Well, the DSL 'modem' is actually a bridge, so I guess it's possible that NetBEUI packets could be sent out to the DSL subnet.
I asked my ISP (FirstWorld), and here's the answer I got: "Generally, anything bridged across will be stopped at the terminating end as we only allow IP traffic from there." (I guess by terminating end, they mean the other end of the DSL line, so you're probably OK.)
Don't forget that 30% of 'the Internet' is on AOL - and AOL only uses IE.
Subtract the AOL user base (I wish we could), and it's more like 50/50. Once AOL starts using Mozilla, Netscape will have the markt lead.
(Despite this post, I think browser market share is one of the most stupid concepts of all time. Who cares about the market share of $0 products. The intention of both Netscape Nav and MSIE from the beginning was mearly free advertising and standards embrace+extend for Netscape's and MS's server products. Which is why the iPlanet brandname is so odd. Oh well...) --
I don't know that having per-URL JavaScript and Cookie preferences is that "unreasonable". IE already has a limited version of this in it's security zones feature. (Unfortunately, you can't create new zones, so you are stuck with 'Internet' and 'Trusted Sites'.)
The guy is right on - Microsoft is driving the hardware specs, and there's no way that Intel is going to release a platform that doesn't have MS backing. (Especially after the USB f-up, where they shipped hardware for a couple years without drivers.) The idea that Linux will ever have more hardware support than Windows (by next year!) on a commodity platform is silly.
These cut-down PC plans (PC99, EasyPC) might as well be called "WinPC". Dropping things like VGA text mode, BIOS support for non-PnP OSes, 'legacy' ports like serial and parallel, and forcing things like ACPI is bad news not only for Linux but also anyone who wants to run commercial OSes such as WinNT 4.0 or OS/2.
(In fact, the non-PnP Windows NT 4 is the *only* reason Microsoft isn't more aggressively pushing WinPCs rignt now. Once Windows 2000 is out, expect to see some very Linux unfriendly hardware. the Not that the Linux folks won't catch up, it just might take a while. And I fully expect the typical corporate purchasing department will try to save $100 and skip the 'OS-Independant' checkbox.) --
I'll give you #3, but I think you need to consider #2 a tie. MacOS 7 ran in a "Blue Box" on the old A/UX operating system, and doing this is the only realistic way for 99% compatibility with existing sofware.
As for Unix - 99% of Mac users shouldn't need to care. (They will care if they have to start editing config files! Fear.) The few Mac sysadmins I know are interested in a good server platform, because right now the predominate Mac file+print server is Windows NT.
I'll agree that BeOS would have been a great choice for MacOSX. It's definately closer in spirit to MacOS than NeXTStep. It didn't happen however, so Be will have to live on as it's on system. NeXTStep wasn't exactly alive in recent years, so maybe I'm just happy that it's back. (My biggest concern with Be is that I hold Gasse responsible for many of Apple's fuck-ups in the 80s. Let's just say that I'd take Jobs and his fuck-ups over Gasse's)
PS - WebObjects is an actual profitable product (an applicaiton server), not a buzzword. --
Well, it's a Mac, so Samba doesn't figure in, but AppleShareIP volumes might.
I've haven't seen Mac networking in a loong time, but in the old days, AppleShare passwords were clear text over the wire unless you used an authentication plug-in. Best bet, however, would be to disable the AppleShare extension, or just make sure you are using AppleTalk rather than TCP/IP. (The DSL bridge will block all non-IP traffic, if I understand correctly.)
Likewise with NT (or Unix/Samba) - if you can't firewall, you probably want to at least disable the filesharing interface on the DSL side (unbind the WINS client in NT). --
Paula Jones was living off her 'legal fund' and other mysterious donations from republican interests.
Going from a government salary to unemployed to a bunch of strange income sources seems like a pretty ripe reason to come out on top of the audit computer's list. --
Depends what you mean by a Linux Desktop. I've got Solaris 7 x86 installed as one of the 5 OSes on my machine. Occasionally I'll dink with it to to try to teach myself how to do something under Solaris.
