People like me scaring off potential users? How do you propose I'm doing that? I don't see how your logical disconnect about me and scaring Linux users has anything to do with Lindows' marketing and community crappiness, I guess that's why its called a logical disconnect.
Lindows does not have the marketing to get Linux into the mainstream, it simply won't happen. Firstly Lindows' marketing department is blowing hot air in a majority of their advertising slicks. Originally they maintained Lindows could be a drop-in replacement for Windows because it used WINE to run Windows programs. Well anyone who has used WINE will tell you things are never quite that easy. This is a very bad claim to make when your target market is composed almost entirely of technophobes. They'll get their $200 Wal?Mart PC with Lindows on it and try to play their favorite Windows game or some family tree software package and it won't work despite the effort of the WINE crew. They will then connect Lindow's vacuous claims at Windows compatibility to Linux. To them Linux will suck because Lindows didn't work right for them.
As for Lindows not being a good member of the Linux community, there's no aspect of their operation that requires them to treat the people they rely on for software development like crap. By your reasoning Lindows can snub developers and it will help get them into the mainstream. How exactly does this work? It does not make any sense to say snubbing developers and Linux promoters in general means mainstream acceptance.
I think Lindows is on the shortcut to loserville with the Linux community at large. At many different times they've seemed to take the fruits of what Linux users and developers have contributed to the system as a whole and then turned right around and mooned them. At every opertunity Michael Robertson has seen fit to present his ass to the public which his company relies on for their product development. I'd much rather hear Bruce Perens wax philosophic about Linux and Open Source than hear Mike R. pimp Lindows.
One thing that has bothered me a lot about Lindows is the fact they charge $99 for a subscription to their software distribution service (apt-get). It doesn't bother me they are selling a subscription service at all, the thing that gets to me is they are using the public Debian servers and not providing their own. People pay $99 to access a service Lindows has absolutely no afiliation with and does not seem to support in the slightest. The only program repository I can actually find that they house themselves is their FTP site with their patches and whatnot on it.
Lindows is the MP3.com of the Linux world. It is riding the Linux hype wave as far as it can while shafting anyone contributing to it. Where MP3.com shafted the artists providing the site's content, Lindows is shafting the Linux developer providing the distro's content. Where MP3.com has horrible contractual terms Lindows pillages public servers and donation funded development efforts.
Hopefully Lindows will decide to play nice as a community member which they become by default when entering the Linux distro business. There is a Linux community that exists, it isn't just open source zealot preach talk. Companies wanting to interact with this community need to follow its often times quirky social rules and behave as proper community members. I don't really see Lindows doing this at all. It's a shame seeing them pull this stuff because there's a lot of people who will never know the difference between Lindows and any other distro, they'd be hard pressed to tell you why Lindows is not the same as Windows. All these people will do is make Lindows successful at the cost of the people developing Linux software or housing it for distribution.
NASA can't sell things to make money. All the money NASA makes on anything go back into the GAO's general fund and thus into the pockets of Congress people and their pet projects. If NASA did make money off their services with stuff like the Shuttle and their launch and control facilities they wouldn't be in the financial pickle they are in.
I discovered the same thing using Safari. My Powerbook has extremely limited screen real estate, I have 1024 horizontal pixels by 768 vertical pixels. With a menu bar and Dock (it takes too long for the Dock to pop up when I hide it) I lose some of that already valuable space. I thought Mozilla/Chimera's tabs were the best thing since sliced bread because I could option+click in Chimera to open a tab behind my current one. The downside to that is losing some screen real estate to the tab bar, Chimera is better than Mozilla at this but it is still an issue. So I started using Safari and discovered that shift+option+click worked fine for opening windows behind my current one and command+` did a fine job of switching between windows. Between those two keyboard shortcuts I dropped my reliance on tabs. A window behind my current one is easily accessible and I don't love screen pixels to a tab bar. The only thing I'm missing anymore is Chimera/Mozilla's password manager which I use extensively. I was thinking at first Safari would need tabs to replace Chimera but as you did I found tabs to be more of a hassle than they are worth.
