🚀 go-pugleaf

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 6:35:27 PM UTC-6, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> George Lucas reveals his plan for Star Wars 7 through 9--and it was
> awful
> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/06/george-lucas-reveals-his-plan-for-star-wars-7-through-9-and-it-was-awful/

While I agree that the idea of going down to microscopic size to meet the Whills 
inside the midichlorians... _could_ have been awful, it isn't necessarily that 
way. It could have been an E. E. "Doc" Smith-like change of scale, as in his 
_Lensman_ series.

> When I first moved to San Jose, co-worker talked about being in the San
> Jose Astronomy club and Lucas brought drafts/outlines for eight Star
> Wars movies for the club to read. Later accounts were the first movie
> made was the one that appealed most to investors.

They were fortunate.

Certainly what is now "Episode IV: A New Hope" was the right movie to start out 
with, a basic mythic good-against-evil action story.

Lucas' mistake was not going back and building the other movies *around* that 
one. Instead of surprising people in the next movie with Darth Vader being 
Luke's father, adding a little punch to that movie, while spoiling the prequels, 
he should have made the movies we were led to *expect*.

So Vader's previous encounter with a slightly younger Leia.

So Luke Skywalker's father as a hot-shot pilot fighting the forces of evil.

John Savard

On 19 Jun 2018 21:33:20 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2018-06-19, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 6:35:27 PM UTC-6, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>> George Lucas reveals his plan for Star Wars 7 through 9--and it was
>>> awful
>>> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/06/george-lucas-reveals-his-plan-for-star-wars-7-through-9-and-it-was-awful/
>
>Star Wars *is* awful.

The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
sf movie again. I was in a small nothing town out in Texas when the
first movie came out. I drove over, expecting maybe 10 or 20 people in
line to see it.

The line was over 500 feet long. The next showing, in an hour, was
sold out. I stayed in line and bought a ticket, one of the few left,
for the next showing. It was packed. People laughed, cried, cheered,
etc. thoughout the movie.

My parents asked me what was wrong when I got home. All I could say
was 'wow'. I said substantionaly much more after watching Forbidden
Planet.

JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2018 21:33:20 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-06-19, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 6:35:27 PM UTC-6, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>>> George Lucas reveals his plan for Star Wars 7 through 9--and it was
>>>> awful
>>>> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/06/george-lucas-reveals-his-plan-for-star-wars-7-through-9-and-it-was-awful/
>> 
>> Star Wars *is* awful.
> 
> The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
> Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
> sf movie again. I was in a small nothing town out in Texas when the
> first movie came out. I drove over, expecting maybe 10 or 20 people in
> line to see it.

My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star Wars
dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of creature
features and cheap B movies. I think it started the trend toward
higher-class scifi now in the movies and on tv. As an old-times I enjoyed
the allusions to old move cliches such as westerns.

> 
> The line was over 500 feet long. The next showing, in an hour, was
> sold out. I stayed in line and bought a ticket, one of the few left,
> for the next showing. It was packed. People laughed, cried, cheered,
> etc. thoughout the movie.
> 
> My parents asked me what was wrong when I got home. All I could say
> was 'wow'. I said substantionaly much more after watching Forbidden
> Planet.
> 



-- 
Pete

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 4:53:32 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
> > Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
> > sf movie again. I was in a small nothing town out in Texas when the
> > first movie came out. I drove over, expecting maybe 10 or 20 people in
> > line to see it.

> My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star Wars
> dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of creature
> features and cheap B movies.

Star Wars was a great and highly entertaining movie.

2001: A Space Odyssey was quite a way in the past, and Star Trek: The Motion 
Picture was in the future.

Other major science fiction films that I can think of also go back to the 60s, 
and many of them were relatively low-budget releases...

The Andromeda Strain
Westworld
Planet of the Apes

Star Wars, of course, wasn't really like _any_ of those; it wasn't *serious* SF. 
The last time there was anything like it... was the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers 
serials.

John Savard

On 21/06/2018 02:42, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 4:53:32 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
>>> Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
>>> sf movie again. I was in a small nothing town out in Texas when the
>>> first movie came out. I drove over, expecting maybe 10 or 20 people in
>>> line to see it.
> 
>> My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star Wars
>> dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of creature
>> features and cheap B movies.
> 
> Star Wars was a great and highly entertaining movie.
> 
> 2001: A Space Odyssey was quite a way in the past, and Star Trek: The Motion
> Picture was in the future.
> 
> Other major science fiction films that I can think of also go back to the 60s,
> and many of them were relatively low-budget releases...
> 
> The Andromeda Strain
> Westworld
> Planet of the Apes
> 
> Star Wars, of course, wasn't really like _any_ of those; it wasn't *serious* SF.
> The last time there was anything like it... was the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers
> serials.

Great film, great sequel and then the rot happened with those damned 
little bears and merchandising.

Star Wars 3 or 6 (depending on whether you count episode number of 
release order) was originally drafted to be on Kashiq, the home world of 
the Wookies and the merchandising people realised the income from cute 
teddies instead of giant growley walking rugs and so we had cute fuzzy 
bonsai teddies  with sticks and stones taking out imperial walkers and 
ground troops that overran countless planets fully armed with heavy 
weapons and hardened soldiers.

