Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

proudlyserving.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 85 posts

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#61

Post by oblio »

bluedino wrote: post #56

Retrospect is fun; When Transmeta unveiled their new CPU, it was the first time in a long time that a company that was not Intel finally admitted that if you're a CPU, and you want a zillion people to buy you, you gotta run x86 code. This after Hitachi, Motorola, IBM, MIPS, National Semiconductor, and who knows how many other companies deceived themselves into thinking that they had the right to invent a new instruct…

You mean:

> Then along came smartphones.

Wasn't ARM a relative minor player before smartphones took over?

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#62

Post by robterrell »

bluedino wrote: post #56

Retrospect is fun; When Transmeta unveiled their new CPU, it was the first time in a long time that a company that was not Intel finally admitted that if you're a CPU, and you want a zillion people to buy you, you gotta run x86 code. This after Hitachi, Motorola, IBM, MIPS, National Semiconductor, and who knows how many other companies deceived themselves into thinking that they had the right to invent a new instruct…

ARM is not an overnight success. It's older than Transmeta. ARM is from the 1990's -- it was the chip that powered the Newton.

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#63

Post by anonbanker »

eropple wrote: post #32
anonbanker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's so far out the mainstream, that people have been doing it regularly for 20 years now. Grub is old enough to attend Junior High. Lilo would be in grad school. they both have windows compatability. Microsoft not reciprocating is evidence of their intent.

FreeBSD used to (maybe still does?) clobber the boot loader too. Do they also have mustachios that they evilly twirl?

As you used it twice in this thread, I'm going to add "mustache twirl" (or variation) do my dictionary of rhetorical devices used to make an attack seem like less of an attack. it's very effective at disarming someone that calls it out. Thanks for this.

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#64

Post by WorldWideWayne »

JadeNB wrote: post #58
WorldWideWayne wrote: post #33

Looking at the submitter's background I don't see any professional experience with Microsoft tech. Maybe someone can explain it to me - I don't understand why a guy has avoided Microsoft for his entire career feels the need to dredge up a 10 year old article that talks about events from over 30 years ago. Too much pro-Microsoft news for you? Honestly - what's your interest here?

Can one only submit articles on topics in which one has professional experience?

No, but I'm interested in the motivation in relation to their point of view.

But in general, it's beyond me at this stage why people single out Microsoft for being anti-competitive. It's completely unbalanced.

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#65

Post by WorldWideWayne »

mindcrime wrote: post #42
crgt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This quote was mentioned in the recent discussion of Twitter's outreach to developers. I believe the intent of this submission was to share a slice of relevant history with those in the community too young to have lived through it.

I believe the intent of this submission was to share a slice of relevant history with those in the community too young to have lived through it. Exactly.

I'm guessing that the millions of tech people who make their living off of Microsoft's back would probably disagree that building on a Microsoft platform is a bad idea.

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#66

Post by mindcrime »

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #65
mindcrime wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the intent of this submission was to share a slice of relevant history with those in the community too young to have lived through it. Exactly.

I'm guessing that the millions of tech people who make their living off of Microsoft's back would probably disagree that building on a Microsoft platform is a bad idea.

would probably disagree that building on a Microsoft platform is a bad idea

But nobody said "building on a Microsoft platform is a bad idea". What is being said is that "building on anybody's platform involves risk, whether it's twitter, microsoft, facebook, google, IBM or $WHOEVER". The point of this post was to highlight an example of the discussion around this topic and to emphasize that it isn't a novel thing.

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#67

Post by JadeNB »

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #64
JadeNB wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can one only submit articles on topics in which one has professional experience?

No, but I'm interested in the motivation in relation to their point of view. But in general, it's beyond me at this stage why people single out Microsoft for being anti-competitive. It's completely unbalanced.

The posted article seems to be doing quite the opposite; it is arguing against that perception of Microsoft.

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#68

Post by WorldWideWayne »

mindcrime wrote: post #66
WorldWideWayne wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing that the millions of tech people who make their living off of Microsoft's back would probably disagree that building on a Microsoft platform is a bad idea.

would probably disagree that building on a Microsoft platform is a bad idea But nobody said "building on a Microsoft platform is a bad idea". What is being said is that "building on anybody's platform involves risk, whether it's twitter, microsoft, facebook, google, IBM or $WHOEVER". The point of this post was to highlight an example of the discussion around this topic and to emphasize that it isn't a novel thing.

Actually, "nobody said those words in the article or anywhere in the comments".

So, if your purpose was indeed to highlight that, you obviously failed since nobody here seems to be discussing that.

Here are some articles that say what you allegedly wanted to - https://www.google.com/search?q=risks%20building%20on%20some...

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#69

Post by WorldWideWayne »

JadeNB wrote: post #67
WorldWideWayne wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but I'm interested in the motivation in relation to their point of view. But in general, it's beyond me at this stage why people single out Microsoft for being anti-competitive. It's completely unbalanced.

The posted article seems to be doing quite the opposite; it is arguing against that perception of Microsoft.

It's a really bad example of what the submitter was allegedly trying to point out as you can see from his comment above.

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#70

Post by mindcrime »

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #68
mindcrime wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would probably disagree that building on a Microsoft platform is a bad idea But nobody said "building on a Microsoft platform is a bad idea". What is being said is that "building on anybody's platform involves risk, whether it's twitter, microsoft, facebook, google, IBM or $WHOEVER". The point of this post was to highlight an example of the discussion around this topic and to emphasize that it isn't a novel thing.

Actually, "nobody said those words in the article or anywhere in the comments". So, if your purpose was indeed to highlight that , you obviously failed since nobody here seems to be discussing that. Here are some articles that say what you allegedly wanted to - https://www.google.com/search?q=risks%20building%20on%20some...

Dude, just drop it OK? I'm not sure what kind of fight you're trying to start here, or why, but I really don't give a fuck.
Post reply on HN