In article ,
Thierry Dussuet writes:
> On 2006-12-16, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> Being a hobbyist does not give you the right to use someone else's
>> property. I have a friend who is a TV show addict. Can he start
>> using your VCD to tape shows, without your permission, of course.
>
> That's ok, it just sits around else :-)
>
> I think the problem is not that people want to steal Mentec's licenses but
> rather that most don't have the capital to pay a "real" license.
> Since they are ready to pay a smaller fee, as the VMS Hobbyist program has
> shown, I think they _would_ make more profits if they were allowed to just hand
> a copy of the distribution media or allow to copy it.

Most of my students are not willing to pay $180 for their Chem text book.
Some have a real hard time affording it. So, would that make it OK for
them to Xerox someone else's book? How about if they send the publisher
$10?

Why do people insist that the rules for computer software should be
different than they are for other forms of IP? The value of an item
is not set by what the buyer is willing or able to pay. It is set by
the owner of the IP. If you can negotiate a better price, fine, but
the owner has no responsibility to do so and if he chooses not to it
certainly doesn't give you the right to just take it. Knowing how
they have been treated in the past and the fact that this attitude has
not changed no matter how much some people have pointed out its errors,
I would not be at all surprised if, when Mentec finally decides to end
the commercial life of these OSes, they just destroy all copies of source
and object just because of the contempt they probably h old for the
hobbyist community. A sad comentary.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
> Most of my students are not willing to pay $180 for their Chem text book.
> Some have a real hard time affording it. So, would that make it OK for
> them to Xerox someone else's book? How about if they send the publisher
> $10?
>
> Why do people insist that the rules for computer software should be
> different than they are for other forms of IP? The value of an item
> is not set by what the buyer is willing or able to pay. It is set by
> the owner of the IP. If you can negotiate a better price, fine, but
> the owner has no responsibility to do so and if he chooses not to it
> certainly doesn't give you the right to just take it. Knowing how
> they have been treated in the past and the fact that this attitude has
> not changed no matter how much some people have pointed out its errors,
> I would not be at all surprised if, when Mentec finally decides to end
> the commercial life of these OSes, they just destroy all copies of source
> and object just because of the contempt they probably h old for the
> hobbyist community. A sad comentary.
>
> bill
>

C'mon Bill, a bit of a dodgy argument in this case. Fact: Hobbyists are
interested in running old dec os's for amusement or interest, not for
commercial gain. As for Mentec, no-one seems to be sure if they are even
interested in the product anymore. If, for example, I send an email to
Mentec and they either fail to reply, or tell me that they no longer
sell the product or support it or even that they don't know what i'm
talking about and / or no, you can't have it for free either. The
copyright still applies, but the product is effectively abandoned and no
longer available at all except by using existing media out there in the
field.

In this case, what do hobbyists do ?. If the product has effectively
been abandoned by it's owner, it may be technically illegal to run it,
but is anyone likely to care, ?. Of course, we would all like to live
within the law, but if a vendor is being intentionally obstructive,
there's a reasonable argument for just doing it anyway, especially if no
loss is generated for any of the interested parties.

I run Ultrix 3.1 here perfectly legally on an 11/53 and have no real
time at present to play with that or pursue other pdp interests, but it
would be good to have a definitive answer from Mentec as to the
product's status in terms of licensing, can we or can't we ?...

Chris

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> Being a hobbyist does not give you the right to use someone else's
> property. I have a friend who is a TV show addict. Can he start
> using your VCD to tape shows, without your permission, of course.
> I am beginning to think maybe the RIAA is right!!
>
> bill

I don't disagree with the fact that we have no RIGHTS to use the old
stuff, I'm just saying that maybe the new owners of Mentec will be more
willing to give us that PRIVILEGE than the former owners... If they
don't that will be sad, but that's life.

In article ,
ChrisQuayle writes:
>
> Why do you get in such a lather about this ?. Methinks you protesteth
> too much :-).

Well, for one reason because being one of those who will not use
software illegally I was directly affected by Mentec's stopping
work on a Hobbyist License. I don't protest, I tell it like it is.
I have actually seen software piracy cases and was even notified
in one case that I might be called to testify in court about it.

