Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #28017 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "anon" <anon@anon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-08-29 08:34 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-09-17 01:25 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 355 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "anon" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-08-29 08:34 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2019-08-29 10:13 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-08-29 12:40 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-08-29 14:04 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-08-29 15:41 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2019-08-29 22:34 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-08-30 08:05 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Rabid Robot <rabid@rob.ot> - 2019-08-30 10:05 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2019-09-15 15:04 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-09-15 16:20 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2019-09-15 18:26 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-09-15 22:39 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-09-15 22:43 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-09-16 08:26 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-09-16 08:52 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-09-16 11:28 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-09-16 17:32 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-09-16 11:10 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2019-09-19 15:26 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-09-19 08:29 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-09-17 05:05 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-09-17 12:48 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-09-19 10:35 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure AnonLinuxUser <Anon@Linuxusers.net> - 2019-09-19 08:31 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-03-25 03:14 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-25 13:13 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-03-25 20:57 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-25 16:25 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2020-03-26 00:36 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-03-26 01:31 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2020-03-25 23:02 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2020-03-26 04:34 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2020-03-26 00:30 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2020-03-26 07:45 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2020-03-26 07:47 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-03-26 08:18 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-26 09:57 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-03-26 12:23 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-27 04:35 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-26 13:18 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-26 21:44 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-27 01:42 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-26 19:28 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-26 19:55 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-26 22:21 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-26 22:49 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-27 12:46 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-27 13:01 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-27 16:15 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-27 17:48 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-27 12:47 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2020-03-27 21:00 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-27 22:18 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-27 16:16 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-03-26 12:22 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2020-03-27 03:10 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2020-03-26 07:33 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-26 13:17 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2020-03-26 21:32 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-03-26 21:52 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-26 16:05 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-26 23:45 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-26 19:29 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-03-27 08:06 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-27 12:48 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-27 03:04 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-26 22:25 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-27 05:47 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "lucent tpm" <telco@example.com> - 2020-03-27 16:53 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-27 18:05 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-27 17:19 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-03-27 08:03 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-27 12:50 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2020-03-27 06:59 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-27 12:52 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-27 21:54 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-03-29 22:46 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-30 01:34 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-29 19:14 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-30 04:17 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2020-04-03 21:26 +1100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-04-03 20:04 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2020-04-04 21:43 +1100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2020-04-04 05:53 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-04-04 11:48 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2020-04-05 21:09 +1000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-04-05 11:10 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-30 06:50 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2020-03-30 10:58 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-03-30 06:59 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Info <info@perfumeshotsale.com> - 2020-03-30 08:06 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2020-03-30 12:00 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-03-29 22:37 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-30 02:11 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-29 19:15 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2020-03-30 04:05 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-30 04:29 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-30 06:30 