The Open Group has only had the say in what was called Unix for a very short time in the history of the Unix operating system.
Of course, since their inception as the Open Software Foundation. Well before they had rights to the Unix name, their desire was to have people think of Unix based on how something worked and interoperated, not on the history of the source code behind it. If it acted like Unix, it was Unix, even if it was called OSF/1.
The Open Group was once the Open Software Foundation. Their use of Open in their name was to differentiate themselves from the AT&T/Sun collaboration working on SysVR4 to make a true Unix (at the time a registered trademark of AT&T) that was ideally suited to Sun over other Unix licencees.
The name Open Group came around the time commercial Unix vendors were talking about Open Standards . It was before esr coined the term Open Source
By Open Standards, they were describing royalty free specifications and interoperability, But nothing about free redistribution. By proprietary, they meant non-published standards or ones with royalties attached, not access to source code. The plan was a base level interoperability and then their own set of features as a market differentiator.
No, the original reason for BSD was for Universities to experiment in OS design. They took the original Unix, ported it to 32 bit hardware. They added virtual memory. They added job control. They added vfork (not all the experiments went well.) They added networking. (Ken Thompson took a sabatical from Bell Labs for at part of the development.) During that time, one first had to get a AT&T license for most of Unix, and then get BSD on top of that.
It wasn't until the early '90s (about 15 years later) that they realized that they had rewritten so much of it, very little of the AT&T code remained. Then they figured they could rewrite the remainder, and have a free OS to distribute. AT&T's case at the time said that replacing each component gave a system that was still mostly the same as the original. (Imagine taking a Mustang, and piece by piece replacing each component with an aftermarket one. When you are done, is it still a Mustang? or something else?)
Nowadays, the answer to "what is real Unix?" is "Whatever the Open Group says is Unix"
OK, so your users can't run that particular executable. Do they have access to compilers? Can they copy files to the machine? (which they may have compiled elsewhere.) Can they paste uuencoded versions of programs into their terminal emulators and create executables? Do they have access to interpreters like perl or python that they could run a reimplementation of what ypcat does? (ypcat only does unauthenticated connections on high numbered ports.)
Maybe you make steps to prevent all of these things. If so, the permissions on ypcat are only a small portion of what you are doing to create a secure NIS environment.
As others have said, The Flinstones started in prime time. They became a syndicated afternoon cartoon after they stopped production.
What Hanna Barbara brought to modern cartoons was a way to speed up the process of animation so that they could come up with a weekly television series. Before that, you either had people making 10 minute shorts to display before the main feature of a movie, or you had Disney working years to make a full length animated movie. Either of these products had to appeal to a mass audience. Hanna Barbara is obviously cheaper quality, but they were the ones who learned where you can put the cheats. When Fred runs down a hallway, you know he is going to pass by the same potted plant a half-dozen times.
Now that people learned what sort of shortcuts were or weren't noticed, cartoons could be written in a way to avoid too many expensive options, or techniques could be developed to mitigate them.
Comparing cartoons made for television against cartoons made for theaters is like comparing movie comedies against sitcoms. Its like trying to compare "National Lampoon's Vacation" to "King of Queens".
From about 10 minutes worth of time I spent looking at it, DAAP looks a lot like HTTP. There are certain, aparently fixed, list of URIs that itunes supports,
http://localhost:3689/server-info will give the name of the itunes shared library.
http://localhost:3689/login takes the optional password as an argument and sends you a session ID.
http://localhost:3689/databases takes your session id as an argument and returns the name of your playlists.
First, go to the international panel of System Preferences.app, select the Input Menu tab, and select US Extended checkbox. This will will add an input menu to the menu bar, and select "US Extended". Then go to/Applications/Utilities/Key Caps.app. Press the option key, The keycaps program will highlight all the dead keys. First tone seems to be option-a, second tone is option-b.
I'm willing to bet a dollar that the difference between the "unknown" format audio stream and a 128kbps AAC stream is... minimal...
Not necessarily.
They could send the file with the AAC stream encoded with two public keys. One of the corresponding private keys is built into the iTunes firmware, the other is the other is sent to you when you "authorize" a machine to play your iTunes Music Store files.
Explain them to you? How about this. When Steve Jobs said, "The Computer for the Rest of Us", he meant ", but not for RoLi" In fact, if you would believe it, the more detailed version of the ad slogan was actually in some early drafts, but it got removed for space reasons. Its also muddied the message a bit, since it left everyone wondering "who the hell is RoLi?"
