Rare Apple I computer sells for $216,000 in London

[Rod Speed]

Joe Thompson wrote

GNOME at least will run on Solaris or *BSD.

Still just *nix.

 

[Rod Speed]

Seebs wrote

This is nonresponsive.
Wrong.

The point is that Linux runs with many interfaces other than KDE and Gnome.

The real point is that so much of the Win UI has ended up in *nix GUIs.

So while those two specific programs

They aint programs, they are GUIs.

may look sort of Windowsy (or sort of Macish,
or whatever else you want to compare them to),

They look a hell of a lot more like Win than anything else.

that doesn't mean that Linux does.

Never said it did.

You sure do like to accuse people of lying without ruling
out the possibility that they are, say, mistaken, or simply
disagree with you about matters of opinion,

I only say they are lying when they are. I dont say
that when we just disagree about matters of opinion.

and use the all-caps word FACT for
something that's pretty much an opinion.

That particular point is NOT an opinion, its a fact.

You haven't even offered a meaningful claim here, because
you haven't really defined what you mean as "bits of the Win UI".

How odd that you havent defined a damned thing yourself.

You mean, say, rectangular screen areas with defined borders?
Nope.

Hardly specific to Windows.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

If you want to advance a claim, define some terms.

How odd that you havent defined a damned thing yourself.

Start by describing what you think makes something "bits
of the Win UI" rather than "user interface elements which
are substantially identical across every major UI ever seen".

Go and **** yourself. You are welcome to do things any way you like. Me too.

Certainly, I've seen a few skins to give X window decorations

They aint decorations. And you havent defined decorations anyway.

that look a bit like various versions of Windows, as well as skins to make
X look like Mac OS 7, Mac OS 9, OS X, NextStep, BeOS, and AmigaDOS.

They aint just skins.

I am not sure that any of this meaningfully qualifies as "bits of the <foo> UI",

Your problem.

because none of them really behave all that much like the systems they look like.

Thats just plain wrong with the UI.

 

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

You make a good point here, actually. I mean, a serious one.

I believe Microsoft's decision to build a mail client which would
instantly execute code from incoming email without any sort of user
interaction was, in fact, a pure innovation. No one had ever done it
before that I know of.

Hmm good point - I remember telling people that the idea of a virus
that spread by email was a myth not long before Microsoft did that.

 

[Jim Brown]

Seebs wrote

Okay, this is the point at which I stop taking you seriously,

You have always been, and always will be completely and utterly irrelevant.

because you've just failed to pick up a category.

Another lie.

Only two of those were vendors.

Never said a word about vendors.

One of them was a browser, and thus not even in the right
category to be "had networking that even stupid users could setup".

Pity thats what he tossed that list into, a comment about that.

Furthermore, it just ain't so.

We'll see...

Back in the OS 6 days, I saw stupid users set up
networking very easily with no problem at all on a
Mac. Plug the cable into two machines, tell them
to "turn on appletalk", and there you go, network.

Irrelevant to whether MS has ever innovated. That does
NOT mean that its the first time that approach was ever
seen, particularly when it was implemented quite differently.

You might want to define what you mean by a "real choice".

How odd that you havent ever defined a damned thing yourself.

Back in the day, I once spent a day and a half trying to find
a vendor who was willing to sell me a non-Windows laptop.

But was so stupid that you couldnt even manage to work out that
even you should be able to add anything you liked to the hardware.

That doesn't necessarily create a "real choice" for most people.

Most people are completely irrelevant. That wasnt the original claim.

A real choice is what you get from what you see on the shelves in a store.

And you can do just with the main free alternative OS.

It also has to live within constraints such as "the
specific software we have to run can run on this".

Most just use what comes with the hardware.

*plonk*

Fat lot of good that will do you, gutless.

 

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

Andreas Eder wrote



Mindless hair splitting. Neither runs on anything else.

Both run on various BSDs, Solaris and Mac OS X to my certain
knowledge and should be able to run on just about anything with X11 support.

