Well they could have called it NXHost but that would have not sounded as cute and besides ARD does some other stuff that NXHost never did on NeXTSTEP/Openstep.
The problem with Windows Services is more about the Architecture of the Services themselves. You go and turn off what you consider a useless, memory intensive service that you have no use for later find out that 1 tidbit of it has made 50 other Services interdependent on it and thus breaking the usefulness of your OS.
That design is dangerous for security reasons as well as being just a pain in the ass.
The notion of Services in OS X and Services within XP are not the same beast.
For Trivial Pursuit buffs the movie "What About Bob?" was reportedly looking for a title to a then unnamed script when a moment of inspiration struck the director who was quoted as saying, "Why not name call it 'What about Bob?' since afterall the main character is probably almost as annoying as this BOB character in Windows?"
You all Make a Great History for SCO to leverage
on
On The Death Of Unix
·
· Score: 1
This is marketing B.S. 101 to incite debate about what will and will not be the market leaders, in years to come.
At the rate Red Hat is "penetrating the markets" let's revisit this in say 10 years and I can be very confident that Red Hat will be in a world of hurt when it comes to competition.
OS X will make sure its the most secure, scalable and bare the crown Emperor Ease of Use--Innovate or Die is Steve's Motto.
What bothers me is the behemoth in this, Microsoft, gets to chuckle as its competition seems to be beating each other up.
I guess if you mean farmed out to Apple Austin, TX than I will accept the term "farmed out."
Having supported NeXT & Apple with NeXT's Openstep User/Developer Tools I can assure you no two representatives are the same.
However, the level of competence at NeXT was exponentially higher, on average, than the rest of the industry.
How so? Professional Services like Software Quality Assurance were entry points into NeXT and more importantly every door in Engineering was open at NeXT.
If I needed an answer about how come the Window Server was not performing on a certain piece of hardware, and finding no subsequent answers from 5 well developed internal applications for such answers, I walked over to the I/O Team and posed my question. If they were not sure after extensive brainstorming I'd walk up to the head of Graphics (if you know Apple Graphics than you know the head) and converse with him.
All professional and the best on the job exposure this mechanical engineer got outside of engineering school.
Like I said not all Support members are of the same caliber just like not everyone has the ability to communicate on a multitude of levels.
I even had a fellow colleague who was not an engineer by education (english actually) and told a customer to f---off while I was with a customer not ten feet away.
After I solved that customer's issues I ripped into the coworker for his lack of professionalism and gave him a choice:
Grow up and treat your customers with respect or expect to have this incident bury him in reviews.
He chose to leave the group and take a position that did not interact with customers--smart move on his part.
My personal policy was a 24 hour turn around, on all Support questions. Whether I had the solution or just a step towards the solution that customer was notified via Email and/or telephone, but the choice was determined during the initial support call and added to my support queue.
Oh no!! I'm sure everyone, including myself who had and owned a NeXTStation was worried about being forced to use something we didn't want to use.
COMPELLING DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGIES IS WHY PEOPLE WERE INTRIGUED TO USING NeXT.
Expensive realities is what buried that company I eventually worked within.
To this day still the best place to work for because of the People. Second runner-up is Apple. I left not because of Steve and his visions of Control that you elude to but because of a few middle managers who well got the jobs during the transition and had no clue as to what it is to be a Manager.
I've got choice: Debian/KDE/GNOME on my PC and OS X on a PPC.
I have no plans of ever buying an x86 Intel chipset again--AMD gets the nod but both are an afterthought to buying the IBM Power970/9xx future that is now.
I can run both Operating systems if I want and OpenFirmware is quite comforting.
Please take the Networking Courseware offered by Apple Professional Services. Its crammed with documentation and hands on approaches to solving your woes.
I asked the folks when I had to support Openstep/NeXTStep why we never published for sale a library on these, besides NeXTAnswers which myself and others maintained and well it was more of a resource constraint than lack of demand.
If the demand for a professional publication volume set is there Professional Services will publish the works, but the demand has to be there.
It's taken years for WebObjects to get third party books worth a crap and there are NetInfo gurus in this world(me not one of them) who could clear the airwaves.
If the demand is strong they will publish those needs.
Contact Apple and set up a petition for them to not just offer indepth documentation within the Training courseware.
I still have my docs from Openstep when I worked there. Netinfo takes a bit to grasp especially with the Master Netinfo Server/Clone Server design but let's just say if you had this reference materials updated for todays Networking Services this article would be about bragging how useful Netinfo is versus it being a pain in the rear.
