I apologise, I worded the original post incorrectly.
I meant to say that if it is determined that the majority of the dimpled ballots were caused by machine error, then they should unquestionably be counted.
The Florida courts are clarifying three conflicting laws, which is part of the duty of our court system. It is not a violation of "separation of powers" as the shrubbery says. Rather it is our government's "checks & balances" in process.
Catherine Harris may have overstepped her rights, by not allowing the recounts. The Florida Legislature wrote conflicting laws. This means that the judicial system must clarify and correct both at the same time. This is the way our system works. If you don't like it, then vote "yes" on the constitutional convention item at the next presidential election.
2. The dimpled ballots may have been a result of faulty equipment. This means that they should unquestionably be counted. This is what Gore is contesting, which he should. Hopefully this is enough to keep the shrub, or rather the weed, from infesting the White House.
3. Florida law states that non-postmarked ballots should not be counted. Unfortunately, because the military does not postmark their mail, some votes did not get counted. Should their voices count, yes. Should their votes count in this election? Florida law also says that election rules are set to the laws when it (the election) began. If they want the military vote to count, they should fix it, but rules are rules, and in this election the rule states that all absentee ballots must be postmarked.
One example is that of a missing boy, his father asks you to help him find the boy, you could either bring the boy to the father, or do something evil like kill the boy, drop him in front of the father, and then kill the father for asking.
I'd better me able to drop him onto the father, killing both of them in the process.
No, wait. I want to be able to lightly drop the kid into the father's arms.
Then I'll drop my 30 foot cow lighly onto both of them.
No, wait. I'll drop both the kid and the dad onto a deserted island together.
No, wait. I want to force the kid to kill his father.
No, wait... AAARRRGGGHHHHH! I can't make up my mind, and the game isn't even out yet.
Re:From election official
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
A response for each...
1) Develop an open source election system. I could think of some requirements...
The system must be completely encrypted in such a way to render it impossible to break the encryption on all the votes, even if it is broken on one vote.
The system must print a receipt that is given to the voter. On that receipt is a key, that can match a votor to a ballot, but in a way that only allows this if the government needs to, and the votor wants to. REMEMBER - secret ballots do not need to be anonymous, just impossible to determine what candidate the votor chose without the votor's consent.
The system must keep a guaranteed record of every vote.
The system must have a method to prove that the system itself is honest (no one has programmed vote changes into the system)
2) The system that I am speaking of could easilty be run on free software. This means that the voting machines could be bought for $399 at your local computer superstore.
On a side note: I am not an advocate of internet voting. I am an advocate of computer voting systems at polling places. This would cause the count to be more accurate, allow a user feedback as to who they voted for, and not allow users to mark two candidates.
If you would've read the article, you'd understand.
The problem is not your credit card, it is the government's secrets (they mention nuclear secrets)
I could have stored the transmission of an encrypted message, and thirty years later it is as important as the day it was transmitted.
If quantum computers hit the streets, no past encrypted message is safe.
As a person that dosen't even own a credit card (therefore I cannot make online purchases,) my concern is not with my personal security, but with our national security. But then India & China might blow us up before we finalize quantum decryption.
In the 1995-1996 school year, I was one of 20 students that was given a PowerBook 520c for a year. I didn't actually see the results of the study, but my expieriences were that most of the students left them in their dorm rooms, except for the one english class that required the laptop.
This may be very different now, since battery life is much improved and weight has been reduced, although I doubt it, unless digital books become the norm. I doubt that that will happen either. There is something about sitting in a comfy chair with a text and a highlighter that is lost when reading on a computer. Often times, I'll print something out just so that I can mark it up better than I can on a computer.
---
Does it scare anyone that they (obviously) are requiring Windows based machines? As a Mac user this scares the sh*t out of me, and it should scare linux users too, since they will most likely expect users to have MS Office, and other non-linux apps. Whether you think that Windows sucks, Macs suck, Linux suck, ect., you should agree that Universities mandating hardware and software choices is terrible, and goes against everything that a university is about.