Andy

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 18:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 4:53:32 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
> > JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
> > > Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
> > > sf movie again. I was in a small nothing town out in Texas when the
> > > first movie came out. I drove over, expecting maybe 10 or 20 people in
> > > line to see it.
> 
> > My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star Wars
> > dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of creature
> > features and cheap B movies.
> 
> Star Wars was a great and highly entertaining movie.

	Definitely, a clear demonstration that space opera could make a
great film.

> 2001: A Space Odyssey was quite a way in the past,

	and was too complex and strange for many people.

> Other major science fiction films that I can think of also go back to the
> 60s, and many of them were relatively low-budget releases...
> 
> The Andromeda Strain
> Westworld
> Planet of the Apes

	Also Solaris and a bunch of earlier and very cheesy stuff like Plan
9 (now an operating system) and Forbidden Planet (now a chain of shops).
Some of it was quite good science fiction (not much) but none of it was
great entertainment.

> Star Wars, of course, wasn't really like _any_ of those; it wasn't
> *serious* SF. The last time there was anything like it... was the Flash
> Gordon and Buck Rogers serials.

	It was space opera in the grand style of Doc Smith, crap science
fiction but great fun.

	Star Wars is to science fiction as James Bond is to spy fiction.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:30:25 +0000, Huge wrote:

> Budget does not a movie make. For example, these are all better than
> Star Wars and yet had budgets a fraction of what Lucas spent; "The Girl
> With All The Gifts", "Under The Skin", "Cargo".

I would add "Dark Star".

(and "Forbidden Planet"!)

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:07:54 +0100, AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:

>On 21/06/2018 02:42, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 4:53:32 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
>>>> Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
>>>> sf movie again. I was in a small nothing town out in Texas when the
>>>> first movie came out. I drove over, expecting maybe 10 or 20 people in
>>>> line to see it.
>> 
>>> My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star Wars
>>> dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of creature
>>> features and cheap B movies.
>> 
>> Star Wars was a great and highly entertaining movie.
>> 
>> 2001: A Space Odyssey was quite a way in the past, and Star Trek: The Motion
>> Picture was in the future.
>> 
>> Other major science fiction films that I can think of also go back to the 60s,
>> and many of them were relatively low-budget releases...
>> 
>> The Andromeda Strain
>> Westworld
>> Planet of the Apes
>> 
>> Star Wars, of course, wasn't really like _any_ of those; it wasn't *serious* SF.
>> The last time there was anything like it... was the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers
>> serials.
>
>Great film, great sequel and then the rot happened with those damned 
>little bears and merchandising.
>
>Star Wars 3 or 6 (depending on whether you count episode number of 
>release order) was originally drafted to be on Kashiq, the home world of 
>the Wookies and the merchandising people realised the income from cute 
>teddies instead of giant growley walking rugs and so we had cute fuzzy 
>bonsai teddies  with sticks and stones taking out imperial walkers and 
>ground troops that overran countless planets fully armed with heavy 
>weapons and hardened soldiers.
>
>Andy
>

MythBusters did a show on Star Wars and showed two large logs could
take out a walker. Albeit they used an armoured car.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:51:49 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 18:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 4:53:32 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>> > JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > > The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
>> > > Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
>> > > sf movie again. I was in a small nothing town out in Texas when the
>> > > first movie came out. I drove over, expecting maybe 10 or 20 people in
>> > > line to see it.
>> 
>> > My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star Wars
>> > dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of creature
>> > features and cheap B movies.
>> 
>> Star Wars was a great and highly entertaining movie.
>
>	Definitely, a clear demonstration that space opera could make a
>great film.
>
>> 2001: A Space Odyssey was quite a way in the past,
>
>	and was too complex and strange for many people.
>
>> Other major science fiction films that I can think of also go back to the
>> 60s, and many of them were relatively low-budget releases...
>> 
>> The Andromeda Strain
>> Westworld
>> Planet of the Apes
>
>	Also Solaris and a bunch of earlier and very cheesy stuff like Plan
>9 (now an operating system) and Forbidden Planet (now a chain of shops).
>Some of it was quite good science fiction (not much) but none of it was
>great entertainment.
>
>> Star Wars, of course, wasn't really like _any_ of those; it wasn't
>> *serious* SF. The last time there was anything like it... was the Flash
>> Gordon and Buck Rogers serials.
>
>	It was space opera in the grand style of Doc Smith, crap science
>fiction but great fun.
>
>	Star Wars is to science fiction as James Bond is to spy fiction.

We enjoyed Forbidden Planet, we kids where I grew up. Few of us had
televisions.

On 21/06/2018 09:30, Huge wrote:
> On 2018-06-21, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 4:53:32 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
>>>> Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
>>>> sf movie again. I was in a small nothing town out in Texas when the
>>>> first movie came out. I drove over, expecting maybe 10 or 20 people in
>>>> line to see it.
>>
>>> My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star Wars
>>> dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of creature
>>> features and cheap B movies.
>>
>> Star Wars was a great and highly entertaining movie.
> 
> Star Wars was a dull, derivative and tiresome movie.