LDAP by design does not serve the same criteria that NetInfo serves.
The error is in Network Design, not NetInfo.
Netinfo has been maturing over 14 years. One of the consistent flaws people labeled on NetInfo was they wanted NetInfo to provide functionality that it did not provide; hence it's an issue with design and one needs to determine what they are attempting to do is best served by Netinfo or by another Networking Service.
Most issues regardless of it being LDAP or Netinfo or take your pick service are due to Network Design flaws first and actual functionality bugs in the software second.
The biggest caveat with Objective-C since the days @NeXT is folks implementing a poorly designed autorelease pool mechanism.
Java and C# give one the sense that they don't need to do anything because garbage collection will automagically account for poor memory management in your design.
The dynamic run-time doesn't call for run-time safety checks because that would lean it away from its purpose.
What would set Objective-C/Cocoa apart from Java and C# would be a revamped object release pool mechanism that would best determine from a set of optimizations the best approach to object memory allocation. To then take the results of analysis and develop a finely tuned autorelease pool mechanism best suited for the application at hand, not in general.
Glad you discovered the crux of your frustrations.
I think people get accustomed to the notion of 'ease-of-use' and forget that being a UNIX based Operating System the odds are something in the foundation communicating has been misconfigured.
This is true for Linux as well, NeXTStep, Solaris, etc.,.
For Systems Engineers or Systems Administrators in the Enterprise one is so accustomed to customizing deployed systems and testing the verbose outputs that such oversights are less common.
On the downside it is more time consuming.
The only refreshing note is one becomes more competent in the entire workings of the Operating System.
Is it possible that when Debian restructures the official hierarchy that it shows a PNG Graphic(assuming one isn't using Lynx) of the hierarchy so that when people get to the graphic they get an immediate visual layout of how Debian is organized? From there you can have Key that references apt sources to add to one's own list for specific non-free software providers of debs.
The image could be updated periodically reflecting the structure and source listings.
It would make for using Google less and keep a nice central reference point.
The Engineering Process/Committee at Apple which prior was the one at NeXT has a long standing record of supporting earlier versions of their Operating Systems.
More specifically, they also have, in the past, classified a three-tier escalation level of Bug Fix Package Releases.
For mission critical custom apps which want addons to the Operating System they pay for blanket policy support accounts that make their needs fulfilled.
ATT Wireless was a classic example, and so was Merrill Lynch. They both had custom build fixes that only they held the rights to, until such time in the future when these unique features became features in the present release. Then if it was agreed upon from the client and NeXT earlier versions of the OS got these addon updates.
NeXTAnswers was a great system for information.
Expect Apple to make sure Panther works first and then retro fit Jaguar. I wouldn't expect Puma.
I also don't expect Panther to be the Trojan Horse into the Enteprise. I expect the next major revision, OS X 11.0 to be the first full blown Enterprise targeted (beyond video needs and small/mid web deployment needs) version to do so.
Let's not compare Microsoft. There current round of security fixes locks my system half-way into the update process, every time. Thankfully, Debian is on a separate partition.
Your comment wreaks with arrogance. I especially found the following retort absolutely riveting:
Slashdot people are reasonably intelligent, and can learn things like new programming languages. I don't see why you can't decypher the law--which is pretty straightforward in most cases.
Learning a programming language is equivalent to learning any foreign language one uses for oral communication. The level of competence is directly proportional to quality and correct usage the language can provide.
It's not the language at fault when one fails at grasping its value.
From my experience, with quite a few lawyers, I have yet to come across one that commands the one tool they should have mastered, Oration.
And don't get me started with most attorneys lack of charisma when it comes to in-court appearances. The Justice system is not about Truth, it is about the State not losing, at any cost, when it takes a case.
I've watched quite a few cases where information critical to cases is not admissible as it would weaken the State's case(s).
With regards to Civil Law, one sees the Judge as more of a pure Mediator, more objective and impartial--two aims of that position which I was under the impression are requirements of that position for both Criminal and Civil Law. Call me an idealist, but Separation of Powers in the US Constitution is rather clear about the Judge being an impartial referee where the Defense and Prosecution Teams battle for the Prize--a win.
I haven't read this book but I will say this book for me would be a primer that when I want to address publication needs, with legal counsel, I will have a stronger grasp of the ins/outs needed saving me time which saves me money.
