You are abosolutely correct -- IE looks at the file extention (.png) before checking the MIME Type in the headers. It's a long standing bug, and probably not likely to be fixed because lots of "works in IE" sites probably depend on it now.
One experiment would be a PNG file with no extention, but with the MIME headers set correctly. Will IE display it?
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable
Depends what they mean by "accompanies". If it means "included in the OS kit with the GPLed executable" then it does seem to prevent shipping GPL programs with a non-GPL OS. (I think most companies get around this by including the GPL stuff with a seperate installer or as an "optional/add-on/third party" component just to enforce that it is not part of the OS proper.
Since the point of the GPL is to encourage "Free Software", I would imagine that if there was no copyright law, there would be some other "General Public Contract" of some sort mandating that the users of the code kept their software free.
Obviously, copyrights allow the GPL to work the way it does, and their existance is one big reason Free/Open Source software is popular.
A quick trip to shop.ibm.com 1 Netfinity 3500 M20, single PIII @ 800Mhz with 128MB -- $2,430 with 512MB -- $3,554 (This is what we install our NT systems with nowdays.)
So, with 384MB costing $1124, that works out to $2.93/MB, or $1499 for the total memory in the system, which works out 42% of the total system cost.
I picked the 3500 because it's about the lowest end 'server' you can buy from IBM (it's in a workstation case). I would only imagine the prices of OEM memory goes up as the system get bigger. Of course, buying direct is cheaper (if you look at the purchase price alone), but our shop is one of those places that purchases manufacturer-supported servers from the big tier-1 vendors.
Part of RAMDoubler's commercial success was (is?) due to the fact that the MacOS virtual memory system sucks rocks. So compare your 3-5% to 10-20% under System 7's native system.
RAMDoubler simply replaced the native virtual memory system with a better, but slightly less compatible one. The memory compression features were a later add-on -- I'm not sure how effective, fast, or widely used they were.
No, he's right. OpenStep is 'proprietary' and despite the name it is not 'open' or a published specification by any means. (See various Steve Jobs comments to the effect of "We own our APIs , and they can/will change them when it suits them.)
GNUStep is a reimplementation of OpenStep, but that doesn't make OpenStep any less proprietary.
Bottom line is that, after years and years in denial, the NeXTStep crowd just figured out about 6 months ago that their high budget OpenStep-on-Wintel consulting market is dead. They just can't/won't adjust to selling software and services on a low-end home user platform, and are lashing out at Apple.
Most of the Mac user base seems pretty happy about the direction of OS X and Apple in general -- it just the folks that had heavily invested in Objective C/OpenStep who are complaining. Would they be happier if NeXT had just gone out of business?
(I know NeXT had it's technical merits -- however the plain facts are that it was a bust in the marketplace. It makes sense to migrate that tech to someplace that someone will actually use it.
If Apple was a little smarter, they would have maybe thrown the NeXT guys a bone. They're a well-spoken, long-winded, bitchy little bunch, and having them talk trash continually can't be good when you are just about to launch your most important product in a decade.)
I recall my experience with the 'free' Solaris 7 -- In order to get PPP working, Sun wanted you to purchase some $100 add on. ($100 for a $20 OS!). Most of Sun's support site was restricted unless you were a paying customer. Not much good.
Fortunately, I found a how-to which allowed me to set it up using UUCP voodoo, although it only ran as root. It was one of the few third party Solaris docs I could dig up.
The upshot is that Solaris support was pretty poor, unless you are a paying Sun customer. Maybe they've gotten better.
First of all, you have a point that, to some extent, Windows shops are often in a state where they are trying to apply their desktop/file server knowledge to an Internet world.
But you make it sound like that NT is such an obviously wrong choice that only the "worst half" would be running it. Yup. "Someone's lying." Let's see a real argument that Sun/Linux/Other Unix is that much better that it actually makes any more than a marginal difference.
Truth is, it doesn't matter much. What webserver platform you are on is about #29 on the list of things that matter in the success of your business. (I'd invest in programmers, rather than operating systems, myself.) Some companies wisely or accidentally realize that multiple platforms just end up costing them money. Some don't care. Some have bigger fish to fry. Try to see the big picture..
Basically, IBM has invested enough in Java, that at this point it only has two choices -- A) Play ball with Sun, or B) Create a Java clone. Right now they are playing ball, but how long will that last? Nuthins forever.
My view on the situation is that IBM has more clout to create a Java clone than Microsoft does. C# may get some hype, but let's face it -- in the MS world it's always going to play second fiddle to VB and C++.
IBM, on the other hand, has already made Java a tier 1 language on it's platforms. If they pursue an open source clone, they will get tons of mindshare from other vendors and people who are looking for an open alternative to Java, and will essentially commodize the language out underneath Sun and Microsoft.
Either the Open Source community rewrites Java (calling it by a different name, of course, to avoid trademark problems - [Something] Is Not Java) and then everyone has an open standard to write to; or, every large commercial concern rewrites Java, and then instead of one proprietary language, we have three or four.
