The only exception to the orbital slot rule is the fifth slot, which is occupied by the asteroid belt. There's just too much crap in there to call any of it a planet.
I agree that the Library of Congress ("LOC") is a extremely rough measure, and so this thread is a bit silly... but let not that stop a correction or two on slashdot!
From 1986 to 2000 I worked part-time/full-time in the stacks in the Adams Building. I worked in the General Collections which, when I left, had 240 miles of shelving assigned to it. (The General Collections was/is contained in the Adams and Jefferson Buildings as well as several off-Capitol Hill storage facilities.) In all three buildings there were about 530 miles of shelving for all of the collections (General + Special Collections.)
Trust me - when I left we were shelving books on the floor on every deck in both buildings. The 240 mile estimate for the General Collections is low. I only viewed two of the Special Collections up close - some of the Music Division & Law Library, and they too had storage problems - they routinely took some of our shelves for their own overflow material. But, of course, not all shelves contain the same amount of data, so (again) the memory estimate of the "LOC" is going to be suspect - don't think I didn't try many times (in those long ago hours of boredom shelving those books!) to quantify an average. Its close to impossible.
The Library did try an estimate - they even asked us to suggest "typical" shelves in the General Collections with which to measure - but the final estimate did not satisfy me and I fear the typical LOC unit measure is itself low.
If you ever get stack-access go down to Deck 8 North and look through the Encyclopedias - I would estimate the length of one set of EB to be 10 feet. There are 2,798,400 feet in 530 miles, so there are 279,840 EB's per LOC (and again that LOC measure is suspect...), or 1679 lifetimes.
Your comment about Generations rekindled a thought I had immediately after seeing it: Good god why couldn't they have made the TNG finale "All Good Things.." be a motion picture, and in fact I always try to place "All Good Things" into the Trek Movie Debate every chance I get.
I do remember the excitement that the cold fusion story generated... of course it lasted about 12 hours, then the backlash... the sad part of the story was the research done by another scientist at the same time-- his (plausible) theory of why the earth gives off more heat than it takes in from space centered around the idea that "cold fusion" is responsible. Not the tabletop kind of cold fusion, but that fusion-like energy being generated by the tremendous heat and pressure of plate techtonics. The excess heat of the planet exists because far below the surface there are fusion reactions taking place.
I have been after a copy of this book since last Spring (amazon, bibliofind, ebay: always I was thwarted!!)... thank goodness this is being done... perhaps tomorrow I will be able to download this, as it seems the entire world is doing so right now... this may be the finest/. item ever. May it rise to the heights of the hof.
My problem with this is that GNU claims ownership of other peoples' projects. RMS has always said his intention was to develop a GNU operating system and he started with the tools and would then develop the kernel (I find this unbelieveable, I mean, who wouldn't start with the kernel).
...well actually it is believable, and, you make the mistake of assuming that the outcome of the linux development was foreseen:
to use the "Rebel Code" book mentioned elsewhere on yesterday's/.:
p.42:
"Though unwilling to release Linux, he [Linus Torvalds] was ready to mention its existence. On Sunday, 25 August 1991, under the subject line "What would you most like to see in minix?" he wrote in the comp.os.minix newsgroup:
...I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since April..."
It was the Linux development process that was revolutionary... Linus released early and often, kept the other developers directly involved, inviting folks to freely add in anything they wanted (sometimes reworking the entire kernel rather than just bolting a feature on), and to fix bugs, etc. No other project (free or otherwise) moved/moves as quickly (even the long wait for 2.4 was not even close to "long" when compared to other project's dev. cycles, only "long" when compared to other Linux kernel releases...)
About the absence of a kernel for GNU, RMS was working (though not like Linus!) on the Hurd kernel at the time Linux was starting (again, the process was what made the difference... Linux kernel beat Hurd kernel because Linux was done first-- and done very well.)
Again, from Rebel Code:
p.44:
"Linus also pointed out something that would have been obvious to any hacker of the time, but which has become obscured as Linux has become more widely known. 'Sadly,' he writes, 'a kernel'-- which is what Linux is and always has been-- 'by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library, etc.' He then pointed out that 'most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft,' an early indication of the symbiosis of the two systems."
