it from 1995 when it first came out. I was appalled, outraged and amused, all at the same time. I may even still have a copy of the magazine I saw it in (which wasn't 'Focus', it was 'Time' or 'Wired').
It isn't a hoax. I think I still have the magazine in which this interview first appeared. I distinctly remember it. I was both highly amused and outraged at the same time. It was an odd combination.
Oh, I know it's real because I think I still have a copy of the magazine in which it first appeared. It was either 'Time' or 'Wired'. It was a highly amusing read, and had questions that only a non-American popular media journalist would've asked at the time. I believe the interviewer was German.
My ISPs that support IPv6, like mine (Visi) have tunnel endpoints right there. This is a much better solution than using some tunnel broker way off on some far flung corner of the network. It gets your tunnelled IPv4 packets turned back into IPv6 as close to you as possible.
Tunneling this way essentially works by sending IPv4 packets between tunnel endpoints who's content type field says they contain IPv6 packets.
Actually, we're designing an instant messaging and email system along very similar lines. Our company will be called General Presence once we decide to form one.
How is supporting a new monoculture (Linux) different that supporting the old monoculture (Microsoft) if monocultures are bad?
I sort of agree with you here, but there are a few mitigating factors. Linux, because of it's configurability is not the same kind of monoculture as Microsoft.
Microsoft is like a whole field full of wheat in which each plant is an exact clone of all the other plants. Linux is like a field of wheat with no corn, barley, or anything else. The Linux monoculture is significantly more robust.
The reason I say this is that (barring the fact that lots of people (including me) have RedHat installed) no two versions of, say, Apache are goin to be exactly identical. Some will have certain features as loadable modules, some compiled in. The functions are going to be in different places in the executable.
All this means that while many Apache's might be vulnerable to the same buffer overflow exploit, they are not all going to react the exact same way to a particular piece of exploit code. There is some diversity.
If someone would come out with a version of BSD that was covered by the GPL, I might use it.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
That's not my work. :-) I've never bothered to get that running again after upgrading to RH 8.0 and the new version of Apache.
I only posted it so much because there are so many claiming it's a hoax, and I know it isn't. I was expecting people to post stuff complaining about how old and irrelevant (which it most certainly not irrelevant) it was, not about how it was a hoax.
Someone managed to find a good link, and here's the post
Someone managed to find a link to a source I consider authoritative enough. Here's the post
Perhaps it was on a humor site because Mr. Bill made a fool of himself in front of the world.
Someone managed to find a source I would consider authoritative, a major academic journal. Here's the post:
l d=-1&commentsort=3&tid=109&mode=thread&pid=5342140 #5342157
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=54440&thresho
and here's the journal article:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/17.44.html#subj11
It was interesting to learn that the 640k comment is an urban legend. I'll have to remember to tell people that.
But, it's also too bad that your love for a meglomaniac renders you unable to see the truth about his character. Someone managed to find a source I would consider authoritative, a major academic journal. Here's the post:
l d=-1&commentsort=3&tid=109&mode=thread&pid=5342140 #5342157
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=54440&thresho
and here's the journal article:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/17.44.html#subj11
The snippet is an honest rendition of the total interview. It is an excerpt from the part that is most damaging to Bill Gates, but it is not excerpted such that it distorts what he said.
The total interview actually went really well for Bill Gates until the interviewer started asking hard questions. Then Bill Gates started getting really hostile.
The interviewer eventually backed off a little and went on to another topic, but it still took Bill 2-3 questions to calm down. I wish I still had the magazine I originally saw it in. *sigh*
I've searched through the 'Wired' archives, and it isn't there. It must've been in 'Time'. I wish now that I hadn't thrown it away.
*sigh* I searched, and I've thrown the magazine away in the move.
It might be this article, which could not have originated in an October issue of FOCUS, since it's in July. Sadly, I've cut up all my credit cards for the time being, and they don't accept PayPal.r ch/0,10987,1101950605-134241,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_sea
I was largely responding to repeated claims that the interview was a hoax. I wish FOCUS kept better archives, but they appear to be an MSN site now, so I shouldn't be surprised. It might help if I knew more than a few words of German.
Since neither 'Time' nor 'Wired' are German magazines, and I remember that the original articles stated that the interviewer was German, I would guess then that one of them reprinted it. I recognized the article immediately from reading the Slashdot news article, and never bothered to follow the article link. I knew that it was incredibly old, but was quite surprised to find so many people on here claiming it was a hoax.