Does that mean I have a Solaris desktop? I guess by your definiton it does - but by mine defintion, and by the defintion any company investigating the Solaris x86 market it certainly does not.
(At least I can get my work Notes Mail under Solaris x86, which is more than I can say about Linux. Which reminds me to try setting up wine one of these days.)
I don't know how Microsoft calculates it's marketshare, but a safe bet might be all non-server x86 PCs minus ~5-10%. --
The Apple//e was on Apple's price list until 92 or 93. (I remember seeing that it had a strange model name like "//e+ enhanced" and had grown a keypad on the case and had 3.5" disk drives!) Apparently schools and the like were still buying them.
In any case, it was only officially cancelled when Apple released a//e card for Mac LC models. --
. Oh, and we also sell way more Linux CDs Vs (Windows98 || Office) combined.
Color me unimpressed. Remember back in 1994 when OS/2 Warp was outselling Windows at retail? When all was said and done, those millions of OS/2 CDs translated into very few permanent OS/2 desktops and servers. I think we're seeing a similar phenomenon with retail Linux CDs.
Here's my theory on what's going on: There a huge base (probably millions) of low level techies and power users out there (think of the legions of Win95 desktop support people!) - people who just like dinking around with computers. The next gigantic Windows upgrade has been delayed for sometime, and there's no real joy in installing DirectX 9 or Service Pack 6. So people's hands start getting itchy and when they hear about this super cool new OS, they just have to go and install it.
But once they get through the Linux install, and surf around a bit with Netscape, and maybe install and run a game or two, interest is going to cool. Fighting with the Exchange or Notes e-mail system at work, too many damn Word documents, and slow graphic performance will eventually push many of these folks back to Windows. When Win2000 gets out the door, it will just be the next latest and greatest thing to fiddle with.
Note that this process is not bad for Linux in any way. People are getting their eyes opened to the free software culture and Unix. Some of the I'll-try-Linux crowd will end up as permanent Linux users (just as with OS/2). Many of these Win95 techies will eventually end up as server admins somewhere. They'll have knowledge of the alternatives and they'll be more open to non-Windows solutions. Plus, RedHat and SuSe get some quick cash to build up the software with.
Just don't make the mistake believing that x boxes of retail Linux sold ~= x Linux desktops. It's a mistake that many OS/2 supporters made, and when it really came down to the line, the user's weren't there for OS/2. --
Over the years, the UNIX/Unix/Free *nix community have been doing a great job at "sewing (sic) confusion in the minds of the public and IT management" all by themselves. They've never needed Microsoft's help before - why start now? --
There seems to be this urban legend in the Linux world that NT uses a BSD TCP/IP stack. Before this gets repeated so often that it's considered true, folks should read this note on Linux-Kernel:
It's interesting that certain people (such as Alan Cox) didn't disagree with that statement.
(And even if MS and Sun and Apple and everyone else has a BSD TCP/IP stack and FTP program - who cares! If I understand correctly the BSD TCP/IP stack was developed by the US Dept of Defense and the University of California, NOT a group altruistic free software programmers. The intention behind using a BSD licence was to benefit commercial and government interests by promoting a standard networking platform. The project was successful. BSD TCP/IP was NOT as an attempt to liberate software from commercial interests.
Now if you are talking about FreeBSD SuperFoo99, I'd agree that it might be 'stolen' by commercial interests, but I don't think that applies to the long standing free TCP/IP code.)
I don't think PageMaker (or any other Adobe product) has really felt any competition from Microsoft. MS is aiming at the lowend graphics market with PhotoSomething2000, but I don't know if people who buy Photoshop for $600 are really in that market. And MS Publisher - I don't think that's taken seriously at all.
Some people have successfully competed with Microsoft in the Windows app market:
+ Lotus Notes outsells Exchange client licences. (chalk that up to a huge installed base going back 10+ years) + Anything by Adobe + CorelDraw + FileMaker for Windows has a steadly growing base - at least it hasn't been crushed by Access like DBase and Paradox were. + Anything competing with MS J++
The question is: Would MacOS-nextgeneration be out by now if they had bought BeOS instead?
