Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Linux in a World Where Windows 3.0 Never Happened 574

covertbadger writes "Larry Osterman said farewell yesterday to David Weise, the developer he credits with getting applications to run in protected mode on Windows 3.0, which led directly to Microsoft choosing to push Windows instead of OS/2. Today he speculates on what the IT world would be like if Weise had never completed this work. Windows 95 would never have existed, OS/2 would be the de facto standard, and IBM would never have put weight behind Linux because it had its own operating system to push."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux in a World Where Windows 3.0 Never Happened

Comments Filter:
  • by Shnizzzle ( 652228 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:37AM (#11572371)
    put weight behind Linux? Maybe Apple goes that route instead of using Darwin.
  • warning (Score:5, Funny)

    by X43B ( 577258 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:39AM (#11572401) Journal
    IBM evil (again) and no Linux? I think you're going to blow a lot of /.'s minds.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:41AM (#11572415)
    Yeah, "What if?" can be fun, especially when you apply it to wars. What if Hitler had never invaded Russia? What if he had invaded Britian earlier in the war? Fun, if you're in that mind set.

    This one is a little bit too "If" for my liking; it goes back a little too far and tries to extrapolate too much. None the less, it's an interesting read.

    So heres some more:
    • What if AT&T never sued and BSD386 had been completed?
    • What if MULTICS hadn't been cancelled?
    • What if Dave Cutler didn't join the NT group at Microsoft?
    • What if Ed Roberts laughed Paul Allan out of MITS with their BASIC interpreter?
    • What if the Lisp Machines/Symbolics split had never happened and the hacker stayed at the MIT lab?
    • What If the industry had switched to GaAs microprocessors?

    • Hitler? What are you trying to kill the conversation [faqs.org]?

    • by Otter ( 3800 )
      • What if Gary Kildall hadn't been too busy to negotiate with IBM about licensing CP/M for the PC?
    • What if the initial release of 386bsd had been before the initial linux release?
    • Yeah, "What if?" can be fun, especially when you apply it to wars. What if Hitler had never invaded Russia? What if he had invaded Britian earlier in the war? Fun, if you're in that mind set.

      Actually, if Hitler had the sense to "finish off" Europe by taking Britain before going east, it's overall not fun. Extremely creepy is more like it. He probably could, had he not sent all his troops east to fight the Soviets and wasted his missiles on civilian targets. What would happen is anyone's guess, but there'd
    • by SydShamino ( 547793 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @12:47PM (#11573238)
      Are you implying that, if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, Stalin would have had enough extra troops after WWII to move into the northern Europe, occupying Sweden and Finland? Then, given how many more US troops were required to defeat Hitler without Soviet help, the United States was left in a weaker position compared to USSR that later prevented the Soviet collapse in 1991?

      In other words, if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, Linux today would be greatly changed because Linus would have been a Soviet citizen in a communist state?

      "What if" scenarios are fun...
    • by elgatozorbas ( 783538 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @01:21PM (#11573643)
      What it all these nerds had girlfriends? /. would not have existed!
  • by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:41AM (#11572427) Journal
    So all those college-age kids with their DOS computers would still be using DOS.

    Microsoft would have ruled the roost.

    Nothing is different than it is now.
  • What if? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Malc ( 1751 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:42AM (#11572437)
    If "ifs" and "ands" per pots and pans then tinkers would be rich men.

    Who says Microsoft wouldn't have embraced and extended OS/2 and shut IBM out, leading to the same conclusion?

    What a waste of space stories like these are.
  • by Speare ( 84249 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:44AM (#11572467) Homepage Journal
    There's a fallacy in imagining a world where a particular person never completed a particular invention. In short, it skips the notion that someone else would have invented it instead.

    If Ungh Blungh didn't invent the wheel, some other proto-Sapiens halfwit would have invented it in the following year. It's not like there was a shortage of halfwits in the golden crescent.

    If Henry Ford didn't invent the assembly-line production model, someone else would have invented it in the following decade. It's not like there was a shortage of development in the industrial arena.

