I think you are missing the point about using its own widget set. Time for some buzword bingo here, but the network is the computer, and the browser is the way to access that. Why do you think Microsoft cares about IE? Because it subverted Netscape, and Netscape was well on its way to becoming a good platform for delivering apps, thus rendering Windows far less valuable. A web browser is far more then a tool for browsing the web.
Firefox was relativly easy to develop, because of all of what you think is waste. Firefox has a kick ass extension system because of all that waste. Firefox, and its extensions, "just work" on a huge number of platforms because of all this waste.
This discussion is about NEW MS software.. That is, version 1.0 of whatever they release. My point about w2k3 Web is that IIS wouldn't have been licensed per-user way back when. And since we are talking about a webserver, Web Edition being castrated isnt a problem. Sure, today, Solaris may be cheaper (zero cost, in fact).. But that is becasue MS came in and undercut Sun.
Way back when, Linux would not have been a viable alternative to Windows/IIS. Or perhaps more correctly, it wouldnt have looked like a viable alternative. In either case, the MS solution would have had a sticker price less then commercial UNIXes.
Way back when MySQL kinda sucked, its killer feature being that it was damm fast. A comparable MS system would have been using Access or FoxPro, both of which had more features, but were slow, and cheap. And MS-SQL server would have been cheaper then Oracle or DB2 or other commercial RDBMS's.
I think you are missing the point. It is entirely possible that we dont know WTF we are talking about, and while that equation jives with our idea of reality, that idea is flawed.
I have no idea about the specifics of Microsoft licensing, but today, the "Web Edition" of Windows 2003 Server costs $399. It it a webserver, only. There are no per-connection, per-user licenses.. Even without this package as an option, I find it difficult to beleive that MS has ever tried to charge per-connection licenses for a web server.
Microsoft products are "good enough" and "cheap". When MS enters a given market, their products are never as good as what is out there, but they are cheap. Some example:
DOS 1.0 was both significnatly worse and cheaper then CP/M
Word v. Wordperfect, AmiPro, Wordstar... just about everything
Excell v. 123, Quatro
Windows 3.11 (for workgroups), NT 3.5, Windows 95 v. Netware, Banyan
IIS v. *NIX w/Apache, BIND, etc
Exchange v. Groupwise
MS-SQL v DB2, Oracle, (flat text files)
IE v Netscape
Hyperterminal v everything else
This is not to say that these MS products have not since passed the quality of their competition, some have. Of course, in many of these cases it is because MS has driven the competition out of business compleatly.
A recent review of OOo, the author made the comment "OOo will out Microsoft Microsoft". Compared to MS-Office, OOo isnt very good. But its good enough. And its a hell of a lot cheaper. Thus OOo will out Microsoft, Microsoft. The same is true to some degree with other projects like Samba.
So in response to the articles question: Duh. Thats what Microsoft does. They sell good enough crap for less, forcing companies who produce good stuff to reduce their prices, reduce their marketshare, or die.
Doom3: it does, and it works. >stero sound needs some console tweeks, and the in game level editor doesnt work at all. As for how many people bought it, zero. It was released a couple of months after retail, as a free download (of course you needed the maps/data for it to be usefull). In general, the Linux version is a little slower, but I suspect that that will be reduced in future versions.
ID software is an interesting case study of game portability (and releasing old code as oss). The Linux port of Doom3 was done by "one guy" and took a couple of months of wall time (no idea what else he did durring that period). Now it would have been better if they were relased at exactly the same time, but even two full time months, in the grand scheme of things, is fairly short. Why? Because the games are written in a portable way from day 0. How much more effort does that take? Possibly less as the portable libraries (OpenGL) change less then then the Microsoft ones, with a related reduction in learning new systems and a increase in productivity. It is a necessity to have FPS games client/server, so you can have a dedicated server. It is a necessity to have the server run on Linux. So by using OpenGL, and other portable tricks, you almost get a Linux port "for free", two months being close enough.
The flip side of that is that if you, as an employee does something that causees the company to loose money, they are not going to go after you for the difference.
There was a Man Show skit along these lines... A company offered a service of "sanatizing" your appartement and what not when they hear of your death. Ha Ha Only Serious.. Could actually be a viable business, in a large enough city.
Along similar lines, virtually all movies and books that Ive seen that deals with a soilder being killed, and then his stuff being sent home, his friends clean out the footlocker first...
Why not? I don't know all that much about the guts of the BT protocol, but the idea is great. As a distributor of content, even if zero clients upload anything at all, it is automatic mirroring, balancing, and some level of fault tolerance. If even a single peer sends out data to another peer, Win! What is the downside?
