ANNOUNCEMENT: Alpha release Linux/GNU/X unix clone on CDROM for PC's

108 katselukertaa
Siirry ensimmäiseen lukemattomaan viestiin

Adam J. Richter

lukematon,
24.11.1992 klo 23.46.4424.11.1992
vastaanottaja

I am now taking orders for the alpha release of my company's
Linux/GNU/X distribution on CDROM. Linux is an AT&T-free unix clone
for 386/486-class PC compatibles. The CDROM is an ISO-9660 filesystem,
so you can look at it from DOS, other unix boxes, and even Macintoshes.
The distribution includes:

o Linux 0.98.1 kernel,
o X windows (v11r5) for VGA displays with support
for higher resolutions such as 1024x768 256 colors using
the ET4000, ET3000, Paradise, or Genoa chip sets,
and the standard Xlib/Xt development environment,
o GNU utilities, including GNU C and C++, the GNU
debugger, bison, flex, GNU make,
o TeX and groff typesetting packages,
o Ghostscript: a postscript interpreter that can drive
a variety of printers and also display in an X
window,
o elvis and GNU emacs text editors,
o kermit 5A telecommunications program, and
o an installation script that uses the extended
filesystem, which supports long filenames and
symbolic links just like the BSD file system,
o iso9660 filesystem with support for the Rock Ridge
extensions for reading CDROM's (used by this
CDROM distribution),
o lots of other useful programs too numerous to mention.

The alpha distribution consists the CDROM, and 3.5" and 5.25"
high density bootable filesystem floppies, and installation notes.
This should be sufficient to install the system directly on a new
computer or on an unused partition on your hard disk.

You need a 386/486-class CPU, 8MB RAM, high density floppy,
100MB of IDE, SCSI or ESDI disk (200MB w/sources), SCSI CDROM drive
with an Adaptec 1542B, Ultrastor 14F, Future Domain TMC-1660/1680,
Seagate ST01/02, or Western Digital 7000fasst SCSI controller. I
don't think that Microchannel machines (e.g., PS/2's) will work, but
I'd be interested in hearing from anybody who tries installing on one.

If you can't make the CDROM distribution work, then you may
return it within 30 days for a refund of the purchase price and any
sales tax, provided that you delete any files copied from the CDROM.
In such cases, please call in advance for return authorization. If
you are experiencing a problem which is supposed to be solved in a
subsequent release, you will be allowed to wait for that release
before having to decide whether or not you want to exercise your
refund option.

Bear in mind that this is an alpha release. If you experience
problems, be prepared to do a certain amount of detective work to try
to narrow the problem down to certain hardware or software components.
If you can debug and fix the problem, that's even better. I have only
tested the distribution on a couple of machines, all of which had
ET4000-based VGA cards, various IDE hard disks, and an Adaptec 1542B
SCSI controller. However, I am not aware of anyone being unable to
get Linux working on any other supported hardware.

The price of the CDROM distribution does not include support.
If you or your company are interested in providing support for this
CDROM distribution, give me a call at (510) 526-7531, 9am-5pm pacific
time. I want to make the availability of third party support an
important selling point of the production releases.

If you or your company wants to resell the these releases,
that can be arranged. In order for these distributions to be
perceived as a viable alternative to Destiny and Solaris, I want there
to be a single standard for these CD's, which means making sure that
reselling is a more attractive alternative than developing a competing
CD. To that end, deep wholesale discounts will be available for very
high quantity resellers who don't need return privileges. In the
interest of having knowledgeable resellers, Linux developers will be
able to qualify for these deals at somewhat lower quantities.

Of course, I'm also interested in improving the software on
the CDROM. I intend to reinvest heavily in continuing free software
development. In the mean time, if you are currently the principal
maintainer of a program, device driver or other module of the CDROM
distribution, I'll send you a complimentary copy.

I have attached an order form for people in the United States
and Canada who want to order the CDROM now. Once the advance orders
have been shipped, I will make another posting that will hopefully
include information on foreign shipping and other payment methods such
as credit cards and purchase orders. The CD is being replicated now
and shipping of advance orders should be completed by Tuesday,
December 8th.

The $99 price includes free copies of the beta and production
releases. The beta release should ship in January and the production
release should ship in February under a catchier trademarked name.
Subsequent releases will be issued quarterly at $99 each. You'll also
be able to get the CD's as a subscription at $60 per quarter with
automatic billing available (minimum subscription: 2 quarters). If
you buy the alpha or beta release, you will be able to convert to the
subscription service and have your $99 and your copy of the production
release counted as part of the subscription, so you will not be
penalized for buying before the availability of subscriptions.

Legalities:

1. Any offers or prices are subject to change at any
time without notice.

2. THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR ANY OF THIS SOFTWARE
(not the alpha distribution, not the beta
distribution, and not even the production
distributions). THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS"
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


This will be the first free operating system CDROM ever. It is
remotely conceivable that I may be flooded with email and telephone calls
tomorrow. If you send me questions by email, I may not be able to
respond immediately. Instead, I may post a list of common questions
and answers to the newsgroups to which this announcement is posted.

Adam J. Richter
President
Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated


------------------------------ CUT HERE ------------------------------

ADVANCE ORDER FORM
Linux/GNU/X CDROM alpha distribution


SHIP TO: ______________________________ DAYTIME PHONE: ________________

______________________________ EMAIL: ________________________

______________________________

______________________________
(USA and Canada only)

Unit price
Item Quantity (US dollars)


Linux+GNU+X alpha release _____ X $99 = $________
(beta and production release
will be sent to you free)


California residents add 8.25% sales tax $________

Shipping (flat fee, independent of quantity) $ 5.00


Total $________

Enclose money order or check payable in US dollars to
"Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated" and mail to:

Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
CDROM sales
PO Box 8418
Berkeley, CA 94707-8418

If this order form is received after the beta release has
begun, you will only receive the beta release and the production
release. If this order form is received after the production release
has been made, you will receive only the most current production
release. This order form expires after March 1, 1993.

Call (510)526-7531 for a new order form after that date. You
may also call that number after December 8th for information on
orders outside of the United States and Canada.

Will Estes

lukematon,
25.11.1992 klo 22.03.0725.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <38...@news.cerf.net> ric...@nic.cerf.net (Adam J. Richter) writes:
> The $99 price includes free copies of the beta and production
>releases. The beta release should ship in January and the production
>release should ship in February under a catchier trademarked name.
>Subsequent releases will be issued quarterly at $99 each.
>
>...

>
> This will be the first free operating system CDROM ever.

This is a bit embarrassing to have to point out, but did you realize
that Microsoft is selling Windows/NT on CD-ROM for $69? I mean, is
Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system even more free than free GNU
UNIX? :)

Also, if there is no support thrown in with this, doesn't a price of $99
make quite a bit of profit above the costs of producing the disk and
advertising it? If there is no substantial profit margin in this, then
'ol Bill Gates must be laughing to know this his company has grown so
powerful, and has gained such economies of scale, that his competitors
can't even give away their software at *cost* for less money than the
price at which he is making a profit (and with substantial support
included). As much as I like UNIX, I think I'm starting to hear the fat
lady sing.... :(

--
Will Estes Internet: wes...@netcom.com

Wen-Chun Ni

lukematon,
26.11.1992 klo 1.55.4026.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1f1epb...@smurf.sti.com> wes...@smurf.sti.com (Will Estes) writes:
>This is a bit embarrassing to have to point out, but did you realize
>that Microsoft is selling Windows/NT on CD-ROM for $69? I mean, is
>Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system even more free than free GNU
>UNIX? :)

Different worlds. Does Microsoft release the source code of NT? Does the
NT package include the GNU utilities? Adam just wants to cover the
cost he produces the CDs. And you are free to copy all the stuffs in the
CD. Does MS permit you to copy things to give them to your friends?
Don't compare the GPL world with the commercial world. A guy like Adam
just makes a living by distributing it in CD form; he doesn't have
the right to enforce anything. Linus Tovalds doesn't object to this,
Bill Jolitz doesn't object to this, why should you object?

As for your assertion that MS's NT is "more free" than the Linux stuff.
I should say that NT is going to sell much more expensive when the
final release comes out. But the Linux+GNU+TeX+X stuffs will be
consistent in reflecting the labor+distributing+manufacturing fee,
be it alpha, beta, or final release.

>
>Also, if there is no support thrown in with this, doesn't a price of $99
>make quite a bit of profit above the costs of producing the disk and
>advertising it? If there is no substantial profit margin in this, then
>'ol Bill Gates must be laughing to know this his company has grown so
>powerful, and has gained such economies of scale, that his competitors
>can't even give away their software at *cost* for less money than the
>price at which he is making a profit (and with substantial support
>included). As much as I like UNIX, I think I'm starting to hear the fat
>lady sing.... :(
>

I won't argue with you at this because there have been enough flames
that disgust me in os2 groups. If you really like the way MS does,
go use their products. I personally respect Richard Stallman and
Linus Torvalds much much much more than Bill Gates.

As for the fate of Unix, cross your fingers. What I know is the first
time when I really got Linux+X working on my 386, I was too happy to
sleep within a week. OS/2 didn't give me that feeling, let alone Window/*.

Wen-Chun Ni, w...@cs.brown.edu (401) 863-7669
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I do more after 2 a.m. than most people do all day.
- from a T-shirt given by a friend.

Tony Porczyk

lukematon,
26.11.1992 klo 3.23.4626.11.1992
vastaanottaja
w...@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni) writes:

> I personally respect Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds much much
> much more than Bill Gates.

I guess I just have to ask this question every time I see something so
childish: "okay, can you now explain why?"

Just in case you want to spill some ideological baloney here, let me ask
you a couple more questions:

- ever heard of computer revolution? computer on every desk? I
didn't see Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds (as much as I respect
them both, make no mistake) having even 1/1000th to do with it as
much as Bill Gates.

