🚀 go-pugleaf

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/
> 
> 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.

Aha! I wondered why he started with episode IV.

> 
> 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
> 



-- 
Pete

Questor <usenet@only.tnx> 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?
> 
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 

2001 was good, but the ending was hokey - not the fault of the movie, since
the book was also. I saw many of the others and thought some were pretty
good. Blade Runner beat them all, but I believe that came after SW.

-- 
Pete

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400
Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Blade Runner beat them all, but I believe that came after SW.

	"Blade Runner" was a poor adaptation of "Do Androids Dream of
Electric Sheep" just as "Soylent Green" was a poor adaptation of "Make
Room! Make Room!" - although to be fair neither of them was as poor an
adaptation as "Dune" or the execrable "I Robot".

	Good science fiction in visual media is extremely rare - "The
Expanse", "2001" and "The Terminal Man" pretty much covers it. Entertaining
films with a science fiction flavour are rather more common.

-- 
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 2018-06-21, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> 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?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>
> 2001 was good, but the ending was hokey - not the fault of the movie, since
> the book was also. I saw many of the others and thought some were pretty
> good. Blade Runner beat them all, but I believe that came after SW.
>

AFAIK, the Book (2001) came after the film, and was really the `bookifying'
of the script. Great film.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On Fri, 2018-06-22, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400
> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Blade Runner beat them all, but I believe that came after SW.
>
> 	"Blade Runner" was a poor adaptation of "Do Androids Dream of
> Electric Sheep" just as "Soylent Green" was a poor adaptation of "Make
> Room! Make Room!" - although to be fair neither of them was as poor an
> adaptation as "Dune" or the execrable "I Robot".

> 	Good science fiction in visual media is extremely rare - "The
> Expanse", "2001" and "The Terminal Man" pretty much covers it. Entertaining
> films with a science fiction flavour are rather more common.

I wonder if good SF movies tend to be percieved as something else.
Cronenberg's "Videodrome" for example: to me it's excellent SF, but
it's usually labeled as horror since there are no spaceships or
lasers.

/Jorgen

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

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 07:26:34 +0000, mausg wrote:

>> 2001 was good, but the ending was hokey - not the fault of the movie,
>> since the book was also. I saw many of the others and thought some were
>> pretty good. Blade Runner beat them all, but I believe that came after
>> SW.
>>
>>
> AFAIK, the Book (2001) came after the film, and was really the
> `bookifying'
> of the script. Great film.

And the film was based on the short story, "The Sentinel". Which was 
excellent. I still get the hairs on my neck standing up when I read the 
last line.

  future-lives.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/TheSentinel.pdf

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

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

On 22 Jun 2018 07:55:44 GMT
Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:

> On Fri, 2018-06-22, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400
> > Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Blade Runner beat them all, but I believe that came after SW.
> >
> > 	"Blade Runner" was a poor adaptation of "Do Androids Dream of
> > Electric Sheep" just as "Soylent Green" was a poor adaptation of "Make
> > Room! Make Room!" - although to be fair neither of them was as poor an
> > adaptation as "Dune" or the execrable "I Robot".
> 
> > 	Good science fiction in visual media is extremely rare - "The
> > Expanse", "2001" and "The Terminal Man" pretty much covers it.
> > Entertaining films with a science fiction flavour are rather more
> > common.
> 
> I wonder if good SF movies tend to be percieved as something else.
> Cronenberg's "Videodrome" for example: to me it's excellent SF, but

	Good point, I had forgotten about it but yes that qualifies as SF
in my book and good SF too.

> it's usually labeled as horror since there are no spaceships or
> lasers.

	True enough.

-- 
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 22 Jun 2018 07:26:34 GMT
ma...@mail.com wrote:

> AFAIK, the Book (2001) came after the film, and was really the
> `bookifying' of the script. Great film.

	AIUI the book and film were made together based on the short story
'The Sentinel'.

-- 
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 22 Jun 2018 08:00:58 GMT
Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:

> And the film was based on the short story, "The Sentinel". Which was 
> excellent. I still get the hairs on my neck standing up when I read the 
> last line.

	Arthur Clarke was a grand master of the last line, most of his are
great - the ones on his tombstone included.

-- 
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 22 Jun 2018 07:26:34 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:

>On 2018-06-21, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> 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?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>
>> 2001 was good, but the ending was hokey - not the fault of the movie, since
>> the book was also. I saw many of the others and thought some were pretty
>> good. Blade Runner beat them all, but I believe that came after SW.
>>
>
>AFAIK, the Book (2001) came after the film, and was really the `bookifying'
>of the script. Great film.

