Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Switchover, EULA, Perspectives

Slashback. Updates and second thoughts tonight (below) on Borland's restrictive EULA, now much improved; another ueber-patch for MSIE; happy trails on the long ride from mediaone to aatbi; and how BSD suddenly topped Linux on the desktop.

It's the little things. Time for another cumulative patch for IE, it seems. (Mozilla may have its share of security problems, but at least there's a new build broken in unique and exciting ways more frequently :)). Logica writes with a snippet from this ZDNet article, which reads: "Microsoft released a collection of software fixes Monday to plug six security problems in its Internet Explorer browser, including one that could be exploited to take over a victim's computer."

"Users are urged to download the latest patch."

What happened to the tar-and-feather clause? djmurdoch writes "Back in January, Borland promised to come up with new EULAs without some objectionable terms. They've just posted the new EULAs. Gone are the anti-competitive product clause, the right to audit, and the requirement to give up a jury trial. They still have required registration, and you can't use a 2nd hand copy. They've added a requirement that it be licensed to one named user; you need extra licenses to share a copy. Not perfect, but a big improvement."

Keep in the loop as consolidation continues. craig writes: "AT&T Broadband has now posted instructions for their cable modem users to change their e-mail addresses from @mediaone.net to @attbi.com. The instructions have been posted here. The instructions seem to work, and my upgrade has been smooth.

The instructions have been posted on the web, but it looks like they have not been e-mailed to current AT&T Broadband subscribers. It is probably a good idea to follow these instructions before they are mailed to the masses, because chances are, this is migration is going to keep AT&T Broadband customer support very busy. The old @mediaone.net addresses will stop working on March 15, as was mentioned in this previous posting on Slashdot."

And although it's been said many times, many ways ... LiquidPC writes: "Apple's Ernest Prabhakar is reporting that BSD is now 3 times as popular on the desktop as Linux, largely thanks to MacOSX, of course. He also commented that Microsoft now has Office running on a Berkeley UNIX."

199 comments

  1. Oh for the old days of Borland's "as a book" terms by refactored · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Remember the good old days when turbo pascal EULA said "treat our software as you would a book"?

    I used to like Borland.

  2. MS Office on Berkely Unix? by strredwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then they have the code, and it'll be an eazy port job. :)

    --

    --
    # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
    $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
    1. Re:MS Office on Berkely Unix? by Captn+Pepe · · Score: 2

      Well, you might or might not have to rewrite the GUI code to get it working under Linux. MS Office for OSX is a Carbon-based app, and Carbon is a wrapper around the Cocoa system that emulates the OS9 GUI API. So all you would actually need to do (in that area) would be to write a wrapper around GNUStep that provides the same interface, and in theory it would work.

      Of course, then you'll need to wrap a BSD interface around the Linux kernel API, and if you aren't running Linux/PPC you will only be able to run Office in a PPC-to-X emulator. So, maybe more work than it needs to be, but not for the reason you were thinking of.

      I was going to ask what crack-smoking moderator bumped you down to -1, but this comment apparently hasn't been moderated. Oh well, trolls can ask good questions, too.

      --

      Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
    2. Re:MS Office on Berkely Unix? by BigBir3d · · Score: 2, Informative

      no, it is the other way around. MS got a Berkeley UNIX and have somehow gotten the bloat that is Office to run on it.

      it did not say that the Berkeley Group had gotten MS Office to run on a UNIX.

    3. Re:MS Office on Berkely Unix? by gwernol · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, you might or might not have to rewrite the GUI code to get it working under Linux. MS Office for OSX is a Carbon-based app, and Carbon is a wrapper around the Cocoa system that emulates the OS9 GUI API. So all you would actually need to do (in that area) would be to write a wrapper around GNUStep that provides the same interface, and in theory it would work.

      Sorry no, Carbon is not a wrapper around Cocoa. Carbon is a peer API layer to Cocoa. You could (in theory) remove Cocoa entirely from a Mac OS X machine and still run Carbon apps. Carbon is an entire operating system (Mac OS 9) written on top of Darwin. Essentially it uses Darwin as an advanced Hardware Abstraction Layer.

      Carbon is a very complex piece of software. It is several million lines of mainly C code that took several hundred person-years of write. Reproducing that work would be highly non-trivial, especially as you don't have the full specs.

      --
      Sailing over the event horizon
    4. Re:MS Office on Berkely Unix? by Captn+Pepe · · Score: 1

      It would seem that I have inserted my foot squarely in my mouth, as I have now been scolded both here and in RL about how Carbon is actually a parallel API to Cocoa, not a wrapper as I once thought, and apparently an incompletely specified one at that.

      Oh well, having a Mac expert who yells at me out here in meatspace sometimes makes me think I know more than I do.

      --

      Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
  3. MSIE patch by Osty · · Score: 4, Informative

    This patch was mentioned in the recent MSN Messenger "virus" story. Just to recap, the "virus" was no virus at all, but just an exploitation of the old (as in, known since December) document.open bug in MSIE. This was fixed with Monday's patch. Everybody using IE should have installed this already, but those who haven't should do so now.

    1. Re:MSIE patch by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 3
      Just an FYI, you must install the patch separately; if you try Windows Update you'll be greeted with the usual message that you need no critical updates (at least, that should be the ususal message you get when you go there :-)

      In other words, M$ don't consider this a critical update! Morons.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    2. Re:MSIE patch by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      You're misunderstanding the purpose of Windows Update. It's purpose is to preserve the breeding ground for worms. It really gets to be fun when Windows Update starts removing the security patches. ;-)

    3. Re:MSIE patch by Arker · · Score: 1

      Apparently you have actual followed this story, could you clarify something for me? Glancing through the page about it I got the impression this only concerns MSIE 6.x with MSN Messenger, correct? I ask because I normally use Opera for my windows box, but I do keep a copy of MSIE for the occasion when I really must access a mangled webpage (such as microsoft.com) - BUT I found MSIE 6 to be so aesthetically revolting I destroyed it utterly and went back to running the latest MSIE 5 instead. Sooo... basically I don't need to worry about this problem at all, right?

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    4. Re:MSIE patch by odaiwai · · Score: 2

      I just downloaded this from WindowsUpdate. It wasn't working last night, but it is now.

      dave

    5. Re:MSIE patch by Osty · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The problem exists in all IE versions. There are patches for 5.0, 5.01, 5.5, and 6.0. I don't believe MS supports 4.0 any longer.


      And IE 6 looks little different from IE5, unless you happen to be using XP

    6. Re:MSIE patch by Osty · · Score: 1

      Windows Update is only updated something like twice a month. The patch is not there yet, but will be soon. But thanks for playing.

    7. Re:MSIE patch by Arker · · Score: 1

      Ok so first answer is that it does affect 5.5 but not if I download the latest version?


      And as to the second, have you *tried* 6 on a 98 or ME system? It does indeed look very different. Godawful ugly as Mozilla, and that's saying something.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    8. Re:MSIE patch by Osty · · Score: 1

      To answer the first: There is no "latest version". When Microsoft releases a Version N, that's it. If they roll patches into it, it then becomes Version N.1, or .5, or whatever. So, you'll still have to apply the patch.


      As for 6 on 98 or ME, no, I've not tried it. I have run it on Win2K, though, and it looked just the same as on XP. XP adds the green circles on the forward/back arrows, and lots of color to the rest of the toolbar. On win2k, those were not there. They shouldn't be there on 98 or ME, either, but since I've not tried it I can't say for sure. Are you sure you didn't download the MSN Explorer? That's a completely different product, and it does have the cartoony, Mozilla-ish look to it. If the top bar has large icons, with things like Hotmail email, that's definitely MSN Explorer. You want Internet Explorer. MSN Explorer is a shell around IE, so if you use that, you have to figure out what version of IE you have installed, and patch against that version.

    9. Re:MSIE patch by Arker · · Score: 1

      To answer the first: There is no "latest version". When Microsoft releases a Version N, that's it. If they roll patches into it, it then becomes Version N.1, or .5, or whatever. So, you'll still have to apply the patch.

      Well that's a rather odd way of looking at it. When I mean latest version, I'm including the .x... in this case it seems the latest version of IE 5.5 is 5.50.4807.2300. Hrmm you're right though, it does still have to be patched. Just found the bugger. All patched now. Grr. A lot of work for how often I use that POS.


      As for 6 on 98 or ME, no, I've not tried it. I have run it on Win2K, though, and it looked just the same as on XP. XP adds the green circles on the forward/back arrows, and lots of color to the rest of the toolbar. On win2k, those were not there. They shouldn't be there on 98 or ME, either, but since I've not tried it I can't say for sure. Are you sure you didn't download the MSN Explorer? That's a completely different product, and it does have the cartoony, Mozilla-ish look to it. If the top bar has large icons, with things like Hotmail email, that's definitely MSN Explorer [msn.com]. You want Internet Explorer [microsoft.com]. MSN Explorer is a shell around IE, so if you use that, you have to figure out what version of IE you have installed, and patch against that version.

      Well it's been quite awhile since I've had IE 6 installed here, but I remember thinking it was ugly and cartoonish. Certainly all I have seen of it recently was on a friends machine that has MSN Explorer though, so you may be right I was conflating the two in my mind as I can't seem to remember what it actually looked like when I had 6 here, just that I disliked it.


      Eventually I'm sure they will completely deprecate 5.5. Gah, hopefully I won't need a windows box anymore by then, I really hate to have to have that whole mess on my computer just to use windows update and read KB docs.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    10. Re:MSIE patch by Osty · · Score: 1

      Well it's been quite awhile since I've had IE 6 installed here, but I remember thinking it was ugly and cartoonish. Certainly all I have seen of it recently was on a friends machine that has MSN Explorer though, so you may be right I was conflating the two in my mind as I can't seem to remember what it actually looked like when I had 6 here, just that I disliked it.

      If you remember a cartoony interface, then there's no other option but that you were confusing IE6 with MSN Explorer. As far as not liking IE6 goes, it couldn't be based on looks (it looks no different from IE5.5, on everything but XP), nor functionality (IE6 is very much w3c compliant. It fixes the old annoying CSS width bug. And yet, it's still backwards compatible with earlier broken versions of IE). I don't want to make the assumption that it was just the plain typical slashdot, "Microsoft is evil, I hate everything about them, especially their newest software because it's better than anything I have on linux, but I'll continue to use the old stuff," argument. Hate Microsoft if you must, but please judge their software on its own merits. And IE6 has some very impressive merits indeed.

    11. Re:MSIE patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow this makes sense to you? Somehow you feel like you need to defend this decision?

    12. Re:MSIE patch by el_chicano · · Score: 1
      Hate Microsoft if you must, but please judge their software on its own merits.
      O.K. Let's talk Word and conversion to HTML.

      I have a PHP/MySQL app that embeds uploaded HTML (instructors' syllabi) into dynamically generated pages. It works great with HTML 3.2/4.0 but Word does not generate standard HTML 3.2/4.0 anymore.

