Why are Unix and Apache dominating the server market?
Because they're stable and easy to remotely administer. And - let's face it - because we got here first, so people are comfortable with those tools and disinclined to switch.
With systems like FrontPage and ASP, Microsoft has attempted to wrest the market away from Unix/Apache. However, they have had limited success. Why? Because of the stability issue, and because many ISPs don't like what they've seen Microsoft doing to other companies. They know all too well Microsoft would love nothing more than to double-cross them and swallow them up. By not using Microsoft stuff, they limit MS's power over them.
Nothing Gates and Ballmer do in marketing terms is going to help with those issues.
Now, those feelings of inertia and fear of Microsoft are not politically correct reasons. The only reason the customer can understand is stability. So if Microsoft can make Windows 2000 stable, while adding all these features, then it might have a good shot at taking a lot of market share from Apache/Unix. Early reports from beta testers seem to be positive, but bear in mind that most of the testers are likely to be disposed favourably towards MS. I still find it hard to believe that MS will ever be able to compete with Unix on stability, since it's not their primary focus.
Assuming we can hold stability as a major advantage, I think we have little to fear. I've been checking out a number of database-driven sites, and the ones using IIS/always/ have problems. It's downright pathetic to watch them disintegrate under load. If we can hold that ground, IIS is unlikely to increase market share significantly.
In the last Slashdot post on this topic, there were some pretty broad hints dropped that this was going to happen. I know that if I were in Raster's place, I would certainly want to pick up a new job before I moved away from my current location:-).
I'm glad to see Raster had a rational reason to lie about this - I found that fact a little disturbing until reading here that he (quite rightly) feared the INS.
The purpose of a trademark is to identify a company. When I type "IBM" or display the IBM logo, for example, I'm using their trademark.
I don't think trademark infringement happens unless (i) you try to deceive the public by making people believe you/are/ IBM, or (ii) if your use gives the owners of the mark a disadvantage. For instance, if I reproduce a Disney image, I could be depriving Disney of revenue.
Neither of those applies to Slashdot. I don't see IBM having any interest in not having an IBM logo on this site to represent IBM news. Of course if you put the IBM Logo on your web site to indicate an association with IBM where none existed, you could expect to hear from their lawyers.
Oh - Congratulations to Rob, Hemios et al. I look forward to seeing more great things for you in the future!
I don't know what his actual rank is, but he does teach a course or two - I know, because you can read the course descriptions on the web.
I've bought both of his books, and although there is certainly overlapping content between them, I find them well worth reading. They've probably made HP a healthy amount of money since he endorses their products so strongly. In gratitude, HP donated a monster server (worth a few hundred thousand dollars) to serve his web pages. I don't think he actually needed it - his pages have always been among the net's fastest - but it was a thoughtful gesture. MIT's network connectivity is - cough - somewhat adequate to the task:-).
Anyway, the books are fantastic. Buy 'em.
D
----
Re:RMS Never tried to run a company -- Yea, and?
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
Actually, there's an interesting twist on that: Distribution companies are evaluated at least partially by the contributions they make back to the free source movement. For instance, I'll buy a boxed Red Hat or SuSE set because I like what they've done (hire Rasterman in Red Hat's case, and write drivers so my HP Pavilion display is usable in the case of SuSE).
So they actually do have an incentive to hire people to write free software, because it helps their image and increases their sales.
Major strengths: It's outstandingly smooth. It runs fast even on outdated hardware. The user interface is very slick and easy to learn and use. Applications are easy to write, so there are a surprisingly large number of them, and they tend to be innovative instead of copies of other apps. The typical Linux graphical application is StarOffice, a precise clone of MS Office. The typical Be application is Be Productive, which is sleekly designed, fast and highly individualistic. I've done a few long documents in it and like it a lot.
Be has many features based on digital media, thus the "Media OS" tagline. Unfortunately, the lack of FireWire support makes it all but useless for video editing. There are, however, some excellent audio applications available, and the upcoming video editing applications look like they could blow away anything on any other platform. FireWire is "coming soon".