- ever heard of thousands of people making a living, providing for their
families and supporting the economy thanks to Bill Gates? Show me where
that happened thanks to Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds. But then,
I just noticed the extension of your email address. Sorry for
wasting the bandwith.

t.

Jonathan Stockley

lukematon,
26.11.1992 klo 3.55.3026.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1f1epb...@smurf.sti.com> wes...@smurf.sti.com (Will Estes) writes:

Did you realise that 'ol Bill Gates is probably amortising the production cost
over several (tens of) thousand sales instead of several hundred.
Also does the $69 include *source for NT*? I think not.

Jo

Sean Eric Fagan

lukematon,
26.11.1992 klo 4.27.1526.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1992Nov26.0...@netcom.com> mes...@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:
>- ever heard of thousands of people making a living, providing for their
> families and supporting the economy thanks to Bill Gates? Show me where
> that happened thanks to Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds.

Cygnus Support, on the two coasts of the US, Wingnut (in Japan?), and some
company with a strange name (Crwynnr, something like that), all support Free
Software. PrimeTime Freeware and Walnut Creek CDROM both make money (not
inconsiderable money, either!) selling CD-ROMs with free software.

All told, I would not be surprised if more than a thousand people make a
living, provide for their families, and support the economy thanks to free
software (including the likes of RMS and Linus, as well as a few thousand
other people, some of whom are nameless, some of whom are very well known,
and lots of whom are somewhere inbetween).

--
Sean Eric Fagan | "we will probably just crash immediately; but at least
s...@kithrup.COM | we will have written less code."
-----------------+ -- Chris Torek (to...@ee.lbl.gov)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.

Paul Ducklin

lukematon,
26.11.1992 klo 3.55.1126.11.1992
vastaanottaja
Thus spake wes...@smurf.sti.com (Will Estes):

>This is a bit embarrassing to have to point out, but did you realize
>that Microsoft is selling Windows/NT on CD-ROM for $69? I mean, is
>Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system even more free than free GNU
>UNIX? :)

Get real.

Microsoft Windows (non-NT) is also very cheap. But have you worked out how
much it costs you to buy more than Solitaire? Ever priced the Windows
SDK and a suitable compiler? For $99, the convenience of "everything"
you need for Linux all in one place is more than worth it. After all,
your friends can borrow your CD and copy/install it. The Linux CD is
*not* an "entry level" disc. It's the Real Thing[TM] -- and you get
the source code, a decent compiler, X, GhostScript, TeX...need more be said.

Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system is just that: proprietary.
But you're right it's "embarrassing" -- embarrassing for you that you
should compare apples and monosodium glutamate...and seriously, at that.

--
--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--
Paul Ducklin du...@nuustak.csir.co.za

CSIR Computer Virus Research Lab * Box 395 * Pretoria * 0001 S Africa

Bert Driehuis

lukematon,
26.11.1992 klo 5.18.0526.11.1992
vastaanottaja
mes...@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:
>- ever heard of thousands of people making a living, providing for their
> families and supporting the economy thanks to Bill Gates?
You make a living thanks to Bill Gates? I don't want to be in your shoes!
Seriously, this argument keeps coming up in discussions about free
software. It all revolves around a perceived desirability of job creation.
I do *not* want a job to be created for me. If my options are to spend
the rest of my days doing helpdesk support for MSDOS PC's, or to quit the
computer business and become a janitor, I'll choose the latter option. Of
course, the computer bizz is my trade, so I prefer to have interesting
work using interesting tools. Be they freeware (thanks, rms, for Emacs
and gcc!) or commercial (yes, I *still* like to work on Suns or Macs).

And finally, the best work in this industry still is consulting. Which can
equally well be for commercial software, or for freeware.
--
Bert Driehuis, drie...@ooc.uva.nl
Morssingel 243, 2312 EX Leiden, The Netherlands.

Frank Crash Edwards

lukematon,
26.11.1992 klo 10.22.5826.11.1992
vastaanottaja
w...@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni) writes:
>In article <1f1epb...@smurf.sti.com> wes...@smurf.sti.com (Will Estes) writes:
>>This is a bit embarrassing to have to point out, but did you realize
>>that Microsoft is selling Windows/NT on CD-ROM for $69? I mean, is
>>Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system even more free than free GNU
>>UNIX? :)
>
>Different worlds. Does Microsoft release the source code of NT? Does the
>NT package include the GNU utilities? Adam just wants to cover the
>cost he produces the CDs. And you are free to copy all the stuffs in the

Bzzzzzt! It does not cost $99 to produce a single CDROM. The first
200 ROMs built from a master will be about $20 each. After that, they
cost roughly $2 per disk. Or did you not see the posting a few months
ago from the gentleman who posted all of his costs in having a ROM
produced? It cost him just under $4000 for the first 200. And then
he has a master and no more "startup" costs.

>Wen-Chun Ni, w...@cs.brown.edu (401) 863-7669
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> I do more after 2 a.m. than most people do all day.

Strange; my day starts at 2am. ;-)
--
Frank "Crash" Edwards Perceptual Technologies
Fax: 813/786-6526 [Our office is moving; watch this space
Home: 813/786-3675 for the new phone number.]
"Darmok and Jillard; at Tenagra. Darmok and Jillard; on the ocean."

Zbigniew J. Tyrlik

lukematon,
26.11.1992 klo 12.54.0626.11.1992
vastaanottaja
As quoted from <1f1epb...@smurf.sti.com> by wes...@smurf.sti.com (Will Estes):

+---------------


> In article <38...@news.cerf.net> ric...@nic.cerf.net (Adam J. Richter) writes:
> > The $99 price includes free copies of the beta and production
> >releases. The beta release should ship in January and the production
> >release should ship in February under a catchier trademarked name.
> >Subsequent releases will be issued quarterly at $99 each.
> >

> This is a bit embarrassing to have to point out, but did you realize


> that Microsoft is selling Windows/NT on CD-ROM for $69? I mean, is
> Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system even more free than free GNU
> UNIX? :)
>

Will, point well taken, but you just started a flame war :).
Better bring into picture that whole bunch of other folks was and
is selling similar CD's for 25% of this price.... To mention only
Bob Bruce, Prime Time Freeware...

>
> --
> Will Estes Internet: wes...@netcom.com

Let them do their thing - and if they are too expensive, we will
see nice price cuts. Last time I heard, to prepare a CD costs $800
for matrix, and $2-3 for a piece on 1000 pieces run. Looks like I
should invest $5000 and get back... uhm... $99000. Marketing is
free - USENET!!!! USENET!!!!


_zjt
--
********************************************************************
Zbigniew J. Tyrlik DoD# 0759 VF700C '84 zb...@wariat.org
IBM PC SIG Sysop - Cleveland Free-Net aa...@cleveland.freenet.edu
APK Public Access UNI* Cleveland, (216)-481-9436
Feeds, shell, FTP & telnet access Uniboard distribution point
********************************************************************

Robert Chen

lukematon,
26.11.1992 klo 16.40.0826.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1f1epb...@smurf.sti.com> wes...@smurf.sti.com (Will Estes) writes:

>This is a bit embarrassing to have to point out, but did you realize
>that Microsoft is selling Windows/NT on CD-ROM for $69? I mean, is
>Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system even more free than free GNU
>UNIX? :)
>

Ha ha ha ha ha! Sorry, but that is very humorous. Do you honestly
thing that /when/ NT is released you will have a development system or
networking? If you think you are going to get either for $69, you
have been talking to different people at MS than me. Try >$600 for a
development system just for starters. I will bet that "NT for
workgroups" will be price comparable to Novel. And we won't even begin to talk
about source licenses (if they even grant any).

Personally, I think $99 is WAY UNDER PRICED. I find Linux to be very
comparable at this point to SCO ODT, which sets you back >$2000 for a
multiuser copy. Saying that $99 is overpriced for a complete X
window/C++ development platform is the silliest thing I have heard in
a long time.

- Ken

Will Estes

lukematon,
26.11.1992 klo 17.07.5426.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <duck.722767414@nuustak> du...@nuustak.csir.co.za (Paul Ducklin) writes:
>Thus spake wes...@smurf.sti.com (Will Estes):
>>This is a bit embarrassing to have to point out, but did you realize
>>that Microsoft is selling Windows/NT on CD-ROM for $69? I mean, is
>>Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system even more free than free GNU
>>UNIX? :)
>
>Get real.
>
>Microsoft Windows (non-NT) is also very cheap. But have you worked out how
>much it costs you to buy more than Solitaire? Ever priced the Windows
>SDK and a suitable compiler? For $99, the convenience of "everything"
>you need for Linux all in one place is more than worth it. After all,
>your friends can borrow your CD and copy/install it. The Linux CD is
>*not* an "entry level" disc. It's the Real Thing[TM] -- and you get
>the source code, a decent compiler, X, GhostScript, TeX...need more be said.

The Windows/NT SDK includes Windows, Windows/NT, and POSIX subsystems,
as well as the complete Win32 SDK and C++ compiler, as well as a
complete 16 and 32-bit implementation of TCP/IP, as well as some LAN
Manager server capability, all for $69. You can buy the GNU utilities
for the POSIX subsystem from a third party, but you are correct that this
costs more. And the POSIX subsystem is not UNIX, by a long shot, but it's
also pretty clear that within a year someone will be selling a viable UNIX
subsystem (or maybe porting Linux) to run under Windows/NT.


>Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system is just that: proprietary.
>But you're right it's "embarrassing" -- embarrassing for you that you
>should compare apples and monosodium glutamate...and seriously, at that.

