There's too much proprietary licensed code in these drivers for them ever to be open sourced.
That doesn't matter. No one wants their (not very good) driver code anyway. What is needed is the proper technical specifications. The GPL code can be clean-roomed from that.
The binary is apparently produced using unpublished modifications of the GPL code
That's a pretty big assumption.
Actually, it's not an assumption at all. Download XChat for Windows. Go to the help menu, there's an option 'Register.' Got to about, it will say 'Evaluation copy.' Download every source release from the same site. Grep them for 'Register' and 'Evaluate.' You won't find the code that produces those menu entries - it's not there. Therefore you have just proven that the windows version is indeed built using an unpublished modification of the source code under GPL.
And, as I said, if he were the sole author of that program, that would be legal - the copyright holder doesn't need a license to use his own code. However, it is well-documented that Zed is NOT the copyright holder for substantial portions of the XChat code, and therefore he does need to abide by the GPL if he wishes to use any portion he is not the copyright holder of.
How do you know that all of the hacks to build in Windows aren't entirely the author's own devices?
I didn't say I did. It doesn't matter.
You can't take GPL code, add to it, and sell the product unless you comply with the GPL, which means licensing your additions under the GPL as well.
Quite a few companies are making a business of building GPL code into non-GPL software.
Really? Which ones?
If there are any, they are being very quiet about it, because what you are describing is simply copyright infringement. Any company discovered doing that runs the risk of having to pay statutory damages for their actions.
As long as he's redistributing all of the changes to the GPL'd code, he can do whatever he wants with his own code that's rolled into it.
You're fundamentally misunderstanding copyright law and the GPL. Even if you can segregate your code into different files and think of it as separate, it's still a derivitive work under copyright law, and the GPL plainly prohibits doing this. In this case, if he doesn't comply with the GPL by releasing all the code used to produce this program under it, then he is violating the copyright of every other contributor whose code he is using.
From the GPL:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
The Windows download is not available as a zip file, it's available only as a solid 'installer/extractor' executable file. Under the terms of the GPL, he must release not only the program code, but also the installer code, since it's being distributed as a single entity. Doubtless he can't do that, and that's just one more nail in the coffin - you cannot legally distribute GPL software in such a form, unless you can release the source for EVERYTHING needed to generate that executable file.
He's clearly not complying with the license, therefore he has no license, therefore he is engaging in copyright infringement.
All it takes is for one person who has contributed to this program to take him to court, and he'll be ruined. Statutory infringement damages are pretty steep - a hell of a lot higher for each instance than he's ever likely to make on registration fees - and each time it's downloaded that's an instance.
The source code you can download cannot be used to produce the binary. The binary is apparently produced using unpublished modifications of the GPL code - a clear violation of the GPL. The guy releasing it claims copyright to 'the good bulk of the source code' and as copyright holder he clearly has the right to modify that code and release it under a different license. However, there are also very significant portions of other peoples work in it, as there have been several other developers contributing to it as a GPL project. This guy does NOT have any right to use their contributions in a non-GPL project, and that appears to be the main issue here, because he somehow seems to think he does, that he can just assume that all of the patches and contributions he's recevied to his GPL project can now be treated as if they were his personal property. They can't, and I have a feeling he's about to get a very quick and somewhat brutal education on that point.
It's always sensible to build in some redundancy, particularly on a system like this where performing any maintainence or repairs will be painful to impossible. GPS units are cheap. Throwing 6 on it is a cheap way to extend it's useful lifetime, since several can fail without having any impact on the usefulness of the craft as a whole.
Is "incredibly heavily used" an overstatement by Gosling, who after all helped create the language and therefore might be biased?"
Doh. Of course.
Java is surprisingly popular, much more so than it deserves to be, because so many PHBs like the buzzword. So perhaps you could defend that statement by construing it to mean 'incredibly heavily used, given its limitations and liabilities' but somehow I don't think that's what Gosling intended.
I mean, c'mon, how frickin' cool would it be to have this kind of 3D desktop running on an Opteron-based Linux machine with a really nice graphics card in it? Damn!
About as cool burning money, running down the street screaming about how cool you are?