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2020-03-30 01:52 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Alogsa <alogsa.logistica@alogsalogistica.com> - 2020-03-30 08:05 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2020-03-30 11:31 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-03-30 13:01 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2020-03-30 11:05 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-03-30 09:26 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2020-03-30 17:51 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2020-03-30 12:03 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-31 00:06 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-03-31 08:55 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-31 03:18 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2020-03-31 04:16 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-31 04:11 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-31 04:45 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2020-03-31 08:03 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-03-31 15:26 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-31 18:55 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-30 05:59 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-30 06:30 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-03-30 07:28 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Contact <contact@larryshopping.com> - 2020-04-01 01:21 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-27 03:46 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-27 04:16 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-03-27 14:01 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-27 14:16 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-03-29 22:36 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-30 01:44 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-29 19:17 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-30 04:19 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-29 20:41 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-30 09:16 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@sympatico.ca> - 2020-03-30 11:47 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-30 13:12 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-30 19:59 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-30 20:53 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-30 21:57 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-03-30 19:19 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-30 13:13 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-03-31 05:04 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-31 11:21 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-03-31 17:25 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-30 20:01 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-30 20:53 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-30 21:59 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2020-03-31 13:35 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-31 12:02 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-31 11:25 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2020-03-31 17:13 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-31 12:09 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2020-03-31 18:51 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-31 13:44 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2020-04-01 13:37 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-04-12 10:35 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-04-13 02:22 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-04-12 22:50 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-13 09:41 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2020-04-13 07:51 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-04-13 11:45 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2020-04-13 14:11 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure mGhost <mGhost@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-04-13 15:50 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-13 18:21 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure mGhost <mGhost@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-04-13 17:44 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2020-04-13 13:58 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure mGhost <mGhost@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-04-13 18:15 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2020-04-13 14:01 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-13 20:40 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2020-04-13 22:56 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-04-15 12:06 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-04-15 11:36 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Chris Elvidge <chris@mshome.net> - 2020-04-16 11:22 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2020-04-16 11:20 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-04-16 09:08 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2020-04-16 14:50 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-04-16 13:49 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-04-16 13:16 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2020-04-16 20:56 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-04-17 01:43 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-04-16 15:27 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-04-18 14:56 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure felix@palmen-it.de (Felix Palmen) - 2020-04-16 17:44 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2020-04-16 16:26 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2020-04-16 12:37 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2020-04-13 14:29 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2020-04-14 08:18 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-14 12:50 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2020-04-15 09:59 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-13 09:39 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-04-13 19:44 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-04-14 00:16 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-14 03:39 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-04-13 21:59 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2020-04-14 11:24 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-14 12:35 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-04-13 22:04 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-14 12:47 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2020-04-14 14:15 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-14 15:05 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-04-15 11:43 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2020-04-16 13:31 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-04-14 