      It generates a god-awful mess with all kinds of formatting information that ends up looking awful on the screen. In effect it takes a document that looks good on paper and turns it into crap on the screen unless you are using Internet Exploiter.

      In the process the file grows 30K to 300K. Believe me, the difference is noticable at 56K, and since the intended audience are community college students it is unreasonable to expect our users to have broadband.

      It is also unreasonable to expect all of our faculty to know how to write HTML (especially English teachers!). Since Word is the de-facto word processor is it unreasonable to expect Microsoft respect established standards (like HTML 3.2/4.0) or to give the user more choices (like save as HTML 3.2/4.0)?

      It is O.K. to hate Micro$oft because sometimes their software sucks. And many times the good software is unattainable because licenses cost lots of $$$ and many organizations don't have that kind of money lying around.

      I am glad I can run Linux. A stable Apache/MySQL/PHP rules! Programming languages galore - C/C++/Perl/Python/TCL/etc! Databases left and right - Oracle/Postgres/MySQL/etc! A choice of Desktops/Window Managers: from the full-blown KDE to the miminalistic Sawfish! Multiple desktops kick ass! And all this out of the (virtual) box :->

      And yes, I know you can customize Windows to a large extent, but why? Why pay lots of cash for the add-ons that should be part of the OS? Especially when the OS already sets you back a couple of hundred dollars (I build my own machines and I don't bootleg software).

      Why should I pirate Windows software when I can download Mandrake ISOs? Why run Windows at all?

      I am not totally against Microsoft - Office 97 is nice and I like Money 2000 - but why can't I buy those products for Linux? Supposedly they are crack programmers but they can't write software for Linux? It is not like Microsoft can't download and install Mandrake...

      But the biggest thing that bothers me is that Microsoft is certainly not a corporate angel. I still resent the fact that they effectively killed OS/2, forcing me to switch from Warp to Windows 98. OS/2 Warp was not perfect, but IBM released 36 fixpacks before I finally had to switch to Windows.

      Windows Explorer was a pale imitation of the OS/2 Workplace Shell, a major step back in productivity. To tell you the truth it wasn't until Linux appeared that I fell in love with computers again.

      So while you see "impressive merits", I see an attempt at "embrace and extend", co-opting standards to their benefit all in the name at trying to keep their desktop monopoly. To bad the Department of Justice has no balls when it comes to corporate criminals like Microsoft...
      --
      A man who wants nothing is invincible
    13. Re:MSIE patch by Osty · · Score: 1

      O.K. Let's talk Word and conversion to HTML.

      I don't know anything about that. Never played with it, couldn't tell you what it does and doesn't do. What I can say is that Frontpage is actually very nice, so if you could get the professors to develop in that they won't really notice a difference and you'll get much better HTML (FrontPage 98 generated poor HTML. FrontPage 2000 generates much cleaner HTML. Same for Word 97 vs. Word 2000).


      And yes, I know you can customize Windows to a large extent, but why? Why pay lots of cash for the add-ons that should be part of the OS? Especially when the OS already sets you back a couple of hundred dollars (I build my own machines and I don't bootleg software).

      If you build your own machines, you can easily get OEM versions of Windows for much cheaper than the full retail price. The restriction is that you have to buy it with a motherboard or hard drive, but I'm sure you can swing that. There are many retailers out there that will do this for you, just ask next time.


      I am not totally against Microsoft - Office 97 is nice and I like Money 2000 - but why can't I buy those products for Linux? Supposedly they are crack programmers but they can't write software for Linux? It is not like Microsoft can't download and install Mandrake...

      You're confusing ability with intention. It's not that Microsoft programmers can't write for Linux, it's that the company won't. Why legitimize Linux by abandoning their own platform? And before you bring up the Macintosh argument, remember that the Office products have been on Macintosh for years (literally over a decade). There's history there, which is why they don't stop making the software. Well, that, and there's a profit to be made. How many RMS-loving Linux zealots would truly pay for Office if Microsoft were to release a Linux version?


      But the biggest thing that bothers me is that Microsoft is certainly not a corporate angel. I still resent the fact that they effectively killed OS/2, forcing me to switch from Warp to Windows 98. OS/2 Warp was not perfect, but IBM released 36 fixpacks before I finally had to switch to Windows.

      Microsoft didn't so much kill OS/2 as IBM did with their lack of vision and direction. IBM didn't quite know what to do with it, and more importantly, they really didn't care. The only part Microsoft played was by pulling out of the OS/2 project in favor of writing Windows NT themselves. And they didn't do so maliciously -- Microsoft was tired and fed up with IBM's inability to properly position and promote OS/2, and decided they could do better on their own. And did.


      So while you see "impressive merits", I see an attempt at "embrace and extend", co-opting standards to their benefit all in the name at trying to keep their desktop monopoly. To bad the Department of Justice has no balls when it comes to corporate criminals like Microsoft...

      And no other company has ever "embraced and extended"? I guess Netscape never added <blink> to their HTML implementation. Oh, wait, they're the ones that introduced the blink tag. It's a fact of life that "standards" evolved very slowly. For example, HTML has only evolved as fast as it has because Netscape and Microsoft both took liberties, expanding the capabilities of their browsers with vendor-specific tags. As for "co-opting standards for their benefit", isn't that what standards are for? You implement them for your benefit. Hell, most standards have well-documented extension processes (OpenGL, Kerberos, LDAP). Microsoft has done that, and have been perfectly within their rights to do so. I would argue that the only "standard" that Microsoft has ever extended for worse was Java, but that's not a standard (and it does have extension mechanisms, as well, which Microsoft used, they just made the mistake of calling their implementation "Java", and Sun got upset).


      The knife cuts the other way. Where you see conspiracy theories and plots against humanity, I see a successful business doing what it does best -- developing great products and making money. I don't expect you to see that. <sarcasm>Then again, it might just be your foil hat getting in the way</sarcasm>

  4. Changing EULA's by os2fan · · Score: 2
    Isn't this more of adding contracts after the sale?

    I think the only valid condition is to remove clauses, or grant further rights, or not to persue breaches of existing conditions.

    But then, I am not a lawyer.

    --
    OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    1. Re:Changing EULA's by filtersweep · · Score: 2

      What? "breeching" a contract for a new and better contract?

      I often wonder about these EULAs... most apps do not give the user easy access to the agreement once it is accepted. As an example, here is the licensing agreement for IE, that I had to search for under help:

      "Supplemental End User License Agreement for Microsoft Software Your use of Microsoft products is governed by the terms of the End User License Agreement (EULA), as well as by copyright law. The EULA is the contract regarding your use of the licensed product, and it grants you certain rights to use Microsoft software on your computer. To View the EULA for Internet Explorer If you are using Windows NT or Windows 98, you can view the EULA by double-clicking license.txt in the directory where you installed Internet Explorer. The default location for installing Internet Explorer is C:/Program Files/Internet Explorer. If you are using Windows Millennium Edition, Windows 2000, see Windows Help for more information about the EULA. Note If you are not sure where to find the EULA for Internet Explorer, you can search for license.txt, and then open the version of license.txt in the directory where you installed Internet Explorer. For more information about searching in Windows, see Windows Help. "

      Now a text file isn't exactly the most secure way to store a "legal document."

      The actual license of this "free" browser are, of course, more than mildly amusing.

      It is also amusing how these EULAs usually refer to the "rights" of the user.... well these rights are generally the RIGHT TO USE THE PRODUCT! Imagine selling shoes that way...

      --


      Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
    2. Re:Changing EULA's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now a text file isn't exactly the most secure way to store a "legal document."

      If Microsoft had wrapped it in some form of security layering, you'd be carping and whining that it should be plain text, cursing it for being 'proprietary.'

  5. Time for another cumulative patch for IE by jaavaaguru · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    In next week's news:

    Time for another cumulative patch for IE, this time covering 6 security holes found during the last week, including this one. Using that is like having "Come and get me, 'leet script kiddies" stamped on your forehead.

  6. Misleading BSD Article by clump · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If *BSD were to take over the desktop that would be wonderful. However, Apple employees telling a conference that thier OSX is number one so *BSD is number one is misleading. True that you can get Darwin under the APSL, but the version that is so popular on the desktop is only available for cold hard cash.

    Apple uses good code in MacOS X but it seems telling people *BSD is #1 is an attempt to keep the developer community busy working on Darwin so Apple remains the true victor.

    So whats the progress of the Sorenson codec on non-OSX UNIX? How about Aqua themes? How is Apple helping me again?

    1. Re:Misleading BSD Article by maggard · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So whats the progress of the Sorenson codec on non-OSX UNIX? How about Aqua themes? How is Apple helping me again?

      Boohoo

      If you want the Soreson codec then find someone to pony up the cold hard cash to license it. The developers put a lot of work into it and decided this is how they want it to go. That they didn't give it away - well hell that's their right. Apple saw it, liked it, ponied up the money to license it. No guns or extortion were involved.

      On the other hand QuickTime is pretty much free to use and doesn't depend on the Sorenson codec, works with lots of codecs.

      For that matter why aren't you bleating about MS and their licensed formats? Or Real?

      Codecs are hard to build, require LOTS of work and yes those folks are loathe to give it away. Sorry - not everything is free and we don't live in a socialist economy.

      As to Apple and it's Aqua theme - again they spent a lot of work developing their trade dress and yes have a right to defend it. Sorry it's soo nice, got develop your own look and quit trying to rip off others.

      So how's Apple "helping" you? By giving away lots of their stuff. Not all of it - tough. If you disagree send me your car keys or is all property theft in your world?

      Soo tired of the gimme-gimme-gimme whiners.

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    2. Re:Misleading BSD Article by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So whats the progress of the Sorenson codec on non-OSX UNIX?

      This is just me, but you'd probably have more sucess complaining to Sorenson about that, if you think you can convince them that 1)There are enough content creators on Linux that they will sell enough copies of Sorenson Video 3 Pro to recoup their porting costs or 2)Content creators feel that there are enough content consumers on Linux that they feel support for the platform is important. You could just try to get Apple to fully implement QuickTime on Linux, if you think you can convince them of #2 above.

      How about Aqua themes?

      Why the hell do you feel that you have the right to Apple's art? Source code is one thing, pixmaps are another thing entirely. If someone copied art that my design team had spent many long hours designing, I would go after them a lot harder than Apple did.

      How is Apple helping me again?

      By employing dozens of programmers who work on open source code, perhaps? By building and open source steaming media server that you can run on your favorite OS? By having, "one of the biggest gcc compiler design teams in the world" and giving all that code back?

      --
      "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
    3. Re:Misleading BSD Article by JDizzy · · Score: 1

      I could not have said it any better myself, not that I could anyways. The point is well taken.

      If you want something for nothing, get FreeBSD. If you want somethging for money, get OS 10. That is what Apple did, they wanted Unix for nothing, so they took BSD code and forked.

      Now if only we could train the hords of OS 10 users to not depend on the gui, we admins would be in good shape.