To me an Attorney is like a Stock Broker. They are there to follow my requests, give specific background information on issues, but ultimately there to execute my requests, no more no less.
For the record my degree is Mechanical Engineering and you'd be surprised how many Attorneys act as if they know more about M.E. than an educated, accredited M.E.
... For the next generation of software, Gates promised software advances like speech recognition and synthesis, integrated telephone services and better graphics.
"It's very clear we're at the beginning of this process," Gates told the developers. "We need your feedback. We need your involvement to get this right."
Talk about being 5 years behind the curve.
It shows the arrogance and presumption that in 2006 they'll be introducing this to the masses as if they are innovations, when OS X and Linux, etc., have it today.
I can't wait until all the unreleased MECCA (Openstep 5 codenamed project we @ NeXT never released) and all its innovative UI paradigms slowly re-emerge into OS X, then we'll see even more whining.
Folks, very few "features" that are being added by third parties are new in concept. Operating Systems companies like Microsoft and Apple have years ahead of the third parties in testing and design theory allowing them to pick and choose when the right time to introduce such features or not presents itself.
Compound this on the purchase of companies which innovation back into companies like Microsoft and Apple and you'll begin to see how is it that they have such deep technological pools that seem to just appear when they need them to appear.
Third Parties that seize upon basic alternative action paradigms to sell shareware should rethink what they need to be in order to be viewed as "visionary."
It's not as if the industry is done with innovation, just done with copying.
I can't wait to read about UNIX utilities now being wrapped in intelligent GUIs as being grounds for a lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Well they could have called it NXHost but that would have not sounded as cute and besides ARD does some other stuff that NXHost never did on NeXTSTEP/Openstep.
Ever bother to use Enterprise Objects Framework?
e ct s/Enterprise_Objects/index.html
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/WebObj
The only way I could practically learn Objective-C back in the mid-90s was to work @ NeXT, which I eventually did.
But how the hell it took this long to get it introduced into any University Curriculum is what truly has been pathetic.
If you can't introduce this technology to the future developers how do you expect to sell it, beyond the "ease of use" paradigm?
Hopefully Berkley will be next followed by the University of Washington until the entire Pac-10 offers classes.
The problem with Windows Services is more about the Architecture of the Services themselves. You go and turn off what you consider a useless, memory intensive service that you have no use for later find out that 1 tidbit of it has made 50 other Services interdependent on it and thus breaking the usefulness of your OS.
That design is dangerous for security reasons as well as being just a pain in the ass.
The notion of Services in OS X and Services within XP are not the same beast.
For Trivial Pursuit buffs the movie "What About Bob?" was reportedly looking for a title to a then unnamed script when a moment of inspiration struck the director who was quoted as saying, "Why not name call it 'What about Bob?' since afterall the main character is probably almost as annoying as this BOB character in Windows?"
http://www.360networks.com/Our_Networks.asp
_ Am erica.asp#
http://www.360networks.com/Our_Networks---North
And everyone of them BUTT-UGLY.
This is marketing B.S. 101 to incite debate about what will and will not be the market leaders, in years to come.
At the rate Red Hat is "penetrating the markets" let's revisit this in say 10 years and I can be very confident that Red Hat will be in a world of hurt when it comes to competition.
OS X will make sure its the most secure, scalable and bare the crown Emperor Ease of Use--Innovate or Die is Steve's Motto.
What bothers me is the behemoth in this, Microsoft, gets to chuckle as its competition seems to be beating each other up.
How about "Stuffed Beaver?"
I guess if you mean farmed out to Apple Austin, TX than I will accept the term "farmed out."
Having supported NeXT & Apple with NeXT's Openstep User/Developer Tools I can assure you no two representatives are the same.
However, the level of competence at NeXT was exponentially higher, on average, than the rest of the industry.
How so? Professional Services like Software Quality Assurance were entry points into NeXT and more importantly every door in Engineering was open at NeXT.
If I needed an answer about how come the Window Server was not performing on a certain piece of hardware, and finding no subsequent answers from 5 well developed internal applications for such answers, I walked over to the I/O Team and posed my question. If they were not sure after extensive brainstorming I'd walk up to the head of Graphics (if you know Apple Graphics than you know the head) and converse with him.
All professional and the best on the job exposure this mechanical engineer got outside of engineering school.
Like I said not all Support members are of the same caliber just like not everyone has the ability to communicate on a multitude of levels.
I even had a fellow colleague who was not an engineer by education (english actually) and told a customer to f---off while I was with a customer not ten feet away.
