What is the point of that? The internet is the computer these days. Any kid who grows up with a computer is going to be able to use applications and have a pretty good grasp on what's going on. That much is pretty much a given. The internet is too valuable as a resource to deny it them. SO what if they chat and have a Myspace? Why should that stop them from really learning how computers and the internet works if they are genuinely interested?
So what if they get the computer loaded with spyware? It is just a computer. Make them clean it up. They'll learn how to keep it clean. No point in sheltering them. It isn't like they can't just reinstall the operating system if things get hairy. It isn't like putting htem behind the wheel of a car.
Sounds to me like you are trying to force kids into whatever learning sequence you grew up with. I'll tell you what, I only WISH I had something like the internet available to me 20 years ago when I was getting started with computers. Instead, I got "stuck" doing really brain dead BASIC programs with no source of fresh ideas and information... just some BASIC reference manual.
Really? There has been quite a bit of improvement in environmental regulation in the US over the last 100 years. Better emissions standards, better fuel economy, etc. Don't you think this has something to do with environmental activism over the years? Without people speaking out to say "hey! this water/air is disgusting," how do you think anything gets done about it? No, it isn't perfect. We've got a ways to go yet, but I like to think that ecological environmentalism (both implicit and explict) have had an effect. You simply cannot credit the "free market" for it. Corporate interests have fought most major improvements all the way.
"Conservative" is a relative term, really. It more or less just means "against drastic change" or "maintain tradition." It is relative to what the particular tradition is. For example, if it is the "American Way" to damage the environment in search of profits and jobs (and in many ways it is) then such would be a conservative value. Profit takes priority over the environment. Also, you have to specify the type of conservative we're talking about. Social? Fiscal? Both? Other? A social conservative would be very much against liberty if it means violating some traditional, usually religious, value.
You have to be more clear about what this "true" conservative is that you have in mind. Because I can think of many, often condradictory, views that could all be classified as conservative.
So, what kind of "hugger" does that make me now? An patent-free tree hugger? I just want to know what it is before conservatives start thowing it my way.
If XUL were really so limited, a little known application called Firefox, which is coded entirly in XUL & Javascript, could not exist
And this is the problem. With XUL, you're entirely limited to whatever the Mozilla developers found necessary to build a web browser/mail client. Don't get me wrong, XUL has a hell of a lot more rich GUI power than HTML, but it doesn't quite have the robustness of other application development platforms. If I were teh XULRunner team, I would be looking to ditch Javascript altogether and use something like Perl, Python, or Ruby to drive the XUL interfaces. Something with a little more client-side power. But I guess that would pretty much defeat the point.
I am also looking for a way to 'run' xul components without doing a full build, a,
Why can't you edit the installed plugin directly and just restart the browser to test changes? When i was writing my XUL plugin, I just used Mozilla to test and kept firefox running for actual web browsing?
XPCOM brings other challenges. It is a native library of services/components that can be accessed from javascript (or possibly other scripts) and that extend the functionality of the script to include things like file management, access to preference storage, window manipulation, etc. But you can't just run a compiler to see if you are doing everything correctly, you will only get errors in runtime.
Welcome to the world of developing with scripted languages.
Maybe there needs to be a unit-testing framework created, that can help running unit tests on portions of the code without building the entire application and catching unit errors during execution of the entire application. Yes, actually, to think about it this could be a big help, especially for the new developers, who can be put off this entire platform because of lack of these tools.
Writing unit tests (and keeping them up to date) is pretty tedious work. Doesn't really offset the pain of having to run the application to find syntax errors. But still, a unit testing framework would be useful for other reasons.
I should have a look at it someday, it might be an interesting platform for writing mediumly complex GUI applications. How is the development tool environment though? Whilst I like a terminal and build scripts, not everyone does, and mass uptake would be restricted greatly if there was no Eclipse/etc plugin.