      --
      It isn't a lie if you belive it.
    4. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "For that matter why aren't you bleating about MS and their licensed formats?"

      Because somebody figured out how to load x86 WMP codecs in Linux.

      As soon as someone does the same for QuickTime, they'll shut up, because it's not really about the licence or the technology, it's about white middle-class boys being oppressed by not being able to watch advertisements for the latest outerspace or elf movie on every computer on the planet.

    5. Re:Misleading BSD Article by RevAaron · · Score: 2

      Sorry - not everything is free and we don't live in a socialist economy.

      Actually, we do. Ever heard of wellfare? Taxes? Roads built by the government? The US economic system is socialist, however, not to the extent that it is in Europe. We don't live in a communist economy, however.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    6. Re:Misleading BSD Article by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I don't get your premise, here. You're saying that MacOS X being the most popular Unix on the desktop doesn't mean that BSD is? Given your statement regarding the APSL, it seems that you require an operating system to be released under an OSF-approved license for it to qualify as BSD. This is far from the reality. If I've misunderstood what you mean, I apologize; however, your sentence structure is such that understanding comes with some difficulty to those of us who correctly parse English. ;-D

    7. Re:Misleading BSD Article by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

      socialists don't get to pick/vote on who is in that government.

    8. Re:Misleading BSD Article by T3kno · · Score: 1

      Neither do Americans. If we did Harry Browne would be in office. The fact that we have a 20-40% federal income tax, along with all of the state taxes proves that we dont have a say in anything, our votes just go into a big circular file at the end of an election. The electoral college process is completely screwed up, congress is a mess (that is the real problem, not the president), and the lobby system is out of control. If the U.S. was a computer and the government was the operating system, my professional opinion would be to format and start over from scratch with something that actually works right instead of this you scratch my back while I stab yours piece of crap system that we have now. Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave, and Abraham Lincoln started it all. No, I'm not bitter.

      --
      (B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
    9. Re:Misleading BSD Article by MulluskO · · Score: 2

      Socialism is an economy, not a system of governemnt. Socialism and Democracy aren't necessarily incompatible.

      Free as in market?
      or
      Free as in Republic?

      That's the important difference.

      --

      Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
    10. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Ever heard of wellfare? Taxes? Roads built by the government?

      I do wish people would get a basic grasp of socialism before they talk about it.

      Welfare, taxation, and public works all predate both socialism and capitalism by millennia. You could find them all in ancient Rome.

      Socialism is an economic system in which resources (capital) are controled by those who use them to do the work, as opposed to a government-appointed minority of owners, aka "capitalists". It comes in both statist and libertarian flavors.

      It has nothing to do with welfare (socialists would argue that it's a band-aid solution for a problem in need of complete revolution), taxation (which has been a feature of every government in history), or public works (likewise).

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    11. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Graff · · Score: 5, Insightful
      How is Apple helping me again?
      Hmm, OK let's see. First of all Apple is helping to foster the interest in programming unix-like systems. With its use of BSD in a commercial system, there can't help but be a percentage of its former mostly-GUI customers that will get interested in programming for unix and open-source. More programmers for open source is a good thing for sure.

      Then there's Apple's open-sourcing of Darwin. Yeah you don't get the GUI, but at least they are contributing to open source and allowing you to use their core operating system with whatever GUI you want by way of the many open source GUIs out there.

      We also have Quicktime Streaming Server, a completely free and open multimedia server that lets you stream video and audio in most open formats out there. No server tax what so ever, what a joy!

      Apple also is championing several efforts to keep fees and licensing issues from affecting the "little guys". They are trying to influence the developing MPEG-4 license so that there will be no streaming fees and they have even taken the stance that they will not release software which uses the MPEG-4 format until the fees have been removed. They also have taken a stance that any patents which are involved with W3C standards should be free of charge for use in the standards instead of requiring royalties, see this article for more information.

      Finally, having Apple out there definitely helps innovation. With a company like Apple breaking ground and popularizing technology in areas such as PDAs, USB, Firewire, LCD displays, removal of dead-weight legacy equipment, and even computer form factors, they are helping to drive the industry forward. Lets face it, while Linux is a damn fine operating system it would have a tough time facing down the Microsoft bear alone. All of the alternatives will take their tiny bites out of the giant and together they will work toward keeping the monopolies from gaining total control.

      Sure Apple is in it for the money. I think that is true of everyone, not just big corporations. I don't see many people volunteering 100% of their time and not trying to make a buck here or there. On a scale from mega-greedy to handing out bushels of money, I think that Apple falls safely in the middle. They make good, solid products, they seem to put some of their souls into their work, and they make some money off it. Sounds like a decent trade-off to me, and far more than we can say about many corporations out there.
    12. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to be a total doofus here, but that "Free as in..." has got to be the best distinction I've ever heard. Congrats. I'm not a USian, though, so maybe I don't interpret "free republic" correctly.

    13. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Dante+Aliegri · · Score: 1

      Porting Costs?
      This is a compression/decompression codec.
      all that is required is to read in bits,
      transform them, and read them out.
      ... you don't HAVE any porting
      ( assuming you keep it for x86 )

      please, if you want to argue, make sense.

      --
      -- What doesn't kill you hasn't tried hard enough.
    14. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Dialithis · · Score: 1

      When is white history month, or chinese history month, et al?

      Directly after a long period of government sanctioned slavery of whites and chinese.

    15. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a laughable mistatement. Socialism is a system in which the government controls the means of production. That means production is based on political rather than economic objectives, which is why the old Soviet Union had shortages of everything anyone needed, and surpluses of anything no one needed.

    16. Re:Misleading BSD Article by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 2
      Porting Costs? This is a compression/decompression codec. all that is required is to read in bits, transform them, and read them out. ... you don't HAVE any porting ( assuming you keep it for x86 ) please, if you want to argue, make sense.

      I said, "1)There are enough content creators on Linux that they will sell enough copies of Sorenson Video 3 Pro to recoup their porting costs." Sorenson Video 3 Pro is a $499 program, very different from the decoder and basic encoder incuded with QuickTime, which have been on OS X from the start; although SV3P works as a plug-in, it would definitely need a lot of porting work to get it to work on Linux; they haven't even got it ported to OS X yet!

      Please, if you want to argue, read the post fully, and check the links if you need to.

      --
      "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
    17. Re:Misleading BSD Article by jhoffoss · · Score: 2

      Take some polisci courses and come back and re-read what you just wrote...we pay taxes because our government DOES build roads and provide welfare for the poorest of the poor (ideally, at least). Would you rather have to be billed by another utility company for road usage? Have police be owned/run by the road company! That'd make them much less corrupt. Oh, and I bet the fees would be very fair for those roads...

      Our system has holes, and it's very easy to whip out complaints and arguments against. But take a look at a few pics of russia under communist rule and then look at what we have.

      Oh, and just for your betterment (or knowledge, whichever way you prefer to take it) Soviet Russia was between Socialism and Capitalism; you seem to imply that socialism is the one in the middle.

      --
      Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
    18. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Apple purchased NeXT and took NextStep, then pasted in some BSD user code and released it as MacOS 10.

      It's infuriating to some of us that people persist in implying MacOS 10 is FreeBSD based. It's not, it has a completely different kernel.

    19. Re:Misleading BSD Article by York+the+Mysterious · · Score: 1

      Check your history. The chinese were inslaved in the mercury mines. So again where's there history month? Dont even get me started on reverse racism. PC shit doesn't work. There is a unproportional amount of black TV shows. No major shows that are aimed at hispanic, indian or asian viewers. Why is that?

      --

      Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
    20. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, so that means that since it's over 125 years now, we're not directly after black slavery and (some)Black History Month can be done away with?

    21. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Socialism is a system in which the government controls the means of production.

      State socialism - a "workers state" controls the capital - is one theory of socialism. There are others.

      Educate yourself.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    22. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other thing is that BSD is only one part of OSX. When writing commercially viable software, you are still going to have to use the proprietary interfaces, such as cocoa and others.

      I would have felt a little better if apple had made Aqua an X window manager than the whole point of the OS. I mean you can still have an open standards based GUI with proprietary extensions, such as Motif.

    23. Re:Misleading BSD Article by JDizzy · · Score: 2

      Can you say user land.... and since when did the kernel mean the entire OS?

      --
      It isn't a lie if you belive it.
    24. Re:Misleading BSD Article by RevAaron · · Score: 2

      Christ. I wasn't complaining about our socialist reality. It was a statement of fact. I like having roads. There's no need to assume that anyone who mentions socialism is using it in a negative way.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    25. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he's not a gimme gimme whiner, he's just asking why he should develop and support darwin. I agree with him, apple has no obligation to return anything back to him so i think he should let darwin rot. Thats why i as a developer like the gpl, if you don't give back then you have a license violation and I can sue. Therefore corporations like apple aren't "gimme gimme" and everyone gets something out of your own hard work.

    26. Re:Misleading BSD Article by nexthec · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Apple is not, and never has been a good company(atleast not since Woz left). I love how every bodyd thinks they are against the "big guy" and pro "little guy" but have done every dirty trick in the book to keep Aqua themes of every other platform. I'm not a PC zealot, but geeze get a grip. (and I would say that apple did not popularize or even ground break with PDA's having used own during the start...they sucked, and once they got OK...heading toward good.....jobs cancled them....soundslike what he did with..oh yeah the Mac clones....and the Lisa....oh my)

    27. Re:Misleading BSD Article by bentini · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it's not like there's any difference in how the most primitive integers are stored in different architectures/file formats.
      Oh, wait...

    28. Re:Misleading BSD Article by jhoffoss · · Score: 2

      =D Sorry...First chance I've had to regurgitate some info from a class I'm taking. The way I read it, you were slamming our free-market economy and wrongly comparing it with socialism. And you're right, socialism is great. IN THEORY. But IN THEORY, communism works. hmmm...that example doesn't work in that sense very well, does it.

      I like having roads too.

      --
      Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
    29. Re:Misleading BSD Article by vegardolsen · · Score: 0

      Freedom of speach. "We don't got to burn the books, we just removes them." - Rage Against the Machine

      --
      Sig e godt =)
    30. Re:Misleading BSD Article by vegardolsen · · Score: 0

      Soviet did good for a coupple of years, but then the system crashed, and everything got fucked up.
      Don't come and say that communism is evil. Thats what your' government wants you to belive.
      Cappitalism as it is today, is evil. Look at what NAFTA did to the poor in Mexico, look what multinational corporations exploit poor countries, like indonesia.
      "Capitalism has a average lifetime of about 180 years." we have crossed that line many years ago.

      --
      Sig e godt =)
    31. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding Apple and Unix programming, I'm afraid Apple is encouraging people to program against Cocoa (formerly OpenStep), not the BSD/POSIX APIs. This is based on reading their developer documentation.

      Not that there is anything wrong with the OpenStep/Cocoa API. Porting many Cocoa apps to GNUstep shouldn't be too hard, but they certainly aren't going to look or act the same. And we don't have Objective C++ as part of gcc, yet.

