I changed my spark plug wires and cables yesterday. And man, on a modern electronic ignition automobile engine where that's almost the only thing that can screw up, it made one hell of a lot of difference. I thought the car was really screwed up, it had been idling so bad. Simply replacing those foul plugs and cables made it idle at the right speed and the timing is great.
Win 2k badly wounded Linux, though. It shook out most of the people who had practical uses for Windows and left behind just the zealots and malcontents.
That was Microsoft that developed a UNIX flavor to run on the 8086 processor. (Microsoft Xenix) Back when the S in SUN stood for Stanford and nothing more.
They later sold it to what became SCO.
Re:Wonder what Ray Noorda thinks of all this?
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
I am addressing the issue that the 'wronged party' in the DR-DOS case was not Ray Noorda by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, he got a hell of a deal, he purchased DR-DOS at firesale prices, in part because Microsoft had turned the product into something near worthless. He bought it primarily as a vehicle to sue Microsoft. He was NOT the wronged party.
Similarly, the 'wronged party' in the Caldera/SCO case is somewhere in the distant past. The value to SCO in their holding of rights to the UNIX source is primarily in it's utility for suing IBM.
Re:Wonder what Ray Noorda thinks of all this?
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
Ray Noorda bought DR-DOS as a holding to enable him to sue Microsoft. He is known as a spiteful man and there were other early issues where he was 'stabbed in the back' by Microsoft.
DR-DOS has no particular lineage to CP/M and to say that it is 'the one true DOS' and MS-DOS is a bastardization of history. Further, it came late on the market after MS-DOS had been established as the dominant OS on it's hardware platform. If you want to look at the Digital Research product that does have the CP/M heritage and that failed in the market, it's CP/M-86, which was marketed as an alternative OS for the IBM PC (along with Xenix, by the way...) as an alternative, but failed. Wait awhile and maybe I'll sell you my boxed CP/M-86 set, which I'm considering hawking on eBay. But please, oh please, don't blather on about something you appear to know nothing about.
The biggest similarity between 'Noorda/DR-DOS' and 'SCO/UNIX codebase' is that SCO's ownership of the UNIX codebase enables the suit they are engaging in, just like Caldera's ownership of the DR-DOS codebase enabled their legal hijinx. The humorous thing about it all is the chorus of 'Gooooo Noorda!' that was heard in the DR-DOS vs. Microsoft case and the rank hypocrasy of the side the same pundits are taking now.
That's fine and it should be part of the political process. However, the many thousands of people in those districts who work for Microsoft and/or Microsoft associated businesses have their interests, and a right to have their interests represented in congress too. Not that this stuff is actually a grass-roots effort.
But very little of anything political is actually a grass-roots effort. The elites of the Left and Right are constantly in there creating and then manipulating 'Interest Groups'. Divide and conquer is the name of the game, and sometimes 'Identify and gimmie' for some band of hyphenated-Americans.
No. IBM clones are the result of a 'clean-room reimplementation.'
The IBM BIOS source code is published in commented Assembly language in the IBM Technical Reference manuals, which anybody could buy at the time for a few hundred dollars. No reverse-engineering was needed to figure out how the BIOS calls functioned.
The BIOS cloners simply had to hire one team to document the functionality of all the BIOS calls, and another team, who did not ever look at the IBM source code, to write new implementations of all the BIOS functions.
It was made easier by the fact that IBM published the BIOS source code. It's good stuff to have around (the published source) if you're into that kind of low-level bit mangling. Compaq also published the BIOS source code in manuals, I have the Deskpro 386 Technical Reference Manual, which has a 386-era BIOS source code in it.
It'd be even cooler to have the source code in editable form, instead of just printed list files, but that would be a bit much to expect....
The Apple kernal is a Mach microkernel derivative, inherited through the NeXTStep OS that Apple eventually settled on using after they proved incapable of developing a modern OS of their own.
The Apple kernel is NOT based on BSD. The middle layer of the userland is.
Which planet are you living on, where 'SCO, IBM, and Linux' in the title of a topic on Slashdot didn't suck up the majority of the comments and bandwidth on that day?
Why should they reveal their evidence before legally being required to do so? Ever played poker? Do you show your opponent your cards as you draw them?
