11 Aug
2007
11 Aug
'07
9:13 a.m.
This from today's New York Times story at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/technology/11novell.html about SCO
losing its claims to ownership of Unix:
"The Unix operating system, which has become popular with some
independent-minded PC users as well as in the corporate world, was
developed by AT&T researchers at Bell Labs beginning in 1969. During
the 1970s, the operating system became highly influential in academic
computing and in computer science departments.
In the ?80s, it had a significant impact in the computer workstation
and minicomputer markets, although it never gained a significant
foothold in the personal computer business until Steven P. Jobs
brought a version of Unix with him when he returned to Apple Computer
in 1997. Some PC makers have begun to offer versions of Linux instead
of Microsoft?s Windows operating systems."
What does Apple and Steve Jobs have to do with Unix?
Cheers,
Chuck
11 Aug
11 Aug
9:18 a.m.
[quote from the NYT]
In the [']80s, [UNIX] had a significant impact in
the computer
workstation and minicomputer markets, although it never gained a
significant foothold in the personal computer business until Steven
P. Jobs brought a version of Unix with him when he returned to Apple
Computer in 1997.
[response to it]
What does Apple and Steve Jobs have to do with Unix?
They gave Unix a foothold in the personal computer business when they
switched from MacOS to something Unix-based. I'd guess that, to a
first approximation, all personal computers running anything Unixy are
Macs running OSX. (A second approximation would recognize Linux.
Everything else is even more fringe.)
Yes, I know OSX is Mach under the hood. For the NYT's purposes (and a
lot of others, too) it's Unix.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
10:04 a.m.
At 12:18 PM -0400 8/11/07, der Mouse wrote:
[quote from the NYT]
Actually with the next release it is Mac OS X is UNIX. Leopard has
attained the UNIX 03 certification from the Open Group. The only
other certified OS's are from Sun, IBM, and HP.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisemac/archives/2007/07/leopard_gets_un.…
If you have a hard time accepting this, you're not alone, I know I
do. Though this makes me even more curious to see Leopard. Of
course *finally* having virtual desktops is enough to make me want it.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
In the [']80s, [UNIX] had a significant
impact in the computer
workstation and minicomputer markets, although it never gained a
significant foothold in the personal computer business until Steven
P. Jobs brought a version of Unix with him when he returned to Apple
Computer in 1997.
[response to it]
What does Apple and Steve Jobs have to do with
Unix?
They gave Unix a foothold in the personal computer business when they
switched from MacOS to something Unix-based. I'd guess that, to a
first approximation, all personal computers running anything Unixy are
Macs running OSX. (A second approximation would recognize Linux.
Everything else is even more fringe.)
Yes, I know OSX is Mach under the hood. For the NYT's purposes (and a
lot of others, too) it's Unix. 
11:11 a.m.
On Aug 11, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
If you have a hard time accepting this, you're not
alone, I know I
do. Though this makes me even more curious to see Leopard. Of
course *finally* having virtual desktops is enough to make me want it.
I've been using virtual desktops with OS X for years; I doubt I
could get any work done otherwise.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Farewell Ophelia, 9/22/1991 - 7/25/2007
11:37 a.m.
At 2:11 PM -0400 8/11/07, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Aug 11, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
I know 3rd party solutions exist, but I made the decision a few years
ago to avoid 3rd party enhancements to Mac OS X itself. My one
exception has been font management software.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
If you have a hard time accepting this, you're
not alone, I know I
do. Though this makes me even more curious to see Leopard. Of
course *finally* having virtual desktops is enough to make me want
it.
I've been using virtual desktops with OS X for years; I doubt I
could get any work done otherwise.
12:36 p.m.
On Aug 11, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
I know 3rd party solutions exist, but I made the decision a few
years ago to avoid 3rd party enhancements to Mac OS X itself. My
one exception has been font management software.
Ahhh ok, I am less confused now. :-)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Farewell Ophelia, 9/22/1991 - 7/25/2007
If you have a hard time accepting this, you're not
alone, I know
I do. Though this makes me even more curious to see Leopard. Of
course *finally* having virtual desktops is enough to make me
want it.
I've been using virtual desktops with OS X for years; I doubt I
could get any work done otherwise. 
9:27 a.m.
In the ?80s, it had a significant impact in the
computer workstation
and minicomputer markets, although it never gained a
significant
foothold in the personal computer business until
Steven P. Jobs
brought a version of Unix with him when he returned
to Apple Computer
in 1997. Some PC makers have begun to offer versions
of Linux instead
of Microsoft?s Windows operating systems."
What does Apple and Steve Jobs have to do with Unix?
Well, probably since MacOS X is the only Unix
operating system that most non-geeks are aware of,
they felt the need to bring it up. I guess it makes
sense - when Steve Jobs was running NeXT, they made
Unix-based workstations, then when he returned to
Apple, MacOS slowly became Unix.
-Ian
9:37 a.m.
This from today's New York Times story at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/technology/11novell.html about SCO
losing its claims to ownership of Unix:
"The Unix operating system, which has become popular with some
independent-minded PC users as well as in the corporate world, was
developed by AT&T researchers at Bell Labs beginning in 1969. During
the 1970s, the operating system became highly influential in academic
computing and in computer science departments.
In the _80s, it had a significant impact in the computer workstation
and minicomputer markets, although it never gained a significant
foothold in the personal computer business until Steven P. Jobs
brought a version of Unix with him when he returned to Apple Computer
in 1997. Some PC makers have begun to offer versions of Linux instead
of Microsoft_s Windows operating systems."
What does Apple and Steve Jobs have to do with Unix?