Vocal authorization needs two things, you stating your name, and you saying the word "yes." With that, they can change your phone line, because they will change what you are saying "yes" to.
Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to get your $$ back as most of these are fly by night companies that resell bandwith they buy from the big boys. You probably did not get slammed by the AT&T that we all know of. You probably got slammed by another company that is named "Atlantic Telegraph & Telephone" or something else completely misleading.
The only way to stop this is by putting a pick freeze on your phone line. A pick freeze tells your existing phone company that the only way they are autihorized to surrender your phone line is with your written approval.
Note that this will not stop slammers. It will make your existing phone company 100% liable for your slamming, which means that they will do the grunt work of straightening the mess out, and you will not have to pay the overwhelming rates that most slammers charge.
Actually, the ABC did use vaccum tubes and was digital, binary, and electronic. There is an example tube in Durham Hall at Iowa State. Unfortunately it is not an original, the only remaining artifact of the original ABC was one of the two memory drums, which basically worked like DRAM.
The origial ABC was dismantled by a grad student who needed the storage space. (I've heard that this grad student is the head of the physics dept. now.) They had no idea what it actually was until after WW2 was over (and ENIAC was known.) This is why the ABC does not get the credit it deserves.
A quote from http://www.cs.iastate.edu/jva/jva-archive.shtml
Atanasoff-Berry computer was the first digital computer. It was built by John Vincent Atanasoff and Clifford Berry at Iowa State University during 1937-42, and introduced the concepts of binary arithmetic, regenerative memory, and logic circuits.
There are many interesting links about the ABC on that site as well.
Why not design home heating using ths? It would minimize the heat lost out of the pipes without insulation, therefore thinning pipes.
Anything that is generating heat could have an outlet that would push the heat into the heating system, thus relaiming some of the energy lost.
Cars could have nanotubes that suck the heat of a car back to an array of nanogenerators, which would do away with the current coolant system and generation system.
Being able to channel heat at this level opens new uses for it as well. The RAM in a graphics chip could be a heat circut, instead of electric, so that it actually USES the heat generated, instead of wasting into the open air.
Much like the numbers channels on HAM radio, someone needs to start reciting DeCSS. Imagine going throug random stations, and all of a sudden you hear a monotone voice saying...
Of course with the advent of pro mode, Mr. Jobs failed to mention that there are several other modes as well....
Nerd mode - Thick (10 pixel) black window outline, and the dock becomes a pocket protector.
Loser mode - the close box moves to the right side, and the dock moves to the left, and the finder icon changes to a "Start" button.
Dislexic mode - dias ffun'
Psychadelic mode - (Steve's favorite) the buttons constantly change color, and the dock flows around the screen as if it were made of paint.
Pimp mode - The windows move real slow, are bright yellow, and the buttons are gold. When you are not moving the windows, they hop in place.
Steve mode - it would be a stylish black, but would only let you see your new files on your HD twice a year. Oh, and one other thing, it would tell you about a new feature in OS X every time you shut down.
Retro theme - It would revert back to the Mac OS (pre platinum) look.
Invisible mode - for those that don't want anything to get in the way of their desktop picture.
Grandma mode - warm & fuzzy interface, always places fresh cookies in your web browser
Linux mode - Command line, but it keeps typing that software wants to be free as in both speech and beer.
If we look at the bias...
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 1
... we'll see that David Every is writing towards people that are most likely scared of the complexity of UNIX. These people also are Mac users (as am I), which think in terms of the user, not the computer.
So Mr. Every looks at the term "operating system" with these two facts in mind.
1. An operating system is something that allows the user to operate a computer.
2. For most users, a kernal and shell is not enough to allow the user to operate the computer.
Therefore, from a consumer standpoint, UNIX alone is not an operating system. From a server standpoint, UNIX is an operating system, but he is not writing toward hard core Administrators.