13:09 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-04-14 12:20 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-04-14 05:47 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-14 12:48 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-04-14 21:10 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-14 23:54 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-04-15 01:06 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2020-04-15 13:39 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2020-04-14 08:40 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-01 09:37 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2020-04-01 08:55 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-01 11:13 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2020-04-01 20:40 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-03-31 21:38 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-04-01 13:39 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-04-01 13:51 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2020-04-01 20:42 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-02 07:42 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-02 09:19 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2020-04-02 13:24 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-04-02 12:10 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2020-04-02 21:56 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-04-03 08:42 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-03 08:05 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-04-03 09:13 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-03 08:15 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2020-04-04 01:16 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2020-04-03 05:24 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-04-03 09:20 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-04-01 21:34 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-04-01 17:50 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-04-02 03:15 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2020-04-02 13:42 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@cfaj.ca> - 2020-04-01 17:32 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-04-01 17:49 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-02 07:44 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2020-04-02 07:12 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-04-03 08:02 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-04-12 10:39 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-04-02 18:30 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-30 07:16 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-30 09:13 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-30 09:19 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-30 09:29 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2020-03-30 12:20 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2020-03-30 12:35 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-30 13:14 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2020-03-30 18:52 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-03-30 07:01 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-30 09:58 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-30 09:21 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-30 19:01 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-26 09:52 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-03-26 13:46 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2020-03-26 07:51 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-03-26 10:34 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-26 17:36 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-03-26 21:49 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2020-03-27 14:30 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-03-27 21:31 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-27 15:44 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-03-27 23:19 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-27 16:56 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-03-28 05:10 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-27 22:46 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-03-28 20:22 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-28 16:15 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-03-29 00:11 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2020-03-28 12:32 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2020-03-28 10:18 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-28 10:52 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-27 12:59 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-03-27 21:31 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-03-27 15:48 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2020-03-27 22:03 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-27 00:23 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-26 19:29 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-03-27 14:07 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2020-03-27 15:42 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-27 17:35 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-27 18:20 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-30 08:41 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Contact <contact@rockygoods.com> - 2020-03-30 11:47 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-26 13:54 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-26 15:44 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-03-26 12:19 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-03-26 13:46 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-03-26 12:55 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2020-03-26 15:50 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2020-03-26 16:05 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-27 00:02 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-27 01:29 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-26 17:57 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-03-26 21:56 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2020-03-26 21:13 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-27 00:13 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-26 16:08 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-26 23:20 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-03-26 19:31 -0600