I don't think so... Here's what they would have needed to do in either case:
1) Port to PowerPC. Not necessary for BeOS, but apparently NeXT (just like everyone else) had done some work there in the early 90s.
2) Run the old MacOS in the "Blue Box" on top of the new OS. Probably has more to do with hooks in the MacOS itself than the new OS, so equal work for either.
3) Overhaul the look-and-feel of the BeOS, write a new "Finder" - I haven't used BeOS, so I don't know how close they already are, but lets assume equal work for either Be or Next.
4) Develop "Carbon", a transition API, for the established Mac software base. Again, probably equal work for either Be or Next.
So, even if they'd bought BeOS, I don't see MacOSX Client coming out any earlier. Plus, they wouldn't have the added extras that they got with NeXTStep - multiuser, postscript drawing engine, UNIX, plus Web Objects and a number of existing NeXTStep apps and companies.
All this might be moot, however, if Be proves to be a much better video platform than OSX Client. (Isn't Avid dropping the Mac due to porting costs?) --
I believe Gasse *wanted* $400-$500 Million for Be, and Apple turned him down. NeXT was purchased for about the same amount.
(Considering at the time BeOS was just out of beta, and NeXTStep had been around for years and was considered pretty robust, Be's asking price was pretty high. Plus they got Steve Jobs.) --
Are you equally opposed to "Messaging software" and "Networking software"? (These words might have been around long enough to make it into your musty dictionary.) How about "modem pooling" and "bandwidth metering" and "video streaming"? Now, what was your problem with "calendaring" again?
You should get used to the fact that this is English, specifically the kind of English used in computer industry jargon. Nouns become verbs all of the time (and visa versa). --
i just watched several thousand users get "migrated" from groupwise/novell to MS outlook, and it was an unhappy day for open systems and the future ISV's
I don't know how moving from groupwise to exchange could be constructed as a loss for "open systems". They both seem equally closed.
Despite the fine long tradition of Unix/Internet "open standard" mail, 90% of corporations have historically run on closed systems such as ccMail, MS Mail, and so on. As these people get moved to modern systems like Notes and Outlook is just one proprietary system over another.
Don't go and assume that all IT managers who pick these proprietary solutions are braindead or getting Microsoft payola. The simple facts are:(A) Users demand calendaring (B) All decent Calendaring solutions are proprietary* (C) The company is going to go with a proprietary mail and calendaring solution.
An open, low cost mail/calendar program would sweep the market here. I hope some of the products mentioned here get out the door.
* I believe that Nescape submitted it's calendar protocol to the ITEF for standards consideration, but it's banged around in committee for a couple years with Lotus and MS that who knows what's happened to it.
Now we run into the Curse of Silicon Valley: the world's shittiest public transporation system.
Don't forget that transportation and land development policies go hand-in-hand. Some systems work (like BART), because they go to high density areas (like downtown SF). Others are fundementally broken (like CalTrain), because they go to sleepy places like Downtown Mountain View. (Mountain View has thousands of jobs, however only about 100 of them are in the downtown.) --
Eliminate zoning laws, and the price of corrugated steel will skyrocket. A severe shortage of refrigerator boxes would ensue.
You're thinking of building codes. I don't think there's any argument that USA building codes are broken.
Zoning laws specify what you can build where. They also specify how far your house has to be from the street, how many parking spots the local 7-11 has to provide, and what color you have to paint your factory. In someplaces Zoning makes it illegal to put a TV antenna on your roof or hang laundry up in your back yard.
(Note that I don't think eliminating zoning is a good idea. Severe reform, yes.) --
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the DSL 'modem' is actually a bridge, so I guess it's possible that NetBEUI packets could be sent out to the DSL subnet.
I asked my ISP (FirstWorld), and here's the answer I got: "Generally, anything bridged across will be stopped at the terminating end
as we only allow IP traffic from there." (I guess by terminating end, they mean the other end of the DSL line, so you're probably OK.)
--
Don't forget that 30% of 'the Internet' is on AOL - and AOL only uses IE.