I think you trivializing the point. The point is that Microsoft might
well use its economies of scale to price its 32-bit OS as a commodity and
still manage to make a substantial profit. This makes it possible for
reasonable people to make an argument that their total cost to purchase,
develop for, support, and use Windows/NT would be equal to or less than
a totally free package such as Linux. The economics of such a
comparison should encompass issues like support.

Now I know that in your mind there is no comparison, Linux is going to
be cheaper for *you* to buy, develop for, and support. Fine. But if we
asked that same question to the guys who head MIS at the Fortune 1000,
or to people in the Federal Government, I don't think we would get the
same answer. And note that this is *just* the economic comparison; we
haven't even addressed the issue of which platform offers the widest
selection of applications. Unfortunately, there just isn't a
comparison there. Most UNIX workstation vendors are porting to
Windows/NT, and even Linux may end up getting a port as a Windows/NT
subsystem. And which platform supports Word For Windows, Excel, etc. at
$99 bucks a pop for upgrades?

Please note that I want Linux to succeed like crazy! A world where Bill
Gates controls all of our choices really does scare me. But I think I
am making a legitimate point about the economics of NT versus Linux that
will affect how much market share Linux can grab.

Personally, I wish the FSF were a company that understood what a market
is and sold Linux as a cheap UNIX with support. What the world really
needs is a solid UNIX that is approachable as a system for end-users
(i.e., the mass-market). That's sort of what Jobs has tried to do with
NeXTStep '486, but he is blowing it by pricing it at $999. I simply
find it frustrating that Bill Gates is the only person in the industry
who seems to understand how to sell an operating system for naive
end-users as a commodity. I think an important part of making Linux a
long-term success is to correctly identify what is Bill Gates' market,
and to hit him where it hurts. I'm afraid Linux doesn't do that, yet.

Will Estes

lukematon,
26.11.1992 klo 17.15.0426.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1992Nov26....@wariat.org> zb...@wariat.org (Zbigniew J. Tyrlik) writes:
>As quoted from <1f1epb...@smurf.sti.com> by wes...@smurf.sti.com (Will Estes):
>> This is a bit embarrassing to have to point out, but did you realize
>> that Microsoft is selling Windows/NT on CD-ROM for $69? I mean, is
>> Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system even more free than free GNU
>> UNIX? :)
>
>Will, point well taken, but you just started a flame war :).

I sure hope it doesn't become that. I do think it's a useful exercise
to study Microsoft's success, and to ask what can be done to Linux to
make it a success in the mass-market. Maybe we can end up sparking a
thought or two in someone's mind, and one or two years from now a
version of Linux might appear that causes Bill Gates to go without sleep
for a few weeks.

Tim Pierce

lukematon,
26.11.1992 klo 22.35.3426.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1992Nov26.0...@netcom.com> mes...@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:

>w...@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni) writes:
>
>> I personally respect Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds much much
>> much more than Bill Gates.
>

>- ever heard of computer revolution? computer on every desk? I
> didn't see Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds (as much as I respect
> them both, make no mistake) having even 1/1000th to do with it as
> much as Bill Gates.

Bill Gates couldn't have cared less about a "computer on every desk."
He's in it for the money (and the sports cars, natch). Now that the
computers are on your desks, Linus and RMS are at least making sure
that you've got a reason to use them.

>- ever heard of thousands of people making a living, providing for their
> families and supporting the economy thanks to Bill Gates? Show me where
> that happened thanks to Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds.

It looks to me like Linus is about to ensure that Adam can support his
family.

--
____ Tim Pierce /
\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu / Rocks say goodbye.
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /

Wen-Chun Ni

lukematon,
27.11.1992 klo 2.59.5727.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1992Nov26.0...@netcom.com> mes...@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) questioned me:

>
>I guess I just have to ask this question every time I see something so
>childish: "okay, can you now explain why?"
>
>Just in case you want to spill some ideological baloney here, let me ask
>you a couple more questions:
>
>- ever heard of computer revolution? computer on every desk? I
> didn't see Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds (as much as I respect
> them both, make no mistake) having even 1/1000th to do with it as
> much as Bill Gates.

No, I've never heard of computer revolution, at least in software. For
a casual user like my sister, I even recommended Mac instead of a PC
(thanks to your beloved Bill Gates).

What Bill Gates is running is basically a marketing game, since
Microsoft is really good at spreading public support even the product
is still buggy or unreleased.

From the viewpoint of marketing, I should admire Bill Gates and his
men. But, computer revolution? Steve Jobs deserves much much more
respect than Bill Gates.

Microsoft never has an idea of revolution. Otherwise, there will be no
dogs like MSDOS or Windows. Imagine why a Mac can run a window system
in a skimpy 2meg machine happily, while Windows crawls.

>
>- ever heard of thousands of people making a living, providing for their
> families and supporting the economy thanks to Bill Gates? Show me where
> that happened thanks to Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds. But then,
> I just noticed the extension of your email address. Sorry for
> wasting the bandwith.
>

You mean MSDOS? Yes, this is why Norton Utilities and PC Tools can
survive because of the very weak system created by Bill Gates and his
company. Many software developers find oppotunities in the PC market
because of the damn weak system called MSDOS. There are many good
applications for PC doesn't mean the system itself provides thousands
of families. If Mac dominates the market, Apple will be the supporter
of those families. The releases of MBASIC/MSDOS/WINDOWS do not reflect
anything in technical advances as well as computer revolution. It is
the need of computerization and the initial momentum of IBM PC help
create the empire of Microsoft, not Microsoft creates the
computerization. Bill Gates is just a beneficiary of the era, and
(unfortunately) happens to earn a lot of money from his opportunity.
The contribution of Excel is much less than that of Visicalc. There is
no way we can view that MSWord contributes more than WordPerfect.
What Microsoft is good is the chasing of existing technology of
products and makes a well marketed one.

But there could be no Richard Stallman, gcc, emacs, etc. There could be
no Linus Torvalds and Linux. And we will not going to be aware of the
necessity of their existence. Once they appear, they shine like the
stars. Just like somebody admired Albert Einstein for his contribution,
because, without Einstein, it is not even predictable that we know
Relativity in 21st century.

Stallman gives the idea of "freedom." He is even the extremist of
untyped languages, since typed langugaes restrict the freedom of the
programmers. He is not necessariy correct, but he gives us the other
thought, a thought that we may not even come up with in AT&T's
monopoly and Microsoft's opportunism. The existence of GNU reflects the
sincerity we might have eventually lost.

Linus is a real activist. For nothing, he gets his fun in hacking an OS
and helping people to realize their 3(4)86 are not merely a "C:>"
junky. He also helps the poor guys like me to have a chance of probing
into the taking care of everything in Unix. The long-term effects is
unmeasurable from my viewpoint. It prolongs the lifetime of Unix, beats
the greed of AT&T, and educates us the values of some spirit beyond
money. All he gets is the "virtual beer" as he described.

merlin

lukematon,
27.11.1992 klo 4.58.3827.11.1992
vastaanottaja
>Ha ha ha ha ha! Sorry, but that is very humorous. Do you honestly
>thing that /when/ NT is released you will have a development system or
>networking? If you think you are going to get either for $69, you
>have been talking to different people at MS than me. Try >$600 for a
>development system just for starters. I will bet that "NT for
>workgroups" will be price comparable to Novel.

I don't know about you -- but Microsoft has promised to the distribution
of 32 bit Windows / NT for 386/486 platforms will be made available to us
in such a manner that cost is no concern. If you are at an academic site
developing software for this environment I don't think you relly need to
worry about what people in that coarse callous claw your way to the top
commercial world might have to pay for their development tools. I don't
seen any reason to believe NT is going to cost academia more than $69 for
the SDK and $69 for the DDK.

>And we won't even begin to talk about source licenses (if they grant any).

DEC for one has a source code license for the 32 bit Windows / NT op system.

>Personally, I think $99 is WAY UNDER PRICED.

I would agree the price was reasonable if the distributor either wrote the
code or could show some kind of proof of ownership. In the absence of any
lawfull claim of ownership then I suspect we ought to be thinking more in
terms of compensating him for distribution costs -- and for no other costs.

Where exactly is his value added -- something which would philosophically
give him the right to make a profit on this venture? Perhaps the risk of
getting stuck with a pile of outdated glass disks -- but nothing else.

>SCO ODT, which sets you back >$2000 for a multiuser copy.

Try over $4,000 for one copy of multiuser base, server, and development kit.


David J. Fiander

lukematon,
27.11.1992 klo 8.21.1727.11.1992
vastaanottaja
According to rc...@fraser.sfu.ca (Robert Chen):

>
>Personally, I think $99 is WAY UNDER PRICED. I find Linux to be very
>comparable at this point to SCO ODT, which sets you back >$2000 for a
>multiuser copy. Saying that $99 is overpriced for a complete X
>window/C++ development platform is the silliest thing I have heard in
>a long time.
>

No, $99 is probably just about right for somebody that is doing
this in his spare time. The reason that ODT is >$2000 is that
you get printed manuals, you don't have to worry about the
source, and if something goes wrong during the install, you can
phone for support. You don't know how expensive support is,
and the cost of development for the next release is even
higher.

If SCO didn't have to support or provide documentation for it's
products, and didn't have to pay AT&T for every single unit it
sold, the SCO could probably compete with a $99 CDROM.

But then, the Fortune 500 would never buy such a product.

- David (speaking for self)

Marc Unangst

lukematon,
27.11.1992 klo 8.39.3927.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1f4rge...@neuro.usc.edu> mer...@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
>commercial world might have to pay for their development tools. I don't
>seen any reason to believe NT is going to cost academia more than $69 for
>the SDK and $69 for the DDK.