    If this developer at Microsoft didn't fix "enhanced mode" Windows, then some other developer at Microsoft would have. It's not like Microsoft was aching for cash to hire smart developers to tinker with 80386 instruction sets.

    The size and complexity of an invention AND its environment are also key: If Linus never wrote a whole and usable kernel and published it, chances are that no other homebrew kernel would have grown with the same fervor. The complexity of the task, and the complexity of the eco-political forces at work, helped to spur the adoption in a unique way.

    • I agree. If you haven't already read "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" [amazon.com], I highly recommend it. Everything happens for a reason and because the chips were in place...
    • by ghoti ( 60903 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:54AM (#11572588) Homepage
      Good point, but you ignore the importance of timing here. If protected mode stuff running on Windows would have been done half a year later, Microsoft may already have made a decision to go with OS/2 - and enhanced Windows would have just been another nice demo.
    • by Zarhan ( 415465 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:55AM (#11572606)
      There's a fallacy in imagining a world where a particular person never completed a particular invention. In short, it skips the notion that someone else would have invented it instead.

      Wheel and rest of your examples are valid. However, I think that there *are* certain things that wouldn't have been invented by someone else.

      Consider Einstein. In 1905, he published his special relativity theory. Now, for this, all the pieces were pretty much there - somebody else would have come up with that sooner or later.

      However, general relativity, in 1915, is something that probably would have not been realized even by today if it were not for Albert. Even if we had gravity probe B [stanford.edu] I think scientists would be pretty dumbfounded by results - there is not really any "reasonable" explanation. You need to think outside the box - and I think that even though Newton's "standing on the shoulder of giants" applies to lots of things, there were no shoulders to stand upon regarding general relativity.

      Of course, this point is rather irrelevant because we are talking about developing an OS..
      • by san ( 6716 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @02:35PM (#11574534)
        To bring this thread further off topic:

        Actually, Hilbert published his paper on general relativity at the same time as Einstein. (Einsteins paper was submitted 5 days later than Hilbert's).

        The concept of 'curvature of space' (in the sense of differential geometry) had been worked on since Riemann in the 19th century and with Einstein's general relativity it had become clear that the universe doesn't have a Euclidian metric.

        From that realization it was only a matter of time before somebody presented a metric which includes gravitational and electromagnetic effects, which is general relativity.

    • Right, it wasn't the "invention" of Windows386, it was the business decision to push this over OS/2. Similar to how IBM had all the resources to write OS/2 version 1 as 32-bit native, but chose create a 16-bit OS instead.

      History hinges on the fact that IBM chose not to buy out Microsoft and/or Windows when they had a chance. The proper applicaiton of $$$$ would have made Windows disappear, and eventualy users would have come around to dumping DOS for OS/2.

      As for how this would affect Linux -- probably no
      • But i think linux wouln't have had as much momentum.

        Before i tried linux, the reason i wanted to get rid of windows is because its crap.

        Once i got used to linux i realised its not just about stability and security and now i wouldn't use windows on my desktop if it had 100% uptime and no security holes (i know 100% uptime and no security holes is imposible, before anybody points that out).

        What im trying to say is, if Windows hadn't have existed the mainstream operating system(s) would have probably been b
    • Colt developed the first production line model, for making their famous 6 shooters, 30 years before Ford applied the model to car manufacture.
    • There's a fallacy in imagining a world where a particular person never completed a particular invention. In short, it skips the notion that someone else would have invented it instead.

      Yeah, that's why I quit watching "Sliders". After they end up in a universe where all else is exactly the same as ours, except medecine has not been discovered/invented! I think more people need to read "Connections" by James Burke (or at least watch the TV show!) before they start imagining "a world without [X]". Nothing e

    • There's a fallacy in imagining a world where a particular person never completed a particular invention. In short, it skips the notion that someone else would have invented it instead.

      Sure, but could someone else could have made the same discovery in a time frame that mattered? That is the part you are ignoring in your fallacy statement.

  • Wow (Score:4, Funny)

    by tdemark ( 512406 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:44AM (#11572471) Homepage
    Rube Goldberg [rubegoldberg.com] would have been proud of that article.