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2020-03-26 23:47 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2020-03-27 01:15 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2019-09-03 11:33 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-09-03 09:45 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2019-09-03 13:21 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2019-09-04 18:52 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2019-09-04 15:10 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2019-09-04 18:23 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-09-04 21:14 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2019-09-04 20:35 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-09-04 21:37 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2019-09-04 16:58 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-09-05 09:09 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Rabid Robot <rabid@rob.ot> - 2019-09-04 16:45 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2019-09-15 15:07 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2019-09-15 15:06 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-09-15 22:32 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Rabid Robot <rabid@rob.ot> - 2019-08-29 17:07 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-08-30 12:31 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2019-08-30 17:25 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2019-08-30 18:46 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-08-31 04:08 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-08-31 03:34 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2019-08-31 10:02 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-08-31 10:41 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2019-08-31 16:15 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2019-08-31 13:34 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2019-08-31 13:59 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2019-08-31 21:36 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2019-09-01 09:59 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-09-01 14:44 -0400
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2019-09-15 15:01 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2019-08-29 12:34 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2019-09-16 20:05 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2019-08-29 21:40 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-08-29 16:03 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2019-08-30 00:59 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2019-09-16 20:11 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2019-09-17 05:42 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2019-08-30 00:34 +0200
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2019-08-30 13:41 +0100
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2019-08-29 20:02 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2019-08-29 15:43 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-08-29 16:12 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure stepore <linshine@here.now> - 2019-08-29 21:29 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> - 2019-08-30 14:02 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure stepore <linshine@here.now> - 2019-08-29 21:47 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-08-30 01:03 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure stepore <linshine@here.now> - 2019-08-31 00:52 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-08-31 11:17 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure stepore <linshine@here.now> - 2019-09-01 00:16 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure stepore <linshine@here.now> - 2019-08-31 01:03 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-08-31 10:56 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-08-31 11:37 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-08-31 11:30 +0000
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2019-09-16 20:20 -0700
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-09-17 01:45 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure "anon" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-09-15 17:31 -0500
Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from robert.wolfe@wildcat.uuhec.net (Robert Wolfe) - 2019-09-17 01:25 +0000
Page 16 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 Next page →
| From | Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-03 13:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qkm7ea02lj5@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #28084 |
On 9/3/19 11:43 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote: > My other computer is a HOLMES IV with the Mycroft OS Mine is a Mary Russell -- .~. Jean-David Beyer /V\ PGP-Key:166D840A 0C610C8B /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey ^^-^^ 13:20:01 up 10 days, 3:28, 2 users, load average: 4.69, 4.72, 4.74
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-04 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qkp167$n78$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28084 |
On 2019-09-03, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: > On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:33:32 +0200 (CEST) > Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: > >> In article <20190829154108.39a78ce8@WizardsTower> >> "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:04:05 -0400 >> > Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >> > >> > > Linux is some kind of fork from UNIX. >> > >> > Not a fork, it is a complete rewrite from scratch and shares no >> > code. Phoenix Bios for the original PC was a complete rewrite and shared no code with the IBM Bios. But I think eveyone would admit that it was a clone, and one might even call it a "fork" (whatever that may be taken to mean) so much so that the user could not tell the difference between the two.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-04 15:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qkp26n$2aj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28086 |
William Unruh wrote: > On 2019-09-03, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:33:32 +0200 (CEST) >> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: >> >>> In article <20190829154108.39a78ce8@WizardsTower> >>> "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:04:05 -0400 >>> > Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Linux is some kind of fork from UNIX. >>> > >>> > Not a fork, it is a complete rewrite from scratch and shares no >>> > code. > > Phoenix Bios for the original PC was a complete rewrite and shared no > code with the IBM Bios. But I think eveyone would admit that it was a > clone, In the software world, the term "clone" has (at least) two similar but divergent meanings. Firstly, to "clone" data is to take an identical copy of the data, as in "cloning my hard-drive". Secondly, though, to "clone" a program is to make a functionally-identical copy, which is /not necesarily/ a bit-for-bit identical copy. In this case, "clone" refers to the /functionality/, not the code. > and one might even call it a "fork" (whatever that may be taken > to mean) In software development, the word "fork" has a very specific meaning. A "fork" references two divergant software development efforts that originate with the /same/ source code. The Xorg X server is a "fork" of a specific version of the XFree86 X server source code, and LibreOffice is a "fork" of a very specific version of the OpenOffice source code. > so much so that the user could not tell the difference between > the two. It would be correct to say that Linux is modelled on Unix, and that it is (for instance) a "spiritual derivative" of Unix, or even (in the sense of a "functionally-identical copy") a partial and divergant "clone" of Unix; it would /not/ be correct to say that it is a "fork" of Unix. -- Lew Pitcher "In Skills, We Trust"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-04 18:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qkpdgq$7hf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28087 |
