Sujet : Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1
De : 186283 (at) *nospam* ud0s4.net (186282@ud0s4.net)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.miscDate : 12. Jan 2025, 01:38:14
Autres entêtes
Organisation : wokiesux
Message-ID : <j6-dnefHsrFokx76nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
On 1/11/25 3:00 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 12:06:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/01/2025 22:15, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 07:27:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
The natural tendency in a free market is that the best technology
rises to the top, becomes ubiquitous, and everybody uses it. Diversity
in technology is not desirable,. Diversity in its application is,
somewhat.
>
Like natural selection I would say an adequate technology rises to the
top, not always the best.
>
Well it depends on what 'best' applies to.
>
Take VHS - technically inferior to Betamax but best marketed.
I had that in mind -- along with the 8088 processors and MSDOS. IBM had
used the 8085 in the System 23 so were familiar with Intel and wanted to
use readily available and inexpensive 8-bit peripherals in a product they
didn't really believe in. And here we are.
Well, the crippled chip had more possibilities than
yet another 8-bitter, so ....
The 8086 would have been better, but the extra wiring
apparently would have pushed up the price too much
according to some old interview with an IBM guy.
They didn't KNOW it would be super-successful, so they
kinda hedged their bets, split the diff. 640k banks
were a hell of a lot better than 64k banks.
The instructions for the 8088 were "familiar" to
anyone who did the 8008/8080 and not TOO far
from Z-80 sensibility - so I think that cinched Intel
as the maker. WISH they'd used the 68000s. Ever
see the Sage boxes ... gone alas before I could
afford one .......