 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:01:49 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I was thinking more "we'll give you this big bulk discount on a bunch of
> Windows CDs, but only if you sign this agreement not to offer any other
> OS"...
That's called "anticompetitive behaviour" and something that Microsoft
used to do with their OEM agreements, but they've been told the behave
themselves, and at least on that front, they are.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> The hardware hasn't been on sale for a while now, AFAIK. But then,
>>> would *you* buy a "personal computer" powered by a 20 MHz 68030 with
>>> 2 MB RAM?
>>
>> Maybe. Is the OLPC any more powerful?
>>
>
> 433 MHz, 256 MB of RAM, 1GB of Flash memory as storage.
Wow. How times have changed.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> And no, it's not just something doing a global grab or something.
>> Cursor locks up, and it doesn't answer pings.
>
> sorry to hear that. Perhaps swap got full?...
I wouldn't think so, unless there's something running I don't know about
that just chugs memory. I have the little barchart in the bottom and I
don't ever see the swap color getting used, either. I have like 2G RAM
and 2.5G swap, so ... probably not.
And I'd certainly hope Linux wouldn't stop responding to pings just
because swap got exhausted.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>>> The hardware hasn't been on sale for a while now, AFAIK. But then,
>>>> would *you* buy a "personal computer" powered by a 20 MHz 68030 with
>>>> 2 MB RAM?
>>>
>>> Maybe. Is the OLPC any more powerful?
>>>
>>
>> 433 MHz, 256 MB of RAM, 1GB of Flash memory as storage.
>
> Wow. How times have changed.
>
And most of the user interface and programs are made in Python.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> no, I'm simply saying that those "multiple operating systems" are
>> using the same old code from the same single company to handle old
>> apps, so that doesn't count as multiple operating systems.
>
> Well, no, they're not. That's just factually incorrect. If that was the
> case, DOS programs couldn't write to files on NTFS partitions or access
> network shares,
once the NTFS partitions or network shares are "mounted", I guess they
just made it available to the DOS IO calls as local files in DOS
"standard file format". Little extensions and adjustments to let the
old dog keep moving.
> nor would software that writes directly to the screen
> work inside a window.
why not? videogame emulators have long been tricking console software
dumps into thinking a rectangular area in a windowing system is actually
the TV screen...
> I.e., you've pushed off the work of porting your stuff to the author of
> the interpreter.
so what? old DOS apps running on Windows also did that.
Your code is portable and you don't have to recompile nor compile the
runtime for yourself. Are people never satisfied?
> Yet "mono" for some reason is "proprietary Microsoft code"?
besides the untested IP aspect that can give M$ weapons for spreading
"Linux uses our IP" FUD by distorting some truth, the real horrendous
aspect of mono is that it gets people hooked on yet another M$ dependent
technology that'll never run as well on the real thing and that is
always one step behind the original.
> That doesn't make it "cross-platform".
but it is: I can use from Windows at work, Linux at home, whatever...
> Who put the word "visual" in there? You *are* aware that MS has been
> making BASIC interpreters since like Atari 800 days, right?
yes, but when you come up with Basic and M$, today, it's all about VB.
and besides, old M$ bas files are not cross-platform either.
>>> Except they don't provide executables.
>> They sure do. And they are truly cross-platform.
>
> Python compiles down to an executable I can run on both Windows and
> Linux without installing a Python interpreter? Cool.
I thought you saying the companies did not provide executables.
>>> I agree that open source software is probably a better way to do
>>> stuff, as long as you aren't worried about making a living at it.
>>
>> the folks at RedHat or Novell seem to be doing fine.
>
> Yeah, much much better than Microsoft.
they don't have a monopoly in their hands to rip off their userbase.
>> But the source is there
>
> ... if you don't mind giving it away ...
we're talking about open-source software here, aren't we?
> Yep. In other words, recompile. As opposed to Microsoft, which manages
> to do it without recompiling and without a "cross-platform language".
they recompiled their own DOS runtimes and APIs and introduced
"middlemen" so as to make them see network shares or windows as
traditional resources.
Why are you so obsessed with recompilations when it's not even any
trouble for you as a user?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I was thinking more "we'll give you this big bulk discount on a bunch of
> Windows CDs, but only if you sign this agreement not to offer any other
> OS"...
Actually, that wasn't the deal. The deal was "we'll give you a volume
discount if you pay MS for a copy of Windows on every machine you sell."