I think the statement is legitimate. Mac OS X is the Unixy thing with the
largest installed user base. I would imagine, though I have no figures,
that they are at the top or near the top of the desktop Unix market simply
because of the number of OS X capable Macs out there.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- The truth is out there. The speculation, however, is really out there. -----
10:29 a.m.
At 11:37 AM 8/11/2007, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
I think the statement is legitimate. Mac OS X is the
Unixy thing with the
largest installed user base. I would imagine, though I have no figures,
that they are at the top or near the top of the desktop Unix market simply
because of the number of OS X capable Macs out there.
Yes, it's been a wonderful attraction and introduction for
many folks who were previously tied to Windows or more true
Unixes whose parent companies have faded, or Linux users who
wanted more mainline software options. Every few months
I'm stunned to hear about another old die-hard partisan
friend who's switched to Mac.
With VMware options for simultaneously running other contemporary
OSes, it's amazing. This is very, very nice technology for the
classic computer emulation community, too. I look forward to
its future. Booting up old OSes and CC emulators could become
quite drag-and-drop.
The only hard part is the price tag. The tricked-out Mac Pro
on my wish list is about $6000 *before* adding the Adobe and Apple
software suites I desire.
- John
12 Aug
12 Aug
5:10 a.m.
On 11 Aug 2007, at 18:29, John Foust wrote:
The only hard part is the price tag. The tricked-out Mac Pro
on my wish list is about $6000 *before* adding the Adobe and Apple
software suites I desire.
To be fair, you probably fancy a MacPro with EIGHT cores. I know I do!!
From whom else could you get an 8-core desktop workstation?
I doubt that it'd be very much cheaper!
I remember bringing home my first SGI. It wasn't anything too amazing
or collectable - an old Indigo that had been lingering in the CS
department unused for some years. One of the postgrads had tried
getting it fired up - I was an undergrad at the time - and I was
visiting him in the lab when his supervisor came to chat to him abut
something. I think my friend was a bit miffed that I offered fourty
quid for it right under his nose!!
When I got that workstation home I was *so* pleased with it. I wiped
the dust off it with a damp cloth and stood back and admired it, then
started taking it apart. (That old monkey curiosity, eh?) I was so
impressed with how solid & well-made it was - each piece of FAR
better quality than the commodity PC hardware I was familiar with
(despite having paid ?115 for one of the first 56k PCI modems).
When I open a Mac I feel the same sensation of quality workmanship
that I do with old Unix workstations like SGIs & Suns. The screws in
the base of iMacs are stainless steel allen bolts, and the mechanism
of the lever which releases the side of my G5 is well-engineered, the
panel fitting satisfyingly flush when you set it back in place.
I don't feel Mac OS X to be entirely without flaws, but I do feel
that Apple is continuing in a tradition of well-made Unix
workstations, when those who needed computers were prepared to pay
good money for them, and expected quality.
Stroller.
9:16 a.m.
On 12 Aug 2007 at 13:10, Stroller wrote:
When I got that workstation home I was *so* pleased
with it. I wiped
the dust off it with a damp cloth and stood back and admired it, then
started taking it apart. (That old monkey curiosity, eh?) I was so
impressed with how solid & well-made it was - each piece of FAR
better quality than the commodity PC hardware I was familiar with
(despite having paid ?115 for one of the first 56k PCI modems).
So shall it ever be, it seems. We used to joke about how poorly most
S100 equipment was made (as compared to the Multibus stuff).
At one time, there *were* high-quality PCs being produced for the
commercial use market. Even some of the old Deskpros were pretty
well constucted. I still use a 600MHz P3 as my mail server. Old HP
commercial PCs are similarly well thougt out. There may still be
such animals--but I haven't bought a new PC in years.
But let's face it--today's consumer PCs by and large are designed for
a year or two of operating life. They're essentially disposable
items. People upgrade even when they don't have to--and sometimes
the upgrade path is forced by software bloat (but I'm not going to
climb onto that horse right now).
If Apple wants to over-engineer their consumer products, then good
for them. I predict that the trend won't last, however.
Cheers,
Chuck
10:30 a.m.
At 9:16 AM -0700 8/12/07, Chuck Guzis wrote:
But let's face it--today's consumer PCs by and
large are designed for
a year or two of operating life. They're essentially disposable
items. People upgrade even when they don't have to--and sometimes
the upgrade path is forced by software bloat (but I'm not going to
climb onto that horse right now).
If Apple wants to over-engineer their consumer products, then good
for them. I predict that the trend won't last, however.
Apple computers aren't throw away disposable items to most users.
Even 6 years later they can still have value (just price something
like a clamshell iBook). I think you'll find that the average Mac
users uses their systems for a longer period of time than the average
PC user. Shoot I just finally retired the PowerMac 8500/180 I bought
over 10 years ago this year (my G4/450 was retired nearly 4 years
ago).
The build quality is part of what makes the Mac the computer that it is.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
10:44 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh at aracnet.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Can someone tell me what this means?
Apple computers aren't throw away disposable items
to most users.
Even 6 years later they can still have value (just price something
like a clamshell iBook). I think you'll find that the average Mac
users uses their systems for a longer period of time than the average
PC user. Shoot I just finally retired the PowerMac 8500/180 I bought
over 10 years ago this year (my G4/450 was retired nearly 4 years
ago).
The build quality is part of what makes the Mac the computer that it is.
Zane
I find people with newer Macs are upgrading much faster then people who used
the pre OSX machines, and build quality these days is not much better then a
DELL or other mass produced x86.
