It was briefly. A lot of projects got permission from the military to use other languages because Ada wasn't feasible for them. Eventually the government dropped the requirement completely.
"..sure DVORAK might provide 20% faster typing if you work at it for 3 years, but that's not really enough to warrant the switch."
Sure, if you're typing code, but if you were typing documents it would be a big advantage. I don't know where you get the 3 years idea - DVORAK is much easier to learn than QWERTY.
I don't know the EU has been giving MS a hard time, now Oracle. All they need is to piss off IBM and they might have to adopt PostgreSQL whether they want to or not.
I understand your point of view but I think you're oversimplifying. The EU is upset with MS, how come they haven't developed a successful alternative?
It's because the will and ability to compete isn't always enough to succeed in the marketplace.
It would cost EU companies billions to switch from Oracle to another database. Obviously, it would even be worse for Oracle, but it's really a lose-lose situation in the short and middle term.
The problem is that recent studies indicate that exercise doesn't change your at-rest metabolism. To me it makes sense - what's the survival value of burning calories faster when there's no need for it?
Yes, many early programs bypassed both DOS and the BIOS as well. However, many more did not and if you made a clone that couldn't handle DOS it would have crashed and burned very quickly.
I don't know what their motivation was for puplishing the schematics, but if their intent was to encourage clones they would have released all the IP required in the public domain.
Given that they were able to do so solely because of their negotiation with IBM, I'd say they made their own luck.
In any case, a PC-DOS-compatible OS was just as important to the clone business as the BIOS, probably more since the OS would evolve a lot faster than the BIOS.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody kicks you in the nuts but you're good because they didn't poke you in the eye.
It was briefly. A lot of projects got permission from the military to use other languages because Ada wasn't feasible for them. Eventually the government dropped the requirement completely.
Actually, I know one person who can go back and forth between them successfully.
"..sure DVORAK might provide 20% faster typing if you work at it for 3 years, but that's not really enough to warrant the switch."
Sure, if you're typing code, but if you were typing documents it would be a big advantage. I don't know where you get the 3 years idea - DVORAK is much easier to learn than QWERTY.
"Neither Ada nor the Modula family had it, and those languages have been run on bare machines with no other OS underneath"
Or customers above either.
I don't know the EU has been giving MS a hard time, now Oracle. All they need is to piss off IBM and they might have to adopt PostgreSQL whether they want to or not.
I understand your point of view but I think you're oversimplifying. The EU is upset with MS, how come they haven't developed a successful alternative?
It's because the will and ability to compete isn't always enough to succeed in the marketplace.
It would cost EU companies billions to switch from Oracle to another database. Obviously, it would even be worse for Oracle, but it's really a lose-lose situation in the short and middle term.
I'm willing to bear the burden of his remorse if he just hands me the money he made from the sale.
"The Europeans' goal is to protect the competitive process & consumer welfare."
You mean like requiring MS to offer a version of Windows without a browser?
You may be right, but don't discount the possibility that Ellison just doesn't want to be told what to do.
By all means, please explain it to us.
I guess I was napping when relativity and quantum mechanics were unified in a single proven theory.
Sure, that's why I only trade in markets where the other players are particles rather than humans.
Well, if you're going to reduce functionality of the CLI interface, you're no longer comparing apples with apples.
Yes, a dumb terminal is more secure and stable than a PC.
The problem is that recent studies indicate that exercise doesn't change your at-rest metabolism. To me it makes sense - what's the survival value of burning calories faster when there's no need for it?
"If people didn't crave the convenience of GUIs, and operating systems could be CLI only, they'd be vastly more stable and secure than they are."
There's nothing about a CLI interface that makes an OS more stable or secure than a GUI-based one.
Yes, many early programs bypassed both DOS and the BIOS as well. However, many more did not and if you made a clone that couldn't handle DOS it would have crashed and burned very quickly.
I don't know what their motivation was for puplishing the schematics, but if their intent was to encourage clones they would have released all the IP required in the public domain.
Look we obviously disagree but you didn't really think that quoting dogma that everybody is familiar with was going to change anyone's mind did you?
MS's major contribution was to facilitate the making of PC clones which lead to lower prices and improved performance.
The commodity nature of PC's was a necessary requirement for the creation and success of Linux.
Yes, as your copy/paste illustrates the GPL has a narrow definition of freedom.
Given that they were able to do so solely because of their negotiation with IBM, I'd say they made their own luck.
In any case, a PC-DOS-compatible OS was just as important to the clone business as the BIOS, probably more since the OS would evolve a lot faster than the BIOS.
I think the best you can say is that the GPL is the principle. The GPL uses a too narrow definition of freedom to have it be its principle.
No doubt they used Compaq-DOS.
You enjoy that freedom as well.