You sound just like one of the anti-Linux trolls on C.O.L.A. (comp.os.linux.advocacy). They wander in from time to time with 'Installing Linux' horror stories that they hope to use in disuading people from trying Linux.
Only you're using the same sort of anectodal evidence to scare people into sticking with Linux.
I use NetBSD on quite a number of my machines (i386, Sparc, and PPC boxes). My experience, and it goes way back to the Red Hat 4.3 days, is that NetBSD installed FAR better than any Linux on my Toshiba laptop. The PCMCIA support is built INTO the NetBSD kernal of that time. The Linux PCMCIA support was a bolted on kludge that required extra floppy disks and a whole mass of extra bullshit to install NetBSD via NFS on a laptop using a PCMCIA ethernet card.
My opinion at that time solidified based on my real experience. There are dozens of flavors of Linux, all with their own Init setup, all with their own little forky methods of installing drivers as kernal modules. All based originally on the same, or similar source, but really a messy little swamp to be mired in. There's one NetBSD, one FreeBSD, and one OpenBSD. Pick one of them and learn how to use it, and you'll never need anything else for your UNIX boxes.
I once owned an Altos 586 box. That's an Altos system that used an 8086 processor, and the '5' was because it had 5 serial ports, and thus supported 5 users on dumb terminals simultaneously.
The machine ran Microsoft Xenix, a version derived from the UNIX source (system 3?) of the time.
It had a plain vanilla 8086 processor, and 512K of RAM in it. It ran five users simultaneously quite well.
The 80286 MMU is helpful as it provides hardware memory protection, but Microsoft XENIX did NOT require an 80286 or better to run. A big part of the whole initial thrust of the 80286 was for that sort of thing, though, and MS-DOS rolling forward and dominating the 80286 hardware was a freak occurance that probably bummed out a lot of the tech people at Intel who worked so hard on the '286. (though they sure cashed in on it's success).
Everybody who was ANYBODY (except for Apple shills and the more weasely flavor of lawyers) was dead against Apple in their look-n-feel lawsuit againt Microsoft.
If Apple had won that lawsuit there wouldn't be a non-Apple GUI on the market. They aimed to hamstring and 0wn the entire GUI market, through their 'Intellectual Property' claims.
There is a historical record of vigorous opposition to Apple on this matter, including the Free Software community of the time.
I post on Usenet with my real first and last name, and my primary email address. Surprise, surprise. I haven't imploded and my body hasn't been taken over by space aliens. And I don't think much spam comes of it, either.
Sometimes when I want info on a technical topic, i.e. support for an older piece of equipment, I search Usenet archives and find someone else asking the question I want to know. Then I email them and sometimes they've gotten the info and pass it along to me. I've had this work when the Usenet message was as much as five or six years old.
Believe me, there are plenty of people who don't obsess over 'anonymnity' on the Internet. And there's significant benefit in not pretending it matters that much.
There are always those who just totally freak out at anybody knowing their real name. I remember this phenomenon from the old BBS scene. I participated in a local BBS community back in the late 80's that was 'active' enough that we actually got together on Sundays to play softball, went roller skating, bowling, etc. etc. There were times when the room at a real-life event would just go silent with horror when someone addressed someone else by their real name. We were all 'Dragon this-or-that' 'Fuzzy Gandalf' and all that rot.
The thing about it is, trust is built up out of online relationships and people eventually do find out who other people are. Except for some of the real losers, who nobody would want to know in real life anyway.
The only Furbies I had were a big box of Happy Meal Furbies that I bought at auction and tried to hock on eBay (big, big mistake). They weren't very impressive.
Slashdot Mirror
I changed my spark plug wires and cables yesterday. And man, on a modern electronic ignition automobile engine where that's almost the only thing that can screw up, it made one hell of a lot of difference. I thought the car was really screwed up, it had been idling so bad. Simply replacing those foul plugs and cables made it idle at the right speed and the timing is great.
Win 2k badly wounded Linux, though. It shook out most of the people who had practical uses for Windows and left behind just the zealots and malcontents.
While Larry Ellision invented the concept of vaporware software marketing, that wasn't 30 years ago.
The 'apps' for multimedia content creation and editing on Linux are dismal at best.
I guess I wasn't aware that the topic of the thread was helping you along in booting OpenBSD.
Does your momma know you flame strangers online? Didn't she teach you that calling people 'prick' and 'schmuck' reflects on your character?
