Why? Nobody reads them anyway.
I tried setting up the above VM with VirtualBox a couple years back and it kept having problems with the mass-storage emulation; it would get so far in the boot sequence and then freeze. IIRC it happened with both IDE and SCSI.
Win98SE works a lot better in VMware Player because VirtualBox doesn't have guest utilities for such an old OS.
I've gotten Debian 2.2 to run reasonably well in VMware Player. Network and SCSI worked pretty well, don't think the sound did due to a missing driver, and I had to do some work to make X use the VESA framebuffer:
0) In lilo.conf, add "vga=791" (or another value) to the kernel invocation. May have had to compile a kernel with fbdev first.
1) install the xserver-fbdev package
3) edit XF86Config to reflect the color depth chosen in the vga= stanza in lilo.conf; with vga=791 it's 16 bits.
4) Same file, edit mouse information to reflect what VMware provides (device is
Now you should have a functioning X desktop, assuming you installed the packages. It won't be fast, since it's just the VESA framebuffer, but it's probably the best you can get with VMware and the ancient XFree86 stack in Debian 2.2.
Note that the VMware guest utilities will
How many of those guys under you would be married if they had a normal 40-hour job? Pretty hard to meet a MOTAS if all your time is spent working.
The F-86 was developed before the MiG-15 entered combat service. The only thing the MiG did to the Sabre was make the Air Force deploy it quicker because the MiG spanked everything else the Air Force had.
Likewise the MiG-21 and F-4; the F-4 was developed not specifically because of the Fishbed, but because the Navy (and later the Air Force) wanted a modern fighter and it happened that the Fishbed and Phantom were the most modern fighters each side had in Vietnam; they weren't even the same class of airplane: the MiG-21 was a small, fast light fighter/interceptor and the F-4 a big, heavy do-everything fighter-bomber/interceptor, just as the F-16 and Su-27 were in different classes.
I'm not convinced that a bouncing bomb would have been all that effective against ships. The delivering aircraft still has to be close to the target, flying straight, low, and at a certain airspeed, and it's an unguided bomb so there's still a decent chance of a miss (several bombs missed the German dams, for instance). We had other planes that attacked low-and-slow; they were torpedo bombers and fell out of use after 1945 due to being excessively vulnerable to flak during their low, slow and straight attack runs.
In any case, we already had a fairly similar and effective attack method: skip bombing, which works with conventional bombs.
Some people aren't intelligent enough to understand that things are complicated and there are no simple answers, no one thing to blame for our problems. Those people tend to be teabaggers.
Despite John Ringo's alarmist fantasies, no.