> I suppose all the software you have ever used, even for
> testing, has been properly licenced, hasn't it.

Of course it has. Why is that so hard to understand? And, I have
fought a constant battle to keep all of the machines under my service
at the University in the same state to include fighting with professors
and students who "just want to install it for a few days". Not in my
lab!!

> I'm not saying we should
> just take the law into our own hands, but it would be nice to have some
> indication.

Indication of what? Mentec has been quite clear. No Hobbyist License.
What further indication do you want?

> My rule on licenced software is that it's ok to install for
> evaluation.

And the courts don't agree with you. You have on those rights granted to
you by the owner. If he doesn't explicitly allow that then it is illegal
and immoral. But I know I am not going to change your mind or your behavior.
Court could, however.

> That is, is it worth paying for ?. If so, I buy a copy if
> affordable, otherwise it doesn't get used and I find a substitute. It
> may not be following the letter of the law, but certainly the spirit in
> "valuable ip" terms.

No, it doesn't follow the letter or the "spirit" of the law (whatever
that is supposed to be). It is just plain wrong.

>
> In the absence of a clear yes or no, one might think (yes, maybe
> wrongly) that they don't care about hobbyist use, but at the same time
> don't want to give carte blanche, as this in iteslf would require quite
> a lot of effort and expense on their part to frame the necessary
> documentation.

You seem a bit confused here. What they have not done is say that
hobbyists can use it. That's waht you want. Quite the contrary,
by dropping all negotiations for a hobbyist license they have very
plainly said, "No". Unfortunately, it seems the hobbyist community
can't hear anythng if it isn't "Yes". ANd they are never going to
hear that.

> Why should they - they may have originally bought the ip,
> but would guess that it's getting to the commercially valueless stage by
> now,

And you would be wrong. I personally know of a lot of people still using
(and paying for) it commercially. Just because they don't advertise in
PC World doesn't mean it is dead. How about VMS? Is it also abandoned?
I just read a note from someone who has posted a cash reward for anyone
who can show him a single VMS advertising in the major IT Press. He
specifically mentioned that up to this point, no one has claimed it.
Does that mean VMS is "getting to the commercially valueless stage" and
would be alright to just take it if there wasn't a hobbyist program?

> so they don't won't want to spend any more resources on it, even to
> give it away. I wouldn't think they could be bothered setting up a
> hobbyits license either. PDP is not core business and the financial
> return negligable. Net result, systems in limbo.

But that is your opinion with no basis in fact. They still sell it and
maintain it. They just don't include you in the distribution for the
memoes. How short-sighted of them....

>
> You say commercial licenses are still available - any idea what these
> cost,

Yeah, more than you would be willing to pay, I am sure. But I don't
work for Mentec so I am not going to give you a quote.

> or do Mentec not answer calls on the subject anymore ?.

I have had dealings with them within the past year. As, I am sure, have
the many people who still actively license the products they sell.

> The other
> question would be, what pre Mentec versions can we run legally, if any ?...

On real hardware none. There are some who say that the current versions
of SIMH are covered by the license Bob Supnik (I believe) arranged with
them several years ago. I am not sure as I don't think current versions
of SIMH meet the definition of an Emulator in the License. But I will
defer to Bob on this as he negotiated it and probably has a much better
understanding of what the Agreement actually meant.


As I said above, I am sure nothing I say will change your mind or your
actions. But, I respect Mentec's IP and I will actively attempt to
dispel the strange nothions that frequently pop up here claiming that
this software is up for grabs and hobbyists are free to do what they
please with it. Who knows, maybe at some point I will convince enough
people that Mentec will see a change int he general attitude of the
PDP-11 hobbyist communty and will be willing to re-visit the whole
hobbyist license idea. Or maybe I just spent too much time reading
Don Quioxte when I was younger!!