Really, whoevevers been giving you flaming lessons sucks, boy.
Too bad there are so many things you can't do when you've crippled your hardware with an OS with so few apps.
I mean, you can't do much except play back multimedia, there's seldom any games you can play on it.
I liken it to a rock in the middle of a field. Damned stable, that rock. It just sits there.
for Enterprise Linux they're willing to make an exception
translation: 'for real money they're willing to sell out.'
The suits have arrived!
(well, it was awhile ago.....)
That was Microsoft that developed a UNIX flavor to run on the 8086 processor. (Microsoft Xenix) Back when the S in SUN stood for Stanford and nothing more.
They later sold it to what became SCO.
I am addressing the issue that the 'wronged party' in the DR-DOS case was not Ray Noorda by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, he got a hell of a deal, he purchased DR-DOS at firesale prices, in part because Microsoft had turned the product into something near worthless. He bought it primarily as a vehicle to sue Microsoft. He was NOT the wronged party.
Similarly, the 'wronged party' in the Caldera/SCO case is somewhere in the distant past. The value to SCO in their holding of rights to the UNIX source is primarily in it's utility for suing IBM.
Ray Noorda bought DR-DOS as a holding to enable him to sue Microsoft. He is known as a spiteful man and there were other early issues where he was 'stabbed in the back' by Microsoft.
DR-DOS has no particular lineage to CP/M and to say that it is 'the one true DOS' and MS-DOS is a bastardization of history. Further, it came late on the market after MS-DOS had been established as the dominant OS on it's hardware platform. If you want to look at the Digital Research product that does have the CP/M heritage and that failed in the market, it's CP/M-86, which was marketed as an alternative OS for the IBM PC (along with Xenix, by the way...) as an alternative, but failed. Wait awhile and maybe I'll sell you my boxed CP/M-86 set, which I'm considering hawking on eBay. But please, oh please, don't blather on about something you appear to know nothing about.
The biggest similarity between 'Noorda/DR-DOS' and 'SCO/UNIX codebase' is that SCO's ownership of the UNIX codebase enables the suit they are engaging in, just like Caldera's ownership of the DR-DOS codebase enabled their legal hijinx. The humorous thing about it all is the chorus of 'Gooooo Noorda!' that was heard in the DR-DOS vs. Microsoft case and the rank hypocrasy of the side the same pundits are taking now.
I have booted Intel systems from one of the OpenBSD CDs out of the set they sell. I've also booted Sparc systems from one of those CDs.
It sounds like a case of user incompetence to me.
That's fine and it should be part of the political process. However, the many thousands of people in those districts who work for Microsoft and/or Microsoft associated businesses have their interests, and a right to have their interests represented in congress too. Not that this stuff is actually a grass-roots effort.
But very little of anything political is actually a grass-roots effort. The elites of the Left and Right are constantly in there creating and then manipulating 'Interest Groups'. Divide and conquer is the name of the game, and sometimes 'Identify and gimmie' for some band of hyphenated-Americans.
No. IBM clones are the result of a 'clean-room reimplementation.'
The IBM BIOS source code is published in commented Assembly language in the IBM Technical Reference manuals, which anybody could buy at the time for a few hundred dollars. No reverse-engineering was needed to figure out how the BIOS calls functioned.
The BIOS cloners simply had to hire one team to document the functionality of all the BIOS calls, and another team, who did not ever look at the IBM source code, to write new implementations of all the BIOS functions.
It was made easier by the fact that IBM published the BIOS source code. It's good stuff to have around (the published source) if you're into that kind of low-level bit mangling. Compaq also published the BIOS source code in manuals, I have the Deskpro 386 Technical Reference Manual, which has a 386-era BIOS source code in it.
It'd be even cooler to have the source code in editable form, instead of just printed list files, but that would be a bit much to expect....
My whole comment talked about me installing NetBSD on my laptop. Ummm, does that make it sound like I was talking about a server?
The Apple kernal is a Mach microkernel derivative, inherited through the NeXTStep OS that Apple eventually settled on using after they proved incapable of developing a modern OS of their own.
The Apple kernel is NOT based on BSD. The middle layer of the userland is.
Which planet are you living on, where 'SCO, IBM, and Linux' in the title of a topic on Slashdot didn't suck up the majority of the comments and bandwidth on that day?