    - Tony
  • Obvious (Score:2, Funny)

    by tubbtubb ( 781286 )
    Clearly, in this scenario,
    over time OpenVMS would become the defacto standard
    on all macs, and BSD would still be dead, of course.
  • Genius is a dangerous thing you have to be very careful where you point it. When somebody does something great we so desperately want to apply it. That we forget to think about where it should be applied.
  • by Gr8Apes ( 679165 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:49AM (#11572530)
    While the PM interface did have some shortcomings, the OS was rock stable by 94. Heck, the PM shortcomings were minor compared to those of any other OS of the time. Multi-threaded applications, flat memory model, inherently non-fragging file system, the concept of shadows (closest weak analogies are symbolic links or shortcuts) that dissappeared when the root file was deleted, and the addition of extended file attributes that let a file name be anything and still tied to a particular application. A truly great OS with features yet unmatched by any other system, including, dare I say it, Mac OS X. (FYI: I'm about to purchase a Mac, so put the flame throwers away;)

    If anyone wants to flame the 2MB cache cache limitation of the file system, do realize that the HPFS386 file system used in the server did not have that restraint. Also recall the time period that this OS came out in. 2MB was a significant portion of 16 or 32 MB of RAM. (Yeah, that's right, OS/2 would run just fine in 32 MB of RAM. Heck, it'd run on 4MB machines if you wanted it to, with the smallest system I recall hearing about was a 2MB system minus the PM.)

    I still recall being able to run C&C in a window with sound while running Word 6, and several OS/2 apps with nary a problem. (Pentium Pro in 97).

    A trip down Nostalgia Lane once more. Would I run it again? Sure, if it had the applications needed today.
    • I loved the OS/2 WPS & PM. Drag & drop colours or fonts to any OS/2 windowed app and they are remembered by the app. Maybe too O-O for some ppl but I liked it a lot myself - I found it quite consistent.

      Pity 2.0 didn't ship with a TCP/IP stack, nor multi-user capability (or even logins/passwords for that matter)!

      But I still miss the WPS... know it exists on Linux tho.
    • by NutscrapeSucks ( 446616 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @12:07PM (#11572728)
      Funny how you fail to mention Windows NT, which was superior to OS/2 in every way execept the graphical shell.

      The fact is that OS/2 was "gimped" in certain ways -- no integrated networking, no file permissions, no multiple users, various 16-bit legacy limitations in the kernel. This was done on purpose because IBM had no intention of letting Intel-based OSes intrude on it's midrange AS/400 and RS/6000 server business.

      When NT hit the market, it immediately started taking over server applicaitons. Something that OS/2 never would or could do. At least for servers, NT has always been the hardware driver, pushing the x86 platform upwards, and Linux has benefited hugely from that.

      If Windows never existed, the entire proprietary server market (DEC, SGI, HP, Sun, and IBM) would be very much richer and happier today.
      • by Richard Steiner ( 1585 ) <rsteiner@visi.com> on Friday February 04, 2005 @12:44PM (#11573179) Homepage Journal
        "Funny how you fail to mention Windows NT, which was superior to OS/2 in every way execept the graphical shell."

        Since you mention the graphical shell, I'll assume you're talking about OS/2 2.0 or later with the WPS and not earlier 1.x incarnations.

        What about the fact that OS/2 came bundled with Rexx while NT had nothing at all similar?

        That OS/2's MVDM was significantly better than NT's VDM at running DOS programs?

        That OS/2's GUI could be decoupled and replaced with a smaller shell (TSHELL or similar) for use on older hardware for small servers?

        That OS/2 consistently beat NT in various performance tests over the years, and even did a cleanup when a single-CPU Warp Server box was put up against a 4-CPU NT Server box on file and print sharing benchmarks sponsored by PC Week?

        While NT and its successors certainly have definite advantages, mainly due to market position, I think you vastly overstate its relative position in terms of technology.

        Later versions of OS/2 from Warp 3 Connect on had a decent networking stack based on BSD, and most of the 16-bit portions of the kernel are gone at this point in time, so those limitations are no longer current.
        • well put but may I add that OS/2 v2.0 did have a TCP/IP stack. You had to purchase it seperately but it was available. There was PMX and Netware support in that kit too.