I mean, come on, if you've got the horsepower to run this thing fast enough to be usable, and still get your real work done, you have way more computing power than you have any need for. Cool? *shrug* There are children starving, you know. I never thought that doing things that serve no purpose other than to advertise the fact that you're consuming enough resources to feed a village was particularly cool.
I mean, if it was even a game I could see some point, but this? Conspicuous consumption with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
As to the whole 'standards' issue, that's a red-herring and nothing more. Open implementations have historically done much more to solidify standards than to undermine them, and Sun would of course keep the trademark and require compatibility testing to use it. Problem solved. Ages ago.
Not long ago I made a hotmail account just to run msn messenger for a short time. Never logged into the account. Never posted it anywhere. Never used it in any way, except to log into messenger. Quit using that after about two weeks, but messenger did have a popup about unread mail when I logged in, and after two weeks it was over 250 messages. Every damn one of them spam. And it wasn't a common name either.
Slackware has always 'just worked' for me. And yes, it was my nooby distro. I've tried most all the others, and they often don't just work - they try to do a lot of stuff 'automagically' and guess what - that means it often breaks and there is no easy or obvious fallback solution. Slackwares tools may look 'primitive' at first glance to someone used to Windows or Mac, but they have some great virtues that are just as important, if not moreso, for newbies as for the experienced. They are simple, and utterly reliable. They aren't hard to understand. There is great documentation for them. And they're lightweight - whereas many other distros install a setup by default that isn't really usable without a very new machine, a newbie can do a small amount of reading and then get a usable slackware system up and running on most any old box and get a great experience, encouraging them to continue using it in the future.
I agree, the system being unavailable at times is to be expected in a beta problem, and their system fails gracefully here - this is a good thing.
I haven't had my gmail account long enough to have much experience with it yet, but group by discussion seems great so far. I hope it handles threading correctly - by using the header information, not just the title of the message. If so, it's brought back a feature I remember from early email programs that the more modern ones all seem to mess up horribly.
Javascript everything is very sad, on the other hand. I'm really hoping that they'll have a usable WAP version soon, and a proper html one. Better yet would be IMAP access, of course, but I can see why they won't want to do that. An XUL interface would be great too. I'd be willing to bet that if they opened up some sort of accessible interface to their system others would quickly use it to code such things.
The only real complaints I have with it so far are the TOS (I almost backed out at that point, it's really horrible, and even though I don't believe click-throughs have any legitimate enforceability it really made me mad reading this thing... I only clicked on because I figured the worst they could realistically do is delete my account, and that most of it is clearly illegal and unenforceable... and I really wanted to see it, and do think google is a decent bunch of folks that will probably come around on this issue later) and the no-deletion thing. I don't care if it's a gigabyte, eventually I will fill that, what then? Particularly when the spam starts hitting, no-deletion just isn't going to work out forever.
if you really are a n00b with Linux I wouldn't recomment Slackware as your first distro....
Try some more user-friendly distros such as RH, SuSE, Mandrake or other...
What a bunch of nonsense. Tell me why Slack isn't as good as RH, SuSE, or Mandrake for a beginner? Any serious reason or are you just repeating some prejudice you heard somewhere else? Have you even tried Slack?
It's not user-friendly? How so? Because the installer runs in text mode? Please.
Neither 4.5 nor 7.2 involve the strange repeating decimals you so often get using napoleonic measures though. They're pretty simple and easy to deal with still.
To a degree I agree with you - whichever system you are used to will by default seem the most natural, certainly. But I'm pretty used to both of them, having spent years using both.
But to bring it back to every day life, I'd greatly prefer to work in tenths all the time. Twelfths and sixteenths (and eighths) starts to get me down.
Then you must dislike computers (which generally organise by 2s and 8s. Some of the older computers used 12s.) Telling time is a real drag huh? It's a classic organic system, built on a system of sexigesimal and duodecimals; 60 seconds to a minute, sixty minutes to an hour, 24 hours to a day, 360 days to a year. Only in measures larger than a year do you see decimals there. I bet you have a lot of trouble with geometry and geography too? 360 degrees to a circle, each degree composed of 60 minutes of angle, each minute has 60 seconds of angle.
No matter how much the cartesian absolutists might dislike it, these systems evolved in this way for good reasons, and ripping them out and replacing them with decimal systems would do far more harm than good.
