Re: VAX software available for download
From: AEF (spamsink2001_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/29/05
- Next message: Martin Hunt: "ntp not synchronising"
- Previous message: Chip Coldwell: "printf conversions"
- In reply to: Bill Gunshannon: "Re: VAX software available for download"
- Next in thread: Lurker: "Re: VAX software available for download"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 28 Jun 2005 20:30:59 -0700
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <1119973041.293062.73750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >> In article <1119911179.790552.101040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >> >> In article <1119895919.982108.17200@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <1119887254.046020.321350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Then why couldn't the owner of Grand Central Terminal tear it down?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Because we have a warped court system.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I beg to differ in this case! GCT is a magnificent building that
> >> >> > deserves to be protected. Not as good as Penn Station was, but still,
> >> >> > pretty good.
> >> >>
> >> >> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have no artistic sense at all
> >> >> and see most things that others consider "great art" as just so much
> >> >> junk. (Like the recent fiasco in Central Park) That being the case,
> >> >> I see no reason to limit ownership rights because of someone else's
> >> >> artistic sense. If you think it should be preserved, buy it yourself.
> >> >> At what ever price the owner asks. If you think it is worth it you will
> >> >> raise the money but if not, what right do you have to tell me I have to
> >> >> incur the monetary loss in order to please your aesthetic sense?
> >> >
> >> > Well, I don't know the details of the GCT. Maybe the owners were
> >> > compensated. I don't know. But I'm glad it's still there. We're just
> >> > going to differ on this one. Also, the train station has a great
> >> > economic value for getting commuters to and from NYC. So, it's not just
> >> > artisitic in value. Also, many, many advertisements contain pictures or
> >> > footage using GCT as a backdrop, giving more benefits. It's also
> >> > valuable as a tourist atraction, bringing yet more money to the city.
> >> > It's more than just "art".
> >>
> >> None of which is relevant to the owner. If someone wants it put to
> >> a diferent purpose than the owner then they should buy it at the owners
> >> asking price (or whatever price the two parties can negotiate) and then
> >> whne they own it, do what they want with it. Recent history (especially
> >> as covered by a number of recent news programs) would seem to imply that
> >> he was not likely to be compensated. Governments are running rampant
> >> with the "right of emminent domain" of late.
> >
> > I agree with you about the recent abuse emminent domain. I am upset
> > with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision re New London, Ct. But I
> > still think the right decision was made for GCT. If someone owned the
> > pyramids, and wanted to destroy them to open a car dealership, would
> > that be okay with you?
>
> Yes.
>
> Let the preservationists buy them, at the owners asking price, if
> they want something other than the owners will to be reality. Once
> they are the owners then they are free to do with the pyramids
> whatever they wish.
>
> >
> >
> >> > In one sense it's just a zoning decision, but admittedly a very focused
> >> > one.
> >>
> >> And one that takes from one person for the gain of another. Punishing
> >> one man for his accomplishments while rewarding another for nothing.
> >
> >
> > You seem to imply that ownership rights are infinite in value.
>
> No, not necessarily infinite. I am merely stating that I am
> the sole arbiter of the value of my property, in particular
> my IP. But real property as well. I own a house. If you
> want to buy my house must I sell it to you? Even if I don't
> want to move? What should the asking price be? What I want
> for the house ot what you want to pay? Why should software be
> any different than anything else in the world? Where did this
> idea come from that there are two separate worlds at play here,
> the real world and the computer world (aka Cyberspace).
There's Eminent Domain. People lose their houses for this all the time.
We've discussed this.
>
> > With
> > that I disagree. Sometimes there are other issues of comparable
> > importance that must be brought into the equation.
>
> But the only thing people seem to be bringing into the equation
> are one man's rights over another man's desires. No one has any
> right to the fruits of another man's labors. Why is that so hard
Never worked for a company that forced you to sign an agreement turning
over any fruits of your labors to them?