Mirabile dictu, for I agree with the trolling Huge!

When the first Star Wars film came out, I gave up in the middle
of it because it was very heavy on the (then) clever effects but
there was almost no theatrical plot to speak of. That was in sharp
contrast to the black and white scifi films of the 1950s where
everything relied upon theatrical skill with very little in the way
of clever effects : Them!, The Day The Universe Changed, The Incredible
Shrinking Man; with perhaps the exception being The Creature From
The Black Lagoon, a somewhat obvious consumerist programmer having
been put in fancy dress by his mother.

The later 1960s colour productions such as The Day Of The Triffids,
Quatermass And The Pit, also scored heavily on theatricality when
also being low on clever effects.


In some ways, the rhythmic presentation of the tracks by Glenn Miller
did not rely on heavy drum beats or electronic squawks as do the tracks
availbale in the last 20 years or so, Miller was all musical skill.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 18:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> 
>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 4:53:32 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
>>>> Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
>>>> sf movie again. I was in a small nothing town out in Texas when the
>>>> first movie came out. I drove over, expecting maybe 10 or 20 people in
>>>> line to see it.
>> 
>>> My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star Wars
>>> dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of creature
>>> features and cheap B movies.
>> 
>> Star Wars was a great and highly entertaining movie.
> 
> 	Definitely, a clear demonstration that space opera could make a
> great film.
> 
>> 2001: A Space Odyssey was quite a way in the past,
> 
> 	and was too complex and strange for many people.
> 
>> Other major science fiction films that I can think of also go back to the
>> 60s, and many of them were relatively low-budget releases...
>> 
>> The Andromeda Strain
>> Westworld
>> Planet of the Apes
> 
> 	Also Solaris and a bunch of earlier and very cheesy stuff like Plan
> 9 (now an operating system) and Forbidden Planet (now a chain of shops).
> Some of it was quite good science fiction (not much) but none of it was
> great entertainment.

Forbidden Planet is a classic, I've seen it several times. The first time I
fell for Robbie the Robot, who unfortunately later prostituted himself in
Lost in Space and other stuff. Later, as I got older, I appreciated other
aspects of it (including Altaira ;-) 

> 
>> Star Wars, of course, wasn't really like _any_ of those; it wasn't
>> *serious* SF. The last time there was anything like it... was the Flash
>> Gordon and Buck Rogers serials.
> 
> 	It was space opera in the grand style of Doc Smith, crap science
> fiction but great fun.
> 
> 	Star Wars is to science fiction as James Bond is to spy fiction.
> 



-- 
Pete

JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:07:54 +0100, AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 21/06/2018 02:42, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 4:53:32 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
>>>>> Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
>>>>> sf movie again. I was in a small nothing town out in Texas when the
>>>>> first movie came out. I drove over, expecting maybe 10 or 20 people in
>>>>> line to see it.
>>> 
>>>> My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star Wars
>>>> dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of creature
>>>> features and cheap B movies.
>>> 
>>> Star Wars was a great and highly entertaining movie.
>>> 
>>> 2001: A Space Odyssey was quite a way in the past, and Star Trek: The Motion
>>> Picture was in the future.
>>> 
>>> Other major science fiction films that I can think of also go back to the 60s,
>>> and many of them were relatively low-budget releases...
>>> 
>>> The Andromeda Strain
>>> Westworld
>>> Planet of the Apes
>>> 
>>> Star Wars, of course, wasn't really like _any_ of those; it wasn't *serious* SF.
>>> The last time there was anything like it... was the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers
>>> serials.
>> 
>> Great film, great sequel and then the rot happened with those damned 
>> little bears and merchandising.
>> 
>> Star Wars 3 or 6 (depending on whether you count episode number of 
>> release order) was originally drafted to be on Kashiq, the home world of 
>> the Wookies and the merchandising people realised the income from cute 
>> teddies instead of giant growley walking rugs and so we had cute fuzzy 
>> bonsai teddies  with sticks and stones taking out imperial walkers and 
>> ground troops that overran countless planets fully armed with heavy 
>> weapons and hardened soldiers.
>> 
>> Andy
>> 
> 
> MythBusters did a show on Star Wars and showed two large logs could
> take out a walker. Albeit they used an armoured car.
> 

Walkers always seemed to be a spectacularly bad idea, although some great
movie effects. All that weight balanced high up on four relatively slim
legs. H G Wells's 8-legged Martians were at least somewhat better.

