Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code - CP/M

This is a discussion on Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code - CP/M ; *Glen Herrmannsfeldt* wrote on Fri, 08-11-07 00:24: >I believe that there are free readers (read only) for Word and Excel, There are in a limited way for older versions. They can's save as simple text or anything and you can't ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 101 to 120 of 120

Thread: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

  1. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    *Glen Herrmannsfeldt* wrote on Fri, 08-11-07 00:24:
    >I believe that there are free readers (read only) for Word and Excel,


    There are in a limited way for older versions. They can's save as
    simple text or anything and you can't even copy and paste as you can
    from PDF.

    Open Office is a special case. I am expressly forbidden to get at
    protected or hidden content by disassembly and reverse engineering. The
    music and film industries have managed to get specific laws enacted.
    Thus reading Microsoft.doc using OpenOffice is actually illegal. Of
    course there is a de facto higher law all courts adhere to: If it helps
    Microsoft it's legal, if it hurts them it's forbidden.


  2. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    > If you're going to make the socialistic argument
    > against capitalistic goals of programmers then
    > are you also also goint to point out the huge
    > disadvantages of software written by committee? *


    I honestly tried to understand what exactly you mean but I couldn't.
    If your "commitee" means the board of managers that **** up everything
    that is good, having arrived from talented programmers, then I agree
    but that's a problem with capitalism, not socialism.

  3. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code


    "Greegor" wrote ...

    >> Of course from a moral perspective, the dollar amount is immaterial; "Thou
    >> Shalt Not Steal " does not come with a value disclaimer, does it?

    >
    > I jaywalk often.


    I don't think the ten commandments apply to jaywalking..... ;-)
    --
    Best regards,

    Sam Gillett

    Change is inevitable,
    except from vending machines!



  4. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Sam Gillett ha scritto:
    > "Greegor" wrote ...
    >
    >>> Of course from a moral perspective, the dollar amount is immaterial; "Thou
    >>> Shalt Not Steal " does not come with a value disclaimer, does it?

    >> I jaywalk often.

    >
    > I don't think the ten commandments apply to jaywalking..... ;-)


    especially in Italy, where everyone on foot is *expected* to jaywalk....

    Best regards from Italy,
    Dott. Piergiorgio.

  5. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code



    Peter Hill wrote:
    > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:24:42 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
    > wrote:
    >
    > and it is a somewhat gray area (if I purchase a DVD, I
    > >absolutely should be able to transfer it to my PC, my iPod, etc., despite what
    > >the MPAA may desire).

    >
    > If you buy an iMusic track for your iPod, it's clearly intended for
    > one iPod user. Should you buy a public performance license to play it
    > though a docking device in a car with 3 of your family and friends as
    > an audience? Or at a party in your own home? Or to a firiend on
    > splitter earphones.
    >
    > I'm sure the MPAA would like to say YES.

    The MPAA is the trade group for motion pictures. They probably don't
    care about people making multiple copies of their music. It might hurt
    them indirectly, since people might go to music which is no drm free
    CDs instead of to movies which are on DRMed DVDs though.

  6. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code


    > The irony is that anti-piracy measures tend to hurt legitimate users
    > more than illegitimate users, since illegitimate users typically use a
    > hacked version with the anti-piracy protection (which can be quite
    > troublesome) removed. For example I don't mind paying for a DVD, but
    > most DVD's I can buy here have nag screens that tell you not to copy,
    > not show the DVD in public...etc which takes minutes (you cannot skip
    > them) before you get to the main menu. It can easily take 5 minutes to
    > get to actually see the movie. However when download a movie all the
    > annoyances usually removed and I can watch the movie within seconds.
    > Some anti-piracy measures almost force one to use a pirated version.


    You can "fast-forward" through it, which means it is still playing it,
    but for less time, just like you could on a VHS.

  7. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    *dean.menezes* wrote on Sat, 08-11-08 14:39:
    >You can "fast-forward" through it,


    No, or at least not on most players.

