There are three dominant OS's out there. Windows is the most dominant desktop, followed by OSX and then Linux.
Really? Given how many universities and businesses have deployed Linux on desktops and in research labs, Linux may well be way ahead of OS X on the desktop.
The market where OS X is clearly ahead of Linux is the home or consumer desktop. But that's different from the desktop.
So you're saying that some people actually think even when they're not receiving sensory input, and that their thinking might influence future behavior? What will they think of next?
(Of course, looking at the media and politicians, perhaps people do come to the conclusion that all humans are simple input/output response systems.)
According to the Single Unix Standard, only Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) can be considered "Unix".
Even conforming to the standard means that it is "UNIX" only in one sense; in terms of its internal architecture, OS X is still completely different from a traditional UNIX.
Even though OSX will still be Unix, will they'll move away from BSD and toward Solaris?
OS X is a heavily hacked Mach kernel with a bit of BSD code thrown in. Its architecture and codebase are completely different from UNIX. So, apart from a bit of UNIX compatibility and a lot of marketing hype, OS X is not UNIX.
Will they "move towards Solaris"? I have no idea what that even would mean.
Re:Is this to distract us from the Iraq and Iran w
on
The New Moon Race
·
· Score: 1
That said, it looks like we'll be in an unfair race, in that we're going broke over Iraq (and then Iran) while the Chinese and Japanese are making money off of them.
What's "unfair" about it? China and Japan told the US: "don't do it, it's stupid, it's expensive, and we're not going to pay for it". The US is doing it anyway and paying the price.
Re:Opportunities Presented by the New Moon Race
on
The New Moon Race
·
· Score: 1
The economic impact of illegal immigrants is a very, very large negative number.
This claim is not born out by any data; in fact, any credible study I've ever seen has concluded anything from neutral to positive impact on the economy.
Or why would we waste so much time and effort "fighting" global warming, when it is already labelled as a lost cause (i.e. we can't have any effect on it, a very true statement)?
"Global warming" is a "lost cause" only in that it is inevitable that we will experience some problems. But those problems can get far, far worse if we don't stop doing what we're doing. There's a big difference between a 3ft rise in sea levels and a 15ft rise in sea levels, and if we stop being stupid now, we can limit ourselves to the former. Besides, there are lots of other benefits to becoming more energy efficient and less dependent on fossil fuels.
It's all about draining our wealth, so that we can't fend for ourselves. Crisis, crisis, crisis, and who will solve it? Why, the government!
Yes, governments and companies like to create dependencies. But there are enough manufactured crises around that you really don't have belittle the real ones. Furthermore, the government usually makes sure that a crisis that is manufactured actually becomes a real threat (e.g., terrorism, global nuclear war, etc.).
Look at how tough mining is even on earth: low cost labor, frequent accidents, huge production facilities. When a couple of miners get trapped, we fuss for weeks. And that's with huge amounts of water, air, energy, and oxygen available, and a complete infrastructure, hospitals, roads, trucks. I haven't seen any economically feasible proposals for doing anything like it on the moon.
* the capsules this time will be a much more friendly environment - just like the shuttle your average school teacher will be able to ride in it.
To be honest, after this, I wasn't sure whether your post was going to be a joke. If we're going to bother with flying slightly evolved monkeys around the solar system at all, then we really can't afford to make it safe, too.
Do you think Europeans would ever have taken over the US if they had waited for transportation safe and comfortable enough "for the average school teacher"? Exploration is messy and dangerous business, and we'll get volunteers even if the capsules need to be depressurized and people have to wear diapers. I don't see any reason to pay extra tax dollars to make it comfortable and safe, too. It's not a vacation.
Look at it this way, suppose it took 2 years to create the first unix (from spec to first product to customer).
What do you mean? In UNIX, we still depressurize the entire capsule for every moonwalk. Yes, it is a safety and workability problem, but it's oh-so-efficient (at least we think so).
if you're stuck with RGB, you're never going to be accepted in the world of the printed page.
Most people these days don't print. And the ones that do usually do their editing in RGB anyway. CMYK is only for people concerned with the final tweaking before printing, and it's far from clear that that process really needs to keep being done manually anyway.
And its not just because photoshop is proprietary, its just better suited to what the professional photographer and artist need to make a living.
If something as poor as Photoshop could take over from the professional photo editing software available when Photoshop first came out, I think Gimp will easily be able to take over from Photoshop.
