The clean ground-up rewrite was called "Taligent Pink" (or "WorkplaceOS" later on IIRC). And the GP is correct that Apple couldn't complete it, and OpenStep had a lot of legacy baggage that was apparent in early OS X releases.
On the contrary, Microsoft churns out new libraries at a frightening pace, it's just that nobody uses them.
Almost all of MS's libraries support XP and are distributed independently from the OS. MS generally does not use new programming libraries as an OS feature differentiation, DX10 being one of the obvious exceptions.
Apple actually brags about tying new programming libraries to OS X revisions on their product pages, which is strange. (Ooo, a database API, can't wait to upgrade)
WinXP for all intents and purposes was a rebadge of 2k with some additional eyecandy and a FEW interface changes.... if your 10 year old OS has everything that a modern app needs to support it, there's no reason to upgrade
The specific issue with Chrome is that W2K doesn't support IPv6. Admittedly that isn't important for most people, but it is an actual feature and not just eyecandy.
BTW, Chrome can be hacked to work on 2000 and it's a great browser for low-spec machines (i.e. most of the 2K installed base).
I have seen posts made, by people who obviously have never worked in IT, loudly proclaiming with absolute confidence that qmail can take over as a drop in replacement for Exchange, that a Linksys wrt54g can do everything that a Cisco 2600 can do (and better!), etc. The level of technical knowledge among users has been steadily dropping for years now. As people who really know their stuff leave, they are replaced by Joe Plumber who just installed Ubuntu and now considers himself a UNIX guru.
I dunno, I think that "hobbyist dabbler" quality has been around since the beginning of the site, and probably reflects Taco and the other guys who built it.
If anything the decline was because the *editors* aren't involved in IT, not the posters. So you get story selections skewed towards politics and tabloid drama. (As if anyone cared what a bunch of Unix nerds have to say about anything other than Unix.) Comment quality on technical topics in the realms of people's expertise tend to be much better.
Sun wants OpenSolaris to expand into the desktop market and perhaps they paid Toshiba enough and or Toshiba trusts Sun to support the OS more than other companies.
Desktop market, hahah.
More likely these will be marketed as mobile workstations to the same small group of high-end users that keep Sun workstation business alive: Developers, CAD, GIS, and other traditional workstation apps.
Saying the open source business model is broken is like saying open source doesn't work as a cheese sauce. It also isn't a very effective screw driver. On the other hand, I have yet to hear a business model you can dance to.
Actually if you recall back to the formation of OSI and the creation of the psuedo-trademark "Open Source", it was very much intended to be a business-friendly software development model.
It was only later when the term was conflated with "free software" to become more of a generic descriptor of the software itself rather than the process behind it.
The legal bullshit surrounding Apple v Microsoft was actually one of the reasons MIT designed X11 around "mechanism not policy".
Of course there was also engineering reasons for that, but it protected MIT from any lawsuit because X11 by itself did little to impersonate a Macintosh. Apple would have to go after DEC or other X GUI implementers.
In other words, exactly how IE4 eliminated Netscape in the first browser war. By burying them in the W3C.
I think what people overlook is that the standards process favors the "big guy" over the "little guy" -- assuming the big guy is paying attention. It will take some time for Microsoft to catch up, but it's a real possibility that they could they could pull ahead of Mozilla/Webkit/Opera within a couple years.
Apple were evil because they claimed they owned fundamental GUI concepts through copyright. They threatened to sue the entire industry to prevent any other computer from having a "WIMP" (windows icons mouse pointer) interface.
Microsoft didn't break the agreement. In fact, the courts found that Apple signed away certain IP rights to Microsoft in return for what turned out to be killer apps for the Mac Platform (Word & Excel). Therefore Microsoft won the case -- with some minor exceptions like the Trash Can.
Later on another court case (Lotus v Borland) ruled that "Look and Feel" couldn't be copyrighted, making the whole Apple legal effort irrelevant, and opening the way for other companies to make Mac-like GUI interfaces.
Could I have one, only one, example of "2.0 website" that could not have existed without the DMCA ? Because I have a bunch of examples of websites that could not exist because of it.
Slashdot.org?
They have removed Scientology-related comments under the DMCA safe harbor provisions, and that's an organization famous for suing people into the ground.
NuBus really wasn't much if any better than EISA or MCA, just slightly older.
Plus the cost issues with NuBus caused Apple to spawn a dozen different model-specific "PDS" slots. NuBus slots were only available on the higher end Macs.
FYI There's a registry setting which causes the UAC prompt to appear in the current window station. That should prevent your gray screen & remote problem.
Well displaying the file path just moves the goalposts so that the malware author has to pick a plausible-sounding directory or use unprintable characters or unicode.
The reality probably is that by the time the average user is answering that prompt, they've already been social-engineered.
Slashdot Mirror
The clean ground-up rewrite was called "Taligent Pink" (or "WorkplaceOS" later on IIRC). And the GP is correct that Apple couldn't complete it, and OpenStep had a lot of legacy baggage that was apparent in early OS X releases.
On the contrary, Microsoft churns out new libraries at a frightening pace, it's just that nobody uses them.
Almost all of MS's libraries support XP and are distributed independently from the OS. MS generally does not use new programming libraries as an OS feature differentiation, DX10 being one of the obvious exceptions.
Apple actually brags about tying new programming libraries to OS X revisions on their product pages, which is strange. (Ooo, a database API, can't wait to upgrade)
WinXP for all intents and purposes was a rebadge of 2k with some additional eyecandy and a FEW interface changes. ...
if your 10 year old OS has everything that a modern app needs to support it, there's no reason to upgrade
The specific issue with Chrome is that W2K doesn't support IPv6. Admittedly that isn't important for most people, but it is an actual feature and not just eyecandy.