  8. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code



    dean.menezes@gmail.com wrote:

    >> The irony is that anti-piracy measures tend to hurt legitimate users
    >> more than illegitimate users, since illegitimate users typically use a
    >> hacked version with the anti-piracy protection (which can be quite
    >> troublesome) removed. For example I don't mind paying for a DVD, but
    >> most DVD's I can buy here have nag screens that tell you not to copy,
    >> not show the DVD in public...etc which takes minutes (you cannot skip
    >> them) before you get to the main menu. It can easily take 5 minutes to
    >> get to actually see the movie. However when download a movie all the
    >> annoyances usually removed and I can watch the movie within seconds.
    >> Some anti-piracy measures almost force one to use a pirated version.

    >
    >You can "fast-forward" through it, which means it is still playing it,
    >but for less time, just like you could on a VHS.


    On most commercial DVDs you cannot fast forward through the FBI
    and Interpol warnings.


  9. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code


    Group: comp.os.cpm Date: Thu, Nov 6, 2008, 9:12am (CST-2) From:
    RAM@regnirps.com (Charlie*Springer)

    script:

    >Wrong. The man who invented the
    >LASER fought for years and won.


    IMO the one who invented the LASER fought for years and lost half. The
    one who _didn't_ invent the LASER fought for years and won half.

    Tho' it may not be relevent to the discussion at hand.

    salaam,
    dowcom

    To e-mail me, add the character zero to "dowcom". i.e.:
    dowcom(zero)(at)webtv(dot)net.


  10. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code



    "Guy Macon" wrote in message
    news:79SdnRJxvNaNj5rU4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
    >
    >
    >
    > I am curious as to whether any written-by-Bill-Gates, original-
    > source, not-a-later-disassembly, source code for any BASIC on
    > any system has ever been published. I would very much like
    > to examine the coding style, commenting philosophy, indentation
    > scheme, etc. that Bill Gates used when he was writing BASIC
    > interpreters.


    You must win some kind of award for a long series of replies!

    Does anyone know what the actual record is on Usenet?

    Tom Lake


  11. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Tom Lake wrote:
    (snip)

    > You must win some kind of award for a long series of replies!


    > Does anyone know what the actual record is on Usenet?


    http://bytes.com/forum/threadnav6579-4-10.html

    says it is 2859, though it might be longer by now.

    -- glen


  12. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Nov 11, 9:21*pm, "Tom Lake" wrote:
    > "Guy Macon" wrote in message
    >
    > news:79SdnRJxvNaNj5rU4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
    >
    >
    >
    > > I am curious as to whether any written-by-Bill-Gates, original-
    > > source, not-a-later-disassembly, source code for any BASIC on
    > > any system has ever been published. *I would very much like
    > > to examine the coding style, commenting philosophy, indentation
    > > scheme, etc. that Bill Gates used when he was writing BASIC
    > > interpreters.

    >
    > You must win some kind of award for a long series of replies!
    >
    > Does anyone know what the actual record is on Usenet?
    >


    See alt.folklore.computers, where replies to a single thread can be in
    the thousands!


  13. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code




    Tom Lake wrote:
    >
    >Guy Macon wrot...
    >>
    >> I am curious as to whether any written-by-Bill-Gates, original-
    >> source, not-a-later-disassembly, source code for any BASIC on
    >> any system has ever been published. I would very much like
    >> to examine the coding style, commenting philosophy, indentation
    >> scheme, etc. that Bill Gates used when he was writing BASIC
    >> interpreters.

    >
    >You must win some kind of award for a long series of replies!
    >
    >Does anyone know what the actual record is on Usenet?


    It's a pointless record, because anyone with a posting can
    create a thread s long as he wishes.

    As for threads with actual content, the thread titled
    "What are *you* wearing today?" in alt.fashion is generally
    considered the largest: 3393 posts and 209 authors as of 2004
    when Google Groups choked on it.