-- 
Pete

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-06-21, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 4:53:32 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
>>>> Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
>>>> sf movie again. I was in a small nothing town out in Texas when the
>>>> first movie came out. I drove over, expecting maybe 10 or 20 people in
>>>> line to see it.
>> 
>>> My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star Wars
>>> dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of creature
>>> features and cheap B movies.
>> 
>> Star Wars was a great and highly entertaining movie.
> 
> Star Wars was a dull, derivative and tiresome movie.
> 
>> 
>> 2001: A Space Odyssey was quite a way in the past, and Star Trek: The Motion 
>> Picture was in the future.
>> 
>> Other major science fiction films that I can think of also go back to the 60s, 
>> and many of them were relatively low-budget releases...
> 
> Budget does not a movie make. For example, these are all better than Star
> Wars and yet had budgets a fraction of what Lucas spent; "The Girl With All
> The Gifts", "Under The Skin", "Cargo".
> 
>> The Andromeda Strain
>> Westworld
>> Planet of the Apes
>> 
>> Star Wars, of course, wasn't really like _any_ of those; it wasn't *serious* SF. 
> 
> I'd argue it wasn't SF at all. It's Robin Hood in space with a dash of
> WW2 fighter ace mixed in.
> 

And some westerns. Of course it's derivative, but a lot of this is
tongue-in-cheek, and it was fun picking out the allusions.


-- 
Pete

JimP <solo...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:07:54 +0100, AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 21/06/2018 02:42, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 4:53:32 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
>>>>> Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
>>>>> sf movie again. I was in a small nothing town out in Texas when the
>>>>> first movie came out. I drove over, expecting maybe 10 or 20 people in
>>>>> line to see it.
>>> 
>>>> My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star Wars
>>>> dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of creature
>>>> features and cheap B movies.
>>> 
>>> Star Wars was a great and highly entertaining movie.
>>> 
>>> 2001: A Space Odyssey was quite a way in the past, and Star Trek: The Motion
>>> Picture was in the future.
>>> 
>>> Other major science fiction films that I can think of also go back to the 60s,
>>> and many of them were relatively low-budget releases...
>>> 
>>> The Andromeda Strain
>>> Westworld
>>> Planet of the Apes
>>> 
>>> Star Wars, of course, wasn't really like _any_ of those; it wasn't *serious* SF.
>>> The last time there was anything like it... was the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers
>>> serials.
>>
>>Great film, great sequel and then the rot happened with those damned 
>>little bears and merchandising.
>>
>>Star Wars 3 or 6 (depending on whether you count episode number of 
>>release order) was originally drafted to be on Kashiq, the home world of 
>>the Wookies and the merchandising people realised the income from cute 
>>teddies instead of giant growley walking rugs and so we had cute fuzzy 
>>bonsai teddies  with sticks and stones taking out imperial walkers and 
>>ground troops that overran countless planets fully armed with heavy 
>>weapons and hardened soldiers.
>>
>>Andy
>>
>
>MythBusters did a show on Star Wars and showed two large logs could
>take out a walker. Albeit they used an armoured car.

And they could barely move the logs using large hydraulic machines.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 06:53:31 -0400, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19 Jun 2018 21:33:20 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
>> Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
>> sf movie again.

2001?



>My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star Wars
>dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of creature
>features and cheap B movies. I think it started the trend toward
>higher-class scifi now in the movies and on tv. 


The Andromeda Strain, The Omega Man, THX 1138, Silent Running, Solaris,
Fantastic Planet, Soylent Green, Dark Star, The Terminal Man, A Boy and His Dog,
Logan's Run, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Close Encounters of the Third Kind...
just some of the films from that period -- hardly a desert.

It was 2001 that really set the higher bar for science fiction cinema, but
nobody tried to reach it for quite a while.  Star Wars did spawn a host of
imitators, none of which were as good and some of which were truly awful.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:07:40 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 06:53:31 -0400, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19 Jun 2018 21:33:20 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
>>> Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
>>> sf movie again.
>
>2001?

I don't think I saw 2001: A Space Odessy until years later. I think
the screens in my area, and the sound capabilities, were too low to
book it.

And I got around to checking the date, Forbidden Planet was 1956. I
was in elementary school, not high school.

And 2001 was in 1968. I was in the Navy at the time. Probably saw it
in one of the big theaters in San Deigo.

>>My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star Wars
>>dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of creature
>>features and cheap B movies. I think it started the trend toward
>>higher-class scifi now in the movies and on tv. 
>
>
>The Andromeda Strain, The Omega Man, THX 1138, Silent Running, Solaris,
>Fantastic Planet, Soylent Green, Dark Star, The Terminal Man, A Boy and His Dog,
>Logan's Run, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Close Encounters of the Third Kind...
>just some of the films from that period -- hardly a desert.
>
>It was 2001 that really set the higher bar for science fiction cinema, but
>nobody tried to reach it for quite a while.  Star Wars did spawn a host of
>imitators, none of which were as good and some of which were truly awful.

The Andromeda Strain movie sucked...  a satellite in orbit equipped
with a vacuum ? Nonsense.

On 2018-06-21, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:30:25 +0000, Huge wrote:
>
>> Budget does not a movie make. For example, these are all better than
>> Star Wars and yet had budgets a fraction of what Lucas spent; "The Girl
>> With All The Gifts", "Under The Skin", "Cargo".
>
> I would add "Dark Star".

*applause*

> (and "Forbidden Planet"!)

I was pretty young when I first saw it, and had trouble getting
to sleep that night.  An invisible monster with almost unlimited
power... that's about as scary as it gets.