My dad always gripes about gallons of milk. "The gallon is perfect! There's no metric gallon."
Well I disagree with him as quoted above, and I suspect he's got a little tongue in cheek when he says it. There is no perfect measurement. But the gallon is a damn good one. It's easily divided into halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, thirty seconds and so on - without relying on calculators or trying to carry dozens of decimal points in ones head.
And I hate trying to noodle through how a cup relates to a half pint relates to a quart. But I know my SI prefixes cold.
1 gallon=4 quarts=8 pints=16 cups=128 ounces
A progression that should look quite familiar to any computer scientist, no?
Now, tell me, quick, what's 1/128th of a liter? Without using a calculator.
1/128th of a quart is 1/4 ounce, and that's something anyone approaching normal intelligence should be able to figure in their head in a fraction of a second.
You have a liter of milk to split between 6 persons. If you split evenly, how much should each one get?
Now if you split a quart between 6 people, it's extremely simple, each one gets a cup and a half.
It's actually 128 ounces, or 8 pounds.
Keep in mind that, just as with the liter to gram conversion, this is not a precise calculation, because it can vary depending on factors such as the exact composition of the water.
How heavy is a gallon of water in Imperial/English units? Fucked if I know; but I can tell you that a litre of water weighs 1kg.
4 pounds, of course.
As others have pointed out, that's actually dependent on a number of factors, both for your litre and my gallon, but both figures are simple and generally accurate. The fact that you don't know the relation doesn't mean there isn't one.
Half a metre is what, around 19.685 inches, but it's also 50 centimetres which is a much more usable number.
But a third of a yard is 12 inches, or one foot. A third of a metre is nothing sensible no matter what you measure it in. 33.3333333... centimeters, a number that will not resolve no matter how powerful a computer you throw at it. Or around 13.12333 inches, another number that's a severe pain in the ass to use in any way.
The fact is that the English measurements, like other systems worldwide, developed organically in response to human usage and they tend to fit it very well. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's ignorant or stupid.
On the other hand, the Napoleonic system whose proponents have the sheer chutzpah to refer to their system as 'the metric system' (of course it's one of many metric systems, or systems of measurements) was invented from pure thought, and is a purely Cartesian construct. There is no doubt it is convenient for a few uses, but it's noticeably inferior for most purposes to me, and I'm quite fluent with both systems.
If they can coëxist, side by side, fine, but if, as it seems, the advocates of the Napoleonic system will not rest until it's illegal to use anything else (as it apparently is now in England, the homeland of the English measures!) then I say better to lose the hyper-rational Cartesian system and keep the one that serves most of the people, most of the time, better.
No it's not. There is no balancing of rights there, because you have no right to do it in the first place. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre is an attempt to cause a stampede, not an expression of free speech. It's no different than tossing a smoke grenade down the aisle.
It's simply gibberish to speak of balancing a right. Priveliges and 'interests' and powers can be 'balanced' (with balanced in it's meaning as a verb) but not rights. Once the court begins speaking of balancing a right against other things, this is simply a way to rule that it is no longer a right, while trying to avoid that appearance.
"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software," he said. "Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
Skin colour can be an element, but I think you put far too much emphasis on it. I'm guessing your from the states where it has a great import. But in Iraq, or Afghanistan? Many of the natives are probably whiter than most USians, at least underneath the tan (which can, of course, be acquired.) Plenty of blue-eyed 'aryan' types in both these places - in fact a man of colour would stand out much more in either area than a blue-eyed nordic type with a good tan, because the indigenous population in both places is predominantly caucasian, and there is no indigenous negro element in either place.
What's much more important in terms of standing out is how you dress and how you act. If you can speak the local language, or at the very least Arabic which is something of a lingua franca throughout the region, you've got a huge advantage. If you can dress like the locals and walk like you belong there, you're not likely to stand out as a target regardless of skin colour.
Nonetheless, neither place is at all safe for westerners, particularly ones carrying blue passports, regardless of skin colour or even linguistic ability. There is a lot to be said for travelling to broaden your worldview, but right now Iraq and Afghanistan would not be on my list of places to go.