Anonymous wrote:
> In article <qkp61n$pkg$2@dont-email.me>
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 04/09/2019 20:10, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> > Secondly, though, to "clone" a program is to make a
>> > functionally-identical
>> > copy, which is/not necesarily/ a bit-for-bit identical copy. In this
>> > case, "clone" refers to the/functionality/, not the code.
>> >
>> That is not a meaning I have ever heard attached to 'clone'
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/clone.html
clone: n.
1. An exact duplicate: “Our product is a clone of their product.”
Implies a legal reimplementation from documentation or by reverse-
engineering. Also connotes lower price.
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-04 21:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qkp5uc$pkg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28086 |
On 04/09/2019 19:52, William Unruh wrote: > On 2019-09-03, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:33:32 +0200 (CEST) >> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: >> >>> In article <20190829154108.39a78ce8@WizardsTower> >>> "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:04:05 -0400 >>>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Linux is some kind of fork from UNIX. >>>> >>>> Not a fork, it is a complete rewrite from scratch and shares no >>>> code. > > Phoenix Bios for the original PC was a complete rewrite and shared no > code with the IBM Bios. But I think eveyone would admit that it was a > clone, and one might even call it a "fork" (whatever that may be taken > to mean) so much so that the user could not tell the difference between > the two. > Neither a clone nor a fork. Nor even reverse engineering as such. Functionally equivalent is really as far as it goes. -- “People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them, and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them. Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of one’s suitability to be taken seriously.” Paul Krugman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-04 20:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qkp75q$k0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28088 |
On 2019-09-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 04/09/2019 19:52, William Unruh wrote: >> On 2019-09-03, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:33:32 +0200 (CEST) >>> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <20190829154108.39a78ce8@WizardsTower> >>>> "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:04:05 -0400 >>>>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Linux is some kind of fork from UNIX. >>>>> >>>>> Not a fork, it is a complete rewrite from scratch and shares no >>>>> code. >> >> Phoenix Bios for the original PC was a complete rewrite and shared no >> code with the IBM Bios. But I think eveyone would admit that it was a >> clone, and one might even call it a "fork" (whatever that may be taken >> to mean) so much so that the user could not tell the difference between >> the two. >> > Neither a clone nor a fork. > > Nor even reverse engineering as such. It was certainly "reverse enginnered" helped along by the fact that IBM published the full source code for their hoeninx then had engineers to write a bunch of specs for exatly what the bios did, and then handed those to a group of coders who had never seen te original to impliment. So it was certaily a clone. Whether or not it was a fork depends on your definition of "fork". > Functionally equivalent is really as far as it goes. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-04 21:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qkp79m$29k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28089 |
On 04/09/2019 21:35, William Unruh wrote: > On 2019-09-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 04/09/2019 19:52, William Unruh wrote: >>> On 2019-09-03, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:33:32 +0200 (CEST) >>>> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <20190829154108.39a78ce8@WizardsTower> >>>>> "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:04:05 -0400 >>>>>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Linux is some kind of fork from UNIX. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not a fork, it is a complete rewrite from scratch and shares no >>>>>> code. >>> >>> Phoenix Bios for the original PC was a complete rewrite and shared no >>> code with the IBM Bios. But I think eveyone would admit that it was a >>> clone, and one might even call it a "fork" (whatever that may be taken >>> to mean) so much so that the user could not tell the difference between >>> the two. >>> >> Neither a clone nor a fork. >> >> Nor even reverse engineering as such. > > It was certainly "reverse enginnered" helped along by the fact that IBM > published the full source code for their > hoeninx then had engineers to write a bunch of specs for exatly what the > bios did, and then handed those to a group of coders who had never seen > te original to impliment. So it was certaily a clone. Whether or not it > was a fork depends on your definition of "fork". >> Functionally equivalent is really as far as it goes. Clone means 'having genetic material from' not 'behaves like' >> -- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-04 16:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Unix at 50 How the OS that powered smartphones started from failure |
| Message-ID | <ocCdnav-JtT0ru3AnZ2dnUU7-fHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #28090 |
At Wed, 4 Sep 2019 21:37:09 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> On 04/09/2019 21:35, William Unruh wrote:
> > On 2019-09-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 04/09/2019 19:52, William Unruh wrote:
> >>> On 2019-09-03, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:33:32 +0200 (CEST)
> >>>> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <20190829154108.39a78ce8@WizardsTower>
> >>>>> "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:04:05 -0400