They could offer other OSes too, but they'd still have to pay for
Windows on that machine. So MS could track how much they were owed by
how many machines were sold.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:40:51 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Actually, that wasn't the deal. The deal was "we'll give you a volume
> discount if you pay MS for a copy of Windows on every machine you sell."
Well, the original OEM agreements included verbiage that said that they
would not only pay for a license for each machine sold, but that Windows
would be the installed OS on that machine.
Some of the agreements also included verbiage that forbade the
installation of another OS even as a dual-boot option.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> no, I'm simply saying that those "multiple operating systems" are
>>> using the same old code from the same single company to handle old
>>> apps, so that doesn't count as multiple operating systems.
>>
>> Well, no, they're not. That's just factually incorrect. If that was
>> the case, DOS programs couldn't write to files on NTFS partitions or
>> access network shares,
>
> once the NTFS partitions or network shares are "mounted", I guess they
> just made it available to the DOS IO calls as local files in DOS
> "standard file format". Little extensions and adjustments to let the
> old dog keep moving.
Yes. It's called "compatibility". Honestly, think about it. You have
DOS, which was written before NTFS, which managed the file system on the
disk. Indeed, that's pretty much the only thing it did.
Now you have a completely different file system that's incompatible with
DOS. What parts of DOS are you reusing?
>> nor would software that writes directly to the screen work inside a
>> window.
>
> why not?
What part of DOS was responsible for making programs that wrote directly
to screen memory instead write into a window?
Have you forgotten what we're discussing at this point?
> videogame emulators have long been tricking console software
> dumps into thinking a rectangular area in a windowing system is actually
> the TV screen...
It's called a "genlock". While most video cards have genlocks on them
these days (also called "overlays"), that isn't how Windows does it.
>> I.e., you've pushed off the work of porting your stuff to the author
>> of the interpreter.
>
> so what? old DOS apps running on Windows also did that.
I don't think you are keeping track of what we're discussing. Because
this rejoinder makes no sense to me.
> Your code is portable and you don't have to recompile nor compile the
> runtime for yourself. Are people never satisfied?
Quite satisifed, yes. What's wrong with VMWare, again?
>> Yet "mono" for some reason is "proprietary Microsoft code"?
>
> besides the untested IP aspect that can give M$ weapons for spreading
> "Linux uses our IP" FUD by distorting some truth, the real horrendous
> aspect of mono is that it gets people hooked on yet another M$ dependent
> technology that'll never run as well on the real thing and that is
> always one step behind the original.
Hmmmm... Like, say, Java?
>> That doesn't make it "cross-platform".
> but it is: I can use from Windows at work, Linux at home, whatever...
I'm not sure you and I are speaking about the same thing.
>>>> Except they don't provide executables.
>>> They sure do. And they are truly cross-platform.
>>
>> Python compiles down to an executable I can run on both Windows and
>> Linux without installing a Python interpreter? Cool.
>
> I thought you saying the companies did not provide executables.
No. We're talking about Windows providing backward compatibility for
compiled executables on multiple operating systems. Why would I be
talking about recompiling python interpreters?
>>> But the source is there
>> ... if you don't mind giving it away ...
> we're talking about open-source software here, aren't we?
Not exclusively. The advantage that MS has over its competitors is they
managed to get executables that are *NOT* open source to run on multiple
operating systems over the years. *That* is a big part of why they have
a monopoly.
>> Yep. In other words, recompile. As opposed to Microsoft, which
>> manages to do it without recompiling and without a "cross-platform
>> language".
>
> they recompiled their own DOS runtimes and APIs and introduced
> "middlemen" so as to make them see network shares or windows as
> traditional resources.
And you know this ... how? What makes you think there's any significant
amount of DOS code left in XP?
> Why are you so obsessed with recompilations when it's not even any
> trouble for you as a user?
Because that's what we're talking about - closed-source commercial
for-fee executables running on multiple OSes.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Some of the agreements also included verbiage that forbade the
> installation of another OS even as a dual-boot option.
I must have missed that part of the evidence. :-) Yeah, that's pretty nasty.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Have you forgotten what we're discussing at this point?
look at the size of this goddamn thread, man! I don't even know who am
I anymore... I've been into this all day long! I'm on vacation and
should be away from computers, perhaps on a trip on something.
I've opened a beer and so, cheers!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