Disadvantages: No Microsoft Office, Netscape or Internet Explorer. The web browser, called NetPositive, is very sleek and fast (are you noticing a pattern here?) but it won't do all the things "normal" web browsers do. Mozilla and Opera are coming; hopefully they will solve this problem.
Hardware support is still a problem; it's finicky about the type of computer it will run on.
Investment-wise, I'm not sure how much I would bet on it. It's run through a lot of money without getting much in the way of revenues. However, it's acquired a very loyal customer base, and I think Microsoft is vunerable in the media space because people doing digital video editing want (i) something that works - virtually nothing on Windows does and (ii) something that's fast. If video really is the next big thing in computing, it could be big.
I'm not sure if I'd place a bet for it against Microsoft because the giant could crush it pretty easily. But I wouldn't bet against it either, for it's a truly outstanding product. Hardware support is the main problem; check the Be newsgroups and it's the only significant complaint against the OS.
Finally, I must confess that Jean-Louis Gassee has won me over. His gallic charm is something to behold, and he even answers his own email. Be's attitude mirrors its chairman's, with numerous "good guy" policies. For instance, the new R4.5 update was sent out free to all registered users of the previous version. Try asking Red Hat or SuSE to do that!
I wouldn't invest my life savings in the company, but as a bit of a flutter, I might put a bit in and see how it did. But I'd definitely invest in the software - I have, and I don't regret doing it.
I think nearly all Slashdotters would agree that what we really want, more than anything else, is a computing environment everyone can use, that we can cheerfully recommend to our non-computing friends and use ourselves without wincing.
With this in mind, it really seems like a shame that we're so bigoted about our own preferences. Hey, I think Silicon Graphics Irix is the best Unix flavour around, more fun to use and sleeker then any other; but you won't catch me saying that you should avoid other Unix systems, or not use them because you really should be in Irix. No; I encourage you to try Irix if it suits you needs, but I'm not going to tell you you're less than human if you don't pick up a used SGI from somewhere.
And that brings us to Be, which some people have called "The Poor Man's SGI". It seems a pity that, just because some of us want to advance Linux, they feel they should beat on Be to do it. A Linux lover could sit down on a Be console and immediately be productive. Be uses many of the same tools Linux does, after all. The main difference is that the user interface is faster, smoother and more elegant.
Really, isn't it a little silly to hate Be, just because it's not open source? Isn't the real goal quality design and reliability, both of which Be has in spades? If you can recommend to your friends a quality system that won't fail on them like Windows does, shouldn't you?
I think if you have a knee-jerk reaction to Be, you should give the OS a try before being mean-spirited. After all, mean-spirited comments aren't going to make you many friends. And Linux as well as Be need all the friends they can get.
But it is a good point, since if you're looking for quirky individual-run sites, you'll find they don't tend to have a lot of links until they're very established.
Unfortunately, AltaVista isn't good at finding them either.
I know the iToaster almost certainly runs Be only, but even if it does run Linux, I think they could legally not provide the source.
Why?
Because most likely they don't need to modify the kernel. Think about it - is their hardware not made from fairly standard PC components? Why would they need to modify the kernel?
Actually, this is very much in line with Be's current vision - they want to do set-top boxes and similar things.
Last time I looked, they were giving the OS away to any OEM who wanted to preload it on their PCs (thus the recent rash of announcements). I'm not sure if that extends to the iToaster or not, but I'm sure their fee is very reasonable.
A very well written post, and a frightening vision for Linux lovers, but remember this: People code for Open Source software because it's something they enjoy doing. Is this mythical kid really going to prefer Windows 2000?
I had an O2 for a while and now have an Indigo2, and all the keyboards I've used have been really nice, almost as good as the classic IBM "clicky" keyboard.
But if you don't like the SGI-provided keyboard, you could always get another PS/2 compatible unit.
This buzz on the SGI flat panel display certainly makes me want one. Pity the only support is on the O2, since I really prefer the Indigo2 - it's a lot better made, and - alas - I can't afford an Octane:-(.
I suppose I'll have to look into their new PC line when they get Linux fully operational on it (i.e. accelerated X drivers).