    32. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Bodrius · · Score: 2

      Have you used Cocoa? It is a NICE framework. You might as well complain about Miguel de Icaza encouraging people to program against C# and Mono instead of the usual C/C++ APIs.

      Their customers pay them money. Their business is to provide them tools for that money, not to bring people to the OSS community. That's a side-effect, if anything.

      BTW, the first time I even "heard" about Objective-C (no ++ here) was installing Linux on my box. I think it was a pre-processor package to compile to Objective-C; as far as I know the language is never compiled directly, it's compiled to C and THEN gcc takes over.
      Anyone knows if the free pre-processors support Apple's Objective-C (at the language level), or if there are non-standard idioms?

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    33. Re:Misleading BSD Article by RahoulB · · Score: 1

      I'm a Windows developer who had a fit of Bill Gates rage a couple of months back, and bought an iMac. Today, the web team at my company asked me to bring the mac in, cos they needed to debug some pages which were showing up incorrectly.

      So, I, a Windows user, linked the Mac to the network, left Ben playing with it, and then using Cygwin, SSH'd into it, downloaded Fink (a port of Debian's apt) and used that to download an X-server and GNOME (remotely from my Windows box).

      As my previous *nix experience is installing Mandrake and then going "now what?", the fact that I am able to do all this in two months - I am comfortable with Tcsh (and Bash on Cygwin) and am getting used to navigating my way round a *nix system - is pretty amazing. Yes I'm a geek, but OS X has given me an easy way into Unix, and if it works for me, it's bound to work for others as well.

    34. Re:Misleading BSD Article by fizz-beyond · · Score: 1

      Also on a side note, Native Americans should have one as well, they were also enslaved by the European (sorry I can't spell) who founded the US. Sometimes I really dislike my country and what it has done (and deny's doing).

      --
      Blink
    35. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Graff · · Score: 2
      I would say that apple did not popularize or even ground break with PDA's
      Let's see. Were there PDAs prior to Apple's Newton? No, there weren't. Were there PDAs after the Newton? Yes there were. So therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that Apple did break ground by offering the first PDA.

      Also, the Graffiti system of character recognition which is used on every PalmOS PDA was first made for the Newton. There were also many other innovations which were first seen on the Newton. This definitely sounds like the Newton had something to do with popularizing PDAs. Yeah, the Newton was canceled, but it still had a major impact on the PDA world.
    36. Re:Misleading BSD Article by RevAaron · · Score: 2

      Well, capitalism only works on paper as well. The fact is, proven again and again by thousands of years of human civilization, our planned governments and economies do not work. They all work on paper, but do not in real life. This is because they only work if the same silly assumptions that are down on paper are present in the real world implementation, which never happens.

      We don't have a completely free-market economy, so I really couldn't slam it.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    37. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NeXTstep(the OS) used gcc as its obj-c compiler. I can use the gcc installed on my solaris 2.7 workstation to compile obj-c. I think that OS X still uses gcc as the compilier(I could be wrong).

    38. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that apple couldn't do that. Aqua has little in common with X, as it uses a pdf display layer. This is why it can look so nice, and why should they have made aqua a window manage?

    39. Re:Misleading BSD Article by dublin · · Score: 2

      First, I admire the Newton as much as anyone - it's an elegant, if odd, architecture that Apple never put its heart into and couldn't figure out how to sell at the ridiculous prices they charged - but the Newton WAS NOT THE FIRST PDA, not by a long shot.

      Whatever was "first" will depend on how you decide to define "PDA", but I think it's pretty clear that the early Sharp (later Zaurus) and Casio BOSS "personal organizers" were early, crude PDAs. These predate the Newton by several years, and most of the Japanese consumer electronics companies offered something similar. In general, the organizers seemed to be a branch from the programmable calculator family in the early 1980s, a move that was heavily influenced by Tandy at the time. (Remember Tandy was the 800-lb gorilla in the PC market circa 1980, staying there until the IBM PC started to gain traction around 1983, largely through Lotus 1-2-3.)

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    40. Re:Misleading BSD Article by Graff · · Score: 2
      I think it's pretty clear that the early Sharp (later Zaurus) and Casio BOSS "personal organizers" were early, crude PDAs.
      I certainly won't dispute the fact that those early personal organizers were the precursors to modern PDAs, but I believe that they can't be considered to be wholly a part of what we call a PDA.

      First of all, it was with the Newton that the term "Personal Digital Assistant" was first coined. Secondly, the Newton contained and helped to standardise many of the features of the modern PDA such as synching with a desktop computer, handwriting recognition, a removable flash card slot, a GUI, and the flexibility to upload new software modules.

      While some of the previous organizers may have contained one or more of these features, I don't believe that any of them came close to offering as much versatility as the Newton. The Newton was not just an evolutionary step, it was a revolutionary step and thus I believe it deserves the status as the first true PDA.
    41. Re:Misleading BSD Article by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1
      Whatever Libertarians stand for is completely clouded by their support for legalization of drugs. (Whether they should be or should continue to be illegal is another issue). When a party is reduced to a single issue to define themselves it ceases to be a major player in the marketplace of ideas. This is the tatic that the Dems and Repubs use against each other: reduce their platforms to a single issue (and the Dems are more successfully able to target the Repubs as anti-abortion than the Repubs are able to show the Dems as tax-and-spend).

      Until this cloud is removed from the Libertarian agenda it will continue to be marginalized.

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  7. MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by maggard · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Apple's Ernest Prabhakar is reporting that BSD is now 3 times as popular on the desktop as Linux, largely thanks to MacOSX, of course. He also commented that Microsoft now has Office running on a Berkeley UNIX."
    Well, only very sorta.

    MS Office X runs with Apple's Carbon compatibility layer (even though it's no longer able to run on MacOS 8 or 9.) This isn't the same as running on Apple's Cocoa Nextstep-based libraries and not at all like running on raw Unix.

    So yeah, it's running on Unix, however pretty much entirely within a proprietary Apple compatibility library that is MacOS X specific and itself unlikely and probably unable to be ported to other Unix flavors.

    Great for MacOS X folks, not very relevant to the rest of the Unix world.

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    1. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are going to get modded down and flamed big time for stating the truth.

    2. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sorry - you must be mistaken. MS Office writes directly to the kernel.

      If i'm wrong then the entire article is flawed and I may as well declare that MS Office runs on the LS command.

    3. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by AIXadmin · · Score: 1

      "Great for MacOS X folks, not very relevant to the rest of the Unix world. "

      Actually it matters quite a bit to the Unix world. Every Unix has differenent API's. Carbon is just another API.
      This is no different then saying Oracle on Linux matters to only Linux users. It doesn't . Because it presents you with options. Microsoft X on Mac OS X is a hand above the Windows version. Entourage is essentially Outlook with NNTP, POP, and IMAP built into it. Instead of having to use gateways on the Exchange server.

      You want a Unix on the desktop , you got it. Mac OS X may not be perfect, but it is a huge step in the right direction (95% open source is better then 0% open source.)

    4. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

      How is this different than saying:
      "StarOffice run's on Sun's Java compatibility layer. This isn't the same as running on Microsoft's Windows Win32-based libraries and not at all like running on raw DOS.

      So yeah, it's running on DOS, however pretty much entirely within a proprietary Microsoft-Java compatibility library that is Windows specific and itself unlikely and probably unable to be ported to other Windows flavors."

      Well, that analogy breaks in that Java exists on other Windows flavors :)

    5. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by bcrowell · · Score: 2
      Great for MacOS X folks, not very relevant to the rest of the Unix world.
      Well, if you want to talk about why Office will never run on Linux, I think Cocoa's proprietary nature is hardly the biggest reason :-)

      From a practical point of view, this really is relevant to the rest of the Unix world. Many many Linux users have dual-boot systems. That may be because they want to run certain games, use certain peripherals, or be able to deal with Word files. Now that Office runs on mosX, some of these people will be able to start running dual-boot mosX-Linux rather than Windows-Linux. They will then have the advantage of being able to use a consistent Unix environment for everything they do.

      Consider this: by running dual-boot Windows-Linux, people are helping sustain the Windows monopoly. By running dual-boot mosX-Linus, they're helping to attack it. I think that is relevant to the rest of the Unix world.

      People focus too much on running Linux. The way to lure people towards open source is to show them that there are good apps. If a person starts by running a mixture of opsn source and proprietary software, well, big deal. That person has still learned the power of free information.

      And finally, maybe the Linux world should ask why mosX is more successful on the desktop than Linux, and try to learn something from that.

    6. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as for Office v.X not being really on unix, well, so its not on "raw" unix, but what is? is gtk 'raw' unix? is qt? what IS raw unix? posix? good luck with a gui there. Xlib? uh huh... so, just cause its not coded to X with some wiget toolkit above it doesn't mean its not real unix. the truth of the matter is: Office v.X is coded on top of Carbon, which in turn sits above Quartz (proprietary graphics layer, ie: not XWindows), and also it sits on non other than unix. just cause software is written on top of unix, don't mean it aint there...

    7. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      95% open? Maybe 25%. The biggest part of what makes OS X is not Darwin, but all the stuff that sits on top of it - mostly the Objective-C libraries and the GUI and all its trappings. I don't know about their ObjC stuff, but Quartz is assuredly not, and I'm pretty sure Carbon is not either. I don't think that Cocoa is either - OpenStep, upon which Cocoa is based, isn't as "open" as the name might imply. Also, many of the more interesting device drivers are closed source.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    8. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by SEE · · Score: 2

      There is GNUstep, the (incomplete but always improving) free software implementation of OpenStep . . . run it on top of Darwin, and you're about 75% of the way to having a free version of OS X. (Admittedly, the total lack of Carbon means that 75% translates to about 0% of Mac apps...)

    9. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Unixen have very similar APIs, and they are mostly compatible, making it easy to write portable code. Basically POSIX defines what the standard Unix APIs are like.

      OpenStep/Cocoa is not a Unix API, it is (originally) NeXT's own API. There are a lot of good things about it, but it has nothing to do with Unix (although GNUstep does implement a lot of it). Cocoa is the native MacOS X API that Apple is pushing.

      Carbon is even further from a Unix API, it's an old MacOS sort-of-compatibility API. I don't expect anything like it to be implemented or emulated on any other Unix, ever.

      All that said, I like many things about MacOS X, but haven't got the Mac I ordered some time ago, yet...

    10. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by PlatinumMac · · Score: 1
      Actually, Office X is a Carbon application. If it were Cocoa, there would be at least a chance of getting it running on OpenStep. But, even then, the proprietary nature of Aqua & Quartz, to which Office X is heavily tied, would cause problems.

      I agree with what you've said about dual-booting; I really enjoy the general similarities between my Linux desktop and my MacOS X laptop.

    11. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by clone304 · · Score: 1


      Sure, they could make that switch if they are willing to throw their existing hardware out the window. This is still only relevant for Mac folks, because you have to have Mac hardware to run OS X. I'd like to run it, but I don't think I'll be scrapping my box in order to buy a Mac anytime soon. Maybe other people are different, but, for me and likely in the corporate realm as well, switching over to OSX/Linux dual boots is not happening anytime soon.

