 | | RE: Re: legOS —Vaan, Howard
|
| | | I agree with Russel Nelson: This thread has gone too far. It's a Lego Robotics mailing list, not a systems fundamentals course . . . verging on a semantics fest. Howard Vaan Global NT Server Engineering CREDIT | FIRST SUISSE | BOSTON Phone: +44 (0) (...) (26 years ago, 1-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: legOS —Ken Hornstein
|
| | | | | (...) I think that perhaps the most ironic thing about your message is that you posted a "me, too" ... and included the entire massive thread at the end. (I'll shut up now). --Ken (26 years ago, 1-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | RE: Re: legOS —Luis Villa
|
| | | | | (...) I agree. Sorry to be the party pooper, but 10-20 emails a day on the distinction between storage devices is unnecessary. I do agree that the legOS copyright issue is important- but that seems to have been lost. If you gentlemen wish to (...) (26 years ago, 1-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Re: legOS —Linc Smith
|
| | | | I am in agreement. Without just making this a "me too" I suggest that the discussion move to Lugnet.off-topic.debate. I know that the thread is not really a debate, but more of a discussion, but this group would serve the purpose. I think the (...) (26 years ago, 1-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