Microsoft has been public about their C# ('COOL') plans for a long time. After a recent standards battle, IBM is grumbling about creating their own Java too. Venture capitalists are probably circling around a few Java-clone startups as we speak.
So, if we break this down further than Sun/Java = Good and MS/C# = Evil, you'll realize that Microsoft isn't really doing anything more than what other vendors will do eventually.
My guess is it's the standard turtle beach that Dell puts in their desktops.
Hell, my guess is that this is a dell desktop design - pentium chip, LCD screen, and some sort of embedded OS. Why would they design something from scratch when they've got lots of musty old computer schematics sitting on the shelf.
NT has this information, of course. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how to get the command-line to display it! (You have to dig through various dialogs in the Explorer.)
Informative my ass. OS/2 was never intended to run across all hardware platforms. IBM barely even wanted it running on x86 servers for fear of it cutting into their midrange business.
They certainly never considered putting their Single User, 286/386-specific, client OS on RS/6000s or AS/400s.
But anyway, like everyone else says, IBM "gets it" now. One thing they never got back in the OS/2 days is that it makes sense to promote PC-based servers. Maybe OS/2 missed the boat, but Linux fills the bill, especially since IBM now is willing to make tons of money of servicing and supporing other people's stuff.
Macs have used the same 'low level' format as PCs since about 1988. You can buy Windows drivers that will mount Mac 1.4M disks, so I imagine that Linux can do, or could do it with a little effort.
With 400K or 800K disks, you are SOL, but that's true even on newer Macs with floppy drives.
I suggest you spend a few hours trying to install the DOS LanMan drivers on random 1980s Ethernet cards, and then get back to us with that "No config" part.
Don't forget to optimise with QEMM, or you'll never get Lotus running.
Slashdot Mirror
You are abosolutely correct -- IE looks at the file extention (.png) before checking the MIME Type in the headers. It's a long standing bug, and probably not likely to be fixed because lots of "works in IE" sites probably depend on it now.
One experiment would be a PNG file with no extention, but with the MIME headers set correctly. Will IE display it?
I have a Compaq with a similar setup -- the Pentium daughtercard can be replaced with a Pentium Pro card.
Unfortunately the list price of the PPro daughtercard is something like $2400 (with no CPU).
Is it baloney?
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable
Depends what they mean by "accompanies". If it means "included in the OS kit with the GPLed executable" then it does seem to prevent shipping GPL programs with a non-GPL OS. (I think most companies get around this by including the GPL stuff with a seperate installer or as an "optional/add-on/third party" component just to enforce that it is not part of the OS proper.
Since the point of the GPL is to encourage "Free Software", I would imagine that if there was no copyright law, there would be some other "General Public Contract" of some sort mandating that the users of the code kept their software free.
Obviously, copyrights allow the GPL to work the way it does, and their existance is one big reason Free/Open Source software is popular.
Strike 2: fake numbers
A quick trip to shop.ibm.com
1
Netfinity 3500 M20, single PIII @ 800Mhz
with 128MB -- $2,430
with 512MB -- $3,554 (This is what we install our NT systems with nowdays.)
So, with 384MB costing $1124, that works out to $2.93/MB, or $1499 for the total memory in the system, which works out 42% of the total system cost.
I picked the 3500 because it's about the lowest end 'server' you can buy from IBM (it's in a workstation case). I would only imagine the prices of OEM memory goes up as the system get bigger. Of course, buying direct is cheaper (if you look at the purchase price alone), but our shop is one of those places that purchases manufacturer-supported servers from the big tier-1 vendors.
Part of RAMDoubler's commercial success was (is?) due to the fact that the MacOS virtual memory system sucks rocks. So compare your 3-5% to 10-20% under System 7's native system.
RAMDoubler simply replaced the native virtual memory system with a better, but slightly less compatible one. The memory compression features were a later add-on -- I'm not sure how effective, fast, or widely used they were.
I stand corrected.
No, he's right. OpenStep is 'proprietary' and despite the name it is not 'open' or a published specification by any means. (See various Steve Jobs comments to the effect of "We own our APIs
, and they can/will change them when it suits them.)
GNUStep is a reimplementation of OpenStep, but that doesn't make OpenStep any less proprietary.
Bottom line is that, after years and years in denial, the NeXTStep crowd just figured out about 6 months ago that their high budget OpenStep-on-Wintel consulting market is dead. They just can't/won't adjust to selling software and services on a low-end home user platform, and are lashing out at Apple.
Most of the Mac user base seems pretty happy about the direction of OS X and Apple in general -- it just the folks that had heavily invested in Objective C/OpenStep who are complaining. Would they be happier if NeXT had just gone out of business?
(I know NeXT had it's technical merits -- however the plain facts are that it was a bust in the marketplace. It makes sense to migrate that tech to someplace that someone will actually use it.