    12. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by bcrowell · · Score: 1
      I don't think I'll be scrapping my box in order to buy a Mac anytime soon
      There does, however, seem to be a trend of Linux geeks buying mac hardware, as reported in a previous Slashdot story.

      you have to have Mac hardware to run OS X
      Darwin and GNUstep may eventually lead to a complete, free mosX clone, in much the same way that GNU made a free Unix clone. That would be a long-term thing, of course. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. The free unixes and mosX seem to be drifting together and becoming more and more interoperable. I run apps from the Fink distribution on my macs. I develop Perl CGI on my mac and then run it on my webhost's Linux box.

    13. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by clone304 · · Score: 1


      Well sure, but, like you said, it's going to be a while before GNUstep can recreate the OSX GUI stuff. And also, based on what you're saying, I can't see any reason to dual boot OSX and linux, when OSX, being Unix-based, can run all of the software already. If anything OSX destroys the need for Linux on Mac hardware, at least until GNUstep offers a free replacement. Even then, however, will GNUstep be replacing Cocoa? If not, Office still won't be running on free software. So, my point still stands that the headline of Office running on BSD Unix is, not only stretching the truth, but irrelevant to everyone not running Apple's version of Unix.

    14. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Unix by bcrowell · · Score: 2

      I can't see any reason to dual boot OSX and linux, when OSX, being Unix-based, can run all of the software already
      Well, certainly you can run command-line software like LaTeX on mosX. But to run many apps, e.g., GIMP, you have to install X windows. And while Fink is doing a great job, they certainly haven't ported every Linux GUI app.

  8. Re:Oh for the old days of Borland's "as a book" te by horse · · Score: 1

    Yes, I remember those days. Now they make you buy new versions of JBuilder just to get the bugs patched. (Fortunately, there are some good alternatives.)

  9. Lets not forget the Cox users conversion... by thumbtack · · Score: 1, Informative

    Their info is at http://www.cox.com/info/ My conversion went off without a hitch, and the pretty little box they sent the stuff in has become a favorite toy of my neice. (it looks like a little house. Meanwhile, my @home still works

  10. BSD allways was more popular, but nobody noticed.. by rnbc · · Score: 2, Informative
    The problem with BSD is that many products that are actually BSD-based don't directly acknowledge that.

    Many web-caches, firewalls, embedded systems for machine tools, routers... are BSD based, instead of linux based for instance, since the BSD-license is much more corporate-friendly.

    But the end result is that no one really notices how widely deployed BSD really is, since it remains hidden by the same persons that sell BSD products, therefore weakning the creative environment witch originated the system.

    That's how you really see the advantages of a license like the GPL, forcing others to contribute to the environment in a positive way, instead of being merely predators, and generally getting more steam into the project, instead of simply grabbing others efforts.

    Well, just my 2 (euro)cents :-)

    --
    You cannot proceed from the informal to formal by formal means
  11. BSD is now 3 times more popular for me by b_pretender · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've been a Linux Zealot/Diehard since switching from my PowerMac 7100 to a Intel machine back in 1996 (I even installed Linux on that PowerMac). The problems with the Mac was the Operating system.

    Until one month ago when my powerbook G4 arrived. Now I have XFree86, Gimp, Gnumeric, Octave, Gcc, Xemacs... all my favorites running in BSD. I'll probably install Linux just for the heck of it, but IMHO there's not too much reason to do it. Darwin/XFree86 is absolutely perfect when it comes to development of your own projects. This is because you don't have to worry about some company that owns the libraries and interfaces from changing things and screwing up your code or ruining your knowledge. Since the Darwin/Xfree combo is completely opensourced, I have faith in my fellow progammers that they will continue to support the combo despite Profits or Marketshare.

    Anyways, True transparent terminals are pretty cool. So is IPhoto/ITunes. Each recognized my Digital Camera or MP3 player respectively and each has a great intuitive interface. Having a legal DVD player is also a plus.

    I guess if there is a point to this post (not much of one), it's that using Darwin/Xfree is using GPL software. The Aqua interface and kewl G4 processor are bonuses. That's why OS X will continue to impress Linux users.

    1. Re:BSD is now 3 times more popular for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize, of course, that if Darwin ever actually becomes useful for a wide range of applications on the desktop, Apple will do everything in its power to stomp it dead? Apple can no more tolerate competitors to their (albeit limited) desktop monopoly than Microsoft can.

    2. Re:BSD is now 3 times more popular for me by alfredo · · Score: 1

      It has been at least a week, or maybe more since I h ave fired up Mandrake. It is pitiful next to Darwin/XFree. I still love Linux and have nothing but respect for the OS movement, but OSX kicks it.

      GIMP takes a couple seconds to launch, Much faster than Photoshop. It is so cool to be able to use PS, Colorit, and Gimp on the same screen.

      I was given Virtual PC and XP, but I don't need it. Why infest a perfectly good Computer with that crap from Redmond?

      I no longer even check to see if my pages look right on IE. I don't care if my pages work with any MS product. I won't even allow IE on my drive.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    3. Re:BSD is now 3 times more popular for me by t · · Score: 1
      Moron. You do realize that apple makes their money selling hardware with an OS to support it and quite frankly could give a flying fsck what software you install on it. M$ on the other hand....

      t.

    4. Re:BSD is now 3 times more popular for me by RevAaron · · Score: 2

      Moron. Where did he say anything about Apple caring if he runs "real" OS X rather than Darwin/XFree86?

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    5. Re:BSD is now 3 times more popular for me by RennieScum · · Score: 2
      Having a legal DVD player is also a plus.

      To each his own, my parents used to tell me.


      (Actually, I'll gladly take a Powerbook over a PC laptop. The reason I quit buying Apples back in, what, '97, was the operating system slowly turning into shite and the proprietary hardware. Now that the PC world is becoming increasingly proprietary with it's hardware, like the HP modem/soundcard, or winfrisbees^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmodems...I just might be going back to the Apple fambly. I'm sure I'm not alone here)

      --
      ...Time is the best teacher, unfortunately it kills all of its students.
    6. Re:BSD is now 3 times more popular for me by demon · · Score: 1

      You mean like the software modems in the Rev 2 G4 PowerBook and the Rev 2 iBook2s? Apple's taking up that mantle on a few machines now too, sadly. I like their hardware - it runs Linux so nicely. (I'm running 2.4.17 on an iBook FireWire now!)

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    7. Re:BSD is now 3 times more popular for me by StarTux · · Score: 2

      >Having a legal DVD player is also a plus.

      So having a player set on its region after 5 plays on a particular region is cool?

      Used MacOSX much more than you realize (ain't gonna tell you where or how) I do like it alot, but prefer KDE 2x because I can customize it much more (to be fair Linux is really having more impact on the Intel architecture, we know who owns that desktop area). This may not be the best thing for total newbies who could get lost and end up changing things and not know how to get back, plus would they install Linux? Doubt it...

      PPC hardware is cool, RISC processors do make a difference in speed and I do like them a lot. I like Apple a lot too (its a fun culture too) and hope they can continue to hire Open Source people and continue to release more apps.

      Here is something to check out:

      opensource.apple.com

      Two things that I don't like hearing from the Apple camp, as a long time Linux user and Open Source advocate:

      "FreeBSD is on 3 times as many desktops as Linux"

      Been discussed before, or:

      "We're targeting Linux users..."

      Don't like the word targeting, give me a decent OS that I can do all sorts of cool things on and I'll be using your system too. Notice I said too, I'd set up 3 boot partitions: 1 with MacOSX 1 with OS9 and one with Linux. That way I could totally change desktops when I feel like it, not be stuck with one. Currently do something similer with a dual boot between windows and Linux, with the Linux partition having Ximian Gnome and the latest stable KDE. Love this combo. Then to have MacOSX would be a dream too.

      Any, enough from me...

      StarTux

    8. Re:BSD is now 3 times more popular for me by maddman75 · · Score: 1

      "We're targeting Linux users..."

      Don't like the word targeting, give me a decent OS that I can do all sorts of cool things on and I'll be using your system too. Notice I said too, I'd set up 3 boot partitions: 1 with MacOSX 1 with OS9 and one with Linux. That way I could totally change desktops when I feel like it, not be stuck with one. Currently do something similer with a dual boot between windows and Linux, with the Linux partition having Ximian Gnome and the latest stable KDE. Love this combo. Then to have MacOSX would be a dream too.


      Let them target me - I won't be giving up my beloved Tux, but if I had the cash I'd definately spring for a Mac to us in addition to my Linux box. It would allow me to use some of the funky USB devices that Linux can't do currently (visor and USB cd burner) as well as .doc compatibility. I could get rid of the Win partition altogether and spend all my time in Unixy goodness.

      I really don't see OS X, or its targeting of Linux users, as a bad thing. Pretty ambitious really, going for both the ease of use traditional Mac fans, as well as the unix geek lords :)

      --
      -- When a fool hears of the Tao, he will laugh out loud.
    9. Re:BSD is now 3 times more popular for me by t · · Score: 1
      I thought the line "Apple can no more tolerate competitors to their (albeit limited) desktop monopoly than Microsoft can." was pretty damn clear.

      t.

    10. Re:BSD is now 3 times more popular for me by StarTux · · Score: 2

      Lol, I probably played to many combat flight sims, "oh no, I am being targeted...".

      Same for me as you said, I would use it in addition to my Linux box. In fact, the new Imac looks as though it could quite easily fit between my server and my desktop. Then one could use an Ipod to access a share on my linux box and copy across all those MP3's to it. Hmmm :).

      Matt

    11. Re:BSD is now 3 times more popular for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple is only making money because people want the MacOS GUI. The hardware is just a dongle, because even Apple owners would be appalled at an equivalent markup on software.

  12. Re:Misleading BSD Article + Sorenson by alfredo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple has no control over Sorenson. QuickTime would be on Linux by now it Apple owned Sorenson.

    Apple worked hard and spent a lot of their money in the development of that interface. If it was opensource and put together by people not paid by Apple then I would say yes, spread it around.

    We must urge companies to open up, but we must not try to force them or criticize them if they don't move as fast or as far as we want. They should want to come to our side.

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  13. How is Apple helping me again? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

    Any mutually beneficial 'win-win' situation involves the exchange of value.

    So how are you helping Apple again?

    Apple helped me, for sure.

    I have a kickass laptop, a BSD based OS, good networking functionality, wireless networking, movie, photo, and music applications, good access to BSD and GNU tools, a good developer environment, a pleasant user environment, AppleWorks, Quicktime, DivX, Aqua, Quartz, Sorenson, free email, free online disk space, free webpage, and hopefully RSN, MPEG4, SMB print capability, SMB network browsing, and kickass power management features.

    1. Re:How is Apple helping me again? by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

      I have a kickass laptop

      man are you going to be screwed when it get's stolen!