RMS started his kernel last because he first wanted tools that worked (or could be easily ported) on his machine, tools that you need to do any programming... his machine chip (and its assembly instuction set, and it's OS (!)) was already settled, so it made sense to battle AT&T (and Tanenbaum, for that matter) by first writing the tools that would allow a kernel to be written later.
Re:A flaw in the book? Or the review?
on
Rebel Code
·
· Score: 1
I am reading the book right now and i can state that it does not quite begin with linux; there IS some storyline set-up via a very quick overview of the pre-Linux world: a "Prologue" (mostly about Gates and how his company's early successes and recent setbacks follow the software crisis in general) and Chapter 1's "The Coolest Year."... BUT chapter 2 (pp.13) "The New GNU Thing" is perhaps more to your liking, tracing the history of Unix, hacking in general, GNU (RMS vs. Symbolics, RMS vs.Tanenbaum), and setting the stage as to why the linux kernel became what it is today.
Hmmmm, a cheap metaphor: the world of software was balkanized (commercially (naturally) as well as in the research community (No Minix For You!)) and Torvalds' "hobby" project --slowly-- ignited the firestorm (cue brass section)...
The nice thing about the linux community effort was that it was volunteer, hacker-driven ("for fun!"), and followed the Do It Yourself ethic (tired of waiting for GNU Hurd?, D.I.Y. my friend...)
I still code in assembly (x86 'natch) and I find it a great deal of fun on two levels: it focuses my perception of how HLL's "work" and (well to put it frankly:) it is Power (humbling too at times).
I would recommend learning asm to anyone programming in C/C++ or Java or even coding stuff for Linux (setting up the parameters on the stack for your C calls (and not crashing the program) is a transcendental experience); it may not help on your job immediately but do it in your spare time for a little while and you'll see improvement in how you approach your coding. Just be careful not to reinvent the wheel too much (I happened to love writing my own utilities and macros but you may not)!
Hmmm, does anyone know how much, if any, of the Quake III Arena engine is in asm??
I'm assuming the source code that they were working with in the movie was all BS code. Anyone with quick eyes care to comment on it?
The irritating things about the source code scenes: 1) NO COMMENTED CODE 2) i dont care but i find it hard to believe one can glance at a single screen (the IDE gave about 25 lines to look at) of uncommented code and then say, "This is amazing." They did this at least twice in the movie and it was (cliche insert alert) like nails down a chalkboard.
This is what first came to mind when I saw the post... there is a wonderful book of collected Apple tee-shirts that I once perused at the Lib. of Congress... can't remember the copyright date, though... the shirts went back to the late 70's IIRC and the Macintosh era tees were impressive.
I also remember somewhere that door plaques were also used for projects (Microsoft did/does(?) this)... now those would make a nice addition to the museum.
A better list was quoted in the very same Washington Post Business section in the article directly beneath the Linux article:
"Responded Ellison: 'Microsoft has four stages in stealing someone else's idea. [The article details the Internet appliance (read Network Computer) battle, specifically Oracle-bankrolled NIC Co. vs. the gaggle of devices now shipping, including M$oft's] First is "This is really stupid." Then it's "This is stupid, but there are interesting things about it." Third is "We have a version, and ours is better." And the fourth is "What are you talking about? We invented it." That's what Bill calls innovation.'
(sigh)Oh does anyone read this far down and moderate anyway ?
Some of the nicest people I've ever played Koricky with were Microsoft PMs and coders, and if any of them still worked there...
...well they, better than anyone, knew it was over years ago.
"Your point is well taken, but re-read the court's order: Microsoft shall create a secure facility where qualified representatives of OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs shall be permitted to study, interrogate and interact with relevant and necessary portions of the source code and any related documentation of Microsoft Platform Software for the sole purpose of enabling their products to interoperate effectively with Microsoft Platform Software (including exercising any of the options in section 3.a.iii). It's not the GPL, but I'll bet you anything that Microsoft is pissing its collective pants over this."
Absolutely! The source code is a big revenue stream for Microsoft... losing that will damage the OS company. Is it also embarrassment at what lurks in the old code (its structure or lack thereof) which makes them grimace?... do they still ask their own (Msoft) project managers to sign internal NDAs in order to see another Msoft group's source code?...... you think that's air you're breathing now, in this place?.... hmm...