Speaking of scary (even if somewhat cheezy), does anyone remember
"The Magic Sword"?

2001 advanced the state of the art in special effects in 1968 -
and Star Wars (despite its weak plot) advanced it again in 1977.
Effects from both have been plagiarized/emulated/parodied many
times since then.  "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  Fight low-contrast text in web pages!  http://contrastrebellion.com

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:24:53 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2018-06-21, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:30:25 +0000, Huge wrote:
>>
>>> Budget does not a movie make. For example, these are all better than
>>> Star Wars and yet had budgets a fraction of what Lucas spent; "The
>>> Girl With All The Gifts", "Under The Skin", "Cargo".
>>
>> I would add "Dark Star".
> 
> *applause*
> 
>> (and "Forbidden Planet"!)
> 
> I was pretty young when I first saw it, and had trouble getting to sleep
> that night.  An invisible monster with almost unlimited power... that's
> about as scary as it gets.

Blame Shakespeare!

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

Huge wrote:

> On 2018-06-21, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
> 
> [17 lines snipped]
> 
>> The Andromeda Strain, The Omega Man, THX 1138, Silent Running, Solaris,
>> Fantastic Planet, Soylent Green, Dark Star, The Terminal Man, A Boy and
>> His Dog, Logan's Run, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Close Encounters of the
>> Third Kind... just some of the films from that period -- hardly a desert.
> 
> All better than Star Wars. And all on the shelf behind me.
> 
Multics, OS2, and those movies we say are better.  Where are the sequels 
now?

MS Windows, Star Wars, we have more of that than we ever want.

The market place has (mis)spoken.

Freddy,
bringing it back to computer folklore.
-- 
Subject to Official Rules.

/|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\|
/|  I may be demented                          \|
/|                      but I'm not crazy!     \|
/|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\|
*    SPAyM trap:  there is no X in my address   *

JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Andromeda Strain movie sucked...  a satellite in orbit equipped
> with a vacuum ? Nonsense.

Plenty of raw material there for one ;-)

-- 
Pete

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:08:49 -0400, Freddy wrote:

> Multics, OS2, and those movies we say are better.  Where are the sequels
> now?
> 
> MS Windows, Star Wars, we have more of that than we ever want.

Shame about OS/2. I used it 1990-2010 - by choice.

Multics - well...

One sequel was UNIX, at least partly. And look where that went (OK, there 
are downsides, like Linux :))

Another was a different system I worked on, that shared some ideas. But 
that had a very limited audience:
 
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Multiple_Access_System



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1035578807.551272786.255887.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septem
ber.org: 

> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2018-06-21, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 4:53:32 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
>>>>> Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a
>>>>> good sf movie again. I was in a small nothing town out in Texas
>>>>> when the first movie came out. I drove over, expecting maybe 10 or
>>>>> 20 people in line to see it. 
>>> 
>>>> My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star
>>>> Wars dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of
>>>> creature features and cheap B movies. 
>>> 
>>> Star Wars was a great and highly entertaining movie.
>> 
>> Star Wars was a dull, derivative and tiresome movie.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 2001: A Space Odyssey was quite a way in the past, and Star Trek: The
>>> Motion Picture was in the future.
>>> 
>>> Other major science fiction films that I can think of also go back to
>>> the 60s, and many of them were relatively low-budget releases... 
>> 
>> Budget does not a movie make. For example, these are all better than
>> Star Wars and yet had budgets a fraction of what Lucas spent; "The
>> Girl With All The Gifts", "Under The Skin", "Cargo".
>> 
>>> The Andromeda Strain
>>> Westworld
>>> Planet of the Apes
>>> 
>>> Star Wars, of course, wasn't really like _any_ of those; it wasn't
>>> *serious* SF. 
>> 
>> I'd argue it wasn't SF at all. It's Robin Hood in space with a dash of
>> WW2 fighter ace mixed in.
>> 
> 
> And some westerns. Of course it's derivative, but a lot of this is
> tongue-in-cheek, and it was fun picking out the allusions.

Yeah, I recall a review in 1977 describing Star Wars as a cowboy movie in 
space suits.  I kind of enjoyed the special effects after I turned of my 
physicist brain.  I never bothered with any of the others except that I had 
to take my kids to The Phantom Menace.  I would have fallen asleep if it 
hadn't been so noisy.  (The critics all hated JarJar Binks. I thought he was 
the best thing in the movie. :( )
As for asslusions the John Carter, Buck Rogers, etc deriviations were 
obvious, but who among us would have picked up on 21-87? (certainly not me.)

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:30 -0400, Peter Flass
<peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Andromeda Strain movie sucked...  a satellite in orbit equipped
>> with a vacuum ? Nonsense.
>
>Plenty of raw material there for one ;-)

I found the book much more scary. A set of instructions was sent to
Earth. Turns out it was a DNA/android sequence. Once she was built,
she started killing people and couldn't be stopped.

The movie just used a disease captured by satellite which crashed and
killed a small town except for a homelss man and a baby.

