ref: Microsoft barriers to Linux adoption on the desktop

[Mike McCarty]

Robin Laing wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
> 
>> Guy Fraser wrote:
>>
>> [I wrote]
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>> As far as I know, the 80386 was the first processor supported
>>> by Linux, or BSD but I don't know. Back in those days, I 
>>
>>
>>
>> What I said. MicroSoft products are better able to run
>> on old hardware than Linux.
>>
>> You agree, so there's no need for further discussion.
>>
>> Mike
> 
> 
> But can these products be purchased today?

Yes, but not new.

> For the record, was Linux even available before the 386?  What was the

The first version of Linux ran on the 80386.

> current processor available with Linux first came out?  What was the 

I'm not sure I know what you mean by this question. Do you mean the
"latest" processor from Intel? There were *many* processors being
produced and sold at the time.

> current microsoft product.

More than one was available.

> You also cannot compare Linux to DOS.  It was more than DOS from day one 
> so it is an unfair comparison.

Erm, of course I can compare and contrast Linux to DOS. Each has
strengths and weaknesses relative to the other. On the topic
of keeping "older" computers running, MSDOS strong and Linux
is weak. On running multiple processes which are protected
from each other, Linux is relatively strong and MSDOS is
extremely weak (as in "almost can't").

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!