You don't build it it. It is all Javascript and XML. So whatever tools you would use for that. What's an Eclipse plugin going to give you beyond syntax highlighting? What more would you need? I hardly see this as a hurdle.
I should have a look at it someday, it might be an interesting platform for writing mediumly complex GUI applications. How is the development tool environment though? Whilst I like a terminal and build scripts, not everyone does, and mass uptake would be restricted greatly if there was no Eclipse/etc plugin.
It doesn't compare, really. As it is uses Javascript, you are severely limited in the class libraries available to you. To do anything really useful (manipulating external data, for example) you kinda have to interface with a server using XMLHTTPRequest or something.
No doubt, larger routers are expensive. Few thousand $ for a Cisco 7500, used. That'll route DS3s, at least. But it certainly isn't out of reach for smaller ISPs or even a determined individual. But in a backboneless internet, how large would an individual's pipes be? Theoretically, you wouldn't need huge routers or pipes. Just a lot of smaller ones.
One significant problem of this "backboneless" internet s the number of hops you'd ned to go long distances. A bunch of small peers are not going to have long distance runs. What you'll likely end up with is everyone trying to cram most of their traffic through the few long haul lines to get the lowest latency. This is what the Tier 1's are good for.
Routing table size isn't really that big of a problem. A router with 512MB of RAM is more than sufficient to hold a full itnernet route table (with supernetting). With optimized algorithms and more available CPU power, I don't see it reaching a critical point. IPv6 makes the problem worse as much as it solves it. A 32bit address space is relativly simple to process...
I've personally configured routers to manage full routing tables just for a few T1s. Of course, they weren't actually passing traffic between the T1's. The full routes were only there to balance the load over the connections. The point is that full internet routes are not out of reach for small organizations (or individuals, I suppose) who wish to do it. It just comes down to the cost of the pipes and the technical knowhow to manage it.
Do browsers check revocation lists? I didn't think so. Without reference to a revocation list, there is no way to tell if a cert has been revoked. It is either signed by a recognized authority or it isn't.
With "Web 2.0" applications, you could be running an application from your "desktop server", from your company's server, or even from a public server. It doesn't matter! Your application will still work.
Well, any company with decent desktop management already runs the PC desktop and applicaitons off of a server and none would be dumb enough to depend on the internet for application functionality.
With "Web 2.0", your data could be stored locally, remotely, or even both. It is even possible for a remote server to "update" your local instance of your application when you decide to work locally. When you switch to your local desktop server, you still have the same up to date application you had on the Web.
Again, done by many larger organizations.
With "Web 2.0", you're not tied down to a particular piece of hardware or even a single platform. You could be using your Windows XP desktop at work, switch to your laptop on the train ride home, switch to your Mac at home, and when you go off on your well deserved ski vacation, switch to your handheld Linux powered PDA. Each and every device would have access to all the applications and data you need. There's no difference between one piece of hardware vs. another.
Why are you accessing your "data" on vacation, anyway?
You really have high hopes for "Web 2.0." As far as I can tell, you're talking about Web 7.0. 2.0 is nowhere near doing anything like you talk about and most of it is already accomplished by real desktop management applications.
Corporations are no longer have to preload their desktop machines with the applications their workers need.
It's called Norton Ghost. Keep a standard machine image and you have a working desktop in 5 minutes.
They're not tied down to a particular platform.
What company wants to manage more than one platform?
No more waiting for that MSCE to show up in order to install that application you need.
A worker's environment is usually more stable than this. New applicaitons don't just pop up out of nowhere.
Heck, if a meteor came flying through the window and smashed your desktop PC, you could get on another one and not miss a lick of work. You'll still have the same desktop and the same applications.
Again, Ghost plus server based desktop/home dir.
The last time my PC died at work, it took me two weeks to get back up and running.