If you've got VB on your system it is trivial to write a web browser using the IE component control. It is just an OCX wrapped around the IE rendering components. You can literally build your own IE web browser in VB in half an hour at the most. Between the WinSock and IE OCXs all you need to do yourself is build an interface and add some administrative controls. If anyone wanted to they could write an OCX for the Gecko engine and it'd be easily available from VB.
I really hope there are some happy Mac users out right now. This MacWorld has been a really awesome one and I hope the trend continues with the third party developers going buck wild with some new OSX apps.
Safari is a neat browser and of the stuff released today was one thing that really suprised me. I didn't figure Apple would want to enter the browser "war" so I sort of wrote off them ever making a browser. It made no sense to go after that essentially profitless market when there are so many alternatives already entrenched. After using Safari a bit I realized Apple didn't enter the browser war, they just built a system on the fallout ridden wastes of the browser war. The gadgetry MS has been trying to add to IE in the form of auction watches and whatnot are handled by Sherlock 3, Safari doesn't need them. It also doesn't need some entirely new plugin architecture because Quicktime supports a huge swath of file formats and media types that are readily found on the web. All Apple really had to do was build an interface for a third party's HTML renderer which I think they've done pretty well. As an added bonus it also lets Apple ship consumer systems with entirely first party software and still have it be functional for the typical Mac neophyte. It's also really sweet seeing the GPL is a product like Safari.
I've been waiting for Apple to move to 802.11g for a while now, I figured they would have done so way earlier than now. Had they done this they might have ended up screwed over by a standards committee had anything changed in the spec between when they released it and the still pending ratification date. Keeping that in mind waiting until the spec's finality was imminent makes a lot of sense. It might take me a while to move up to Airport Extreme (as I just bought 802.11.b equipment) but when I end up with a new Powerbook it will be awesome that it is there.
The Powerbooks facinated me, I'm really glad I've held off buying a new laptop. I had figured the Powerbooks would be the next candidates for an upgrade but never did I think the upgrades would look like they do. I think the 12" Powerbook is an excellent idea and I hope to have one ASAP. While the iBook is a nice system it falls short for anyone wanting a good dose of processing power (read gaming performance) in a portable system. Adding Radeons to the iBooks helped a bit but a "scorching" 49fps in Quake 3 is a yawner (though Apple needs to learn if you want better frame rates you can down the resolution or drop the color depth for some pretty decent playability). I think for most things the 12" Powerbook is going to end up making x86 laptops look pretty crappy, especially subnotebooks. Most of the smaller systems you can find run on hobbled Celerons or Crusoes and cost as much if not more as the new PB. Maybe Apple will get more of a leg up in the portable market.
Between an iCal release that works, a new browser, and an official X11 system that works with Quartz, I have a lot to do on my Powerbook. Maybe one of the first things will be to order a new one.
Well since the Powerbook starts at the price point the iBook ends at it can't really cannabalize sales. With the new low end Powerbook you end up with a G4, faster memory, a better video card, built-in Bluetooth, and an optional Superdrive. I don't really see how that compares to an iBook that is three hundred dollars cheaper in terms of market overlap.
If it didn't register itself as Netscape 5 or something with a modicum of site compatibility site scripts would redirect it to the retard text only version of a site.
The Yikes! motherboards in the Blue and White G3s and early model G4s had internal FW ports on the motherboard. IIRC the Sawtooth (AGP motherboard) removed that internal port. I figured FW was going to replace ATA a couple years ago as the internal drive interface. Oh well.
If Apple were indeed so pissy about the use of their code they wouldn't have released it or based it on a fully documented Microkernel. They also probably wouldn't have based their application level API of choice on a fully documented API.
It doesn't matter if someone writes an implementation of Cocoa and a Darwin binary compatibility layer for [insert kernel name here]. If you're running any of Apple's code it means you either bought the software from them or bought a machine from there that software came on. If I made cars and you bought one from me and promptly lit it on fire when you got home I would not car as long as your money was good.