> to comprehend? If you want software to do what my software does
Because the fruits of one's labors are not entirely due to the one. We
all depend on many things. Could you build a large successful business
in most countries? NO. The fact that you can succeed and benefit from
the fruits of your labors is that you benefit from the environment set
up and maintained by the U.S. govt. Your fruits didn't come solely out
of your brain. You had to learn a lot of stuff first. No man is an
island. And since the fruits of your labor depend on other things, need
I go on?
Additionally, many benfit from inheritances, which are fruits of
someone else's labors.
Isaac Newton once said something like "If I have seen further than
others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Newton
depended on the work of Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler, and
Copernicus. He was a super, supergenius, but he didn't do it entirely
on his own.
> you have basicly three options. Come to an agreement with me for
> the use of mine. Find someone else who has an equivalent product
> with an agreement you find more acceptable. Write your own product.
> But there is no legal or moral basis to say that you have some right
> to my product on your terms as opposed to my terms.
Moral basis? Who's morals? I can agree that morals mean not to murder,
not to hurt people, not to cheat, steal, and lie. But there are many
grey areas that need elaboration. So we end up with govt and its legal
system, and, of course, religion, but I don't want to get into
religion. And sometimes principles lead to undesirable consequences.
You can say on principal that illegal aliens should be deported when
they report a crime to the police. Fine, but then word will quickly
spread around and illegal aliens will not report crimes to the police.
So suppose they could report the doings of a rapist. Now you've got a
rapist on the loose that could otherwise be caught. Or denying illegal
alien children from school. You want uneducated kids roaming the
streets? Criminals or victims in the making. You can vote how you like,
but I'll vote for education.
>
> > But such concerns do
> > need to provide sufficient justification.
>
> What possible justification can you provide for taking the fruits
> of another man's labors rather than requiring said individual to
> labor for himself to accomplish the same task?
Destroying a landmark is some big successful fruits of one labors? The
owners wanted to destroy or greatly reduce GCT and put up a big office
building. Owners always have to get permission from the city to do
these things even in normal, non-landmark cases. So the case for GCT is
far greater. Maybe one considers the loss of GCT to be a greater evil
than the fate of its owners? Let's drop this one -- we're going in
circles on this.
>
> >
> >
> >> >> >> > Then why are companies sued for defective products?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> For the same reason they are sued when some idiot does something really
> >> >> >> stupid with their product that it was not designed for and gets hurt.
> >> >> >> (Remember, we have the court system that awarded several million dollars
> >> >> >> for loss of psychic ability after a CAT-scan.)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, there's a down side to everything. And that's either the fault of
> >> >> > the court system and/or some particular bad laws.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Why does Exxon have
> >> >> >> > to "use" its Esso trademark to protect it?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Because trademarks are a totally different concept with different
> >> >> >> rules entirely. A more important question would have been what right
> >> >> >> did the government have to tell them they had to change their name
> >> >> >> in the US? But that isn't generic to the discussion. :-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Depends what you mean by "right". Rights are decided by people. Since
> >> >> > people will in general differ on what's right, we have government. Not
> >> >> > perfect by a long shot, but certainly better than anarchy. And even if
> >> >> > there is some ultimate set of "God-given rights", people have no way to
> >> >> > know exactly what these are and will differ on what they are anyway. So
> >> >> > ultimately they are decided by people and are subject to discussion as
> >> >> > to how things "should be".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > People who succeed in the US do so, in part, because the U.S.
> >> >> > Government, as imperfect as it is, has established and maintains an
> >> >> > environment in which businesses and individuals can succeed. For this
> >> >> > reason I find it not unreasonable that *something* is owed to the govt
> >> >> > for this. What exactly that should be I'm not here to say. But I don't
> >> >> > believe the "I did it all on my own so I can do what I want with it"
> >> >> > story. And in a similar, but slightly different vein, some sports
> >> >> > person once observed, "Some people are born on third base and act as if
> >> >> > they had hit a triple."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, ownership means a lot. I'm just trying to say that it is not the
> >> >> > be all and end all that you appear to be saying. If I misunderstood you
> >> >> > about this, I apologize. In this particular case it there may well be
> >> >> > no law to prevent HP from dropping VMS. But maybe there *should* be.