          I had 486 systems running with 10MB of memory running X apps on Sparc stations via PMX over TCP/IP while running a Windows application and linking a few Netware shares into the system.

          As you said, OS/2 ran circles around NT. And typically, you had to throw 2x the hardware at NT to even get close to OS/2. OS/2 and Netware owned the PC netwo
        • I Smell a Teamer! (Score:3, Informative)

          by Greyfox ( 87712 )
          No one gets that rabid about OS/2 except folks that used to be on TeamOS2 heh heh.

          In the '95 Atlanta Comdex one of the displays we set up was a huge dual processor (I forget if it was high speed 486 or pentium. Top of the line) Compaq with a whopping 32MB of RAM! Our intention was to run 3 or 4 AVIs side by side next to the NT machine that was happily spewing polys with their poly screensaver.

          This was too slow from disk, so we made a 6 or 7 MB ramdisk and stuck our AVIs there. It was pretty smooth from

    • The thing that freaked me out when starting Win 3.0 development was that the coordinate system origin was in the upper-left of the screen. Which meant that all your drawing was done in quadrant IV -- technically, all "Y" coordinates in Windows should be negative!

      Presentation Manager, of course, did it correctly, with the coordinate origin at the bottom-left of the screen, so you were always in quadrant I, and all your coordinate numbers were positive.

      Chip H.
  • by Xpilot ( 117961 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:50AM (#11572540) Homepage
    Where Old Biff steals the DeLorean and gives the Sports Almanac to young Biff? Then Doc and Marty come back to a hellish timeline where Biff is a billionaire.

    I think something like that happened, where old Bill goes back in time and gives young Bill some tips on how to get lucky in the IT world, plus some source code for Windows 3.0. And we're living in the nightmarish timeline that was created.

    Only Doc and Marty can save us now. Or Linux. Whichever does it first :)

  • Umm, no (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kuwan ( 443684 )
    I don't believe that Microsoft ever intended to push OS/2 even if apps couldn't run in protected mode. Microsoft was going to push Windows no matter how crappie or inferior it was to OS/2. Their flirtation with OS/2 (telling people that it was the future and that they should support it) only made other large developers of the time, namely Wordperfect, spend their time on creating OS/2 versions of their software instead of Windows versions.

    When Microsoft put their full push into Windows they were able to
  • I have to say... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by angst7 ( 62954 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:51AM (#11572554) Homepage
    OS/2 Warp was goodness in the extreme. (Bugs aside). I ran it for a while trying to stay away from Windows and knowing that someting would drag me away from DOS eventually. The interface and capabilities of OS/2 made me a bit giddy I recall. I still have rather bizarre memories of decentered happieness while running it. Weird.

    Of course my memories from around that same time of running early slackware linux are even better. It was on a 386 linux box with 5MB memory that I first saw the (then new) WWW in Mosaic on X. Windows couldn't grant me that pleasure at that time. (Trumpet winsock my ass)
    • Re:I have to say... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Gr8Apes ( 679165 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @12:00PM (#11572657)
      2.3 and 2.4 were pretty darn nice. I don't really recall too many issues with bugs. At least not in comparison to MS's bugs. I recall rebooting my machine 3 times in a year. I'd often hear colleagues scream in frustration as hours of work dissappeared in the all too familiar BSOD. (Well, familiar to them... ;)

      Had IBM capitulated to MS Office's underhanded call for memory @ 2GB when starting, even though it'd never use it, we might still be running OS/2.
      That manuever made Office95 incompatible with OS/2, and along with the then incompatible default file formats, the beginning of the end was near for OS/2.
  • by OwlWhacker ( 758974 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:54AM (#11572585) Homepage Journal
    Sometimes, it's fun to play the "what if" game

    Sometimes it's FUD to play the "what if" game.

    IBM would never have put weight behind Linux because it had its own operating system to push.

    That's like saying Linux is only where it is today because of IBM. Yes, IBM has put a lot into Linux, but I don't think that IBM alone has made Linux a major player.