Having a binary compatibility layer like this means NetBSD could act as a drop-in replacement for Darwin at some point. The OO fundamentals of OSX are designed to allow this, even if it is someone else who does it. This sort of stuff just gives Apple more cool factor among the compile everything from source open source project hacking geeks that two years ago spoke their name with a spite and bitterness reserved only for a special few.
The speed would be shitty as I understand it. It is relatively fast to emulate x86 on the PowerPC architecture because you've got a metric buttload of GPRs to store whatever you need for emulation. The reverse is a problem since x86 has so few GPRs you need to spend lots of cycles just emulating the larger number of GPRs, far more than you're actually spending doing operations. You'd be running at around a quarter speed or less compared to a native binary. The most bad-ass Pentium 4 than is going to be running about the equivilent of a 700MHz PowerMac if that. For the price of that bad-ass P4 system you could buy a PowerMac off eBay or smalldog.
Please stop comparing COMPAT_MACH to WINE. The WINE project is attempting to build cleanroom implementations of the Win32 API. The COMPAT_MACH folks are working on binary compatibility. If you want to talk about APIs look up GNUStep which is an implementation of the OpenStep specification. That is a project more analguous to WINE because it is actually attemping API reimplementation. If this project gets everything working it could allow NetBSD to be a drop-in replacment for Darwin as a BSD subsystem and kernel. WINE and GNUStep on the otherhand would be drop-in replacements for application level APIs.
Most of Cocoa that doesn't deal directly with Darwin/OSX related functions is basically a strait reimplementation of OpenStep. IIRC the Building Cocoa Applications: A Step-byStep Guide by Simson Garfinkle and Mike Mahoney is pretty much code identical to what was in NeXTStep Programming: Step One: Object oriented Applications.
A GNUStep application if binary compatible with Mach/Darwin would run without recompilation or localization.
What in the hell sort of response is that? My house is well within AT&T's coverage area. I said I don't live out in the boonies where coverage might be iffy. Cell carriers generate their coverage maps based on the maximum theoretical range of their towers, not on the actual amount of coverage you REALLY get in any particular area. Everywhere in town but my house I get pretty good receptions. It is just having a tower down the street without my carrier on it causes me a bit of trouble. That's why AT&T needs to focus on their TDMA/GSM network in the here and now rather than throw up an entriely new infrastructure just to keep up with DoCoMo.
I'd jump on their 3G service if I had super coverage on my current phone. Right now I'm still holding out to get a GSM phone because of AT&T's tower issues. I won't pay for a service I can't use anywhere.
While I see the need to begin a rollout of WCDMA service by AT&T in the future, shouldn't they work on getting their GSM service widely available first? They've still got issues with their TDMA network not having enough towers in some cities to be worrying about moving up in the world.
I took my AT&T phone all over the country and had some pretty good digital reception. Then when I get home (my house is pretty far from AT&T's nearest tower) I get crappy reception and dropped calls all the time. Cingular has a tower down the street from my house. It isn't like I live out in the boonies, I do have a Cingular tower down the street, yet AT&T doesn't feel the need to cover this area better.
I used to have SprintPCS, I can't possibly deride their service enough. I travel a bit and my coverage was horrible across most of the country. Even in heavily populated areas like Denver and Ft.Worth I had tons of trouble just getting a connection let alone making a call.
The worst was in San Fransisco where in front of the tribute to technogeekery that is the Metreon I couldn't even get a signal on the phone. My friend's AT&T phone was working just fine.
I was glad to switch. So I definitely agree cell phone operators need to work on getting voice communication to work properly.
It is probably the digital channel going unused. Broadcasters have been granted rights to do anything they want with digital channels until 2006 or so when DTV is officially mandated and all that jazz. I think this is an example of a broadcaster using their digital channel for internet service, something that has been an idea for a long time but not yet implemented anywhere (to my knowlege).