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article ,
> ChrisQuayle writes:
>
>>Why do you get in such a lather about this ?. Methinks you protesteth
>>too much :-).
>
>
> Well, for one reason because being one of those who will not use
> software illegally I was directly affected by Mentec's stopping
> work on a Hobbyist License. I don't protest, I tell it like it is.
> I have actually seen software piracy cases and was even notified
> in one case that I might be called to testify in court about it.
>


If you have been doing most of the work to try to get hobbyist license,
then I can see why you would be annoyed about the attitude that says
everything should free etc. It's an abuse of any possible good will that
might exist otherwise. Problem is that the tendency is towards open
source software, even solaris is open source now, perhaps sets a
precedent in some minds that everything should be, when in fact the real
world depends on revenue to survive.

What's that saying ? - the universe is absolutely fair and everything
must be paid or accounted for in the end...

Chris

In article <1166293437.456616.117400@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.c om>,
"madcrow" wrote:
>
>Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> Being a hobbyist does not give you the right to use someone else's
>> property. I have a friend who is a TV show addict. Can he start
>> using your VCD to tape shows, without your permission, of course.
>> I am beginning to think maybe the RIAA is right!!
>>
>> bill
>
>I don't disagree with the fact that we have no RIGHTS to use the old
>stuff, I'm just saying that maybe the new owners of Mentec will be more
>willing to give us that PRIVILEGE than the former owners... If they
>don't that will be sad, but that's life.

Then pay for it. Make it worth Mentec's interests to offer that
kind of license.

/BAH

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
> In article <1166293437.456616.117400@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.c om>,
> "madcrow" wrote:
>
>>Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>>Being a hobbyist does not give you the right to use someone else's
>>>property. I have a friend who is a TV show addict. Can he start
>>>using your VCD to tape shows, without your permission, of course.
>>>I am beginning to think maybe the RIAA is right!!
>>>
>>>bill
>>
>>I don't disagree with the fact that we have no RIGHTS to use the old
>>stuff, I'm just saying that maybe the new owners of Mentec will be more
>>willing to give us that PRIVILEGE than the former owners... If they
>>don't that will be sad, but that's life.
>
>
> Then pay for it. Make it worth Mentec's interests to offer that
> kind of license.
>
> /BAH

To do that, we need to get some critical mass together. Assuming each
hobbyist was willing to pay, say $100 for the right to run rsx or rt11
on old hardware, how many would be needed to make it attractive to Mentec ?.

The problem with stuff done just for interest is that the mindset is
usually shoe string or no cost at all...

Chris

ChrisQuayle schrieb:

>
> The problem with stuff done just for interest is that the mindset is
> usually shoe string or no cost at all...

I'd say the mindset rather is "fair trade".
Why should a hobbyist pay an arm and a leg for
a product that hasn't been worked on for ages ?
Or did Mentec release new versions of RSX and stuff ?
Making people pay for no visible work isn't such
a good business model in this case, IMHO.
I guess that hobbyists would probably pay for media and
shipping costs, but not for the IP holders sitting on
a rotten corpse.
Same goes for Ultrix, VAX/VMS and other DEC abandonware, BTW.

In article ,
ChrisQuayle wrote:
>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
>> In article <1166293437.456616.117400@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.c om>,
>> "madcrow" wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>
>>>>Being a hobbyist does not give you the right to use someone else's
>>>>property. I have a friend who is a TV show addict. Can he start
>>>>using your VCD to tape shows, without your permission, of course.
>>>>I am beginning to think maybe the RIAA is right!!
>>>>
>>>>bill
>>>
>>>I don't disagree with the fact that we have no RIGHTS to use the old
>>>stuff, I'm just saying that maybe the new owners of Mentec will be more
>>>willing to give us that PRIVILEGE than the former owners... If they
>>>don't that will be sad, but that's life.
>>
>>
>> Then pay for it. Make it worth Mentec's interests to offer that
>> kind of license.
>>
>> /BAH
>
>To do that, we need to get some critical mass together. Assuming each
>hobbyist was willing to pay, say $100 for the right to run rsx or rt11
>on old hardware, how many would be needed to make it attractive to Mentec ?.

I'm not the one to ask. You need to ask the people who own the
rights. Not just some random email. You write it properly just
like any business letter.

>
>The problem with stuff done just for interest is that the mindset is
>usually shoe string or no cost at all...