You seem to be mistaking me for someone who is defending Apple's continued use of a one button mouse. I am not. What I have been saying is that studies that Apple did 25 years ago may not have the same relevance, since what they were testing the mouse against, (some sample of people, presumably living in the US at the time, and possibly all from the local area) has changed significantly during that time.
Maybe Apple still does studies and still finds a reason to continue to ship with single button mice. If they are, they aren't publishing them, at least to my knowledge. Perhaps they are keeping them as proprietary product development information. Maybe they've done studies that show that the ease of use of one button has gone away over the past 25 years, but then did other studies that found that negative publicity they will get from the computer press by backtracking on this issue will negatively effect their image as innovators. (leaving aside the validity of the image). Maybe they've discovered that nine out of ten of the employees that have suggested that they revisit this mouse button thing are dismissed from the company, so anyone smart enough just keeps their mouth shut. Maybe they've decided that experienced users hate their mouse designs anyway, will blow $30 for a third party mouse, and won't consider mouse functionality in their purchasing decisions.
I don't know. What I am saying is that the original decision to make a one button mouse for the Lisa was made after some study into what sort of effect it would have on the product. I do not know if they could repeat those results today, and have hypothesized that they might not. I have been trying to avoid saying whether shipping with multibutton mice is a good idea now, since I have no evidence to support that claim. Just because you put your opinions in bold, doesn't make them facts.
If you are going to discount all studies because some people can create or reference fraudulant ones, I'm not sure if its going to be easy to convince you of anything. Do you throw all of the scientific method out the window, or just the steps that prevent you from spouting off with whatever you want to say?
Apple's mouse button studies when they were developing the mouse weren't the four out of 5 dentists recommend (a sugarless gum (for their patients that chew gum)) type of studies developed by advertisers and marketing departments in order to sell a product. (Which sounds better than saying "20% of all dentists find all gum chewing detrimental to oral health") They are were studies by the product development groups to decide what type of system to build. (for the moment, lets leave out how a conclusion like "experts like multi-button mice, beginners like single button ones" means to someone trying to market this product to the k-12 market, and how that might be different than someone trying to market it to fortune 500 companies.)
Where I suspect that Apple might be misguided, is that they assume they were testing a closed system. They recent college grad they they tested during the development of the Lisa, might just be looking at early retirement today. They weren't testing a static system, they were testing a sample of the computer using population of the United States. Through their development of the mouse, they have significantly affected the system they were testing, and those 30 year old results may no longer be valid.
By the way, Apple's Mac OS X has nothing to do with the X Window system. Your mistakenly connnecting the two makes it difficult for me to take what you say seriously.
I would describe it as "they studied", not that "they feared".
Although some accounts of the development of the mouse at apple seem to imply the choice of one button was subjective, articles like the one referenced in this slashdot article seem to state the apple's choice of was the result of testing.
When Apple conducted experiments in the late '70s or early '80s, multibutton mice were faster for experienced users, but increased the errors and confusion of inexperenced users. I'm not sure if studies done today would give similar results. The mouse is so commonplace that television comercials for Hewlett Packard use the hypercard's "index finger" mouse pointer to show selection, and children's cartoons like Dora the Explorer emulate the mouse selection metaphor.
You could check if the problem is Rendezvous by sending your father DockBrowser (perhaps by compiling it up for him first.) This should only show the machines available via Rendezvous.
You could check if it was Appletalk by loading up chooser in Classic mode, perhaps with the Who's There rdev. It should only show machines available via Appletalk
You could disable appletalk in the ethernet interface connnected to the cable modem (Its in the Network pane in the System Preferences app.) and leave it on in the Airport interface.
There was a post a little further up that showed an example of the output of word 2003. It wasn't necessarily unreadable, but it seemed to have a lot of tags that seem to fall out of Microsoft's implementation. For example, why should I be concerned that the w:latentStyles has its defLockedState attribute set to "off".
A quick google search for wordml schema led me to this document which says that the XML schema is in the word XML Content Development Kit. I have no idea what sort of license a CDK would have.
Andy Hertzfeld used to describe it as the Macintosh hit by the bizarro ray.
(although I thought he made that quote about the Atari ST, not Windows. Its a good enough analogy, that maybe he re-used it.)