FreeBSD does not come with X as part of its base system, it is a port you have to add. FreeBSD is a Unix. MacOS X does not come with X as part of its base system, you have to apt-get, make install, or drag from a disk image later to add it. According to you MacOS X is not a Unix. I don't understand your logic.
The file system is handled by the BSD part of the kernel. You use mount to mount disks just like you would in any other BSD. Classic is really a virtual machine that runs an instance of OS9. Being just another userland process Classic accesses the file system just like any other program.
Why in the holiest of unholies does this crap get modded up as of all things interesting? Moderators, next time you do things like this, pretend for a second YOU ARE the poor soul viewing slashdot using IP over carrier pigeon. PETA is gonna be after your ass for giving the pigeon and unnecessarily heavy load.
Version 10.2 IS Jaguar, I also do not understand where people get confused with this. I suppose it could be the fact you see the system refered to Jaguar in some places and OSX in others and then 10.2 in yet other places.
I SPECIFICALLY said that the access point of the equation is not the problem. The problem exists on the client end without phased array antennas. If you have fifty people all in the same area with their cheapo dipole antennas chattering away on the network the whole thing becomes inusable. It doesn't matter if the head end has some cool steerable spot beam. Having a head end switch from Vivato is like plugging a bunch of nodes into a hub and then plugging that hub into a switch to talk to other hubs.
The parent post was regarding consumer access, not public service access like PD and FD. The major reason hospitals don't want you running around with an Airport card in your laptop is because their monitoring systems use the same frequencies. Nurses not knowing a dude in the intensive care ward is having a heart attack because some jackass is sitting in the lobby playing Quake on his laptop would be a very bad thing.
What you describe was wat Metricom/Aerie/Whoever tried to do with Ricochet. Instead of a bunch of towers covering large cells they used their little repeaters to make micronetworks. Instead of having a huge swath of city not covered by a spot beam they just neglected to stick repeaters up in that area.
Slashdot Mirror
People like me scaring off potential users? How do you propose I'm doing that? I don't see how your logical disconnect about me and scaring Linux users has anything to do with Lindows' marketing and community crappiness, I guess that's why its called a logical disconnect.
Lindows does not have the marketing to get Linux into the mainstream, it simply won't happen. Firstly Lindows' marketing department is blowing hot air in a majority of their advertising slicks. Originally they maintained Lindows could be a drop-in replacement for Windows because it used WINE to run Windows programs. Well anyone who has used WINE will tell you things are never quite that easy. This is a very bad claim to make when your target market is composed almost entirely of technophobes. They'll get their $200 Wal?Mart PC with Lindows on it and try to play their favorite Windows game or some family tree software package and it won't work despite the effort of the WINE crew. They will then connect Lindow's vacuous claims at Windows compatibility to Linux. To them Linux will suck because Lindows didn't work right for them.
As for Lindows not being a good member of the Linux community, there's no aspect of their operation that requires them to treat the people they rely on for software development like crap. By your reasoning Lindows can snub developers and it will help get them into the mainstream. How exactly does this work? It does not make any sense to say snubbing developers and Linux promoters in general means mainstream acceptance.
1. Generate massive hype.
2. Snub developers
3. Profit!!
Thanks for playing, now sit your ass down.
I think Lindows is on the shortcut to loserville with the Linux community at large. At many different times they've seemed to take the fruits of what Linux users and developers have contributed to the system as a whole and then turned right around and mooned them. At every opertunity Michael Robertson has seen fit to present his ass to the public which his company relies on for their product development. I'd much rather hear Bruce Perens wax philosophic about Linux and Open Source than hear Mike R. pimp Lindows.
One thing that has bothered me a lot about Lindows is the fact they charge $99 for a subscription to their software distribution service (apt-get). It doesn't bother me they are selling a subscription service at all, the thing that gets to me is they are using the public Debian servers and not providing their own. People pay $99 to access a service Lindows has absolutely no afiliation with and does not seem to support in the slightest. The only program repository I can actually find that they house themselves is their FTP site with their patches and whatnot on it.