Based on that review, I'd be more than happy to take yours off your hands - I never play games or change resolutions.:-)
But flat panel buyers should beware - the SGI flat panel is apparently the Ferrari of monitors. Even the 1280x1024 flat panel on the newest IBM ThinkPad 770X series systems supports only 65535 colours. I doubt that it's nearly as vivid as a CRT, much less the SGI flat panel.
Concerning the current product, if I were Rob, I wouldn't give up my SGI flat panel - your vertical resolution is still much better, unless you went with the four monitor solution, which I assume is horribly expensive.
This, of course, is why it's exciting to see systems being pre-loaded with BeOS. Let's face it: that's how the public really wants to buy an OS.
If it weren't for a massive money-sucking project I'm considering, I'd be the first in line to pick up a $500 BeOS system. I've used Be and it's a truly fantastic system.
Of course the real problem is the lack of FireWire support. It's pretty tough to be a multi-media OS that can't capture video:-(. Jean-Louise, however, has informed me that they're working on it. (He answers his own email, even from peons, with a gallic charm that's bound to win you over).
I wouldn't be prejudiced against BeOS just because it's not open source, unless you spend a decent percentage of your time writing kernel patches. Despite Linux being "free" and BeOS being "pay", I've actually spent less on keeping BeOS up to date than Linux. Of course part of that is because I want to support the Linux community by buying "official" distributions, but still - I've bought two SuSE releases in about as many months, while Be just sent me my R4.5 update free.
Please note that I support both operating systems and want both to thrive. I'm not opposing Open Source; I'm expressing my support of a company that I think has done a really awesome job creating a fantastic product. Be has flaws, as does virtually everything else, but in terms of actual usability it's the best OS by far for the x86 or Mac platform. The only caveat I have is that, as the original poster said, hardware support is horrifying. I hope R4.5 is better (I haven't checked it out yet, although I will in the next few days).
If I knew the name of the corporation, I'd sell their stock. If you hack up a bunch of Indys, you're throwing away about $ 600 a unit, which is pretty dumb. Do a search for Indy on eBay and see for yourself.
Actually, Alias|Wavefront is a division of SGI, so it would make a lot of sense for them to have a Linux version - at least one that ran on the visual workstation.
Is BeOS likely to run on the VWS at some point? If it did, I'd be a lot more interested in getting one, since Be multimedia applications (and the overall smoothness of the system) show real promise.
I think they're developing something that runs on top of a solaris core but uses its own file system. That's probably where the confusion is.
Under normal operation, though, Oracle allocates a specific amount of disk space for its operations, and manages the space itself. So you could say that it uses its own file system layered on top of the host OS (Solaris in this case). This is distinct from, say, mySQL, which uses files in the regular Unix file system as tables.
I'm not an Oracle expert either, so you can take this with a grain of salt, but I believe this is how it works.
I have an IBM ThinkPad 365XD notebook, and it works just fine with Linux. No complaints at all, other than the pathetic 8-bit display (which, of course, isn't Linux' fault:-( ).
PCMCIA Ethernet and modem cards work just great with it. And, X configuration with SaX from SuSE is easy now - it used to be a real horror.
I do think Windows support is a mile wide and an inch thick - I know of darn few people who love the platform.
It started as a text windowing/multitasking application under DOS. It actually multitasked pretty well - it was good for about 2-3 tasks under DOS (remember most machines had 640k or less in those days). It would even swap a bit - but when it did that, the multitasking model basically collapsed. I would say that in practice it worked better than Windows does today, but that's mainly due to the lack of bloated applications in those days - if you saw swapping, you knew you had to tighten up memory use.
I used it for a dual terminal trouble reporting system for Hughes Aircraft, I think around 1987. It worked great in that application; knowing Hughes, it may still be in use today.
Here's a possible hint: Linux has compatibility with Netscape, and yet BeOS has better fonts and a more polished GUI. So perhaps it's BeOS with some X-Windows code taken from Linux for Netscape compatibility.
It would be pretty lame if they relied on NetPositive. Now, I like NetPositive personally, because it's smooth and fast, but it's not going to make it as your only browser.