    And what about Sun (a lover of IP like Microsoft)? Sun has its own version of Linux, and has its own OS. Sun has given to the Open Source community too.
  • or maybe (Score:3, Funny)

    by b17bmbr ( 608864 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:56AM (#11572607)
    maybe microsoft would have adopted linux, maybe we'd have to come up with clever icons for ibm, and be talking about the big blue screen of death. microsoft's control lay ints api's and doc formats. without that control, eventually, they'd have to split from ibm.
  • by pandrijeczko ( 588093 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:57AM (#11572629)
    1. Linus Torvalds released the Linux kernel in 1991 because "he was unsatisfied with the operating systems of the time" (as I think the quote goes from "Just For Fun").

    2. He wrote the Linux kernel on a 386 PC - yeah, i guess he could have been using SCO UNIX on it but I seem to recall he was using MS-DOS a bit also.

    3. Richard Stallman started GNU during the 1980s, emacs, gcc, etc were already in widespread usage and being handed out as free source code.

    Therefore, the catalyst that sparked off Linux doesn't appear to have been Windows 3.0 anyway.

    Sure, with more OS/2 users, there may not have been so many people developing for Linux but it would still be here.

  • by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 ( 718736 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @11:58AM (#11572635)
    Why Global Warming may be the first question you ask, but think about it. Many of us know that the shorter the wavelength of light, the higher the energy [newi.ac.uk]. We also know that blue and ultraviolet light has a shorter wavelength than red and yellow.

    Therefore, due to the increased number of blue radiation [dink.org]given off by windows machines, there has been an exponential increase in short wavelength, high energy electromagnetic radiation - which of course has been linked to skin cancer.

  • IBM would never have put weight behind Linux because it had its own operating system to push.

    FUD FUD FUD. IBM does have it's own operating system to push. It's called AIX, which IBM is swiftly moving away from and pushing Linux so much in favor over. I don't recall IBM making any suggestions that anyone should (or even could) run Linux as a desktop alternative. Even after proclaiming Linux "ready for the desktop" not a single IBM PC was ever sold with Linux as an option, let alone the default or only

    • by erikharrison ( 633719 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @12:11PM (#11572783)
      What the hell are you talking about?

      There is not FUD. Fear? Uncertainty? Doubt? He didn't say a damn thing against Linux, and even argues that the business model which pushed IBM to invest in Linux (and which was partially caused by Linux) would still exist. They'd just open up OS/2 instead of porting OS/2 code (and AIX code, since those code bases have intermingled) to Linux.

      It's not unreasonable. OS/2 already has a strong presense in enterprise workstations, and that's a strong consulting market. A stronger OS/2 very possibly might have kept IBM (and only IBM mind you) out of the Linux game.

      Stop yelling just because someone said something you didn't understand.
  • >When David got in the next day (at around 8AM), >he saw that his machine had crashed, so he knew >that Steve had come by and seen it. Golly, the world's first ever UAE (what GPFs were called when Windows was young and people didn't even dare to dream of BSODs) and Steve got to see it personally. I hope he gets to personally see all the results from me hitting "Send Error Report" half a dozen times a day. Ian
  • by vjmurphy ( 190266 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @12:02PM (#11572683) Homepage
    Then this would beget violent OS Wars, in which many many secondary heroes, like Ant Man, Scarlet Witch, Iron Man and Bruce Perens would be annihilated by enemies unknown.

    In the end, only Captain America, Wolverine, Spider-Man and Dr. Strange would survive, only to discover their true enemy: a parallel universe Bill Gates, bringing with him Ultra Dimensional Windows Mega Super XP Hyperforce Go 5.4 with him.

  • In a way Linux owes it's entire existence to Microsoft, and not just because of the anti-monopoly/anti-corporation backlash.

    In reality, it has been the demands of Microsoft operating systems that have pushed the x86 architecture so hard that it is now possible to actually do some decent work with them. Solaris on Sparc, AIX on RISC, etc., all of them would still be the faster machines, and if you needed to run x86 BSD would have been fine.

    Not to say that there wouldn't have been processor improvement, o
  • by Mr. BS ( 788514 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @12:06PM (#11572723)

    And I've been thanking Linus Torvalds for all of these years???