After I solved that customer's issues I ripped into the coworker for his lack of professionalism and gave him a choice:
Grow up and treat your customers with respect or expect to have this incident bury him in reviews.
He chose to leave the group and take a position that did not interact with customers--smart move on his part.
My personal policy was a 24 hour turn around, on all Support questions. Whether I had the solution or just a step towards the solution that customer was notified via Email and/or telephone, but the choice was determined during the initial support call and added to my support queue.
Oh no!! I'm sure everyone, including myself who had and owned a NeXTStation was worried about being forced to use something we didn't want to use.
COMPELLING DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGIES IS WHY PEOPLE WERE INTRIGUED TO USING NeXT.
Expensive realities is what buried that company I eventually worked within.
To this day still the best place to work for because of the People. Second runner-up is Apple. I left not because of Steve and his visions of Control that you elude to but because of a few middle managers who well got the jobs during the transition and had no clue as to what it is to be a Manager.
I've got choice: Debian/KDE/GNOME on my PC and OS X on a PPC.
I have no plans of ever buying an x86 Intel chipset again--AMD gets the nod but both are an afterthought to buying the IBM Power970/9xx future that is now.
I can run both Operating systems if I want and OpenFirmware is quite comforting.
Please take the Networking Courseware offered by Apple Professional Services. Its crammed with documentation and hands on approaches to solving your woes.
I asked the folks when I had to support Openstep/NeXTStep why we never published for sale a library on these, besides NeXTAnswers which myself and others maintained and well it was more of a resource constraint than lack of demand.
If the demand for a professional publication volume set is there Professional Services will publish the works, but the demand has to be there.
It's taken years for WebObjects to get third party books worth a crap and there are NetInfo gurus in this world(me not one of them) who could clear the airwaves.
If the demand is strong they will publish those needs.
Contact Apple and set up a petition for them to not just offer indepth documentation within the Training courseware.
I still have my docs from Openstep when I worked there. Netinfo takes a bit to grasp especially with the Master Netinfo Server/Clone Server design but let's just say if you had this reference materials updated for todays Networking Services this article would be about bragging how useful Netinfo is versus it being a pain in the rear.
Sincerly Yours,
Marc J. Driftmeyer
Incorrect statements.
LDAP by design does not serve the same criteria that NetInfo serves.
The error is in Network Design, not NetInfo.
Netinfo has been maturing over 14 years. One of the consistent flaws people labeled on NetInfo was they wanted NetInfo to provide functionality that it did not provide; hence it's an issue with design and one needs to determine what they are attempting to do is best served by Netinfo or by another Networking Service.
Most issues regardless of it being LDAP or Netinfo or take your pick service are due to Network Design flaws first and actual functionality bugs in the software second.
The biggest caveat with Objective-C since the days @NeXT is folks implementing a poorly designed autorelease pool mechanism.
Java and C# give one the sense that they don't need to do anything because garbage collection will automagically account for poor memory management in your design.
The dynamic run-time doesn't call for run-time safety checks because that would lean it away from its purpose.
What would set Objective-C/Cocoa apart from Java and C# would be a revamped object release pool mechanism that would best determine from a set of optimizations the best approach to object memory allocation. To then take the results of analysis and develop a finely tuned autorelease pool mechanism best suited for the application at hand, not in general.
Your personal, subjective views on Objective-C without supporting materials does not add weight to your proclaiming your stance is fact.
The syntax to Objective-C that draws from Smalltalk-80 flows grammatically and is quite self documenting.
C++ on the other hand isn't designed to be self documenting and doesn't discourage poor grammar practices.
Glad you discovered the crux of your frustrations.
I think people get accustomed to the notion of 'ease-of-use' and forget that being a UNIX based Operating System the odds are something in the foundation communicating has been misconfigured.
This is true for Linux as well, NeXTStep, Solaris, etc.,.
For Systems Engineers or Systems Administrators in the Enterprise one is so accustomed to customizing deployed systems and testing the verbose outputs that such oversights are less common.
On the downside it is more time consuming.
The only refreshing note is one becomes more competent in the entire workings of the Operating System.
I love the feeling of increased competency.
I hope people realize this, right?
MS owns a hefty chunk in this outfit?
Surprised?
You can't be this truly dense can you?
NeXT co-developed Display Postscript. To be more precise they developed Display Postscript and licensed the Postscript Primitives from Adobe.
And don't even think Apple took any ideas from SUN NeWS.
