For example we had inexpensive development suites like TurboPascal and TurboC under MS-DOS.
Which were on their way out because Borland couldn't compete with Microsoft (and Visual Studio).
No. You are confusing the Windows 9x era with the MS-DOS era. From the mid 1980s to very early 90s Borland was inexpensive and dominated. Also the early versions of Visual Studio were not expensive, MS was encouraging a migration from DOS to Windows 3.x.
It's presumably a lot easier to get some part of the reflected glow of the screen than it is to get a good video feed of the password field. Especially if you're trying to go unnoticed.
You don't have to look at the password field. There is a much better, larger and more readable alternative. When you press a key an enlarged version of the key momentarily hovers above your finger to give you feedback on what you just pressed. Your finger is covering the smaller lettering on he keyboard and the glow.
If it weren't for FOSS, the development tools would have still been expensive. And with expensive dev tools, you get little innovation and/or small number of applications.
That's not true. Linux and other FOSS software did not only displace the traditional unix vendors, they also displaced a lot of consumer and small/home office oriented software. For example we had inexpensive development suites like TurboPascal and TurboC under MS-DOS.
Yes, the BSD-based Mac OSX would have caught on faster without OSS.
Note that the GP hypothesized a world without FOSS, had FOSS never occurred Apple would have simply gone down a different path. They nearly went down such a path and used a proprietary kernel even with BSD being available. The current FOSS based kernel, Darwin, does not really contribute to the end user experience that makes Mac OS X the user friendly GUI that it is. All the important code is proprietary, as many FOSS advocates complain.
I'm thrilled there's a BSD console and tools available but my opinion represents such a small minority it wouldn't really affect sales.
Nonsense. The most popular apps are like all the other mainstream apps because people like what they're used to. That doesn't mean there's no innovation in open source. What proprietary software shop offers anything like xmonad? compiz? uzbl? KIO-slaves? Where did we first see ad blockers? Distributed P2P? Is there any proprietary software that can do what Bioconductor can do?
So your examples of innovation are an X Window manager that was started as a clone of another X Window manager, an X Window manager that uses the 3D hardware like Mac OS X (and possibly Windows) were already doing at the time, yet another web browser implementation, I/O "modules" for KDE, specialized/niche add on modules for a statistical package, etc.
They were marketing some of their Macs/Powerbooks as if they could run MS-DOS programs. This somewhat helped. That was false.
You are mistaken. In the 90s some Macs came with a x86 coprocessor card, it was basically a PC in a slot. So yes, Apple did have Macs that could run MS-DOS and Windows just fine back in the 90s.
Fast forward to now, since the x86 macs, they can finally actually run MS-DOS programs. (boot disk of course)
That is also mistaken. You can dual boot or use a virtual machine. As a matter of fact the virtual machine software on the Mac can run Windows from that dual boot partition or a more typical VM filesystem file(s). So if you want to conveniently run some office type app on the Mac desktop you can do so, and when you want to run a game and get full performance you can dual boot rather than emulate.
... What would the world be like now if it weren't for the FOSS community (including Apache)?...
It would probably be pretty much the same as it is now, we'd have to pay a little more for workstations and servers as they would still be coming from Sun, SGI and other traditional Unix vendors. It wasn't Microsoft that killed these platforms, it was Linux. Maybe Mac OS X would have caught on a little faster?
10 years without innovation it's an eternity by computer standards.
Who is killing innovation, I wonder
Who is promoting it? I'm not sure FOSS is promoting innovation as much as many advocates would like to believe. When the most popular apps are largely described as "a FOSS reimplementation/alternative to commercial/proprietary XXXX" one could argue that FOSS, like many corporations, is not terribly innovative. Just to be clear, a worthwhile project does not necessarily need to be innovative. I've used and supported FOSS projects that I find useful. I'm just arguing that FOSS advocates are not necessarily the best people to be criticizing others for a lack of innovation.
... the 1960s with hippies, civil rights, and space exploration, even though 1960 is definitely old-fashioned as it was a half-century ago. They rather have the 1980s wall street 'greed is good' or the 1940s 'white man in charge' eras...