Subtract the AOL user base (I wish we could), and it's more like 50/50. Once AOL starts using Mozilla, Netscape will have the markt lead.
(Despite this post, I think browser market share is one of the most stupid concepts of all time. Who cares about the market share of $0 products. The intention of both Netscape Nav and MSIE from the beginning was mearly free advertising and standards embrace+extend for Netscape's and MS's server products. Which is why the iPlanet brandname is so odd. Oh well...)
--
I don't know that having per-URL JavaScript and Cookie preferences is that "unreasonable". IE already has a limited version of this in it's security zones feature. (Unfortunately, you can't create new zones, so you are stuck with 'Internet' and 'Trusted Sites'.)
--
I looked around a bit at lotus.com and couldn't find it. You wouldn't still have a link?
--
This post should be moderated up.
The guy is right on - Microsoft is driving the hardware specs, and there's no way that Intel is going to release a platform that doesn't have MS backing. (Especially after the USB f-up, where they shipped hardware for a couple years without drivers.) The idea that Linux will ever have more hardware support than Windows (by next year!) on a commodity platform is silly.
These cut-down PC plans (PC99, EasyPC) might as well be called "WinPC". Dropping things like VGA text mode, BIOS support for non-PnP OSes, 'legacy' ports like serial and parallel, and forcing things like ACPI is bad news not only for Linux but also anyone who wants to run commercial OSes such as WinNT 4.0 or OS/2.
(In fact, the non-PnP Windows NT 4 is the *only* reason Microsoft isn't more aggressively pushing WinPCs rignt now. Once Windows 2000 is out, expect to see some very Linux unfriendly hardware. the Not that the Linux folks won't catch up, it just might take a while. And I fully expect the typical corporate purchasing department will try to save $100 and skip the 'OS-Independant' checkbox.)
--
All people who use MS-DUN (millions!) are giving their ISP username and password away to Microsoft every time.
Either you are joking, or you should give evidence that the MS PPP dialer sends your ISP password to Redmond.
--
The thread lives...
I'll give you #3, but I think you need to consider #2 a tie. MacOS 7 ran in a "Blue Box" on the old A/UX operating system, and doing this is the only realistic way for 99% compatibility with existing sofware.
As for Unix - 99% of Mac users shouldn't need to care. (They will care if they have to start editing config files! Fear.) The few Mac sysadmins I know are interested in a good server platform, because right now the predominate Mac file+print server is Windows NT.
I'll agree that BeOS would have been a great choice for MacOSX. It's definately closer in spirit to MacOS than NeXTStep. It didn't happen however, so Be will have to live on as it's on system. NeXTStep wasn't exactly alive in recent years, so maybe I'm just happy that it's back. (My biggest concern with Be is that I hold Gasse responsible for many of Apple's fuck-ups in the 80s. Let's just say that I'd take Jobs and his fuck-ups over Gasse's)
PS - WebObjects is an actual profitable product (an applicaiton server), not a buzzword.
--
Well, it's a Mac, so Samba doesn't figure in, but AppleShareIP volumes might.
I've haven't seen Mac networking in a loong time, but in the old days, AppleShare passwords were clear text over the wire unless you used an authentication plug-in. Best bet, however, would be to disable the AppleShare extension, or just make sure you are using AppleTalk rather than TCP/IP. (The DSL bridge will block all non-IP traffic, if I understand correctly.)
Likewise with NT (or Unix/Samba) - if you can't firewall, you probably want to at least disable the filesharing interface on the DSL side (unbind the WINS client in NT).
--
Relax, everyone knows that AOL ripped off IBM's innovative OS/2 SHIFT+INSERT technology, which failed only due to POOR IBM MARKETING!!!!
I'm sure Apple is somehow to blame too.
--
Oh, I believe abuses of power happen. That doesn't mean that IRS wouldn't have audited Paula Jones regardless.
--
Nixon was a paranoid nut.
Paula Jones was living off her 'legal fund' and other mysterious donations from republican interests.
Going from a government salary to unemployed to a bunch of strange income sources seems like a pretty ripe reason to come out on top of the audit computer's list.