Out of curiosity why did you keep the 8500/180 4 years longer then the
G4/450? I still have my 8500 running in my room (g3-400, 704MB of RAM)
because it runs OS 7.x apps and hardware very fast.
11:25 a.m.
At 1:44 PM -0400 8/12/07, Teo Zenios wrote:
Out of curiosity why did you keep the 8500/180 4 years
longer then the
G4/450? I still have my 8500 running in my room (g3-400, 704MB of RAM)
because it runs OS 7.x apps and hardware very fast.
Hardware and software. I bought a high end sound board with the
understanding I'd be able to move it to the G4/450 when I retired it
from being my main system. Nice theory, but it
didn't work to well
in reality, plus I was unable to move the copy of Bias Peak
that was
on the 8500/180.
The crazy thing is the G4 has been sitting unused under my desk for 4
years, I really need to put it into storage.
I still use my PowerBook 540c occasionally. The 540c was purchased
used to replace a 520c with a dead backlight. The 520c was purchased
new and was my first Mac.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
11:36 a.m.
At 1:44 PM -0400 8/12/07, Teo Zenios wrote:
I find people with newer Macs are upgrading much faster
then people who used
the pre OSX machines, and build quality these days is not much better then a
DELL or other mass produced x86.
Don't ask why I split up my replies to this message. I goofed.
I suspect you might find that depends on the type of people using
them, and the type of Mac they buy. If you buy a low-end system
you'll need to replace it more often than a high-end system. My G5
2x2 was top of the line when I bought it nearly 4 years ago. I
really hope to get two more years use out of it, and as long as it
doesn't die, I think I can do it. With my G4/450 (I purchased the
middle range of the very first G4 towers released) I was feeling the
need for a new system when it was only a couple years old. Same with
my 8500/180.
With my G5, I still don't feel the need for a new system. It really
helps that I've been able to easily expand the disk space and RAM.
It started out with 512MB and now has 5.5GB RAM, and a 160GB HD, but
now has a 300GB and 750GB HD. I rarely feel like I'm taxing the CPU,
and since I added the last 2GB RAM, I have little problems with RAM.
This isn't to say I wouldn't like a nice Mac Pro, as I would like to
be able to have one system running my Mac, Unix and Windows
applications all at the same time. However, I have such a limited
need for Windows, that doesn't weigh to heavily. Besides I upgraded
my PC about a year ago to be able to better run one game.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
11:07 a.m.
On 8/12/07 7:30 PM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
I think you'll find that the average Mac users
uses their systems for a longer
period of time than the average PC user. Shoot I just finally retired the
PowerMac 8500/180 I bought over 10 years ago this year (my G4/450 was retired
nearly 4 years ago).
Two to three years, in my case. However, they're not retired after that:
they trickle down to an ever growing group of family and friends who rely on
hardware supplied by me for their daily computing tasks.
Of course, I am always quite clear about them being on loan: they stay mine
and if they're deemed unwanted, I want them back. I only ever sold one, a
500 MHz iBook, in order to buy the faster (900 MHz) version of the exact
same model.
,xtG
.tsooJ
--
A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems.
- Paul Erdos
--
Joost van de Griek
<http://www.jvdg.net/>
13 Aug
13 Aug
3:59 a.m.
New subject: build quality of Macs & PCs.
On 12 Aug 2007, at 17:16, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 12 Aug 2007 at 13:10, Stroller wrote:
Indeed. I have used these for the same purpose the last 4 or 5 years.
I was using a 400mhz but upgraded to a 700mhz one which a customer
was throwing out; between them they have given me my highest Linux
uptimes. The low-profile PIII Compaqs are _lovely_ - thought has
obviously been put into their design; slotting drives in & out is
very quick and easy and it is convenient to access the PCI card slots
through the removable risers.
When I got that workstation home I was *so*
pleased with it. I wiped
the dust off it with a damp cloth and stood back and admired it, then
started taking it apart. (That old monkey curiosity, eh?) I was so
impressed with how solid & well-made it was - each piece of FAR
better quality than the commodity PC hardware I was familiar with
(despite having paid ?115 for one of the first 56k PCI modems).
...
At one time, there *were* high-quality PCs being produced for the
commercial use market. Even some of the old Deskpros were pretty
well constucted. I still use a 600MHz P3 as my mail server. There may still be
such animals--but I haven't bought a new PC in years.
I work on PCs for a living. I don't think I've come across any as
nice as the Deskpros, but I guess that doesn't mean there aren't any
in production. I've come across some which are nearly as good - I
find the build quality of Dell desktops to be surprisingly adequate
and a customer bought a Fujitsu perhaps 6 months ago which had a
worthy design involving a hinged power supply. Having the drives on
quickly removable rails is common on PCs aimed at the corporate market.
The reason I didn't mention this in my previous post was that I
hadn't seen those PCs when I got my SGI 6 or 7 years ago. Beige boxes
built by the local PC shop - and using the nastiest components - seem
to be much less common now than they were a decade ago and most of
the PCs I see are branded and come from a factory which must produce
hundreds or thousands of PCs each day. Many still use the cheapest
and nastiest components - Packard Hell & eMachines spring to mind -
but others (like Dell & the Fujitsu I mentioned; I think the most
recent HP / Compaq I've seen was a model of perhaps 4 years ago, a
Pentium 4) do start to approach the build-quality of days of yore;
they seem to be manufactured with the corporate market in mind.
But let's face it--today's consumer PCs by and
large are designed for
a year or two of operating life. They're essentially disposable
items. People upgrade even when they don't have to--and sometimes
the upgrade path is forced by software bloat (but I'm not going to
climb onto that horse right now).