I've often wondered if anyone has proof that letting 11 year olds see fisting pictures (or pornography in general) is actually harmful.
I'm inclined to think it isn't, but I'd be willing to listen to any counterargument. Everything I've read on the subject just takes for granted that it's Bad For the Kids. I'd like to see some solid proof before encouraging policies that severely damage people's freedom to learn about all topics, fisting included.
I think the theory is that children are creatures of innocence, but based on the kids I've met, I think that theory has no basis in fact.
As for the making of bombs, I've seen some of the material on the net on this topic, and I think most of it is bound to dissuade more than encourage readers. The truly determined psychopath will have no trouble getting this information, whether through the net or through books and magazines readily available. You might also bear in mind that it's a human tendancy to want to crash through these barriers; interest in bomb-making increases exponentially when someone tells you it's "forbidden". My advice would be to encourage your unruly adolescent to make all the bombs he wants; then it won't happen:-).
Just because someone got the information through the net doesn't mean they wouldn't obtain it elsewhere if the net didn't exist. I think the probability that the Columbine High School kids' violence could have been prevented by censorship is laughably low.
Finally, the type of person who likes to censor would most likely consider wicca harmful. So you have a choice: Let people see Wiccan information and everything else, or most likely deny people wiccan information for good. I know which one I'd choose.
Everyone seems to be taking this for granted - but didn't the post-Mindcraft I analysis focus on some rather obvious blunders made by the company?
Have those blunders mysteriously vanished? Or do we now think they don't really matter?
D
----
For something really frightening ...
on
The Onion on AIBO
·
· Score: 1
follow the auctions on eBay. Looks like the real value of the things is about $ 4,000. Some people are making quite a nice profit speculating on the thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are Unix and Apache dominating the server market?
/always/ have problems. It's downright pathetic to watch them disintegrate under load. If we can hold that ground, IIS is unlikely to increase market share significantly.
Because they're stable and easy to remotely administer. And - let's face it - because we got here first, so people are comfortable with those tools and disinclined to switch.
With systems like FrontPage and ASP, Microsoft has attempted to wrest the market away from Unix/Apache. However, they have had limited success. Why? Because of the stability issue, and because many ISPs don't like what they've seen Microsoft doing to other companies. They know all too well Microsoft would love nothing more than to double-cross them and swallow them up. By not using Microsoft stuff, they limit MS's power over them.
Nothing Gates and Ballmer do in marketing terms is going to help with those issues.
Now, those feelings of inertia and fear of Microsoft are not politically correct reasons. The only reason the customer can understand is stability. So if Microsoft can make Windows 2000 stable, while adding all these features, then it might have a good shot at taking a lot of market share from Apache/Unix. Early reports from beta testers seem to be positive, but bear in mind that most of the testers are likely to be disposed favourably towards MS. I still find it hard to believe that MS will ever be able to compete with Unix on stability, since it's not their primary focus.
Assuming we can hold stability as a major advantage, I think we have little to fear. I've been checking out a number of database-driven sites, and the ones using IIS
D
----
In the last Slashdot post on this topic, there were some pretty broad hints dropped that this was going to happen. I know that if I were in Raster's place, I would certainly want to pick up a new job before I moved away from my current location :-).
I'm glad to see Raster had a rational reason to lie about this - I found that fact a little disturbing until reading here that he (quite rightly) feared the INS.
Anyone know what country Raster's from?
D
----
The purpose of a trademark is to identify a company. When I type "IBM" or display the IBM logo, for example, I'm using their trademark.
/are/ IBM, or (ii) if your use gives the owners of the mark a disadvantage. For instance, if I reproduce a Disney image, I could be depriving Disney of revenue.
I don't think trademark infringement happens unless (i) you try to deceive the public by making people believe you
Neither of those applies to Slashdot. I don't see IBM having any interest in not having an IBM logo on this site to represent IBM news. Of course if you put the IBM Logo on your web site to indicate an association with IBM where none existed, you could expect to hear from their lawyers.
