Slashdot Mirror


20 Network Changing Products

An anonymous reader wrote to mention a Network World piece about products that have changed networking over the last twenty years. From the article: "SendMail 1998 - Sendmail was key to the e-mail revolution because it was how everyone got up and running with e-mail communications over the Internet. Eric Allman wrote the original version of this open source mail-transfer agent while he was at the University of California at Berkeley in 1979. He stopped development on it in 1982, however, and didn't revisit it until 1990. In 1998 he founded SendMail to sell the software's first commercial version, the SendMail switch."

46 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Ugh by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Sendmail was key to the e-mail revolution because it was how everyone got up and running with e-mail communications over the Internet.

    And Sendmail also happens to be one of the absolute worst widely-deployed programs in the history computer software. Man, I despite that program. How could anyone have thought that configuration file format was a good idea? You know it's bad when you have to have a preprocessor to translate something (semi-)tolerable into its syntax.

    The e-mail revolution succeeded DESPITE sendmail, not because of it, though I give it some small credit for flexibility. It was just barely adequate enough to keep people from writing a replacement (thought we have some now).

    No point to this post, except to voice how much I despise sendmail. :)

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:Ugh by misleb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the Sendmail cf file made more sense back when computers were slower. It is easier for a computer to parse for routing. At least that's how someone once explained it to me. I honestly don't know how it remained dominant as long as it did. I ditched Sendmail the day I tried Postfix.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    2. Re:Ugh by lakeland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to think back to when sendmail was written.

      There are many different protocols that it supported which are simply not used now. Sure, you can write a SMTP server in fewer lines of code, but I doubt you'd be able to write something that could handle all of the crazy protocols in use at the time (and was flexible enough to be modified for protocols not invented yet).

    3. Re:Ugh by Kenrod · · Score: 5, Funny


      I love sendmail. It's the reason I became an application engineer instead of a sysadmin.

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    4. Re:Ugh by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think the Sendmail cf file made more sense back when computers were slower. It is easier for a computer to parse for routing.
      Sure, but isn't the cf file only used at load time? It would be crazy to parse the cf file for every email, and equally crazy to impose that syntax on users for a file read only at startup time.
    5. Re:Ugh by schon · · Score: 4, Informative

      isn't the cf file only used at load time?

      The .cf file is used whenever the sendmail binary is run - on some systems this meant whenever a local user sends email.

      As another poster pointed out, Sendmail is more than just a SMTP daemon.

    6. Re:Ugh by thogard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The sendmail config has been considered a binary, machine readable only file for those that know sendmail since the introduction of the m4 preprocessor. Its a binary file that you can use a text editor on if you have a real need.

      I've messed with over 100 email packages in my life and I still use sendmail. Its sill flexible, and you can still add stuff to it for experiments and they still fix bugs no matter how obscure and unlikely they are. Like the recent one which effects nearly every unix bit of code that uses alarm, signal and setjmp.

      You don't have any idea what bad is until you look at any one of the many X.400 email packages.

    7. Re:Ugh by sukotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I find it funny that many of the people posting in defense of SendMail here are the same ones that lambast MS Windows for the very same "features".

      - Huge, bloated software.
      - Hard to configure.
      - Hard to maintain.
      - Has a history of enabling spam and virus propagation (due to users inability to set it up properly).
      - Yet it dominates the market despite all other alternatives.

      Obviously if you're discussing Windows it's BAD!. If it's sendmail, well, it's GOOD!.

      Even more funny is that I do it too. :-(

      --
      Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
    8. Re:Ugh by dougmc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think the Sendmail cf file made more sense back when computers were slower.
      No, sendmail's complexity/flexibility made sense because there were oodles of very different mail protocols. Now, almost everything can be sent from point A to B via SMTP, but back then there were lots of different options, and the options were needed to make it all work. (Granted, the options are still available now, but few people use them anymore.)

      And really, it's not that bad once you get used to it.

      And besides, it was one of the first MTAs out there -- and yet it still exists today. Other MTAs have come and gone, many even using what's been learned from sendmail, but sendmail still exists and still routes a large percentage of all e-mail today.