Furthermore, some of the lines didn't use the public right-of-way, they got it from railroads (who got theirs from the gov last century!), but that isn't really the point.
And even further from the point, is that some railroad companies became telephone companies because they already had a) the right of way(s) and b) some degree of a private telco anyway. Sprint started as a spinoff of Southern Pacific Railroad...
My theory on telco infastructure is this: copper pairs, fiber, coax ("outside plant"), and the central office buildings be owned by some single entitiy, and this is the only entity granted universal right-of-way access. This could be the government, a crown corporation (or whatever the US equivelent is), a non-profit, or even a commercial outfit, one with extreem restrictions on what it can do (that is, only physcial infastructure. No pissing away money on operating system research:)) Their prices are regulated, and the same for everyone (perhaps with a sliding scale for volume). "Anyone" can rent rack space and access to outside plant lines. "Anyone" being restricted perhaps to a minimum purchase.
It is realy only English that used adjectives in what, if you think about it, is the reverse order. Catalogues, inventories with phrases like "Desk, office, modular, black" sound anal to English speakers, but is the way it would be said in any other language.
It is entirely possible that he needs to specify "Hot" as that is the trigger. IE, tea is ordered in the form of "tea, type, options, temp". Picard doesnt mention any options, so it comes plain. Mentioning a tempature, even if the default, may be easier then saying "go" or "do it" or "engage". Whats easier to say, "Tea, earl grey, hot" or "tea, earl grey, clear. Make It So"?
In 1996 Windows NT wasn't compeating against Unix, or AS/400. It was compeating against Netware, Banyan, and the likes. Netware was also 32 bit, and from version 4.0 on (if not earlier), SMP capable - at no extra cost.
It was bad enough back then with people who diddnt know WTF they were talking about; "All the world is Microsoft", but to attempt to record history this way, in the clear light of day is simply unacceptable. Netware 4.0 was released in 1993. It wasent untill at least Windows 2000, with AD, that MS things even came close to comparing with Novell products.
The primary computers on the shuttle were, in the beginning, three "hardened" IBM 360 mainframes. The 360 used 8 bit bytes, and 32 bit "words", the smallest addressable unit. That said, Im sure that some of the auxiliary systems use smaller CPUs. As cool as they are, Thinkpads havent ever been used for critical systems. The reason why they use laptops to do word processing and note taking isnt because they cant upgrade their 1970s era electronic word processors, but because their 1970s word processors were paper and pen.
Loki closed almost four years ago. The market today is significantly different then it was then. Linux is used significantly more, on the server and the desktop. Id say with ALSA, and Winelib, the effort required to do source code porting today would be significantly less then it was back when Loki was alive. Also with broadband connections being far more popular as well, a modern Loki could sell direct to users.
So a modern Loki would have more customers. The porting would be easier - cheaper. And they would have higher margins if doing direct-download sales. The economics are compleatly different.
I'd prefer a system that is capable of a moderate to high degree of flexibility, as you can't decrypt something if you don't know the encryption algorithm used.
Your serious? This is not 1850... Encryption is based on keeping the key secret (or one of the keys secret with PKI). The algorithms should be well known, understood, and studdied by others in the field.
It is unlikely that you would come up with a truly unique and fresh algorithm. You might have independently discovered it, but it has quite possibly been discovered, investigated, and rejected. And if it is truely unique, once one system is comprimised, then all is lost, rather then just the keys on that one system
Could someone please explain to me why the FSF publishes all their documentation in Info format? What was wrong with man? Why does info suck more then lynx from 1994? Why? Why? What were they thinking?
The filesystem permissions are stored on the filesystem... The entities that have permissions - users, groups, roles, containers, etc, etc, etc - are in NDS. NWAdmin/ConsoleOne definitly makes it appear that it is seamless and all in NDS, but it is not.
Netware definitly has more permissions, but POSIX ACLs do add a lot. It is realy a matter of effective, easy, consistant tools.
For the record, Novell Open Enterprise Server (Think Netware 7, with either a Netware or Linux/SuSE core), is in public beta. With it, you can run NSS volumes under Linux quite happiliy. There are some things that Linux NSS does not yet support, but to some degree, with OES the "OS" doesnt matter -- Netware and Linux can be in the same cluster, use the same NSS volumes, and offer the same services.
Slashdot Mirror
He means that it isnt using MFC controls, frames.... Standard Windows widgets.
I think you are missing the point about using its own widget set. Time for some buzword bingo here, but the network is the computer, and the browser is the way to access that. Why do you think Microsoft cares about IE? Because it subverted Netscape, and Netscape was well on its way to becoming a good platform for delivering apps, thus rendering Windows far less valuable. A web browser is far more then a tool for browsing the web.