> >> >>
> >> >> Again, I ask why? If Steven King wanted to take the original manuscript
> >> >> for "It" or "Carrie" or any other of his many successes (mind you, I
> >> >> only ever liked one of his stories and tend not to bother reading most
> >> >> of what he writes) and burn it in his fireplace so that no one ever saw
> >> >> it, is that not his right? What will become of VMS at the end of it's
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I have no problem with that. No essential information is lost. But I
> >> > don't think he should be allowed to burn all copies of his books.
> >>
> >> Why? It's his book. No one has any rights to his IP unless he grants
> >> them.
> >
> > Hmmm. People bought their copies of the books and now you say that King
> > still owns said books?! They didn't license them; they bought them
> > outright! Where does the IP come in? Please clarify.
>
> No, I didn't. I said "burn the original manuscript". I am saying
Come on, it's right up there just a few lines up. Here it is again:
> >> > I have no problem with that. No essential information is lost. But I
> >> > don't think he should be allowed to burn all copies of his books.
> >>
> >> Why? It's his book. No one has any rights to his IP unless he grants
> >> them.
It's his book you say. Just above that I say all copies of his books.
That would include my copies if I had any.
> he has the right to see that his IP never sees the light of day.
> Once he publishes the book and you buy it, it is yours. He can then
> burn the manuscript but the books remain. Of course, he is free to
> buy up all copies of the book and burn them, too. Now, suppose you
> own the last copy that hasn't been burned. You paid $4.95 for it.
> How much is it worth? Can he give you $4.95 and demand that you
> give him the book so he can destroy it? Or might it not be worth
> more thant hat to you? Who sets the price, buyer or seller?
Uh, I think we're in complete agreement on this. You misread what I
wrote. I can't help that.
>
> >
> > Mostly, I just hate the loss of good knowledge and the loss of good
> > technology.
>
> So do I. I also hate the fact that a Porsche 911 costs $60,000.
> But that doesn't give me the right to insist that the local dealer
> sell me one for $1,000. To be honest, I don't think a Porsche is
> worth anywhere near that much (which is why I don't buy one) but
> I don't get to set the price, the owner does. Why would software
> be any different?
I never said it was legitimate for anyone to demand a copy of VMS at a
buyer-decided price. I just think there really should be some way to
prevent it from being destroyed for all time.
> >> > all the information would be lost. Sources and images are not the same,
> >> > however. I suppose you could reverse engineer though.
> >>
> >> In most cases, not legally, But then, that's the crux of the argument.
> >> The many people who believe, for some strange reason, that their wishes
> >> and desires out-weigh everyone else's.
> >
> > What I am saying is that ownership is not the only consideration.
>
> Matter of opinion.
>
> > It is
> > a very important one, but it does not have infinite value. Nothing
> > does.
>
> Nobody szaid anything about infinite value. The question is who sets
> the value? The owner or some outsider who merely covets the owner's
> property?
You write as if ownerships rights have inifinte value. Who sets the
value? Value is dependent on context. The owner sets the asking price
and the bidder sets the bidding price. Eminent domain is something
else.
>
> > There comes, from time to time, compelling reasons to make
> > exceptions. But such exceptions need to be well justified. It seems to
> > me that you're saying such exceptions are never justified. I'm saying
> > that occasionally they are. We disagree. OK.
>
> I would have a real problem justifying stealing from one
> person in order to give to another in the case of real
> property, but in the case of software I can not even
> comprehend a possible justification.
The owners of GCT were not allowed to build as they wished on the
property. I don't know deatils beyond that. I am not aware of its being
stolen. I have repeatedly said fair compensation is due in Eminent
Domain cases. Why do you keep implying otherwise?
>
> And no, I don't think Robin Hood was a hero. He was merely a thief.
Depends on how the wealth was assembled. Maybe the wealth was stolen? I
don't really know as I am not familiar with the details of Robin Hood.
