TopView was a GUI? I thought it was just a task-switcher...?
(My experience was with DESQview, which allegedly picked up where TopView left off. I loved DESQview. Quarterdeck could hack.)
I've never used/seen/heard of TopView, so I can't really comment on its GUIness. I never used DESQview either (I wasn't more than six at the time) but I sure do remember my dad using it. IIRC, DESQview was a task-switcher, but also had some simple GUI functions built in. You could display more than one DOS box at once and move between them and copy text with a cursor controlled (I think) by the arrow keys (the cursor was activated by holding down the control key for a second or so I think which pissed my dad off to no extent). I also seem to recall DESQview being able to show along with two or three DOS boxes at the same time its own menus which combined with a cursor, seems to speak GUI.
IIRC, the only reason why Apple got rid of Display PostScript was due to PDF's emerging dominance as a graphical layout standard.
If
I RC, Apple didn't get rid of Display PostScript for OS X. PDF is a superset of PostScript and therefore Display PDF is simply an extention of Display PostScript minus royalties to Adobe.
Transmeta's Crusoe is for mobile applications right? When we think of mobile we usually think of portable right? What if Transmeta doesn't mean portable as in transportable (i.e. a laptop or palmtop) but portable as in "gcc has been ported to many different platforms"? "A whole new world of mobility" would then mean the processor itself is mobile as in not static. Mobile as in portable as in porting apps to itself on the fly. Would that then mean a Crusoe desktop is possible?
Also, Hemos was wrong about this case being more likely to be settled now.
Actually, every lawyer I've talked to (5 or 6 so far), has said that it greatly increases the chance of a settlement. While your logic is good, it doesn't hold. Microsoft's primary goal has been and will always be to get rid of the case (and risk breakup) as fast as possible. Now that Jackson has made it clear that it won't be fast if it stays in court, MS has no other option but to settle. Microsoft would gladly pay a fine (of almost any size, read 1-5 billion; who knows how big) or agree to "cease and desist" illegal practices rather than risk breakup if the appeals fail.
As I read it the ADA probably applies to computers/websites (Section 401). The ADA seems to require technology services (such as AOL or, say the New York Times) not to be available directly to the blind, but to be available to a "telecommunications relay service". Such a service might be a computer voice system but it need not be. A toll reader service would qualify and if IIRC, such services exist. Even the existence of braille displays should qualify. In conclusion, I don't think AOL is in violation of the ADA any more than a roadside billboard or a television nature show is.
"Notice that the animated GIFs do not come from Slashdot's servers themselves."
IIRC Slashdot uses Adfu, Rob's open source ad server. When Andover took over Adfu when they picked up Slashdot so Andover might still be liable. In other words, yes the ads are run on Slashdot servers so we should all contact Andover and ask them to burn the GIFs! Actually, we should talk to Rob, because he would probably still be in charge of Adfu itself and would be the one who'd have to rewrite the script.
Let's see... according to Microsoft's own Windows Version History, 1989 was Windows 2.11 time. This leads us to ask the question "If MS Windows was a nonentity before version 3.0, will Linux 3.0 be the death of Microsoft?"
No it can't support celeron (its slot2)... and it shouldn't. Anyone who needs 8-way proccessing (1)can afford the damn xeons and (2)would never stand for celerons. The point of the xeon is (1)big-ass cache and (2)error correcting/reliability. A celeron system (esp. overclocked) is nowhere near as reliable as a xeon and never will be (it's just not meant to serve). No, having the 8-way set be for xeon only is wise.
Re Rant 1: Right on. Moderation is a way to single out good comments for commendation and conversely, to single out bad comments for reprimand. It isn't censorship.
Re Rant 2: Right on. I use windows, linux, and even mac and while I like linux best, each has its own strong point. Windows is (right now) the best 3d gaming platform and Netscape's more stable on MS, linux is the most stable (of the three at lest; I've no experience with any *BSD) server platform and mac (I just bought my first mac, a classic II for $25) has shufflepuck cafe and the best version of tetris I've played.
Re Rant 3: Right on. While many geeks/nerds/academia/whatever may be quite left-wing, agnostic/aethist, white males (don't flame me for saying it, and yes, I am) there are far to many who aren't to make that assumption. You can't even assume that/. readers are linux users (I have two friends who read solely for the mac/beos news).