And you trust incompetent fools like your network admins to implement some Web 7.0 solution that doesn't even exist yet? They apparently haven't even grasped the most basic existing desktop managment techniques/tools. Or do you just plan on outsourcing all of your IT needs to Google?
When an application is updated, everyone at your company has the latest copy. You don't have to install it on tens of thousands PCs. Desktop support is much simpler. You don't have to worry whether someone has the same version of your appliction (or even if they have your application).
I agree that this is on advantage of web based applications. But it is much more appropriate for internally developed applications than for general purpose off the shelf applications though. And even then, you have to use the right tool for the job. Some application just don't map well to a web brower... no matter how frieking awesome web 2.0 might be. In other words, the idea of using "web 2.0" for things like word processing is just stupid. Yes, stupid. Not questionable. Not debatable. Just stupid.
That's why everyone is so excited by "Web 2.0".
I though it was because everyone is a slave to hype.
Unfortunately, I don't believe AJAX is going to be the way to go. (Of course, what do I know? I thought Windows 95 would be a flop.) Ajax is too iffy. JavaScript is not the "universal" language we all think it is. Every browser on every hardware platform implements it a bit differently. Its even worse than Sun's "write once, run everywhere" JVM pl
1) Very Mozilla centric 2) Not very well polished. This goes along with 1). Mozilla develoopers have only developed XUL as far as Mozilla/Firefox interface required. Although I imagine that widespread applicaiton development woudl solve this.
That said, I have written an XUL application (which uses AJAX to comunicate with a server for data) and it was pretty good. A lot more "desktop-like" than any HTML solution. It actually has real widgets rather than the CSS/JS hacks you see for HTML. Plus a real box-model layout system.
Well, almost everyone so far has had interestings beginnings. Although I knew kids with cool systems like C-64's and Trash-80's, I started out on my dad's Zenith 4.77 Mhz 8088 "portable" computer. I put "portable" quotes because it was only portable in the sense that a suitcase full of lead bricks is portable. It had a handle. The CRT was built in.The keyboard and floppy drives folded up into the computer, but it was not very easy to carry around.
I did my share of BASIC programming and I wasted countless hours playing Rogue (where the term "rogue-like" came from). I did have to share it with my dad, however. It wasn't until a couple years later that I got an IBM PC XT of my own. Fortunately he let me have his 10 MB hard card (harddrive on an 8 bit expansion card) when he upgraded to a 40MB version. Yay! No more swapping out floppies!
Think of yourself as a multitasking operating system. The first thing you want to do is prioritize I/O bound processes. Make all your phone calls and read/send all your email first. While the harddrive (aka much slower coworkers) are busy processing your requests, get some real work done (aka CPU bound processing). Mask your interupts if you have to. After you've spent at least an hour or data from I/O is required, unmask interupts and process some of that data. Process any emails or phone calls and then get back to work. Rinse and repeat...
I've had to debug hideous code because developers decided to make use of a technology just to boost their CVs.
I don't think this is the type of programmer that the parent was referring to. Doing something because it is interesting and doing something to boost your CV are two different motivations.
Back in the early days of the internet,.MOD files and the whole Fasttracker scene was at it's peak. With a.MOD file, when you distribute your music you distribute all of the samples used to make the music and the charts itself. Anyone out on the internet could then edit or improve your music. A lot of the music I wrote early on was based on the works of others.
For as much as I loved.MODs (and.S3M,.669, etc) back in the day, it really is a rather limited form of music. Or rather, it is just one form of music. Musicians of all types DO base their work on the works of others. That is how you get genres of music. Musicians don't need the "source" for music to base new music off of it.
What made.MODs and all that so special is not the openness of it, but that it made musical expression more available to amateurs. No expensive instruments or MIDI equipment needed. Just a home PC. Anyone could throw together some tracks and have it sound better than the cheesy FM synth built into sound cards back then.
The amazing thing about iTunes is it's ability to make.99 per song, not really the search capabilities. Most of the time, I can't find the song I want on iTunes, unless it's some pop bullsh*t.