I did the same thing with my old Sinclair too. It was the 2068, Timex built for the US market and similar but not identical to your Spectrum if memory serves. It's really amazing to think of how much we used to do with a CPU running at single-digit megaherz rating and RAM banks that topped out well before reaching three digits. Fact is, I did things with that equipment and the software that came with it that are virtually impossible with todays machines.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all marketing/management.
Any competitor that wants to know these things will simply reverse engineer it from their binary drivers anyway, and in fact already has.
That doesn't matter. No one wants their (not very good) driver code anyway. What is needed is the proper technical specifications. The GPL code can be clean-roomed from that.
Actually, it's not an assumption at all. Download XChat for Windows. Go to the help menu, there's an option 'Register.' Got to about, it will say 'Evaluation copy.' Download every source release from the same site. Grep them for 'Register' and 'Evaluate.' You won't find the code that produces those menu entries - it's not there. Therefore you have just proven that the windows version is indeed built using an unpublished modification of the source code under GPL.
And, as I said, if he were the sole author of that program, that would be legal - the copyright holder doesn't need a license to use his own code. However, it is well-documented that Zed is NOT the copyright holder for substantial portions of the XChat code, and therefore he does need to abide by the GPL if he wishes to use any portion he is not the copyright holder of.
I didn't say I did. It doesn't matter.
You can't take GPL code, add to it, and sell the product unless you comply with the GPL, which means licensing your additions under the GPL as well.
Really? Which ones?
If there are any, they are being very quiet about it, because what you are describing is simply copyright infringement. Any company discovered doing that runs the risk of having to pay statutory damages for their actions.
You're fundamentally misunderstanding copyright law and the GPL. Even if you can segregate your code into different files and think of it as separate, it's still a derivitive work under copyright law, and the GPL plainly prohibits doing this. In this case, if he doesn't comply with the GPL by releasing all the code used to produce this program under it, then he is violating the copyright of every other contributor whose code he is using.
From the GPL:
The Windows download is not available as a zip file, it's available only as a solid 'installer/extractor' executable file. Under the terms of the GPL, he must release not only the program code, but also the installer code, since it's being distributed as a single entity. Doubtless he can't do that, and that's just one more nail in the coffin - you cannot legally distribute GPL software in such a form, unless you can release the source for EVERYTHING needed to generate that executable file.
He's clearly not complying with the license, therefore he has no license, therefore he is engaging in copyright infringement.
All it takes is for one person who has contributed to this program to take him to court, and he'll be ruined. Statutory infringement damages are pretty steep - a hell of a lot higher for each instance than he's ever likely to make on registration fees - and each time it's downloaded that's an instance.
The source code you can download cannot be used to produce the binary. The binary is apparently produced using unpublished modifications of the GPL code - a clear violation of the GPL. The guy releasing it claims copyright to 'the good bulk of the source code' and as copyright holder he clearly has the right to modify that code and release it under a different license. However, there are also very significant portions of other peoples work in it, as there have been several other developers contributing to it as a GPL project. This guy does NOT have any right to use their contributions in a non-GPL project, and that appears to be the main issue here, because he somehow seems to think he does, that he can just assume that all of the patches and contributions he's recevied to his GPL project can now be treated as if they were his personal property. They can't, and I have a feeling he's about to get a very quick and somewhat brutal education on that point.
It's always sensible to build in some redundancy, particularly on a system like this where performing any maintainence or repairs will be painful to impossible. GPS units are cheap. Throwing 6 on it is a cheap way to extend it's useful lifetime, since several can fail without having any impact on the usefulness of the craft as a whole.
Doh. Of course.
Java is surprisingly popular, much more so than it deserves to be, because so many PHBs like the buzzword. So perhaps you could defend that statement by construing it to mean 'incredibly heavily used, given its limitations and liabilities' but somehow I don't think that's what Gosling intended.
About as cool burning money, running down the street screaming about how cool you are?
I mean, come on, if you've got the horsepower to run this thing fast enough to be usable, and still get your real work done, you have way more computing power than you have any need for. Cool? *shrug* There are children starving, you know. I never thought that doing things that serve no purpose other than to advertise the fact that you're consuming enough resources to feed a village was particularly cool.
