That is a scientific fact no matter how hard or how fast you wave your hands.
Science makes no such claim. Indeed, science has yet to fully encapsulate what it means to be “alive” in the first place.
So stop claiming that science says what you want it to say, just because that’s the result you desire. That in and of itself is not science.
Yaz
Nope - didn’t forget; as you pointed out MS gave up on Xenix in the late 80’s, and I specifically stated (as you quoted) “UNIX wasn’t even on Microsoft’s radar in the 90’s”.
MS did some stuff with UNIX in the 70s and 80s, but by the 90s they were all in on DOS/Windows and Windows NT, with a bit of Mac OS (before it was UNIX based).
Yaz
You could, but it would be a fanboy argument and meaningless. MacOS is successful because it's MacOS, not because of Unix, and it is only coincidentally Unix under the covers.
Strong disagree. While creative types have long favoured Mac, most hard-core developers and power users eschewed it for other platforms — until around 2003/2004, when OS X became mature enough and developers with UNIX-style toolchains moved over in droves.
Go back to relevant
Yaz
it was about beating OS/2.
Most of the other UNIX’s weren’t designed to run on 80x86 platforms, so they were never in any real contention with Microsoft. AIX, HPUX, Solaris, Dynix (which was Intel based but had a special architecture separate from PCs) — none of these were in the same market as Windows.
No, Microsoft’s target was OS/2 — which had a bigger resource footprint, but was also a vastly superior OS, with real pre-emptive multitasking, a (by 90’s standards) modern high performance file system, the ability to pre-emptively multitask Windows 3.x and DOS apps well before Windows 95, and a superiors desktop environment (a modern Workplace Shell would still absolutely slay). It was here that Microsoft introduced Win32s and kept changing it every few weeks to break OS/2 compatibility for newer Windows apps. It was here that the per-processor agreements were put into place with systems manufacturers to make selling OS/2 on systems more expensive (for those too young to know, in these agreements the manufacturer paid and charged for a Windows license with every system sold — even if it didn’t come with Windows. So if you wanted an OS/2 system you were paying for both OS/2 and a Windows license you didn’t actually get).
UNIX wasn’t even on Microsoft’s radar in the 90’s — it just wasn’t a PC operating system, and was mostly targeted to systems that didn’t compete with Microsoft. If you wanted a UNIX system, you had to buy your hardware from your OS vendor (much like with macOS today) — virtually nobody (except some of the early cool kids running Linux and *BSD) was buying white-box Intel systems and running UNIX — the numbers were too small for Microsoft to care. OS/2 was their real target — and in the end, it worked.
Yaz
Did you ever hear of The Gimli Glider? It was an Air Canada 767 that ran out of gas mid flight because someone screwed up imperial to metric conversions. Canada had recently converted to the metric system and not all industries were caught up. The pilot actually managed to glide it to an old WW2 training air strip in Gimli, Manitoba, north of Winnipeg, that had been converted into a drag strip for cars. No one died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider#Miscalculation_during_fueling
But we can tell that you wish you were. That's why you're going to vote for Putin's stooge, Trump. Since you don't like looking up actual facts, when Ukraine separated they held a referendum in all the country's oblasts (their states), asking if they want to stay with Ukraine or Russia. A properly monitored referendum unlike Russian ones where people are forced to side with Russia at the point of a gun. 90% of people wanted their states to be in Ukraine with the exception of 2 places, which still had a majority vote to be Ukrainian. So stop watching RT and Tucker Carlson, and get your head out of your ass. And truthfully, I do think you are a Russian troll, even if you are in America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum#Results
We are charging up electric vehicles from fossil fuels. https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl... [eia.gov]
That just points to how far behind the US is in decarbonizing its electrical infrastructure. That’s not really a knock on EVs.
Here in Canada, ~80% of our electricity is from hydroelectric sources, and ~90% is from non-carbon emitting sources (hydro, solar, wind, nuclear).
The good thing about running an EV in a jurisdiction which still uses CO2 emitting fuels for electrical generation is that you can knock down the CO2 emissions by just replacing the power plant, and not both the power plant and the vehicles. The EV effectively gets the upgrade “for free”.
Yaz
This goes back a very long way, but back when I was publishing The Sound Blaster Digest (early 90’s) I eventually started publishing using Windows Write on Windows 3.1 specifically because of OLE — I could package an “e-zine” with audio, graphics, fonts, and better formatting than the hand-formatted ASCII I was previously using. I continued with the ASCII format as well every month (which was a good deal of work) and released in both formats, but the Write version (being published at a time when HTML wasn’t accessible to the regular user) was always very popular for that reason. Embedding the media straight in a document every Windows user could use felt groundbreaking at the time.
Yaz
We have a hard enough time shedding the energy that is already hitting us from the sun, and they want to double down and increase the amount of energy the earth has to absorb from the sun. Just stupid.
We need to cool the earth, so what do they propose? Gathering up huge amounts of energy in space, finding a way to concentrate it, and then send it to earth to be turned into mechanical energy and more heat (that pesky nothing is 100% efficient thing). On top of the energy that is already striking the earth. SMH
The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine