Slashdot Mirror

Red Box (for those that don't remember), was said to be a compatibility environment where Windows apps ran on the Macintosh but did so within a separate Windows installation. Apple doesn't have to reverse engineer the Windows API (like WINE) to get this functionality and theoretically upset Microsoft. Rather, it could simply be based on a standard copy of Windows. Red Box would override Windows native interface when run on OS X and would incorporate OS X's Aqua user Interface in the place of the Windows UI. The software would then make the two environments (Mac and Windows) functionally seamless with one another. Unlike a virtual environment, the end result would be full compatibility while retaining both visual as well as functional usability for the Mac user.

Whis would this article be labeled a troll? Because you don't like the ramifications?

I think Cringely's article is probable though impracticle... at least for the time being.

Microsoft isn't going to drop office for Mac... they make too much money from it... but if they ever do, Apple has a backup plan in the way of Windows virtualization.

It sounds and looks awfully familiar. And that was 15 years ago. And more or less blown out of the water by the Newton and Windows 3.1 Pen Computing API. It's too big.
What I would pay for right now is a Blue Angel Pocket PC with an iPod mini/nano small hard or flash drive in. Running MacOS or Linux Tablet Edition. I'd never go in the office again.

Clearly you have never been involved in developing anything more than 'HelloWorld.' Enterprise scale solutions, which I'm sure would have nothing on designing and building an entire Operating System, almost always go over budget by millions of dollars and months, if not years, of effort or just completely fail and get scrapped.

Just think for a second about Copeland. Apple spent years and millions of dollars on trying to build that and other systems and got very little out of it.

From the above linked article:In 1997, with three operating systems (MKLinux, Copland, nuKernel) which were in development for over a decade, yet there was no shipping product. Gil Amelio canceled the project, which had by now cost millions of dollars.

Software does not have a fixed cost of creation.

This article, which is an opinion piece, brings up some insightful benefits of Apple reinvigorating the "Red Box" project to allow full compatibility between OS X and Windows apps.

Seems to fit with this whole Intel dev edition story.

An interesting related article and discussion on interpreting Google's zeitgeist OS numbers. And what it might mean for % usage of OS (which for Mac ends up being the 3-6% people usually speak of, 3% from Google's direct number and another 3% from Google 'Other' OS).

Do you mean someone like Nielson//NetRatings?

Actually, there are a lot of companies that will provide Web Analytics, which probably makes things worse rather than better to find a definitive answer for something like "What percentage of people use a mac to surf the web?"

I work for a large news oriented web site and they use Omniture for stats. They claim that the percentage of our users that use Macs is 6.2% and that it is lower than the "Internet Average" of 9.5%. (and in case you buy that line from OSOpinions that the "other" column should count for Macs then 0.6% as "not specified")

An interesting related article and discussion on interpreting Google's zeitgeist OS numbers. And what it might mean for % usage of OS (which for Mac ends up being the 3-6% people usually speak of, 3% from Google's direct number and another 3% from Google 'Other' OS).

Apparently Bill doesn't like it, though: Microsoft's Gates Endures PC Crash During Keynote Speech.

It's good to know where the cut-off point is for this particular piece of evidence. But this ancient UNIX (V7 and before) could be the source of any duplicated code (assuming there is any significant duplicated code). IBM may have nothing to do with this.

At any rate, anything found in V7 and before can no longer be called a trade secret.

The History of Open Source and Why It's Important (December 1999)

Microsoft employee considers using V7 (February 1999)

Slashdot poster's reference to "free" UNIX source license (March 2000)

> one has to admit that they are great motive forces for technological advances.

I agree... I wonder they are so nervous when it comes to controlling balance of the power of access to infomation especially monitoring and spying on their enemies or even on their friends. And I don't know why they spend astronomical amount of bucks for developping uncrackable encryption technologies.

http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/21722.html

Don't have much time at the moment, but in case nobody has posted these yet:

NOTE: German Language

A German developer (who says that he didn't sign their NDA!) reports on SCO's "evidence". He says that he's seen 46 pages (not just 80 lines) but doesn't seem convinced.

In another article, Claybrook gives more details of how the story changed, and also remarks on some rather odd things about SCO's "evidence".

Don't have much time at the moment, but in case nobody has posted these yet:

NOTE: German Language

A German developer (who says that he didn't sign their NDA!) reports on SCO's "evidence". He says that he's seen 46 pages (not just 80 lines) but doesn't seem convinced.