Firefox was relativly easy to develop, because of all of what you think is waste. Firefox has a kick ass extension system because of all that waste. Firefox, and its extensions, "just work" on a huge number of platforms because of all this waste.
This discussion is about NEW MS software.. That is, version 1.0 of whatever they release. My point about w2k3 Web is that IIS wouldn't have been licensed per-user way back when. And since we are talking about a webserver, Web Edition being castrated isnt a problem. Sure, today, Solaris may be cheaper (zero cost, in fact).. But that is becasue MS came in and undercut Sun.
Way back when, Linux would not have been a viable alternative to Windows/IIS. Or perhaps more correctly, it wouldnt have looked like a viable alternative. In either case, the MS solution would have had a sticker price less then commercial UNIXes.
Way back when MySQL kinda sucked, its killer feature being that it was damm fast. A comparable MS system would have been using Access or FoxPro, both of which had more features, but were slow, and cheap. And MS-SQL server would have been cheaper then Oracle or DB2 or other commercial RDBMS's.
I think you are missing the point. It is entirely possible that we dont know WTF we are talking about, and while that equation jives with our idea of reality, that idea is flawed.
I have no idea about the specifics of Microsoft licensing, but today, the "Web Edition" of Windows 2003 Server costs $399. It it a webserver, only. There are no per-connection, per-user licenses.. Even without this package as an option, I find it difficult to beleive that MS has ever tried to charge per-connection licenses for a web server.
Windows + IIS is cheaper then say, Solaris + Apache. IIS (with ASP) was (and likely still is) cheaper then Apache and ColdFusion.
Microsoft products are "good enough" and "cheap". When MS enters a given market, their products are never as good as what is out there, but they are cheap. Some example:
- DOS 1.0 was both significnatly worse and cheaper then CP/M
- Word v. Wordperfect, AmiPro, Wordstar... just about everything
- Excell v. 123, Quatro
- Windows 3.11 (for workgroups), NT 3.5, Windows 95 v. Netware, Banyan
- IIS v. *NIX w/Apache, BIND, etc
- Exchange v. Groupwise
- MS-SQL v DB2, Oracle, (flat text files)
- IE v Netscape
- Hyperterminal v everything else
This is not to say that these MS products have not since passed the quality of their competition, some have. Of course, in many of these cases it is because MS has driven the competition out of business compleatly.A recent review of OOo, the author made the comment "OOo will out Microsoft Microsoft". Compared to MS-Office, OOo isnt very good. But its good enough. And its a hell of a lot cheaper. Thus OOo will out Microsoft, Microsoft. The same is true to some degree with other projects like Samba.
So in response to the articles question: Duh. Thats what Microsoft does. They sell good enough crap for less, forcing companies who produce good stuff to reduce their prices, reduce their marketshare, or die.
Thats what I was going to say. If you're starting over, might as well go with the right tool.
Indeed. I dont live anywhere near Crystal Peak, but I am only about 45 minutes from a Diefenbunker. Hopefully Ill get pleanty of warning.
Doom3: it does, and it works. >stero sound needs some console tweeks, and the in game level editor doesnt work at all. As for how many people bought it, zero. It was released a couple of months after retail, as a free download (of course you needed the maps/data for it to be usefull). In general, the Linux version is a little slower, but I suspect that that will be reduced in future versions.
ID software is an interesting case study of game portability (and releasing old code as oss). The Linux port of Doom3 was done by "one guy" and took a couple of months of wall time (no idea what else he did durring that period). Now it would have been better if they were relased at exactly the same time, but even two full time months, in the grand scheme of things, is fairly short. Why? Because the games are written in a portable way from day 0. How much more effort does that take? Possibly less as the portable libraries (OpenGL) change less then then the Microsoft ones, with a related reduction in learning new systems and a increase in productivity. It is a necessity to have FPS games client/server, so you can have a dedicated server. It is a necessity to have the server run on Linux. So by using OpenGL, and other portable tricks, you almost get a Linux port "for free", two months being close enough.
The flip side of that is that if you, as an employee does something that causees the company to loose money, they are not going to go after you for the difference.
There was a Man Show skit along these lines... A company offered a service of "sanatizing" your appartement and what not when they hear of your death. Ha Ha Only Serious.. Could actually be a viable business, in a large enough city.
Along similar lines, virtually all movies and books that Ive seen that deals with a soilder being killed, and then his stuff being sent home, his friends clean out the footlocker first...