> >>>>>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Linux is some kind of fork from UNIX.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not a fork, it is a complete rewrite from scratch and shares no
> >>>>>> code.
> >>>
> >>> Phoenix Bios for the original PC was a complete rewrite and shared no
> >>> code with the IBM Bios. But I think eveyone would admit that it was a
> >>> clone, and one might even call it a "fork" (whatever that may be taken
> >>> to mean) so much so that the user could not tell the difference between
> >>> the two.
> >>>
> >> Neither a clone nor a fork.
> >>
> >> Nor even reverse engineering as such.
> >
> > It was certainly "reverse enginnered" helped along by the fact that IBM
> > published the full source code for their
> > hoeninx then had engineers to write a bunch of specs for exatly what the
> > bios did, and then handed those to a group of coders who had never seen
> > te original to impliment. So it was certaily a clone. Whether or not it
> > was a fork depends on your definition of "fork".
> >> Functionally equivalent is really as far as it goes.
>
> Clone means 'having genetic material from' not 'behaves like'
Biology and software use the word differently...
>
> >>
>
>
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-05 09:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qkqfsg$br$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28095 |
On 04/09/2019 22:58, Robert Heller wrote: > At Wed, 4 Sep 2019 21:37:09 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> >> On 04/09/2019 21:35, William Unruh wrote: >>> On 2019-09-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 04/09/2019 19:52, William Unruh wrote: >>>>> On 2019-09-03, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:33:32 +0200 (CEST) >>>>>> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In article <20190829154108.39a78ce8@WizardsTower> >>>>>>> "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:04:05 -0400 >>>>>>>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Linux is some kind of fork from UNIX. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not a fork, it is a complete rewrite from scratch and shares no >>>>>>>> code. >>>>> >>>>> Phoenix Bios for the original PC was a complete rewrite and shared no >>>>> code with the IBM Bios. But I think eveyone would admit that it was a >>>>> clone, and one might even call it a "fork" (whatever that may be taken >>>>> to mean) so much so that the user could not tell the difference between >>>>> the two. >>>>> >>>> Neither a clone nor a fork. >>>> >>>> Nor even reverse engineering as such. >>> >>> It was certainly "reverse enginnered" helped along by the fact that IBM >>> published the full source code for their >>> hoeninx then had engineers to write a bunch of specs for exatly what the >>> bios did, and then handed those to a group of coders who had never seen >>> te original to impliment. So it was certaily a clone. Whether or not it >>> was a fork depends on your definition of "fork". >>>> Functionally equivalent is really as far as it goes. >> >> Clone means 'having genetic material from' not 'behaves like' > > Biology and software use the word differently... Not really - a PC clone still used the same hardware as IBM. Thats why they only had to copy the BIOS functionalisty - that wasnt public domain hardware. > >> >>>> >> >> > -- “when things get difficult you just have to lie” ― Jean Claud Jüncker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rabid Robot <rabid@rob.ot> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-04 16:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <KnVbF.221433$Zz1.79671@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #28086 |
On 2019-09-04 2:52 p.m., William Unruh wrote: > On 2019-09-03, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:33:32 +0200 (CEST) >> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: >> >>> In article <20190829154108.39a78ce8@WizardsTower> >>> "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:04:05 -0400 >>>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Linux is some kind of fork from UNIX. >>>> >>>> Not a fork, it is a complete rewrite from scratch and shares no >>>> code. > > Phoenix Bios for the original PC was a complete rewrite and shared no > code with the IBM Bios. But I think eveyone would admit that it was a > clone, and one might even call it a "fork" (whatever that may be taken > to mean) so much so that the user could not tell the difference between > the two. It was a clone in that it was created from scratch based on IBM's own documentation about how it worked. It can only constitute a fork if it used some of the existing IBM code which it did not to. IBM is pretty bad about sharing its code with the public (OS/2 has still not been open-sourced, to give you an idea).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qlmcnn$2q0$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28086 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 9/4/19 11:52 AM, William Unruh wrote: <snip> > Phoenix Bios for the original PC was a complete rewrite and shared no > code with the IBM Bios. But I think eveyone would admit that it was a > clone, and one might even call it a "fork" (whatever that may be taken > to mean) so much so that the user could not tell the difference between > the two. > Fork has a specific definition. Source code is cloned and then developed independently. That's a fork. At some point a forked project can diverge from the original to the point that there's no longer much resemblance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 15:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qlmck9$2q0$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28082 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 9/3/19 2:33 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote: > In article <20190829154108.39a78ce8@WizardsTower> > "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:04:05 -0400 >> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >> >>> Linux is some kind of fork from UNIX. >> >> Not a fork, it is a complete rewrite from scratch and shares no code. > > That's not entirely true. Appropriated from MINIX is more > accurate. > Oh bullshit. MINIX is a mircokernel. Linux is monolithic. Jesus Christ.. Linux takes one look at Minix and assholes run around for the next 40 years claiming he stole from it. Both have available source. Go show us what was appropriated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 22:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20190915223256.15a612fe@WizardsTower> |
| In reply to | #28215 |