Oh, bull****. People pay thousands of dollars on their interests.
What is unusual about the computer biz is that the younger
generations believe that they should get everything free when
it comes to system hard/software. This is a side effect
of mic****'s business model. People have been brought up
to assume that software is generated out of fairy dust when
"They" say poof.

/BAH

In article ,
Michael Kraemer wrote:
>ChrisQuayle schrieb:
>
>>
>> The problem with stuff done just for interest is that the mindset is
>> usually shoe string or no cost at all...
>
>I'd say the mindset rather is "fair trade".
>Why should a hobbyist pay an arm and a leg for
>a product that hasn't been worked on for ages ?

According to Bill, this is not true. If he's done business
with them, then the bits have changed.

>Or did Mentec release new versions of RSX and stuff ?

Why do they have to release new versions? That in no
way implies that the RSX isn't "active".

>Making people pay for no visible work isn't such
>a good business model in this case, IMHO.

Ah, now we come to the crux of the matter. Mentex
has to continually add bells and whistles and bugs or
else give their products away free. You have been
bred, born and raised on Mic****'s business model. I suggest
that you wean yourself. The ONLY reason the PDP-11
stuff is so good is because we got paid to do the work. And
customers did the paying. AS long as customers continued to
pay, we shipped them a distribution set of software.


>I guess that hobbyists would probably pay for media and
>shipping costs, but not for the IP holders sitting on
>a rotten corpse.

If that's all you want to pay for, you will never get
the good stuff that is still being cared for.

>Same goes for Ultrix, VAX/VMS and other DEC abandonware, BTW.

I would much rather have some company own this stuff than
have it abandoned. You do not know anything about software
monitor development and maintencance.

/BAH

In article ,
ChrisQuayle wrote:
>Michael Kraemer wrote:
>> ChrisQuayle schrieb:
>>
>>>
>>> The problem with stuff done just for interest is that the mindset is
>>> usually shoe string or no cost at all...
>>
>>
>> I'd say the mindset rather is "fair trade".
>> Why should a hobbyist pay an arm and a leg for
>> a product that hasn't been worked on for ages ?
>> Or did Mentec release new versions of RSX and stuff ?
>> Making people pay for no visible work isn't such
>> a good business model in this case, IMHO.
>> I guess that hobbyists would probably pay for media and
>> shipping costs, but not for the IP holders sitting on
>> a rotten corpse.
>> Same goes for Ultrix, VAX/VMS and other DEC abandonware, BTW.
>>
>
>Sorry, wrong attitude and I have to side with Bill on this. How do you
>know that it hasn't been worked on in ages, or what their investment has
>been over the years ?. One assumes that you don't object to paying for
>Billyware os and packages for your pc,

But doesn't overtly pay for mic****ware. That's why he and
a lot of other people believe that all software should be free.
since they cannot physically touch it, it must not cost anything
to produce.



>So when did you last contribute something to open source ?...

Open sources are not free either. Since this is so new w.r.t.
production methods, it has not gone through its aging process.

/BAH

Michael Kraemer wrote:
>
> Who said so ? Certainly not me.
> I just pointed out that it's not people's
> (and not my) mindset everything should be free,
> but something which has hobbyist value should
> also have hobbyist prices.

Well, as a car enthusiast. I would like Ferrari to give me a car, but it
ain't going to happen. In the end, everything for sale has a perceived
value set by the vendor and if you want it that badly, you'll pay for
it, otherwise do without. It's no use whinging on about how it has a low
hobbyist value - they obviously disagree with you. Nor are they under
any obligation under fair play, whatever, just give to you at a price
you decide is fair. We called that the "terrible two's" when my kids
were growing up :-).

and yes, I know, some people know the price of everything and the value
of nothing etc...

Chris

In article ,
Michael Kraemer writes:
> ChrisQuayle schrieb:
>
>>
>> The problem with stuff done just for interest is that the mindset is
>> usually shoe string or no cost at all...
>
> I'd say the mindset rather is "fair trade".
> Why should a hobbyist pay an arm and a leg for
> a product that hasn't been worked on for ages ?

