In article <eoufb41uke7l7k1ucq8m8eerajgmdk0tke@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
quiettechblue@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:04:00 -0500, krw <krw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >In article <pZytk.23024$N87.21011@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >notthisjoergsch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> >> Phil Hobbs wrote:
> >> > Joerg wrote:
> >> >> JeffM wrote:
> >> >>>> Rich Grise wrote:
> >> >>>>> [...]Skype looks pretty interesting
> >> >>>>> [...]they don't have a Slackware package
> >> >>>>> and I didn't see any links to source where I can compile it
here.
> >> >>>>> Anybody heard of either of those anywhere?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>> Joerg wrote:
> >> >>>> What's slackware? Some kind of trousers?
> >> >>>> <duck and run ...>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Actually, it's the oldest extant distro.
> >> >>>
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:t01sMEAV2jYJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions+1993-08+1994-*-*+1993-07+text+text+1995.*.*+without.cost+text+First.Public.Release+text+Debian.Project+SuSE.Linux+Slackware+text+text+Red.Hat.Linux
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I've wondered what the world would be like
> >> >>> if a big rock had fallen out of the sky and
> >> >>> impacted the Redmond campus during business hours ~April 1, 1995
> >> >>> (before W95 and just before Red Hat's release).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Probably IBM would then still be in that biz because there
wouldn't
> >> >> have been Senor Gates eating their lunch.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > OS/2 2.0 came out in April, 1992. A spectacular technical
> >> > success--multithreaded 32-bit OS, fully object-oriented GUI, a
beautiful
> >> > object model (SOM)...I could go on...but a stupid marketing
failure. I
> >> > still use OS/2 at least a few times a week, and I still love it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, absolutely. I was sure hoping OS/2 would make it but they
> >> blundered so badly in the marketing area that it's hard to believe.
> >> Essentially they could have eaten Microsoft's lunch but instead
simply
> >> walked away from the table.
> >>
> >They simply didn't have the money.
>
> Back then the money ratio was still in IBM's favor. IBM turned away
> because it would have eaten into their Power architecture 'nix
> workstation line. One more instance of killing the golden egg laying
> goose to save the lame duck product.
No, it wasn't. IBM was bust, by some *very* knowledgeable people,
withing two or three weeks of missing payroll. There simply were
more im****tant places to put a few hundred million$.
--
Keith
|