Oh - Congratulations to Rob, Hemios et al. I look forward to seeing more great things for you in the future!
D
----
I don't know what his actual rank is, but he does teach a course or two - I know, because you can read the course descriptions on the web.
:-).
I've bought both of his books, and although there is certainly overlapping content between them, I find them well worth reading. They've probably made HP a healthy amount of money since he endorses their products so strongly. In gratitude, HP donated a monster server (worth a few hundred thousand dollars) to serve his web pages. I don't think he actually needed it - his pages have always been among the net's fastest - but it was a thoughtful gesture. MIT's network connectivity is - cough - somewhat adequate to the task
Anyway, the books are fantastic. Buy 'em.
D
----
Actually, there's an interesting twist on that: Distribution companies are evaluated at least partially by the contributions they make back to the free source movement. For instance, I'll buy a boxed Red Hat or SuSE set because I like what they've done (hire Rasterman in Red Hat's case, and write drivers so my HP Pavilion display is usable in the case of SuSE).
So they actually do have an incentive to hire people to write free software, because it helps their image and increases their sales.
D
----
Well, actually, there is one difference between Be and Windows: Be is a really nice piece of software.
D
----
Major strengths: It's outstandingly smooth. It runs fast even on outdated hardware. The user interface is very slick and easy to learn and use. Applications are easy to write, so there are a surprisingly large number of them, and they tend to be innovative instead of copies of other apps. The typical Linux graphical application is StarOffice, a precise clone of MS Office. The typical Be application is Be Productive, which is sleekly designed, fast and highly individualistic. I've done a few long documents in it and like it a lot.
Be has many features based on digital media, thus the "Media OS" tagline. Unfortunately, the lack of FireWire support makes it all but useless for video editing. There are, however, some excellent audio applications available, and the upcoming video editing applications look like they could blow away anything on any other platform. FireWire is "coming soon".
Disadvantages: No Microsoft Office, Netscape or Internet Explorer. The web browser, called NetPositive, is very sleek and fast (are you noticing a pattern here?) but it won't do all the things "normal" web browsers do. Mozilla and Opera are coming; hopefully they will solve this problem.
Hardware support is still a problem; it's finicky about the type of computer it will run on.
Investment-wise, I'm not sure how much I would bet on it. It's run through a lot of money without getting much in the way of revenues. However, it's acquired a very loyal customer base, and I think Microsoft is vunerable in the media space because people doing digital video editing want (i) something that works - virtually nothing on Windows does and (ii) something that's fast. If video really is the next big thing in computing, it could be big.
I'm not sure if I'd place a bet for it against Microsoft because the giant could crush it pretty easily. But I wouldn't bet against it either, for it's a truly outstanding product. Hardware support is the main problem; check the Be newsgroups and it's the only significant complaint against the OS.
Finally, I must confess that Jean-Louis Gassee has won me over. His gallic charm is something to behold, and he even answers his own email. Be's attitude mirrors its chairman's, with numerous "good guy" policies. For instance, the new R4.5 update was sent out free to all registered users of the previous version. Try asking Red Hat or SuSE to do that!
I wouldn't invest my life savings in the company, but as a bit of a flutter, I might put a bit in and see how it did. But I'd definitely invest in the software - I have, and I don't regret doing it.
D
----
I think nearly all Slashdotters would agree that what we really want, more than anything else, is a computing environment everyone can use, that we can cheerfully recommend to our non-computing friends and use ourselves without wincing.
With this in mind, it really seems like a shame that we're so bigoted about our own preferences. Hey, I think Silicon Graphics Irix is the best Unix flavour around, more fun to use and sleeker then any other; but you won't catch me saying that you should avoid other Unix systems, or not use them because you really should be in Irix. No; I encourage you to try Irix if it suits you needs, but I'm not going to tell you you're less than human if you don't pick up a used SGI from somewhere.
And that brings us to Be, which some people have called "The Poor Man's SGI". It seems a pity that, just because some of us want to advance Linux, they feel they should beat on Be to do it. A Linux lover could sit down on a Be console and immediately be productive. Be uses many of the same tools Linux does, after all. The main difference is that the user interface is faster, smoother and more elegant.