Well, it wouldn't be "pop" if they couldn't get at least.99 per song.;)
Double? I doubt it. Certainly there is more work in building and testing two parallel versions of a product, but a developer could easily split its current testing and test half of PPC and half on x86. It isn't like it is a Windows version and a Mac version of hte same product. No need to double efforts if 90% of the bugs are going to be GUI and not platform bugs. As far as data files working on both platforms... don't most software developers have to worry about that anyway? I mean, what good is a Word doc, for example, that only works on Mac PPC?:-P
Considering that the underlying OS is now BSD and not NeXT, this is rather moot. There isn't a whole lot of NExTStep left in OS X. AFAIK, Apple mostly took high level API (Obj-C) stuff. The (micro)kernel and all the really hardware dependent stuff is written in C. It isn't the NeXT roots that make OS X easy to port to x86. It is the Mach microkernel. And even if they didn't use a microkernel, Linux is evidence that porting an OS doesn't have to be that hard.
The real arch lock-in comes from the commercial apps that need to be recompiled and tested on the new processor. Even Windows ran on multiple architectures. Application availability was always the issue.
There is something insidious about this kind of willingness to sell off one's life like this. It reminds of people who take money to be walking billboards for some product. Or people who take money to "advertise" certain products and services to their friends. It is disgusting, actually. And I sincerely hope that it doesn't become too much more commonplace in the future.
You assume that one solar panel kit is going to last 200,000 miles (or anywhere near that) without needing replacement. I don't know how much you drive, but it would take me 10 years to put that much on a car.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the point of that? The internet is the computer these days. Any kid who grows up with a computer is going to be able to use applications and have a pretty good grasp on what's going on. That much is pretty much a given. The internet is too valuable as a resource to deny it them. SO what if they chat and have a Myspace? Why should that stop them from really learning how computers and the internet works if they are genuinely interested?
So what if they get the computer loaded with spyware? It is just a computer. Make them clean it up. They'll learn how to keep it clean. No point in sheltering them. It isn't like they can't just reinstall the operating system if things get hairy. It isn't like putting htem behind the wheel of a car.
Sounds to me like you are trying to force kids into whatever learning sequence you grew up with. I'll tell you what, I only WISH I had something like the internet available to me 20 years ago when I was getting started with computers. Instead, I got "stuck" doing really brain dead BASIC programs with no source of fresh ideas and information... just some BASIC reference manual.
-matthew
Really? There has been quite a bit of improvement in environmental regulation in the US over the last 100 years. Better emissions standards, better fuel economy, etc. Don't you think this has something to do with environmental activism over the years? Without people speaking out to say "hey! this water/air is disgusting," how do you think anything gets done about it? No, it isn't perfect. We've got a ways to go yet, but I like to think that ecological environmentalism (both implicit and explict) have had an effect. You simply cannot credit the "free market" for it. Corporate interests have fought most major improvements all the way.
-matthew
Good one.
Do I get credited with an "assist" for that humor touch down?
-matthew
"Conservative" is a relative term, really. It more or less just means "against drastic change" or "maintain tradition." It is relative to what the particular tradition is. For example, if it is the "American Way" to damage the environment in search of profits and jobs (and in many ways it is) then such would be a conservative value. Profit takes priority over the environment. Also, you have to specify the type of conservative we're talking about. Social? Fiscal? Both? Other? A social conservative would be very much against liberty if it means violating some traditional, usually religious, value.
You have to be more clear about what this "true" conservative is that you have in mind. Because I can think of many, often condradictory, views that could all be classified as conservative.
-matthew
So, what kind of "hugger" does that make me now? An patent-free tree hugger? I just want to know what it is before conservatives start thowing it my way.