I don't think the "recent" decades are as simple as you suggest. What you see accomplished in a generation is not necessarily the accomplishment of that generation's children or new way of thinking or new perspective. The 1960s hippies did not put anyone on the moon, well besides themselves on an acid trip.:-)
The space exploration of the 1960s was not accomplished by the children of the 60s, it was accomplished by the children of the 40s and 50s that you seem less fond of. The 80s that you are not so fond of was actually the product of the children of the 60s and 70s. As a product of the 80s I can assure you that we were not running wall street. My generation's thing would be better characterized as being the generation truly inspired by Apollo, we were the very young impressionable minds that soaked it up as inspiration, in 1st grade we all knew why we needed to study math and science. The older generations were set in their ways, we were blank slates during Apollo. One manifestation of this was being utterly amazed at computers moving from behind glass walls with attendants who you offered your program to and who would later return the printout of your codes's results (OK only one mainframe at my university worked this way, the minicomputers had terminals and local printers in the lab) to appliance sized things sitting on your desk that were entirely yours. Program it, give or sell that program to others,... or for the less technical use the computer as part of your daily work and play. Apologies for the focus on the 80s but that's the only generation I can speak for.
... the Quran says to go travel the world and see the ruins of civilizations gone by...
Ruins are not necessarily preserved in tact. For example when christian constantinople was conquered by muslims the mosaics were plastered over in the cathedral.
Unfortunately, these days the Taliban and their radical ilk seem more interested in using science to blow shit up than in building up their culture. If you ever find yourself in a position of blowing up ancient statues because they might anger your sky god, that's a pretty good hint that your society has regressed significantly in its intellectual sophistication.
Blowing up the Buddhist statues was a major crime in my book but Islam *never* approved of statues or paintings depicting humans, even at its scientific and mathematic peaks. Astronomy doesn't seem to cross any religious line as far as I know. I think the problems with astronomy are more practical, in a war zone people wonder if that telescope is a spotting scope (neither side wants to be observed), a rocket launcher, etc. Waving around green lasers can also be troublesome.
... where the Koran-thumpers cut people's heads off...
In the middle ages muslims thought very highly of astronomy, so why would the guys wanting to base their society on that era be against astronomy?
Some of the scientific work was done in central asia, if not Afghanistan then next door. Perhaps you've noticed that some stars and astronomical terms are arabic in origin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_in_medieval_Islam
Basically, Apple tried to sell iPhones and iPads as enterprise devices. IT departments looked at them and laughed, pointing out that they need to be able to deploy custom in-house apps to them. Apple for once listened to a customer (so maybe the world really is ending) and agreed to allow in-house app stores for customer enterprise apps.
No. This is nothing new. Enterprise apps have always been distributed internally. If not from day 1 then from *very* soon afterwards. I recall having to select regular or enterprise accounts when signing up with Apple in 2008.
What may have been added in recent history, a year or so ago (?), is the wireless distribution option.
Thanks. Having done ad hoc distribution many times I read too much into Apple's "must have a provisioning profile that authorizes devices to use the app".
Apple allows other app stores? The world really will end in October!
These are enterprise apps for internal use by an organization. Enterprise apps have always been handled differently than the regular apps for consumers on the Apple App Store.
My understanding is that the organization maintains a list of device IDs allowed to use the app. They submit the list to Apple, Apple signs it, and returns the signed list as a provisioning file. The enterprise then distributes the app and the provisioning file to users, there is even a wireless method that the enterprise can set up. There is no Apple approval process for enterprise apps. I've not done an enterprise app myself but it sounds like the ad hoc distribution process used by regular developers and their testers. http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#featuredarticles/FA_Wireless_Enterprise_App_Distribution/Introduction/Introduction.html
We're not going to be engaging anyone in any aerospace competitions. Not merely because we can't afford it,...
The last 50 or so years of US history clearly demonstrates that is no impediment to the US government.
... but also because they would rather we not.
You are using an erroneous and simplistic model of the US dollar trade. Given China's exports based economic strategy and their desire to manipulate their currency to maintain an export advantage they have to acquire US dollars from exporters. They can't use these dollars in any normal market because that will send their currency in the "wrong direction". Buying US bonds gets rid of these dollars without affecting their currency. Cheap labor only supports the export of products of a simplistic nature with commodity pricing. For higher end products where labor is a much lower factor in the overall cost it is the low relative value of their currency that drives the exports. So if they want to export beads for Mardi Gras parties they can dump dollars as you imply. However if they want to export iPads and Android tablets they can not do so. China wants to manufacture and export the high end so they will not go the route you imply. When they have an economy based on domestic production and consumption we can revisit all of this.