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:How is Apple helping me again? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Not with Applescript, bash, telnet, and a bunch of other remote technologies :)

      Hmm, maybe I should install Timbuktu, just in case ;D

    3. Re:How is Apple helping me again? by littlematt · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Not with Applescript, bash, telnet, and a bunch of other remote technologies :)

      Learn before you post.

      OS X does not come with bash by default.

      OS X does not have a remote login service enabled by default. You have to explicitly turn it on.

      No OS X versions since 10.0.1 enable telnet. When you check the "Allow Remote Login" box, you enable ssh.

      While Applescript could be used for an attach, so could basically any other scripting language. VBScript? Perl? /bin/sh? Yup. So what's the big deal?

      "...a bunch of other remote technologies" being as descriptive as it is, I can only discuss those I can think of. AppleEvents are not allowed from remote machines unless explicitly turned on by the user. This ties back into the AppleScript thing.

      Basically, the above post is FUD.

    4. Re:How is Apple helping me again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this day and age who would steal a laptop and not wipe it immediately before using it??

      Furthermore, you've got bash, telnet, etc services running? Cool. What's your IP addy?

    5. Re:How is Apple helping me again? by jackDuhRipper · · Score: 1
      Do you have an axe to grind with Apple or with the poster? His was hardly FUD at all.

      * OS X does not come with bash by default.

      Maybe it's not bash, but it's got at least some of the cool things bash does (scrolling through previous commands a la set -o vi; auto-completion, etc.)

      * OS X does not have a remote login service enabled by default. You have to explicitly turn it on.
      * No OS X versions since 10.0.1 enable telnet. When you check the "Allow Remote Login" box, you enable ssh.

      Why are you quibbling here? the remote services are available and dirt-simple to implement. No one who cares about the privacy of their data should be using telnet anymore, anyway. free (beer and/or speech) ssh clients abound.

      * While Applescript could be used for an attach, so could basically any other scripting language. VBScript? Perl? /bin/sh? Yup. So what's the big deal?

      definitely agree about perl and shell scripting - I don't immediately see, though, how anyone could "surruptitiously" run a VB script.

      (The previous poster was alluding to that story where the iMac was stolen and recovered thanks in part to running AppleScripts at startup and dial-ins to ISPs ... could you do that in VBScript without being obvious? [that's an actual question])

      If you like the command line and GNU tools, OS X is pretty cool.

    6. Re:How is Apple helping me again? by PlatinumMac · · Score: 1
      "2nd Post!" was not talking about how Apple is directly helping him in that post. He was talking about how he won't "be screwed when [his laptop] get's stolen" because of tricks like this.

      Learn before you post.

    7. Re:How is Apple helping me again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the poster was just a Linux-user (rather than a knowledgeable Unix-person) who can't tell one shell from another.

      On OS X I prefer zsh, which is included by default. Ok, I prefer zsh on every other Unix, as well. ;)

      For remote login, ssh is much nicer than telnet.

  14. AT&T broadband support busy? by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1
    Hell, it is usually at least a half hour on the phone to get through to a human (or at least beyond menus and hold). Then they direct you online for support, especially if you can't connect.


    Their support and service is bad. They had a DHCP server fail, it took them 5 days to get it up and runnning. Having to register the MAC address of the NICs is a pain and not needed.

    1. Re:AT&T broadband support busy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm let's see you run a national mega broadband ISP without problems.. Oh wait you arent even qualified to be hired to do attbi.com grunt work.

      If you want to bitch about something, at least get a clue, otherwise you're like the assholes that flip off the tow-truck driver on the side of the road helping a motorist, because they had to go back to the posted speed limit as the rest of the traffic merged over.

      Go away. you're not wanted in the human race.h

    2. Re:AT&T broadband support busy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, I am the guy who flips off the morons that can't tell the difference between an ashtray and a window.


      At least I can build a server in less than 4 days. Just because you can't do it, does not mean that everyone sucked on lead paint as a child.

  15. Re:BSD allways was more popular, but nobody notice by Random+Feature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually the number of BSD based network appliances is decreasing and the number of Linux based appliances is increasing.

    Basically the older the company, the more likely it is that they run BSD under the covers. Newer companies are choosing Linux.

    I haven't asked why, but that's the trend I've seen.

    --
    I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
  16. The biggest news? by Lally+Singh · · Score: 4, Funny

    What, no update on CmdrTaco's engagement?

    --
    Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
    1. Re:The biggest news? by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 3, Funny

      As I read the first sentence, "Updates and second thoughts tonight..." I thought perhaps it WAS a followup on the engagement story.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    2. Re:The biggest news? by Ruis · · Score: 1

      You need an update? It's valentines day, and he just proposed. Just use your imagination about what they're doing right now...

      If you guys come up for air long enough to read this, congratulations Rob and Kathleen. :)

      (They're patching their kernels, you pervert.)

  17. AT&T Broadband Change by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2

    Fans of the minimalist online comic Triangle and Robert will need to be aware of this, as it's hosted on a mediaone.net account. Patrick will inform his readers of the new URL when he knows it, but you'll need to pay attention to the index page before it happens or you'll wind up with an outdated bookmark and no clue as to where to look.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
    1. Re:AT&T Broadband Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not minimalist. Minimalism is when someone can draw and chooses not to. T&R is just badly drawn.

  18. How does the BSD community feel about that? by Nelson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean, do they really consider Mach and Lites to be BSD? Or is it just good to hear BSD in the press?

    1. Re:How does the BSD community feel about that? by rtaylor · · Score: 3

      OSX (Darwin to be more exact) is as much BSD as 'Linux' (distribution wise I guess) is GNU. Whether thats alot or very little I'm unsure of.

      One things for sure, the vast majority of the sourcecode to Darwin is of BSD origin. But what percentage of Darwin makes up OSX?

      --
      Rod Taylor
    2. Re:How does the BSD community feel about that? by demon · · Score: 2

      Well, Darwin does have a "real" BSD kernel on top of a Mach microkernel. I think it's rather pointless, running a full *NIX kernel on top of Mach - it's not a "true" microkernel arrangement, since it's just a minor rewrite to make the BSD kernel run as a Mach server.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    3. Re:How does the BSD community feel about that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, when you live in shantytown, it makes you feel better to brag about your rich uncle.

      Still it doesn't change the fact that most of the *BSD clan continue to live in shantytown.

    4. Re:How does the BSD community feel about that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minor rewrite? Well, it's not a huge job, but it isn't quite something that you do in a single afternoon, either.

      Anyway, Lites is 4.4 BSD as a Mach server. How it emulates system calls is quite clever, but hardly 100% compatible with a normal kernel. And, unfortunately, not quite as fast (although I'd argue that it's fast enough). Unless of course you benchmark something like getpid(2) performance... ;)

      But you simply don't get the same behavior when you emulate system calls like Lites; e.g. if you pass an invalid pointer to a call in the Lites emulator, you actually crash the program (rather than having the system call return EFAULT because of a failed copyin/copyout), since part of the emulator is mapped into the local address space of the process. Well, the emulator is mapped, the Lites server is separate, but that's a minor detail.

  19. Re:Oh for the old days of Borland's "as a book" te by The+Pi-Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

    OCR it and stick it up on a cheapie mIRC FServe?

    :)
    --joshua

  20. OSX (to Linux) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm more Unix than you will ever be, and more desktop than you will ever get."

  21. Wild Speculation by SubtleNuance · · Score: 5, Interesting
    reporting that BSD is now 3 times as popular on the desktop as Linux, largely thanks to MacOSX, of course.

    Apple is alive through the good graces of MS. If MS wanted, they could have killed Apple years ago. With their investment ontop of the 'deal' they have over MSExplorer and MSOffice - Apple is alive today ONLY because MS and Apple worked out a non-competition arrangment. This provided MS with a the 'image' of having competition.

    Fastforward to Corel. Corel decides GNU/Linux is the right place for them to go, they build Corel Linux OS, port Draw && Corel Office (via tonnes of work on Wine). Corel gets in a pinch... and BAM, MS makes a deal with them to work on .NET. Corel quickly exits the Linux biz. Now that Corel was sinking, why didnt MS let them die, god knows there was never nay love lost between them - why did MS suddenly want to be partners?

    A) They can now also control/stear/prop-up Corel as proof of 'competition'

    B) They de-ligitimize GNU/Linux by removing Corel's support.

    Now, here's the kicker - how are these two things relevant/related??? Well, I personally feel Apple's adoption of BSD is a 'poison pill', encouraged and supported by MS, against GNU/Linux.

    You see, with Apple boxes with a relatively Open UNIX (via FreeBSD) MS is effectively capable of stearing users - who WANT A FREE UN*X -- to Apple. MS even supports Explorer and Office on OSX.

    Apple adopts FreeBSD because

    A) they cant compete w/ GNU/Linux, *BSD or MSWin

    B) It makes a strong alternative to GNU/Linux

    C) it supports Apple/MS hegemony.

    Flight of Fancy? Maybe - but I am really tired of MS swooping in and making sweet deals w/ their former competitiors in order to

    A) prop up corpses for the US DoJ

    B) further entrench MS Office and MS Win by screwing with the natural course of competition/innovation*.

    *eww, i feel all dirty after having used that word now - i mean real innovation, not the chomsky-1984-doublespeak that has loaded the word with propaganda.

    1. Re:Wild Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ThaT's pretty wild all right. While I tend to agree that Mac OSX, as a UNIX, is a joke in somewhat poor taste, I don't believe MS told them to buy NeXT and try to make a go of MACH/BSD/MacOS-in-a-box/YellowBox.

    2. Re:Wild Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe MS told them to buy NeXT

      Apple bought NeXT in a failed state. Jobs drove it as part of his ego I suspect.

    3. Re:Wild Speculation by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      don't say those secrets out loud, people in the industry might notice!!

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    4. Re:Wild Speculation by chris_martin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just a few things. $150 mil "investment" was crap. It was pocket change to MS and to Apple. the more important thing was the Office for 5 year deal, but if you run the numbers Office for the Mac makes MS a LOT of money.
      Apple adopts FreeBSD because
      * A) they cant compete w/ GNU/Linux, *BSD or MSWin
      * B) It makes a strong alternative to GNU/Linux
      * C) it supports Apple/MS hegemony.

      All of this is crap
      Apple picked BSD because it was in OpenSTEP/NeXTSTEP and that's what OS X is. There is no conspriacy here, well except for the Corel thing, that's fishy, but smart on the part of MS, but I think it will kill Corel in the end.

      --
      -- Chris Martin, System Administrator
    5. Re:Wild Speculation by banky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Well, I personally feel Apple's adoption of BSD is a 'poison pill', encouraged and supported by MS, against GNU/Linux.

      There are 2 problems with this. First, OSX is NeXT. It was BSD Unix back before anyone cared. It was BSD before Gates began the jihad. It was BSD when BSD wasn't cool.