{offtopic} This will be an important part of the appeal (incidentally Neukom has been working on the appeal since before January 1999, that is, before the trial was over, even before the botched video presentations--> among themselves Msoft conceded defeat early and so they have pinned everything on the Appeal (a stall tactic-- that it would take years; perhaps be overturned; be rendered irrelevant... what they forgot--> a loss opened them up to even more damage than they could imagine... oops.){/offtopic}
My two pennies: release the complete set of APIs and the Source for a previous release (Win95 OEM 2 say) and lets fix the kludge. For free. We'll call it MiniME (or something clever)...
Wow. Nice ASCII art. Though I adamantly disagree with the sentiment, I appreciate the craftwork. I have to concur with the ease of installation mentioned in both articles {Offtopic: The Post has been reading/. avidly over the past few months, especially post-Verdict, and occasionally you'll see stories in the Business section which echo/. stories and sentiments... this latest piece has been brewing for some time}-- i have a 15 GB harddrive on my new machine and i decided to keep Win98 (i have a lot of games!), so i defragged, used PartitionMagic to create a 8 GB linux partition, installed Suse 6.4, and "had fun." It took longer to install PartitionMagic and create the partition than to install Linux... (and i do like some MSoft "product" (Explorer 5 is nice, AC, Age of Empires) but my god the linux stuff is so much more... hmmm... flavorful, interesting, (stable -- yes!), and i dont have to shell out $300,000US to hack anything i feel could be done better...
...but what we give up may be too much (naturally I wouldn't mind the cash though the hoops they make you run through to collect are a bit daunting.) The libertarian in me winces at Section 4:
SEC. 4. PROTECTIONS AGAINST UNSOLICITED ELECTRONIC MAIL. (a) UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL OPT-OUT LIST- (1) SELF-LISTING; MAINTENANCE OF LIST- Any person, on his or her own behalf or on the behalf of any of his or her children, may file with the Federal Communication Commission a statement, *snip*...
(A) shall maintain and keep current, or shall by contract provide for the maintenance and currency of, lists of the names and electronic mail addresses of persons filing such statements; and
THIS IS WHERE IT GETS TROUBLING
(B) shall (directly or by such contract) make the lists (including portions thereof or changes therein) available to any person, upon such reasonable terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe, including the payment of such service charge as it determines to be necessary to defray the cost of compiling and maintaining the list and making it available in accordance with this paragraph.
So the FCC maintains an email database and charges for its perusal... smells a bit like a protection racket!
*SNIP*...
(b) PROTECTIONS AGAINST UNSOLICITED ELECTRONIC MAIL- (1) RETURN ADDRESSES REQUIRED- It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to initiate the transmission of an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message or an unsolicited pandering electronic mail message unless such message contains a reply electronic mail address, conspicuously displayed, to which a recipient may send a reply to indicate a desire not to receive any further messages. (2) TRANSMISSIONS AFTER OBJECTION SUBJECT TO ORDER- Whoever, following a request by a recipient to the initiator to be removed from all distribution lists, directly or by any agent or assign, initiates the transmission or causes to be initiated the transmission of any unsolicited commercial electronic mail or unsolicited pandering electronic mail, or who violates paragraph (1), shall be subject to an order of the Federal Communication Commission to refrain from further mailings of such materials to designated addresses of the recipient.
Oh, so I can still get spammed at least once by JoeSpammer and NOT collect right away... only after the Handshake (the "Notice" sent after the spamming) is complete can i take it to court... hmmmm, that's a loophole.
Does anyone have the current rate for sneaking a peak at Windows source...? i know back in '97 a license could go for $300,000 (and that would only allow a look at a tiny bit of code)... it must be a tremendous revenue stream (thus their determination to keep the source closed in the antitrust case)... of course, since one coder on the Office team (for example) can't see the source either, well its no wonder the line of products is in constant disarray.
From "Graphical User Interfaces and Graphic Standards" by Jon Peddie (McGraw-Hill, 1991):
Sketchpad
"...Ivan Sutherland designed Sketchpad in the early 1960's for his graduate thesis."
Xerox
"Xerox was researching [GUI] tools at [PARC] throughout the 1970s. The historical roots of GUIs at Xerox go back to early work done in Smalltalk and the Star. Nearly all the features that are now expected on a windowing system were available on the Xerox Star... Star was the first fairly complete implementation of what is now considered a GUI... even though the Xerox Star is generally recognized as the main introduction of the GUI, Xerox's own developers cite 14 earlier computer systems that influenced their work."