 

[SG1]

Roddles with a different name. Those turns of phrase are a dead give
away.....

 

[SG1]

Wait for it ... no one's called anyone a Nazi, yet.

They had innovations, but any in computing eh Roddles????????

 

[Frank Slootweg]

[Insert smileys as needed.]

You make a good point here, actually. I mean, a serious one.

I believe Microsoft's decision to build a mail client which would
instantly execute code from incoming email without any sort of user
interaction was, in fact, a pure innovation. No one had ever done it
before that I know of.

Don't forget Berkeley Mail!

Basically, Microsoft single-handedly invented the botnet and the email
virus. Actually, I'm not quite sure that's fair. Technically, the GOOD
TIMES jokers *invented* the email virus, as an abstract concept, but
Microsoft was by far the first company to actually implement the necessary
infrastructure.

Nope, Berkeley and 'we' (Usenet/News) did!

 

[Huge]

Still demonstrating that you're a drooling retard, eh, Rod?

A Xerox 8010/6085 user could set up networking by plugging their
machine in and powering it up. In 1982.

 

[Rod Speed]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote

Both run on various BSDs, Solaris and Mac OS X to my certain knowledge

All *nix. More mindless hair splitting.

 

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Basically, Microsoft single-handedly invented the botnet and the email
virus. Actually, I'm not quite sure that's fair. Technically, the GOOD
TIMES jokers *invented* the email virus, as an abstract concept, but
Microsoft was by far the first company to actually implement the necessary
infrastructure.

there was xmas exec on bitnet in nov87 ... vmshare archive
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=CHRISTMA&ft=PROB
old risk digest
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/5.81.html#subj1

almost exactly a year before morris worm (nov88)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm

the xmas exec is basically social engineering ... distributing a
compromised executable and getting people to load & execute.

this is slightly different from convention for automatic execution.
that grew up with various office applications that evolved on local,
private, safe, closed business networks. this infrastructure was then
transferred to the wild anarchy of the internet w/o the necessary safety
and countermeasures (aka just reading an email could result in automatic
execution)

bitnet (along with EARN in europe) was higher education network (significantly
underwritten by IBM and using similar technology that was used for the
corporate internal network) ... past posts mentioning bitnet &/or earn
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#bitnet

some old email by person charged with setting up EARN:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#email840320

the internal network was larger than the arpanet/internet from just
about the beginning until possibly late '85 or early '86. misc.
past posts mentioning internal network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet

I was blamed for online computer conferencing on the internal network in
the late 70s and early 80s. The folklore is that when the executive
committee was told about online computer conferencing (and the internal
network), 5of6 wanted to fire me.

Later, somewhat as a result, a research was paid to study how I
communicated ... got copies of all my incoming & outgoing email, logs of
all my instant messages, sat in the back of my office for nine months
taking notes face-to-face and phone conversations (sometimes went with
me to meetings). This also turned into stanford phd thesis and material
for some number of papers and books. misc. past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#cmc

 

[Rod Speed]

Roddles with a different name. Those turns of phrase are a dead give away.....

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you actually are that stupid.

 

[Peter Flass]

there was xmas exec on bitnet in nov87 ... vmshare archive

CHRISTMA EXEC? You had to manually save and execute it, though many did.

 

[Joe Thompson]

Seebs wrote

But was so stupid that you couldnt even manage to work out that
even you should be able to add anything you liked to the hardware.

It doesn't count as a "real choice" unless it's on the same terms.
If I have to pay for Windows even though I intend to wipe the drive
and install another OS before Windows ever boots, I do not have a real
choice. -- Joe

 

[Seebs]

It doesn't count as a "real choice" unless it's on the same terms.
If I have to pay for Windows even though I intend to wipe the drive
and install another OS before Windows ever boots, I do not have a real
choice. -- Joe

Exactly. That I could, of course, load something else doesn't change the
fact that it was extremely difficult to not buy a copy of Windows.