Zope also has good WebDAV support. Since Zope stores all templates and pythonscript code within its object database, even if the zope server is the local machine it is often easier to connect to the webdav server on 127.0.0.1 than to work on things in their "through the web" management screens.
In FTP the sender connects to the receiver, but client issuing commands does not have to be either of those two machines. As designed, FTP should be able to allow a client to send data between two arbitrary machines. Its an infrequently used feature, and I'm not sure if it is implemented by all clients, but it is, technically, a feature that HTTP doesn't have.
"sorely lacks" may be a bit of an overstatement. The group at Zope has made an Interface module for python. As a first cut for how interfaces could be implemented in python. (I think the fact that they could make an interface implementation without changing the core language says a bit about dynamic languages like python.) In their current implementation, they seem best to be combined with unit tests. A class itself can be imported, even if it doesn't support the interface, but Interface.Verify.verifyClass(ImyInterface, myClass) will return true only for classes that correctly implement the interface.
Yes, Quartz is analogus to an X server, but quartz-wm is a
window manager Apple developed along with their X Server
implementation that gives Aqua style window appearances
to window borders. And it doesn't look like crap.
It also seems to have better focus behavior than
Orobor OSX a non-Apple attempt at making a window manager that works well within Aqua.
I've been thinking of designing something similar, but I was
going to make something that worked a lot like DropScript.
Drop an executable file onto it, and it will result in an OS X
Application.
1973? I think you are off by a decade. 1983 sounds about right.
Beyond that, the compact disc, when introduced, was promoted to be the successor to the LP, rather than the cassette. Battery powered handheld devices and devices to be installed in automobiles came a bit later.
Over the LP, the compact disc had a noticibly higher sound quality. It had better durability. It had a better ability to skip to the next track. It had the ability to fastforward within a track. Notice that the CD has replaced the LP, but has been less successful in replacing the audio cassette.
Compared to the audio cassette, the CD has little or no ability to record. The CD is more sensitive to motion during playback. And the CD is less durable. On the other hand, the CD is easier to move from track to track. The CD is easier to store. And the CD does not have to be rewound before reuse. Its a bit of a toss up.
Slashdot Mirror
The Open Group has only had the say in what was called Unix for a very short time in the history of the Unix operating system.
Of course, since their inception as the Open Software Foundation. Well before they had rights to the Unix name, their desire was to have people think of Unix based on how something worked and interoperated, not on the history of the source code behind it. If it acted like Unix, it was Unix, even if it was called OSF/1.
The Open Group was once the Open Software Foundation. Their use of Open in their name was to differentiate themselves from the AT&T/Sun collaboration working on SysVR4 to make a true Unix (at the time a registered trademark of AT&T) that was ideally suited to Sun over other Unix licencees.
The name Open Group came around the time commercial Unix vendors were talking about Open Standards . It was before esr coined the term Open Source
By Open Standards, they were describing royalty free specifications and interoperability, But nothing about free redistribution. By proprietary, they meant non-published standards or ones with royalties attached, not access to source code. The plan was a base level interoperability and then their own set of features as a market differentiator.
This time period was referred to as The Unix Wars.
I just found a much better description in a paper named Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix
No, the original reason for BSD was for Universities to experiment in OS design. They took the original Unix, ported it to 32 bit hardware. They added virtual memory. They added job control. They added vfork (not all the experiments went well.) They added networking. (Ken Thompson took a sabatical from Bell Labs for at part of the development.) During that time, one first had to get a AT&T license for most of Unix, and then get BSD on top of that.
It wasn't until the early '90s (about 15 years later) that they realized that they had rewritten so much of it, very little of the AT&T code remained. Then they figured they could rewrite the remainder, and have a free OS to distribute. AT&T's case at the time said that replacing each component gave a system that was still mostly the same as the original. (Imagine taking a Mustang, and piece by piece replacing each component with an aftermarket one. When you are done, is it still a Mustang? or something else?)
Nowadays, the answer to "what is real Unix?" is "Whatever the Open Group says is Unix"
OK, so your users can't run that particular executable. Do they have access to compilers? Can they copy files to the machine? (which they may have compiled elsewhere.) Can they paste uuencoded versions of programs into their terminal emulators and create executables? Do they have access to interpreters like perl or python that they could run a reimplementation of what ypcat does? (ypcat only does unauthenticated connections on high numbered ports.)