I have one question.
Is it possible that when Debian restructures the official hierarchy that it shows a PNG Graphic(assuming one isn't using Lynx) of the hierarchy so that when people get to the graphic they get an immediate visual layout of how Debian is organized? From there you can have Key that references apt sources to add to one's own list for specific non-free software providers of debs.
The image could be updated periodically reflecting the structure and source listings.
It would make for using Google less and keep a nice central reference point.
Just a thought.
The Engineering Process/Committee at Apple which prior was the one at NeXT has a long standing record of supporting earlier versions of their Operating Systems.
More specifically, they also have, in the past, classified a three-tier escalation level of Bug Fix Package Releases.
For mission critical custom apps which want addons to the Operating System they pay for blanket policy support accounts that make their needs fulfilled.
ATT Wireless was a classic example, and so was Merrill Lynch. They both had custom build fixes that only they held the rights to, until such time in the future when these unique features became features in the present release. Then if it was agreed upon from the client and NeXT earlier versions of the OS got these addon updates.
NeXTAnswers was a great system for information.
Expect Apple to make sure Panther works first and then retro fit Jaguar. I wouldn't expect Puma.
I also don't expect Panther to be the Trojan Horse into the Enteprise. I expect the next major revision, OS X 11.0 to be the first full blown Enterprise targeted (beyond video needs and small/mid web deployment needs) version to do so.
Let's not compare Microsoft. There current round of security fixes locks my system half-way into the update process, every time. Thankfully, Debian is on a separate partition.
Learning a programming language is equivalent to learning any foreign language one uses for oral communication. The level of competence is directly proportional to quality and correct usage the language can provide.
It's not the language at fault when one fails at grasping its value.
From my experience, with quite a few lawyers, I have yet to come across one that commands the one tool they should have mastered, Oration.
And don't get me started with most attorneys lack of charisma when it comes to in-court appearances. The Justice system is not about Truth, it is about the State not losing, at any cost, when it takes a case.
I've watched quite a few cases where information critical to cases is not admissible as it would weaken the State's case(s).
With regards to Civil Law, one sees the Judge as more of a pure Mediator, more objective and impartial--two aims of that position which I was under the impression are requirements of that position for both Criminal and Civil Law. Call me an idealist, but Separation of Powers in the US Constitution is rather clear about the Judge being an impartial referee where the Defense and Prosecution Teams battle for the Prize--a win.
I haven't read this book but I will say this book for me would be a primer that when I want to address publication needs, with legal counsel, I will have a stronger grasp of the ins/outs needed saving me time which saves me money.
To me an Attorney is like a Stock Broker. They are there to follow my requests, give specific background information on issues, but ultimately there to execute my requests, no more no less.
For the record my degree is Mechanical Engineering and you'd be surprised how many Attorneys act as if they know more about M.E. than an educated, accredited M.E.
CS is a second degree.
If you can't find VoIP and an application that utilizes it that's well your dilemma.
I noticed you stayed clear of OS X. smartmove since they do have an end user solution for all I listed.
Just don't think its not there for Linux because perhaps not all the general public has access to it.
Talk about being 5 years behind the curve.
It shows the arrogance and presumption that in 2006 they'll be introducing this to the masses as if they are innovations, when OS X and Linux, etc., have it today.
I can't wait until all the unreleased MECCA (Openstep 5 codenamed project we @ NeXT never released) and all its innovative UI paradigms slowly re-emerge into OS X, then we'll see even more whining.
Folks, very few "features" that are being added by third parties are new in concept. Operating Systems companies like Microsoft and Apple have years ahead of the third parties in testing and design theory allowing them to pick and choose when the right time to introduce such features or not presents itself.
Compound this on the purchase of companies which innovation back into companies like Microsoft and Apple and you'll begin to see how is it that they have such deep technological pools that seem to just appear when they need them to appear.
Third Parties that seize upon basic alternative action paradigms to sell shareware should rethink what they need to be in order to be viewed as "visionary."
It's not as if the industry is done with innovation, just done with copying.
I can't wait to read about UNIX utilities now being wrapped in intelligent GUIs as being grounds for a lawsuit.
Take a long hard look at the Developer Documentation and specifically the Objective-C changes.
What do you think?
Java is not Apple's OO Frameworks for Applications.
Java is there for Server-side development and hence it is not priority number one since Apple is not an Web Services company first and foremost.
I would expect such functionality to be added later, sometime after SDK 1.5.