Re Rant 4: On, but not Right On. Microsoft doesn't matter to the future of linux but it does matter to the future of America and the rest of the world. They are getting powerful enough to influence foreign policy which is literally a life and death area.
Re Rant 5: On, but not Right On. I enjoy my job, I enjoy sleep (I'm a cross-country runner: try taking a nap after a 12 mile run through the mountains; it's damn fun) and I enjoy school (I'm a college freshman). I feel sorry for those people who don't like what they do, but I feel that I'm doing what I want to be doing for more hours a day than not.
Re Rant 6: Right on. I couldn't add to the eloquence of Rant 6.
This challenge to break into a LinuxPPC stock install (with nothing running) is NOT anallagous to Microsoft's challenge.
There is no way in hell that the W2K server MS is putting up for this challenge is stock installed. It's probably been tweaked by MS engineers over the past two weeks to lock out any possible attack.
When this server is cracked and theirs isn't, they will point to this as an example of W2k being more secure than Linux (which I doubt very much). This can't be allowed. Someone (maybe from Red Hat or from Debian or from *BSD) should take a week and secure one of thier servers and then let anyone go at it. Then we'll see whose server lasts longer.
Your challenge to break into a LinuxPPC stock install (with nothing running) is NOT anallagous to Microsoft's challenge.
There is no way in hell that the W2K server MS is putting up for this challenge is stock installed. It's probably been tweaked by MS engineers over the past two weeks to lock out any possible attack.
When your server is cracked and theirs isn't, they will point to this as an example of W2k being more secure than Linux (which I doubt very much). This can't be allowed. Someone (maybe from Red Hat or from Debian or from *BSD) should take a week and secure one of thier servers and then let anyone go at it. Then we'll see whose server lasts longer.
It's less of a philosophical choice. It's security. No one has yet created a GUI that is secure as, say NetBSD (without X). MS-Windows, Mac OS, BeOS and yes, even X... insecure. I don't know why, maybe someone does, but every mainstream GUI is full of holes.
The specs AOL released, the ones TiK is based on, are the specs for a protocol called TOC. The protocol that AIM uses is called OSCAR. TOC was the only spec that was ever released. Microsoft's client does not use TOC, it uses a hacked version of OSCAR.
The point is, MS is advertizing that AOL users need not sign up again and to just type their AOL user names and passwords. This is at the heart of AOL's complaint and ANYONE participating in this debate should read up on the FACTS before giving us their two cents.
But in this case, mistaken. Microsoft isn't wrong for apealing for open standards; they are wrong for: TRESPASSING on AOL's servers STEALING AOL's add dollars STEALING AOL users' passwords
Standards should be opened, and a big fine slapped on Microsoft for the burden put on AOL's servers by Microsoft users and for forcing AOL users to violate their Terms of Service with AOL by requiring AOL users to give their passwords to Microsoft.
Microsoft is, I think, trying to make us (the "Open Source Community (tm)") believe that we have to support them in their call for "Open Standards (tm)" because if we call for them in one area, (OS APIs etc.) we must call for them in all areas. They are trying to make us think that we need to be "consistent" in our argument to open standards.
What they don't understand is that we are too smart for that. And ESR has fallen right into their trap! We do not need to be consistent. Consistency is the mantra of the small-minded. We need to say to Microsoft that we can see right through them. We cannot be blinded by our own argument in one area to the obvious differences here. This is a matter of Microsoft trespassing on AOL's server space!
It is not "open-source" vs. "corporate bullying." It is Microsoft assuming that we are too stupid to see the difference. AND ESR HAS FALLEN FOR IT!
This is not a call for openness. This is not a call for standards. And AOL has one remedy that ESR totally forgot: the courts. AOL could probably get a restraining order against Microsoft for trespassing on AOL's servers.
Support AOL: We cannot allow ourselves to be blinded by our own argument. We must be able to see the difference OR WE WILL ALWAYS FAIL!
Slashdot Mirror
(My experience was with DESQview, which allegedly picked up where TopView left off. I loved DESQview. Quarterdeck could hack.)
