Having done some phone-based support at my current job, and in previous ones - phone support isn't my one-and-only purpose, but some comes with the territory anyway - I have to disagree with you here. No, the user shouldn't have to know _everything_ about their computer, but having a little basic knowledge would be helpful. Some basic terminology, knowing whether their computer is running Windows or MacOS (and what version), and simple things like that. I don't expect them to know the make, model, revision, etc. for every piece of their system, but it's damn hard to be conversant with a person who can't even identify the computer, monitor, mouse, etc., and doesn't know what a "web browser" or "mail client" is. This is not particularly difficult stuff, and if people want tech support, especially phone-based support, to be helpful, they have to be a part of the solution.
Like there was ever much point in running _Linux_, of all things, in VirtualPC - especially when you can run it natively, and run MacOS on top of it. OSes that weren't available on PowerPC (or not widely available anyway), like Win9x, Windows NT, OS/2, etc., ok, makes sense. Seriously, that's what most people were buying VirtualPC, SoftPC/SoftWindows, and their cousins for - for running stuff that they couldn't get natively on the Mac platform.
I remember running SCSI spy tools from Adaptec on a Windows 95 box with a SCSI slide printer and a SCSI scanner plugged into it - the IDE devices showed up as their very own SCSI bus to those tools. So yes, Windows definitely does an equivalent trick, as was mentioned.
System V was/is a particular version of the UNIX codebase. System V-style init scripts were just a small part of that - and I don't think that SCO would have grounds to sue over anyone using a particular style of init scripts. I still doubt the veracity of SCO's claims, but of course, without their evidence (whatever that may be) it's hard to judge.
PPC (and MIPS) support was pulled during the NT 4.0 product cycle, not the Win2K cycle. PPC and MIPS binaries made it onto NT4 CDs, but the support for them was officially killed not too very long after release. Alpha support was killed sometime not long before 2K's release.
And to answer your question, what became NT was originally written to run on Intel's i860 RISC processor, which never really lived up to its supposed potential, languishing as simulated silicon for a long, long time. The chip, which was internally code-named "N-Ten", supposedly became the origin of the "NT" moniker. NT was first ported to the MIPS architecture, then to x86 from there (and of course, PPC and AXP). However, from what I gather, the little-endian modes of the CPUs were used, and the AXP was used in its crippled 32-bit mode instead of taking advantage of the chip's 64-bit functionality - so it never really made the most of the other architectures it ran on anyway. Color me underwhelmed.
Win98 has already lapsed from "mainstream" support (i.e., you can download updates/otherwise obtain them for no cost). Their "extended" support requires you to pay them some amount of money. WinME will lapse into "extended" support as of the end of this year. Microsoft is definitely wanting to not have to support the 9x line anymore (not that I can blame them, but...). Win2K will only be supported under "mainstream" support until the end of 2005. Yeah, that's 2 and a half years, but that's not a particularly long lifetime.
Well, the trouble is, what is the Win32 API? It's big and amorphous, and it keeps growing to encompass different things - not to mention the apps that use API calls that are only documented in very, very expensive SDKs, if they're documented at all outside of Microsoft - in which case the Wine people only know them by number, which isn't very conducive to reimplementing them. And the calls that aren't quite exactly the same as what the documentation says (either args, or return codes, or something.) Or the ones that are implemented differently on different versions of Windows. Or the ones with bugs in them that developers discovered and worked around, so the Wine developers have to match the bugs, or break otherwise working software.
Wine is the Right Solution(TM), yes, but the problem is a big one, especially when you're aiming at a moving target like the Win32 APIs.
Actually, VMware for Windows will ONLY run on NT-flavored Windows versions (NT4, 2000, XP, 2K3 server), not on the 9x varieties. It has something to do with the structuring of the kernel making it impossible, or at least difficult enough that they didn't think it worth the time.
SCO claimed to own patents and copyrights on the Unix SysV codebase itself, not the name. Novell claims that they never sold those rights to them, just sublicensed them. Then there's the Novell/USL vs. Berkeley suit, and... well, the ownership of UNIX in the eyes of the law would definitely qualify as complex.
Because Apple did certify MacOS X as a Unix with them.
Oh really? Well, if you can find it in their list of licensees for UNIX 95 or UNIX 98 branding (which is what it would fall under, since nothing's been put up for Single UNIX Spec v3 testing yet, afaik), then let me know. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure Apple never licensed the UNIX name for use with OS X. I believe A/UX was a branded UNIX way back in "the day", but you can't just go jumping from codebase to codebase and take the branding with you.