So if your policies result in a situation like Czarist Russia with a
very few, very welathy aristocrats and a starving population, that
would be okay with you? Admittedly an extreme example.
> [As an aside and so you may get an idea where I am coming from, this
> is about the only thing I disagree with Thomas Aquinas on. He believes
> that if you and/or your family are starving and you take bread from
> the bakery you are not stealing. I believe you are still stealing,
> but the act is not culpable. Stealing is always stealing but in some,
> very rare, circumstances it may not necissarily be wrong. But the
> circumstances would have to be dire, which is why I don't think the
> priciple can be applied to computer software]
OK, I didn't say it applied to computer software.
>
> >
> >
> >> >> days is stuill unknown. Like others, I would like to think that when
> >> >> the owner at that point (and we also have no way of knowing who that
> >> >> may be) will just release it all to the public trust. But they have
> >> >> no real obligation to do so. And, this whole discussion may be academic
> >> >> as, if most of us have our way, VMS will last for a long time to come
> >> >> and will only die when it is no longer needed or wanted by anyone.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And even in the computer biz, there are restrictions. Export
> >> >> > restrictions for national security,
> >> >>
> >> >> Another good reason not to let the government get involved any more
> >> >> than they already are. Do you know how many VAXen running Unix were
> >> >> found behind the Iron Curtain when it finally fell? (Both were
> >> >> restricted export items!)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Well, someone, maybe it wasn't you, mentioned that there are no
> >> > ownership restrictions in the computer biz.
> >>
> >> Not I. There are lot's of restrictions, most imposed by the owners
> >> and therefore proper. I only object to the government getting involved
> >> especially when their actions hurt the innocent while letting the guilty
> >> do as they please.
> >
> >
> > Can't argue with that! Now we need to establish some more concrete
> > criteria as to what constitues guilt and innocence!
> >
> >> > I was just countering that.
> >> > I am not, in general, a fan of restrictions on trade unless there is a
> >> > very good reason. National security certainly ranks high for me. And
> >> > some VAX systems were running there. So? No restriction is perfect.
> >>
> >> Perfect? That's a hoot. Basicly, the restriction limited access to
> >> some of the parts of Unix by all of our allies (England, Germany, etc.)
> >> while basicly being totally ineffective as regards the acquisition of
> >> the technology by the Communists. We won't even go into things like
> >> the badly flawed export law on 3D milling machines or companies that
> >> openly shipped technology to Russia and even bragged about it on USENET.
> >
> > Yes, gov't screws some things up. I have no argument with that. But
> > they should be given credit for things they do right. And that goes
> > mostly unnoticed. If that were to suddenly disappear, I'm sure everyone
> > would take notice. Sometimes you don't know what you've got until you
> > lose it!
>
> We in the colonies (as they were affectionately known in those days)
> had a governemnt in 1776. I think we have done pretty good since
> "loosing" it.
What is it with spelling lose as loose in this newsgroup? Loosing a
govt?
Yes, we have done pretty well by replacing it with a better govt.
>
> >
> >>
> >> > The
> >> > Space Shuttle blew up, twice (okay, broke up the second time)! There
> >> > still going to send up more.
> >>
> >> Yeah, well some of us think the shuttle is a bad idea wether it works
> >> or not. Some of us think if the government were out of the picture the
> >> private comapnies who have held licenses for space craft operations
> >> would have been doing it for decades and the competition would have
> >> resulted in more efficient and less expensive methods.
> >
> > I think that manned space travel is just too big for private
> > enterprise. I seriously doubt that any business would be willing to
> > gamble with that kind of money.
>
> I think you are wrong. I used to work for Martin Marietta. They
> purchased one of the first licenses offered in the US for a private
> launch facility. To the best of my knowledge they have never exercised
> that license. It is impossible to compete with NASA which has pretty
> much unlimited depth to it's pockets and no need to show a profit to
> stay in business. That's a tough business model to compete with.
>
> > I don't believe it would have ever
> > happened were it not for NASA. Though there was competition with the
> > USSR.