    9. Re:Ugh by dougmc · · Score: 2, Informative
      - Has a history of enabling spam and virus propagation (due to users inability to set it up properly).
      I've found sendmail to be as spam-resistant as any of the other MTAs out there at the same time.

      At one point, every mail server was an open relay, because that's just the way things were done, and few people abused it and it was nice. Then the spammers came and ruined that. Sendmail changed to default to `don't relay' approximately as fast as everybody else. From time to time spammers have found ways around the anti-relay provisions, but this has happened with other MTAs.

      As for virii, I'd argue that if a program sends an email from sytem A to user B, it's the MTA's job to, by default, deliver the email if it's properly addressed and such. Virus scanning can be added it you want, but it certainly shouldn't be there by default.

      If it's sendmail, well, it's GOOD!
      I don't think people quite think this. But it runs on *nix, so it can't be all bad.
    10. Re:Ugh by swillden · · Score: 3, Informative

      The top 10 Linux distros, according to DistroWatch.com, and their default mail servers are:

      • Ubuntu: Postfix
      • Mandriva: Postfix
      • SUSE: Postfix (you said sendmail, but I just checked my SUSE test systems and they have postfix).
      • Fedora/Red Hat: Sendmail
      • Debian: Exim
      • Knoppix: Exim
      • MEPIS: Exim
      • Gentoo: No real default, but the Handbook seems to recommend Postfix
      • Slackware: Sendmail
      • Xandros: Postfix

      So the score is eight non-sendmail to two sendmail. Three if you count Fedora and Red Hat separately, which seems reasonable since Ubuntu, Debian, Knoppix and MEPIS are counted separately (Red Hat doesn't show up in the distrowatch top ten list, which seems strange). A better way to look at it, of course, is by market share, but decent market share figures are nearly impossible to obtain.

      It appears to me that however you count it, the GP is right in saying that most Linux distributions/installations do not use sendmail by default. They all have a /usr/bin/sendmail utility, of course, but that doesn't mean they use the sendmail package.

      Of the major Unixes, it appears that Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX, and the BSDs use sendmail, but AIX and OS X Server use Postfix, so sendmail appears to be the winner there.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  2. I'll give them the rest of it, but Skype!? by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Informative

    From TFA:
    Skype
    2003

    This proprietary peer-to-peer telephony application provided the first real quality VoIP product (did we mention it's free here?) that has built a cult following and spurred industry questions about why corporations can't move to convergence more quickly. Skype picked up both business clout and deep pockets when eBay bought the company in the fall of 2005


    Hello? Asterisk anybody?

    Open source? Check
    Open standards? Check ( note: skype is not open in this regard )
    Quality product? Check check check
    Huge business impact? Check

    Not to mention asterisk isn't burdened with weird restrictions fueled by marketing concerns. Digium is the company behind it, and they do make hardware that works with it, but it's hardly locked down to *that* specific hardware.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:I'll give them the rest of it, but Skype!? by datafr0g · · Score: 2

      Yes but Asterisk isn't nearly as popular as Skype, therefore Skype wins when it comes to influencing networks.

      --
      "Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
    2. Re:I'll give them the rest of it, but Skype!? by Bizzeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why is open source high on your list of what makes something good? open or closed, a product can still be better than something else...

    3. Re:I'll give them the rest of it, but Skype!? by LennyDotCom · · Score: 2, Informative

      why is open source high on your list of what makes something good?

      because you have accesse to the source and can chabge what ever you want if you have the abilitity.... Duh

      --
      http://Lenny.com
    4. Re:I'll give them the rest of it, but Skype!? by bit01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      why is open source high on your list of what makes something good?

      Though commercially funded astroturfers like to lie about this, the type of license is a very important part of the featureset of a program. To pretend otherwise is naive.

      Some people regard this feature as important, others less so.

      open or closed, a product can still be better than something else...

      You need to improve your reading comprehension skills. Just because the license is an important feature of a program doesn't make it the only feature. At no point did the post claim the open source license was the only feature, just an important one.

      ---

      Beware deceptive astroturfers.

  3. Microsoft Windows 2000 Server?!?!?!?! by ChrisGilliard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, maybe I'm a Unix guy, but was this really something that changed the network? I know a lot of people have it installed, and run webservers, etc on it (usually because they are forced to or don't know any better), but if you want to put this on there it just seems like there are others that should be there like Solaris, Red Hat, Suze, FreeBSD just to name a few.