Lindows is the MP3.com of the Linux world. It is riding the Linux hype wave as far as it can while shafting anyone contributing to it. Where MP3.com shafted the artists providing the site's content, Lindows is shafting the Linux developer providing the distro's content. Where MP3.com has horrible contractual terms Lindows pillages public servers and donation funded development efforts.
Hopefully Lindows will decide to play nice as a community member which they become by default when entering the Linux distro business. There is a Linux community that exists, it isn't just open source zealot preach talk. Companies wanting to interact with this community need to follow its often times quirky social rules and behave as proper community members. I don't really see Lindows doing this at all. It's a shame seeing them pull this stuff because there's a lot of people who will never know the difference between Lindows and any other distro, they'd be hard pressed to tell you why Lindows is not the same as Windows. All these people will do is make Lindows successful at the cost of the people developing Linux software or housing it for distribution.
NASA can't sell things to make money. All the money NASA makes on anything go back into the GAO's general fund and thus into the pockets of Congress people and their pet projects. If NASA did make money off their services with stuff like the Shuttle and their launch and control facilities they wouldn't be in the financial pickle they are in.
I discovered the same thing using Safari. My Powerbook has extremely limited screen real estate, I have 1024 horizontal pixels by 768 vertical pixels. With a menu bar and Dock (it takes too long for the Dock to pop up when I hide it) I lose some of that already valuable space. I thought Mozilla/Chimera's tabs were the best thing since sliced bread because I could option+click in Chimera to open a tab behind my current one. The downside to that is losing some screen real estate to the tab bar, Chimera is better than Mozilla at this but it is still an issue. So I started using Safari and discovered that shift+option+click worked fine for opening windows behind my current one and command+` did a fine job of switching between windows. Between those two keyboard shortcuts I dropped my reliance on tabs. A window behind my current one is easily accessible and I don't love screen pixels to a tab bar. The only thing I'm missing anymore is Chimera/Mozilla's password manager which I use extensively. I was thinking at first Safari would need tabs to replace Chimera but as you did I found tabs to be more of a hassle than they are worth.
If you've got VB on your system it is trivial to write a web browser using the IE component control. It is just an OCX wrapped around the IE rendering components. You can literally build your own IE web browser in VB in half an hour at the most. Between the WinSock and IE OCXs all you need to do yourself is build an interface and add some administrative controls. If anyone wanted to they could write an OCX for the Gecko engine and it'd be easily available from VB.
I really hope there are some happy Mac users out right now. This MacWorld has been a really awesome one and I hope the trend continues with the third party developers going buck wild with some new OSX apps.
Safari is a neat browser and of the stuff released today was one thing that really suprised me. I didn't figure Apple would want to enter the browser "war" so I sort of wrote off them ever making a browser. It made no sense to go after that essentially profitless market when there are so many alternatives already entrenched. After using Safari a bit I realized Apple didn't enter the browser war, they just built a system on the fallout ridden wastes of the browser war. The gadgetry MS has been trying to add to IE in the form of auction watches and whatnot are handled by Sherlock 3, Safari doesn't need them. It also doesn't need some entirely new plugin architecture because Quicktime supports a huge swath of file formats and media types that are readily found on the web. All Apple really had to do was build an interface for a third party's HTML renderer which I think they've done pretty well. As an added bonus it also lets Apple ship consumer systems with entirely first party software and still have it be functional for the typical Mac neophyte. It's also really sweet seeing the GPL is a product like Safari.
I've been waiting for Apple to move to 802.11g for a while now, I figured they would have done so way earlier than now. Had they done this they might have ended up screwed over by a standards committee had anything changed in the spec between when they released it and the still pending ratification date. Keeping that in mind waiting until the spec's finality was imminent makes a lot of sense. It might take me a while to move up to Airport Extreme (as I just bought 802.11.b equipment) but when I end up with a new Powerbook it will be awesome that it is there.