This is the key part. What about those of us who aren't in acedemia?
What about those of us that actually have to work for a living, but
like to hack on a Unix-like OS in our free time at home? I would bet
that non-academic sites will not be able to get the NT SDK for
anything less than $500, once NT is released. (The current price for
the SDK/DDK kit is artificially low to encourage people to develop
apps for NT. Once NT has been released, I think you'll see the price
take a massive leap.)

>DEC for one has a source code license for the 32 bit Windows / NT op system.

Great, if you work for DEC. But how much did DEC pay for their
license? Bet it's as much as your annual salary; maybe more. There's
no chance that a lone individual will be able to afford an NT source
license unless they're as rich as Bill Gates. That's the beauty of
Linux and 386BSD -- *anybody* can get the source, no matter who they
are or how much money they have.

>Where exactly is his value added -- something which would philosophically
>give him the right to make a profit on this venture? Perhaps the risk of
>getting stuck with a pile of outdated glass disks -- but nothing else.

His value is that he's collected everything together into one place,
made a CD master, and stamped some disks. If you don't think the
price is reasonable, by all means do it yourself and sell it for what
*you* think is a reasonable cost. If other people agree, then they
will buy it from you instead of from him, and you will make more
money.

I think it can be reasonably argued that he has ownership rights, at
least on the collection as a whole. If you don't agree, go do some
research on what's called a "compilation copyright".

[ODT prices]


>Try over $4,000 for one copy of multiuser base, server, and development kit.

So? Most people will not need multiuser base, server, and development
kit on their desk; they will only need the two-user base system. And
that costs $1500. Possibly overpriced; possibly not -- I'm inclined
to think not, after seeing the quality of SCO support. And academia
can get a substantial discount off list price.

Above all, you pays your money and you takes your chances. Linux is
free or nearly so, but it doesn't come with a fancy support contract
or a well-dressed guy with gold cufflinks who will say soothing things
to you when your system goes down.

--
Marc Unangst, N8VRH | "There are two ways to solve this problem:
m...@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us | the hard way, and the easy way. Let's start
| with the hard way."
| - W. Scheider, from a Physics lecture

Zbigniew J. Tyrlik

lukematon,
27.11.1992 klo 16.00.5127.11.1992
vastaanottaja
As quoted from <1992Nov26....@sfu.ca> by rc...@fraser.sfu.ca (Robert Chen):


> Personally, I think $99 is WAY UNDER PRICED. I find Linux to be very
> comparable at this point to SCO ODT, which sets you back >$2000 for a
> multiuser copy. Saying that $99 is overpriced for a complete X
> window/C++ development platform is the silliest thing I have heard in
> a long time.
>
> - Ken


Ken, $99 for such system is really chep; $99 for pressing CD and
shipping it is way too much. Read this damn add, bra!

What we are questioning is price for distribution - not for the
OS. Unless author of Linux will get $60 out of each $99.


You are barking the worng tree - get your facts straight.

Rick Kelly

lukematon,
27.11.1992 klo 19.52.5627.11.1992
vastaanottaja

Well, I don't think you'll see anyone getting source for NT.

I have seen a comment from SGI, which will sell NT on their bottom of
the line model, that stated that NT was unsuitable for high end systems
due to the inability of NT to be configured to system load, etc. This
seems to imply that SGI doesn't see NT source, either.

Linux has reached a state where it is nice and fast, has networking and
X11, and the kernel is still at a reasonable size. It doesn't have shared
memory, message passing, and semaphores. It doesn't conform to the Intel
binary standard shared by SVR3, SVR4, Coherent, and others.

In a professional/business environment it can't run the commercial shrink
wrapped apps that are available.

--

Rick Kelly r...@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk r...@frog.UUCP

Rick Kelly

lukematon,
27.11.1992 klo 21.43.0627.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1f3hrq...@smurf.sti.com> wes...@smurf.sti.com (Will Estes) writes:
>In article <duck.722767414@nuustak> du...@nuustak.csir.co.za (Paul Ducklin) writes:
>>Thus spake wes...@smurf.sti.com (Will Estes):
>>>This is a bit embarrassing to have to point out, but did you realize
>>>that Microsoft is selling Windows/NT on CD-ROM for $69? I mean, is
>>>Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system even more free than free GNU
>>>UNIX? :)
>>
>>Get real.
>>
>>Microsoft Windows (non-NT) is also very cheap. But have you worked out how
>>much it costs you to buy more than Solitaire? Ever priced the Windows
>>SDK and a suitable compiler? For $99, the convenience of "everything"
>>you need for Linux all in one place is more than worth it. After all,
>>your friends can borrow your CD and copy/install it. The Linux CD is
>>*not* an "entry level" disc. It's the Real Thing[TM] -- and you get
>>the source code, a decent compiler, X, GhostScript, TeX...need more be said.
>
>The Windows/NT SDK includes Windows, Windows/NT, and POSIX subsystems,
>as well as the complete Win32 SDK and C++ compiler, as well as a
>complete 16 and 32-bit implementation of TCP/IP, as well as some LAN
>Manager server capability, all for $69. You can buy the GNU utilities
>for the POSIX subsystem from a third party, but you are correct that this
>costs more. And the POSIX subsystem is not UNIX, by a long shot, but it's
>also pretty clear that within a year someone will be selling a viable UNIX
>subsystem (or maybe porting Linux) to run under Windows/NT.

Windows NT, which will be released as Windows 3.1 NT, will mainly be sold
as a server OS for systems running Windows 3.1 on a network.

Windows NT is not released. Microsoft, in marketing literature, has stated
that the final release price of Windows 3.1 NT will be "less than $495".

>>Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system is just that: proprietary.
>>But you're right it's "embarrassing" -- embarrassing for you that you
>>should compare apples and monosodium glutamate...and seriously, at that.
>
>I think you trivializing the point. The point is that Microsoft might
>well use its economies of scale to price its 32-bit OS as a commodity and
>still manage to make a substantial profit. This makes it possible for
>reasonable people to make an argument that their total cost to purchase,
>develop for, support, and use Windows/NT would be equal to or less than
>a totally free package such as Linux. The economics of such a
>comparison should encompass issues like support.

In order Windows 3.1 NT to have the same rate of sales as Windows 3.x,
they will have to convince vendors to ship it with systems. And these
systems have have to have 16megs of memory and a large hard disk.

Remember, Microsoft can show high numbers for sales of Windows 3.1 because
an awful lot of people got it whether they wanted it or not.

>Now I know that in your mind there is no comparison, Linux is going to
>be cheaper for *you* to buy, develop for, and support. Fine. But if we
>asked that same question to the guys who head MIS at the Fortune 1000,
>or to people in the Federal Government, I don't think we would get the
>same answer. And note that this is *just* the economic comparison; we
>haven't even addressed the issue of which platform offers the widest
>selection of applications. Unfortunately, there just isn't a
>comparison there. Most UNIX workstation vendors are porting to
>Windows/NT, and even Linux may end up getting a port as a Windows/NT
>subsystem. And which platform supports Word For Windows, Excel, etc. at
>$99 bucks a pop for upgrades?

There actually aren't many UNIX vendors porting to Windows 3.1 NT.

The leading spreadsheet is Lotus 123, it runs on UNIX.

The leading word processor is Word Perfect, it runs on UNIX.

Go and look at a third part commercial software catalog for SCO UNIX.

The basic office system in a federal government office is a PC clone
running MSDOS with Multimate and Lotus 123 as the applications.

>Please note that I want Linux to succeed like crazy! A world where Bill
>Gates controls all of our choices really does scare me. But I think I
>am making a legitimate point about the economics of NT versus Linux that
>will affect how much market share Linux can grab.

Only marketing and media weasels think that Bill Gates controls the
computer industry.

>Personally, I wish the FSF were a company that understood what a market
>is and sold Linux as a cheap UNIX with support. What the world really
>needs is a solid UNIX that is approachable as a system for end-users
>(i.e., the mass-market). That's sort of what Jobs has tried to do with
>NeXTStep '486, but he is blowing it by pricing it at $999. I simply
>find it frustrating that Bill Gates is the only person in the industry
>who seems to understand how to sell an operating system for naive
>end-users as a commodity. I think an important part of making Linux a
>long-term success is to correctly identify what is Bill Gates' market,
>and to hit him where it hurts. I'm afraid Linux doesn't do that, yet.

Bill Gates' market is still MSDOS, as that is the way most PC clones are
configured and sold. It is the slim requirements of MSDOS that have driven
down the price of PC hardware.

A 486 PC with 4 megs of memory and a 100 meg drive will be USELESS for NT.

Paul Ducklin

lukematon,
27.11.1992 klo 10.56.0627.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In reply to my:

>>Get real.

Will Estes retorts, inter alia, with:

>Now I know that in your mind there is no comparison, Linux is going to
>be cheaper for *you* to buy, develop for, and support. Fine. But if we
>asked that same question to the guys who head MIS at the Fortune 1000,
>or to people in the Federal Government, I don't think we would get the
>same answer. And note that this is *just* the economic comparison; we

I still think you're comparing apples and MSG.

Don't forget that your $99 Linux CD-ROM can be used to install a complete
system onto all of the machines supported by the guys who head MIS at the
Fortune 1000! You're paying $99 _for the convenience of having had some-
one slap everything you need on a CD-ROM_. Not for the operating system.
With Win/NT (don't you love the "N" in "NT"), you're paying your $69 per
copy of the OS. If you think $99 is too much to pay for a CD-ROM, get
together with 9 friends and pay $9.90 each!

See if you can do that with the MS stuff...OK, you can. But you may not.

Tim Smith

lukematon,
28.11.1992 klo 13.03.1328.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <921127...@rmkhome.UUCP> r...@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>I have seen a comment from SGI, which will sell NT on their bottom of
>the line model, that stated that NT was unsuitable for high end systems
>due to the inability of NT to be configured to system load, etc. This
>seems to imply that SGI doesn't see NT source, either.