They were written at the same time. The author and the film maker had
a number of arguments.

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 08:18:32 -0500, JimP wrote:

> On 22 Jun 2018 07:26:34 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:
> 
>>On 2018-06-21, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> 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?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 2001 was good, but the ending was hokey - not the fault of the movie,
>>> since the book was also. I saw many of the others and thought some
>>> were pretty good. Blade Runner beat them all, but I believe that came
>>> after SW.
>>>
>>>
>>AFAIK, the Book (2001) came after the film, and was really the
>>`bookifying'
>>of the script. Great film.
> 
> They were written at the same time. The author and the film maker had a
> number of arguments.

There is another book about it.




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

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

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote in news:fp4cpcFkh8mU10
@mid.individual.net:

> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 08:18:32 -0500, JimP wrote:
> 
>> On 22 Jun 2018 07:26:34 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>> 
>>>On 2018-06-21, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> 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?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 2001 was good, but the ending was hokey - not the fault of the movie,
>>>> since the book was also. I saw many of the others and thought some 
>>>> were pretty good. Blade Runner beat them all, but I believe that came
>>>> after SW.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>AFAIK, the Book (2001) came after the film, and was really the
>>>`bookifying' of the script. Great film. 
>> 
>> They were written at the same time. The author and the film maker had a
>> number of arguments. 
> 
> There is another book about it.

"Lost Worlds of 2001" had a number of Clarke's plot outlines that were 
rejected.

On 22 Jun 2018 13:44:12 GMT, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 08:18:32 -0500, JimP wrote:
>
>> On 22 Jun 2018 07:26:34 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>> 
>>>On 2018-06-21, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> 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?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 2001 was good, but the ending was hokey - not the fault of the movie,
>>>> since the book was also. I saw many of the others and thought some
>>>> were pretty good. Blade Runner beat them all, but I believe that came
>>>> after SW.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>AFAIK, the Book (2001) came after the film, and was really the
>>>`bookifying'
>>>of the script. Great film.
>> 
>> They were written at the same time. The author and the film maker had a
>> number of arguments.
>
>There is another book about it.

The story I read titled 'The Sentinel', was a short story.

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:49:25 -0500, JimP wrote:

> On 22 Jun 2018 13:44:12 GMT, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 08:18:32 -0500, JimP wrote:
>>
>>> On 22 Jun 2018 07:26:34 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>On 2018-06-21, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> 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?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 2001 was good, but the ending was hokey - not the fault of the
>>>>> movie,
>>>>> since the book was also. I saw many of the others and thought some
>>>>> were pretty good. Blade Runner beat them all, but I believe that
>>>>> came after SW.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>AFAIK, the Book (2001) came after the film, and was really the
>>>>`bookifying'
>>>>of the script. Great film.
>>> 
>>> They were written at the same time. The author and the film maker had
>>> a number of arguments.
>>
>>There is another book about it.
> 
> The story I read titled 'The Sentinel', was a short story.

No, you misunderstand. There was:

1) The Sentinel (short story)
2) The 2001 book
3) The book about the writing/making of 2001



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

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

On 2018-06-21, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 2001 was good, but the ending was hokey - not the fault of the movie,
> since the book was also.

At least the book let you understand what was going on, rather than
just sitting there and saying, "Wow, look at the fancy lights...
pass the roach."

> I saw many of the others and thought some were pretty good.
> Blade Runner beat them all, but I believe that came after SW.

I watched the original Blade Runner again prior to watching the
sequel.  It didn't make much more sense the second time around;
nor did it help that I still can't see any etymology of the term
"blade runner".  Still, it does have a wonderfully dark mood.

-- 
/~\  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 2018-06-21, Freddy <freddy1X@indyX.netX> wrote:

> 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?

On VHS somewhere, perhaps... :-)

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

Amen, brother.

> The market place has (mis)spoken.

Old marketing saying: When aiming for the lowest common denominator,
be prepared for the occasional division by zero.

> Freddy,
> bringing it back to computer folklore.

What, you don't like thread drift?