He then goes on to say that Apple is taking the foundations of UNIX, and placing the parts needed on top, so that the intended user can operate the computer, which is an article trying to calm the nerves of the mac users that are afraid of this change.
In closing, if we look at the computer science definition of "Operating System", David Every's article is flawed. But if we look at the writer's perspective, and his intended audience, the logic is actually very good.
Re:Does Jobs bugger everything all to hell?
on
Looking Back At NeXT
·
· Score: 1
Actually, Woz could have cared less if the Apple ][ ran out of a cardboard box, or just open. He was the engineering genious that it needed to be a viable computer.
Jobs put it in a plastic case that made it something that _could_ be sold to the masses.
Jobs should not be discounted for this. It took both of them to spark the computer revolution, just like it took Jobs' flair for elegance to spark the resurgence into the Mac Market.
On another note...
Mac OS X _IS_ NeXTSTEP rebranded. Obj C is there, most NeXTSTEP programs run under it, and it is wicked fast on a single G4, not to mention its SMP support for the dual G4.
F/A-18 Hornet for the Mac used to be able to use 3 monitors. I would let you arrange them so that the center was the forward view, and the left and right monitors were the left and right views, respectively.
They dropped support for it in F/A-18 Hornet:Korea, because they realized that
1. no one realized that the feature was in the game.
2. No one who could afford 2 graphics cards and 2 more monitors were interested in the game.
C# sounds a lot like Objective C on antisteroids (estrogen?). Of course Obj. C is supported by GCC, and has been aroung for years.
If Apple ever got their heads out of their asses and re-released Cocoa (Yellow Box) for Winders, and began helping with GNUStep. They could have a fully cross platform Language and API, which is all what D Flat seems to be, and more.
Actually, according to Bruce Tognazzini, (the founder of Apple's Human Interface Group), they had working scroll wheels in 1989 (I'm guessing at the date, www.asktog.com has reached its daily quota)
I would imagine that it would've broken the surface of the mouse, so it was scrapped due to asthetics. Not that I blame them, but I would like to be able to switch out to a two button, scroll mouse for $5 in the Apple Store.
While the cube does not have a fan, I'm sure it's airflow is from the bottom. An enterprising individual could build a stand for a G4 Cluster tower, which has a fan that could easily cool the entire tower.
You could then figure out how many G4s you could cool this way, and put another fan in between that computer and the next computer.
If you had a fan that could sufficiently cool 3 G4^3s (cubes.) It could look like this...
Actually this probably has nothing to do with marketshare.
If I were a hardware developer, I would not create a product for the existing Mac OS. I would create it for Mac OS X. Since Mac OS X isn't being released until 2001, I would hesitate to announce a product before the OS is released.
I apologise for the previous post, I forgot to change it to "plain old text"
>Carbonizing an app doesn't make it any closer to Cocoa. Cocoa evolved from the very different Openstep API. Carbon evolved from the old Toolbox API. The two are almost totally unrelated.
That's the whole point. It still is OS X Native, even though it is not cocoa. This is the beauty of OS X vs. Rhapsody. Developers do not need to rewrite their code to gain the benifits of OS X. They just need to make it conform to carbon specs.
As for newly written apps, they should be in cocoa.
>However, I've heard lots of developers on the net rant about how great the Openstep API were and how easy it is to develop - some non-programmer journalist wrote an article a few years back about supposedly being able to go from, not knowing how to program, to writing a full-featured word processor program in something like 2 hours, using Openstep.
Actually, their word processor was as full featured as, say, word 2.0. Which IS full featured compared to simpletext. I'm sure Office will be much longer to move to carbon.
OpenStep is great. Objective - C rules! In fact you can develop with Obj C and use the GCC compiler.
There is even a project called GNUStep that is open source (although not complete) version of the Openstep (cocoa) libraries.