      Second, implementing Carbon on OSX is a lot like programming for MacOS9. That's the whole point of the library. Sure, you can write in Carbon and have it only run on OSX - for example, the OSX Finder is a Carbon but OSX-Only app. MS is sticking with as much non-Unix tech as possible. This is also because of the time and effort to retrain the Mac Business Unit.

      --
      ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
    6. Re:Wild Speculation by base3 · · Score: 1

      Jobs made a non-competition pact with Gates. Molotov signed a non-aggression pact with Ribbentrop. Interesting to watch the parallels!

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    7. Re:Wild Speculation by alec314159 · · Score: 1

      Jobs made a non-competition pact with Gates. Molotov signed a non-aggression pact with Ribbentrop. Interesting to watch the parallels!

      <satire>
      Base3 posted a message to Slashdot. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. Interesting to watch the parallels!
      </satire>

    8. Re:Wild Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corel can die. Micrografx now has Designer and Picture Publisher bundled in a $49. box at CompUSA. Who the hell needs Corel Draw when a deal like that is out there?

    9. Re:Wild Speculation by die_jack_die · · Score: 1

      Now, here's the kicker - how are these two things relevant/related??? Well, I personally feel Apple's adoption of BSD is a 'poison pill', encouraged and supported by MS, against GNU/Linux.

      I dunno. In "Just for Fun" Torvalds writes about meeting at Apple where Jobs tried his damnedest to get him on board with Linux. As I recall, Linus wasn't real impressed with microkernels and had no interest in where Apple was going with BSD.

      It sounded to me like Apple would have gone with Linux, but without not without Torvalds on the payroll.

    10. Re:Wild Speculation by StarTux · · Score: 2

      There is no love lost between them, a non-competition agreement is illegal anyhow...But ever since Jobs came back on Apple have been able to stand on their own two feet and will perhaps get stronger.

      There still is a strong wintel alliance, why would they upset this? Apple is purely RISC and will remain so, they won't port OSX across to the x86 platform ever. In fact wanna run x86 hardware? Use Linux, with the new KDE 3 its gonna rock, those guys deserve a medal at the very least.

      One thing I wish though, I wish Apple had a more open Open Source panel, just like HP have. Would be nice to see Apple at Linuxworld and perhaps even have Steve give a speech there someday.

      StarTux
      PS Like in another post, I like OSX it is very nice, but I prefer linux personnally. All about choice and its darn nice to have it!

      StarTux

    11. Re:Wild Speculation by Ionizor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know if you ever used Corel's Software but it sucked. All of it. I never had a version that didn't.

      I had Corel Photopaint crash on me when I hit File=>New. It divided by zero. WTF? Of all the retarted errors you could possibly fail to trap that has to be the worst. What kind of programmer divides without checking it the program is dividing by zero?

      My boss was having problems with Wordperfect 8 trying to get the formatting to work correctly. I eventually had to rewrite his default template to get his document to apply the formatting correctly.

      At least M$ Office works mostly.

      --

      --
      Todd's Law: All things being equal, you lose!
    12. Re:Wild Speculation by modipodio · · Score: 1

      "*eww, i feel all dirty after having used that word now - i mean real innovation, not the chomsky-1984-doublespeak that has loaded the word with propaganda." Sorry ,what do you mean I do not understand you? could some one explain this to me ?

      --
      __________________________________________________ "UNIX is a fascist state, Windows is a democracy.
    13. Re:Wild Speculation by base3 · · Score: 1

      Sorry I left the satire tags off for you--I thought it was pretty obvious without them ;).

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    14. Re:Wild Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple went with FreeBSD becase NeXT went with FreeBSD from the start. Why did NeXT go with BSD? When CMU developed Mach kernel they used BSD to give the Mach it's userland API. Nothing to do with Microsoft.

  22. Re:BSD allways was more popular, but nobody notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for RMS' complaints about what he calls "the advertising clause".

    Apparently it doesn't work like he wanted us to believe it did.

  23. Re:Misleading BSD Article - erm no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are wrong. You think of Communists and communist can vote who is in that goverment (cept the primer and his people) as long as there in the party.

    Communism sucks IMBAMFNSHO,AFUYPOFS...AYMT
    Soicalism + enough captalism + real democracy = good

    mikeeusa
    mikeeusa@caethaver2.ath.cx

    caethaver2.ath.cx
    cat2.ath.cx

  24. MS Office only kinda sorta under Windows by Tony-A · · Score: 2

    For funzees, watch someone trying to use Word when they actually care what the stuff looks like. Outlook's HTML editing gets pretty demented too.

    1. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Windows by fonebone · · Score: 2
      For funzees, watch someone trying to use Word when they actually care what the stuff looks like.

      you mean spending 10 minutes hitting every permutation of backspace, space and enter, trying to trick word's auto-make-things-look-right into doing what they actually want?

      cuz if you dont, thats fun too.

      --
      when the rain comes, they run and hide their heads. they might as well be dead.
    2. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a real riot, set someone who is an experienced medium-level user of Word down at a Linux command prompt and tell them you want a document of formatted text, in two columns, with one inch margins.

    3. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Windows by Sven182 · · Score: 1
      you mean spending 10 minutes hitting every permutation of backspace, space and enter, trying to trick word's auto-make-things-look-right into doing what they actually want?

      Back when I had never used Word, I would have thought this was a bit harsh. But now I know the truth. Just today I was trying to delete some text, pressing backspace as it happens. And what does Word do? It actually inserted some random text for me. I was shocked and dismayed. Then there was the paragraph that lost its numbering every time I edited the following paragraph, while disabling the "Bullets and Numbering" menu. It does not make sense. There was no way to get the numbering back.

      How do people put up with it? Am I just not using it correctly? I wish I could just write documentation in vim.

      S

      --
      harshbutfair: you know it makes sense
      www.harshbutfair.org
    4. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Windows by nexthec · · Score: 1

      It's word. the only method of using it correctly is screaming, cry, trying again, screaming, curising and reapeating.

    5. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Windows by Tony-A · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Am I just not using it correctly?
      Fatal mistake. You actually care what it looks like. Word is designed for slopping some stuff in and having it look halfway decent. But do not examine it closely.
      Remember, these are the folks bringing you .NET.

    6. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The main thing to keep in mind is, that in general, *BSD is a failure. Let's think about that for a second.

      So why now? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities?

      The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shround over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

    7. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, some of us HAVE to use Word because our clients won't accept anything else. Nothing like trying to do a two-column photo-filled 20 page article that should really be done with professional typesetting software (or at least Quark) in Word because the client doesn't have anything else.

    8. Re:MS Office only kinda sorta under Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a real piss-yourself-laughing experience, try getting a Macintosh user to walk and chew gum at the same time.

      I swear, Mac users are among the stupid people on the planet.

  25. Hurray for the FreeBSD License! by PhotoGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    He also commented that Microsoft now has Office running on a Berkeley UNIX
    I find the whole Mac OSX thing being based upon BSD, to be extremely exciting. And having office running on a BSD-based OS is a major event in our industry.

    It would not have happened, if it were not for Microsoft having to follow up and provide Office for the latest mainstream Apple OS. It proves a lot of things: that there is no inherent reason for Microsoft's applications not to run on Unix-based platforms, which has implications for those looking at anti-trust remedies, and such.

    And note that even though Linux has wider acceptance than FreeBSD, and far more application support, device support, and so on, this did not happen for Linux first, and it might never happen. This is solely because of the commercializability allowed by the BSD license. GPL'd OS's are far less likely to be embraced by a major player like Apple.

    There's a lot of interesting debate between GPL and BSD licensing. I'm a much bigger fan of BSD/X-Windows, etc., licensing, as commercial outcroppings of these are often more interesting, solid and, well, commercial-grade than purely non-commercial products.

    And I think this is one of the great examples of where such truly free, and not the forced-freedom of the GPL, achieves a measurable positive result for the industry.

    (I think a better overall solution for the industry would be for monopolistic entities to be required to fully open, publish, and standardize the data, interchange, and communication formats and protocols. We have limit choices on what roads to use, but because the specifications are standardized and open, we have a choice of cars to use. I think the government should force proven monopolistic entities to open *all* their interfaces.)

    But, in the world of Enron and MS Campaign contributions, and a populace that in general doesn't care (current company, largely excluded :-), I don't much have faith in the government to clean this up. So good commercial pressures like this from Apple are a welcome alternative for positive effects.

    -me
    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    1. Re:Hurray for the FreeBSD License! by demon · · Score: 1, Redundant

      GPL'd OS's are far less likely to be embraced by a major player like Apple.

      Wow, you think so?

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    2. Re:Hurray for the FreeBSD License! by mlk · · Score: 2, Informative

      MS as supported commersal (sp) UNIX's for quite some time (MSIE, Outlook & Media Player have been on solaris for a long time), and Office has been on MacOS also for a lonnng time, I really don't see how this is a glorous moment for any OpenSource License.
      It's just MS support other _commersal_ OSes.

      mlk

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    3. Re:Hurray for the FreeBSD License! by dbrutus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When Apple begins to pressure its developers to move on from Carbon to Cocoa and MS Office vX.3 comes out in about 3-5 years as a cocoa app, A linux system running gnustep should have a realistic shot at running the application.

      DB

    4. Re:Hurray for the FreeBSD License! by spitzak · · Score: 2

      I am not sure if laws forcing companies to behave in a certain way (release all their interfaces) are a good idea. Laws directed at only monopolies like MicroSoft might work but only solves the problem for the monopolies. A solution I would prefer is that the government have a purchasing requirement that all interfaces used by any software and hardware they purchase be open and specified. Companies are then free to close their interfaces as long as they don't want to sell anything to the government.

  26. This is just too ironic by Arandir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All you guys saying we have to call a certain operating system by the name "GNU/Linux" just because major portions of it come from GNU, are now saying MacOSX is not BSD.

    Well screw that! MacOSX has more BSD code than Redhat has GNU code. Make up your minds how you're going to name on OS. You can't have it both ways.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  27. New Borland No Nonsense Licence by marko123 · · Score: 1

    "If you can afford it, buy it. If you can't afford it, try it. If it's any good, recommend it to people who can buy it."

    ---- this space left intentionally blank ----

    --
    http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
  28. For what it's worth... by isaac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft is in the business of making Mac software because it is profitable. Having Apple around to keep the DOJ away is nice, but Microsoft wouldn't stick around if they weren't making cash off of Mac users - but they are. A greater percentage of total Mac users buy (as in pay for) MS Office than do PC users (and Office is Microsoft's real cash cow), generating revenue disproportionate to platform market share.

    If making MS Office for Mac ceases to be profitable, I do not doubt for an instant that Microsoft will cease to develop it. I don't really expect that to happen for a long time, though.

