[MR_T3D]

imma palming ma FACE!

[castor]

Rather than fostering a system that will allow users to benefit from the best solution available in the market, irrespective of the development model, it encourages a mindset that does not give due consideration to the value to intellectual creations.

intellectual creations > $

[karajorma]

Anyone want to check if the RIAA servers are running on linux or using apache? It would only make things funnier if they were.

[S-99]

Yup, you guessed it. Linux and apache. Found here.

EDIT: Just think of the license management and the cost it would be to move over to windows server 2008

[Thaeris]

Still, in countries where the government has legislated the adoption of FOSS, the position makes some sense because it hurts businesses like Microsoft. But that's not the end of it.

And that's wrong? So, some fool somewhere over the mole-hill is whining about the fact that collaboratively written, free software, which is willingly released by its authors for the benefit of whomsoever finds it useful, might possibly harm massive developers that often don't live up to their expectations?

If that's not a massive pile of excrement, I don't know what is. The question/statement now should be, "Where the Hell did I put my meltagun? I need to vaporize some SOBs..."

[karajorma]

Well I can see the argument against legislating that FOSS must be used. If the alternative to FOSS is better for the job at hand it should be considered even though it costs money. But there is nothing wrong with the government suggesting that FOSS alternatives are looked at first.

For instance Open Office vs MS Office. If you are taking on staff (with a high turnover) who are all highly experienced with Word it might not be a great idea to force them all to learn Open Office as it will cut their efficiency while they learn and they aren't sticking around long enough to make it worth it. On the other hand if you're taking on staff who haven't used either it doesn't seem sensible at all to pay for licenses.

So forcing the situation in either direction is stupid. But managers should definitely be reminded to check if they can save the taxpayer money using FOSS.

[Kosh]

You know, DOS is a good OS.  It just isn't user-friendly from the get-go.

Is this a joke?

[butter_pat_head]

You know, DOS is a good OS.  It just isn't user-friendly from the get-go.

Is this a joke?

Doesn't look like one to me.  I have never had the experience of DOS crashing... ever.   Now I have had applications running in DOS crash but never DOS itself. 

[Grizzly]

What about the 1MB memory limit?

[Topgun]

You know, DOS is a good OS.  It just isn't user-friendly from the get-go.

Is this a joke?

Doesn't look like one to me.  I have never had the experience of DOS crashing... ever.   Now I have had applications running in DOS crash but never DOS itself. 

too bad applications that crash running in dos, crash dos

What about the 1MB memory limit?

dos has a 1mb memory limit? news to me, I thought it was limited to 15MB.
how did they play descent?

[Colonol Dekker]

I remember when 16mb was an elite config.
 
 
You spoiled kids! Frontier only needed 512k of system memory. . . . . I miss you himem.sys.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

No such limit.  Ran DOS on systems with 512 meg of ram (probably more as most were dual booted DOS/Win9x or XP and some were P4 systems).  The only limit was the memory between 640k and 1meg was reserved for interrupts and system memory addresses.  By the time P3's came around that limit was even smaller giving you 520k if you were lucky and had a good memory manager.  32bit extensions still let you use all the memory you had above 1meg.  Same with Win 9x.  It was just DOS 7.0 with the 32bit Windows layered on top. 

Now you do have a 2gig file size limit and the FAT32 size limits to deal with. 

[Kosh]

(pure) DOS's memory handling scheme really was kind of primitive, plus it was 16bit with no plug and play support at all, making adding new hardware annoying (on top of all the jumper and dip switch configurations you had to get right because ISA also didn't support plug and play).

[FUBAR-BDHR]

I would love to be able to still configure cards by jumpers instead of all this plug and play BS.  Or at least configure what they use in the BIOS.  Too many times do resources on motherboards step on each other with no good way to correct it.  One of my servers I have to keep 2 extra cards in to keep SCSI cards from using the same INTs and running at crappy speeds when more then one drive is used on different controllers.  Why?  Plug and play assigns them that way and there is nothing you can do about it.  Seen it too many times.  More like plug and pray. 

[S-99]

Now you do have a 2gig file size limit and the FAT32 size limits to deal with. 

4gb file size limitation with fat32, not 2. But, you can have a lot of fun with fat32. Try taking one of your dvd movies and ripping it to a fat32 partition (make sure it's a dvd9 movie), it sort of funny what happens and what doesn't happen with fat32 and an over 4gb iso.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Believe me I do images using DOS all the time and the biggest it will let you do is 2gig.  Do a dir on any drive over 2 gig and it will return 2 gig free so if you try to write more then 2 gig the size returned is negative and you get a disk full error.  May not be a FAT32 limit but defiantly a DOS file size one. 

[butter_pat_head]

(pure) DOS's memory handling scheme really was kind of primitive, plus it was 16bit with no plug and play support at all

Memory handling was primarily done by drivers and 32bit extenders pretty much bypassed that problem completely. 

16bit?  Only if you coded your apps in 16bit.  There are plenty of 32bit apps that run in DOS and I wouldn't be surprised if 64bit apps in DOS were possible.

Plug and Play?  Again in DOS that's a job for the drivers not DOS itself.  I haven't looked into this kind of thing much but I do know that there are a set of plug and play USB drivers for DOS.

Making adding new hardware annoying (on top of all the jumper and dip switch configurations you had to get right because ISA also didn't support plug and play).

My plug and play PCI based Soundblaster Live! laughs at this comment. 

[headdie]

(pure) DOS's memory handling scheme really was kind of primitive, plus it was 16bit with no plug and play support at all

Memory handling was primarily done by drivers and 32bit extenders pretty much bypassed that problem completely. 

16bit?  Only if you coded your apps in 16bit.  There are plenty of 32bit apps that run in DOS and I wouldn't be surprised if 64bit apps in DOS were possible.

Plug and Play?  Again in DOS that's a job for the drivers not DOS itself.  I haven't looked into this kind of thing much but I do know that there are a set of plug and play USB drivers for DOS.

Making adding new hardware annoying (on top of all the jumper and dip switch configurations you had to get right because ISA also didn't support plug and play).

My plug and play PCI based Soundblaster Live! laughs at this comment. 

ISA was facing extinction before we hit the mid 90s, I think by the time windows 9x took over I was mostly on PCI I think the exception was a 10mb BNC NIC, anyway the jumpers and dip switches mostly handled CPU and memory settings on the mobo,

hands up if you lost flesh and blood to an AT era case 

* headdie puts his hand up

[FUBAR-BDHR]

I don't think there has ever been a computer I've worked on that doesn't have some of my blood on the inside of the case somewhere.  The fun part of AT cases were the live power connections when you forgot to unplug them.  Got a few good jolts out of that. 

PCI was in way before the win 9x series.  EISA and VESA where the in between steps that came into being around the 486DX2 era.   Had a server board that supported PCI,VESA,EISA and ISA.  32 1 meg chips for memory.  Ran 51 CD drives off that sucker for my BBS. 

[Kosh]

My plug and play PCI based Soundblaster Live! laughs at this comment. 

PCI was awesome and a huge improvement in everyway. What MCA tried and failed to be.

Memory handling was primarily done by drivers

Plug and Play?  Again in DOS that's a job for the drivers not DOS itself.

Source?