Really, isn't it a little silly to hate Be, just because it's not open source? Isn't the real goal quality design and reliability, both of which Be has in spades? If you can recommend to your friends a quality system that won't fail on them like Windows does, shouldn't you?
I think if you have a knee-jerk reaction to Be, you should give the OS a try before being mean-spirited. After all, mean-spirited comments aren't going to make you many friends. And Linux as well as Be need all the friends they can get.
D
----
According to a review of Office 2000 I read, it looks like the native format is the same as Office97.
Has anyone actually seen the files this thing pumps out?
D
----
Yes, this feels like a troll.
But it is a good point, since if you're looking for quirky individual-run sites, you'll find they don't tend to have a lot of links until they're very established.
Unfortunately, AltaVista isn't good at finding them either.
D
----
I know the iToaster almost certainly runs Be only, but even if it does run Linux, I think they could legally not provide the source.
Why?
Because most likely they don't need to modify the kernel. Think about it - is their hardware not made from fairly standard PC components? Why would they need to modify the kernel?
D
----
Actually, this is very much in line with Be's current vision - they want to do set-top boxes and similar things.
Last time I looked, they were giving the OS away to any OEM who wanted to preload it on their PCs (thus the recent rash of announcements). I'm not sure if that extends to the iToaster or not, but I'm sure their fee is very reasonable.
D
----
A very well written post, and a frightening vision for Linux lovers, but remember this: People code for Open Source software because it's something they enjoy doing. Is this mythical kid really going to prefer Windows 2000?
Not if it's not a lot better than Windows NT 4.0.
I'm not holding my breath, open source or no.
D
----
I had an O2 for a while and now have an Indigo2, and all the keyboards I've used have been really nice, almost as good as the classic IBM "clicky" keyboard.
:-(.
But if you don't like the SGI-provided keyboard, you could always get another PS/2 compatible unit.
This buzz on the SGI flat panel display certainly makes me want one. Pity the only support is on the O2, since I really prefer the Indigo2 - it's a lot better made, and - alas - I can't afford an Octane
I suppose I'll have to look into their new PC line when they get Linux fully operational on it (i.e. accelerated X drivers).
D
----
Based on that review, I'd be more than happy to take yours off your hands - I never play games or change resolutions. :-)
But flat panel buyers should beware - the SGI flat panel is apparently the Ferrari of monitors. Even the 1280x1024 flat panel on the newest IBM ThinkPad 770X series systems supports only 65535 colours. I doubt that it's nearly as vivid as a CRT, much less the SGI flat panel.
Concerning the current product, if I were Rob, I wouldn't give up my SGI flat panel - your vertical resolution is still much better, unless you went with the four monitor solution, which I assume is horribly expensive.
D
----
This, of course, is why it's exciting to see systems being pre-loaded with BeOS. Let's face it: that's how the public really wants to buy an OS.
:-(. Jean-Louise, however, has informed me that they're working on it. (He answers his own email, even from peons, with a gallic charm that's bound to win you over).
If it weren't for a massive money-sucking project I'm considering, I'd be the first in line to pick up a $500 BeOS system. I've used Be and it's a truly fantastic system.
Of course the real problem is the lack of FireWire support. It's pretty tough to be a multi-media OS that can't capture video
I wouldn't be prejudiced against BeOS just because it's not open source, unless you spend a decent percentage of your time writing kernel patches. Despite Linux being "free" and BeOS being "pay", I've actually spent less on keeping BeOS up to date than Linux. Of course part of that is because I want to support the Linux community by buying "official" distributions, but still - I've bought two SuSE releases in about as many months, while Be just sent me my R4.5 update free.
Please note that I support both operating systems and want both to thrive. I'm not opposing Open Source; I'm expressing my support of a company that I think has done a really awesome job creating a fantastic product. Be has flaws, as does virtually everything else, but in terms of actual usability it's the best OS by far for the x86 or Mac platform. The only caveat I have is that, as the original poster said, hardware support is horrifying. I hope R4.5 is better (I haven't checked it out yet, although I will in the next few days).