Indeed, this is true, although corporate shops don't seem so
affected by this. They do still seem to budget for better quality PCs.
If Apple wants to over-engineer their consumer
products, then good
for them. I predict that the trend won't last, however.
Zane Healy has addressed this very well indeed, and I don't think I
can add to his comments.
Stroller.
12 Aug
12 Aug
10:15 a.m.
At 1:10 PM +0100 8/12/07, Stroller wrote:
To be fair, you probably fancy a MacPro with EIGHT
cores. I know I do!!
Ditto, though I will probably go for a 2 dual core system rather than
the dual quad core when the time comes. That $1500 price jump is a
bit hard to stomach, and even a 4-core system will blow my current
dual 2Ghz G5 tower away. Besides I'll need a nice chunk of change to
beef up the RAM.
From whom else could you get an 8-core desktop
workstation?
I doubt that it'd be very much cheaper!
I don't know what a 8-core desktop from anyone else would cost (I'm
not even sure anyone offers something like it), however, I do know
that a laptop from Dell comperable to the top of the line Mac Book
Pro was about $600US more last November/December when I spec'd them
out for someone.
When I open a Mac I feel the same sensation of quality
workmanship
that I do with old Unix workstations like SGIs & Suns. The screws in
the base of iMacs
I feel it is actually higher at least on the Pro systems than on some
of the more modern Sun hardware I've seen.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
11 Aug
11 Aug
10:32 a.m.
On 11 Aug 2007 at 9:37, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
I think the statement is legitimate. Mac OS X is the
Unixy thing with the
largest installed user base. I would imagine, though I have no figures,
that they are at the top or near the top of the desktop Unix market simply
because of the number of OS X capable Macs out there.
As a Unix old-timer, it seems very strange to talk about "Unix"
without mentioning a command-line interface or any of the supporting
programs that make up the whole system. How does one, on an OS X out
of the box run a shell script? Where in OS X do I find sed or m4 or
awk?
Exactly what makes Unix Unix?
Cheers,
Chuck
10:42 a.m.
[... OS X ...]
As a Unix old-timer, it seems very strange to talk about "Unix"
without mentioning a command-line interface or any of the supporting
programs that make up the whole system. How does one, on an OS X out
of the box run a shell script? Where in OS X do I find sed or m4 or awk?
I don't run OS X, but I once remotely helped someone who did, and, over
an ssh login, it felt like Unix, with some slight oddities (which
became more apparent the deeper you dug, either into sysadmin stuff or
into system programming stuff). Things like sed and awk? I don't
recall looking up the directory, but they were in my path....
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
3:04 p.m.
Mr Ian Primus wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Alternatively, if you 'really want' the Unix experience on a Mac under OSX,
hold down command-S when it boots. Boots into a single-user shell with minimal
system initialisation.
How does
one, on an OS X out
of the box run a shell script? Where in OS X do I
find sed or m4 or
awk?
Applications/Utilities/Terminal
sed, awk, tar, vi, sh, csh, ksh - they're all there.
10:44 a.m.
At 12:32 PM 8/11/2007, Chuck Guzis wrote:
As a Unix old-timer, it seems very strange to talk
about "Unix"
without mentioning a command-line interface or any of the supporting
programs that make up the whole system. How does one, on an OS X out
of the box run a shell script? Where in OS X do I find sed or m4 or
awk?
Of course there's an OS X 'terminal' app for a command line.
And you find it in /usr/bin/sed unless you've moved it.
And you can replace the BSD-y, POSIX-y one with a GNU one.
The desktop GUI is just a program of course, as was X Window.
- John
12:28 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 11 Aug 2007 at 9:37, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
You do realize that OS X "out of the box" has all of those things fairly
easy to find.
Peace... Sridhar
I think the statement is legitimate. Mac OS X is
the Unixy thing with the
largest installed user base. I would imagine, though I have no figures,
that they are at the top or near the top of the desktop Unix market simply
because of the number of OS X capable Macs out there.
As a Unix old-timer, it seems very strange to talk about "Unix"
without mentioning a command-line interface or any of the supporting
programs that make up the whole system. How does one, on an OS X out
of the box run a shell script? Where in OS X do I find sed or m4 or
awk?
Exactly what makes Unix Unix?
12:54 p.m.
Another stupid question (forgive me, I am woefully ignorant about
present-day "state of the Mac" issues:
If OS X is really Unix under the hood, then why do vendors of several
of my high-end applications that are offered in Windoze and OS X
versions all say "We have no plans for a Linux version"? It would
seem to be a pretty easy thing to do.
Cheers,
Chuck
1:20 p.m.
On Saturday 11 August 2007 16:09, William Donzelli wrote:
There are plenty of software companies that sell software that runs on
Linux, and make money.
I'd be suprised if people like Adobe wouldn't all of a sudden have a
large Linux market share if they would just release their various
software with a Linux version.
Oracle and IBM, for two, seem to be making plenty of dough off of
proprietary Linux software (not to mention Novel/SuSE, RedHat, etc, who
sell "enterprise" linux distributions with some proprietary crap
included in it).
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
If OS X is
really Unix under the hood, then why do vendors of
several of my high-end applications that are offered in Windoze and
OS X versions all say "We have no plans for a Linux version"?
Because they want to make money? 
1:23 p.m.
William Donzelli wrote:
Because they don't want to commit to supporting 827 different combinations of
distribution / kernel version / desktop environment, I suspect. 99% of the
time a piece of software will work regardless of the underlying OS, but
vendors no doubt crap themselves about that 1%...