Making source available in this way is really the worst thing for everybody. Why? Because if there are any similarities between Microsoft's code and other projects, Microsoft will argue that their code was copied. Sun has tried to do the same thing with Java source code in the past.
The only way to deal with this sort of crap is to make sure that no developer that works on Mono or other projects has looked at the code.
Don't look at source code unless it comes with a clear, unambiguous, OSI approved open source license.
The problem is between the programmer's chair and the programmer's keyboard: programmers are responsible for making security dead simple. Users just use the stuff.
1. They have a setup pretty similar to the Free Software Foundatation (FSF). This is setup so if there is a legal dispute, Sun can send in their lawyers, and they don't have to round up EVERYBODY to come to court.
Sun doesn't have to "round up everybody" to go to court; if someone violates the OOo licenses, any copyright holder can sue. If you give your copyright to Sun, you basically give up your right to sue. Sun has this setup so that they can incorporate the code into proprietary versions of their software and that they get to control who to sue.
The situation with the FSF is completely different: the FSF is a not-for-profit and they don't do dual licensing. Sun is not the FSF, Sun is a for-profit company making proprietary products.
Who cares about lawsuit protection? Do you seriously think people lie awake at night worrying about whether Microsoft is going to sue them for using OpenOffice? And what, specifically, would Microsoft sue about anyway?
hat is you license it under the LGPL and license it specifically to Sun under other terms (eg BSD) so they can reuse it in staroffice.
First of all, with the LGPL, Sun doesn't need to have any special permission to use it: they can link the software even with their commercial version of OpenOffice.
But, in any case, why should anybody give Sun special terms anyway even if they can't use the code in StarOffice? If they can't use it in StarOffice, that's their problem.
This isn't about "pointless bickering", it's about a real issue: Sun wants people to contribute to their commercial offerings without compensating them; that is just not acceptable to many people. And it's important to do something about that because if "open source business models" like Sun's succeed, we can kiss open source goodbye.
Slashdot Mirror
There are three dominant OS's out there. Windows is the most dominant desktop, followed by OSX and then Linux.
Really? Given how many universities and businesses have deployed Linux on desktops and in research labs, Linux may well be way ahead of OS X on the desktop.
The market where OS X is clearly ahead of Linux is the home or consumer desktop. But that's different from the desktop.
Thanks.
So you're saying that some people actually think even when they're not receiving sensory input, and that their thinking might influence future behavior? What will they think of next?
(Of course, looking at the media and politicians, perhaps people do come to the conclusion that all humans are simple input/output response systems.)
Actually, they could go with a sessionless protocol
Actually, "they" go with IMAP IDLE.
According to the Single Unix Standard, only Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) can be considered "Unix".
Even conforming to the standard means that it is "UNIX" only in one sense; in terms of its internal architecture, OS X is still completely different from a traditional UNIX.
Even though OSX will still be Unix, will they'll move away from BSD and toward Solaris?
OS X is a heavily hacked Mach kernel with a bit of BSD code thrown in. Its architecture and codebase are completely different from UNIX. So, apart from a bit of UNIX compatibility and a lot of marketing hype, OS X is not UNIX.
Will they "move towards Solaris"? I have no idea what that even would mean.
That said, it looks like we'll be in an unfair race, in that we're going broke over Iraq (and then Iran) while the Chinese and Japanese are making money off of them.
What's "unfair" about it? China and Japan told the US: "don't do it, it's stupid, it's expensive, and we're not going to pay for it". The US is doing it anyway and paying the price.
The economic impact of illegal immigrants is a very, very large negative number.
This claim is not born out by any data; in fact, any credible study I've ever seen has concluded anything from neutral to positive impact on the economy.
Or why would we waste so much time and effort "fighting" global warming, when it is already labelled as a lost cause (i.e. we can't have any effect on it, a very true statement)?
"Global warming" is a "lost cause" only in that it is inevitable that we will experience some problems. But those problems can get far, far worse if we don't stop doing what we're doing. There's a big difference between a 3ft rise in sea levels and a 15ft rise in sea levels, and if we stop being stupid now, we can limit ourselves to the former. Besides, there are lots of other benefits to becoming more energy efficient and less dependent on fossil fuels.
It's all about draining our wealth, so that we can't fend for ourselves. Crisis, crisis, crisis, and who will solve it? Why, the government!
Yes, governments and companies like to create dependencies. But there are enough manufactured crises around that you really don't have belittle the real ones. Furthermore, the government usually makes sure that a crisis that is manufactured actually becomes a real threat (e.g., terrorism, global nuclear war, etc.).