Englebark
"The inventor of the mouse was Douglas Englebark at Xerox Parc... because of the inaccuracy of Englebark's early analog mouse, his design did not include what is known today as modeless interactivity... the schema was: move word, the click the mouse to indicate which word, then pick the object, and then do a command accept."
RAND SYSTEM
"One of the first systems to offer intimacy between computer and user (i.e. the threshold of charm) was the RAND system developed... in 1967. Initially done as an interface system for financial analysts who couldn't type, it employed the world's first data tablet. It had automatic sizing and object linking capabilities and character recognition. The user could draw symbolic boxes, interconnect them for their relationships, and label them (using hand printed characters), as well as erase and other logical, normal day-to-day functions.
"This system also had automatic geometry correction so that the user could draw an approximation of a box and the computer would automatically square it up and make it look like a box. The system had the first resizable capabilities, which were the inspiration for resizable windows on the Macintosh. The RAND system is literally where the Macintosh Window control capability came from, according to Alan Kay, one of the inventors of the GUI at Xerox PARC."
X Windows
"The X Window system originated with James Gettys, a [DEC] researcher assigned to MIT's Project Athena, and Robert Scheifler, a reseracher with the MIT [Lab for C.S.] In the summer of 1984 both had been struggling with a need for a windowing system in their separate projects... The only window software available at the time for the VS100 was some software called W, which Paul Asente and Brian Reed had worked on at Stanford University to run under the Stanford V [OS]. So the project started with W, but after they had been working (hacking) on it for a few weeks, it clearly wasn't W anymore. They had to call it something, so they decided to use the next letter, and that is why X is called X."
On page 32 there is a wonderful visual history of OS and GUIs which i'll try to render here (my fiefdom for a "pre" tag!):("--" == begat)
AppleDOS--ProDos
CP/M-80--CP/M-86--Conc-CP/M-86
CP/M-80--(2nd branch)--DOS1.0--DOS-2--(DOS-2 then branches into 4 sub groups: DOS3.0 (ends with DOS5.0 and another branch to OS/21.0--OS/2 PM); Windows1.0 (branches into Windows2.x and Windows386 which reunite into Windows32.x(NT) but since this is from 1991 it would of course branch also into Win9.x later); GEM; Desqview
Xerox Alto (and) Xerox Star--Apple Lisa--Apple Mac
Multics--(in one gigantic conglomeration)--UNIX, XENIX, AIX, AUX, MACH (out of which emerges)--Open Look, --OSF/1 Motif, --NeXTstep, and --MS System v/386 3.2--MS System V/386 4.0
There is still more historical detail on the other, later GUI systems... Windows, NewWave, NeWS, NeXTstep, etc. but my hands are a bit raw from the typing!
To quote from yesterday's Washington Post article about the./ gang: ****** quote starts here ********** the boys do have some adult supervision robin miller managing editor of all andover sites makes sure that slashdots articles are grammatical and libel-free and not spelled with the numeric-letter mixture (d00d!!! lets rip some warezzz!) that charac' ************end quote************ (ugly copy job...) So it seems some (sane) editing does occur; its the right of the site owners to do so. I cant wait for some TOP SECRET EYES ONLY stuff to come out on./ !!
Slashdot Mirror
The only exception to the orbital slot rule is the fifth slot, which is occupied by the asteroid belt. There's just too much crap in there to call any of it a planet.
Well, all of it used to be a planet.
From 1986 to 2000 I worked part-time/full-time in the stacks in the Adams Building. I worked in the General Collections which, when I left, had 240 miles of shelving assigned to it. (The General Collections was/is contained in the Adams and Jefferson Buildings as well as several off-Capitol Hill storage facilities.) In all three buildings there were about 530 miles of shelving for all of the collections (General + Special Collections.)
Trust me - when I left we were shelving books on the floor on every deck in both buildings. The 240 mile estimate for the General Collections is low. I only viewed two of the Special Collections up close - some of the Music Division & Law Library, and they too had storage problems - they routinely took some of our shelves for their own overflow material. But, of course, not all shelves contain the same amount of data, so (again) the memory estimate of the "LOC" is going to be suspect - don't think I didn't try many times (in those long ago hours of boredom shelving those books!) to quantify an average. Its close to impossible.