    --
    No Sigs!
    1. Re:Microsoft Windows 2000 Server?!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, the title says "20 Products The Changed Networking". No one mentioned "changed for the better".

    2. Re:Microsoft Windows 2000 Server?!?!?!?! by 0racle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How long was LDAP the 'next big thing' in enterprise networking? Guess which OS actually brought LDAP to most of the worlds enterprise networks.

      Out of your list, only Solaris really deserves to be there as far as world changing OS's and even then saying genuine, generic Unix would be more correct. FreeBSD does not have a huge earth shattering install base, and Linux only began to see large scale adoption when it became good enough to replace existing Unix deployments. That was because it was free.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    3. Re:Microsoft Windows 2000 Server?!?!?!?! by mjm1231 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      How long was LDAP the 'next big thing' in enterprise networking? Guess which OS actually brought LDAP to most of the worlds enterprise networks.

      Of course you mean NetWare, right?

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
  4. NCSA httpd? by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll grant them most of these entries, but Apache was clearly not the first free web server. NCSA httpd was the first, and Apache is a derivative of that. The two coexisted for a few years, during which period it was possible to switch between them without even changing the config file. I think NCSA httpd project finally expired around 1996.

  5. missing options by dotpavan · · Score: 3, Funny
    1) Myspace
    2) facebook
    3) friendster
    4) hi5

    these greatly improved my network ;)

  6. SQL server 7.0 by heatdeath · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where's SQL server 7.0? It changed the way we thought about worms and default passwords. :-D

    --
    I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
  7. 5 network-screwing products by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OK, that was the good things. Now let's remember the bad things and how they started.

    - Adware. Ah.... the Gator download manager (TM). Didn't you love this thing? It was free! Only it began displaying some ads in your computer. What could possibly go wrong?

    - SPAM. Funny, the other day i began receiving mails about mortgage rates. Idiots, I'm too young for that. I'll ignore it, they're 1 in a 100.

    - Popups. OK, this is getting annoying. I'll have to block images from these free websites like XOOM, Geocities, Angelfire and so on.

    - Web viruses. The other day something weird went on. I went to a porn website, and the next day my PC began opening popups. WTF?

    - Email viruses. Ack! All I did was open my mail on Outlook express!

    It's funny. We take these things for granted, but I remember the days when they didn't exist AT ALL. It was a wonderful era. Also worthy of notice is that all of them (except popups) were possible thanks to Microsoft Windows(TM).

    1. Re:5 network-screwing products by xrayspx · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think Canter and Siegel would have done their crap with or without Windows, so SPAM is another that wasn't courtesy of Microsoft. I'm thinking that Adware probably would have popped up for different platforms if, say, 99% of everyone was running a Mac at the time. Email Viruses though, that's sticky, anything that is so crazy about trying to tie kitchen-sink functionality into one app is asking to get burned. I guess by that logic, EMACS has been asking to get burned for 20+ years.

  8. AIM messenger! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree with you on something. Remove skype and add MSN/YIM/AIM/ICQ.

    These non-anonymous chat services changed the way we relate to people on the web, replacing the untrusty anonymous IRC. It gave the ability to chat to every joe user.

  9. w2k server? by jaymzter · · Score: 2, Informative

    Am I missing something? How did Widows 2000 Server "change" networking? They mention AD, but if that's the case then LDAP could've been listed just as well. Claiming that Windows was susceptible to Code Red is no big deal either. You could claim the Morris internet worm had a longer lasting effect on networking in the long run.

    --
    If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
    1. Re:w2k server? by misleb · · Score: 4, Informative

      As mentioned in the article, Novell was doing hierachal directories long before (and better than) Win2k. LDAP in and of itself wouldn't count because it wasn't use to centralize network management like NDS and AD were. Even today, generic LDAP based network management pales in comparison to NDS (now eDirectory).

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  10. ugh, fluff by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 2

    christ almighty, this article is pure fluff. do the people at network world even *use* networks? christ almighty. "skype was a top 20 network changing product"?