It could just imply that SGI doesn't want to *change* the source too much
lest integrating new releases from Microsoft become difficult. If they
change it, and Microsoft doesn't put the changes in subsequent releases,
then SGI is stuck making the same changes in each new release from Microsoft,
or going through new Microsoft releases and picking out the parts they
want to port over to their diverging kernel.

If you are going to use someone else's operating system, a good case can
be made for leaving it alone, except for (1) any changes needed for your
specific hardware, and (2) fixing bugs that the OS vendor is also going to
fix.

Given the possibility of some pretty hot competition between NT and OS/2
and one or two Unix versions, I'd expect new releases of NT to take place
fairly quickly, which would indicate that people with NT source should be
cautious about making changes.

--Tim Smith

Tim Smith

lukematon,
28.11.1992 klo 13.33.0928.11.1992
vastaanottaja
>Personally, I wish the FSF were a company that understood what a market
>is and sold Linux as a cheap UNIX with support.

Imagine what FSF could do with Bill Gates' money:

1. First, convert Gates' stock to real money. Let's say that
yeilds 5 billion bucks.

2. Invest this. This gives easily 500 million a year to
throw around.

3. With that 500 million, do the following:

a. Hire 1000 programmers at 100K/yr to write free
software.

b. Hire 2000 support people at 50K/yr to support it.

c. Create 3000 "Free Software Grants" of 100K/yr. People
who wish to develop free software can apply for these
grants.

(the above breakdown is just to give an idea of the
magnitude of what could be done -- other breakdowns
might be better, such as including an explict
documentation category)

So, why didn't something like this happen? A lot of people reading this
now were quite capable of writing a BASIC interpreter for an 808x back in
the late 70's. Why was it Bill Gates? I'm also pretty sure that there
are a lot of people reading this who could have written something comparable
to the first version of DOS in about a week.

I know what excuse I and the people I hung out with then have. We were
hacking our PDP-10's back then, and didn't want to be bothered with
toys like the 808x. Does anyone else care to reminisce on the topic
of "What I was doing instead of making billions"? :-) :-(

--Tim Smith

Steven D Ourada

lukematon,
28.11.1992 klo 15.38.4028.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In <1992Nov28.1...@u.washington.edu> t...@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>[Scenario:What FSF would be if it had $5G]

>So, why didn't something like this happen? A lot of people reading this
>now were quite capable of writing a BASIC interpreter for an 808x back in
>the late 70's. Why was it Bill Gates? I'm also pretty sure that there
>are a lot of people reading this who could have written something comparable
>to the first version of DOS in about a week.

The basic reason this didn't happen is that those who make $5 billion in
the software market and those who give away free software must have very
different attitudes towards the sale of software. Someone like Bill Gates
is not likely to suddenly decide that all software should be free and devote
all his money to making that happen. And someone like Richard Stallman is
not likely to temporarily decide that it's O.K. to sell software so he can
make a quick billion to support free software.

It boils down a simple maxim: "There's no money in free software." :-)
(I know there are exceptions, but this is supposed to be a _simple_ maxim)

Later,
Steven Ourada

--
-----------------
Steven Ourada Member of the Students for Electronic Freedom
Ask me how Iowa State University is censoring my Usenet access!
sou...@iastate.edu "can't casts no shadow" -- cummings

Magnus Alvestad

lukematon,
28.11.1992 klo 16.25.3728.11.1992
vastaanottaja
>>>>> On Sat, 28 Nov 1992 20:38:40 GMT, sou...@iastate.edu (Steven D
>>>>> Ourada) said:

Steven> It boils down a simple maxim: "There's no money in
Steven> free software." :-)

Well, there is money in free users.

-Magnus

Peter da Silva

lukematon,
28.11.1992 klo 15.27.0528.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1992Nov28.1...@u.washington.edu> t...@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> Why was it Bill Gates?

The rest of us were unwilling to produce less than the best product we could,
and unwilling to discard a technically superior design in favor of one which,
while tragically crippled, would make us more money.

That's also why Jobs and Wozniak aren't in charge at Apple any more.
--
%Peter da Silva/77487-5012 USA/+1 713 274 5180/Have you hugged your wolf today?
/D{def}def/I{72 mul}D/L{lineto}D/C{curveto}D/F{0 562 moveto 180 576 324 648 396
736 C 432 736 L 482 670 518 634 612 612 C}D/G{setgray}D .75 G F 612 792 L 0 792
L fill 1 G 324 720 24 0 360 arc fill 0 G 3 setlinewidth F stroke showpage % 100

Dave Eisen

lukematon,
28.11.1992 klo 21.37.1428.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <id.AC...@ferranti.com> pe...@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <1992Nov28.1...@u.washington.edu> t...@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>> Why was it Bill Gates?
>
>The rest of us were unwilling to produce less than the best product we could,
>and unwilling to discard a technically superior design in favor of one which,
>while tragically crippled, would make us more money.

Speak for yourself, Peter. I for one would be overjoyed to
produce less than the best product I can and make 5 billion
dollars for doing so.

Bill Gates obviously has some talents that most of the rest
of us don't have. He might not be the hacker you are or I
am, but he is one hell of a better marketer. And that is a
much more difficult and much more valuable talent.

--
Dave Eisen Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
dke...@leland.Stanford.EDU Home: (415) 321-5154
There's something in my library to offend everybody.
--- Washington Coalition Against Censorship

Matt Welsh

lukematon,
28.11.1992 klo 21.48.0728.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1992Nov29.0...@leland.Stanford.EDU> dke...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
>In article <id.AC...@ferranti.com> pe...@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>The rest of us were unwilling to produce less than the best product we could,
>>and unwilling to discard a technically superior design in favor of one which,
>>while tragically crippled, would make us more money.
>
>Bill Gates obviously has some talents that most of the rest
>of us don't have. He might not be the hacker you are or I
>am, but he is one hell of a better marketer. And that is a
>much more difficult and much more valuable talent.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I sneeze at you.

mdw

--
Matt Welsh m...@tc.cornell.edu +1 607 253 2737
"We're going away now. I fed the cat."

Jeff McAffer

lukematon,
28.11.1992 klo 23.36.0428.11.1992
vastaanottaja

>This is the key part. What about those of us who aren't in acedemia?
>What about those of us that actually have to work for a living, but

yeah, like we don't work.

>like to hack on a Unix-like OS in our free time at home? I would bet

What about you/us? Free (or nearly) stuff is free. Us it. Don't
whine that the commercial stuff costs money. Remember, if there was a
reasonable market for *selling* complete source OSs, people would be
doing it and making money. (I don't cound Linux as being sold cause
you can ftp it for free. As you alluded to, its the CD compilation
that's being sold. Any hacker would download it himself :-)

>that non-academic sites will not be able to get the NT SDK for
>anything less than $500, once NT is released. (The current price for

...


>that costs $1500. Possibly overpriced; possibly not -- I'm inclined
>to think not, after seeing the quality of SCO support.

You're not willing to pay 500 for the NT stuff but you will pay 1500
for SCO? I don't really know anything about either as a product.
These just don't seem like basement hacker arguments.

> And academia
>can get a substantial discount off list price.

but you're not interested in academia! After all, they don't actually
do any work.

>license unless they're as rich as Bill Gates. That's the beauty of
>Linux and 386BSD -- *anybody* can get the source, no matter who they
>are or how much money they have.

Agreed entirely.

So what is your conclusion? Cheap/free mostly working but unsupported
stuff that 99% of the computer users could not handle is great.
Expensive but more solid and powerful stuff (SCO) that 80% of computer
users could not handle is great. Low priced stuff that at least holds
some hope of normal people being able to use it sucks because you have
to pay extra for the development environment.

--
--
ato de, |m -- Face it!

Rick Kelly

lukematon,
28.11.1992 klo 22.50.2728.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <duck.722879233@nuustak> du...@nuustak.csir.co.za (Paul Ducklin) writes:

>>Now I know that in your mind there is no comparison, Linux is going to
>>be cheaper for *you* to buy, develop for, and support. Fine. But if we
>>asked that same question to the guys who head MIS at the Fortune 1000,
>>or to people in the Federal Government, I don't think we would get the
>>same answer. And note that this is *just* the economic comparison; we
>
>I still think you're comparing apples and MSG.
>
>Don't forget that your $99 Linux CD-ROM can be used to install a complete
>system onto all of the machines supported by the guys who head MIS at the
>Fortune 1000! You're paying $99 _for the convenience of having had some-
>one slap everything you need on a CD-ROM_. Not for the operating system.
>With Win/NT (don't you love the "N" in "NT"), you're paying your $69 per
>copy of the OS. If you think $99 is too much to pay for a CD-ROM, get
>together with 9 friends and pay $9.90 each!

Linux is covered by the GPL and is of course copyable. However, the original
announcement of the Linux CD-ROM for $99 had a caveat included that seemed to
imply that the makers of the CD-ROM wouldn't allow that. ??????

>See if you can do that with the MS stuff...OK, you can. But you may not.

There's lots of pirated copies of Windows 3.x out there.

Rick Kelly

lukematon,
28.11.1992 klo 22.57.5228.11.1992
vastaanottaja
>In article <921127...@rmkhome.UUCP> r...@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>I have seen a comment from SGI, which will sell NT on their bottom of
>>the line model, that stated that NT was unsuitable for high end systems
>>due to the inability of NT to be configured to system load, etc. This
>>seems to imply that SGI doesn't see NT source, either.
>
>It could just imply that SGI doesn't want to *change* the source too much
>lest integrating new releases from Microsoft become difficult. If they
>change it, and Microsoft doesn't put the changes in subsequent releases,
>then SGI is stuck making the same changes in each new release from Microsoft,
>or going through new Microsoft releases and picking out the parts they
>want to port over to their diverging kernel.