-- 
/~\  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

Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2018-06-21, Freddy <freddy1X@indyX.netX> wrote:
> 
>> Huge wrote:
>>
( cuts )

> 
> On VHS somewhere, perhaps... :-)
> 
>> MS Windows, Star Wars, we have more of that than we ever want.
> 
> Amen, brother.
> 
>> The market place has (mis)spoken.
> 
> Old marketing saying: When aiming for the lowest common denominator,
> be prepared for the occasional division by zero.
> 
>> Freddy,
>> bringing it back to computer folklore.
> 
> What, you don't like thread drift?
> 
This is a newsgroup about computers...

Computer folklore is that embarrassing tirade that grandpa goes into right 
after he says: "When I was your age..."

Freddy,
old enough to be entitled to use that phrase.
-- 
Carve in the direction of arrows.

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

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 08:52:36 -0400, Freddy <freddy1X@indyX.netX>
wrote:

>Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2018-06-21, Freddy <freddy1X@indyX.netX> wrote:
>> 
>>> Huge wrote:
>>>
>( cuts )
>
>> 
>> On VHS somewhere, perhaps... :-)
>> 
>>> MS Windows, Star Wars, we have more of that than we ever want.
>> 
>> Amen, brother.
>> 
>>> The market place has (mis)spoken.
>> 
>> Old marketing saying: When aiming for the lowest common denominator,
>> be prepared for the occasional division by zero.
>> 
>>> Freddy,
>>> bringing it back to computer folklore.
>> 
>> What, you don't like thread drift?
>> 
>This is a newsgroup about computers...
>
>Computer folklore is that embarrassing tirade that grandpa goes into right 
>after he says: "When I was your age..."
>
>Freddy,
>old enough to be entitled to use that phrase.

We talk about lots of things in here. and I'm in my 70s, just didn't
work on computers until I was in my late 30s.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, Freddy wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2018-06-21, Freddy <freddy1X@indyX.netX> wrote:
>>
>>> Huge wrote:
>>>
> ( cuts )
>
>>
>> On VHS somewhere, perhaps... :-)
>>
>>> MS Windows, Star Wars, we have more of that than we ever want.
>>
>> Amen, brother.
>>
>>> The market place has (mis)spoken.
>>
>> Old marketing saying: When aiming for the lowest common denominator,
>> be prepared for the occasional division by zero.
>>
>>> Freddy,
>>> bringing it back to computer folklore.
>>
>> What, you don't like thread drift?
>>
> This is a newsgroup about computers...
>
> Computer folklore is that embarrassing tirade that grandpa goes into right
> after he says: "When I was your age..."
>
> Freddy,
> old enough to be entitled to use that phrase.

You must be new here.

   Michael

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 05:53:23 -0400
Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Michael Black <mbl...@pubnix.net> wrote:

> > 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.

	Brain Damaged Software ITYF - it was a one man band.

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

	Almost. BDS C is an 8080 C compiler for CP/M written in 8080
Assembler (it has been released to public domain).

-- 
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 Mon, 25 Jun 2018, Peter Flass wrote:

> 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?
>
I do have a vague memory about C, so probably.  So maybe the name was kind 
of deliberate.

   Michael

On 6/24/2018 6:20 PM, Michael Black 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.
> 

Some places say it means Berkely Standard Distribution...

> 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.
> 

BDS  was "brain damaged software".  There was Small C compiler written 
by Leor Zolman and then there was a port of Colossal Cave Adventure to 
BDS C.  Some things can be downloaded at:

https://www.bdsoft.com/resources/bdsc.html

You can get a BDS C Users Guide at:

http://altairclone.com/downloads/manuals/BDS%20C%20Compiler.pdf


You can read an interview with Leor Zolman at:

https://tinyurl.com/ycxs5pnm


See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDS_C

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:13:20 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:

>> No, "Berkely Software Distribution" though I may be wrong about the
>> last word.
>> 
>> 
> Some places say it means Berkely Standard Distribution...

My official BSD manuals say "Berkeley Software Distribution".

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

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

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Charles Richmond wrote:

>>> but BSD stands for Bad Software Distribution!
>>> 
>> No, "Berkely Software Distribution" though I may be wrong about the last 
>> word.
>> 
>
> Some places say it means Berkely Standard Distribution...
>
I may have been guessing at what the "S" stood for.

>> 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.
>> 
>
> BDS  was "brain damaged software".  There was Small C compiler written by 
> Leor Zolman and then there was a port of Colossal Cave Adventure to BDS C. 
> Some things can be downloaded at:
>
I don't think I'm misremembering.  So I think I must have read what I 
thought it was somewhere, I'm thinking in Jerry Pournelle's column in 
Byte.  So maybe he was just making a joke.

   Michael