Sir, inform thyself. The Open Group has no relationship at all to Linux. In fact, at one point they were the proprietors of the X source code, and they were going to close that code, leaving only XFree86 to maintain an open X Window System codebase. (Thankfully, that didn't happen.) They're no special friends of the Linux or *BSD communities, suffice to say. They own the UNIX trademark, and they'll beat you bloody with it.
That said, I'm surprised I hadn't heard something about this earlier. I wondered many times when The Open Group was going to start in on Apple for calling OS X "UNIX", when they don't even let the free *BSD variants and Linux use the name.
Actually, the guts of what became Visual Basic were bought from another company that produced a RAD product called Ruby. (No, not the same Ruby, if you're thinking of the current open-source programming environment.)
Much of the guts of what became Windows NT was based on other OSes - many of the coders were from the old VMS team from DEC, hired along with Dave Cutler.
Visual C/C++ was bought - originally it was Lattice C, and Microsoft bought that, and turned it into their C/C++ compiler suite. They've built on that since.
Word and Excel (originally Multiplan) originated in the Microsoft MBU, and were eventually adapted for use on PCs. Yes, they developed them, but they borrowed many ideas from their competition.
Yes, most of Microsoft's product line was acquired, not developed. Yes, a few of their products were originated by them, but a precious few. It's not hugely surprising that some people aren't impressed about Microsoft's call fora revitalization of "innovation" in Microsoft, considering they've never really been what you could call "innovators". Really, the only product I know of that they came up with totally on their own was Bob - and we know how successful that was. (And who was the project manager on Bob? The woman who's now Gates' wife. How 'bout that...)
I'm not sure why, I suspect it is mostly because many people have faith in the established standard, but the "having someone to sue" might have something to do with it as well.
I have to laugh when someone brings this up. This just tells me that you obviously haven't read all the legal jargon that's in the EULA of those shiny Microsoft packages. Because simply, if you (and a lot of other people) had, you'd realize that "I bought it, so if it breaks, I can sue the company that sold it!" won't work in the real world. Other than a limited warranty for defects in workmanship, which lasts for about 90 days from purchase, they disclaim all warranties.
But hey, it broke, they packaged and sold it, you're mad as hell and you aren't gonna take it anymore, right? Wrong. They'll have the case tied up in court for so long, that if your company decides to try to fight it out, they'll be bankrupt long before Microsoft will even see a dent in their bottom line. So basically, unless they're willing to admit "ok, this product was flawed", which is unlikely at best, you're stuck with whatever you bought, like it or not. And you certainly can't fix it yourself.
But don't take my word for it. Go read that EULA yourself, and see what it says.
I gathered from the story that the judge was a woman, so blowjobs are sort of out of the question there. Not to say that there aren't other possibilities in the "sexual favors" category...
How about a new version of IE for OS X, eh? We've been stuck with this one for 2 years.
You're telling us you haven't switched to a _real_ browser yet? Chimera/Camino? OmniWeb? Apple's Safari? Opera? C'mon, there's no good reason to keep using IE on OS X - unlike on Windows, the OS doesn't require it to boot...
Sounds like the kind of logic Bush Jr. has been using in the war in Iraq. Disjoint events and people, they truly have nothing to do with one another. Guess Darl McBride's been taking lessons from the Prez.
Actually, I'm pretty sure Stallman had nothing to do with gzip or its deflate algorithm. The README for gzip says "Jean-Loup Gailly", and I'm pretty sure he's the guy who did it. Though I do believe that the.Z (compress) method was a Lempel-Ziv algorithm derivative, probably LZW, so I'm sure it was covered by the patent as well (hence why you don't see the 'compress' tool in Linux, or *BSD either, I think).
OSI doesn't own the UNIX trademark. The Open Group does, and have for some time. They purchased the rights to the UNIX trademark from either USL or Novell (I can't remember which off the top of my head, I think it says in the paper), and have held licensing rights to the name since.
Could The Open Group revoke SCO's rights to the UNIX trademark? I don't really know - I suppose they could, being the trademark holders. Don't know if The Open Group will care enough about it to make it worth their time to do so though.