Shame they can't get their act together and make a version for a particular
setup though, then still sell an unsupported flavour of the product for any
other combo (but there's all the negative press that people bitching about
things not working in an unsupported environment generates... sometimes users
are their own worst nightmare)
If OS X is
really Unix under the hood, then why do vendors of several
of my high-end applications that are offered in Windoze and OS X
versions all say "We have no plans for a Linux version"?
Because they want to make money? 
4:57 p.m.
>> If OS X is really Unix under the hood, then
why do vendors of several
>> of my high-end applications that are offered in Windoze and OS X
>> versions all say "We have no plans for a Linux version"?
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Jules Richardson wrote:
Because they don't want to commit to supporting
827 different combinations of
distribution / kernel version / desktop environment, I suspect. 99% of the
time a piece of software will work regardless of the underlying OS, but
vendors no doubt crap themselves about that 1%...
There are only 827 different versions???
How many different versions would they actually need to creats to be able
to declare that they support Linux?
Shame they can't get their act together and make a
version for a particular
setup though, then still sell an unsupported flavour of the product for any
other combo (but there's all the negative press that people bitching about
things not working in an unsupported environment generates... sometimes users
are their own worst nightmare)
Yep.
Users of Linux #828 and above will "tell the world" that the support
sucks.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
1:39 p.m.
I must be very thick today, so you'll need to
explain. Said vendors
already supply both OS X and Windows versions to all purchasers.
Which is actually used is entirely up to the customer.
Well, maybe a bit thick, but since the list rejects HTML code in
messages I could not put a bit red flashing WARNING: JOKE AHEAD signal
up.
The explanation:
There are lots of Linux customers that tend to want all their software
for free. It is part of the culture.
--
Will
2:01 p.m.
On 11 Aug 2007 at 16:39, William Donzelli wrote:
There are lots of Linux customers that tend to want
all their software
for free. It is part of the culture.
I understand. Been there as a vendor in another life.
Learned never to sell to lawyers, cops, gamers or missionaries. All
seem to think that their higher calling justifies piracy. I've got
the email logs to prove it.
The bit about different GUI APIs didn't make much sense to me, seeing
as how these packages also support the Windows GUI--one would expect
that they're already prepared for surprises.
Cheers,
Chuck
13 Aug
13 Aug
8:31 a.m.
On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 16:39 -0400, William Donzelli wrote:
There are lots of Linux customers that tend to want
all their software
for free. It is part of the culture.
Actually, the important part is free as in speech, rather than free as
in beer. I don't mind paying for software, just as I don't mind paying
for any other tools. I want the source code though. I might want to
modify things.
Gordon
11 Aug
11 Aug
2:34 p.m.
Because they
want to make money?
I must be very thick today, so you'll need to explain. Said vendors
already supply both OS X and Windows versions to all purchasers.
Which is actually used is entirely up to the customer.
2:05 p.m.
[...], I can tell you from personal experience that
there is a strong
perception that "all things Linux should be free" - I sold cross
development tools for many years (still do actually), and I've been
asked about Linix versions many times - I don't think I ever was
asked if I'd sell Linux tools, or what they would cost etc... But
many times I got asked "how about free versions for Linux?"
It occurs to me that this phrasing may to an extent be putting cause
and effect the wrong way around: that the sort of person who is
unwilling to pay for software will (tend to) gravitate to Linux, rather
than people feeling (or tending to feel) that if it's for Linux it
therefore should be free.
Of course, there isn't much difference between the two from a pragmatic
vendor point of view. (I also could be totally off base; I have no
data to back up either position, and this speculation really is
speculating in a vacuum in that regard.) The only personal experience
I have is anecdotal; someone I knew created a Windows program, and I
asked if he'd mind if I built a version for non-Windows. He said,
basically, "if it won't eat into Windows sales, feel free".
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
6:05 p.m.
At 4:20 PM -0400 8/11/07, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
Depends on where you work. I know some *VERY* sharp Linux admin's,
and the users aren't that bad. Having said that, I wouldn't want to
be a vendor supporting the company that I work for.
I think people need to remember that you should use the right OS for
the right job. At work, I am responsible for a collection of
Solaris, Windows 2003, and yes, Linux boxes (I also have to deal with
HP-UX and AIX on occasion). My laptop runs Windows, but almost all
of my work is done on Linux. As far as I'm concerned my Desktop is
my VNC session to my Linux workstation, not Windows (I view it as a
semi-intelligent terminal).
Right now I only have one Linux box at home, it is a very nice Core 2
Duo system built for Windows gaming, that I've setup to dual boot
Ubuntu. I must confess I like most of what I've seen in Ubuntu, and
the upgrade I did a while back to the latest version went very
smoothly. Still that system is rarely turned on, and most of my time
at home is spent either on Mac OS X, or OpenVMS. For me, switching
to Mac OS X meant I no longer needed a Linux box running all the
time, as I can do most of what I need now on the Mac.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
I'd be suprised if people like Adobe wouldn't
all of a sudden have a
large Linux market share if they would just release their various
software with a Linux version.
At this time they're one of the main reasons I'm still running on a
Mac. Though Apple keeps improving on iLife, which gives me another
reason to stay. At this point Eudora is probably the key thing
keeping me on the Mac, though as it has been discontinued, how much
longer I'll use it is up in the air.
At 5:05 PM -0400 8/11/07, der Mouse wrote:
It occurs to me that this phrasing may to an extent be
putting cause
and effect the wrong way around: that the sort of person who is
unwilling to pay for software will (tend to) gravitate to Linux, rather
than people feeling (or tending to feel) that if it's for Linux it
therefore should be free.