>
> There was no competition. Neither competitor had any mandate beyond
> spending other people's money. If it had been privatized and NASA
There was the race to be first in space. To have the first person in
space. to be the first to land something on the moon. to put a man on
the moon. Sounds like competition to me!
> taken out of the picture I firmly believe we would be a lot further
> along then trying to patch together the ancient Space Shuttle for
> one more risky flight. Even without a clear chance at profit we
> have greater advancements in space flight capable vehicles coming
> from the private sector. NASA had a place in the very early days of
> space flight, but their time has come and gone.
Would the private sector have built the Interstate Highway system?
Would the private sector ensure affordable mail delivery to every rural
residence?
I disagree. I think NASA is still needed for basic science research. I
think it's too bad we have that International Space Station. For far
less we could have had the Super Conducting Supercollider and done some
real science. Even Sky and Telescope said as much.
> >
> > Space travel is very difficult, dangerous, and expensive.
>
> As are most new technologies. History has shown that a little healthy
> competition tends to decrease the last two in most cases while driving
> the innovation necessary to attack the first one. But if trrue
> competition is not possible, where is the incentive?
>
> > And there are
> > very few good launch sites. FL is excellent for a launch site: 1.) You
> > are clos to the equator where the earth's tangential rotational speed
> > is significant. This speed gives you a head start to getting into orbit
> > and results in considerable fuel savings 2.) Most spacecraft are
> > launched towards the east for this very reason. And the eastern coast
> > of FL offers ocean for launches that go bad.
>
> And yet we launch from both coasts. Plus, if the government isn't
> doing it the potential is there to choose alternative sites outside
> US as well. (Hint: Where does ESA launch from? Surely not Darmstadt.)
>
> >
> > You may have gotten *some* unmanned stuff going from private
> > comapanies, but manned space travel?
>
> Why not? Who created manned travel by airplane? I don't know about
> ESA, but even with the lack of business because you can't compete
> with NASA the private companies are still fighting for market share
> and a chance to be the first one to offer regularly scheduled tourist
> flights into space. I can't see NASA ever doing that.
NASA has more important things to do.
>
> > No way. And you'd still need some
> > kind of governing body to keep things orderly.
>
> We have had a government regulated commercial space business for more
> than 2 decades. The only thing missing is a way to compete profitably
> with a company that runs on tax money and doesn't need to show a profit.
If you don't like it, write to your legislators.
>
> >
> > Don't businesses take great advantage of basic research sponsered by
> > gov't?
>
> I think there is much more research being done privately that the
> government is taking advantage of today than vice versa.
>
> > And taxpayers certainly should, and often do, reap some benefits
> > from satellites.
>
> True, but many wonder if we might not be doing more satellite repair
> and replacement if it was private.
>
> >
> > If private business can launch more efficiently than NASA, what's to
> > stop them?
>
> Define "efficiently". NASA gets it's money from the tax coffers and
> has no mandate to show stockholders a profit. Tough model to compete
> with. Reminds me of a business concept I remember from school called
> "a level playing field". And even with this greatly un-even playing
> field private industry still puts quite a bit of money into space
> research. Probably hedging their bets for the day when NASA finally
> gets out of the way and stops blocking progress.
Does NASA put up communications satellites for companies for free? I
don't really know. How does it work?
>
> > We recently had that $10,000,000 winner reach "the edge of
> > space". Impressive, but still a long cry from real space travel. And
> > what's they're motive? To put up satellites that help busineses make
> > money, and help people do land planning and farming, and weather, etc.?
> > No! They're motivation is to give joy rides to super rich people. Nice.
>
> But you have to ask the question why? That is the only place that a
> private company can compete right now because NASA (and I am fairly
> certain ESA) can not or will not consider it. How much do you think
> the money paid to the russians by that billionare furthered their
> program? That's one difference between business and government. If
> there is money to be made, business will find it. It here is money to
> waste, government will find it.
There is more to life than money. Advancement in science, for one. How
much of that would private enterprise do?