Re:Sco, Caldera, WTF
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Yeah, Caldera bought the SCO name, rights to the original AT&T/Bell Labs UNIX codebase, and the UNIXWare and OpenServer products from SCO a few years back. What was SCO took on the name Tarantella - the name of the DOS/Windows to Unix crossover product that the former SCO also sold. Caldera later renamed itself to 'The SCO Group', and has been selling Linux, UNIXWare and OpenServer product lines - until just recently.
Well, it _was_ running Windows. Sometimes that kind of crap actually fixes things with Windows. Why? Often it's incredibly hard to say why, but unfortunately it's pretty much a black box. Diagnosing problems with a black box is pretty damn difficult.
OS X doesn't use vector icons. Its icons are just large(r) pixmaps. I think the max dimensions are 128x128 or 256x256, something like that. Combined with a good scaling algorithm, you end up with very decent looking icons, yes, but that doesn't make them vector images. I think SVG icons will be really cool - I'd like to try them on my workstation, where I have KDE 3.1.1 (on Debian sid).
But CIO it... They're bigger, they've got more money, and they ain't goin away.
While that is the case for the next few years for sure, I think even a CIO would agree that being there and actually giving a damn are two very different beasts.
We are a pretty large client, but the people I've spoken to have always been very informed, though perhaps not entirely cordial.
Funny, the times I've dealt with them, they've been reasonably cordial (not overly, but reasonably so), but their support always offered the typical Microsoft troubleshooting techniques ("change this registry entry", "comment everything out in config.sys/autoexec.bat", "have you rebooted?", "have you tried reinstalling? how about a fresh reinstall?"), which IMHO are little more than waving the dead chicken over the computer, hoping it'll start working again.
All I can say is, if management thinks it's enough for the company to simply exist and take their money, they should have their heads examined. Microsoft's "support" leaves a lot to be desired in terms of actually fixing problems - the times I have had to deal with them, it involved many hours spent on the phone, with no real fix reached, and I've heard many similar stories in the past. Only occasionally have I heard stories where MS's tech support came up with any kind of solution to the problem other than the obvious "doctor, it hurts when I do this!", "well then, don't do that!" sort of solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Having done some phone-based support at my current job, and in previous ones - phone support isn't my one-and-only purpose, but some comes with the territory anyway - I have to disagree with you here. No, the user shouldn't have to know _everything_ about their computer, but having a little basic knowledge would be helpful. Some basic terminology, knowing whether their computer is running Windows or MacOS (and what version), and simple things like that. I don't expect them to know the make, model, revision, etc. for every piece of their system, but it's damn hard to be conversant with a person who can't even identify the computer, monitor, mouse, etc., and doesn't know what a "web browser" or "mail client" is. This is not particularly difficult stuff, and if people want tech support, especially phone-based support, to be helpful, they have to be a part of the solution.
Like there was ever much point in running _Linux_, of all things, in VirtualPC - especially when you can run it natively, and run MacOS on top of it. OSes that weren't available on PowerPC (or not widely available anyway), like Win9x, Windows NT, OS/2, etc., ok, makes sense. Seriously, that's what most people were buying VirtualPC, SoftPC/SoftWindows, and their cousins for - for running stuff that they couldn't get natively on the Mac platform.
I remember running SCSI spy tools from Adaptec on a Windows 95 box with a SCSI slide printer and a SCSI scanner plugged into it - the IDE devices showed up as their very own SCSI bus to those tools. So yes, Windows definitely does an equivalent trick, as was mentioned.
Sure you can, if you're a VB coder or something. (Yeah, I know, contradiction in terms...)
System V was/is a particular version of the UNIX codebase. System V-style init scripts were just a small part of that - and I don't think that SCO would have grounds to sue over anyone using a particular style of init scripts. I still doubt the veracity of SCO's claims, but of course, without their evidence (whatever that may be) it's hard to judge.
PPC (and MIPS) support was pulled during the NT 4.0 product cycle, not the Win2K cycle. PPC and MIPS binaries made it onto NT4 CDs, but the support for them was officially killed not too very long after release. Alpha support was killed sometime not long before 2K's release.
And to answer your question, what became NT was originally written to run on Intel's i860 RISC processor, which never really lived up to its supposed potential, languishing as simulated silicon for a long, long time. The chip, which was internally code-named "N-Ten", supposedly became the origin of the "NT" moniker. NT was first ported to the MIPS architecture, then to x86 from there (and of course, PPC and AXP). However, from what I gather, the little-endian modes of the CPUs were used, and the AXP was used in its crippled 32-bit mode instead of taking advantage of the chip's 64-bit functionality - so it never really made the most of the other architectures it ran on anyway. Color me underwhelmed.