Inside the kernel, Linux is something of a mess. But, they have a relatively narrow (compared to Windows anyway) interface between user space and the kernel. That's a huge part of why most Unixes (and Linux in particular) are so stable.
The interface between user space and the kernel is crufty in places (particularly legacy signal support, or System V IPC) but in large part it is beatiful and elegant.
Another link, also not overly definitive, but from a completely different source that sites specific issue and page numbers. It's in postscript, and I'm posting a link to a google ASCIIfied version:: undergraduate.csse.uwa.edu.au/units/230.205/Tutori al.5.ps+FOCUS++%22Only+if+that+is+what%27ll+sell!% 22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:atBDye-PXKkC
Still not definitive, but:7 6.html
http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1995/11/msg005
*rolls eyes* Maybe, sometime when I feel like spending an hour or more hunting through my house to find it I'll satisfy your curiosity. It's actually reasonably probable I threw it out when I moved into my house in 2001.
Oh, shut up. If you bother to actually go to my website, you might realize that my hatred of Microsoft goes back to around 1992. I ran SCO from 1992-1994, UnixWare from 1995-1998, an Linux from then on. I've always felt their OSes were pathetic, and their interfaces horrible. I remember trying to program it and being horrified by the stupidity and messiness of their APIs. My comment to a friend was "They'll never make this stable. They've got too many entry points into the OS and they overlap a lot, but are all subtly different. It's too much to maintain."
Since Windows 2000 came out, I've almost been proved wrong, but it took them long enough, and I still don't trust it.
I can vouch for having read it in a magazine 8 years ago. I believe it was 'Time' or 'Wired'. I remember because of the intense conflicting emotions it stirred in me. I was amused, outraged, felt like my worst suspicions were confirmed, and sad because I knew people would use their software anyway.
It's an actual article. Just goes to show how little vision and foresight good old Bill really has.
It is NOT a hoax or humor. I remember reading the interview originally in 1995. It was in 'Time' or 'Wired'. The interview was conducted by a German.
It is a real interview. I disinctly remember it from 1995 when it first came out. I was appalled, outraged and amused, all at the same time. I may even still have a copy of the magazine I saw it in (which wasn't 'Focus', it was 'Time' or 'Wired').
It isn't a hoax. I think I still have the magazine in which this interview first appeared. I distinctly remember it. I was both highly amused and outraged at the same time. It was an odd combination.
Oh, I know it's real because I think I still have a copy of the magazine in which it first appeared. It was either 'Time' or 'Wired'. It was a highly amusing read, and had questions that only a non-American popular media journalist would've asked at the time. I believe the interviewer was German.
It's real, though I bet Bill Gates would like to eat a lot of his words now. *chuckle* Sort of like the embarassing quotes about 640k.
Face it, Bill isn't much of a visionary, just an extremely ruthless, win at all costs business man who can take expert advantage of the moment.
My ISPs that support IPv6, like mine (Visi) have tunnel endpoints right there. This is a much better solution than using some tunnel broker way off on some far flung corner of the network. It gets your tunnelled IPv4 packets turned back into IPv6 as close to you as possible.
Tunneling this way essentially works by sending IPv4 packets between tunnel endpoints who's content type field says they contain IPv6 packets.
Actually, we're designing an instant messaging and email system along very similar lines. Our company will be called General Presence once we decide to form one.
I sort of agree with you here, but there are a few mitigating factors. Linux, because of it's configurability is not the same kind of monoculture as Microsoft.
Microsoft is like a whole field full of wheat in which each plant is an exact clone of all the other plants. Linux is like a field of wheat with no corn, barley, or anything else. The Linux monoculture is significantly more robust.
The reason I say this is that (barring the fact that lots of people (including me) have RedHat installed) no two versions of, say, Apache are goin to be exactly identical. Some will have certain features as loadable modules, some compiled in. The functions are going to be in different places in the executable.
All this means that while many Apache's might be vulnerable to the same buffer overflow exploit, they are not all going to react the exact same way to a particular piece of exploit code. There is some diversity.
If someone would come out with a version of BSD that was covered by the GPL, I might use it. :-)
It doesn't actually need any 'justification'. It's perfectly legal. *shrug*