The space race of the 1960's is not going to return
I would not be so sure. Chinese progress in space could get quite a few US politicians to reverse their course. It has happened before.
The "patron saint" of the Apollo program actually started off wanting to kill the program. JFK was against Apollo as a senator and at the beginning of his administration. VP Johnson got him to delay his decision to dismantle Apollo. Then the Russians sent up Yuri Gagarin and Kennedy completely reversed his opinion on Apollo and became its champion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_space_policy
68K assembly on the DTACK (a 68K coprocessor for the Apple II, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTACK_Grounded). We debugged the portable portion of our code directly on the DTACK. We then assembled our early Mac programs using the DTACK and uploaded them to the Mac to see them run (or crash). We couldn't afford the $10,000 Lisa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_lisa) development platform.
We also used our Apple II's for C64 development, much better assembler (LISA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_assembler). It was easier to build and uploaded using the Apple II than to build directly on the C64.
Easy. Apple's products have the shortest life expectancy.
That is a straw man. Also misinformed, I can build and run software on a first generation iPhone and iPod touch.
And free software... ooh man do they last forever.
That is a red herring. Free software runs just fine on iOS devices. Developers are fee to give away their source code to users. However the most relevant point is that an enterprise app like the one being discussed does not have to go through the approval process required by regular apps that are distributed via Apple App Store. An enterprise app can be distributed by the company to its internal users directly.
There is no need to port the software when Apple discontinues iOS...
you realize that's impossible without jailbreaking right?
You are mistaken:
Enterprise app: "an app that you distribute internally as an enterprise app doesn't need the Apple approval process that a regular app would need"
Regular app: "Users may need to register in order to load their build onto their device but that was their choice when the selected iOS as their platform"
Slashdot Mirror
For example we had inexpensive development suites like TurboPascal and TurboC under MS-DOS. Which were on their way out because Borland couldn't compete with Microsoft (and Visual Studio).
No. You are confusing the Windows 9x era with the MS-DOS era. From the mid 1980s to very early 90s Borland was inexpensive and dominated. Also the early versions of Visual Studio were not expensive, MS was encouraging a migration from DOS to Windows 3.x.
It's presumably a lot easier to get some part of the reflected glow of the screen than it is to get a good video feed of the password field. Especially if you're trying to go unnoticed.
You don't have to look at the password field. There is a much better, larger and more readable alternative. When you press a key an enlarged version of the key momentarily hovers above your finger to give you feedback on what you just pressed. Your finger is covering the smaller lettering on he keyboard and the glow.
You've got your history backwards, compiz beat the rest to market by a mile on using 3d hardware for window managment.
Wiki says that Mac OS X 10.2 was using the GPU in 2002 and that compiz was first released in 2006.
If it weren't for FOSS, the development tools would have still been expensive. And with expensive dev tools, you get little innovation and/or small number of applications.
That's not true. Linux and other FOSS software did not only displace the traditional unix vendors, they also displaced a lot of consumer and small/home office oriented software. For example we had inexpensive development suites like TurboPascal and TurboC under MS-DOS.
Yes, the BSD-based Mac OSX would have caught on faster without OSS.
Note that the GP hypothesized a world without FOSS, had FOSS never occurred Apple would have simply gone down a different path. They nearly went down such a path and used a proprietary kernel even with BSD being available. The current FOSS based kernel, Darwin, does not really contribute to the end user experience that makes Mac OS X the user friendly GUI that it is. All the important code is proprietary, as many FOSS advocates complain.
I'm thrilled there's a BSD console and tools available but my opinion represents such a small minority it wouldn't really affect sales.
Nonsense. The most popular apps are like all the other mainstream apps because people like what they're used to. That doesn't mean there's no innovation in open source. What proprietary software shop offers anything like xmonad? compiz? uzbl? KIO-slaves? Where did we first see ad blockers? Distributed P2P? Is there any proprietary software that can do what Bioconductor can do?
So your examples of innovation are an X Window manager that was started as a clone of another X Window manager, an X Window manager that uses the 3D hardware like Mac OS X (and possibly Windows) were already doing at the time, yet another web browser implementation, I/O "modules" for KDE, specialized/niche add on modules for a statistical package, etc.
I didn't know gcc was proprietary. You learn something new every day.
FWIW Apple has replaced gcc with Clang/LLVM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clang
They were marketing some of their Macs/Powerbooks as if they could run MS-DOS programs. This somewhat helped. That was false.