Maybe you make steps to prevent all of these things. If so, the permissions on ypcat are only a small portion of what you are doing to create a secure NIS environment.
As others have said, The Flinstones started in prime time. They became a syndicated afternoon cartoon after they stopped production.
What Hanna Barbara brought to modern cartoons was a way to speed up the process of animation so that they could come up with a weekly television series. Before that, you either had people making 10 minute shorts to display before the main feature of a movie, or you had Disney working years to make a full length animated movie. Either of these products had to appeal to a mass audience. Hanna Barbara is obviously cheaper quality, but they were the ones who learned where you can put the cheats. When Fred runs down a hallway, you know he is going to pass by the same potted plant a half-dozen times.
Now that people learned what sort of shortcuts were or weren't noticed, cartoons could be written in a way to
avoid too many expensive options, or techniques could be developed to mitigate them.
Comparing cartoons made for television against cartoons made for theaters is like comparing movie comedies against sitcoms. Its like trying to compare "National Lampoon's Vacation" to "King of Queens".
From about 10 minutes worth of time I spent looking at
it, DAAP looks a lot like HTTP. There are certain, aparently fixed, list of URIs that itunes supports,
http://localhost:3689/server-info will give the name of the itunes shared library.
http://localhost:3689/login takes the optional password as an argument and sends you a session ID.
http://localhost:3689/databases takes your session id as an argument and returns the name of your playlists.
First, go to the international panel of System Preferences.app, select the Input Menu tab, and select US Extended checkbox. This will will add an input menu to the menu bar, and select "US Extended". Then go to /Applications/Utilities/Key Caps.app. Press the option key, The keycaps program will highlight all the dead keys. First tone seems to be option-a, second tone is option-b.
Not necessarily.
They could send the file with the AAC stream encoded with two public keys. One of the corresponding private keys is built into the iTunes firmware, the other is the other is sent to you when you "authorize" a machine to play your iTunes Music Store files.
Explain them to you? How about this. When Steve Jobs said, "The Computer for the Rest of Us", he meant ", but not for RoLi" In fact, if you would believe it, the more detailed version of the ad slogan was actually in some early drafts, but it got removed for space reasons. Its also muddied the message a bit, since it left everyone wondering "who the hell is RoLi?"
You seem to be mistaking me for someone who is defending Apple's continued use of a one button mouse. I am not. What I have been saying is that studies that Apple did 25 years ago may not have the same relevance, since what they were testing the mouse against, (some sample of people, presumably living in the US at the time, and possibly all from the local area) has changed significantly during that time.
Maybe Apple still does studies and still finds a reason to continue to ship with single button mice. If they are, they aren't publishing them, at least to my knowledge. Perhaps they are keeping them as proprietary product development information. Maybe they've done studies that show that the ease of use of one button has gone away over the past 25 years, but then did other studies that found that negative publicity they will get from the computer press by backtracking on this issue will negatively effect their image as innovators. (leaving aside the validity of the image). Maybe they've discovered that nine out of ten of the employees that have suggested that they revisit this mouse button thing are dismissed from the company, so anyone smart enough just keeps their mouth shut. Maybe they've decided that experienced users hate their mouse designs anyway, will blow $30 for a third party mouse, and won't consider mouse functionality in their purchasing decisions.
I don't know. What I am saying is that the original decision to make a one button mouse for the Lisa was made after some study into what sort of effect it would have on the product. I do not know if they could repeat those results today, and have hypothesized that they might not. I have been trying to avoid saying whether shipping with multibutton mice is a good idea now, since I have no evidence to support that claim. Just because you put your opinions in bold, doesn't make them facts.
If you are going to discount all studies because some people can create or reference fraudulant ones, I'm not sure if its going to be easy to convince you of anything. Do you throw all of the scientific method out the window, or just the steps that prevent you from spouting off with whatever you want to say?
Apple's mouse button studies when they were developing the mouse weren't the four out of 5 dentists recommend (a sugarless gum (for their patients that chew gum)) type of studies developed by advertisers and marketing departments in order to sell a product. (Which sounds better than saying "20% of all dentists find all gum chewing detrimental to oral health") They are were studies by the product development groups to decide what type of system to build. (for the moment, lets leave out how a conclusion like "experts like multi-button mice, beginners like single button ones" means to someone trying to market this product to the k-12 market, and how that might be different than someone trying to market it to fortune 500 companies.)