What they are saying, I think, is that UNIX comes with the ability to
change kernel variables on a per system basis to configure for optimum
efficiency at average system load. This is something that is needed by
a multiuser system. NT is a single user system and/or file server.

>If you are going to use someone else's operating system, a good case can
>be made for leaving it alone, except for (1) any changes needed for your
>specific hardware, and (2) fixing bugs that the OS vendor is also going to
>fix.

But SGI is talking about system administration functions.

>Given the possibility of some pretty hot competition between NT and OS/2
>and one or two Unix versions, I'd expect new releases of NT to take place
>fairly quickly, which would indicate that people with NT source should be
>cautious about making changes.

And a year from now, NT may still be in beta-beta-beta.

Brett Elliott

lukematon,
28.11.1992 klo 23.35.0528.11.1992
vastaanottaja
Let me add that Bill Gates started out young in programming traffic signs
such as those arrows on the side of the street which flash.

Bob Stockler

lukematon,
28.11.1992 klo 19.21.0328.11.1992
vastaanottaja
t...@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

> 3. With that 500 million, do the following:

> a. Hire 1000 programmers at 100K/yr to write free
> software.

> b. Hire 2000 support people at 50K/yr to support it.

I'd suggest you've sorta got this basackwards.

Comes the Revolution, and we're ALL EQUAL (except me, who'll be the
LEADER), I'd put the bucks you alloted to (a) into (b), perhaps
proportionately to your original pay schedule. That ought make it fly.

Otherwise, I think you've a pretty good idea (if we can get the 500 mil).

--
Bob Stockler b...@trebor.uucp CIS: 72726,452

Brian Downing

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 8.21.1529.11.1992
vastaanottaja
> Bill Gates obviously has some talents that most of the rest
> of us don't have. He might not be the hacker you are or I
> am, but he is one hell of a better marketer. And that is a
> much more difficult and much more valuable talent.

I beg to differ. What Gates does simply requires having no integrity.
He's no different from the local street-corner drug dealers here in
New York City. Sales and profit ALWAYS come first. The quality MUST
be kept at a minimum in order to maximize profit. They also both try
to get'em hooked so they'll keep coming back for more. Anyone
participating in the use of DOS,Heroin or Cocaine is simply not
getting the most out of life possible.

;)

--

Brian...

brian downing@->fordham university, nyc ny
br...@dsm.fordham.edu bdow...@mary.fordham.edu

david matiskella

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 13.00.0829.11.1992
vastaanottaja
I think you are a little harsh on Bill Gates. The guy was a great programmer. HOw many people do you know who have written a basic in 3k? In addition look at the computers available when MSDOS was written. Sure Unix was available but it was not going to run on the available micros. Another thing to consider is that MSDOS was written very quickly. I keep hearing how great Herd is going to be but when was the idea first proposed? I remember hearing about it just after the macintosh was released eight years

ago. Of course if you can spend several years designing something you are going to come up with a better system than if you design and build it in one year.

Marc Unangst

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 13.01.4529.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1992Nov29.0...@kei.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> je...@is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp writes:
>You're not willing to pay 500 for the NT stuff but you will pay 1500
>for SCO? I don't really know anything about either as a product.
>These just don't seem like basement hacker arguments.

I'm actually not willing to pay either. Neither OS is for the
"basement hacker", and neither OS is intended as a research project.

>So what is your conclusion? Cheap/free mostly working but unsupported
>stuff that 99% of the computer users could not handle is great.
>Expensive but more solid and powerful stuff (SCO) that 80% of computer
>users could not handle is great. Low priced stuff that at least holds
>some hope of normal people being able to use it sucks because you have
>to pay extra for the development environment.

Not exactly. Cheap/free stuff with source is great because even if it
isn't exactly what I wanted, I can fix it easily. Expensive and more
powerful stuff (SCO) is good, not great, because it meets people's
needs and I can get by without source by leaning on their support
staff. (And SCO makes you pay over $1000 for the development
environment, too...)

I don't think it's necessarily true that 80% of computer users
couldn't handle SCO. Give them a reasonably-powered box on their desk
and let them run X.desktop, and they'll do fine. Just as user-cuddly
as Windows NT, but with the power of Unix underneath. I'm assuming,
of course, that you have some kind of administrator to handle
sysadmin-type tasks, but you'll need one with WinNT too. Or did you
expect to have a 50-node NT network without an administrator?

Stimpson J. Cat

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 16.40.0729.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <id.AC...@ferranti.com> pe...@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <1992Nov28.1...@u.washington.edu> t...@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>> Why was it Bill Gates?
>
>The rest of us were unwilling to produce less than the best product we could,
>and unwilling to discard a technically superior design in favor of one which,
>while tragically crippled, would make us more money.
>
>That's also why Jobs and Wozniak aren't in charge at Apple any more.

Bwhahahahahaha!!!! That's a good one.. Ever concider cross-posting to
rec.humor.funny? The Apple II put them on the map, yet it had one of the most
badly hacked os-es I had ever seen. (If you could even call that a OS) The
Apple III was a badly assembled failure that was rushed out the door too
fast and the Lisa... Ugh. Proof that not just IBM and Microsoft don't get it
right at first...
IMHO, Apple became a *better* company once Scully took over and the *real*
macs came out...
Jobs was never more than a hardware version of Bill Gates. He saw an
opening and grabbed it.


--
Stimpy J. Cat sti...@dev-null.phys.psu.edu

"I want everyone to know the joy of my nipples!" -Stimpy

Peter da Silva

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 15.10.5629.11.1992
vastaanottaja
> Speak for yourself, Peter. I for one would be overjoyed to
> produce less than the best product I can and make 5 billion
> dollars for doing so.

But would you be willing to do it for a long-shot chance at making those
5 billion? A billion-to-one chance?

Would you be willing to put your money where your mouth is and do this today?

> Bill Gates obviously has some talents that most of the rest
> of us don't have. He might not be the hacker you are or I
> am, but he is one hell of a better marketer. And that is a
> much more difficult and much more valuable talent.

Well, it's certainly a better-paid talent, but I don't equate that with
more valueable. I firmly believe that Bill Gates has single-handedly put
personal computers back ten years or more by his actions.

Tim Smith

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 18.13.1229.11.1992
vastaanottaja
dmat...@virgil.helios.nd.edu (david matiskella) writes, in defense of
Gates, the following:

>Another thing to consider is that MSDOS was written very quickly.

However, Bill Gates didn't write MSDOS, he bought the first version.

--Tim Smith

Peter da Silva

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 18.53.5329.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1992Nov29....@news.nd.edu> dmat...@virgil.helios.nd.edu (david matiskella) writes:
> I think you are a little harsh on Bill Gates. The guy was a great
> programmer. HOw many people do you know who have written a basic in 3k?

Well, I wrote a better language than Basic that ran on top of Forth in about
2K. With the base Forth (including interactive mode) that probably came to
about 6K, but I could have gotten down to 3K by leaving out the interactive
mode and all the Forth I/O routines. The Forth was commercial, but I could
have done that base subset myself... I certainly hacked enough Forth kernels:
even did a multitasker that was mostly portable (needed about 16 lines of
assembly for each processor) between the PDP-11, HP-1000, and 8080.

I can beat my hairless hacker breast with the best of them. PLUS I know how
to keep my lines down to 80 characters!


> In addition look at the computers available when MSDOS was written.

Yep, I was there. When MS-DOS came out I and most of my friends were amazed
at how bad it was. CP/M was better, and CP/M was none too good.

> Another thing to consider is that MSDOS was written very quickly.

Bill didn't write MSDOS. It was hacked together by another vendor and MS
basically fixed some bugs and shipped it.

> I keep hearing how great Herd is going to be but when was the idea first
> proposed?

I was running Unix on a PC/XT in 1984, and it was faster than MS-DOS.
Minix has been out for at least 6 years.
CP/M was better in 1978 than MS-DOS in 1982.
Cromemco had a UNIX-lookalike running on multiple Z-80s in 1980.
AmigaOS first shipped in 1985, and it was already better than any PC operating
system that was to ship until OS/2 2.0 seven years later.

MS-DOS, by any technical standard, is a disaster we're only now beginning to
recover from. There were dozens of better systems. Hell, the Atari 800 O/S
was better than CP/M and MS-DOS together and that ran on a game machine.

Roland Dreier

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 13.20.2729.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <id.TJ...@ferranti.com> pe...@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
In article <1992Nov29....@news.nd.edu> dmat...@virgil.helios.nd.edu (david matiskella) writes:
> I keep hearing how great Herd is going to be but when was the idea first
> proposed?

I was running Unix on a PC/XT in 1984, and it was faster than MS-DOS.
Minix has been out for at least 6 years.
CP/M was better in 1978 than MS-DOS in 1982.
Cromemco had a UNIX-lookalike running on multiple Z-80s in 1980.
AmigaOS first shipped in 1985, and it was already better than any
PC operating system that was to ship until OS/2 2.0 seven years later.

I have been following the threads lately about GPLed vs. Public Domain
vs. Commercial software lately, and the above exchange struck me as
rather interesting. All of those OSes you cite in response to the
Hurd query are commercial. In March 1985, the GNU Manifesto was
published in Dr. Dobbs. In the 1986 Byte Interview, Stallman was
promising the kernel in a year or two. It is now almost 1993, and the
GNU operating system, now Hurd, is shaping up into vaporware of
proportions that would make Microsoft jealous.

It seems rather interesting that we have commercial operating systems
with versions like Nextstep 3.0 or Solaris 2.0, and even OSF/1 can be
had, all before Hurd gets out. Linux is almost up to 1.0, but Linux
does not have interesting new technology. Even Windows/NT, which will
probably be shipping before Hurd, offers new stuff like
object-oriented device drivers and so on. I'm not sure exactly what
the delay has been with Hurd, either; it seems like all that is been
done is taking the Mach 3.0 stuff written at CMU and crossing it with
the BSD stuff written at UCB, and tacking on MIT's X windows.