-matthew
If XUL were really so limited, a little known application called Firefox, which is coded entirly in XUL & Javascript, could not exist
And this is the problem. With XUL, you're entirely limited to whatever the Mozilla developers found necessary to build a web browser/mail client. Don't get me wrong, XUL has a hell of a lot more rich GUI power than HTML, but it doesn't quite have the robustness of other application development platforms. If I were teh XULRunner team, I would be looking to ditch Javascript altogether and use something like Perl, Python, or Ruby to drive the XUL interfaces. Something with a little more client-side power. But I guess that would pretty much defeat the point.
-matthew
I am also looking for a way to 'run' xul components without doing a full build, a,
Why can't you edit the installed plugin directly and just restart the browser to test changes? When i was writing my XUL plugin, I just used Mozilla to test and kept firefox running for actual web browsing?
XPCOM brings other challenges. It is a native library of services/components that can be accessed from javascript (or possibly other scripts) and that extend the functionality of the script to include things like file management, access to preference storage, window manipulation, etc. But you can't just run a compiler to see if you are doing everything correctly, you will only get errors in runtime.
Welcome to the world of developing with scripted languages.
Maybe there needs to be a unit-testing framework created, that can help running unit tests on portions of the code without building the entire application and catching unit errors during execution of the entire application. Yes, actually, to think about it this could be a big help, especially for the new developers, who can be put off this entire platform because of lack of these tools.
Writing unit tests (and keeping them up to date) is pretty tedious work. Doesn't really offset the pain of having to run the application to find syntax errors. But still, a unit testing framework would be useful for other reasons.
-matthew
I should have a look at it someday, it might be an interesting platform for writing mediumly complex GUI applications. How is the development tool environment though? Whilst I like a terminal and build scripts, not everyone does, and mass uptake would be restricted greatly if there was no Eclipse/etc plugin.
You don't build it it. It is all Javascript and XML. So whatever tools you would use for that. What's an Eclipse plugin going to give you beyond syntax highlighting? What more would you need? I hardly see this as a hurdle.
I should have a look at it someday, it might be an interesting platform for writing mediumly complex GUI applications. How is the development tool environment though? Whilst I like a terminal and build scripts, not everyone does, and mass uptake would be restricted greatly if there was no Eclipse/etc plugin.
It doesn't compare, really. As it is uses Javascript, you are severely limited in the class libraries available to you. To do anything really useful (manipulating external data, for example) you kinda have to interface with a server using XMLHTTPRequest or something.
-matthew
No doubt, larger routers are expensive. Few thousand $ for a Cisco 7500, used. That'll route DS3s, at least. But it certainly isn't out of reach for smaller ISPs or even a determined individual. But in a backboneless internet, how large would an individual's pipes be? Theoretically, you wouldn't need huge routers or pipes. Just a lot of smaller ones.
One significant problem of this "backboneless" internet s the number of hops you'd ned to go long distances. A bunch of small peers are not going to have long distance runs. What you'll likely end up with is everyone trying to cram most of their traffic through the few long haul lines to get the lowest latency. This is what the Tier 1's are good for.
-matthew
Sorry, that was worded poorly. I meant the constitution is not there to uphold or endorse one's personal religious beliefs.
-matthew
Routing table size isn't really that big of a problem. A router with 512MB of RAM is more than sufficient to hold a full itnernet route table (with supernetting). With optimized algorithms and more available CPU power, I don't see it reaching a critical point. IPv6 makes the problem worse as much as it solves it. A 32bit address space is relativly simple to process...
I've personally configured routers to manage full routing tables just for a few T1s. Of course, they weren't actually passing traffic between the T1's. The full routes were only there to balance the load over the connections. The point is that full internet routes are not out of reach for small organizations (or individuals, I suppose) who wish to do it. It just comes down to the cost of the pipes and the technical knowhow to manage it.
-matthew
Likewise, the Republicans need to learn that the constitution is there to protect speech, not one's personal religious beliefs.
