Well, if 'Print Preview' was added that way, it was added to Word for DOS, not 'Office.' It went into Word for DOS in version 5. (different numbering scheme than Word for Windows).
Wow! I don't know anybody who paid for four shareware licenses for PKZip. I'm impressed....
At my work I work on Win32, OS/2, and Unix machines 'cross a whole bunch of network. I certainly have no time for a proprietary platform specific version of zip utility. Nor would I want to have to buy a license on each machine I use.
In some cases it doesn't help to turn on all warnings with GCC. The 'pedantic' and 'ansi' switches on the GNU C compiler don't trap out all deviations from the ANSI standard. Doing so would defeat the GCC team's 'embrace and extend' campaign to encourage programmers to slowly let GNUisms creep into their code, so that eventually nothing will build on any compiler except GCC.
The issue forms the basis of a long drawn out Usenet thread on comp.lang.c last year. Read up on it. GCC is an aggressive 'embrace and extend' language. It puts Microsoft's Java to shame.
For some reason, the 80386 Programmer's Reference Manual is one of the documents that has almost completely disappeared from availability. Try to find a copy of it you can download anywhere. I did for quite some time. Eventually I got luck when my department moved and some older software engineers threw away their paper copies.
Why doesn't Intel want that book to be available? Is it deprecated?
The IBM Bios wasn't 'reverse engineered'. A 'clean room' re-implementation had to be written. All the source code for the IBM Bios is published in the Technical Reference manual.
Publishing it that way did two things:
1. It made it easy for people to develop bios extensions and write tight code.
2. It immediately exposed a lot of potential competing programmers to their BIOS code, rendering them useless for writing a clone BIOS.
Compaq had to expend considerable resources on one team, to document and specify the IBM Bios Code. They then had to hand those documents to a coding team who had never looked at IBM's published source, to reimplement it independently.
All kinds of potential customers are getting confused on that one. Should they order a Cobalt Qube, or should they hop into a time machine and order a NeXT Cube?
Was the NeXT Cube on the market when Cobalt introduced their product? Was Cobalt's product an attempt to muscle in on an image NeXT had spent a lot of capital marketing?
The answer to both questions is, of course, no.
But those are both important factors in Apple's new product, introduced while the Cobalt product is on the market.
The NeXTCube is from a completely different era of marketing.
This is a 'trade dress' dispute, and in the current marketplace, Apple is trying to muscle in on the 'cube' computer image that Cobalt presently promotes.
It's very similar to Apple trying to spank anybody grabbing the iMac image.
And let's face it. Apple has always mainly been about image.
You're being more than a tad ignorant, and you're wrong.
It's common for people who holler 'huzzah! viva la revolution!' to be wrong. Often simply because they're ignorant.
Any time someone starts blathering about 'the masses' I just want to teleport the cretin into the middle of a crowd of people trying to get out of a football stadium to their cars. Go ahead and try to convince them to take your fricking leaflet, dude.
You're right. While machine tools and metalworking technology has come leaps and bounds in the last century, Babbage's design for an all mechanical calulating engine wasn't realistic.
No company would be foolish enough to try something like that now. Even though they did in the past. (when I was a kid I had a cool mechanical adding machine that would even do long division. It took about 20 noisy whirring seconds to come up with and print the result, of course)
Intellectual property has served its purpose Clinging to it any longer can only be harmful
Ah, yes. Historical inevitability.
People have been making claims like that since the First International back in the late 19th Century.
Overbearing and largely unfounded declarations of inevitability have served their purpose (the mass murder of millions). Clinging to it any longer can only be harmful.
For more information, consult a library filled with history texts (no! do not cling dependent on any one particular text!)
I agree. There's a time and place for everything. One wouldn't try to hold a wake in a tavern that was halfway through Happy Hour. The people who post stories like this are asking for the kind of disrespect heaped on the poor soul (RIP) who has passed away.
It's perhaps time to reassess the prudence of setting up what amounts to an obituary thread on this site. It's just plain in bad taste, because the structure of this board doesn't foster a respectful response.
Please stop pretending this is a 'community' with the kind of maturity these sorts of topics can handle. Have some respect for the dead, Rob.
Napster has proven itself to be a good faith player with the producers and distributors in the music industry. There will be something similar to what you describe with regard to downloaded music, eventually. But when Napster loses their case, they'll be liquidated and their assets given to the RIAA. The RIAA will probably then rebrand the 'Napster' trademark for what it's worth, to recover legal costs.