If we were truly living in the "post-scarcity" world the FSF dreams
about, there would be no commercial operating systems. Would we all
be running Hurd alphas? I reread the GNU Manifesto recently.
Stallman's vision for the future seems like a immensely bad idea.
Complain all you want about Gates and Microsoft, but the FSF wants to
eliminate all commercial software and fund development by a "software
tax" on computer sales. It seems to me that this would change an
industry that is one of the few that the US seems to do well into a
god-awful cross between the IRS and the current system of funding
research. The LPF can terrorize you with nightmares about software
patents; but how would you like to have to write grant proposals to
write software?

OK, the asbestos undies are on :)

--
Roland Dreier dre...@math.berkeley.edu

Peter da Silva

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 20.20.4929.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <ByHyu...@cs.psu.edu> sti...@dev-null.phys.psu.edu (Stimpson J. Cat) writes:
> Bwhahahahahaha!!!! That's a good one.. Ever concider cross-posting to
> rec.humor.funny? The Apple II put them on the map, yet it had one of the most
> badly hacked os-es I had ever seen.

Agreed, but the hardware was the best they could do with the resources at
their disposal... *and* they did try to get a better O/S standardised as
soon as they possibly could. ProDOS is another O/S to add to my list of
better-than-MS-DOS-in-the-early-80s-and-late-70s systems.

> Jobs was never more than a hardware version of Bill Gates. He saw an
> opening and grabbed it.

Perhaps, but he did the best job he could and still fit into that opening.
And he kept working on real improvements. Microsoft *still* hasn't done
anything to substantially improve MS-DOS since DOS 2.1.

Joe Rosenfeld

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 21.14.1229.11.1992
vastaanottaja
Will Estes (wes...@smurf.sti.com) wrote:

: In article <duck.722767414@nuustak> du...@nuustak.csir.co.za (Paul Ducklin) writes:
: >Thus spake wes...@smurf.sti.com (Will Estes):
: >>This is a bit embarrassing to have to point out, but did you realize
: >>that Microsoft is selling Windows/NT on CD-ROM for $69? I mean, is
: >>Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system even more free than free GNU
: >>UNIX? :)
: >
: >Get real.
: >
: >Microsoft Windows (non-NT) is also very cheap. But have you worked out how
: >much it costs you to buy more than Solitaire? Ever priced the Windows
: >SDK and a suitable compiler? For $99, the convenience of "everything"
: >you need for Linux all in one place is more than worth it. After all,
: >your friends can borrow your CD and copy/install it. The Linux CD is
: >*not* an "entry level" disc. It's the Real Thing[TM] -- and you get
: >the source code, a decent compiler, X, GhostScript, TeX...need more be said.
:
: The Windows/NT SDK includes Windows, Windows/NT, and POSIX subsystems,
: as well as the complete Win32 SDK and C++ compiler, as well as a
: complete 16 and 32-bit implementation of TCP/IP, as well as some LAN
: Manager server capability, all for $69. You can buy the GNU utilities
: for the POSIX subsystem from a third party, but you are correct that this
: costs more. And the POSIX subsystem is not UNIX, by a long shot, but it's
: also pretty clear that within a year someone will be selling a viable UNIX
: subsystem (or maybe porting Linux) to run under Windows/NT.
:
:
: Personally, I wish the FSF were a company that understood what a market
: is and sold Linux as a cheap UNIX with support. What the world really

: needs is a solid UNIX that is approachable as a system for end-users
: (i.e., the mass-market). That's sort of what Jobs has tried to do with
: NeXTStep '486, but he is blowing it by pricing it at $999. I simply
: find it frustrating that Bill Gates is the only person in the industry
: who seems to understand how to sell an operating system for naive
: end-users as a commodity. I think an important part of making Linux a
: long-term success is to correctly identify what is Bill Gates' market,
: and to hit him where it hurts. I'm afraid Linux doesn't do that, yet.
:
:
: --
: Will Estes Internet: wes...@netcom.com

I agree completely with this last paragraph. If Jobs would only price his
OS at about $200, say, he would clean up, and once there was demonstrable
market share, the large vendors would pony up to the plate and start making
more apps available for use on NeXTStep 486.

But the interesting thing is that Linux, no matter its real merits, will
never be perceived in the same way that makes mindless consumers buy
Microsoft programs like they are going out of style. This is a shame!

Cowboy

Curtis Yarvin

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 22.05.4929.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1992Nov30....@news.csuohio.edu> cow...@trans.csuohio.edu (Joe Rosenfeld) writes:
>
>I agree completely with this last paragraph. If Jobs would only price his
>OS at about $200, say, he would clean up.

$200? Bollocks.

When will people understand that selling operating systems is very different
from selling applications? Operating systems succeed through application
base. There are two ways to get an application base:

(1) massive sales, or
(2) backward compatibility.

To kill a preestablished system with no major defects - MS Windows - you'd
better have _both_. And do a bang-up job of it.

Now the only really good way to achieve massive sales is through bundling.
My guess is that nine-tenths of all the operating system copies that have
ever been sold, have been bundled. And, in the savage jungle of PC sales,
you'll never get manufacturers to default-bundle your software if it costs
more than, say, $100 more than your competitor's. It makes their product
look overpriced.

So, if Jobs comes out with a version of NeXTStep-486 that runs MS-DOS and
Windows apps seamlessly, and sells it for under $100, he might clean up.
Otherwise he hasn't a chance.

The same goes for Linux; if someone put together good DOS and Windows
compatibility, clean and easy system administration, and a nice user
interface, it might really go somewhere. If this doesn't happen soon,
it will be a hobbyist system for the rest of its lifecycle.

And, no, I'm not volunteering... :->

c

Scott Beckstead

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 15.16.5329.11.1992
vastaanottaja

>
>I think you trivializing the point. The point is that Microsoft might
>well use its economies of scale to price its 32-bit OS as a commodity and
>still manage to make a substantial profit. This makes it possible for
>reasonable people to make an argument that their total cost to purchase,
>develop for, support, and use Windows/NT would be equal to or less than
>a totally free package such as Linux. The economics of such a
>comparison should encompass issues like support.
>

>Now I know that in your mind there is no comparison, Linux is going to
>be cheaper for *you* to buy, develop for, and support. Fine. But if we
>asked that same question to the guys who head MIS at the Fortune 1000,
>or to people in the Federal Government, I don't think we would get the
>same answer. And note that this is *just* the economic comparison; we

>haven't even addressed the issue of which platform offers the widest
>selection of applications. Unfortunately, there just isn't a
>comparison there. Most UNIX workstation vendors are porting to
>Windows/NT, and even Linux may end up getting a port as a Windows/NT
>subsystem. And which platform supports Word For Windows, Excel, etc. at
>$99 bucks a pop for upgrades?
>

>Please note that I want Linux to succeed like crazy! A world where Bill
>Gates controls all of our choices really does scare me. But I think I
>am making a legitimate point about the economics of NT versus Linux that
>will affect how much market share Linux can grab.
>

>Personally, I wish the FSF were a company that understood what a market
>is and sold Linux as a cheap UNIX with support. What the world really
>needs is a solid UNIX that is approachable as a system for end-users
>(i.e., the mass-market). That's sort of what Jobs has tried to do with
>NeXTStep '486, but he is blowing it by pricing it at $999. I simply
>find it frustrating that Bill Gates is the only person in the industry
>who seems to understand how to sell an operating system for naive
>end-users as a commodity. I think an important part of making Linux a
>long-term success is to correctly identify what is Bill Gates' market,
>and to hit him where it hurts. I'm afraid Linux doesn't do that, yet.
>
>
>--
>Will Estes Internet: wes...@netcom.com


Look Will, If you like NT go buy it and leave us alone. I've seen it and
it don't like it! If you need NT you don't need Linux, if you need Linux
chances are you won't be happy with NT. Apples and Oranges! Yeah it's 69
bucks now, but that is just the Beta developerrs release. When the real
OS comes out it will be more like 239 bucks. And it will be worth it!
NOT! Just drop the subject and Re-read the group name. It says nothing
about MY OS is Better than Yours does it?
Scott

--
Reply to: sc...@yarc.uucp |
| Spin my nipple nuts and send me to
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be | Alaska.
back for breakfast |

Thomas Beagle

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 22.00.5429.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <id.4M...@ferranti.com> pe...@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Perhaps, but he did the best job he could and still fit into that opening.
>And he kept working on real improvements. Microsoft *still* hasn't done
>anything to substantially improve MS-DOS since DOS 2.1.

Well, IMHO, Windows is still a big improvement over MS-Dos. (And yes,
I know that I'm still running MS-Dos under Windows, but I don't see it
very often.)

I still wish my Amiga was more useful. And I wish that OS/2 was good.
--
Thomas Beagle | tho...@datamark.co.nz Work: 64 4 233 8186
Datamark Intl Ltd | tho...@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz Home: 64 4 499 3832
Technical Writer | Yes, I do have long ears, a black nose, and a tail.

Graeme Gill

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 23.05.5129.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1992Nov26.0...@netcom.com>, mes...@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:
> w...@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni) writes:
>
> I guess I just have to ask this question every time I see something so
> childish: "okay, can you now explain why?"
>
> Just in case you want to spill some ideological baloney here, let me ask
> you a couple more questions:
>
> - ever heard of computer revolution? computer on every desk? I
> didn't see Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds (as much as I respect
> them both, make no mistake) having even 1/1000th to do with it as
> much as Bill Gates.