-matthew
Do browsers check revocation lists? I didn't think so. Without reference to a revocation list, there is no way to tell if a cert has been revoked. It is either signed by a recognized authority or it isn't.
-matthew
With "Web 2.0" applications, you could be running an application from your "desktop server", from your company's server, or even from a public server. It doesn't matter! Your application will still work.
Well, any company with decent desktop management already runs the PC desktop and applicaitons off of a server and none would be dumb enough to depend on the internet for application functionality.
With "Web 2.0", your data could be stored locally, remotely, or even both. It is even possible for a remote server to "update" your local instance of your application when you decide to work locally. When you switch to your local desktop server, you still have the same up to date application you had on the Web.
Again, done by many larger organizations.
With "Web 2.0", you're not tied down to a particular piece of hardware or even a single platform. You could be using your Windows XP desktop at work, switch to your laptop on the train ride home, switch to your Mac at home, and when you go off on your well deserved ski vacation, switch to your handheld Linux powered PDA. Each and every device would have access to all the applications and data you need. There's no difference between one piece of hardware vs. another.
Why are you accessing your "data" on vacation, anyway?
You really have high hopes for "Web 2.0." As far as I can tell, you're talking about Web 7.0. 2.0 is nowhere near doing anything like you talk about and most of it is already accomplished by real desktop management applications.
Corporations are no longer have to preload their desktop machines with the applications their workers need.
It's called Norton Ghost. Keep a standard machine image and you have a working desktop in 5 minutes.
They're not tied down to a particular platform.
What company wants to manage more than one platform?
No more waiting for that MSCE to show up in order to install that application you need.
A worker's environment is usually more stable than this. New applicaitons don't just pop up out of nowhere.
Heck, if a meteor came flying through the window and smashed your desktop PC, you could get on another one and not miss a lick of work. You'll still have the same desktop and the same applications.
Again, Ghost plus server based desktop/home dir.
The last time my PC died at work, it took me two weeks to get back up and running.
And you trust incompetent fools like your network admins to implement some Web 7.0 solution that doesn't even exist yet? They apparently haven't even grasped the most basic existing desktop managment techniques/tools. Or do you just plan on outsourcing all of your IT needs to Google?
When an application is updated, everyone at your company has the latest copy. You don't have to install it on tens of thousands PCs. Desktop support is much simpler. You don't have to worry whether someone has the same version of your appliction (or even if they have your application).
I agree that this is on advantage of web based applications. But it is much more appropriate for internally developed applications than for general purpose off the shelf applications though. And even then, you have to use the right tool for the job. Some application just don't map well to a web brower... no matter how frieking awesome web 2.0 might be. In other words, the idea of using "web 2.0" for things like word processing is just stupid. Yes, stupid. Not questionable. Not debatable. Just stupid.
That's why everyone is so excited by "Web 2.0".
I though it was because everyone is a slave to hype.
Unfortunately, I don't believe AJAX is going to be the way to go. (Of course, what do I know? I thought Windows 95 would be a flop.) Ajax is too iffy. JavaScript is not the "universal" language we all think it is. Every browser on every hardware platform implements it a bit differently. Its even worse than Sun's "write once, run everywhere" JVM pl
A couple issues with XUL:
1) Very Mozilla centric
2) Not very well polished. This goes along with 1). Mozilla develoopers have only developed XUL as far as Mozilla/Firefox interface required. Although I imagine that widespread applicaiton development woudl solve this.
That said, I have written an XUL application (which uses AJAX to comunicate with a server for data) and it was pretty good. A lot more "desktop-like" than any HTML solution. It actually has real widgets rather than the CSS/JS hacks you see for HTML. Plus a real box-model layout system.
-matthew
Well, almost everyone so far has had interestings beginnings. Although I knew kids with cool systems like C-64's and Trash-80's, I started out on my dad's Zenith 4.77 Mhz 8088 "portable" computer. I put "portable" quotes because it was only portable in the sense that a suitcase full of lead bricks is portable. It had a handle. The CRT was built in.The keyboard and floppy drives folded up into the computer, but it was not very easy to carry around.