JimP <solo...@gmail.com> writes:
> And 2001 was in 1968. I was in the Navy at the time. Probably saw it
> in one of the big theaters in San Deigo.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018d.html#76 George Lucas reveals his plan for Star Wars 7 through 9--and it was awful

was undergraduate ... but had been working fulltime for university,
responsible for ibm mainframe (academic & administration) systems
... then got hired into small group at Boeing attached to CFO office to
help with the formation of Boeing Computing Services (consolidate all
dataprocessing in an independent business unit to better monetize
investment). 747#3 was flying skies of seattle getting FAA flt
certification. 1969 saw 2001, a space odyssey downtown seattle cinerma
(when I graduate, I join science center at MIT rather than staying at
Boeing). some recent posts mentioning BCS:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#28 1963 Timesharing: A Solution to Computer Bottlenecks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#55 Now Hear This--Prepare For The "To Be Or To Do" Moment
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#28 Important US technology companies sold to foreigners
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018c.html#25 OFF TOPIC:  Spring Break, 1947

30 yrs later, 1999 was working with financial outsourcing company and
did temporary assignment in Seattle ... working with a Seattle area
crypto company and m'soft on electronic commerce and online banking. The
seattle area crypto company did a lot of Kerberos work (including
contract do m'softs initial kerberos implementation).  trivia: at the
time, the CEO of the crypto company ... in prior life had been head of
POK mainframe and then head of Boca & PS2. Saw "Star Wars", Episode I at
the same (restored) theater that had seen 2001:
https://www.wired.com/1999/04/paul-allen-restores-a-relic/

I had seen original star wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_(film)

in the 70s at san jose century 22, 
http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/9024

also saw raiders of the lost ark at century 22, sitting in front row
(some of the scenes from front row were overwhelming)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark#Visual_effects_and_sound_design

and some of the people I had worked with and/or knew,  were then working
at Industrial Light & Magic up in Marin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Light_%26_Magic

other trivia: in 1999 I was also doing financial standards and financial
transaction security chip. Had booths at that year's BAI (world-wide
retail banking) show ... press release with some of the companies
(including a couple seattle area companies)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#217 AADS/X9.59 demo & standards at BAI (world-wide retail banking) show
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#224 X9.59/AADS announcement at BAI this week
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#229 Digital Signature on SmartCards

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

On 21 Jun 2018 09:51:48 GMT, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:30:25 +0000, Huge wrote:
>
>> Budget does not a movie make. For example, these are all better than
>> Star Wars and yet had budgets a fraction of what Lucas spent; "The Girl
>> With All The Gifts", "Under The Skin", "Cargo".
>
>I would add "Dark Star".
>
>(and "Forbidden Planet"!)

Forbidden Planet did not have a budget "a fraction of what George
Lucas spent". The budget for Star Wars was 11 million in 1977.  The
budget for Forbidden Planet was 8 million in 1956, which, adjusted for
inflation, is 18 million in 1977.

On 6/21/2018 2:24 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
 >   [snip...]          [snip...]           [snip...]
> 
> I was pretty young when I first saw it, and had trouble getting
> to sleep that night.  An invisible monster with almost unlimited
> power... that's about as scary as it gets.
> 

Huge, all-powerful monsters...  I do *not* find scary.  If I have *no* 
chance to survive, I can resign myself to my fate.

The scary monsters are the smaller calculating ones...  the ones you 
feel it is possible to escape!!!  Then your fear makes your mind race... 
thinking how you can hide or escape!!!  You fear the monster but you 
also fear that you will make the wrong decision and be caught!!!


-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:58:02 -0500
JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:30 -0400, Peter Flass
> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The Andromeda Strain movie sucked...  a satellite in orbit equipped
> >> with a vacuum ? Nonsense.
> >
> >Plenty of raw material there for one ;-)
> 
> I found the book much more scary. A set of instructions was sent to
> Earth. Turns out it was a DNA/android sequence. Once she was built,
> she started killing people and couldn't be stopped.

	That's a different book and far less plausible.

> The movie just used a disease captured by satellite which crashed and
> killed a small town except for a homelss man and a baby.

	Yep that's the book I have.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On 2018-06-22, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:58:02 -0500
> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:30 -0400, Peter Flass
>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Andromeda Strain movie sucked...  a satellite in orbit equipped
>> >> with a vacuum ? Nonsense.
>> >
>> >Plenty of raw material there for one ;-)
>> 
>> I found the book much more scary. A set of instructions was sent to
>> Earth. Turns out it was a DNA/android sequence. Once she was built,
>> she started killing people and couldn't be stopped.
>
> 	That's a different book and far less plausible.
>
>> The movie just used a disease captured by satellite which crashed and
>> killed a small town except for a homelss man and a baby.
>
> 	Yep that's the book I have.
>

Robots running amok are a problem. There was a rumr that the US ARMy tested one
in Iraq, whid did, but nothing solid (news). There is a lot of work being
done with farming machines, the Japanese vehicle maker Kubota took over
a US company that did the same, and is selling large robot tractors.

AFAAIK, insurance is a problem, there is not enough data yet to show how 
liable really bad 'f*** UPS' are. 