Bill Gates just filled a void (for an OS) created by IBMs
legitimized of the PC. It might just as well have been (and nearly
was) CP/M 86 that filled this void. At the time MSDOS was a competent
but un-inspired product. That it has remained the dominant force
in desktop computing is a lesson on the perceived importance of
backward compatibility over innovation, and the importance of
marketing and image.
The story that Microsoft and IBM "created" the desktop
computer revolution is a great publicity, but there is
no doubt that the revolution would have happened without them
(albeit in a different way). (Ever heard of Apple, Commodore etc.? :-)

Graeme Gill

Dave Eisen

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 23.16.0929.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <id.SD...@ferranti.com> pe...@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <1992Nov29.0...@leland.Stanford.EDU> dke...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
>> Speak for yourself, Peter. I for one would be overjoyed to
>> produce less than the best product I can and make 5 billion
>> dollars for doing so.
>
>But would you be willing to do it for a long-shot chance at making those
>5 billion? A billion-to-one chance?

The point is that for someone with Bill Gates's obvious marketing
talent, it was nowhere near a billion to one shot. And for me
it is absolutely impossible --- I have exactly 0 chance of convincing
IBM to use something I wrote as the basis for an entire product line.

>Would you be willing to put your money where your mouth is and do this today?

I do. Every day. I write less than the best code I can because
the customer wants it that way. I call it staying in business.
Bill Gates just did it better than I can.

>> Bill Gates obviously has some talents that most of the rest
>> of us don't have. He might not be the hacker you are or I
>> am, but he is one hell of a better marketer. And that is a
>> much more difficult and much more valuable talent.
>
>Well, it's certainly a better-paid talent, but I don't equate that with
>more valueable. I firmly believe that Bill Gates has single-handedly put
>personal computers back ten years or more by his actions.

He also had an opportunity to advance it by just as much. And
he didn't do it, which is really a shame. But for us here
sitting on the sideline feeling superior to Bill Gates because
we would have written a better OS, well, we are still on the
sideline here. And given that, it is completely irrelevant that
we would have written an OS.

For all we know, Bill Gates may have greatly advanced the personal
computer industry. You can't compare DOS to what we would have
written because we are totally irrelevant. You can only compare
it to the kind of OS IBM would have gotten if they had gone to
someone else with similarly powerful marketing abilities. That's
the only kind of vendor who could land an account like IBM. And
maybe the OS this hypothetical company would write would have been
even worse than DOS.

Matt Welsh

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 23.19.0629.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1992Nov29....@yarc.uucp> sc...@yarc.UUCP (Scott Beckstead) writes:
> Look Will, If you like NT go buy it and leave us alone. I've seen it and
>it don't like it! If you need NT you don't need Linux, if you need Linux
>chances are you won't be happy with NT. Apples and Oranges! Yeah it's 69
>bucks now, but that is just the Beta developerrs release. When the real
>OS comes out it will be more like 239 bucks. And it will be worth it!
>NOT! Just drop the subject and Re-read the group name. It says nothing
>about MY OS is Better than Yours does it?
>Scott

You don't "need" any OS. You can do just fine without an operating system,
or a computer for that matter, at all.

I don't "need" Linux (well, perhaps it's more of a psychological addiction,
than a physical one...).

You "liking" or "not liking" Windows NT has nothing to do with it.

And, actually, Scott, the group name "gnu.misc.discuss" is all about
"My OS is better than yours". And I'm getting this cruft out of
comp.unix.wizards and comp.unix.misc, because it's not relvant in the least.

Jeff Blaine

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 22.59.4929.11.1992
vastaanottaja
I grabbed the source for xasteroids (asteroids for X windows) from
export.lcs.mit.edu and compiled it. The binary was uploaded to
tsx-11 minutes before this post. If interested, grab it when the
ftp maintainer moves it to its proper directory. It was compiled
on 0.98 pl1 linux with xfree86.

Description: for those who have never played it before, it is a
black screen with white line asteroids floating around to shoot at.
NOTE: To get all of the keyboard commands that can be used and how
to play instructions, ftp to export.lcs.mit.edu cd contrib and get
the very small xasteroids.Z ( i think ) source file. All of the
key commands and their functions along with the source code are all
in that one textfile. Cut out the key commands and save them as some-
thing like xast.doc. Here are the few key commands that I remember,
which should be enough to get you playing:

e,r rotation of your ship
o thrust
p fire
Q quit
esc pause
spacebar is hyperspace


--
_______________________________________________________________________________
| Jeff Blaine | cbl...@gnu.ai.mit.edu | jbl...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tony Porczyk

lukematon,
29.11.1992 klo 23.30.5829.11.1992
vastaanottaja
s89...@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Peter David Cupit) writes:


> Richard Stallman and the FSF are looking ahead to a more civillised
> society where a person who has no money would not starve.
> Somehow I cannot think of Bill Gates as having the same altruistic
> attitude.
> Too many people are perpetuating an attitude that all life must be a
> struggle and that money is a part of the natural order of the universe.
> In the GNU manifesto a thing called the post-scarcity society is mentioned.
> I'd say this goal is much more worthy than one that perpetuates the
> philosophy of greed.
> Peter Cupit.

Oh, please... buy yourself a communist manifesto and cry over it. Ever heard
of Eastern Europe? Soviet Union? Laos? Cambodia? Why, you're quite close
to both Cambodia and Vietnam. Why don't you go there visit the paradise.
I do respect both Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds, but this is pathetic.
Wake up, man.

t.

Adam J. Richter

lukematon,
30.11.1992 klo 13.51.1330.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1f4rge...@neuro.usc.edu> mer...@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
>I would agree the price was reasonable if the distributor either wrote the
>code or could show some kind of proof of ownership. In the absence of any
>lawfull claim of ownership then I suspect we ought to be thinking more in
>terms of compensating him for distribution costs -- and for no other costs.

On the one hand, I don't agree with your reasoning. Neither
the production effort, nor the capital needed, nor the value to the
customer are necessarily proportional to "distribution costs."
By the way, there are plenty of other reasons for the $99
price, which have to do with reseller channels and someday buying
advertising. Consider, for example, that a full page magazine ad
typically runs from three to ten cents per reader.

On the other hand, I accept your right to decide the
principles by which you will make your purchase decision. I'm
currently looking at a marginal cost of $35.70 to fill each
alpha/beta/1st-production subscription. Remember, I'm not just
selling one CD; I'm selling three CD's, six floppies, and three
manuals distributed across three shipments. If I were to distribute
the fixed production costs over 200 individual subscriptions, then the
average cost to fill a subscription would be $53.70, and the fixed
production costs are more than matched by the operating costs of the
company. Of course, I will find ways to lower the production costs,
such as by having the release notes printed rather than photocopied
and looking for better deals in a number of areas such as shrink
wrapping or reasonably fast shipping. Also, it's fair to say that my
marginal production costs would drop significantly if I were to
produce in higher quantities. Even so, at $99 + $5 S&H I have to sell
more subscriptions than you might think.

--
Adam J. Richter 409 Evelyn Avenue, Apt. 312
Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated Albany, CA 94706
PO Box 8418, Berkeley CA 94707-8418 ric...@cerfnet.com
(510) 526-7531, fax: (510) 528-8508 (510) 528-3209
Another member of the League for Programming Freedom (lea...@prep.ai.mit.edu).

Robert Chen

lukematon,
30.11.1992 klo 14.53.5730.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <1fblp1...@escargot.xx.rmit.OZ.AU> s89...@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Peter David Cupit) writes:
>
> Richard Stallman and the FSF are looking ahead to a more civillised
> society where a person who has no money would not starve.
> Somehow I cannot think of Bill Gates as having the same altruistic
> attitude.
> Too many people are perpetuating an attitude that all life must be a
> struggle and that money is a part of the natural order of the universe.
> In the GNU manifesto a thing called the post-scarcity society is mentioned.
> I'd say this goal is much more worthy than one that perpetuates the
> philosophy of greed.
>
> Peter Cupit.

I think you have been watching WAY too much Star Trek The Next
Generation.

Beam me up! Beam me up! There is no intelligence on this thread... :-)

- Ken

Peter David Cupit

lukematon,
30.11.1992 klo 16.17.1830.11.1992
vastaanottaja
mes...@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:

>t.


Huh? Gnu is not communism...

It's freedom, read the document.

I think that this topic has become very unrelated to the news group,
mail matches.

Peter Cupit.

(but quick, cause soon I am gone).


Peter Wabbit Peter David Cupit.
s89...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au


peter da silva

lukematon,
30.11.1992 klo 14.01.2730.11.1992
vastaanottaja
In article <DREIER.92N...@jaffna.berkeley.edu> dre...@jaffna.berkeley.edu (Roland Dreier) writes:
> In article <id.TJ...@ferranti.com> pe...@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> I was running Unix on a PC/XT in 1984, and it was faster than MS-DOS.
> Minix has been out for at least 6 years.
> CP/M was better in 1978 than MS-DOS in 1982.
> Cromemco had a UNIX-lookalike running on multiple Z-80s in 1980.
> AmigaOS first shipped in 1985, and it was already better than any
> PC operating system that was to ship until OS/2 2.0 seven years later.

> I have been following the threads lately about GPLed vs. Public Domain
> vs. Commercial software lately, and the above exchange struck me as
> rather interesting. All of those OSes you cite in response to the
> Hurd query are commercial.

I'm not a GNU apologist. I *am* a quality software cheerleader.

> In March 1985, the GNU Manifesto was published in Dr. Dobbs.

That was the year I first heard the joke: "Dateline: 1999, the GNU O/S is
released. It boots from /vmunix.el". I never expected anything different.

I'm not complaining that Gates isn't RMS. I'm complaining that he's not
Dale Luck or Steve Wozniak or Jay Miner.

Blair P. Houghton

lukematon,
30.11.1992 klo 20.25.1430.11.1992