In another article, Claybrook gives more details of how the story changed, and also remarks on some rather odd things about SCO's "evidence".

Don't have much time at the moment, but in case nobody has posted these yet:

NOTE: German Language

A German developer (who says that he didn't sign their NDA!) reports on SCO's "evidence". He says that he's seen 46 pages (not just 80 lines) but doesn't seem convinced.

In another article, Claybrook gives more details of how the story changed, and also remarks on some rather odd things about SCO's "evidence".

Don't have much time at the moment, but in case nobody has posted these yet:

NOTE: German Language

A German developer (who says that he didn't sign their NDA!) reports on SCO's "evidence". He says that he's seen 46 pages (not just 80 lines) but doesn't seem convinced.

In another article, Claybrook gives more details of how the story changed, and also remarks on some rather odd things about SCO's "evidence".

I thought that apple paid the Open Group to certify themselves as a Unix, around the time that OS X came out. What am I missing here?

One simple thing. They didn't. Their OS is based on Unix code for certain, it's pretty close to BSD compatible, but it's not Unix(tm) and, as your post shows, they've been marketing it in a way that can be argued to be misleading in that sense.

From The Open Group's own website:

Platform Vendors Supporting the Single UNIX Specification:

Acer; Amdahl; Apple; AT&T GIS; Bull; Convex; Cray; Data General; Compaq; Encore; 88 Open; Fuji Xerox; Fujitsu Ossi; Hal; Hewlett-Packard; Hitachi; IBM; ICL; Matsushita; Mips ABI; Mitsubishi; Motorola; NEC; Novell/USL; Oki; Olivetti; OSF; PowerOpen; Precision RISC; Pyramid; SCO; Sequent; Sequoia; Sharp; Siemens-Nixdorf; Silicon Graphics; Sony; Sparc International; Stratus; Sun Microsystems; Tadpole; Tandem; Thompson/Cetia; Toshiba; Unisys; Wang Labs.

Here's also an osOpinion piece from May '01 questioning MacOS X's certification as Unix and at the bottom is an update noting:

Since osOpinion's publishing of this piece, the Open Group has updated their web site to include Apple into its list of vendors that support the single Unix specification.

From The Open Group's own website:

Platform Vendors Supporting the Single UNIX Specification:

Acer; Amdahl; Apple; AT&T GIS; Bull; Convex; Cray; Data General; Compaq; Encore; 88 Open; Fuji Xerox; Fujitsu Ossi; Hal; Hewlett-Packard; Hitachi; IBM; ICL; Matsushita; Mips ABI; Mitsubishi; Motorola; NEC; Novell/USL; Oki; Olivetti; OSF; PowerOpen; Precision RISC; Pyramid; SCO; Sequent; Sequoia; Sharp; Siemens-Nixdorf; Silicon Graphics; Sony; Sparc International; Stratus; Sun Microsystems; Tadpole; Tandem; Thompson/Cetia; Toshiba; Unisys; Wang Labs.

Here's also an osOpinion piece from May '01 questioning MacOS X's certification as Unix and at the bottom is an update noting:

Since osOpinion's publishing of this piece, the Open Group has updated their web site to include Apple into its list of vendors that support the single Unix specification.

Platform Vendors Supporting the Single UNIX Specification:

Acer; Amdahl; Apple; AT&T GIS; Bull; Convex; Cray; Data General; Compaq; Encore; 88 Open; Fuji Xerox; Fujitsu Ossi; Hal; Hewlett-Packard; Hitachi; IBM; ICL; Matsushita; Mips ABI; Mitsubishi; Motorola; NEC; Novell/USL; Oki; Olivetti; OSF; PowerOpen; Precision RISC; Pyramid; SCO; Sequent; Sequoia; Sharp; Siemens-Nixdorf; Silicon Graphics; Sony; Sparc International; Stratus; Sun Microsystems; Tadpole; Tandem; Thompson/Cetia; Toshiba; Unisys; Wang Labs.

Here's also a report from May '01 questioning MacOS X's certification as Unix and at the bottom is an update noting:

Since osOpinion's publishing of this piece, the Open Group has updated their web site to include Apple into its list of vendors that support the single Unix specification. This appears likely as a direct result to osOpinion's publishing of the report.

I see a story at osopinion about Apple's use of the Unix trademark. This has been stewing for a while, but back then it did not look like it would come to a law suit. In fact at the end of the story there is an update that indicated that Apple was getting closer to the Open Group.