>Carbonizing an app doesn't make it any closer to Cocoa. Cocoa evolved from the very different Openstep API. Carbon evolved from the old Toolbox API. The two are almost totally unrelated. That's the whole point. It still is OS X Native, even though it is not cocoa. This is the beauty of OS X vs. Rhapsody. Developers do not need to rewrite their code to gain the benifits of OS X. They just need to make it conform to carbon specs. As for newly written apps, they should be in cocoa. >However, I've heard lots of developers on the net rant about how great the Openstep API were and how easy it is to develop - some non-programmer journalist wrote an article a few years back about supposedly being able to go from, not knowing how to program, to writing a full-featured word processor program in something like 2 hours, using Openstep. Actually, their word processor was as full featured as, say, word 2.0. Which IS full featured compared to simpletext. I'm sure Office will be much longer to move to carbon. OpenStep is great. Objective - C rules! In fact you can develop with Obj C and use the GCC compiler. There is even a project called GNUStep that is open source (although not complete) version of the Openstep (cocoa) libraries.
If they release it as final this summer, and everyone hates the GUI, they have to apologise when they fix the UI.
If they release it as beta, and everyone complains, they can say that they were listening to their beta testers when they fix the interface in v1.0.
This lets them save face.
Also, if we look at recent rumors...
Microsoft isn't making Office OS X Native until they finish OE & IE.
It would be a deathwish to release OS X without Office, since it is aimed at people that already have Macs, and want the ease of use of a major Office suite.
Slashdot Mirror
I apologise, I worded the original post incorrectly.
I meant to say that if it is determined that the majority of the dimpled ballots were caused by machine error, then they should unquestionably be counted.
I'll comment on a couple of posts here.
1. The Florida courts are not "rewriting" law.
The Florida courts are clarifying three conflicting laws, which is part of the duty of our court system. It is not a violation of "separation of powers" as the shrubbery says. Rather it is our government's "checks & balances" in process.
Catherine Harris may have overstepped her rights, by not allowing the recounts. The Florida Legislature wrote conflicting laws. This means that the judicial system must clarify and correct both at the same time. This is the way our system works. If you don't like it, then vote "yes" on the constitutional convention item at the next presidential election.
2. The dimpled ballots may have been a result of faulty equipment. This means that they should unquestionably be counted. This is what Gore is contesting, which he should. Hopefully this is enough to keep the shrub, or rather the weed, from infesting the White House.
3. Florida law states that non-postmarked ballots should not be counted. Unfortunately, because the military does not postmark their mail, some votes did not get counted. Should their voices count, yes. Should their votes count in this election? Florida law also says that election rules are set to the laws when it (the election) began. If they want the military vote to count, they should fix it, but rules are rules, and in this election the rule states that all absentee ballots must be postmarked.
One example is that of a missing boy, his father asks you to help him find the boy, you could either bring the boy to the father, or do something evil like kill the boy, drop him in front of the father, and then kill the father for asking.
I'd better me able to drop him onto the father, killing both of them in the process.
No, wait. I want to be able to lightly drop the kid into the father's arms.
Then I'll drop my 30 foot cow lighly onto both of them.
No, wait. I'll drop both the kid and the dad onto a deserted island together.
No, wait. I want to force the kid to kill his father.
No, wait...
AAARRRGGGHHHHH! I can't make up my mind, and the game isn't even out yet.
A response for each...
1) Develop an open source election system. I could think of some requirements...
The system must be completely encrypted in such a way to render it impossible to break the encryption on all the votes, even if it is broken on one vote.
The system must print a receipt that is given to the voter. On that receipt is a key, that can match a votor to a ballot, but in a way that only allows this if the government needs to, and the votor wants to. REMEMBER - secret ballots do not need to be anonymous, just impossible to determine what candidate the votor chose without the votor's consent.
The system must keep a guaranteed record of every vote.
The system must have a method to prove that the system itself is honest (no one has programmed vote changes into the system)
2) The system that I am speaking of could easilty be run on free software. This means that the voting machines could be bought for $399 at your local computer superstore.