> >> >> > for one. Anti-trust restrictions
> >> >> > (ask BG!) for two.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't necessarily agree with most anti-trust legislation. Most
> >> >> monopolistic practices involve breaking enough other laws that
> >> >> special ones (especially ones without teeth) are never necessary.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I see this as government at least trying or pretending to act for the
> >> > public good. Yes, govt does a lot of stupid and bad things. Like the
> >> > odd/even licesne plate scheme during the gas-line days (1973, 1979) to
> >> > name a minor grievance of mine. But people succeed in the U.S. in part
> >> > because govt. has done many things right. Who's going to protect
> >> > ownership? The govt.! If someone starts cranking out free copies of
> >> > software, who's going to stop it? You have to give govt. credit for
> >> > that. They do do some things right!
> >>
> >> Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.
> >
> > Well, people succeed here more often and better than most, if not all,
> > other places. So they must be doing something right! I am all for
> > trying to eliminate stupidity and abuse by govt.
> >
> > Hey, who enforces your rules of ownership? Without govt, it'd be
> > anarchy. The Wild, Wild West. You have to take the good with the bad.
>
> Yes, but we still need a government that knows what it's job is and
> knows equally well when to just get out of the way.
Can't argue with that!
[...]
> >> >> > And eliminating VMS would also affect others.
> >> >>
> >> >> Matter of opinion. It is doubtful that more than .002055% of americans
> >> >> would even notice it if it went away tomorrow. :-)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Gee, I thought someone would ask where I got a number with that
> >> precision. :-)
> >
> > Actually, I didn't even round it off! I just said to myself "a tiny
> > minority".
>
> I merely divided the rounded population of the US by the VMS Constant. :-)
>
[...]
> >
> >
[...]
> >
[...]
> >
> >> > I think that is
> >> > an important concern. However, much good comes from govt (no one
> >> > notices the engine when it runs well and quitely!) and I think it is a
> >> > good thing to try to make govt better. The U.S. is an awesome economic
> >> > power, and I think govt. should get at least some credit for that
> >> > (certainly not all credit, of course!)
> >>
> >> Actually, in too many cases our economic success is in spite of rather
> >> than because of government intervention. Most other governments have
> >> their hands even deeper in business's pockets and the results are very
> >> apparent.
> >
> > Yes, but overall you have to give credit to gov't for keeping order and
> > for protecting (via enforcement) ownership rights!
> >
> >> > Relax, man. This is just a discussion and we are "honorable debating
> >> > opponents". I respect your point of view.
> >>
> >> Oh, I'm relaxed. I enjoy a good debate. And I also respect everyone's
> >> right to have their own opinion. That is, of course, one of the reasons
> >> why I am still in the Army at the point in life where most people are
> >> retired. But I will admit that sometimes I read things here that make
> >> me just shake my head and chuckle.
> >
> >
> > Well, I take the blame for misspeaking before about HP's right to drop
> > VMS as a product. I just think it would be terrible if it were banished
> > from the earth and that that should at least be considered.
>
> I think so too. I wish there were some way to walk that fine line
> between the owner's rights and society's needs. But, again, I don't
> think more government involvement is the answer. Some kind of a public
> trust seems the better way to go. Maybe get a bunch of right minded
> people together to come up with an agreement to escrow things like VMS
> with the understanding (and agreement by all parties coincerned) that
> should the company reach the point where the product is no longer viable
> it would revert to the public domain. Wishful thinking, I'm sure.
Sounds good to me.
>
> >
> > I apologize for misspeaking and didn't mean to get you too riled up.
>
> I stopped getting riled up a long time ago. I'm an academic now and
> I love a good debate. :-)
OK. But Whew, these posts are getting LONG! (I did some major snips.)
> 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 <std.disclaimer.h>
- Next message: Martin Hunt: "ntp not synchronising"
- Previous message: Chip Coldwell: "printf conversions"
- In reply to: Bill Gunshannon: "Re: VAX software available for download"
- Next in thread: Lurker: "Re: VAX software available for download"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