Why should they reveal their evidence before legally being required to do so? Ever played poker? Do you show your opponent your cards as you draw them?
You sound just like one of the anti-Linux trolls on C.O.L.A. (comp.os.linux.advocacy). They wander in from time to time with 'Installing Linux' horror stories that they hope to use in disuading people from trying Linux.
Only you're using the same sort of anectodal evidence to scare people into sticking with Linux.
I use NetBSD on quite a number of my machines (i386, Sparc, and PPC boxes). My experience, and it goes way back to the Red Hat 4.3 days, is that NetBSD installed FAR better than any Linux on my Toshiba laptop. The PCMCIA support is built INTO the NetBSD kernal of that time. The Linux PCMCIA support was a bolted on kludge that required extra floppy disks and a whole mass of extra bullshit to install NetBSD via NFS on a laptop using a PCMCIA ethernet card.
My opinion at that time solidified based on my real experience. There are dozens of flavors of Linux, all with their own Init setup, all with their own little forky methods of installing drivers as kernal modules. All based originally on the same, or similar source, but really a messy little swamp to be mired in. There's one NetBSD, one FreeBSD, and one OpenBSD. Pick one of them and learn how to use it, and you'll never need anything else for your UNIX boxes.
I once owned an Altos 586 box. That's an Altos system that used an 8086 processor, and the '5' was because it had 5 serial ports, and thus supported 5 users on dumb terminals simultaneously.
The machine ran Microsoft Xenix, a version derived from the UNIX source (system 3?) of the time.
It had a plain vanilla 8086 processor, and 512K of RAM in it. It ran five users simultaneously quite well.
The 80286 MMU is helpful as it provides hardware memory protection, but Microsoft XENIX did NOT require an 80286 or better to run. A big part of the whole initial thrust of the 80286 was for that sort of thing, though, and MS-DOS rolling forward and dominating the 80286 hardware was a freak occurance that probably bummed out a lot of the tech people at Intel who worked so hard on the '286. (though they sure cashed in on it's success).
Was there any other reason for their going directly after IBM and ignoring RH/SuSE?
Ummm, well there's always the fact that Red Hat and SuSE don't have a source license of the UNIX code that SCO owns.....
But why look at the actual evidence and reality of the issue. Let's just ramble on about Micro$oft conspiracys...
The suit is a joke; the odds of collecting are nil.
If this were the case, people like you would be saying 'bring it on!' with regard to the court proceedings.
Instead you're squeeing like a stuck pig.
So which way is it??
Everybody who was ANYBODY (except for Apple shills and the more weasely flavor of lawyers) was dead against Apple in their look-n-feel lawsuit againt Microsoft.
If Apple had won that lawsuit there wouldn't be a non-Apple GUI on the market. They aimed to hamstring and 0wn the entire GUI market, through their 'Intellectual Property' claims.
There is a historical record of vigorous opposition to Apple on this matter, including the Free Software community of the time.
I post on Usenet with my real first and last name, and my primary email address. Surprise, surprise. I haven't imploded and my body hasn't been taken over by space aliens. And I don't think much spam comes of it, either.
Sometimes when I want info on a technical topic, i.e. support for an older piece of equipment, I search Usenet archives and find someone else asking the question I want to know. Then I email them and sometimes they've gotten the info and pass it along to me. I've had this work when the Usenet message was as much as five or six years old.
Believe me, there are plenty of people who don't obsess over 'anonymnity' on the Internet. And there's significant benefit in not pretending it matters that much.
There are always those who just totally freak out at anybody knowing their real name. I remember this phenomenon from the old BBS scene. I participated in a local BBS community back in the late 80's that was 'active' enough that we actually got together on Sundays to play softball, went roller skating, bowling, etc. etc. There were times when the room at a real-life event would just go silent with horror when someone addressed someone else by their real name. We were all 'Dragon this-or-that' 'Fuzzy Gandalf' and all that rot.
The thing about it is, trust is built up out of online relationships and people eventually do find out who other people are. Except for some of the real losers, who nobody would want to know in real life anyway.
The only Furbies I had were a big box of Happy Meal Furbies that I bought at auction and tried to hock on eBay (big, big mistake). They weren't very impressive.
They have these things called Golf Carts at the golf course. They have largeish rubber wheels that enable them to roll around on the grass.