Two things here. It is your opinion that it " hasn't been worked on for
ages". That is not necessarily true. Just because Mentec doesn't tell
you everytime they fix something doesn't mean it isn't happening. The
PDP-11 OSes are still viable commercial products, in use all over the world
and being maintained by their owner. And second, why should you get to
decide what's fair? I would like to have Porsche 911. But we have
real low speed limits over here so it won't be as much fun as it is
in Germany. So, I think "fair trade" should be that I only pay $20,000
for it instead of the $60,000 Porsche is asking. Sound fair to you?
After all, I am not going to get the full experience so why should I have
to pay the full price?

> Or did Mentec release new versions of RSX and stuff ?

Numerous times since they acquired it, in particular, fixing all the
Y2K stuff. It is only recently that Mentec stopped developing new
PDP-11 processors.

> Making people pay for no visible work isn't such
> a good business model in this case, IMHO.

Just because it isn't visible to you doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm
sorry your not on the distribution for the internal memoes, but that's
life.

> I guess that hobbyists would probably pay for media and
> shipping costs, but not for the IP holders sitting on
> a rotten corpse.

Even if it truly were "a rotten corpse" it would be their "rotten corpse"
and not yours to decide on. But this just shows how little you even know
about the situation.

> Same goes for Ultrix, VAX/VMS and other DEC abandonware, BTW.

And this even more. Which Ultrix? Ultrix-11 is already freely available
and open to anyone to run on anything they want. VMS is not just a VAX
product. It also runs on Alpha and Itanium. The code base is the same
for all of them so it can hardly be considered "a rotten corpse". In
addition, there is a very active hobbyist program that makes it available
for free and not just old versions. the Itanium was recently addded to
the program.

There is no such thing as "abandonware". that is a term created
specifically to let people rationalize their blatant theft of
someone elses's property.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

> Then pay for it. Make it worth Mentec's interests to offer that
> kind of license.

Umm, how can you buy something not even offered? Mentec does not offer
low-cost licenses for hobbyists. You have to pay the same
multi-thousand dollar price wheteher you're a nerd with a surplus -11
or two in the basement or a multi-national corporation...As far as I
can tell, they aren't willing to negotiate on a case-by-case basis...

ChrisQuayle schrieb:
> Michael Kraemer wrote:
>
> Well, as a car enthusiast. I would like Ferrari to give me a car, but it
> ain't going to happen.

Oh no, not another car-OS comparison.
At least a Ferrari has some real value,
is faster than the others and actively
being worked on.
Compared to that, the stuff in question here is
some 1950s 3-wheel 2-stroke-engine junker rotting in some
garage, the little boys from the neighbourhood use it for their joyrides,
but the owner still pretends it is a Ferrari and
tries to sell it at Ferrari prices.
It's just ridiculous.

> In the end, everything for sale has a perceived
> value set by the vendor and if you want it that badly, you'll pay for
> it, otherwise do without. It's no use whinging on about how it has a low
> hobbyist value - they obviously disagree with you.

Funny, but if I understand the story correctly,
they prefer to go under (with no business left at all)
rather than lowering prices and have some business at least.
Must be some strange branch of capitalism, indeed.

> Nor are they under
> any obligation under fair play, whatever, just give to you at a price
> you decide is fair.

I really have no idea what you are complaining about.
On one hand you whine about not having affordable hobbyist licenses,
on the other hand you defend a greedy company.
This just doesn't fit together.
Plus you accuse other people always wanting everything for free,
which isn't true, BTW.

On 17 Dec 2006 09:34:53 -0800, "madcrow"
wrote:

>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Then pay for it. Make it worth Mentec's interests to offer that
>> kind of license.
>
>Umm, how can you buy something not even offered? Mentec does not offer
>low-cost licenses for hobbyists. You have to pay the same
>multi-thousand dollar price wheteher you're a nerd with a surplus -11
>or two in the basement or a multi-national corporation...As far as I
>can tell, they aren't willing to negotiate on a case-by-case basis...

Yea, more. In my experience (and in the experience of many other
people who have tried to talk to them, not just 'hobbyists'), they are
simply unresponsive to ALL enquiries - you might as well send it to
/dev/null

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

In article ,
Michael Kraemer writes:
> ChrisQuayle schrieb:
>> Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>
>> Well, as a car enthusiast. I would like Ferrari to give me a car, but it
>> ain't going to happen.
>
> Oh no, not another car-OS comparison.
> At least a Ferrari has some real value,

So we are back to opinion again. Personally, I wouldn't take a Ferrari
as a gift. Well, I would, but then I would immediately sell it on Ebay
and buy a real car.