You are mistaken. In the 90s some Macs came with a x86 coprocessor card, it was basically a PC in a slot. So yes, Apple did have Macs that could run MS-DOS and Windows just fine back in the 90s.
Fast forward to now, since the x86 macs, they can finally actually run MS-DOS programs. (boot disk of course)
That is also mistaken. You can dual boot or use a virtual machine. As a matter of fact the virtual machine software on the Mac can run Windows from that dual boot partition or a more typical VM filesystem file(s). So if you want to conveniently run some office type app on the Mac desktop you can do so, and when you want to run a game and get full performance you can dual boot rather than emulate.
Apple does not sell servers. The X-serve was discontinued last year, I think.
Apple sells servers, in big tower configurations and in home appliance-like configurations. What they no longer sell is rack mounted servers.
... What would the world be like now if it weren't for the FOSS community (including Apache)? ...
It would probably be pretty much the same as it is now, we'd have to pay a little more for workstations and servers as they would still be coming from Sun, SGI and other traditional Unix vendors. It wasn't Microsoft that killed these platforms, it was Linux. Maybe Mac OS X would have caught on a little faster?
10 years without innovation it's an eternity by computer standards. Who is killing innovation, I wonder
Who is promoting it? I'm not sure FOSS is promoting innovation as much as many advocates would like to believe. When the most popular apps are largely described as "a FOSS reimplementation/alternative to commercial/proprietary XXXX" one could argue that FOSS, like many corporations, is not terribly innovative. Just to be clear, a worthwhile project does not necessarily need to be innovative. I've used and supported FOSS projects that I find useful. I'm just arguing that FOSS advocates are not necessarily the best people to be criticizing others for a lack of innovation.
... the 1960s with hippies, civil rights, and space exploration, even though 1960 is definitely old-fashioned as it was a half-century ago. They rather have the 1980s wall street 'greed is good' or the 1940s 'white man in charge' eras ...
I don't think the "recent" decades are as simple as you suggest. What you see accomplished in a generation is not necessarily the accomplishment of that generation's children or new way of thinking or new perspective. The 1960s hippies did not put anyone on the moon, well besides themselves on an acid trip. :-)
... or for the less technical use the computer as part of your daily work and play. Apologies for the focus on the 80s but that's the only generation I can speak for.
The space exploration of the 1960s was not accomplished by the children of the 60s, it was accomplished by the children of the 40s and 50s that you seem less fond of. The 80s that you are not so fond of was actually the product of the children of the 60s and 70s. As a product of the 80s I can assure you that we were not running wall street. My generation's thing would be better characterized as being the generation truly inspired by Apollo, we were the very young impressionable minds that soaked it up as inspiration, in 1st grade we all knew why we needed to study math and science. The older generations were set in their ways, we were blank slates during Apollo. One manifestation of this was being utterly amazed at computers moving from behind glass walls with attendants who you offered your program to and who would later return the printout of your codes's results (OK only one mainframe at my university worked this way, the minicomputers had terminals and local printers in the lab) to appliance sized things sitting on your desk that were entirely yours. Program it, give or sell that program to others,
... the Quran says to go travel the world and see the ruins of civilizations gone by ...
Ruins are not necessarily preserved in tact. For example when christian constantinople was conquered by muslims the mosaics were plastered over in the cathedral.
Unfortunately, these days the Taliban and their radical ilk seem more interested in using science to blow shit up than in building up their culture. If you ever find yourself in a position of blowing up ancient statues because they might anger your sky god, that's a pretty good hint that your society has regressed significantly in its intellectual sophistication.
Blowing up the Buddhist statues was a major crime in my book but Islam *never* approved of statues or paintings depicting humans, even at its scientific and mathematic peaks. Astronomy doesn't seem to cross any religious line as far as I know. I think the problems with astronomy are more practical, in a war zone people wonder if that telescope is a spotting scope (neither side wants to be observed), a rocket launcher, etc. Waving around green lasers can also be troublesome.
Wow such an insightful article. Who would have thought that it would be dangerous in a country that has been a war zone for over 2 decades?
Shining green lasers around in a war zone, what could go wrong?
... where the Koran-thumpers cut people's heads off ...
In the middle ages muslims thought very highly of astronomy, so why would the guys wanting to base their society on that era be against astronomy?