The Powerbooks facinated me, I'm really glad I've held off buying a new laptop. I had figured the Powerbooks would be the next candidates for an upgrade but never did I think the upgrades would look like they do. I think the 12" Powerbook is an excellent idea and I hope to have one ASAP. While the iBook is a nice system it falls short for anyone wanting a good dose of processing power (read gaming performance) in a portable system. Adding Radeons to the iBooks helped a bit but a "scorching" 49fps in Quake 3 is a yawner (though Apple needs to learn if you want better frame rates you can down the resolution or drop the color depth for some pretty decent playability). I think for most things the 12" Powerbook is going to end up making x86 laptops look pretty crappy, especially subnotebooks. Most of the smaller systems you can find run on hobbled Celerons or Crusoes and cost as much if not more as the new PB. Maybe Apple will get more of a leg up in the portable market.
Between an iCal release that works, a new browser, and an official X11 system that works with Quartz, I have a lot to do on my Powerbook. Maybe one of the first things will be to order a new one.
Well since the Powerbook starts at the price point the iBook ends at it can't really cannabalize sales. With the new low end Powerbook you end up with a G4, faster memory, a better video card, built-in Bluetooth, and an optional Superdrive. I don't really see how that compares to an iBook that is three hundred dollars cheaper in terms of market overlap.
If it didn't register itself as Netscape 5 or something with a modicum of site compatibility site scripts would redirect it to the retard text only version of a site.
The Yikes! motherboards in the Blue and White G3s and early model G4s had internal FW ports on the motherboard. IIRC the Sawtooth (AGP motherboard) removed that internal port. I figured FW was going to replace ATA a couple years ago as the internal drive interface. Oh well.
If Apple were indeed so pissy about the use of their code they wouldn't have released it or based it on a fully documented Microkernel. They also probably wouldn't have based their application level API of choice on a fully documented API.
It doesn't matter if someone writes an implementation of Cocoa and a Darwin binary compatibility layer for [insert kernel name here]. If you're running any of Apple's code it means you either bought the software from them or bought a machine from there that software came on. If I made cars and you bought one from me and promptly lit it on fire when you got home I would not car as long as your money was good.
Having a binary compatibility layer like this means NetBSD could act as a drop-in replacement for Darwin at some point. The OO fundamentals of OSX are designed to allow this, even if it is someone else who does it. This sort of stuff just gives Apple more cool factor among the compile everything from source open source project hacking geeks that two years ago spoke their name with a spite and bitterness reserved only for a special few.
The speed would be shitty as I understand it. It is relatively fast to emulate x86 on the PowerPC architecture because you've got a metric buttload of GPRs to store whatever you need for emulation. The reverse is a problem since x86 has so few GPRs you need to spend lots of cycles just emulating the larger number of GPRs, far more than you're actually spending doing operations. You'd be running at around a quarter speed or less compared to a native binary. The most bad-ass Pentium 4 than is going to be running about the equivilent of a 700MHz PowerMac if that. For the price of that bad-ass P4 system you could buy a PowerMac off eBay or smalldog.
Please stop comparing COMPAT_MACH to WINE. The WINE project is attempting to build cleanroom implementations of the Win32 API. The COMPAT_MACH folks are working on binary compatibility. If you want to talk about APIs look up GNUStep which is an implementation of the OpenStep specification. That is a project more analguous to WINE because it is actually attemping API reimplementation. If this project gets everything working it could allow NetBSD to be a drop-in replacment for Darwin as a BSD subsystem and kernel. WINE and GNUStep on the otherhand would be drop-in replacements for application level APIs.
Most of Cocoa that doesn't deal directly with Darwin/OSX related functions is basically a strait reimplementation of OpenStep. IIRC the Building Cocoa Applications: A Step-byStep Guide by Simson Garfinkle and Mike Mahoney is pretty much code identical to what was in NeXTStep Programming: Step One: Object oriented Applications.
A GNUStep application if binary compatible with Mach/Darwin would run without recompilation or localization.