Lee Joramo

Laura Didio's focus, as her Bios suggest, seems to be Windows and Microsoft products. And in this space, she is sometimes critical. She also comments on some Open Source software with how it competes with the entrenched Microsoft offerings. And she does occasionally comment on Unix and Linux in general. She is cautious towards Open Source and Linux in particular. If she does have a bias against Linux, it does not seem over-the-top (although I don't always agree with her assessments).

Laura Didio's focus, as her Bios suggest, seems to be Windows and Microsoft products. And in this space, she is sometimes critical. She also comments on some Open Source software with how it competes with the entrenched Microsoft offerings. And she does occasionally comment on Unix and Linux in general. She is cautious towards Open Source and Linux in particular. If she does have a bias against Linux, it does not seem over-the-top (although I don't always agree with her assessments).

Laura Didio's focus, as her Bios suggest, seems to be Windows and Microsoft products. And in this space, she is sometimes critical. She also comments on some Open Source software with how it competes with the entrenched Microsoft offerings. And she does occasionally comment on Unix and Linux in general. She is cautious towards Open Source and Linux in particular. If she does have a bias against Linux, it does not seem over-the-top (although I don't always agree with her assessments).

SCO recently sent a letter warning some Linux users (approx. 1500 people) that they could be sued for using SCO code. About 2500 Linux users then signed a petition and issued a challenge, basically daring SCO to sue.

Thousands Say 'SCO Sue Me'

OSOpinion.com has an article that offers a unique analysis of the SCO / Linux lawsuit. The "Strategy Backfire" section asks one simple question: if SCO new that Linux was infringing on their IP, then why did it keep distributing it in their Linux distribution? If they had distributed in their Linux distribution, then it would have been distrbuted under the GPL.

It is definitely worth a read.

According to this osOpinion.com article Apple claims 5 million users for OS X (as of January, this year). Assuming no one else started using OS X since then (pretty poor assumption, but whatever), we see that 5 million users downloaded 2 million songs in 16 days. This is a rate of 125,000 songs per day. At 365 days a year, we see 45.6 million songs per year. Spread across our 5 million users we see 9.12 songs per year. Admittedly not huge, but still 3x larger than your numbers.

Admittedly, this is based on some schetchy assumptions. 1) Purchasing rates won't remain at this level. 2) The number of OSX users I'm sure is higher now than it was in January.

But still, not what you claim.

If they want to beat Google, then they will have to do better than this :

rabbit hole

OSOpinion also has a good article about it. Less technical, more informative.

OSOpinion also has a good article about it. Less technical, more informative.

Even headline is Best battle ground for Linux.

No, it's not.

This is common troll banter. Apple compelled Microsoft to buy stock as part of its settlement over various patent and IP suits. In return, Microsoft made Office 98 and later Office products for Mac, including IE, and got to cash in their stock after three years, which has already happened.

Microsoft's stock was non-voting, meaning they couldn't affect the course of Apple beyond ignoring their agreement with Apple.

Anything I write on my computer or any music I create gets stored by Word.NET and Music.NET in encrypted formats to protect my privacy. No one but me, Microsoft.NET and the National Corporation can read or hear my stuff.....

Right! The Windows approach is much *worse* than the command line for high-end server administration. Hard to believe that this guy is in charge of Windows server marketing (or maybe not so hard to believe).

- adam

(Sorry for the mistype before. :-) )

Here are some references:

NewsFactor Network

PC World

Actually, just go to Google and do a search on this. According to Mr.G his testimony says that you can not separate Windows from the OS and that is why MS could not allow third party software to have a way to change things. Now (remember the current testimony is from last week and not several years ago) that Windows is separate from the OS which is why it should have unique standing for trademark purposes. This contradicts his earlier testimony and makes this testimony perjury. Because he is changing his story on what Windows really is. Which is to say it is nothing more than a glorified GUI stuck on top of an OS just like X Windows is to Unix.

The truth is - you can't have it both ways. It either is or it is not an integral part of the OS. So Lindows should pick this up and run with it. Just like the remaining states should pick this up and run with it. It is the proof they both need that MS is willing to say (and probably do) whatever it takes in order to win a court battle.

here's my article at OSOpinion.com

Ask Titanium owners what it means to have a wireless device built deep into a metal-case pc... obviously the signal is less powerful and reliable. So who really wants a good wi-fi net will buy other hardware anyway.