Why not? I don't know all that much about the guts of the BT protocol, but the idea is great. As a distributor of content, even if zero clients upload anything at all, it is automatic mirroring, balancing, and some level of fault tolerance. If even a single peer sends out data to another peer, Win! What is the downside?
And even further from the point, is that some railroad companies became telephone companies because they already had a) the right of way(s) and b) some degree of a private telco anyway. Sprint started as a spinoff of Southern Pacific Railroad...
My theory on telco infastructure is this: copper pairs, fiber, coax ("outside plant"), and the central office buildings be owned by some single entitiy, and this is the only entity granted universal right-of-way access. This could be the government, a crown corporation (or whatever the US equivelent is), a non-profit, or even a commercial outfit, one with extreem restrictions on what it can do (that is, only physcial infastructure. No pissing away money on operating system research :)) Their prices are regulated, and the same for everyone (perhaps with a sliding scale for volume). "Anyone" can rent rack space and access to outside plant lines. "Anyone" being restricted perhaps to a minimum purchase.
It is realy only English that used adjectives in what, if you think about it, is the reverse order. Catalogues, inventories with phrases like "Desk, office, modular, black" sound anal to English speakers, but is the way it would be said in any other language.
It is entirely possible that he needs to specify "Hot" as that is the trigger. IE, tea is ordered in the form of "tea, type, options, temp". Picard doesnt mention any options, so it comes plain. Mentioning a tempature, even if the default, may be easier then saying "go" or "do it" or "engage". Whats easier to say, "Tea, earl grey, hot" or "tea, earl grey, clear. Make It So"?
In 1996 Windows NT wasn't compeating against Unix, or AS/400. It was compeating against Netware, Banyan, and the likes. Netware was also 32 bit, and from version 4.0 on (if not earlier), SMP capable - at no extra cost.
It was bad enough back then with people who diddnt know WTF they were talking about; "All the world is Microsoft", but to attempt to record history this way, in the clear light of day is simply unacceptable. Netware 4.0 was released in 1993. It wasent untill at least Windows 2000, with AD, that MS things even came close to comparing with Novell products.
The primary computers on the shuttle were, in the beginning, three "hardened" IBM 360 mainframes. The 360 used 8 bit bytes, and 32 bit "words", the smallest addressable unit. That said, Im sure that some of the auxiliary systems use smaller CPUs. As cool as they are, Thinkpads havent ever been used for critical systems. The reason why they use laptops to do word processing and note taking isnt because they cant upgrade their 1970s era electronic word processors, but because their 1970s word processors were paper and pen.
Loki closed almost four years ago. The market today is significantly different then it was then. Linux is used significantly more, on the server and the desktop. Id say with ALSA, and Winelib, the effort required to do source code porting today would be significantly less then it was back when Loki was alive. Also with broadband connections being far more popular as well, a modern Loki could sell direct to users.
So a modern Loki would have more customers. The porting would be easier - cheaper. And they would have higher margins if doing direct-download sales. The economics are compleatly different.
You own a .45 and you lost an argument? How is that possible?
Even better would be a 24" LCD HDTV, and head for the checkout with the dyslexic clerk...
I'd prefer a system that is capable of a moderate to high degree of flexibility, as you can't decrypt something if you don't know the encryption algorithm used.
Your serious? This is not 1850... Encryption is based on keeping the key secret (or one of the keys secret with PKI). The algorithms should be well known, understood, and studdied by others in the field.
It is unlikely that you would come up with a truly unique and fresh algorithm. You might have independently discovered it, but it has quite possibly been discovered, investigated, and rejected. And if it is truely unique, once one system is comprimised, then all is lost, rather then just the keys on that one system
Info? INFO?!!??!?!?
Could someone please explain to me why the FSF publishes all their documentation in Info format? What was wrong with man? Why does info suck more then lynx from 1994? Why? Why? What were they thinking?
The filesystem permissions are stored on the filesystem... The entities that have permissions - users, groups, roles, containers, etc, etc, etc - are in NDS. NWAdmin/ConsoleOne definitly makes it appear that it is seamless and all in NDS, but it is not.
Netware definitly has more permissions, but POSIX ACLs do add a lot. It is realy a matter of effective, easy, consistant tools.
For the record, Novell Open Enterprise Server (Think Netware 7, with either a Netware or Linux/SuSE core), is in public beta. With it, you can run NSS volumes under Linux quite happiliy. There are some things that Linux NSS does not yet support, but to some degree, with OES the "OS" doesnt matter -- Netware and Linux can be in the same cluster, use the same NSS volumes, and offer the same services.
Except not Comic. So far as Im concerned, taking an human life should be acceptable
What kind of geek are you that you cant access a Unix machine from... anywhere?