BTW, Chrome can be hacked to work on 2000 and it's a great browser for low-spec machines (i.e. most of the 2K installed base).
I have seen posts made, by people who obviously have never worked in IT, loudly proclaiming with absolute confidence that qmail can take over as a drop in replacement for Exchange, that a Linksys wrt54g can do everything that a Cisco 2600 can do (and better!), etc. The level of technical knowledge among users has been steadily dropping for years now. As people who really know their stuff leave, they are replaced by Joe Plumber who just installed Ubuntu and now considers himself a UNIX guru.
I dunno, I think that "hobbyist dabbler" quality has been around since the beginning of the site, and probably reflects Taco and the other guys who built it.
If anything the decline was because the *editors* aren't involved in IT, not the posters. So you get story selections skewed towards politics and tabloid drama. (As if anyone cared what a bunch of Unix nerds have to say about anything other than Unix.) Comment quality on technical topics in the realms of people's expertise tend to be much better.
Sun wants OpenSolaris to expand into the desktop market and perhaps they paid Toshiba enough and or Toshiba trusts Sun to support the OS more than other companies.
Desktop market, hahah.
More likely these will be marketed as mobile workstations to the same small group of high-end users that keep Sun workstation business alive: Developers, CAD, GIS, and other traditional workstation apps.
Saying the open source business model is broken is like saying open source doesn't work as a cheese sauce. It also isn't a very effective screw driver. On the other hand, I have yet to hear a business model you can dance to.
Actually if you recall back to the formation of OSI and the creation of the psuedo-trademark "Open Source", it was very much intended to be a business-friendly software development model.
It was only later when the term was conflated with "free software" to become more of a generic descriptor of the software itself rather than the process behind it.
Except Browser B doesn't exist. Every single popular browser offers some form of Browser A.
So I imagine Google can get Chrome on systems, if they are willing to pay
Which they are. OEMS have been preloading Google Toolbar and Google Desktop for some time now.
MS eventually threw seven figures at Spyglass, so the investors probably made out OK in the end.
(Mosaic at the time didn't even do things like tables, so they weren't going anywhere.)
Also you seem confused about what happened. Apple lost the lawsuit and Microsoft won.
The legal bullshit surrounding Apple v Microsoft was actually one of the reasons MIT designed X11 around "mechanism not policy".
Of course there was also engineering reasons for that, but it protected MIT from any lawsuit because X11 by itself did little to impersonate a Macintosh. Apple would have to go after DEC or other X GUI implementers.
In other words, exactly how IE4 eliminated Netscape in the first browser war. By burying them in the W3C.
I think what people overlook is that the standards process favors the "big guy" over the "little guy" -- assuming the big guy is paying attention. It will take some time for Microsoft to catch up, but it's a real possibility that they could they could pull ahead of Mozilla/Webkit/Opera within a couple years.
They could. But what they would actually do was only include the spyware-laden shit-browser that someone paid them to include.
Apple were evil because they claimed they owned fundamental GUI concepts through copyright. They threatened to sue the entire industry to prevent any other computer from having a "WIMP" (windows icons mouse pointer) interface.
Microsoft didn't break the agreement. In fact, the courts found that Apple signed away certain IP rights to Microsoft in return for what turned out to be killer apps for the Mac Platform (Word & Excel). Therefore Microsoft won the case -- with some minor exceptions like the Trash Can.
Later on another court case (Lotus v Borland) ruled that "Look and Feel" couldn't be copyrighted, making the whole Apple legal effort irrelevant, and opening the way for other companies to make Mac-like GUI interfaces.
No. The "real" reason is that it was a long running show for children and nobody gave a shit.
Other franchises like Star Trek and Star Wars have continuity departments and even they can't get it right 100% of the time.
Terrible disk access, terrible VM, thunks into 16-bit code all the time, and can't see anything over 512MB RAM
It was pretty snappy on a 64MB system though.
Could I have one, only one, example of "2.0 website" that could not have existed without the DMCA ? Because I have a bunch of examples of websites that could not exist because of it.
Slashdot.org?
They have removed Scientology-related comments under the DMCA safe harbor provisions, and that's an organization famous for suing people into the ground.
Yes, and Firewire didn't ship until 1999.
When FireWire came out, it was significantly better than SCSI, and for the longest time, USB was much, much worse than FireWire.
Um, no. SCSI was a good deal faster than Firewire.
Maybe you're talking about the legacy 25-pin SCSI-1 port found on the backs of older Macs.
IIRC is because the powerbutton found on older Apple keyboards is not USB spec.
NuBus really wasn't much if any better than EISA or MCA, just slightly older.
Plus the cost issues with NuBus caused Apple to spawn a dozen different model-specific "PDS" slots. NuBus slots were only available on the higher end Macs.
Pro audio interfaces. Perhaps some high end scanners.
However that might be a chicken/egg issue with Apple's expansion port strategy.
Apple's default file permissions are considerably more loose than on a typical Unix system, probably for exactly this reason.
For example, adding a program for "all users" probably should require an elevation prompt, but OS X allows it.
FYI There's a registry setting which causes the UAC prompt to appear in the current window station. That should prevent your gray screen & remote problem.
Well displaying the file path just moves the goalposts so that the malware author has to pick a plausible-sounding directory or use unprintable characters or unicode.
The reality probably is that by the time the average user is answering that prompt, they've already been social-engineered.