802.11 isn't ethernet ;)

Actually, that's not how OpenGL 2.0 came out. OpenGL 2.0 came out because 3DLabs, who is very dependent on OpenGL, got fed up with the ARB and rolled their own spec. To tell the truth, I saw this coming years ago. But I honestly thought that the ARB was going to be the one to kick into high gear and get something done, done a member corporation. So in reality, the ARB hasn't proven it's not useless yet at all. We'll just have to see how quickly updates to OpenGL 2.0 come out, and if they can match pace with DirectX.

I have no evidence that this ever happened. Sorry. All signs point to your being mistaken on this matter.

:sigh:

I really hate people who want to be anal. You could have searched OSopinion or even called the Open Groups but, noooo.

here is the link to the stories

• The first one (May 2001)

Can't find the other follow up article.. It was there.

Yahoo! News Version
IBM Chooses Linux for 'Blue Gene' Supercomputer

IBM has chosen the open source Linux operating system to run on one of its largest, most powerful supercomputing projects, dubbed "Blue Gene."

The petaflop computer, which can calculate 1 quadrillion operations per second, is 100 times more powerful than the fastest computers available, according to IBM.

ZDNet UK
Linux will power IBM supercomputer project
The upcoming family of 'Blue Gene' supercomputers will run on an extended form of Linux, a major endorsement for the open source operating system

Linux will be the main operating system for IBM's upcoming family of "Blue Gene" supercomputers -- a major endorsement for the operating system and the open-source computing model it represents.

OS Opinion
IBM Chooses Linux for 'Blue Gene' Supercomputer
Another supercomputer in the same family, Blue Gene/L, is also set to run Linux. IBM has said Blue Gene/L will be at least 15 times faster than today's fastest supercomputers.
See Complete Story

The Blue Gene project, first announced in late 1999, was designed to model the folding of human proteins, allowing researchers to better understand diseases and their cures. At the time, IBM said Blue Gene would be 1,000 times more powerful than "Deep Blue," the computer that beat chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997.

This could help push Apple back to a respectable market share over a couple of years.

Be fair, Apple is already the "largest Unix vendor in the world." That's pretty respectable.

OS Opinion has an article (outdated) which covers this whole debate.

"[Open Group VP] Graham Bird explained that the Open Group actively pursues companies that use the UNIX trademark in a way that may confuse buyers. He mentioned that the company has a department that does nothing other than seek out violations and that this department has gone after "many" individuals who have allegedly infringed upon the trademark.

"Bird also mentioned that the Open Group is aware of Apple's usage of the term and would only go after the company for trademark violation if it (or any company for that matter) used the UNIX specification in such a way that may confuse buyers."

So there you have it. Mac OS X is not an official "UNIX," but Apple is justified in using the name in its marketing material.

- MFN

- adam

Also, Bruce Perens is not the first person to write about using government buying power to require open file formats...I'm probably not the first either however (although my article was discussed on LinuxToday...where're you getting your ideas from Bruce?!?)

- adam

The real point should be open DATA FORMATS...the government should be able to know the format of all the data that it is storing on behalf of the people of the state. I 100% agree that government procurement is a great way to enforce this kind of thing, but they should be pushing for something else. Open source, closed source, whatever...just make the data formats available.

- adam

I've been using this procmail script for quite a while now. Basically, it implements an "accept list" as described in this OSOpinion article, whereby only people that respond to an auto-reply are added to the accept list, which means that none of the automated spam apps can get their crap through to you. I can't remember the last time I got any spam.

IEEE 1394b supports bandwidth up to 3.2Gbps. TI has introduced a 1394b controller chipset.

Furtherless IEEE 1394b can run at 800Mbytes/sec over Cat 5 for up to 100m. Seems like you'll be able to just swap out your RJ-45 connectors for firewire ones and get to business.

As far as being saturated by a single fast disk...well do you have a single disk that can sustain 50Mbytes per second ? IEEE1394a can really transfer data very close to its theoretical limits in my experience. I've seen it shovel around 40+MBytes/sec so, I wouldn't write it off so fast. You need an IDE RAID 0 array to manage that.

Further, Apple is apparently considering rolling out 1394b as standard in the next round of desktops, and possibly the laptops too. (No link for the latter...)

As the author of the piece, I'd be interested to learn a) why Nathan Myhrvold, Peter Neumann, the folks at SEI, and the other people I spoke with don't know what they're talking about; and b) how you know I quoted them out of context. Have you read the transcripts of my interviews?

