OT: For the computer gurus

Page 3 of 4  


Someone gave you bad advice.
How hard is it to download a CD image, burn it to CD and then boot from the CD?
You can test drive Linux right from the CD, no need to install anything on your computer.
If you go no farther, at least you've seen how easy it is to operate. To install, just select the option to install.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Lloyd wrote:

Yep. And what you end up with is a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system designed by a money-losing division of your local telephone company.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong.
What you end up with far exceeds what you get from a Windows install. First off, it's graphically prettier and more functional. Second, it comes LOADED with applications. Things you'd have to shell out big bucks for on Windows. A default install leaves you with dozens of applications.
Then you are just a click away from a massive library of additional programs you can install, all at no cost.
But hey, do what you want.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You can't argue with a "true believer". Linux is a religion much the same way as "Democrat" is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz writes:

Oh, that was an argument? I didn't recognize it.
Okay, right, if something is 40 years old, of course it's bad, can't argue with that.
AT&T was losing money at the time? Somehow I doubt it, but well, if they were losing money, then of course Linux must be bad. It follows. Can't argue with iron clad logic like that.
Both Linux and Democrats are a religion? I need a new dictionary.
I've met my betters and need to heal my wounds.
I think I'll just put you in my killfile while the wounds heal.
Thanks for your valuable insight. Lesson learned.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They were sure loosing mony on UNIX. So was SCO (The Santa Cruz Operation) and so did Microsoft on their Xenix version - as did "trusted". Why? because, for one thing, the market was too small to carry the load of the development and licencing fees.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca writes:

Whether the overall effort was a money loser would be hard to calculate. I was at Bell Labs at the time and we did all our mainframe development from UNIX. There really wasn't an alternative at the time. While other companies were still feeding punched cards into their mainframes AT&T could afford to put cheap terminals on every desk and reap the enhanced productivity.
Redhat has been turning a profit for at least the last 3 years.
Anyway making a profit isn't an indicator of the value of giving Linux a spin.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You really can't read, can you?

...or think.

Bell labs sure was. Try reading, for once. Really, you might learn something.

No such connection was made, except in your little mind.

You bet! Both are all about feelings and faith. No logic needed.

You're at least half right. The rest I can't comment on.

Thank you. But it's really childish to announce such things. ...another common ground between Linux lovers and Democrats.

You're welcome. But you've killfiled me, right? You really aren't very bright.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

AT&T? It's not a question of if AT&T was or wasn't losing money. AT&T didn't develop Linux to begin with. It was created by some guys that made it into an open source software project.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, the comment I was replying to was "designed by a money-losing division of your local telephone company".
Linux is of course the work of a large group of people that freely contribute their time, plus the work of some corporations.
The design originated at Bell Labs which wasn't a local telephone company, at the time it was a division of AT&T.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And exactly what was AT&T????
Atlantic Telephone and Telegraph - a "phone company" - the "local telephone company" for much of the eastern US at the time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca writes:

If you say so.
My memory was that at the time we had NY Bell in NY, NJ Bell in NJ, etc. AT&T was the parent holding company owning all the regions, plus Bell Labs.
At least that's the way it was explained to me shortly after UNIX was developed and I was working at Bell Labs.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They were all part of AT&T until anti-combines act broke them up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:19:35 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Never heard of them. American Telephone and Telegraph was the holding company for the local Bell Telephone companies. Where I lived, it was Bell of Pennsylvania.
I believe there was an American Telegraph and Telephone in Atlantic County New Jersey though.
There was also Bell Atlantic that is now Verizon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes and in addition it was also the long distance company that was an essential part of they system.

Seems unlikely that AT&T would allow another company to use it's name.

Bell Atlantic only came into existence in the 1980s when AT&T was broken up. It is one of the seven baby bells that were created.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02-04-2013 19:45, Dan Espen wrote:

The way I heard it is that Linux was a "work-alike" i.e., NOT a modification of AT&T-designed code but a start-over-from-scratch implementation of the same functionality.
--
Wes Groleau

Always listen to experts. They’ll tell you
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's right.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then why were you buying into the statement that Linux was designed at a phone company? That is the essential part of the whole premise that's wrong. Not which part of AT&T developed Linux, because no part ever did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess because I think design and implementation are 2 different things. I needed you to show up and correct me.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, if someone gets it wrong and claims that Linux was designed at AT&T or your local phone company, or whatever, you just go with the flow? Linux was not designed by or at AT&T period.

Which of course is again wrong. Linux was not deveolped at Bell Labs. It was initially created by Linus Torvlads in Finland. Following development involved many companies and individuals. Yes, it was based on earlier work done on Unix, which was developed at Bell Labs. But the whole point of Linux was to have an open source OS suitable for PCs. That is something Bell Labs never did. And it included ideas from other OS's as well. To say that Linux was designed at AT&T, you might as well say that Chevrolets were designed at Ford.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
"GenesisIn 1991 while attending the University of Helsinki, Torvalds became curious about operating systems[28] and frustrated by the licensing of MINIX, which limited it to educational use only. He began to work on his own operating system which eventually became the Linux kernel.
Torvalds began the development of the Linux kernel on MINIX, and applications written for MINIX were also used on Linux. Later Linux matured and further Linux development took place on Linux systems"
BSDAlthough not released until 1992 due to legal complications, development of 386BSD, from which NetBSD and FreeBSD descended, predated that of Linux. Linus Torvalds has said that if 386BSD had been available at the time, he probably would not have created Linux. [27]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.