    Dave Weise... You 'da man!!!
  • What if the BSD lawsuit (from AT&T/USL) had never happened? That slowed down development of BSD for long enough to give Linux a chance to exist. If it weren't for the lawsuit, not only would Linux likely not have gone anywhere beyond printing "A" and "B" on a console, but the main open source license would be BSD, not GPL. And HURD would still not even be a blip on the radar until 2005.

    /and BSD would probably still be dying

  • If he hadn't finished his work, it would have caused a rip in the space time continuum... birds would fly upside down and cars would move vertically instead of horizontally.

    And everyone would think Macs were lame.
  • Easy to answer (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @12:12PM (#11572798)
    Everything that people bitch about Microsoft being and doing, would now be directed at IBM.

    Remember, a long time ago IBM was considered "evil". The only reason they're considered "good" now is because they support Linux - but in reality they're only doing it because they see a way to make money out of it.

    If that way ever disappears, then IBM will drop their support faster than you can possibly imagine.

  • WOSWESU? (Score:3, Funny)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @12:17PM (#11572868) Homepage Journal
    Which OS would evil Spock use?

    MOS/2 - Moustache OS/2, of course.
  • What if... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wayward_son ( 146338 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @12:19PM (#11572897)
    What if Linus Torvalds had known BSD existed?

    Linus admits that he basically re-invented the wheel with linux, BSD had what he wanted, but he didn't know about it or that it was freely available.

  • by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann.slashdot@ g m ail.com> on Friday February 04, 2005 @12:25PM (#11572966) Homepage Journal
    (from comments posted after TFA: )

    re: Tipping Points 2/3/2005 1:00 PM Stuart Ballard

    I guess I put it the other way around: the corporate interest in Linux was fueled *by* its undeniable technical and grassroots-level adoption success.

    Remember that in the real world IBM picked up Linux despite having its own Unix brand. Linux beat out IBM's best efforts (AIX and the stillborn Project Monterey) on *merit*, so convincingly that IBM themselves decided to scrap their own work in favor of it. I have a hard time thinking of any corporate involvement (on the scale you're contemplating) before that point that could be said to explain IBM's decision to adopt it. So I'm forced to conclude that if not IBM, one of the other hardware/Unix vendors would have done what they did. The other hardware/Unix vendors, in the no-Windows scenario, would be in the same place that IBM was in today's world, with the same options available.

    I'd definitely add one to your list of things that fueled Linux's success, although it doesn't affect the "what if" because neither of our future-histories modify it: the widespread availability of the Internet. Linux is an (IMHO inevitable) product of the fact that suddenly anyone with programming talent can easily get the latest version, submit a code patch, and see it integrated into new versions within days, if not *hours*. Linux couldn't have happened if the developers had to mail around 3.5" floppies :) My guess is that the absence of the Internet is pretty much the only thing that really *would* have erased Linux out of history.
    (end of comments)

    Frankly I think this is much more plausible. Thank God for the "reply" button in the blogs! :)
    • Thanks for the endorsement ;)

      When I saw that this had made /. I wondered if anyone would have bothered to read my comments, and what the feedback would be. Glad to see that somebody did :)
    • > So I'm forced to conclude that
      > if not IBM, one of the other hardware/Unix vendors would have done what they did. The other hardware/Unix
      > vendors, in the no-Windows scenario, would be in the same place that IBM was in today's world, with the same
      > options available.

      How soon we forget. There were other Unix vendors who decided to throw their lot in with Linux, before IBM made their announcement. DEC loaned an Alpha workstation to Linus to encourage him to develop for their RISC processor over
  • by ayjay29 ( 144994 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @12:51PM (#11573285)
    Microsoft this, Microsoft that, life without Microsoft. Microsoft vs Linus, Microsoft vs Google, Microsoft vs the world, Microsoft ate my dog.

    There's more Microsoft stories here than anything else, about 20 in the past week. Isn't anything better to post about??

  • If Windows 3.0 never happened, we wouldn't have funny Flash animations like this:

    http://tinyurl.com/44te2 [tinyurl.com]

There's no such thing as a free lunch. -- Milton Friendman