> is faster

Kind of useless in a country with 65 MPH speed limits. My Miata can do
140 and gets much better gas mileage.

> than the others and actively
> being worked on.

As are the PDP-11 OSes. Three strikes.

> Compared to that, the stuff in question here is
> some 1950s 3-wheel 2-stroke-engine junker rotting in some
> garage,

Once again, matter of opinion. Some jobs don't call for GUI's and
Windows isn't the universal answer.

> the little boys from the neighbourhood use it for their joyrides,
> but the owner still pretends it is a Ferrari and
> tries to sell it at Ferrari prices.

I have seen people sell 80 year old cars for 100's of thousands of
dollars. To me, it's just a old used car, but the owner sets the
price and the people who want it pay that price. Non one comes in
to Barret-Jackson and says, "That's just an old car. I'll give you
$50 for it."

> It's just ridiculous.

No, ridiculous is thinking the buyer somehow gets to set the price
rather than the seller.

>
>> In the end, everything for sale has a perceived
>> value set by the vendor and if you want it that badly, you'll pay for
>> it, otherwise do without. It's no use whinging on about how it has a low
>> hobbyist value - they obviously disagree with you.
>
> Funny, but if I understand the story correctly,
> they prefer to go under (with no business left at all)
> rather than lowering prices and have some business at least.
> Must be some strange branch of capitalism, indeed.

You keep saying they have no business. This even though people keep
telling you they are doing just fine. You seem to be have totally
missed the fact that it wasn't the American part of Mentec that was
just sold. The part that owns the PDP-11 OSes is doing just fine.
Sorry to disappoint you.

>
>> Nor are they under
>> any obligation under fair play, whatever, just give to you at a price
>> you decide is fair.
>
> I really have no idea what you are complaining about.
> On one hand you whine about not having affordable hobbyist licenses,
> on the other hand you defend a greedy company.

Asking for a return on your investment isn't necessarily greed. All
business do it. Do you think 15 minutes worth of ehat passes for music
today is worth $20? Is 90 minutes worth of "I Love Lucy" worth $20?
(I'll give you a hint, I don't think either is worth a warm bucket of
spit.) But the seller gets to set the price, not the buyer. You have
no idea what the investments needed to bring the product to market were
so calling it greed because you aren;t willing to pay the price is just
plain ridiculous.

> This just doesn't fit together.
> Plus you accuse other people always wanting everything for free,
> which isn't true, BTW.

Most want it for free, which is why so many people have no problem just
taking and running it contrary to the legal requirement for a license.
You may not want it for free, but you want the owner to sell it to you
at your price. Try that in Sears, or Burger King or pretty much any
business in your town (beyond the local flea market, at least). See
how far you get.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

jmfbahciv@aol.com spake the secret code
thusly:

>Oh, bull****. People pay thousands of dollars on their interests.
>What is unusual about the computer biz is that the younger
>generations believe that they should get everything free when
>it comes to system hard/software. This is a side effect
>of mic****'s business model. [...]

I was with you up until that last point. It has nothing to do with
Microsoft and in fact this attitude isn't specific to computers and
isn't unique to the current times. A similar sentiment has been
expressed about every new "young generation" to come along since
people have been complaining.

I know its popular, trendy and fashionable to bash Microsoft and blame
them for all that is considered bad in the world, but my bull****
detector went straight off the scale when you tried to lay this one at
Microsoft's feet.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download


Legalize Adulthood!

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

ChrisQuayle spake the secret code
thusly:

>So when did you last contribute something to open source ?...

Personally I've contributed odds and ends over the years, particularly
in the late 80s/early 90s when I was doing a lot of unix crap.

Nowadays I contribute stuff for Windows, in particular a .NET
interoperability library for the Win32 MSI API. Lately I've been
hacking on fractint to update the code base to a more event-driven
modern application architecture.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download


Legalize Adulthood!