Antivirus in FC3?

[Craig White]

On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 20:21 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 18:08 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 17:49 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
> > 
> > > > Linux was borne by a computer student in Finland who was trying to build
> > > > a minix type kernel that would run on the 80386 processor - check your
> > > > facts. Or if facts aren't what you are after, then check your premises -
> > > > Linux kernel was developed before Windows had anything useful to offer.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > WRONG.   
> > > 
> > > Window 3.1 was out in early 1980s.  Linus released the first Linux
> > > kernel in 1991.  See http://www.linux10.org/history/,
> > > https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/  or
> > > http://www.computerhope.com/history/unix.htm for some of the history.  I
> > > hardly think your statement that "Linux was developed before Windows had
> > > anything useful to offer." is valid.
> > ----
> > Windows 3.1 out in early 1980's ?
> > 
> > <http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryProGraphic.mspx>
> > 
> > You are so completely wrong it isn't funny
> > 
> 
> My version number is wrong, agreed.  However, by your own reference,
> Windows was released in 1983.  My statement stands.
----
conveniently ignoring the fact that Windows 1.0/2.0 were so completely
and utterly useless - that even Microsoft doesn't categorize them as a
Desktop OS in the above referenced chart.

conveniently ignoring the fact that Windows 3.0 was a yawn, 3.1
(released 1992) got some attention but was still an overlay on DOS and
all of the programs were still DOS based. Computers shipped with it -
few people actually used it. 

It wasn't until 'Start Me Up' - August 1995 - the simultaneous release
of Windows 95 and Office 95 (collective) or individual components that
anyone really cared about Windows.

The point I initially made - refuting the statement that Brian
Fahrlander gave - 

> Actually, Linux is borne from the general notion that we're sick of
> Microsoft's antics.

This was clearly fallacious - Even your own references demonstrate what
Linus' Torvald's intent was - nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft or
Windows.

So you want to stick your opinion in here? 

What is the point that you are trying to make?

Are you actually refuting any part of my statement - the one at the top
of this page? What specifically are you refuting? Are you saying that
Windows 1.0 was very useful and Linus created the original kernel to
satisfy the general notion that we're sick of Microsoft's antics?

I think that if you want to defend Brian's statement that 'Linux was
borne from the general notion that we're sick of Microsoft's antics' you
should garner the courage to do so. 

Are you suggesting that Microsoft Windows 1.0 motivated Linus to develop
his kernel?

If you don't wish to defend that statement - you absolutely have no
point to make here.

Craig