The Library did try an estimate - they even asked us to suggest "typical" shelves in the General Collections with which to measure - but the final estimate did not satisfy me and I fear the typical LOC unit measure is itself low.
If you ever get stack-access go down to Deck 8 North and look through the Encyclopedias - I would estimate the length of one set of EB to be 10 feet. There are 2,798,400 feet in 530 miles, so there are 279,840 EB's per LOC (and again that LOC measure is suspect...), or 1679 lifetimes.
Sivarama P. Dandamundi "Introduction to Assembly Language Programming" (Springer)
Kip R. Irvine "Assembly Language for Intel-Based Computers" (Prentice-Hall)
Randall Hyde "The Art of Assembly Language" (available online)
Joe Carthy "An Introduction to Assembly Language Programming and Computer Architecture" (Thompson)
Vitaly Maljugin, et al. "Revolutionary Guide to Assembly Language" (WROX)
Jeff Duntemann "Assembly Language Step-by-Step" (Wiley)
some other interesting works: Rick Booth "Inner Loops" (Addison) -- optimize it!
Kirk Zurell "C Programming for Embedded Systems" (R & D)
A. K. Dewdney "The New Turing Omnibus: 66 Excursions in Computer Science" (Freeman)
Adele Goldberg & David Robson "SmallTalk-80: The Language" (Addison)
Robert Sedgewick "Algorithms in C ++" (Addison)
to use the "Rebel Code" book mentioned elsewhere on yesterday's /.:
p.42:
"Though unwilling to release Linux, he [Linus Torvalds] was ready to mention its existence. On Sunday, 25 August 1991, under the subject line "What would you most like to see in minix?" he wrote in the comp.os.minix newsgroup:
...I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since April..."
It was the Linux development process that was revolutionary... Linus released early and often, kept the other developers directly involved, inviting folks to freely add in anything they wanted (sometimes reworking the entire kernel rather than just bolting a feature on), and to fix bugs, etc. No other project (free or otherwise) moved/moves as quickly (even the long wait for 2.4 was not even close to "long" when compared to other project's dev. cycles, only "long" when compared to other Linux kernel releases...)
About the absence of a kernel for GNU, RMS was working (though not like Linus!) on the Hurd kernel at the time Linux was starting (again, the process was what made the difference... Linux kernel beat Hurd kernel because Linux was done first-- and done very well.)
Again, from Rebel Code:
p.44:
"Linus also pointed out something that would have been obvious to any hacker of the time, but which has become obscured as Linux has become more widely known. 'Sadly,' he writes, 'a kernel'-- which is what Linux is and always has been-- 'by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library, etc.' He then pointed out that 'most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft,' an early indication of the symbiosis of the two systems."
RMS started his kernel last because he first wanted tools that worked (or could be easily ported) on his machine, tools that you need to do any programming... his machine chip (and its assembly instuction set, and it's OS (!)) was already settled, so it made sense to battle AT&T (and Tanenbaum, for that matter) by first writing the tools that would allow a kernel to be written later.
Hmmmm, a cheap metaphor: the world of software was balkanized (commercially (naturally) as well as in the research community (No Minix For You!)) and Torvalds' "hobby" project --slowly-- ignited the firestorm (cue brass section)...
The nice thing about the linux community effort was that it was volunteer, hacker-driven ("for fun!"), and followed the Do It Yourself ethic (tired of waiting for GNU Hurd?, D.I.Y. my friend...)
I still code in assembly (x86 'natch) and I find it a great deal of fun on two levels: it focuses my perception of how HLL's "work" and (well to put it frankly:) it is Power (humbling too at times).
I would recommend learning asm to anyone programming in C/C++ or Java or even coding stuff for Linux (setting up the parameters on the stack for your C calls (and not crashing the program) is a transcendental experience); it may not help on your job immediately but do it in your spare time for a little while and you'll see improvement in how you approach your coding. Just be careful not to reinvent the wheel too much (I happened to love writing my own utilities and macros but you may not)!
Hmmm, does anyone know how much, if any, of the Quake III Arena engine is in asm??