Interesting point, it also helps explain why I've gravitated away
from Linux. I have no problem paying for software,
though if I can
find a freeware solution that will do what I need I'm often
happy. I
find the attitude of the Linux "community" to be more than a little
irritating at times.
At 3:16 PM -0700 8/11/07, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Is that another Apple/Microsoft difference? Microsoft
developers
spend a lot of money (i.e. paying for MSDN privleges) keeping up to
date on Windows developments.
To the best of my knowledge the Apple Developer program is no longer
as affordable as it used to be. I dropped out after I got married as
they *significantly* raised the price about that time. Besides now
I'm no longer developing software for the Mac, except for the
occasional Perl script for personal use.
At 5:38 PM -0400 8/11/07, William Donzelli wrote:
Just an observation:
> 1) The GPL scares a lot of vendors spitless.
Can't say as I blame them.
> 2) Linux is, almost by definition, a rolling
beta.
Sadly true, however, this is not as bad as it used to be if you're
running an Enterprise version.
3) Linux users
and admins are the world's worst customers.
These three reasons are pretty much why the mainframe folks can laugh
justifiably at the Linux crowd. 4) This last
will get me flamed, but it's a fact; Linux is a miserable
excuse for a desktop OS, for all the above reasons. Its sole
justification is that it beats hell out of Windows.
And these days, it is getting hard to even say "beats the hell out
of". These are not the days of Windows 95 anymore - it is pretty
stable and easy to use. And the Windows GUI was never all that bad
after 2.0 (yes, TWO) - it sure "beats the hell out of" some of the
nightmares seen in the Unix world.
Cripes - I see another Windows/Linux war coming up on the list. I
better fold up camp...
6:16 p.m.
[...], I can
tell you from personal experience that there is a strong
perception that "all things Linux should be free" - I sold cross
development tools for many years (still do actually), and I've been
asked about Linix versions many times - I don't think I ever was
asked if I'd sell Linux tools, or what they would cost etc... But
many times I got asked "how about free versions for Linux?"
It occurs to me that this phrasing may to an extent be putting cause
and effect the wrong way around: that the sort of person who is
unwilling to pay for software will (tend to) gravitate to Linux, rather
than people feeling (or tending to feel) that if it's for Linux it
therefore should be free. Of course, there isn't much difference between the
two from a pragmatic
vendor point of view. (I also could be totally off base; I have no
data to back up either position, and this speculation really is
speculating in a vacuum in that regard.) The only personal experience
I have is anecdotal; someone I knew created a Windows program, and I
asked if he'd mind if I built a version for non-Windows. He said,
basically, "if it won't eat into Windows sales, feel free".
In my case, I would have had to do the development, endure the support
costs, and I do believe it would have impacted other sales, because my
tools are used in software development for non-windows platforms - many
of the people in my market did (and do) run Linux boxes. I didn't mind
when existing customers said "I would like to see a Linux version", but
I got lots of "how about free linux versions" from people I'd never
heard of.
And I'm probably more liberal than many vendors - I often give my stuff
away. I recognize that many people who did "pirate" it would not have
purchased it and I'm OK with that (Unlike companies who claim "we lost
$$$ million last year due to piracy" - counting every copy made as
if it would have been a guaranteed sale). In an ideal world, everyone
would pay what it was worth to them... I just didn't have the time to
do freebies, and I did not see a revenue stream worth the effort...
Dave
--
dave06a (at) Dave Dunfield
dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools: www.dunfield.com
com Collector of vintage computing equipment:
http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/index.html
1:16 p.m.
On Saturday 11 August 2007 15:54, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Another stupid question (forgive me, I am woefully
ignorant about
present-day "state of the Mac" issues:
If OS X is really Unix under the hood, then why do vendors of several
of my high-end applications that are offered in Windoze and OS X
versions all say "We have no plans for a Linux version"? It would
seem to be a pretty easy thing to do.
Because the graphical windowing systems for each are nothing like each
other? MacOS X has the capibility to run Xwindows programs, but it's
more of a compatibilty feature. Native OSX programs are written for
Aqua or whatever Apple calls its PDF-derived windowing environment.
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
1:23 p.m.
Another stupid question (forgive me, I am woefully
ignorant about
present-day "state of the Mac" issues:
If OS X is really Unix under the hood, then why do
vendors of several
of my high-end applications that are offered in Windoze and OS X
versions all say "We have no plans for a Linux version"? It would
seem to be a pretty easy thing to do.
I don't *know*, of course, since I have no inside information about any
such vendors. But some plausible answers come to mind:
(1) Because "high-end" applications usually depend on a lot more than
just the "Unix" in OS X. They typically depend on Aqua as well (that's
the fancy - and closed, and proprietary - GUI layer). Porting them
(too often, this really means rewriting them) for Linux is likely to be
difficult, especially since "Linux" is not a single thing when it comes
to higher-end graphics - there's far more variability in graphics
hardware under Linux than across the entire OSX-supporting Mac line.
(2) Because a substantial part of the cost, to the vendor, of a Linux
version is in not the creating of it, but the customer support for it.
(3) Because they have limited resources and have chosen to invest them
in the Windows and Mac versions, expecting higher ROI there.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
1:27 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Another stupid question (forgive me, I am woefully
ignorant about
present-day "state of the Mac" issues:
If OS X is really Unix under the hood, then why do vendors of several
of my high-end applications that are offered in Windoze and OS X
versions all say "We have no plans for a Linux version"? It would
seem to be a pretty easy thing to do.