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 22:56:50 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> On 21 Jun 2018 09:51:48 GMT, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:30:25 +0000, Huge wrote:
>>
>>> Budget does not a movie make. For example, these are all better than
>>> Star Wars and yet had budgets a fraction of what Lucas spent; "The
>>> Girl With All The Gifts", "Under The Skin", "Cargo".
>>
>>I would add "Dark Star".
>>
>>(and "Forbidden Planet"!)
> 
> Forbidden Planet did not have a budget "a fraction of what George Lucas
> spent". The budget for Star Wars was 11 million in 1977.  The budget for
> Forbidden Planet was 8 million in 1956, which, adjusted for inflation,
> is 18 million in 1977.

The budget for "Dark Star" was 60 *thousand* dollars.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 22/06/2018 01:58, JimP wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:30 -0400, Peter Flass
> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Andromeda Strain movie sucked...  a satellite in orbit equipped
>>> with a vacuum ? Nonsense.
>>
>> Plenty of raw material there for one ;-)
> 
> I found the book much more scary. A set of instructions was sent to
> Earth. Turns out it was a DNA/android sequence. Once she was built,
> she started killing people and couldn't be stopped.


ISTR it introduced Susan Hampshire?

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 22:56:50 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 21 Jun 2018 09:51:48 GMT, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:30:25 +0000, Huge wrote:
>>
>>> Budget does not a movie make. For example, these are all better than
>>> Star Wars and yet had budgets a fraction of what Lucas spent; "The Girl
>>> With All The Gifts", "Under The Skin", "Cargo".
>>
>>I would add "Dark Star".
>>
>>(and "Forbidden Planet"!)
>
>Forbidden Planet did not have a budget "a fraction of what George
>Lucas spent". The budget for Star Wars was 11 million in 1977.  The
>budget for Forbidden Planet was 8 million in 1956, which, adjusted for
>inflation, is 18 million in 1977.
>

The Forbidden Planet dvd I have also has bits of film converted to the
dvd that shows them working on the special effects, and the models,
for the star ship in the movie. Along with Robbie's car.
 

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:08:49 -0400, Freddy wrote:
>
>> Multics, OS2, and those movies we say are better.  Where are the
>> sequels now?
>> 
>> MS Windows, Star Wars, we have more of that than we ever want.
>
> Shame about OS/2. I used it 1990-2010 - by choice.
>
> Multics - well...
>
> One sequel was UNIX, at least partly. And look where that went (OK,
> there are downsides, like Linux :))

As a developer, having been exposed to many versions of Unix, Linux
stands out as the best.

(And yes, I like systemd too.)

-- 
Dan Espen

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:53:15 -0400
Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As a developer, having been exposed to many versions of Unix, Linux
> stands out as the best.
> 
> (And yes, I like systemd too.)

	There's no accounting for taste - FreeBSD by a good way for me.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

Obvious shameless Viet Cong propaganda.

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 18:18:36 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:53:15 -0400 Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> As a developer, having been exposed to many versions of Unix, Linux
>> stands out as the best.
>> 
>> (And yes, I like systemd too.)
> 
> 	There's no accounting for taste - FreeBSD by a good way for me.

And me, having used BSD in one form or another since 1977.

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 2018-06-22, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> On 6/21/2018 2:24 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>   [snip...]          [snip...]           [snip...]
>> 
>> I was pretty young when I first saw it, and had trouble getting
>> to sleep that night.  An invisible monster with almost unlimited
>> power... that's about as scary as it gets.
>> 
>
> Huge, all-powerful monsters...  I do *not* find scary.  If I have *no* 
> chance to survive, I can resign myself to my fate.
>
> The scary monsters are the smaller calculating ones...  the ones you 
> feel it is possible to escape!!!  Then your fear makes your mind race... 
> thinking how you can hide or escape!!!  You fear the monster but you 
> also fear that you will make the wrong decision and be caught!!!

Oh, like Google and the Internet of Things...

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  Fight low-contrast text in web pages!  http://contrastrebellion.com

On Fri, 2018-06-22, Dan Espen wrote:
> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
...
>> One sequel was UNIX, at least partly. And look where that went (OK,
>> there are downsides, like Linux :))
>
> As a developer, having been exposed to many versions of Unix, Linux
> stands out as the best.

It comes with tools for development, unlike most unices in the
past ...

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

On 24 Jun 2018 06:36:31 GMT
Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:

> On Fri, 2018-06-22, Dan Espen wrote:
> > Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
> ...
> >> One sequel was UNIX, at least partly. And look where that went (OK,
> >> there are downsides, like Linux :))
> >
> > As a developer, having been exposed to many versions of Unix, Linux
> > stands out as the best.
> 
> It comes with tools for development, unlike most unices in the
> past ...

	Development tools were an optional extra with every commercial unix
I encountered, often an expensive one.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 06:36:31 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:

> On Fri, 2018-06-22, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
> ...
>>> One sequel was UNIX, at least partly. And look where that went (OK,
>>> there are downsides, like Linux :))
>>
>> As a developer, having been exposed to many versions of Unix, Linux
>> stands out as the best.
> 
> It comes with tools for development, unlike most unices in the past ...