    1. Re:ugh, fluff by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Funny

      The only innovation Skype did was working around NATs. Beating ugly hacks with ugly hacks just for the sake of short-term luser-friendliness. Bleh.

      We had dozens of VoIP programs a long time before Skype; what made them unpopular were troubles caused by ISPs. The end-of-life announcement of SpeakFreely is a good read.

      Basically, the #1 reason why IPv6 is not widely deployed yet is that it makes VoIP and peer-to-peer work flawlessly, something that goes against the concept of tiered internet. Those "major network companies" you're speaking of are our enemies, not friends.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  11. Show Sendmail Some Respect by InitZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, it is true. Mike Tyson could probably kick
    Muhammad Ali's ass. Of course, Mike Tyson is also
    nearly 20 years younger. So, who is the better boxer?

            For as much email has been run through sendmail in
    the last couple decades, I'm always disappointed at how
    little respect it receives.
            I built my first mail server in 1993 using sendmail.
    It brought internet email to my company over a serial
    uucp link. By 1996, sendmail was moving nearly 87,000
    internet messages a day for our company (not bad for a
    486DX4-100 with a whopping 32M RAM (64M?)).
            Saying the latest mail software (qmail, postfix, etc.)
    is better than something written in 1972 - 27 years ago -
    isn't saying much. (Well, maybe: Duh!)
            Heck, 27 computing years is like 350 human years.

            So, before you complain about security holes (one
    in the last two years?) or complexity (like any other
    programming language, practice makes perfect), why don't
    you tell me which mail transport software you used in
    1975, 1985 or 1995. Then, follow that up with which
    transports you expect to see a lot of in 2010 and 2020.

            Matt

  12. Re:Does the auther even know what their talking ab by Burdell · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are a number of things wrong with that article (Sendmail Switch was largely a non-event AFAIK; the original sendmail was the "big moment"). However, Linux being the first (at least first major) fully Open Source system is probably correct.

    At the time Linux was started, the BSD code base was still tied up in the AT&T lawsuit. Some parts had to be removed from distribution, leaving an incomplete system. The various BSD based projects had to rewrite some bits to fill in the removed stuff to get a working OS. IIRC Linus has said that if that hadn't been the case (or if GNU Hurd had really come about as planned), he never would have started his own kernel project.

    Early Linux distributions pulled in a good bit of GNU, BSD, and X/MIT licensed code and integrated it (at least to some extent). Nobody else had really pulled all the various bits together (and GNU and BSD didn't have a functioning kernel at that point).

  13. Typical article about technology from a journalist by leereyno · · Score: 4, Informative

    This article, like most articles of its type, contains misleading generalities and outright factual errors.

    1) Apache was NOT the first free web server. Both CERN httpd and NCSA's httpd predate it, and both were free.
    2) Netscape and Spyglass's version of Mosaic were the first commercial WEB BROWSERS. The article states that both were the first commercial GUI's. Last time I checked the first commercial GUI was to be found on the Xerox Star circa 1981. Terminology matters, when you do not use a term correctly you create confusion and/or make yourself look like an arse.

    The problem with these sorts of articles, and the magazines in which they appear, is that they're being written by journalists. I can't tell you the number of times over the years that I've had the misfortune of reading something computer related in a magazine or newspaper and discovered multiple serious factual errors. I've come to accept this from periodicals that don't normally deal with computers or technology, but I'm pretty much fed up with finding errors in PC magazine on a regular ongoing basis.

    Who are the people who write these articles? There are some people who are interested in computers but aren't quite there yet in terms of their understanding. Many are not blessed with "the knack" (http://home.pcisys.net/~tbc/sounds/dilknack.wav) Others are so blessed, but are still neophytes. Either way they're very good at creating and passing on erroneous information about computers and technology.

    Lee

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  14. Re:synoptics? by tomherbst · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cabletron and Synoptics were the two major leading competitors as proprietary Ethernet over twisted pair moved to 10BaseT. As I recall, Synoptics sold more and innovated more, but Cabletron kept them honest, especially on price. SynOptics did the heavy lifting on the 10BaseT spec.

    tom

  15. Remote Access by drwho · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sendmail is one of the most successful remote-access programs ever.