Win98 has already lapsed from "mainstream" support (i.e., you can download updates/otherwise obtain them for no cost). Their "extended" support requires you to pay them some amount of money. WinME will lapse into "extended" support as of the end of this year. Microsoft is definitely wanting to not have to support the 9x line anymore (not that I can blame them, but...). Win2K will only be supported under "mainstream" support until the end of 2005. Yeah, that's 2 and a half years, but that's not a particularly long lifetime.
Well, the trouble is, what is the Win32 API? It's big and amorphous, and it keeps growing to encompass different things - not to mention the apps that use API calls that are only documented in very, very expensive SDKs, if they're documented at all outside of Microsoft - in which case the Wine people only know them by number, which isn't very conducive to reimplementing them. And the calls that aren't quite exactly the same as what the documentation says (either args, or return codes, or something.) Or the ones that are implemented differently on different versions of Windows. Or the ones with bugs in them that developers discovered and worked around, so the Wine developers have to match the bugs, or break otherwise working software.
Wine is the Right Solution(TM), yes, but the problem is a big one, especially when you're aiming at a moving target like the Win32 APIs.
Actually, VMware for Windows will ONLY run on NT-flavored Windows versions (NT4, 2000, XP, 2K3 server), not on the 9x varieties. It has something to do with the structuring of the kernel making it impossible, or at least difficult enough that they didn't think it worth the time.
Actually, I think WordPerfect is still available for Linux. Why not just use the Linux version? Motif is a bit on the ugly side, sure, but it works.
SCO claimed to own patents and copyrights on the Unix SysV codebase itself, not the name. Novell claims that they never sold those rights to them, just sublicensed them. Then there's the Novell/USL vs. Berkeley suit, and... well, the ownership of UNIX in the eyes of the law would definitely qualify as complex.
Because Apple did certify MacOS X as a Unix with them.
Oh really? Well, if you can find it in their list of licensees for UNIX 95 or UNIX 98 branding (which is what it would fall under, since nothing's been put up for Single UNIX Spec v3 testing yet, afaik), then let me know. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure Apple never licensed the UNIX name for use with OS X. I believe A/UX was a branded UNIX way back in "the day", but you can't just go jumping from codebase to codebase and take the branding with you.
Sir, inform thyself. The Open Group has no relationship at all to Linux. In fact, at one point they were the proprietors of the X source code, and they were going to close that code, leaving only XFree86 to maintain an open X Window System codebase. (Thankfully, that didn't happen.) They're no special friends of the Linux or *BSD communities, suffice to say. They own the UNIX trademark, and they'll beat you bloody with it.
That said, I'm surprised I hadn't heard something about this earlier. I wondered many times when The Open Group was going to start in on Apple for calling OS X "UNIX", when they don't even let the free *BSD variants and Linux use the name.
Actually, the guts of what became Visual Basic were bought from another company that produced a RAD product called Ruby. (No, not the same Ruby, if you're thinking of the current open-source programming environment.)
Much of the guts of what became Windows NT was based on other OSes - many of the coders were from the old VMS team from DEC, hired along with Dave Cutler.
Visual C/C++ was bought - originally it was Lattice C, and Microsoft bought that, and turned it into their C/C++ compiler suite. They've built on that since.
Word and Excel (originally Multiplan) originated in the Microsoft MBU, and were eventually adapted for use on PCs. Yes, they developed them, but they borrowed many ideas from their competition.
Yes, most of Microsoft's product line was acquired, not developed. Yes, a few of their products were originated by them, but a precious few. It's not hugely surprising that some people aren't impressed about Microsoft's call fora revitalization of "innovation" in Microsoft, considering they've never really been what you could call "innovators". Really, the only product I know of that they came up with totally on their own was Bob - and we know how successful that was. (And who was the project manager on Bob? The woman who's now Gates' wife. How 'bout that...)
I'm not sure why, I suspect it is mostly because many people have faith in the established standard, but the "having someone to sue" might have something to do with it as well.
I have to laugh when someone brings this up. This just tells me that you obviously haven't read all the legal jargon that's in the EULA of those shiny Microsoft packages. Because simply, if you (and a lot of other people) had, you'd realize that "I bought it, so if it breaks, I can sue the company that sold it!" won't work in the real world. Other than a limited warranty for defects in workmanship, which lasts for about 90 days from purchase, they disclaim all warranties.