On a side note: I am not an advocate of internet voting. I am an advocate of computer voting systems at polling places. This would cause the count to be more accurate, allow a user feedback as to who they voted for, and not allow users to mark two candidates.
Your three options are off.
Here are some options that are more suitable
1. You are executed with a gun (Gore)
2. You are tortured, then hung (Bush)
3. You are tortured, permanently mangled, then left to live (Nader)
For me, 2 & 3 sound much more painful than 1.
I like what I heard from Nader, but the fact that Iowa was 6000 votes from going to the dark side, I'm glad I voted for Gore.
I wash my hands of the damage that the shrub will do to this country. If it gets too bad, I'll move out of the country.
If you would've read the article, you'd understand.
The problem is not your credit card, it is the government's secrets (they mention nuclear secrets)
I could have stored the transmission of an encrypted message, and thirty years later it is as important as the day it was transmitted.
If quantum computers hit the streets, no past encrypted message is safe.
As a person that dosen't even own a credit card (therefore I cannot make online purchases,) my concern is not with my personal security, but with our national security. But then India & China might blow us up before we finalize quantum decryption.
is here
:)
Lots of great pictures and hubble info. Of course, this should be in the related links.
In the 1995-1996 school year, I was one of 20 students that was given a PowerBook 520c for a year. I didn't actually see the results of the study, but my expieriences were that most of the students left them in their dorm rooms, except for the one english class that required the laptop.
This may be very different now, since battery life is much improved and weight has been reduced, although I doubt it, unless digital books become the norm. I doubt that that will happen either. There is something about sitting in a comfy chair with a text and a highlighter that is lost when reading on a computer. Often times, I'll print something out just so that I can mark it up better than I can on a computer.
---
Does it scare anyone that they (obviously) are requiring Windows based machines? As a Mac user this scares the sh*t out of me, and it should scare linux users too, since they will most likely expect users to have MS Office, and other non-linux apps. Whether you think that Windows sucks, Macs suck, Linux suck, ect., you should agree that Universities mandating hardware and software choices is terrible, and goes against everything that a university is about.
Vocal authorization needs two things, you stating your name, and you saying the word "yes." With that, they can change your phone line, because they will change what you are saying "yes" to.
Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to get your $$ back as most of these are fly by night companies that resell bandwith they buy from the big boys. You probably did not get slammed by the AT&T that we all know of. You probably got slammed by another company that is named "Atlantic Telegraph & Telephone" or something else completely misleading.
The only way to stop this is by putting a pick freeze on your phone line. A pick freeze tells your existing phone company that the only way they are autihorized to surrender your phone line is with your written approval.
Note that this will not stop slammers. It will make your existing phone company 100% liable for your slamming, which means that they will do the grunt work of straightening the mess out, and you will not have to pay the overwhelming rates that most slammers charge.
Actually, the ABC did use vaccum tubes and was digital, binary, and electronic. There is an example tube in Durham Hall at Iowa State. Unfortunately it is not an original, the only remaining artifact of the original ABC was one of the two memory drums, which basically worked like DRAM.
The origial ABC was dismantled by a grad student who needed the storage space. (I've heard that this grad student is the head of the physics dept. now.) They had no idea what it actually was until after WW2 was over (and ENIAC was known.) This is why the ABC does not get the credit it deserves.
A quote from http://www.cs.iastate.edu/jva/jva-archive.shtml
Atanasoff-Berry computer was the first digital computer. It was built by John Vincent Atanasoff and Clifford Berry at Iowa State University during 1937-42, and introduced the concepts of binary arithmetic, regenerative memory, and logic circuits.
There are many interesting links about the ABC on that site as well.
Hmm, someone should come out with a fast quake game, while reciting DeCSS into chats in the game.
Why not design home heating using ths? It would minimize the heat lost out of the pipes without insulation, therefore thinning pipes.
Anything that is generating heat could have an outlet that would push the heat into the heating system, thus relaiming some of the energy lost.
Cars could have nanotubes that suck the heat of a car back to an array of nanogenerators, which would do away with the current coolant system and generation system.