D
----
If I knew the name of the corporation, I'd sell their stock. If you hack up a bunch of Indys, you're throwing away about $ 600 a unit, which is pretty dumb. Do a search for Indy on eBay and see for yourself.
(I have a used R4400 Indigo2 which I love).
D
----
Actually, Alias|Wavefront is a division of SGI, so it would make a lot of sense for them to have a Linux version - at least one that ran on the visual workstation.
Is BeOS likely to run on the VWS at some point? If it did, I'd be a lot more interested in getting one, since Be multimedia applications (and the overall smoothness of the system) show real promise.
D
----
I think they're developing something that runs on top of a solaris core but uses its own file system. That's probably where the confusion is.
Under normal operation, though, Oracle allocates a specific amount of disk space for its operations, and manages the space itself. So you could say that it uses its own file system layered on top of the host OS (Solaris in this case). This is distinct from, say, mySQL, which uses files in the regular Unix file system as tables.
I'm not an Oracle expert either, so you can take this with a grain of salt, but I believe this is how it works.
D
----
I have an IBM ThinkPad 365XD notebook, and it works just fine with Linux. No complaints at all, other than the pathetic 8-bit display (which, of course, isn't Linux' fault :-( ).
PCMCIA Ethernet and modem cards work just great with it. And, X configuration with SaX from SuSE is easy now - it used to be a real horror.
I do think Windows support is a mile wide and an inch thick - I know of darn few people who love the platform.
D
----
It started as a text windowing/multitasking application under DOS. It actually multitasked pretty well - it was good for about 2-3 tasks under DOS (remember most machines had 640k or less in those days). It would even swap a bit - but when it did that, the multitasking model basically collapsed. I would say that in practice it worked better than Windows does today, but that's mainly due to the lack of bloated applications in those days - if you saw swapping, you knew you had to tighten up memory use.
I used it for a dual terminal trouble reporting system for Hughes Aircraft, I think around 1987. It worked great in that application; knowing Hughes, it may still be in use today.
D
----
Here's a possible hint: Linux has compatibility with Netscape, and yet BeOS has better fonts and a more polished GUI. So perhaps it's BeOS with some X-Windows code taken from Linux for Netscape compatibility.
It would be pretty lame if they relied on NetPositive. Now, I like NetPositive personally, because it's smooth and fast, but it's not going to make it as your only browser.
D
----
I've often wondered if anyone has proof that letting 11 year olds see fisting pictures (or pornography in general) is actually harmful.
:-).
I'm inclined to think it isn't, but I'd be willing to listen to any counterargument. Everything I've read on the subject just takes for granted that it's Bad For the Kids. I'd like to see some solid proof before encouraging policies that severely damage people's freedom to learn about all topics, fisting included.
I think the theory is that children are creatures of innocence, but based on the kids I've met, I think that theory has no basis in fact.
As for the making of bombs, I've seen some of the material on the net on this topic, and I think most of it is bound to dissuade more than encourage readers. The truly determined psychopath will have no trouble getting this information, whether through the net or through books and magazines readily available. You might also bear in mind that it's a human tendancy to want to crash through these barriers; interest in bomb-making increases exponentially when someone tells you it's "forbidden". My advice would be to encourage your unruly adolescent to make all the bombs he wants; then it won't happen
Just because someone got the information through the net doesn't mean they wouldn't obtain it elsewhere if the net didn't exist. I think the probability that the Columbine High School kids' violence could have been prevented by censorship is laughably low.
Finally, the type of person who likes to censor would most likely consider wicca harmful. So you have a choice: Let people see Wiccan information and everything else, or most likely deny people wiccan information for good. I know which one I'd choose.
D
----
Everyone seems to be taking this for granted - but didn't the post-Mindcraft I analysis focus on some rather obvious blunders made by the company?
Have those blunders mysteriously vanished? Or do we now think they don't really matter?
D
----
follow the auctions on eBay. Looks like the real value of the things is about $ 4,000. Some people are making quite a nice profit speculating on the thing.
D
----