I mean, if it was even a game I could see some point, but this? Conspicuous consumption with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
As to the whole 'standards' issue, that's a red-herring and nothing more. Open implementations have historically done much more to solidify standards than to undermine them, and Sun would of course keep the trademark and require compatibility testing to use it. Problem solved. Ages ago.
Ok, so share the wealth here and tell me how you delete messages?
So it doesn't use the header information, but the subject field?
Too bad, if so. As I said I haven't had enough traffic on mine to tell yet.
Not long ago I made a hotmail account just to run msn messenger for a short time. Never logged into the account. Never posted it anywhere. Never used it in any way, except to log into messenger. Quit using that after about two weeks, but messenger did have a popup about unread mail when I logged in, and after two weeks it was over 250 messages. Every damn one of them spam. And it wasn't a common name either.
Slackware has always 'just worked' for me. And yes, it was my nooby distro. I've tried most all the others, and they often don't just work - they try to do a lot of stuff 'automagically' and guess what - that means it often breaks and there is no easy or obvious fallback solution. Slackwares tools may look 'primitive' at first glance to someone used to Windows or Mac, but they have some great virtues that are just as important, if not moreso, for newbies as for the experienced. They are simple, and utterly reliable. They aren't hard to understand. There is great documentation for them. And they're lightweight - whereas many other distros install a setup by default that isn't really usable without a very new machine, a newbie can do a small amount of reading and then get a usable slackware system up and running on most any old box and get a great experience, encouraging them to continue using it in the future.
I agree, the system being unavailable at times is to be expected in a beta problem, and their system fails gracefully here - this is a good thing.
I haven't had my gmail account long enough to have much experience with it yet, but group by discussion seems great so far. I hope it handles threading correctly - by using the header information, not just the title of the message. If so, it's brought back a feature I remember from early email programs that the more modern ones all seem to mess up horribly.
Javascript everything is very sad, on the other hand. I'm really hoping that they'll have a usable WAP version soon, and a proper html one. Better yet would be IMAP access, of course, but I can see why they won't want to do that. An XUL interface would be great too. I'd be willing to bet that if they opened up some sort of accessible interface to their system others would quickly use it to code such things.
The only real complaints I have with it so far are the TOS (I almost backed out at that point, it's really horrible, and even though I don't believe click-throughs have any legitimate enforceability it really made me mad reading this thing... I only clicked on because I figured the worst they could realistically do is delete my account, and that most of it is clearly illegal and unenforceable... and I really wanted to see it, and do think google is a decent bunch of folks that will probably come around on this issue later) and the no-deletion thing. I don't care if it's a gigabyte, eventually I will fill that, what then? Particularly when the spam starts hitting, no-deletion just isn't going to work out forever.
What a bunch of nonsense. Tell me why Slack isn't as good as RH, SuSE, or Mandrake for a beginner? Any serious reason or are you just repeating some prejudice you heard somewhere else? Have you even tried Slack?
It's not user-friendly? How so? Because the installer runs in text mode? Please.
Neither 4.5 nor 7.2 involve the strange repeating decimals you so often get using napoleonic measures though. They're pretty simple and easy to deal with still.
To a degree I agree with you - whichever system you are used to will by default seem the most natural, certainly. But I'm pretty used to both of them, having spent years using both.
Err doh. 2/3 of a cup. You know what I meant. Must... sleep... heheh.
Then you must dislike computers (which generally organise by 2s and 8s. Some of the older computers used 12s.) Telling time is a real drag huh? It's a classic organic system, built on a system of sexigesimal and duodecimals; 60 seconds to a minute, sixty minutes to an hour, 24 hours to a day, 360 days to a year. Only in measures larger than a year do you see decimals there. I bet you have a lot of trouble with geometry and geography too? 360 degrees to a circle, each degree composed of 60 minutes of angle, each minute has 60 seconds of angle.
No matter how much the cartesian absolutists might dislike it, these systems evolved in this way for good reasons, and ripping them out and replacing them with decimal systems would do far more harm than good.
Well I disagree with him as quoted above, and I suspect he's got a little tongue in cheek when he says it. There is no perfect measurement. But the gallon is a damn good one. It's easily divided into halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, thirty seconds and so on - without relying on calculators or trying to carry dozens of decimal points in ones head.