I don't believe it comes with anything that the BSDs don't have.

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 24 Jun 2018 09:53:43 GMT
Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:

re Linux

> I don't believe it comes with anything that the BSDs don't have.

	systemd :)

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Sun, 2018-06-24, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 06:36:31 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2018-06-22, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
>> ...
>>>> One sequel was UNIX, at least partly. And look where that went (OK,
>>>> there are downsides, like Linux :))
>>>
>>> As a developer, having been exposed to many versions of Unix, Linux
>>> stands out as the best.
>> 
>> It comes with tools for development, unlike most unices in the past ...
>
> I don't believe it comes with anything that the BSDs don't have.

It doesn't, but the BSDs are fortunately not in the past :-)

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

On 2018-06-24, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 06:36:31 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2018-06-22, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
>> ...
>>>> One sequel was UNIX, at least partly. And look where that went (OK,
>>>> there are downsides, like Linux :))
>>>
>>> As a developer, having been exposed to many versions of Unix, Linux
>>> stands out as the best.
>> 
>> It comes with tools for development, unlike most unices in the past ...
>
> I don't believe it comes with anything that the BSDs don't have.
>
but BSD stands for Bad Software Distribution!

-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

On 2018-06-24, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2018 09:53:43 GMT
> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>
> re Linux
>
>> I don't believe it comes with anything that the BSDs don't have.
>
> 	systemd :)

systemd is desktop only.
>


-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> writes:

> On Fri, 2018-06-22, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
> ...
>>> One sequel was UNIX, at least partly. And look where that went (OK,
>>> there are downsides, like Linux :))
>>
>> As a developer, having been exposed to many versions of Unix, Linux
>> stands out as the best.
>
> It comes with tools for development, unlike most unices in the
> past ...
>
> /Jorgen

Plus the GNU folks care more about usability than some
abstract goal like POSIX compliance.

One thing I learned to avoid is vendor supplied versions of make.
I'll choose gnu-make every time.  I also prefer the diagnostics
that come out of gcc.

-- 
Dan Espen

Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> writes:

> On 2018-06-24, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On 24 Jun 2018 09:53:43 GMT
>> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>>
>> re Linux
>>
>>> I don't believe it comes with anything that the BSDs don't have.
>>
>> 	systemd :)
>
> systemd is desktop only.

Nope.

One of the big differences between systemd and init is that
systemd manages the restart of services when they die.
Something really needed in servers.

One of the things systemd did is catch up to Solaris SMF,
an enterprise level system.

-- 
Dan Espen

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> On 24 Jun 2018 09:53:43 GMT
> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>
> re Linux
>
>> I don't believe it comes with anything that the BSDs don't have.
>
> 	systemd :)
>
That's not fair, you can get Linux without systemd, at least at the 
moment.  Everyone's favorite distribution, Slackware, is at least one 
distribution that hasn't gone to the systemd side.

   Michael

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, Melzzzzz wrote:

> On 2018-06-24, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 06:36:31 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2018-06-22, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
>>> ...
>>>>> One sequel was UNIX, at least partly. And look where that went (OK,
>>>>> there are downsides, like Linux :))
>>>>
>>>> As a developer, having been exposed to many versions of Unix, Linux
>>>> stands out as the best.
>>>
>>> It comes with tools for development, unlike most unices in the past ...
>>
>> I don't believe it comes with anything that the BSDs don't have.
>>
> but BSD stands for Bad Software Distribution!
>
No, "Berkely Software Distribution" though I may be wrong about the last 
word.

Not to be confused with some small company that was "BDS", and they 
actually did claim it was "Badly Done Software".  But now I can't remember 
what they were best known for.

   Michael

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 19:18:48 -0400
Michael Black <mbl...@pubnix.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> 
> > On 24 Jun 2018 09:53:43 GMT
> > Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> >
> > re Linux
> >
> >> I don't believe it comes with anything that the BSDs don't have.
> >
> > 	systemd :)
> >
> That's not fair, you can get Linux without systemd, at least at the 

	Yes but you can't get systemd without Linux.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

Michael Black <mbl...@pubnix.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, Melzzzzz wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-06-24, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 06:36:31 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 2018-06-22, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> One sequel was UNIX, at least partly. And look where that went (OK,
>>>>>> there are downsides, like Linux :))
>>>>> 
>>>>> As a developer, having been exposed to many versions of Unix, Linux
>>>>> stands out as the best.
>>>> 
>>>> It comes with tools for development, unlike most unices in the past ...
>>> 
>>> I don't believe it comes with anything that the BSDs don't have.
>>> 
>> but BSD stands for Bad Software Distribution!
>> 
> No, "Berkely Software Distribution" though I may be wrong about the last 
> word.
> 
> Not to be confused with some small company that was "BDS", and they 
> actually did claim it was "Badly Done Software".  But now I can't remember 
> what they were best known for.

Didn't they have  C compiler for messy-dos?

-- 
Pete

On 25/06/2018 10:53, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
> Didn't they have  C compiler for messy-dos?

Lattice?

Zorland / Zortech?