I've never used/seen/heard of TopView, so I can't really comment on its GUIness. I never used DESQview either (I wasn't more than six at the time) but I sure do remember my dad using it. IIRC, DESQview was a task-switcher, but also had some simple GUI functions built in. You could display more than one DOS box at once and move between them and copy text with a cursor controlled (I think) by the arrow keys (the cursor was activated by holding down the control key for a second or so I think which pissed my dad off to no extent). I also seem to recall DESQview being able to show along with two or three DOS boxes at the same time its own menus which combined with a cursor, seems to speak GUI.
What was NextStep about?
NextStep = OS X
OS X is Apple's GUI on top of NextStep. Remember when Apple bought NEXT a few years back. They didn't reinvent the wheel. They own it.
I'm not sure how worried I'd be about the ads. That's not the point. Will we ever see another story about Penguin Computing?
Transmeta's Crusoe is for mobile applications right? When we think of mobile we usually think of portable right? What if Transmeta doesn't mean portable as in transportable (i.e. a laptop or palmtop) but portable as in "gcc has been ported to many different platforms"? "A whole new world of mobility" would then mean the processor itself is mobile as in not static. Mobile as in portable as in porting apps to itself on the fly. Would that then mean a Crusoe desktop is possible?
Just food for thought.
Also, Hemos was wrong about this case being more likely to be settled now.
Actually, every lawyer I've talked to (5 or 6 so far), has said that it greatly increases the chance of a settlement. While your logic is good, it doesn't hold. Microsoft's primary goal has been and will always be to get rid of the case (and risk breakup) as fast as possible. Now that Jackson has made it clear that it won't be fast if it stays in court, MS has no other option but to settle. Microsoft would gladly pay a fine (of almost any size, read 1-5 billion; who knows how big) or agree to "cease and desist" illegal practices rather than risk breakup if the appeals fail.
As I read it the ADA probably applies to computers/websites (Section 401). The ADA seems to require technology services (such as AOL or, say the New York Times) not to be available directly to the blind, but to be available to a "telecommunications relay service". Such a service might be a computer voice system but it need not be. A toll reader service would qualify and if IIRC, such services exist. Even the existence of braille displays should qualify. In conclusion, I don't think AOL is in violation of the ADA any more than a roadside billboard or a television nature show is.
"Notice that the animated GIFs do not come from Slashdot's servers themselves."
IIRC Slashdot uses Adfu, Rob's open source ad server. When Andover took over Adfu when they picked up Slashdot so Andover might still be liable. In other words, yes the ads are run on Slashdot servers so we should all contact Andover and ask them to burn the GIFs! Actually, we should talk to Rob, because he would probably still be in charge of Adfu itself and would be the one who'd have to rewrite the script.
Let's see... according to Microsoft's own Windows Version History, 1989 was Windows 2.11 time.
This leads us to ask the question "If MS Windows was a nonentity before version 3.0, will Linux 3.0 be the death of Microsoft?"
That Anakin kid (Jake Lloyd) as you said, pales next to the kid from the 6th Sense.
Or you could film it in italian and use the kid from My Life is Beautiful. He was amazing.
No it can't support celeron (its slot2)... and it shouldn't. Anyone who needs 8-way proccessing (1)can afford the damn xeons and (2)would never stand for celerons. The point of the xeon is (1)big-ass cache and (2)error correcting/reliability. A celeron system (esp. overclocked) is nowhere near as reliable as a xeon and never will be (it's just not meant to serve). No, having the 8-way set be for xeon only is wise.
I thought that one of the main reasons for the uclinux simm was for low power consumption. And USB fits in with low power where?
The 6/6/99 post was a repost! The original was on 4/7/99.
Not to be picky or anything, but this news goes way back .
probably meant 256k
Re Rant 1: Right on. Moderation is a way to single out good comments for commendation and conversely, to single out bad comments for reprimand. It isn't censorship.
/. readers are linux users (I have two friends who read solely for the mac/beos news).
Re Rant 2: Right on. I use windows, linux, and even mac and while I like linux best, each has its own strong point. Windows is (right now) the best 3d gaming platform and Netscape's more stable on MS, linux is the most stable (of the three at lest; I've no experience with any *BSD) server platform and mac (I just bought my first mac, a classic II for $25) has shufflepuck cafe and the best version of tetris I've played.