1 gallon=4 quarts=8 pints=16 cups=128 ounces
A progression that should look quite familiar to any computer scientist, no?
Now, tell me, quick, what's 1/128th of a liter? Without using a calculator.
1/128th of a quart is 1/4 ounce, and that's something anyone approaching normal intelligence should be able to figure in their head in a fraction of a second.
You have a liter of milk to split between 6 persons. If you split evenly, how much should each one get?
Now if you split a quart between 6 people, it's extremely simple, each one gets a cup and a half.
It's not totally unknown, although it's not very common.
It's actually 128 ounces, or 8 pounds. Keep in mind that, just as with the liter to gram conversion, this is not a precise calculation, because it can vary depending on factors such as the exact composition of the water.
Should have hit preview. Correct answer is 8 pounds.
4 pounds, of course.
As others have pointed out, that's actually dependent on a number of factors, both for your litre and my gallon, but both figures are simple and generally accurate. The fact that you don't know the relation doesn't mean there isn't one.
More complex to deal with?
Not at all.
Half a yard is 18 inches, or a foot and a half.
Half a metre is what, around 19.685 inches, but it's also 50 centimetres which is a much more usable number.
But a third of a yard is 12 inches, or one foot. A third of a metre is nothing sensible no matter what you measure it in. 33.3333333... centimeters, a number that will not resolve no matter how powerful a computer you throw at it. Or around 13.12333 inches, another number that's a severe pain in the ass to use in any way.
The fact is that the English measurements, like other systems worldwide, developed organically in response to human usage and they tend to fit it very well. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's ignorant or stupid.
On the other hand, the Napoleonic system whose proponents have the sheer chutzpah to refer to their system as 'the metric system' (of course it's one of many metric systems, or systems of measurements) was invented from pure thought, and is a purely Cartesian construct. There is no doubt it is convenient for a few uses, but it's noticeably inferior for most purposes to me, and I'm quite fluent with both systems.
If they can coëxist, side by side, fine, but if, as it seems, the advocates of the Napoleonic system will not rest until it's illegal to use anything else (as it apparently is now in England, the homeland of the English measures!) then I say better to lose the hyper-rational Cartesian system and keep the one that serves most of the people, most of the time, better.
No it's not. There is no balancing of rights there, because you have no right to do it in the first place. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre is an attempt to cause a stampede, not an expression of free speech. It's no different than tossing a smoke grenade down the aisle.
Exactly.
It's simply gibberish to speak of balancing a right. Priveliges and 'interests' and powers can be 'balanced' (with balanced in it's meaning as a verb) but not rights. Once the court begins speaking of balancing a right against other things, this is simply a way to rule that it is no longer a right, while trying to avoid that appearance.
Actually he's doing nothing more but saying what Bill G. has said in the past.
Here, for example:
Skin colour can be an element, but I think you put far too much emphasis on it. I'm guessing your from the states where it has a great import. But in Iraq, or Afghanistan? Many of the natives are probably whiter than most USians, at least underneath the tan (which can, of course, be acquired.) Plenty of blue-eyed 'aryan' types in both these places - in fact a man of colour would stand out much more in either area than a blue-eyed nordic type with a good tan, because the indigenous population in both places is predominantly caucasian, and there is no indigenous negro element in either place.
What's much more important in terms of standing out is how you dress and how you act. If you can speak the local language, or at the very least Arabic which is something of a lingua franca throughout the region, you've got a huge advantage. If you can dress like the locals and walk like you belong there, you're not likely to stand out as a target regardless of skin colour.
Nonetheless, neither place is at all safe for westerners, particularly ones carrying blue passports, regardless of skin colour or even linguistic ability. There is a lot to be said for travelling to broaden your worldview, but right now Iraq and Afghanistan would not be on my list of places to go.
I did the same thing with my old Sinclair too. It was the 2068, Timex built for the US market and similar but not identical to your Spectrum if memory serves. It's really amazing to think of how much we used to do with a CPU running at single-digit megaherz rating and RAM banks that topped out well before reaching three digits. Fact is, I did things with that equipment and the software that came with it that are virtually impossible with todays machines.