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:06:01 -0700 Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> wrote: > On 9/3/19 2:33 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote: > > In article <20190829154108.39a78ce8@WizardsTower> > > "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:04:05 -0400 > >> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: > >> > >>> Linux is some kind of fork from UNIX. > >> > >> Not a fork, it is a complete rewrite from scratch and shares no > >> code. > > > > That's not entirely true. Appropriated from MINIX is more > > accurate. > > > > Oh bullshit. MINIX is a mircokernel. Linux is monolithic. Jesus > Christ.. Linux takes one look at Minix and assholes run around for > the next 40 years claiming he stole from it. > > Both have available source. Go show us what was appropriated. > ...and, while you try to show that, remember that smarter and better equipped <Microsofts> than you have already tried and failed to show copied code in Linux. -- Cybe R. Wizard My other computer is a HOLMES IV with the Mycroft OS My other car is a Chandler MetalSmith Mark III
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rabid Robot <rabid@rob.ot> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-29 17:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <58X9F.205702$BJ1.174763@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #28023 |
On 2019-08-29 2:04 p.m., Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:40:16 -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote: >> >> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 08:34:20 -0500 >> "anon" <anon@anon.com> wrote: >> >>> <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/08/unix-at-50-it-starts-with-a-mainframe-a-gator-and-three-dedicated-researchers> >>> >> The article is wrong right off the bat by conflating Unix and GNU/Linux. >> Unix does NOT run smartphones in any way, shape, or form. GNU/Linux >> does that. They are NOT the same. > > Linux is some kind of fork from UNIX. Well not really (or Minix?). But > without UNIX there would likely be no Linux today, which runs under the > hood of Android smartphones. Linux is a kernel inspired by UNIX and much of the software running on top of it is ported from UNIX. I guess that's where the confusion comes from. However, they're not the same thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-30 12:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <874l1y1uoy.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #28030 |
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 17:07:16 -0400, Rabid Robot wrote: > > On 2019-08-29 2:04 p.m., Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> >> Linux is some kind of fork from UNIX. Well not really (or Minix?). But >> without UNIX there would likely be no Linux today, which runs under the >> hood of Android smartphones. > > Linux is a kernel inspired by UNIX and much of the software running on > top of it is ported from UNIX. I guess that's where the confusion comes > from. However, they're not the same thing. Yes, not a fork. Couldn't find a term to put these into relation, so I wrote "some kind of fork". Hmm, UNIX-like? Interestingly there is a German Linux group de.comp.os.unix.linux.misc. Linux here sits inside the UNIX hierarchy. F'up comp.os.linux.misc -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-30 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eli$1908301325@qaz.wtf> |
| In reply to | #28053 |
In comp.os.linux.misc, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: > Yes, not a fork. Couldn't find a term to put these into relation, so I > wrote "some kind of fork". Hmm, UNIX-like? The typical English term for that is a "clone". Elijah ------ even though there may be no shared "dna"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-30 18:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87a7bq7dgz.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #28054 |
Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes: > In comp.os.linux.misc, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >> Yes, not a fork. Couldn't find a term to put these into relation, so I >> wrote "some kind of fork". Hmm, UNIX-like? > > The typical English term for that is a "clone". Yes. It’s also worth distinguishing between Unix as an implementation (V7, System V, etc) and Unix as an interface (read, fork, etc). Linux isn’t Unix in the former sense, but it is a Unix in the latter sense. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-31 04:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qkcobg$aar$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28055 |
On 30/08/2019 18:46, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes: >> In comp.os.linux.misc, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >>> Yes, not a fork. Couldn't find a term to put these into relation, so I >>> wrote "some kind of fork". Hmm, UNIX-like? >> >> The typical English term for that is a "clone". > > Yes. It’s also worth distinguishing between Unix as an implementation > (V7, System V, etc) and Unix as an interface (read, fork, etc). Linux > isn’t Unix in the former sense, but it is a Unix in the latter sense. > Wait till Bill Gates get someone to do the same for Windows. -- All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is fully understood.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-31 03:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qkcprt016i7@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #28058 |
On 2019-08-31, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 30/08/2019 18:46, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > >> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes: >> >>> In comp.os.linux.misc, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, not a fork. Couldn't find a term to put these into relation, so I >>>> wrote "some kind of fork". Hmm, UNIX-like? >>> >>> The typical English term for that is a "clone". >> >> Yes. It’s also worth distinguishing between Unix as an implementation >> (V7, System V, etc) and Unix as an interface (read, fork, etc). Linux >> isn’t Unix in the former sense, but it is a Unix in the latter sense. > > Wait till Bill Gates get someone to do the same for Windows. Then we'll all be forked. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ "Alexa, define 'bugging'."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-31 10:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87woet6724.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #28058 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: > On 30/08/2019 18:46, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes: >>> The typical English term for that is a "clone". >> >> Yes. It’s also worth distinguishing between Unix as an implementation >> (V7, System V, etc) and Unix as an interface (read, fork, etc). Linux >> isn’t Unix in the former sense, but it is a Unix in the latter sense. >> > Wait till Bill Gates get someone to do the same for Windows. Wait? There’ve been many Unix API implementations for Windows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Subsystem_for_Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygwin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UWIN -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web