If Apple was a little smarter, they would have maybe thrown the NeXT guys a bone. They're a well-spoken, long-winded, bitchy little bunch, and having them talk trash continually can't be good when you are just about to launch your most important product in a decade.)
I recall my experience with the 'free' Solaris 7 -- In order to get PPP working, Sun wanted you to purchase some $100 add on. ($100 for a $20 OS!). Most of Sun's support site was restricted unless you were a paying customer. Not much good.
Fortunately, I found a how-to which allowed me to set it up using UUCP voodoo, although it only ran as root. It was one of the few third party Solaris docs I could dig up.
The upshot is that Solaris support was pretty poor, unless you are a paying Sun customer. Maybe they've gotten better.
First of all, you have a point that, to some extent, Windows shops are often in a state where they are trying to apply their desktop/file server knowledge to an Internet world.
But you make it sound like that NT is such an obviously wrong choice that only the "worst half" would be running it. Yup. "Someone's lying." Let's see a real argument that Sun/Linux/Other Unix is that much better that it actually makes any more than a marginal difference.
Truth is, it doesn't matter much. What webserver platform you are on is about #29 on the list of things that matter in the success of your business. (I'd invest in programmers, rather than operating systems, myself.) Some companies wisely or accidentally realize that multiple platforms just end up costing them money. Some don't care. Some have bigger fish to fry. Try to see the big picture..
You don't think that IBM has the clout to do it?
Basically, IBM has invested enough in Java, that at this point it only has two choices -- A) Play ball with Sun, or B) Create a Java clone. Right now they are playing ball, but how long will that last? Nuthins forever.
My view on the situation is that IBM has more clout to create a Java clone than Microsoft does. C# may get some hype, but let's face it -- in the MS world it's always going to play second fiddle to VB and C++.
IBM, on the other hand, has already made Java a tier 1 language on it's platforms. If they pursue an open source clone, they will get tons of mindshare from other vendors and people who are looking for an open alternative to Java, and will essentially commodize the language out underneath Sun and Microsoft.
RMS had some interesting thoughts on this --
Either the Open Source community rewrites Java (calling it by a different name, of course, to avoid trademark problems - [Something] Is Not Java) and then everyone has an open standard to write to; or, every large commercial concern rewrites Java, and then instead of one proprietary language, we have three or four.
Microsoft has been public about their C# ('COOL') plans for a long time. After a recent standards battle, IBM is grumbling about creating their own Java too. Venture capitalists are probably circling around a few Java-clone startups as we speak.
So, if we break this down further than Sun/Java = Good and MS/C# = Evil, you'll realize that Microsoft isn't really doing anything more than what other vendors will do eventually.
As in 'Were they smoking hash when they thought this up?'
Well, it's better than "C00L" (the code name).
My guess is it's the standard turtle beach that Dell puts in their desktops.
Hell, my guess is that this is a dell desktop design - pentium chip, LCD screen, and some sort of embedded OS. Why would they design something from scratch when they've got lots of musty old computer schematics sitting on the shelf.
How does it even boot into Linux if the board is dead? You're confusing me....
Either Windows trashed the board, or it's just crashing on boot into Windows in a really spectacular manner.
NT has this information, of course. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how to get the command-line to display it! (You have to dig through various dialogs in the Explorer.)
Informative my ass. OS/2 was never intended to run across all hardware platforms. IBM barely even wanted it running on x86 servers for fear of it cutting into their midrange business.
They certainly never considered putting their Single User, 286/386-specific, client OS on RS/6000s or AS/400s.
But anyway, like everyone else says, IBM "gets it" now. One thing they never got back in the OS/2 days is that it makes sense to promote PC-based servers. Maybe OS/2 missed the boat, but Linux fills the bill, especially since IBM now is willing to make tons of money of servicing and supporing other people's stuff.
"I never intended to say that div-x or Mpeg4 was not legal, in any way shape or form."
The idea is of course not illegal.
However the common Windows Divx codec is a hacked version of Microsoft code, which most likely violates MS' licence agreement, and is illegal.
Oops - the Windows delay is actually in the sub menus (like in Start), not the context menu.
Just as a data point, IBM claims that it's AS/400 division (hardware and software) has greater revenues than all of Sun Microsystems. (sorry, no link)
Of course, if anything this shows only ASS400 stuff is expensive, but even so, it does 'outsell' Sun.
Macs have used the same 'low level' format as PCs since about 1988. You can buy Windows drivers that will mount Mac 1.4M disks, so I imagine that Linux can do, or could do it with a little effort.
With 400K or 800K disks, you are SOL, but that's true even on newer Macs with floppy drives.
Even the 128K Mac had the hardware to do LocalTalk, although memory usage would get tight, so usually a 512K was recommended.
I suggest you spend a few hours trying to install the DOS LanMan drivers on random 1980s Ethernet cards, and then get back to us with that "No config" part.
Don't forget to optimise with QEMM, or you'll never get Lotus running.