What in the hell sort of response is that? My house is well within AT&T's coverage area. I said I don't live out in the boonies where coverage might be iffy. Cell carriers generate their coverage maps based on the maximum theoretical range of their towers, not on the actual amount of coverage you REALLY get in any particular area. Everywhere in town but my house I get pretty good receptions. It is just having a tower down the street without my carrier on it causes me a bit of trouble. That's why AT&T needs to focus on their TDMA/GSM network in the here and now rather than throw up an entriely new infrastructure just to keep up with DoCoMo.
I'd jump on their 3G service if I had super coverage on my current phone. Right now I'm still holding out to get a GSM phone because of AT&T's tower issues. I won't pay for a service I can't use anywhere.
While I see the need to begin a rollout of WCDMA service by AT&T in the future, shouldn't they work on getting their GSM service widely available first? They've still got issues with their TDMA network not having enough towers in some cities to be worrying about moving up in the world.
I took my AT&T phone all over the country and had some pretty good digital reception. Then when I get home (my house is pretty far from AT&T's nearest tower) I get crappy reception and dropped calls all the time. Cingular has a tower down the street from my house. It isn't like I live out in the boonies, I do have a Cingular tower down the street, yet AT&T doesn't feel the need to cover this area better.
I used to have SprintPCS, I can't possibly deride their service enough. I travel a bit and my coverage was horrible across most of the country. Even in heavily populated areas like Denver and Ft.Worth I had tons of trouble just getting a connection let alone making a call.
The worst was in San Fransisco where in front of the tribute to technogeekery that is the Metreon I couldn't even get a signal on the phone. My friend's AT&T phone was working just fine.
I was glad to switch. So I definitely agree cell phone operators need to work on getting voice communication to work properly.
It is probably the digital channel going unused. Broadcasters have been granted rights to do anything they want with digital channels until 2006 or so when DTV is officially mandated and all that jazz. I think this is an example of a broadcaster using their digital channel for internet service, something that has been an idea for a long time but not yet implemented anywhere (to my knowlege).
FreeBSD does not come with X as part of its base system, it is a port you have to add. FreeBSD is a Unix. MacOS X does not come with X as part of its base system, you have to apt-get, make install, or drag from a disk image later to add it. According to you MacOS X is not a Unix. I don't understand your logic.
The file system is handled by the BSD part of the kernel. You use mount to mount disks just like you would in any other BSD. Classic is really a virtual machine that runs an instance of OS9. Being just another userland process Classic accesses the file system just like any other program.
Why in the holiest of unholies does this crap get modded up as of all things interesting? Moderators, next time you do things like this, pretend for a second YOU ARE the poor soul viewing slashdot using IP over carrier pigeon. PETA is gonna be after your ass for giving the pigeon and unnecessarily heavy load.
Version 10.2 IS Jaguar, I also do not understand where people get confused with this. I suppose it could be the fact you see the system refered to Jaguar in some places and OSX in others and then 10.2 in yet other places.
Sweeping a broadbast between different nodes doesn't do much good on their end where all the static from other connections is an issue.
I SPECIFICALLY said that the access point of the equation is not the problem. The problem exists on the client end without phased array antennas. If you have fifty people all in the same area with their cheapo dipole antennas chattering away on the network the whole thing becomes inusable. It doesn't matter if the head end has some cool steerable spot beam. Having a head end switch from Vivato is like plugging a bunch of nodes into a hub and then plugging that hub into a switch to talk to other hubs.
The parent post was regarding consumer access, not public service access like PD and FD. The major reason hospitals don't want you running around with an Airport card in your laptop is because their monitoring systems use the same frequencies. Nurses not knowing a dude in the intensive care ward is having a heart attack because some jackass is sitting in the lobby playing Quake on his laptop would be a very bad thing.
What you describe was wat Metricom/Aerie/Whoever tried to do with Ricochet. Instead of a bunch of towers covering large cells they used their little repeaters to make micronetworks. Instead of having a huge swath of city not covered by a spot beam they just neglected to stick repeaters up in that area.