I'm trying to think of where they might use the trademark. I'm thinking maybe they'll sell it to Johnson&Johnson. It would make a nice trademark for a hip brand of disposable diapers.
I don't know about you, but I've been buying lots of used vinyl lately. I upgraded my turntable earlier this summer and have been converting all my vinyl to CD audio. It qualifies under anybody's interpretation of 'Fair Use' to do so, so long as I retain the original vinyl, which I fully intend to do.
I am worried, though, about the erosion of 'fair use' that a lot of boneheaded pirates are accelerating, by calling it 'fair use' to widely distribute rips of their CD collection to total strangers over the net. If it keeps up, 'fair use' may go away altogether. Thanks, guys.
Every once in awhile I'm stuck in TEDIT on OS/2 when I'm unfortunate enough to be on a machine at work that I haven't dragged in a clone of vi. What a horrible editor it is.
It's worthwhile to visit the Bell Labs site and read their take on the history of Unix. It's important, though, to bear in mind that they are NOT a disinterested party in the history. In fact, they were a strong force, especially in the middle years, in trying to force Unix to remain a proprietary OS. Read A Quarter Century of UNIX by Peter H. Salus, Addison-Wesley, 1994, ISBN 0-201-54777-5 for a much less biased and more complete history. It's an expensive paperback but I've never regretted adding it to my shelf.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget skins! It has to be skinnable!!
Nietzche had no point.
Just a lot of fancy words and a bunch of people eager for him to render their pointless lives no worse than anybody else's lives.
He was one evil fucker, in other words.
Well, if 'Print Preview' was added that way, it was added to Word for DOS, not 'Office.' It went into Word for DOS in version 5. (different numbering scheme than Word for Windows).
Wow! I don't know anybody who paid for four shareware licenses for PKZip. I'm impressed....
At my work I work on Win32, OS/2, and Unix machines 'cross a whole bunch of network. I certainly have no time for a proprietary platform specific version of zip utility. Nor would I want to have to buy a license on each machine I use.
You're legal on all four of those copies, right?
In some cases it doesn't help to turn on all warnings with GCC. The 'pedantic' and 'ansi' switches on the GNU C compiler don't trap out all deviations from the ANSI standard. Doing so would defeat the GCC team's 'embrace and extend' campaign to encourage programmers to slowly let GNUisms creep into their code, so that eventually nothing will build on any compiler except GCC.
The issue forms the basis of a long drawn out Usenet thread on comp.lang.c last year. Read up on it. GCC is an aggressive 'embrace and extend' language. It puts Microsoft's Java to shame.
For some reason, the 80386 Programmer's Reference Manual is one of the documents that has almost completely disappeared from availability. Try to find a copy of it you can download anywhere. I did for quite some time. Eventually I got luck when my department moved and some older software engineers threw away their paper copies.
Why doesn't Intel want that book to be available? Is it deprecated?
what are you yawning about?
I will not run any of these games until they're ported to DOS 2.0 so I can run them on my PC Junior, which has the maximum 128k of RAM in it!
Grrrr! Grrrrr! Self-righteous-grrrrr!!!
(heh)
The ignorance one can find on Slashdot is sometimes shocking.
The IBM Bios wasn't 'reverse engineered'. A 'clean room' re-implementation had to be written. All the source code for the IBM Bios is published in the Technical Reference manual.
Publishing it that way did two things:
1. It made it easy for people to develop bios extensions and write tight code.
2. It immediately exposed a lot of potential competing programmers to their BIOS code, rendering them useless for writing a clone BIOS.
Compaq had to expend considerable resources on one team, to document and specify the IBM Bios Code. They then had to hand those documents to a coding team who had never looked at IBM's published source, to reimplement it independently.
Reverse engineering never entered into it at all.
No more confusing than Cobalt Qube vs. NeXT Cube
Yeah, right.
All kinds of potential customers are getting confused on that one. Should they order a Cobalt Qube, or should they hop into a time machine and order a NeXT Cube?
Was the NeXT Cube on the market when Cobalt introduced their product? Was Cobalt's product an attempt to muscle in on an image NeXT had spent a lot of capital marketing?
The answer to both questions is, of course, no.
But those are both important factors in Apple's new product, introduced while the Cobalt product is on the market.
This isn't a patent dispute.