Being able to channel heat at this level opens new uses for it as well. The RAM in a graphics chip could be a heat circut, instead of electric, so that it actually USES the heat generated, instead of wasting into the open air.
Much like the numbers channels on HAM radio, someone needs to start reciting DeCSS. Imagine going throug random stations, and all of a sudden you hear a monotone voice saying...
#ifndef __css_descramble_h_
#define __css_descramble_h_
struct playkey {
int offset:
unsigned char key[5];
};
extern int css_decrypttitlekey(unsigned char *tkey, unsigned char *dkey, struct playkey **pkey);
extern void css_descramble(unsigned char *sec,unsigned char *key);
#endif
BTW, is it legal to post portions of DeCSS? How about linking to them?
Of course with the advent of pro mode, Mr. Jobs failed to mention that there are several other modes as well....
Nerd mode - Thick (10 pixel) black window outline, and the dock becomes a pocket protector.
Loser mode - the close box moves to the right side, and the dock moves to the left, and the finder icon changes to a "Start" button.
Dislexic mode - dias ffun'
Psychadelic mode - (Steve's favorite) the buttons constantly change color, and the dock flows around the screen as if it were made of paint.
Pimp mode - The windows move real slow, are bright yellow, and the buttons are gold. When you are not moving the windows, they hop in place.
Steve mode - it would be a stylish black, but would only let you see your new files on your HD twice a year. Oh, and one other thing, it would tell you about a new feature in OS X every time you shut down.
Retro theme - It would revert back to the Mac OS (pre platinum) look.
Invisible mode - for those that don't want anything to get in the way of their desktop picture.
Grandma mode - warm & fuzzy interface, always places fresh cookies in your web browser
Linux mode - Command line, but it keeps typing that software wants to be free as in both speech and beer.
... we'll see that David Every is writing towards people that are most likely scared of the complexity of UNIX. These people also are Mac users (as am I), which think in terms of the user, not the computer.
So Mr. Every looks at the term "operating system" with these two facts in mind.
1. An operating system is something that allows the user to operate a computer.
2. For most users, a kernal and shell is not enough to allow the user to operate the computer.
Therefore, from a consumer standpoint, UNIX alone is not an operating system. From a server standpoint, UNIX is an operating system, but he is not writing toward hard core Administrators.
He then goes on to say that Apple is taking the foundations of UNIX, and placing the parts needed on top, so that the intended user can operate the computer, which is an article trying to calm the nerves of the mac users that are afraid of this change.
In closing, if we look at the computer science definition of "Operating System", David Every's article is flawed. But if we look at the writer's perspective, and his intended audience, the logic is actually very good.
Actually, Woz could have cared less if the Apple ][ ran out of a cardboard box, or just open. He was the engineering genious that it needed to be a viable computer.
Jobs put it in a plastic case that made it something that _could_ be sold to the masses.
Jobs should not be discounted for this. It took both of them to spark the computer revolution, just like it took Jobs' flair for elegance to spark the resurgence into the Mac Market.
On another note...
Mac OS X _IS_ NeXTSTEP rebranded. Obj C is there, most NeXTSTEP programs run under it, and it is wicked fast on a single G4, not to mention its SMP support for the dual G4.
F/A-18 Hornet for the Mac used to be able to use 3 monitors. I would let you arrange them so that the center was the forward view, and the left and right monitors were the left and right views, respectively.
They dropped support for it in F/A-18 Hornet:Korea, because they realized that
1. no one realized that the feature was in the game.
2. No one who could afford 2 graphics cards and 2 more monitors were interested in the game.
C# sounds a lot like Objective C on antisteroids (estrogen?). Of course Obj. C is supported by GCC, and has been aroung for years.
If Apple ever got their heads out of their asses and re-released Cocoa (Yellow Box) for Winders, and began helping with GNUStep. They could have a fully cross platform Language and API, which is all what D Flat seems to be, and more.