I did my share of BASIC programming and I wasted countless hours playing Rogue (where the term "rogue-like" came from). I did have to share it with my dad, however. It wasn't until a couple years later that I got an IBM PC XT of my own. Fortunately he let me have his 10 MB hard card (harddrive on an 8 bit expansion card) when he upgraded to a 40MB version. Yay! No more swapping out floppies!
-matthew
Think of yourself as a multitasking operating system. The first thing you want to do is prioritize I/O bound processes. Make all your phone calls and read/send all your email first. While the harddrive (aka much slower coworkers) are busy processing your requests, get some real work done (aka CPU bound processing). Mask your interupts if you have to. After you've spent at least an hour or data from I/O is required, unmask interupts and process some of that data. Process any emails or phone calls and then get back to work. Rinse and repeat...
-matthew
I've had to debug hideous code because developers decided to make use of a technology just to boost their CVs.
I don't think this is the type of programmer that the parent was referring to. Doing something because it is interesting and doing something to boost your CV are two different motivations.
-matthew
Back in the early days of the internet, .MOD files and the whole Fasttracker scene was at it's peak. With a .MOD file, when you distribute your music you distribute all of the samples used to make the music and the charts itself. Anyone out on the internet could then edit or improve your music. A lot of the music I wrote early on was based on the works of others.
.MODs (and .S3M, .669, etc) back in the day, it really is a rather limited form of music. Or rather, it is just one form of music. Musicians of all types DO base their work on the works of others. That is how you get genres of music. Musicians don't need the "source" for music to base new music off of it.
.MODs and all that so special is not the openness of it, but that it made musical expression more available to amateurs. No expensive instruments or MIDI equipment needed. Just a home PC. Anyone could throw together some tracks and have it sound better than the cheesy FM synth built into sound cards back then.
.99 per song, not really the search capabilities. Most of the time, I can't find the song I want on iTunes, unless it's some pop bullsh*t.
.99 per song. ;)
For as much as I loved
What made
The amazing thing about iTunes is it's ability to make
Well, it wouldn't be "pop" if they couldn't get at least
-matthew
Double? I doubt it. Certainly there is more work in building and testing two parallel versions of a product, but a developer could easily split its current testing and test half of PPC and half on x86. It isn't like it is a Windows version and a Mac version of hte same product. No need to double efforts if 90% of the bugs are going to be GUI and not platform bugs. As far as data files working on both platforms... don't most software developers have to worry about that anyway? I mean, what good is a Word doc, for example, that only works on Mac PPC? :-P
-matthew
Considering that the underlying OS is now BSD and not NeXT, this is rather moot. There isn't a whole lot of NExTStep left in OS X. AFAIK, Apple mostly took high level API (Obj-C) stuff. The (micro)kernel and all the really hardware dependent stuff is written in C. It isn't the NeXT roots that make OS X easy to port to x86. It is the Mach microkernel. And even if they didn't use a microkernel, Linux is evidence that porting an OS doesn't have to be that hard.
The real arch lock-in comes from the commercial apps that need to be recompiled and tested on the new processor. Even Windows ran on multiple architectures. Application availability was always the issue.
-matthew
Presumably the approval would be traceable such that the phisher coudl be held accountable.
-matthew
There is something insidious about this kind of willingness to sell off one's life like this. It reminds of people who take money to be walking billboards for some product. Or people who take money to "advertise" certain products and services to their friends. It is disgusting, actually. And I sincerely hope that it doesn't become too much more commonplace in the future.
-matthew
You assume that one solar panel kit is going to last 200,000 miles (or anywhere near that) without needing replacement. I don't know how much you drive, but it would take me 10 years to put that much on a car.
-matthew
Duke Nukem plays you... forever.