The NeXTCube is from a completely different era of marketing.
This is a 'trade dress' dispute, and in the current marketplace, Apple is trying to muscle in on the 'cube' computer image that Cobalt presently promotes.
It's very similar to Apple trying to spank anybody grabbing the iMac image.
And let's face it. Apple has always mainly been about image.
You're being more than a tad ignorant, and you're wrong.
It's common for people who holler 'huzzah! viva la revolution!' to be wrong. Often simply because they're ignorant.
Any time someone starts blathering about 'the masses' I just want to teleport the cretin into the middle of a crowd of people trying to get out of a football stadium to their cars. Go ahead and try to convince them to take your fricking leaflet, dude.
The issues revolve around trade dress and marketing. And paleo-computers like Next machines are from a completely different era.
This is the stuff that Apple usually does, and it is delicious to see someone else doing it to Apple.
I agree completely.
What instrument do you play?
It's all they carry.
*sigh*
Music Industry Guy #1: "That doesn't look like a gopher! That looks like a big elephant! It's huge!"
Music Industry Guy #2: "Whack it anyway!"
Music Industry Guy #1: "Okay. Fetch the elephant gun"
(moral of the story- big servers with many users are big targets. If Napster is busted, there's a legal precedent to smash any fellow travelers)
You're right. While machine tools and metalworking technology has come leaps and bounds in the last century, Babbage's design for an all mechanical calulating engine wasn't realistic.
No company would be foolish enough to try something like that now. Even though they did in the past. (when I was a kid I had a cool mechanical adding machine that would even do long division. It took about 20 noisy whirring seconds to come up with and print the result, of course)
Intellectual property has served its purpose
Clinging to it any longer can only be harmful
Ah, yes. Historical inevitability.
People have been making claims like that since the First International back in the late 19th Century.
Overbearing and largely unfounded declarations of inevitability have served their purpose (the mass murder of millions). Clinging to it any longer can only be harmful.
For more information, consult a library filled with history texts (no! do not cling dependent on any one particular text!)
I agree. There's a time and place for everything. One wouldn't try to hold a wake in a tavern that was halfway through Happy Hour. The people who post stories like this are asking for the kind of disrespect heaped on the poor soul (RIP) who has passed away.
It's perhaps time to reassess the prudence of setting up what amounts to an obituary thread on this site. It's just plain in bad taste, because the structure of this board doesn't foster a respectful response.
Please stop pretending this is a 'community' with the kind of maturity these sorts of topics can handle. Have some respect for the dead, Rob.
I'm afraid not.
Napster has proven itself to be a good faith player with the producers and distributors in the music industry. There will be something similar to what you describe with regard to downloaded music, eventually. But when Napster loses their case, they'll be liquidated and their assets given to the RIAA. The RIAA will probably then rebrand the 'Napster' trademark for what it's worth, to recover legal costs.
I'm trying to think of where they might use the trademark. I'm thinking maybe they'll sell it to Johnson&Johnson. It would make a nice trademark for a hip brand of disposable diapers.
I don't know about you, but I've been buying lots of used vinyl lately. I upgraded my turntable earlier this summer and have been converting all my vinyl to CD audio. It qualifies under anybody's interpretation of 'Fair Use' to do so, so long as I retain the original vinyl, which I fully intend to do.
I am worried, though, about the erosion of 'fair use' that a lot of boneheaded pirates are accelerating, by calling it 'fair use' to widely distribute rips of their CD collection to total strangers over the net. If it keeps up, 'fair use' may go away altogether. Thanks, guys.
Every once in awhile I'm stuck in TEDIT on OS/2 when I'm unfortunate enough to be on a machine at work that I haven't dragged in a clone of vi. What a horrible editor it is.
It's worthwhile to visit the Bell Labs site and read their take on the history of Unix. It's important, though, to bear in mind that they are NOT a disinterested party in the history. In fact, they were a strong force, especially in the middle years, in trying to force Unix to remain a proprietary OS. Read A Quarter Century of UNIX by Peter H. Salus, Addison-Wesley, 1994, ISBN 0-201-54777-5 for a much less biased and more complete history. It's an expensive paperback but I've never regretted adding it to my shelf.
Notepad has almost the same menu structure and shortcut keys as MS-DOS editor.
You need to reach back to EDLIN if you want a crofty old MSDOS/PCDOS editor that's completely different from Notepad.