On Tue, 1 Mar 2016, peter dalgaard wrote:
On 29 Feb 2016, at 19:54 , Barry Rowlingson
wrote:
PS: somehow "historical" would be less unnerving than "archeological"
At least I didn't say palaeontological.
So John should feel more like stone age than dinosaur?
(Some portion of this must
> On 29 Feb 2016, at 19:54 , Barry Rowlingson
> wrote:
>
>> PS: somehow "historical" would be less unnerving than "archeological"
>
> At least I didn't say palaeontological.
So John should feel more like stone age than dinosaur?
(Some portion of this must be a fortune candidate!)
--
Peter
> On 29 Feb 2016, at 20:54 pm, Barry Rowlingson
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:17 PM, John Chambers wrote:
>> The Wikipedia statement may be a bit misleading.
>>
>> S was never open source. Source versions would only have been available
>> with a nondisclosure agreement, and relativ
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:17 PM, John Chambers wrote:
> The Wikipedia statement may be a bit misleading.
>
> S was never open source. Source versions would only have been available with
> a nondisclosure agreement, and relatively few copies would have been
> distributed in source. There was a
The Wikipedia statement may be a bit misleading.
S was never open source. Source versions would only have been available with a
nondisclosure agreement, and relatively few copies would have been distributed
in source. There was a small but valuable "beta test" network, mainly
university stati