--
Depends what you mean by a Linux Desktop. I've got Solaris 7 x86 installed as one of the 5 OSes on my machine. Occasionally I'll dink with it to to try to teach myself how to do something under Solaris.
Does that mean I have a Solaris desktop? I guess by your definiton it does - but by mine defintion, and by the defintion any company investigating the Solaris x86 market it certainly does not.
(At least I can get my work Notes Mail under Solaris x86, which is more than I can say about Linux. Which reminds me to try setting up wine one of these days.)
I don't know how Microsoft calculates it's marketshare, but a safe bet might be all non-server x86 PCs minus ~5-10%.
--
The Apple
In any case, it was only officially cancelled when Apple released a
--
. Oh, and we also sell way more Linux CDs Vs (Windows98 || Office) combined.
Color me unimpressed. Remember back in 1994 when OS/2 Warp was outselling Windows at retail? When all was said and done, those millions of OS/2 CDs translated into very few permanent OS/2 desktops and servers. I think we're seeing a similar phenomenon with retail Linux CDs.
Here's my theory on what's going on: There a huge base (probably millions) of low level techies and power users out there (think of the legions of Win95 desktop support people!) - people who just like dinking around with computers. The next gigantic Windows upgrade has been delayed for sometime, and there's no real joy in installing DirectX 9 or Service Pack 6. So people's hands start getting itchy and when they hear about this super cool new OS, they just have to go and install it.
But once they get through the Linux install, and surf around a bit with Netscape, and maybe install and run a game or two, interest is going to cool. Fighting with the Exchange or Notes e-mail system at work, too many damn Word documents, and slow graphic performance will eventually push many of these folks back to Windows. When Win2000 gets out the door, it will just be the next latest and greatest thing to fiddle with.
Note that this process is not bad for Linux in any way. People are getting their eyes opened to the free software culture and Unix. Some of the I'll-try-Linux crowd will end up as permanent Linux users (just as with OS/2). Many of these Win95 techies will eventually end up as server admins somewhere. They'll have knowledge of the alternatives and they'll be more open to non-Windows solutions. Plus, RedHat and SuSe get some quick cash to build up the software with.
Just don't make the mistake believing that x boxes of retail Linux sold ~= x Linux desktops. It's a mistake that many OS/2 supporters made, and when it really came down to the line, the user's weren't there for OS/2.
--
The Windows 2000b3 installer still partitions disk the old fashion way (DOS FDISK + NT blue screen installer to format).
(Having a Linux eqiv for Disk Mungler would be nice, though.)
--
Over the years, the UNIX/Unix/Free *nix community have been doing a great job at "sewing (sic) confusion in the minds of the public and IT management" all by themselves. They've never needed Microsoft's help before - why start now?
--
(tcp stacks in NT for example)
_ 9906_04/msg00173.html
There seems to be this urban legend in the Linux world that NT uses a BSD TCP/IP stack. Before this gets repeated so often that it's considered true, folks should read this note on Linux-Kernel:
http://kernelnotes.org/lnxlists/linux-kernel/lk
It's interesting that certain people (such as Alan Cox) didn't disagree with that statement.
(And even if MS and Sun and Apple and everyone else has a BSD TCP/IP stack and FTP program - who cares! If I understand correctly the BSD TCP/IP stack was developed by the US Dept of Defense and the University of California, NOT a group altruistic free software programmers. The intention behind using a BSD licence was to benefit commercial and government interests by promoting a standard networking platform. The project was successful. BSD TCP/IP was NOT as an attempt to liberate software from commercial interests.
Now if you are talking about FreeBSD SuperFoo99, I'd agree that it might be 'stolen' by commercial interests, but I don't think that applies to the long standing free TCP/IP code.)
--
I don't think PageMaker (or any other Adobe product) has really felt any competition from Microsoft. MS is aiming at the lowend graphics market with PhotoSomething2000, but I don't know if people who buy Photoshop for $600 are really in that market. And MS Publisher - I don't think that's taken seriously at all.