    --
    Guy Macon



  14. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Tom Lake wrote:
    > "Guy Macon" wrote in message
    > news:79SdnRJxvNaNj5rU4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I am curious as to whether any written-by-Bill-Gates, original-
    >> source, not-a-later-disassembly, source code for any BASIC on
    >> any system has ever been published. I would very much like
    >> to examine the coding style, commenting philosophy, indentation
    >> scheme, etc. that Bill Gates used when he was writing BASIC
    >> interpreters.

    >
    > You must win some kind of award for a long series of replies!
    >
    > Does anyone know what the actual record is on Usenet?
    >
    > Tom Lake


    It's almost certainly only a drop in the bucket for USENET, but it also is
    almost certainly a record for the various BASIC groups to which this thread
    has been posted.

    I've come so close to unsubscribing to these NG's so many times, and this is
    by far the most alive they've ever been since I've been here.



  15. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Tom Lake schreef:
    >
    >
    > "Guy Macon" wrote in message
    > news:79SdnRJxvNaNj5rU4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I am curious as to whether any written-by-Bill-Gates, original-
    >> source, not-a-later-disassembly, source code for any BASIC on
    >> any system has ever been published. I would very much like
    >> to examine the coding style, commenting philosophy, indentation
    >> scheme, etc. that Bill Gates used when he was writing BASIC
    >> interpreters.

    >
    > You must win some kind of award for a long series of replies!


    Ever looked at the anual CBM-Sinclair flamewar?

    > Does anyone know what the actual record is on Usenet?


    I don't know but I have seen threads that were much, much bigger than
    this one.

  16. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Joel Koltner expounded in
    news:iGoQk.254082$3I2.13352@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com:

    > "Dombo" wrote in message
    > news:49120d81$0$24411$5fc3050@news.tiscali.nl...
    >> If it would be impossible to pirate the software people might be more
    >> inclined to buy/use cheaper alternatives.

    >
    > Good point... the vast majority of people who pirate something like
    > Microsoft Office would be perfectly well served by 100% free
    > alternatives like OpenOffice, IMO.
    >
    > I don't *like* Microsoft product activation for Windows/Office, but I
    > don't find it particularly onerous either: I've never had a problem
    > getting valid installations activated, and thereafter they have "just
    > worked." ...


    Collectors of old equipment, O/S and apps are going to have to hack that
    eventually. When MS stops supporting these things, there will be nothing
    around for activation of software on museum pieces. But for me
    personally, I don't care about a MS museum anyway. ;-)

    Warren.

  17. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    I saw many bookkeepers run bookkeeping programs for DOS (still
    developed!). With PC emulators such as DOSbox, VMware or M$ Virtual
    PC, it's acceptable but to use obsolete _hardware_ is a bad idea. If I
    were your previous employer, I would try to get rid of those certain
    kinds of printers, e.g. by coding a virtual printer driver that
    captures the output of the software and renders it into PostScript,
    PDF or something more general.

  18. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Hi Joe,

    > PC, it's acceptable but to use obsolete _hardware_ is a bad idea.


    I had to have a small giggle over this considering the group it's posted in


    Lance



  19. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code



    "Lance Lyon" wrote in message
    news:491e427e$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
    > Hi Joe,
    >
    >> PC, it's acceptable but to use obsolete _hardware_ is a bad idea.

    >
    > I had to have a small giggle over this considering the group it's posted in
    >


    Of course he meant something like,
    "to use obsolete _hardware_ [for a business application] is a bad idea"

    Tom Lake

  20. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    > > to use obsolete _hardware_ is a bad idea.
    >
    > I had to have a small giggle over this considering the group it's posted in
    >


    I know, I know, :-) but I think Commodore hardware doesn't become
    obsolete (or get broken) as fast as PC hardware does. Probably,
    because of its (personal, not financial) value and that it's not being
    further developed anymore.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6