Well, it depends on which API they leveraged to write the application.
If it's Cocoa (which it probably is...), then it'll be different enough
from your usual UNIXy stuff that porting will be a
problem. Same with
Carbon, which is an API which allows one to write software that
works on
both OS 9 and OS X transparently.
Then there are POSIX and Java, for which the implications point to it
being very possible to port the software easily, but make it difficult
to use lots of OS X-specific features.
Peace... Sridhar
1:29 p.m.
At 02:54 PM 8/11/2007, Chuck Guzis wrote:
If OS X is really Unix under the hood, then why do
vendors of several
of my high-end applications that are offered in Windoze and OS X
versions all say "We have no plans for a Linux version"? It would
seem to be a pretty easy thing to do.
Obviously, each platform's desktop GUI has a different API. You might
be able to find some similarities, of course, but there's always a
gotcha or two. It's one thing to be "able" to make a Linux version,
it's another entirely to want to develop, market, sell and support it.
Who'd buy it? :-) Enterprise Linux is one thing, fanboy another.
Once upon a time, my company's product was sold on several platforms:
Windows of several CPUs, SGI, Windows, 32-bit DOS extender and
waning Amiga. We had a Linux version, too, but we only used it
in-house because the debugging tools were better in several areas.
We licensed parts under Mac, too, but never sold it to consumers that way.
- John
1:52 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Chuck Guzis once stated:
Another stupid question (forgive me, I am woefully
ignorant about
present-day "state of the Mac" issues:
If OS X is really Unix under the hood, then why do vendors of several
of my high-end applications that are offered in Windoze and OS X
versions all say "We have no plans for a Linux version"? It would
seem to be a pretty easy thing to do.
In the mid-90s, I was hired to help port the MajorBBS from DOS to Unix
[1][2]. While the initial work was done under Linux (0.99? 1.0?)
Galaticomm had no plans of actually *selling* a Linux version (SunOS, yup.
HP? Yup. Linux? Forget it). The rational was: We can sell a Unix
version for $3,000, since that's what the Unix market will bear (and expects
to see as a price [3]). Also, if you run Unix, you know what you are doing.
What Galacticomm was afraid of were DOS users who had heard of Linux, and
wanted to switch for both price reasons (Linux was free) and performance
(less mucking with CONFIG.SYS, AUTOEXEC.BAT and the various memory drivers)
and then call them for support issues beyond the scope of what they could
handle ("How do I install Linux?").
The pressure go great enough that Galacticomm finally did release a
version for Linux, then got slammed on the price (the full $3,000 Unix
price), mainly from DOS users who couldn't understand the price
differential [4].
Then again, selling BBS software in the age of the Internet was a losing
proposition [5] and the company couldn't transision itself (severe denial at
that place, let me tell you).
-spc (Probably last used a BBS in 1991 ... )
[1] http://www.kenmaier.com/gcomm/mbbsunix.htm
[2] I only lasted two weeks. I left (or was let go, depending upon who
you ask) because I didn't agree with their coding standards.
[3] If we sell it for the DOS price---$300, then no one that runs Unix
will buy it because it's a "toy" program.
[4] A few years later I worked for a company that sold a database
conversion program for a range of computers, from PCs all the way to
mainframes (it was a cool mainframe). The price---anywhere from
$1,500 (for the PC version) to $50,000 (for the mainframe version).
The kicker? It was the same codebase for all versions.
[5] Once I saw the Internet in 1989, I lost all interest in BBSes, as I
didn't see the point any more. I was probably a bit ahead of the
curve back then.
2:13 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Another stupid question (forgive me, I am woefully
ignorant about
present-day "state of the Mac" issues:
If OS X is really Unix under the hood, then why do vendors of several
of my high-end applications that are offered in Windoze and OS X
versions all say "We have no plans for a Linux version"? It would
seem to be a pretty easy thing to do.
Several of the people who have already responded have named valid
reasons. We support a bunch of Tivoli and IBM software on AIX and
Linux, and I worked with IBM a lot in the late 90's when they were
ramping up their Linux presence, so I've gotten to hear a lot of vendors
and developers discuss this.
1) The GPL scares a lot of vendors spitless. IBM had a *hard* time
getting any Linux software out the door, including and especially kernel
code, for many years. 90-120 days in development, 9-15 months in Legal
getting signed off. IBM paid a lot of their developers for a lot of
time spent on backdoor projects - stuff that was contributed and
copyrighted under the individual's name.
2) Linux is, almost by definition, a rolling beta. It's a nightmare to
get software certified and supportable on a current revision of any
distribution, much less any large subset of the current major
distributions. RedHat started breaking that barrier with RH Advanced
Server and now RH Enterprise Linux, and SuSE/Novell have followed suit.
The main selling feature of RHAS2.1 was that RedHat committed to 1
release per 18-24 months, and a stabilized kernel version within the
release. That single feature sold them into an astounding number of
datacenters and grabbed commitments from major ISVs withing weeks of its
release.
3) Linux users and admins are the world's worst customers. I train
them, I support them, I clean up their messes, and I am one, so I can
say that with confidence. Accustomed to getting what they think they
need for free, they're more prone to piracy than most. Very few have
any formal training, so most have no clue how little they really know.
And, since everything and the virtual dog is out there for hacking,
including the OS itself, you have NO idea what they're actually running
till you've done some expensive discovery.
4) This last will get me flamed, but it's a fact; Linux is a miserable
excuse for a desktop OS, for all the above reasons. Its sole
justification is that it beats hell out of Windows. I ran Linux as my
desktop and mobile OS from 96 or 97 till 2003, but when I saw OS X run
in 2003, I sold some other toys to buy a G4 and have never looked back.