Some of the scientific work was done in central asia, if not Afghanistan then next door. Perhaps you've noticed that some stars and astronomical terms are arabic in origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_in_medieval_Islam
Basically, Apple tried to sell iPhones and iPads as enterprise devices. IT departments looked at them and laughed, pointing out that they need to be able to deploy custom in-house apps to them. Apple for once listened to a customer (so maybe the world really is ending) and agreed to allow in-house app stores for customer enterprise apps.
No. This is nothing new. Enterprise apps have always been distributed internally. If not from day 1 then from *very* soon afterwards. I recall having to select regular or enterprise accounts when signing up with Apple in 2008.
What may have been added in recent history, a year or so ago (?), is the wireless distribution option.
Thanks. Having done ad hoc distribution many times I read too much into Apple's "must have a provisioning profile that authorizes devices to use the app".
Apple allows other app stores? The world really will end in October!
These are enterprise apps for internal use by an organization. Enterprise apps have always been handled differently than the regular apps for consumers on the Apple App Store.
My understanding is that the organization maintains a list of device IDs allowed to use the app. They submit the list to Apple, Apple signs it, and returns the signed list as a provisioning file. The enterprise then distributes the app and the provisioning file to users, there is even a wireless method that the enterprise can set up. There is no Apple approval process for enterprise apps. I've not done an enterprise app myself but it sounds like the ad hoc distribution process used by regular developers and their testers.
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#featuredarticles/FA_Wireless_Enterprise_App_Distribution/Introduction/Introduction.html
Can a Monkey Get a Copyright & Issue a Takedown?
Maybe a million monkeys could do it, as they do with Shakespeare.
We're not going to be engaging anyone in any aerospace competitions. Not merely because we can't afford it, ...
The last 50 or so years of US history clearly demonstrates that is no impediment to the US government.
... but also because they would rather we not.
You are using an erroneous and simplistic model of the US dollar trade. Given China's exports based economic strategy and their desire to manipulate their currency to maintain an export advantage they have to acquire US dollars from exporters. They can't use these dollars in any normal market because that will send their currency in the "wrong direction". Buying US bonds gets rid of these dollars without affecting their currency. Cheap labor only supports the export of products of a simplistic nature with commodity pricing. For higher end products where labor is a much lower factor in the overall cost it is the low relative value of their currency that drives the exports. So if they want to export beads for Mardi Gras parties they can dump dollars as you imply. However if they want to export iPads and Android tablets they can not do so. China wants to manufacture and export the high end so they will not go the route you imply. When they have an economy based on domestic production and consumption we can revisit all of this.
The space race of the 1960's is not going to return
I would not be so sure. Chinese progress in space could get quite a few US politicians to reverse their course. It has happened before.
The "patron saint" of the Apollo program actually started off wanting to kill the program. JFK was against Apollo as a senator and at the beginning of his administration. VP Johnson got him to delay his decision to dismantle Apollo. Then the Russians sent up Yuri Gagarin and Kennedy completely reversed his opinion on Apollo and became its champion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_space_policy
Pascal on the DTACK Grande anyone?
68K assembly on the DTACK (a 68K coprocessor for the Apple II, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTACK_Grounded). We debugged the portable portion of our code directly on the DTACK. We then assembled our early Mac programs using the DTACK and uploaded them to the Mac to see them run (or crash). We couldn't afford the $10,000 Lisa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_lisa) development platform.
We also used our Apple II's for C64 development, much better assembler (LISA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_assembler). It was easier to build and uploaded using the Apple II than to build directly on the C64.
Easy. Apple's products have the shortest life expectancy.
That is a straw man. Also misinformed, I can build and run software on a first generation iPhone and iPod touch.
And free software... ooh man do they last forever.
That is a red herring. Free software runs just fine on iOS devices. Developers are fee to give away their source code to users. However the most relevant point is that an enterprise app like the one being discussed does not have to go through the approval process required by regular apps that are distributed via Apple App Store. An enterprise app can be distributed by the company to its internal users directly.
There is no need to port the software when Apple discontinues iOS ...
You have just lost all credibility.
you realize that's impossible without jailbreaking right?
You are mistaken:
Enterprise app: "an app that you distribute internally as an enterprise app doesn't need the Apple approval process that a regular app would need"
Regular app: "Users may need to register in order to load their build onto their device but that was their choice when the selected iOS as their platform"