But hey, it broke, they packaged and sold it, you're mad as hell and you aren't gonna take it anymore, right? Wrong. They'll have the case tied up in court for so long, that if your company decides to try to fight it out, they'll be bankrupt long before Microsoft will even see a dent in their bottom line. So basically, unless they're willing to admit "ok, this product was flawed", which is unlikely at best, you're stuck with whatever you bought, like it or not. And you certainly can't fix it yourself.
But don't take my word for it. Go read that EULA yourself, and see what it says.
I gathered from the story that the judge was a woman, so blowjobs are sort of out of the question there. Not to say that there aren't other possibilities in the "sexual favors" category...
How about a new version of IE for OS X, eh? We've been stuck with this one for 2 years.
You're telling us you haven't switched to a _real_ browser yet? Chimera/Camino? OmniWeb? Apple's Safari? Opera? C'mon, there's no good reason to keep using IE on OS X - unlike on Windows, the OS doesn't require it to boot...
How can SCO even tie those events to one another?
Sounds like the kind of logic Bush Jr. has been using in the war in Iraq. Disjoint events and people, they truly have nothing to do with one another. Guess Darl McBride's been taking lessons from the Prez.
Actually, I'm pretty sure Stallman had nothing to do with gzip or its deflate algorithm. The README for gzip says "Jean-Loup Gailly", and I'm pretty sure he's the guy who did it. Though I do believe that the .Z (compress) method was a Lempel-Ziv algorithm derivative, probably LZW, so I'm sure it was covered by the patent as well (hence why you don't see the 'compress' tool in Linux, or *BSD either, I think).
Well actually, it'd be libel, because the statements made have been in print. Slander is, by definition, spoken.
OSI doesn't own the UNIX trademark. The Open Group does, and have for some time. They purchased the rights to the UNIX trademark from either USL or Novell (I can't remember which off the top of my head, I think it says in the paper), and have held licensing rights to the name since.
Could The Open Group revoke SCO's rights to the UNIX trademark? I don't really know - I suppose they could, being the trademark holders. Don't know if The Open Group will care enough about it to make it worth their time to do so though.
Yeah, Caldera bought the SCO name, rights to the original AT&T/Bell Labs UNIX codebase, and the UNIXWare and OpenServer products from SCO a few years back. What was SCO took on the name Tarantella - the name of the DOS/Windows to Unix crossover product that the former SCO also sold. Caldera later renamed itself to 'The SCO Group', and has been selling Linux, UNIXWare and OpenServer product lines - until just recently.
Well, it _was_ running Windows. Sometimes that kind of crap actually fixes things with Windows. Why? Often it's incredibly hard to say why, but unfortunately it's pretty much a black box. Diagnosing problems with a black box is pretty damn difficult.
OS X doesn't use vector icons. Its icons are just large(r) pixmaps. I think the max dimensions are 128x128 or 256x256, something like that. Combined with a good scaling algorithm, you end up with very decent looking icons, yes, but that doesn't make them vector images. I think SVG icons will be really cool - I'd like to try them on my workstation, where I have KDE 3.1.1 (on Debian sid).
But CIO it... They're bigger, they've got more money, and they ain't goin away.
While that is the case for the next few years for sure, I think even a CIO would agree that being there and actually giving a damn are two very different beasts.
We are a pretty large client, but the people I've spoken to have always been very informed, though perhaps not entirely cordial.
Funny, the times I've dealt with them, they've been reasonably cordial (not overly, but reasonably so), but their support always offered the typical Microsoft troubleshooting techniques ("change this registry entry", "comment everything out in config.sys/autoexec.bat", "have you rebooted?", "have you tried reinstalling? how about a fresh reinstall?"), which IMHO are little more than waving the dead chicken over the computer, hoping it'll start working again.
All I can say is, if management thinks it's enough for the company to simply exist and take their money, they should have their heads examined. Microsoft's "support" leaves a lot to be desired in terms of actually fixing problems - the times I have had to deal with them, it involved many hours spent on the phone, with no real fix reached, and I've heard many similar stories in the past. Only occasionally have I heard stories where MS's tech support came up with any kind of solution to the problem other than the obvious "doctor, it hurts when I do this!", "well then, don't do that!" sort of solution.