    -Isaac

    --
    I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
  29. Not the first time for M$ on Unix... by SuperJ · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Some people may remember one of AT&T's entries into the PC market, way back in 1985, the AT&T UnixPC. Now you could run System V Unix on your home PC, not just on your VAX at work. It even had a windowing interface. (Side note: AT&T also operated something called The STORE, not much of a store really, more like a server you could dial into and download programs for the UnixPC, often with source)


    Anyway, AT&T ended up selling 8.5 of these things and they're somewhat of a collector's item nowadays. Microsoft however, did release Microsoft Word for the UnixPC, yup, that's right, Microsoft Word for System V Unix.


    Yeah, so that was 1985. It shouldn't be too hard to port it now. Word couldn't have changed *that* much, right? I mean it's not like Microsoft's products have gotten bloated...*tries to keep a straight face*

    --

    Sheepdot: Open Source good, Closed Source baaaaaaad!

  30. No conspiracy theory is required to explain Corel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How does that quote go again? "Never ascribe to malice that which is caused by greed and ignorance." -- Cal Keegan

    Corel has been "in a pinch" for years, certainly long before anyone in Corel considered the idea of using Linux (remember the Java fiasco?). The enormously huge fall in Corel stock value came months after the enormously huge inflation in Corel stock value--remember it went from $3.50 to $60 (CDN) in just one year for _no good reason at all_, so it's hardly surprising that it came crashing down again.

    Aside from stock market capitalization, Corel had no significant revenue from anything Linux--certainly nothing close to the millions they were spending on it. If you spend money without earning revenue, and only earn enough income from selling worthless stock to pay for deficit financing...sooner or later, you'll run out of money. Hard. The insider-trading allegations against Mike currently in front of the OSC are probably just one of many securities-related irregularities waiting to become public knowledge.

    Interestingly enough, Corel did produce some actually interesting and profitable products--and quietly sold off those products to other companies. It's like Mike enjoys the challenge of running unprofitable businesses with poor business plans or something...

    When Corel was doing the GNU/Linux thing, only two groups of people in the company bought into the idea of "open source" or "free as in speech": one group of people were engineers hired after the decision to do the KDE/Linux (*) thing, and the other group of people I can count on one hand. Except for Mike, all of those people were engineers, QA people, new hires, or bottom-level managers--none people with any real corporate decision-making authority.

    * Yes, KDE/Linux...after all, everyone knows KDE is better than GNOME, so why not purge out as many GNU packages as we can while we're at it? Even gcc was targeted at one point, but due to political reasons the alternative never materialized, so gcc was kept.

    The general attitude in the company toward Linux was that Linux was either 1) a fad that would find its niche and go away, like Java; 2) a fad that would just go away; 3) possibly a small but important market, like the Mac--but nobody wants to touch it until it becomes a whole lot more like Windows. Understandably this view was held by many of the senior developers on Corel's Windows products, but a number of key Corel Linux people felt that way too.

    With one notable exception, the Corel executives had no intention of producing products with any kind of open-source license--some just couldn't grasp the concept of "free as in speech", much less find motivation for actually doing it. They could understand "free as in beer" well enough to use it as a marketing technique, but could not fathom why other people would use "free as in beer" for non-marketing purposes.

    Put another way: they seemed to think that open-source people craved attention. These guys really thought they were doing the KDE and Debian people a favor by distributing millions of copies of ancient versions of their free code linked to Corel's non-free code written by inexperienced, fresh-from-Windows, where's-my-Visual-Studio-For-Linux? developers, and they were genuinely surprised each and every time when their license terms ended up being flamebait on Slashdot or gnu-misc-discuss or debian-legal.

    They were genuinely disappointed when millions of Linux users failed to immediately make the switch from Red Hat to Corel after the release. They were also disappointed when their lawyers told them that the GPL was "ambiguous"--they were hoping for something more concrete, like "inapplicable" or "unenforceable", not something that could put the company on the losing end of a precedent-setting lawsuit.

    At the end, four things happened: the stock crashed, Mike left the company, all the Linux people with any marketable skills left the company, and Derek's first action as new CEO was to declare that Microsoft .NET was the One Runtime To Bind Them All, and Corel was auditioning for the role of Isengard. It's hard to tell which caused what, as they all happened within weeks of each other.

    Everyone had their personal agendas planned out months in advance anyway. If it wasn't for Mike, the Corel .NET announcement could have come out a year earlier. Derek has roughly the same opinion about .NET as Miguel de Icaza, except where open-source/free-software licensing is concerned.

  31. Re:Oh for the old days of Borland's "as a book" te by null0char · · Score: 2, Informative

    On the contrary... 1) a visit to JB Patches, will show an entire list of patches, the more recent ones being 'comprehensive' (i.e. across the product, not just highly focused). 2) they offer free downloads of their Ent. Trial (30 day trial?) by which you can see what bugs there are, before laying down your cash. Also available is the free Personal edn, which has no time out. No, it doesn't have the full 'enterprise' feature set. No, its license does not allow it to be used for.... is it "commercial development"? But it also allows for 'try before you buy'. 3) sure their s/w has bugs. sure they charge for subsequent upgrades, where there are both bug fixes and new features. But this was largely true 'back in the good ole days', which you are longing for. It is also true of other 'for profit' companies. 4) Yes, I lament w/ you the loss of the earlier book-type license models. It is your second sentence that I think is not only unfair, but also untrue. However, I also agree w/ your 3rd sentence, so I guess we're in 66% agreement. :-) Competition is good. Let the market place decide. But let it decide based on a true understanding of the facts.

  32. Too ironic to be true... by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > MacOSX has more BSD code than Redhat has GNU code.

    I would be very surpised if that was true. All the proprietary Apple API's and GUI applications tend to be much fatter than the lean and mean BSD code.

    In contrast, Red Hat's GUI layer is Gnome, a GNU project.

    In fact, I suspect MacOSX has more GNU code than BSD code, if you include the development tools, allthough both are dwarfed by the Apple proprietary code.

    1. Re:Too ironic to be true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on how you measure the amount of code, and what you count as BSD code (e.g. whether you include Mach and other OSF code, which has a BSDesque license).

      Just the bsd directory in the Darwin kernel source tree is 14MB or so and there are plenty of BSD command-line tools and library functions included, so it isn't an insignificant amount of code.

      While gcc is fairly large, you might not want to count e.g. all of the platform configurations because only a couple are used...

  33. Re:Oh for the old days of Borland's "as a book" te by bsartist · · Score: 1

    Heh - that was my first thought. Borland's licensing terms? Borland's???

    My, how times have changed...

    --
    Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
  34. Re:BSD allways was more popular, but nobody notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Re: choosing Linux, it's probably for the same reason that most people choose Windows; it's the best-known name in its genre and what "everybody else" is using.

    Another reason is that more people have been pre-exposed to Linux than to BSD, so the people implementing the appliance are going to use what they know.

    It should be obvious why there is such a trend; if there is little visible difference in suitability for a particular purpose, the more popular alternative will gain popularity and vice versa. Not fair, but just how things work.

    Now if I were to build a network appliance, I'd choose BSD because that's something I already know, can easily support and consider more suitable for the purpose.

  35. Re:Oh for the old days of Borland's "as a book" te by Bodrius · · Score: 2

    Actually, you seem to be 100% in agreement with the original poster, and 100% in disagreement with the person who replied.

    The original poster only lamented the loss of the book-license, and that he used to like Borland; he didn't say anything about charging for patches, that was the replier.

    --
    Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
  36. this has grown entirely offtopic.... by lightfoot+jim · · Score: 1

    the answer to your question though is that the groups you mention don't feel the need to form a racist counterculture in response to a racist culture. they prefer to just be economically succesful. as soon as they form a whiteboy hating counterculture, they WILL have tv shows which cater to it.

    --
    The state is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everybody else. ~F. Bastiat
  37. Mediaone Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee, I submitted that story back when they emailed all their subscribers in January. Nice to see it finally show up, if under someone else's name.

  38. 30 days and counting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad it went smoothly for you.

    "The old @mediaone.net addresses will stop working on March 15"

    There are some support staff that only check their mailbox once a month that will be confused...

  39. Look at this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy seems to now do his outlining in vim and writing in Lyx. You might want to give it a look see:

    http://www.troubleshooters.com/tpromag/200201/20 02 01.htm

  40. No no no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then the fanatical lusers will come over to *BSD. I say "stay the hell away from us!"

  41. Sorenson by Watts+Martin · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, talking to Sorenson won't help. A few years back I asked about whether they'd be interested in making a BeOS version of their codec--since BeOS handles such things at the OS level, any media application would immediately have it available for their use. (This was back before Be's infamous focus shift and when they were getting a lot of positive attention in the A/V marketplace.) A Sorenson rep wrote back and said that they couldn't do that, because the codec is exclusively licensed to Apple for use in QuickTime--I was explicitly told the only way to get it on BeOS was to get Apple to port QuickTime to BeOS. Not the QuickTime file format, which a lot of other programs support, but actual QuickTime the program.

    I like Apple (sometimes), but I don't really expect them to do much in the way of directly supporting Linux. The only commercial, closed-source app I could imagine them porting to a free Unix would be WebObjects, and I wouldn't be surprised if they ported it to FreeBSD before Linux.

    Linux will get benefits from Apple, as you observed, if the Free Software Foundation deigns to accept the work Apple is doing on GCC. Having "one of the biggest GCC compiler design teams in the world and giving all that code back" doesn't mean the FSF is actually going to use it. I hope political considerations won't be an issue, but even without those they tend to be notoriously picky.

  42. Re: above /. M&M by pbuxton · · Score: 1

    Speaking as an off-and-on homosexual, I think this is the funniest and saddest comment on /. After years of listening to rumors about Richard Gere, Axl Rose, Matthew Broderick, et al., the one thing I can say with near-absolute authority is that the best indicator of homosexuality is spreading rumors about other guys being gay.

  43. Why not, MS does it all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They all change their agreements whenever they want. Hence why I try to find other solutions before I even consider using software that runs on windows platforms. Microsoft changed their agreement as was seen on slashdot last week and I've already seen computers having the patches "downloaded" to it.

    I'll stick with my linux software that I know works perfectly and still accomplishes the job.

  44. AT&T snail mailed the upgrade info by sys49152 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The instructions have been posted on the web, but it looks like they have not been e-mailed to current AT&T Broadband subscribers.

    Just yesterday (the 14th) I received a letter from AT&T discussing the whole changeover. What was changing, why, and what to expect. It was clear, concise, and accurate. Thankfully, they didn't email this to me as I don't use my AT&T email account. Then again, maybe they did.

    The instructions on how to change your various settings for your email/web/whatever clients may or may not be accurate - I didn't read them.

  45. MS patch clusterf#$ Rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if IE is an integral part of the OS then why the f#$% aren't the patches for it included in Windows Update? For that matter, why the hell aren't all the Post SP# security hotfixes included in Windows Update? Let me get this straight, Mr. Gates, to keep my windows box secure and up-to-date I need to run Windows Update, check the TechNet Security site for any hotfixes, AND check the IE site for any new patches? On what seems to be a daily basis? What else am I missing? GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!

  46. Re:show us your tits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I realize it ruins the essence of the troll, but you should have linked to this pic instead!!!!