From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Nov 4 11:04:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA29461 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:04:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.5.85]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA29456 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:04:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA13937; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:04:01 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd013932; Tue Nov 4 12:03:56 1997 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA19517; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:03:52 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199711041903.MAA19517@usr06.primenet.com> Subject: Re: BIOS information preservation (was Re: >64MB) To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 19:03:52 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, mike@smith.net.au, jamil@trojanhorse.ml.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199711040200.MAA00639@word.smith.net.au> from "Mike Smith" at Nov 4, 97 12:30:32 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Unfortunately, you need a Win32 (as you suggest) because there is a DLL > > involved in reading the Word Format documents. > > Is this DLL part of Win32, or part of WordPad? If the former, how does > MS's stance on pushing the Win32 API onto *nix platforms impact its > potential availability? (Actually, given that Willows can call Win32 > native DLL's even from *nix-mode, this may be less of a problem than it > sounds.) If you want to run Win95, you buy Win95. If you want to run UNIX, you buy UNIX, then you buy Win95. ...at least, that's how I think it's "supposed" to work. 8-(. If you look at the Winsock 2.0 SDK EULA, they've limited it to Windows NT and Windows 95 *only*; this is a new thing for them; I haven't seen this type of "attack license" from them before. I suspect they may be feeling Linux, or trying to keep MacOS or BeOS off balance. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.