    Sendmail has provided the essential r00t access for hax0rz to improve their skills in the past. Before Linux was cheap and available, one had to go out, and like a predator, acquire one's operating system privs. Sendmail was teh great enabler. Though I have moved on to better and brighter things, I thank Alman, and Vixie, for their great success in bringing r00t to the large number of adolescents everywhere.

  16. Citrix? by kahanamoku · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although there are many others out there, citrix should've at least rated a mention! it has changed the face of many remote connectivity environments all over the place!

    --
    ----- Concentrate on promoting more than demoting.
  17. NCSA Mosaic by erice · · Score: 3

    The web began with Cern's browser, of course, but it was not the Web as we know it today. More of an improved gopher. NCSA Mosaic was the first graphical browser and that changed everything.

    Netscape was just an improved NCSA Mosaic, albiet a hugely popular one. Smoother, faster, but network changing? I think not. Spyglass was an early ancestor of IE and, I think, AOL's browser but as itself it changed nothing.

  18. Yes and no. by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Yes, there were some strange protocols around at the time for mail - X.400 for example. But sendmail probably doesn't support many of these. Besides, even back then, it was considered ugly to design things as monolithic programs. Truly modular designs did not appear until dynamic linking became portable/usable, but basic modularity in the form of program piping has always existed.


    (Indeed, all of the original Unix tools are written as pipelined utilities. If Sendmail had been written in this manner, you would have had a few hundred executables - BUT they would have been faster, more secure, and much more flexible. Small, modular kits have always been the "accepted" Unix way of Getting Things Right. Large, monolithic lumps have always been disparaged as probably bug-ridden and Bad.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Yes and no. by zerocool^ · · Score: 4, Insightful


      This is a fallacy, and one that Linus himself debunks in his auto-biography.

      A monolithic program may look more complex and harder to maintain and secure (and I'll admit, I hate sendmail), having a HUNDRED binaries as part of this program would add an order of magnitude of complexity that is entirely unnecesary.

      Think: While it is true that a singular, small program which does one task is simpler than a monolithic giant, the program (as a whole, encompassing all the small parts) will still need to do all the same stuff a monolithic program has to do, except now it has to deal with message passing between small binary executables, queueing or drop files, and a number of other issues where security is a concern.

      It's not as simple as taking parts out of the whole design and implementing them independantly; adding "parts" to the "whole" creates issues which do not exist in the monolithic.

      qmail is able to do this fairly well, but it only has about 4 or 5 executables, IIRC, and it is compiled very carefully against bernsteins' special stdio and other library files that he's hardened.

      See also: Linux Kernel vs. Hurd or Minix.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
  19. Give respect where it is due by amightywind · · Score: 2, Funny

    Many elements of *nix systems remained surprisingly unchanged in the last 25 years: /etc/passwd, init scripts, bourne shell, inetd, .... These are inspired for their utility, simplicity, and cleanliness. They endure. You cannot put Sendmail into this group. Why? The input format may be the worst way to configure a program yet devised. It is closely followed in wretchedness by lpd and /etc/printcap. You should not try to obscure these important facts with lame relativism. I am giddy that I don't have to look at them anymore on my machine.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  20. That's why you use TLS and SMTP AUTH by SIGBUS · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If you are running your own mail server outside your ISP's network, you shouldn't be using port 25 in the first place. Configure your mail server to use TLS or SSL with proper authentication, and use port 587 or 465 to send your mail through it.

    I have no sympathy for anyone who whines about port 25 being blocked. Judging from the number of zombied PCs trying to send spam to me, I would say that port 25 should be blocked by default at consumer ISPs.

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
  21. Nostalgia by Runesabre · · Score: 3, Insightful

    20 years ago I remember taking a high school computer class. The teacher showed us, almost reverently, the 300 baud modem hooked up to one of the TRS-80 computers. I can still remember thinking how cool and impressive that was. None of the students were allowed to come near that "powerful" equipment.

    Today, I have a 5mbit download cable modem and just finished a work order to have a dedicated, full T1 put into my house for my new company.

    Amazing how times have changed. What hasn't changed is how cool it all still is.

    --
    Runesabre
    Enspira Online
  22. Oh, you poor old old-timers. by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Back in the days when I was an old-timer, we had to code 37 hours a day! Uphill, both ways!