Neumann claims that programmers think as long as code compiles it works, and that Gates testimony that removing the browser would break XP "means there's no structure or architecture or rhyme or reason in the way they've built those systems". Those are both patently false. Cem Kaner claims that companies treat quality as secondary. That's wrong. I don't know if he said the part about bug deferral being a plot to generate later revenue, but that's also absurd. The Ariane 5 rocket failed due to an ARITHMETIC overflow, not a buffer overflow (still a bug that should have been caught of course!). Then this guy Downes claiming that excessive WIndows messages in Visual Studio is "cataclysmic. ... It's total chaos" -- I mean come on.

I should not have said, "out of context", I should have said, "without sufficient context." Someone from Microsoft claiming that C# is going to prevent errors is nice, but since IIS and XP aren't going to be rewritten in C#, and the Outlook problems were design issues, why does that matter? Myhrvold's quote was amusing, but you could point out that Microsoft can always say "No" to people, and if the customers weren't asking for features, Microsoft would be dreaming them up themselves -- the real problem is the "new features vs. stability" debate. An 18 megabyte patch -- OK 18 megabytes may be a big number, but saying "it may be a record" is silly (it obviously isn't, look at any NT service pack). Plus how much was bug fixes and how much updates and enhancements?

"It seems a lot of people who never worked at Microsoft know how Microsoft develops software."

I think the people whom I spoke with at Microsoft -- as well as the ex-Microsoft developers -- know how the company develops software. I mean, didn't you read the article?

I'm an ex-Microsoft developer (NT/2000/XP kernel) and I didn't see much I recognized. NT4 should have gone through 4 rounds of tests? What does that mean? Do you mean beta tests? Microsoft leading in component design is nice, but doesn't have much to do with preventing buffer overflows in XP. And comments about the attitudes of Microsoft people are just one person's opinion. "Software's developers were too rushed or too careless to fix obvious defects" -- I'm glad you know so much about me and my former co-workers.

I understand it was an overview article, but you make it sound like any solution will improve on the problems, and it's just not like that.

For the record, here is my opinion on why Microsoft code has buffer overflows in it:

1) Bigger teams -- if you move from 20 devs to 200 and your software is only as good as its weakest link, inevitably the weakest link will be weaker.

2) Lack of training -- Microsoft always assumed good people would do good things, instead of relying on more processes.

3) Too much reliance on the testers -- assumption was "if it's a bug a customer will hit, our testers will find it."

4) [sort of strange considering the previous point] Bad attitudes on the part of developers who think testers are inferior, combined with testers evaluated solely on number of bugs they find, leading to little empowerment for testers to actually find buffer overflows. More on that here.

- adam

The Single UNIX Specification is supported by the X/Open UNIX brand, which in turn is supported by a verification program. The X/Open brand provides the guarantee that products adhere to the relevant X/Open specification. Systems that provide the Single UNIX Specification interfaces can be X/Open UNIX branded as proof to the marketplace. The Single UNIX Specification is the programmer's reference to the portability environment provided on X/Open UNIX branded systems.

Apple is listed as a Single UNIX® Specification vendor therefor allowed to use the trademark of UNIX®. Might not be the cold, inhuman UNIX® you are used to but the Open Group allows Apple to call its lickable OS, UNIX® by being a vendor of a Single UNIX® Spec.

This is a really old debate...

And the best way the government can accomplish this is not by passing a law -- I am strongly against the government taking something that a company feels is proprietary and simply making it public. But, it could be accomplished simply by stating that the government itself will only use documented formats for data, which will require all major software vendors to document theirs.

AND just to clarify, this is not saying that all formats should be standardized or designed by committee or only changed with public approval...companies can make whatever format they want and change it whenever they want, as long as they document it.

So for this I came up with the idea of the Open Data Format Initiative...which I have done nothing with yet, but might one of these years. I even bounced the idea off a few politicians!

- adam

And the best way the government can accomplish this is not by passing a law -- I am strongly against the government taking something that a company feels is proprietary and simply making it public. But, it could be accomplished simply by stating that the government itself will only use documented formats for data, which will require all major software vendors to document theirs.

AND just to clarify, this is not saying that all formats should be standardized or designed by committee or only changed with public approval...companies can make whatever format they want and change it whenever they want, as long as they document it.

So for this I came up with the idea of the Open Data Format Initiative...which I have done nothing with yet, but might one of these years. I even bounced the idea off a few politicians!

- adam