-s

 

[Rod Speed]

Joe Thompson wrote

It doesn't count as a "real choice" unless it's on the same terms.

Wrong. If you cant find one with the OS you want preinstalled, even someone
as stupid as him should have been able to install the OS he prefers instead.

If I have to pay for Windows even though I intend to wipe the drive and
install another OS before Windows ever boots, I do not have a real choice.

Oh bullshit. Of course you have a real choice.

You may find that some of your choices cost more than others.

Your problem.

 

[Jim Brown]

Seebs wrote

Exactly. That I could, of course, load something else doesn't change
the fact that it was extremely difficult to not buy a copy of Windows.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

Yes, it would be more convient if the bulk of the market wanted the
OS you prefer, but when it doesnt, you still have a real choice of OS.

It isnt as if it even costs you any more for the OS you prefer.

And even if it did when the OS you prefer is not free, you get to wear
the fact that the OS or app you prefer isnt what the market prefers.

Thats just basic market economics, stupid.

 

[SG1]

Joe Thompson wrote


Wrong. If you cant find one with the OS you want preinstalled, even
someone
as stupid as him should have been able to install the OS he prefers
instead.


Oh bullshit. Of course you have a real choice.

You may find that some of your choices cost more than others.

Your problem.

And all of your choices disagree with any choice Roddles would make. We
choose to breathe Roddles.

 

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

there was xmas exec on bitnet in nov87 ... vmshare archive
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=CHRISTMA&ft=PROB
old risk digest
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/5.81.html#subj1

the xmas exec is basically social engineering ... distributing a
compromised executable and getting people to load & execute.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011b.html#9 Rare Apple I computer sells for $216,000 in London

bitnet annoucement on vmshare
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=BITNET&ft=MEMO

tymshare made its vm370/cms online computer conferencing available to
SHARE user group organization in aug76
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/

recent post about the internal network ...
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#4

including old email about plans to convert the internal
network to sna/vtam
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#email870306

also references old email about the executive committee being told that
PROFS was an SNA application (among other things) used to justify
converting the internal network to sna/vtam:

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006x.html#email870302
in this old post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006x.html#7

and somewhat similar discussion here ... where somebody forwarded
me a lengthy log of email discussing how sna/vtam could be
the nsfnet backbone
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email870109

in this old post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#21

some of the same people involved in the above referenced email exchanges
(about sna/vtam for nsfnet backbone) ... were later involved in the
transfer of cluster scaleup ... mentioned in this old post about jan92
meeting in ellison's conference room:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13

also referenced in this other email
http://www.garlic.com/~lhwemail.html#medusa

 

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

there was xmas exec on bitnet in nov87 ... vmshare archive
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=CHRISTMA&ft=PROB
old risk digest
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/5.81.html#subj1

the xmas exec is basically social engineering ... distributing a
compromised executable and getting people to load & execute.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011b.html#9 Rare Apple I computer sells for $216,000 in London

can't tell for sure whether this is going to be duplicate or not

bitnet annoucement on vmshare
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=BITNET&ft=MEMO

tymshare made its vm370/cms online computer conferencing available to
SHARE user group organization in aug76
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/

recent post about the internal network ...
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#4

including old email about plans to convert the internal
network to sna/vtam
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#email870306

also references old email about the executive committee being told that
PROFS was an SNA application (among other things) used to justify
converting the internal network to sna/vtam:

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006x.html#email870302
in this old post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006x.html#7

and somewhat similar discussion here ... where somebody forwarded
me a lengthy log of email discussing how sna/vtam could be
the nsfnet backbone
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email870109

in this old post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#21

some of the same people involved in the above referenced email exchanges
(about sna/vtam for nsfnet backbone) ... were later involved in the
transfer of cluster scaleup ... mentioned in this old post about jan92
meeting in ellison's conference room:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13

also referenced in this other email
http://www.garlic.com/~lhwemail.html#medusa