Actually, according to Bruce Tognazzini, (the founder of Apple's Human Interface Group), they had working scroll wheels in 1989 (I'm guessing at the date, www.asktog.com has reached its daily quota)
I would imagine that it would've broken the surface of the mouse, so it was scrapped due to asthetics. Not that I blame them, but I would like to be able to switch out to a two button, scroll mouse for $5 in the Apple Store.
Have you ever used a Newton? The handwriting recognition technology that Apple has is years ahead of palm's graffiti.
I've intentionally written the worst that I can to see how far it'll go, and it makes less mistakes that I do with my keyboarding skills.
While the cube does not have a fan, I'm sure it's airflow is from the bottom. An enterprising individual could build a stand for a G4 Cluster tower, which has a fan that could easily cool the entire tower.
You could then figure out how many G4s you could cool this way, and put another fan in between that computer and the next computer.
If you had a fan that could sufficiently cool 3 G4^3s (cubes.) It could look like this...
__
|_| - Cube
|_| - Cube
|_| - Cube
|=| - Fan
|_| - Cube
|_| - Cube
|_| - Cube
|=| - Fan
Actually this probably has nothing to do with marketshare.
If I were a hardware developer, I would not create a product for the existing Mac OS. I would create it for Mac OS X. Since Mac OS X isn't being released until 2001, I would hesitate to announce a product before the OS is released.
I apologise for the previous post, I forgot to change it to "plain old text"
>Carbonizing an app doesn't make it any closer to Cocoa. Cocoa evolved from the very different Openstep API. Carbon evolved from the old Toolbox API. The two are almost totally unrelated.
That's the whole point. It still is OS X Native, even though it is not cocoa. This is the beauty of OS X vs. Rhapsody. Developers do not need to rewrite their code to gain the benifits of OS X. They just need to make it conform to carbon specs.
As for newly written apps, they should be in cocoa.
>However, I've heard lots of developers on the net rant about how great the Openstep API were and how easy it is to develop - some non-programmer journalist wrote an article a few years back about supposedly being able to go from, not knowing how to program, to writing a full-featured word processor program in something like 2 hours, using Openstep.
Actually, their word processor was as full featured as, say, word 2.0. Which IS full featured compared to simpletext. I'm sure Office will be much longer to move to carbon.
OpenStep is great. Objective - C rules! In fact you can develop with Obj C and use the GCC compiler.
There is even a project called GNUStep that is open source (although not complete) version of the Openstep (cocoa) libraries.
>Carbonizing an app doesn't make it any closer to Cocoa. Cocoa evolved from the very different Openstep API. Carbon evolved from the old Toolbox API. The two are almost totally unrelated. That's the whole point. It still is OS X Native, even though it is not cocoa. This is the beauty of OS X vs. Rhapsody. Developers do not need to rewrite their code to gain the benifits of OS X. They just need to make it conform to carbon specs. As for newly written apps, they should be in cocoa. >However, I've heard lots of developers on the net rant about how great the Openstep API were and how easy it is to develop - some non-programmer journalist wrote an article a few years back about supposedly being able to go from, not knowing how to program, to writing a full-featured word processor program in something like 2 hours, using Openstep. Actually, their word processor was as full featured as, say, word 2.0. Which IS full featured compared to simpletext. I'm sure Office will be much longer to move to carbon. OpenStep is great. Objective - C rules! In fact you can develop with Obj C and use the GCC compiler. There is even a project called GNUStep that is open source (although not complete) version of the Openstep (cocoa) libraries.
If they release it as final this summer, and everyone hates the GUI, they have to apologise when they fix the UI.
If they release it as beta, and everyone complains, they can say that they were listening to their beta testers when they fix the interface in v1.0.
This lets them save face.
Also, if we look at recent rumors...
Microsoft isn't making Office OS X Native until they finish OE & IE.
It would be a deathwish to release OS X without Office, since it is aimed at people that already have Macs, and want the ease of use of a major Office suite.