For end-user apps like Adobe-ware, Adobe is very correct in their
assumption that almost anyone who needs their product, can afford it,
*and* is willing to pay for it is very likely not running Linux. Yes,
there are exceptions. No, they are not common, and no, the existence of
commercial end-user applications will not change that.
Doc
2:38 p.m.
Just an observation:
1) The GPL scares a lot of vendors spitless.
2) Linux is, almost by definition, a rolling beta.
3) Linux users and admins are the world's worst customers.
These three reasons are pretty much why the mainframe folks can laugh
justifiably at the Linux crowd.
4) This last will get me flamed, but it's a fact;
Linux is a miserable
excuse for a desktop OS, for all the above reasons. Its sole
justification is that it beats hell out of Windows.
And these days, it is getting hard to even say "beats the hell out
of". These are not the days of Windows 95 anymore - it is pretty
stable and easy to use. And the Windows GUI was never all that bad
after 2.0 (yes, TWO) - it sure "beats the hell out of" some of the
nightmares seen in the Unix world.
Cripes - I see another Windows/Linux war coming up on the list. I
better fold up camp...
--
Will
5:39 p.m.
Doc Shipley wrote:
...
including the OS itself, you have NO idea what
they're actually running
till you've done some expensive discovery.
The trick is to charge for service, not for a license.
I'm only interested in open software, not free software. I'm happy
to pay for open software. That way I can fix it when it's broken or
breaks.
I make a lot of money every year on linux, but I do it by
offering a service, not by locking up the rights to my code.
RMS's idea is about access to the source code.
-brad
5:31 p.m.
At 12:54 PM -0700 8/11/07, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Another stupid question (forgive me, I am woefully
ignorant about
present-day "state of the Mac" issues:
If OS X is really Unix under the hood, then why do vendors of several
of my high-end applications that are offered in Windoze and OS X
versions all say "We have no plans for a Linux version"? It would
seem to be a pretty easy thing to do.
While Mac OS X has a UNIX layer under the hood, the GUI is where it
is less than compatible. While X-Windows is available, and so can
run UNIX GUI applications, most Mac users don't even have it
installed. Most Mac applications are written for the native Mac OS X
GUI.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
12 Aug
12 Aug
10:53 a.m.
On Aug 11, 2007, at 8:31 PM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
While Mac OS X has a UNIX layer under the hood, the
GUI is where it
is less than compatible. While X-Windows is available, and so can
run UNIX GUI applications, most Mac users don't even have it
installed.
That amazes me...at any one time I've got a half dozen X windows
open. I guess not everyone who has a Mac uses it as a "high-end UNIX
workstation", though pretty much everyone I know does.
OS X has been my primary desktop platform for about five years
now. Before that, I've always had a modern (i.e., not x86...DEC,
Sun, then SGI) UNIX workstation on my desk since X10R4 (yes X TEN
release four) was current. OS X (with X11) was easily good enough
*as a UNIX workstation* to replace my IRIX machine.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Farewell Ophelia, 9/22/1991 - 7/25/2007
11 Aug
11 Aug
1:02 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
OS 8 and 9 are what are referred to as "Classic" Mac OS. It's the one
you're familiar with, all GUI, all cooperative-multitasking, no command
prompt. They're about as different as they come.
OS X is Mach with BSD and a Mac-ish GUI on top. I'd suggest that you
should try it. It's actually a reasonably enjoyable experience. It's
more "NeXTstep" than "System".
Peace... Sridhar
You do realize
that OS X "out of the box" has all of those things fairly
easy to find.
Well, my ignorance comes from being too "vintage" in my Mac
endeavors. I certainly didn't see any of that stuff in OS 9 or 8.
10:06 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
This from today's New York Times story at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/technology/11novell.html about SCO
losing its claims to ownership of Unix:
"The Unix operating system, which has become popular with some
independent-minded PC users as well as in the corporate world, was
developed by AT&T researchers at Bell Labs beginning in 1969. During
the 1970s, the operating system became highly influential in academic
computing and in computer science departments.
In the ?80s, it had a significant impact in the computer workstation
and minicomputer markets, although it never gained a significant
foothold in the personal computer business until Steven P. Jobs
brought a version of Unix with him when he returned to Apple Computer
in 1997. Some PC makers have begun to offer versions of Linux instead
of Microsoft?s Windows operating systems."
What does Apple and Steve Jobs have to do with Unix?
Presumably they're referring to Job's bringing NextOS with him when he
returned to Apple (mid 90s). NextOS (late 80s) was based on the Mach kernel
with a Unixy interface layer (Carnegie-Mellon U., mid 80s). At Apple it became
Mac-OSX (late 90s), which is currently running on millions of Macs. (On
Mac-OSX you can actually run Unix shells in line-at-a-time terminal windows,
as well as boot the machine into single user mode and get a simple
line-at-a-time unix shell, no graphical user-interface involved.)
mid 80s late 80s mid 90s late 90s
------- -------- ------ --------
Mach kernel with --> NextOS --> Jobs returns --> MacOS-X
with Unixy interface to Apple
It's a rather narrow rendition of Unix history.
6341
days inactive
6343
days old
49 comments
21 participants
participants (21)
-
brad＠heeltoe.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
classiccmp.org＠stellar.eclipse.co.uk -
dave06a＠dunfield.com -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
gordon＠gjcp.net -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
hilpert＠cs.ubc.ca -
ian_primus＠yahoo.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
jvdg＠sparcpark.net -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
spc＠conman.org -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com