Some people have successfully competed with Microsoft in the Windows app market:
+ Lotus Notes outsells Exchange client licences. (chalk that up to a huge installed base going back 10+ years)
+ Anything by Adobe
+ CorelDraw
+ FileMaker for Windows has a steadly growing
base - at least it hasn't been crushed by Access like DBase and Paradox were.
+ Anything competing with MS J++
--
The question is: Would MacOS-nextgeneration be out by now if they had bought BeOS instead?
I don't think so... Here's what they would have needed to do in either case:
1) Port to PowerPC. Not necessary for BeOS, but apparently NeXT (just like everyone else) had done some work there in the early 90s.
2) Run the old MacOS in the "Blue Box" on top of the new OS. Probably has more to do with hooks in the MacOS itself than the new OS, so equal work for either.
3) Overhaul the look-and-feel of the BeOS, write a new "Finder" - I haven't used BeOS, so I don't know how close they already are, but lets assume equal work for either Be or Next.
4) Develop "Carbon", a transition API, for the established Mac software base. Again, probably equal work for either Be or Next.
So, even if they'd bought BeOS, I don't see MacOSX Client coming out any earlier. Plus, they wouldn't have the added extras that they got with NeXTStep - multiuser, postscript drawing engine, UNIX, plus Web Objects and a number of existing NeXTStep apps and companies.
All this might be moot, however, if Be proves to be a much better video platform than OSX Client. (Isn't Avid dropping the Mac due to porting costs?)
--
I believe Gasse *wanted* $400-$500 Million for Be, and Apple turned him down. NeXT was purchased for about the same amount.
(Considering at the time BeOS was just out of beta, and NeXTStep had been around for years and was considered pretty robust, Be's asking price was pretty high. Plus they got Steve Jobs.)
--
Are you equally opposed to "Messaging software" and "Networking software"? (These words might have been around long enough to make it into your musty dictionary.) How about "modem pooling" and "bandwidth metering" and "video streaming"? Now, what was your problem with "calendaring" again?
You should get used to the fact that this is English, specifically the kind of English used in computer industry jargon. Nouns become verbs all of the time (and visa versa).
--
i just watched several thousand users get "migrated" from groupwise/novell to MS outlook, and it was an unhappy day for open systems and the future ISV's
I don't know how moving from groupwise to exchange could be constructed as a loss for "open systems". They both seem equally closed.
Despite the fine long tradition of Unix/Internet "open standard" mail, 90% of corporations have historically run on closed systems such as ccMail, MS Mail, and so on. As these people get moved to modern systems like Notes and Outlook is just one proprietary system over another.
Don't go and assume that all IT managers who pick these proprietary solutions are braindead or getting Microsoft payola. The simple facts are:(A) Users demand calendaring
(B) All decent Calendaring solutions are proprietary*
(C) The company is going to go with a proprietary mail and calendaring solution.
An open, low cost mail/calendar program would sweep the market here. I hope some of the products mentioned here get out the door.
* I believe that Nescape submitted it's calendar protocol to the ITEF for standards consideration, but it's banged around in committee for a couple years with Lotus and MS that who knows what's happened to it.
--
Thank god for the Compaq Smart2 array driver support. I've got a few "outdated" Proliants just looking for something to run.
--
Now we run into the Curse of Silicon Valley: the world's shittiest public transporation system.
Don't forget that transportation and land development policies go hand-in-hand. Some systems work (like BART), because they go to high density areas (like downtown SF). Others are fundementally broken (like CalTrain), because they go to sleepy places like Downtown Mountain View. (Mountain View has thousands of jobs, however only about 100 of them are in the downtown.)
--
Eliminate zoning laws, and the price of corrugated steel will skyrocket. A severe shortage of refrigerator boxes would ensue.
You're thinking of building codes. I don't think there's any argument that USA building codes are broken.
Zoning laws specify what you can build where. They also specify how far your house has to be from the street, how many parking spots the local 7-11 has to provide, and what color you have to paint your factory. In someplaces Zoning makes it illegal to put a TV antenna on your roof or hang laundry up in your back yard.
(Note that I don't think eliminating zoning is a good idea. Severe reform, yes.)
--