Re Rant 3: Right on. While many geeks/nerds/academia/whatever may be quite left-wing, agnostic/aethist, white males (don't flame me for saying it, and yes, I am) there are far to many who aren't to make that assumption. You can't even assume that
Re Rant 4: On, but not Right On. Microsoft doesn't matter to the future of linux but it does matter to the future of America and the rest of the world. They are getting powerful enough to influence foreign policy which is literally a life and death area.
Re Rant 5: On, but not Right On. I enjoy my job, I enjoy sleep (I'm a cross-country runner: try taking a nap after a 12 mile run through the mountains; it's damn fun) and I enjoy school (I'm a college freshman). I feel sorry for those people who don't like what they do, but I feel that I'm doing what I want to be doing for more hours a day than not.
Re Rant 6: Right on. I couldn't add to the eloquence of Rant 6.
...or at least we don't know the ending yet.
This challenge to break into a LinuxPPC stock install (with nothing running) is NOT anallagous to Microsoft's challenge.
There is no way in hell that the W2K server MS is putting up for this challenge is stock installed. It's probably been tweaked by MS engineers over the past two weeks to lock out any possible attack.
When this server is cracked and theirs isn't, they will point to this as an example of W2k being more secure than Linux (which I doubt very much). This can't be allowed. Someone (maybe from Red Hat or from Debian or from *BSD) should take a week and secure one of thier servers and then let anyone go at it. Then we'll see whose server lasts longer.
Your challenge to break into a LinuxPPC stock install (with nothing running) is NOT anallagous to Microsoft's challenge.
There is no way in hell that the W2K server MS is putting up for this challenge is stock installed. It's probably been tweaked by MS engineers over the past two weeks to lock out any possible attack.
When your server is cracked and theirs isn't, they will point to this as an example of W2k being more secure than Linux (which I doubt very much). This can't be allowed. Someone (maybe from Red Hat or from Debian or from *BSD) should take a week and secure one of thier servers and then let anyone go at it. Then we'll see whose server lasts longer.
It's less of a philosophical choice. It's security. No one has yet created a GUI that is secure as, say NetBSD (without X). MS-Windows, Mac OS, BeOS and yes, even X... insecure. I don't know why, maybe someone does, but every mainstream GUI is full of holes.
-A loyal X user
The specs AOL released, the ones TiK is based on, are the specs for a protocol called TOC. The protocol that AIM uses is called OSCAR. TOC was the only spec that was ever released. Microsoft's client does not use TOC, it uses a hacked version of OSCAR.
The point is, MS is advertizing that AOL users need not sign up again and to just type their AOL user names and passwords. This is at the heart of AOL's complaint and ANYONE participating in this debate should read up on the FACTS before giving us their two cents.
Nothing is all good or all bad... how true.
But in this case, mistaken. Microsoft isn't wrong for apealing for open standards; they are wrong for:
TRESPASSING on AOL's servers
STEALING AOL's add dollars
STEALING AOL users' passwords
Standards should be opened, and a big fine slapped on Microsoft for the burden put on AOL's servers by Microsoft users and for forcing AOL users to violate their Terms of Service with AOL by requiring AOL users to give their passwords to Microsoft.
Microsoft is, I think, trying to make us (the "Open Source Community (tm)") believe that we have to support them in their call for "Open Standards (tm)" because if we call for them in one area, (OS APIs etc.) we must call for them in all areas. They are trying to make us think that we need to be "consistent" in our argument to open standards.
What they don't understand is that we are too smart for that. And ESR has fallen right into their trap! We do not need to be consistent. Consistency is the mantra of the small-minded. We need to say to Microsoft that we can see right through them. We cannot be blinded by our own argument in one area to the obvious differences here. This is a matter of Microsoft trespassing on AOL's server space!
It is not "open-source" vs. "corporate bullying." It is Microsoft assuming that we are too stupid to see the difference. AND ESR HAS FALLEN FOR IT!
This is not a call for openness. This is not a call for standards. And AOL has one remedy that ESR totally forgot: the courts. AOL could probably get a restraining order against Microsoft for trespassing on AOL's servers.
Support AOL: We cannot allow ourselves to be blinded by our own argument. We must be able to see the difference OR WE WILL ALWAYS FAIL!
and now it hits 0