    Seriously, anyone who calls themselves an Old-Timer in a field that is barely over 60 years old, is either a former co-worker of Turing or Von Neumann - the only generation with any business adding the word "old" - or they don't have enough understanding of the field to qualify.


    Operating Systems in general are relatively new things. MULTICS is "historic", but only in the sense that it isn't in use. It has many ideas I consider valuable today, and I wish it was easier to get hold of MULTICS code, but it is far from ancient.


    The odds are fairly high, though, that most "old-timers" on Slashdot are from the Unix or even the CP/M generation. Some might even call themselves "old-timers" when they only really started with DOS 3.1 or even something as modern as Windows 3.0!


    I predate CP/M - not by much - but that doesn't matter because I don't claim to be an Old-Timer. Experienced, sure. Aware, certainly. Old-timer? No. I can tell you what I saw - from the control center at Jodrel Bank's Lovell Telescope to Imperial Computer's minis at Daresbury, from dusty Forth manuals to robotics and micromice - the word was Small. Small was good. Small was in. Small made Smartware one of the best damn integrated packages of that era in computing - and it outperformed many later generation systems. Small made Acornsoft's "Elite" the hottest game ever published by any title, as a percentage of the userbase it sold to.


    Not sure if PETSpeed was small & unit-based. Wouldn't surprise me. You couldn't fit much even in a 32K machine, so modules would be logical.


    As for Linus -- we're talking about Torvalds, right? The one who produced Linux, probably the most modular (and therefore smallest) OS ever released on this planet? The one who gave up on monolithic maintenance because he couldn't scale, so modularized even the maintenance process? You'd use him as an illustration for monolithic design, given that he hasn't used that in Linux in God-lost-count number of years?

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Oh, you poor old old-timers. by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously, anyone who calls themselves an Old-Timer in a field that is barely over 60 years old, is either a former co-worker of Turing or Von Neumann - the only generation with any business adding the word "old" - or they don't have enough understanding of the field to qualify.

      My dad used to scope single bits from radio tubes, working for IBM. My mom used to punch up punchcards. I think that qualifies as old-timer. Though if you use the term old-timer to mean "someone with experience", I'm going to laugh. To me, that is a term which means "historic and outdated trivia" with little relevance to the present. They're both completely disconnected from current hardware and software.

      I think I'm in an excellent generation, where you with a little bit of programming skill could approach commercial software and do "impressive" things. If I was a teenager today, I'm not sure I'd be motivated enough. I could in all seriousness say "I want to program a [Space Invaders,Pac Man,Frog] clone". Try saying "I want to program a World of Warcraft/Oblivion/Half-Life 2 clone" with a straight face.

      As for Linus -- we're talking about Torvalds, right? The one who produced Linux, probably the most modular (and therefore smallest) OS ever released on this planet? The one who gave up on monolithic maintenance because he couldn't scale, so modularized even the maintenance process? You'd use him as an illustration for monolithic design, given that he hasn't used that in Linux in God-lost-count number of years?

      You mean to say that companies that use a monolithic design don't do this? And here I was, thinking that the "Microsoft as Borg" icon was just part of the MS bashing. If monolithic design meant one-man design, I think that discussion would have been ended long time ago...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  23. Windows 95??? Mac OS 7!!!! by Foo2rama · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Windows 95 was the first OS to make it easy to get on the net. OK, mac system 7.0 circa 1991 had a full ethernet setup and supported tcp/ip which you could change without having to restart(GASP!!!) It took untill XP for windows not to need to be restarted to change tcp/ip settings. Not to mention that dealing with anything network related everything up to windows ME was frustrating and counter intuitive. Any remembersetting up pppoe on those systems? system 7.0 was 32bit set the benchmark for consumer GUI and set the stage for all mac OS's untill the release of osX in 2001. 10 years and the OS was still running strong from a user standpoint (I know the mem codeing was horrid.)


    I am not trying to be a Mac fanboy here but, it took untill at least windows 98 and argueably XP for ease of use consumer networking on windows.

    --


    ---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
    1. Re:Windows 95??? Mac OS 7!!!! by innit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      took untill XP for windows not to need to be restarted to change tcp/ip settings

      Untrue, Windows 2000 did it too.