Where I suspect that Apple might be misguided, is that they assume they were testing a closed system. They recent college grad they they tested during the development of the Lisa, might just be looking at early retirement today. They weren't testing a static system, they were testing a sample of the computer using population of the United States. Through their development of the mouse, they have significantly affected the system they were testing, and those 30 year old results may no longer be valid.
By the way, Apple's Mac OS X has nothing to do with the X Window system. Your mistakenly connnecting the two makes it difficult for me to take what you say seriously.
I would describe it as "they studied", not that "they feared".
Although some accounts of the development of the mouse at apple seem to imply the choice of one button was subjective, articles like the one referenced in this slashdot article seem to state the apple's choice of was the result of testing.When Apple conducted experiments in the late '70s or early '80s, multibutton mice were faster for experienced users, but increased the errors and confusion of inexperenced users. I'm not sure if studies done today would give similar results. The mouse is so commonplace that television comercials for Hewlett Packard use the hypercard's "index finger" mouse pointer to show selection, and children's cartoons like Dora the Explorer emulate the mouse selection metaphor.
You could check if the problem is Rendezvous by sending your father DockBrowser (perhaps by compiling it up for him first.) This should only show the machines available via Rendezvous.
You could check if it was Appletalk by loading up chooser in Classic mode, perhaps with the Who's There rdev. It should only show machines available via Appletalk
You could disable appletalk in the ethernet interface connnected to the cable modem (Its in the Network pane in the System Preferences app.) and leave it on in the Airport interface.
There was a post a little further up that showed an example of the output of word 2003. It wasn't necessarily unreadable, but it seemed to have a lot of tags that seem to fall out of Microsoft's implementation. For example, why should I be concerned that the w:latentStyles has its defLockedState attribute set to "off".
A quick google search for wordml schema led me to this document which says that the XML schema is in the word XML Content Development Kit. I have no idea what sort of license a CDK would have.
Andy Hertzfeld used to describe it as the Macintosh hit by the bizarro ray.
(although I thought he made that quote about the Atari ST, not Windows. Its a good enough analogy, that maybe he re-used it.)
Zope also has good WebDAV support. Since Zope stores
all templates and pythonscript code within its object
database, even if the zope server is the local machine it is often easier to connect to the webdav server on 127.0.0.1
than to work on things in their "through the web" management screens.
Why didn't they just use the Audio Out of the CD player to the cassette in of the computer?
In FTP the sender connects to the receiver, but client issuing commands does not have to be either of those two machines. As designed, FTP should be able to allow a client to send data between two arbitrary machines. Its an infrequently used feature, and I'm not sure if it is implemented by all clients, but it is, technically, a feature that HTTP doesn't have.
"sorely lacks" may be a bit of an overstatement. The group at Zope has made an Interface module for python. As a first cut for how interfaces could be implemented in python. (I think the fact that they could make an interface implementation without changing the core language says a bit about dynamic languages like python.) In their current implementation, they seem best to be combined with unit tests. A class itself can be imported, even if it doesn't support the interface, but Interface.Verify.verifyClass(ImyInterface, myClass) will return true only for classes that correctly implement the interface.
Yes, Quartz is analogus to an X server, but quartz-wm is a window manager Apple developed along with their X Server implementation that gives Aqua style window appearances to window borders. And it doesn't look like crap.
It also seems to have better focus behavior than Orobor OSX a non-Apple attempt at making a window manager that works well within Aqua.
I've been thinking of designing something similar, but I was going to make something that worked a lot like DropScript. Drop an executable file onto it, and it will result in an OS X Application.
1973? I think you are off by a decade. 1983 sounds about right.
Beyond that, the compact disc, when introduced, was promoted to be the successor to the LP, rather than the cassette. Battery powered handheld devices and devices to be installed in automobiles came a bit later.
Over the LP, the compact disc had a noticibly higher sound quality. It had better durability. It had a better ability to skip to the next track. It had the ability to fastforward within a track. Notice that the CD has replaced the LP, but has been less successful in replacing the audio cassette.
Compared to the audio cassette, the CD has little or no ability to record. The CD is more sensitive to motion during playback. And the CD is less durable. On the other hand, the CD is easier to move from track to track. The CD is easier to store. And the CD does not have to be rewound before reuse. Its a bit of a toss up.
AT&T assigned the setuid patent to the public domain. I can see a reference to it here among other places.
I first read the 10 lines of code stastitic in Code Complete published in 1995.