Look at how tough mining is even on earth: low cost labor, frequent accidents, huge production facilities. When a couple of miners get trapped, we fuss for weeks. And that's with huge amounts of water, air, energy, and oxygen available, and a complete infrastructure, hospitals, roads, trucks. I haven't seen any economically feasible proposals for doing anything like it on the moon.
* the capsules this time will be a much more friendly environment - just like the shuttle your average school teacher will be able to ride in it.
To be honest, after this, I wasn't sure whether your post was going to be a joke. If we're going to bother with flying slightly evolved monkeys around the solar system at all, then we really can't afford to make it safe, too.
Do you think Europeans would ever have taken over the US if they had waited for transportation safe and comfortable enough "for the average school teacher"? Exploration is messy and dangerous business, and we'll get volunteers even if the capsules need to be depressurized and people have to wear diapers. I don't see any reason to pay extra tax dollars to make it comfortable and safe, too. It's not a vacation.
Look at it this way, suppose it took 2 years to create the first unix (from spec to first product to customer).
What do you mean? In UNIX, we still depressurize the entire capsule for every moonwalk. Yes, it is a safety and workability problem, but it's oh-so-efficient (at least we think so).
http://www.gofish.com/player.gfp?gfid=30-1083535
The Java sandboxing model is a step in the right direction.
Do you have any more information on CEGL?
Whatever security exists, it is now gone.
That's only because Windows, Linux, etc. use a brain-dead security model.
Linux with SELInux cannot help - the user will simply turn it off when instructed to do so.
Again, SELinux is a braindead security model; that's why people have to turn it off.
There are versions of the Gimp that support 16 bits per channel. Hopefully, all of this stuff will get merged in version 3.
if you're stuck with RGB, you're never going to be accepted in the world of the printed page.
Most people these days don't print. And the ones that do usually do their editing in RGB anyway. CMYK is only for people concerned with the final tweaking before printing, and it's far from clear that that process really needs to keep being done manually anyway.
And its not just because photoshop is proprietary, its just better suited to what the professional photographer and artist need to make a living.
If something as poor as Photoshop could take over from the professional photo editing software available when Photoshop first came out, I think Gimp will easily be able to take over from Photoshop.
Making source available in this way is really the worst thing for everybody. Why? Because if there are any similarities between Microsoft's code and other projects, Microsoft will argue that their code was copied. Sun has tried to do the same thing with Java source code in the past.
The only way to deal with this sort of crap is to make sure that no developer that works on Mono or other projects has looked at the code.
Don't look at source code unless it comes with a clear, unambiguous, OSI approved open source license.
The problem is between the programmer's chair and the programmer's keyboard: programmers are responsible for making security dead simple. Users just use the stuff.
Both should paply to Sun as well, plus the added ability to make proprietary versions (like StarOffice)
And why should I give Sun that ability?
which may link to other peoples non-LGPL compatible code.
And what kind of code would be "non-LGPL compatible" for linking?
1. They have a setup pretty similar to the Free Software Foundatation (FSF). This is setup so if there is a legal dispute, Sun can send in their lawyers, and they don't have to round up EVERYBODY to come to court.
Sun doesn't have to "round up everybody" to go to court; if someone violates the OOo licenses, any copyright holder can sue. If you give your copyright to Sun, you basically give up your right to sue. Sun has this setup so that they can incorporate the code into proprietary versions of their software and that they get to control who to sue.
The situation with the FSF is completely different: the FSF is a not-for-profit and they don't do dual licensing. Sun is not the FSF, Sun is a for-profit company making proprietary products.
Who cares about lawsuit protection? Do you seriously think people lie awake at night worrying about whether Microsoft is going to sue them for using OpenOffice? And what, specifically, would Microsoft sue about anyway?
hat is you license it under the LGPL and license it specifically to Sun under other terms (eg BSD) so they can reuse it in staroffice.
First of all, with the LGPL, Sun doesn't need to have any special permission to use it: they can link the software even with their commercial version of OpenOffice.
But, in any case, why should anybody give Sun special terms anyway even if they can't use the code in StarOffice? If they can't use it in StarOffice, that's their problem.
This isn't about "pointless bickering", it's about a real issue: Sun wants people to contribute to their commercial offerings without compensating them; that is just not acceptable to many people. And it's important to do something about that because if "open source business models" like Sun's succeed, we can kiss open source goodbye.