The irritating things about the source code scenes: 1) NO COMMENTED CODE 2) i dont care but i find it hard to believe one can glance at a single screen (the IDE gave about 25 lines to look at) of uncommented code and then say, "This is amazing." They did this at least twice in the movie and it was (cliche insert alert) like nails down a chalkboard.
This is what first came to mind when I saw the post... there is a wonderful book of collected Apple tee-shirts that I once perused at the Lib. of Congress... can't remember the copyright date, though... the shirts went back to the late 70's IIRC and the Macintosh era tees were impressive. I also remember somewhere that door plaques were also used for projects (Microsoft did/does(?) this)... now those would make a nice addition to the museum.
A better list was quoted in the very same Washington Post Business section in the article directly beneath the Linux article:
"Responded Ellison: 'Microsoft has four stages in stealing someone else's idea. [The article details the Internet appliance (read Network Computer) battle, specifically Oracle-bankrolled NIC Co. vs. the gaggle of devices now shipping, including M$oft's] First is "This is really stupid." Then it's "This is stupid, but there are interesting things about it." Third is "We have a version, and ours is better." And the fourth is "What are you talking about? We invented it." That's what Bill calls innovation.'
(sigh)Oh does anyone read this far down and moderate anyway ?
Some of the nicest people I've ever played Koricky with were Microsoft PMs and coders, and if any of them still worked there...
...well they, better than anyone, knew it was over years ago.
"Your point is well taken, but re-read the court's order: Microsoft shall create a secure facility where qualified representatives of OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs shall be permitted to study, interrogate and interact with relevant and necessary portions of the source code and any related documentation of Microsoft Platform Software for the sole purpose of enabling their products to interoperate effectively with Microsoft Platform Software (including exercising any of the options in section 3.a.iii). It's not the GPL, but I'll bet you anything that Microsoft is pissing its collective pants over this."
Absolutely! The source code is a big revenue stream for Microsoft... losing that will damage the OS company. Is it also embarrassment at what lurks in the old code (its structure or lack thereof) which makes them grimace?... do they still ask their own (Msoft) project managers to sign internal NDAs in order to see another Msoft group's source code?... ... you think that's air you're breathing now, in this place? .... hmm...
{offtopic} This will be an important part of the appeal (incidentally Neukom has been working on the appeal since before January 1999, that is, before the trial was over, even before the botched video presentations--> among themselves Msoft conceded defeat early and so they have pinned everything on the Appeal (a stall tactic-- that it would take years; perhaps be overturned; be rendered irrelevant... what they forgot--> a loss opened them up to even more damage than they could imagine... oops.){/offtopic}
My two pennies: release the complete set of APIs and the Source for a previous release (Win95 OEM 2 say) and lets fix the kludge. For free. We'll call it MiniME (or something clever)...
SEC. 4. PROTECTIONS AGAINST UNSOLICITED ELECTRONIC MAIL. (a) UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL OPT-OUT LIST- (1) SELF-LISTING; MAINTENANCE OF LIST- Any person, on his or her own behalf or on the behalf of any of his or her children, may file with the Federal Communication Commission a statement, *snip*...
(A) shall maintain and keep current, or shall by contract provide for the maintenance and currency of, lists of the names and electronic mail addresses of persons filing such statements; and
THIS IS WHERE IT GETS TROUBLING
(B) shall (directly or by such contract) make the lists (including portions thereof or changes therein) available to any person, upon such reasonable terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe, including the payment of such service charge as it determines to be necessary to defray the cost of compiling and maintaining the list and making it available in accordance with this paragraph.
So the FCC maintains an email database and charges for its perusal... smells a bit like a protection racket!
*SNIP*...
(b) PROTECTIONS AGAINST UNSOLICITED ELECTRONIC MAIL- (1) RETURN ADDRESSES REQUIRED- It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to initiate the transmission of an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message or an unsolicited pandering electronic mail message unless such message contains a reply electronic mail address, conspicuously displayed, to which a recipient may send a reply to indicate a desire not to receive any further messages. (2) TRANSMISSIONS AFTER OBJECTION SUBJECT TO ORDER- Whoever, following a request by a recipient to the initiator to be removed from all distribution lists, directly or by any agent or assign, initiates the transmission or causes to be initiated the transmission of any unsolicited commercial electronic mail or unsolicited pandering electronic mail, or who violates paragraph (1), shall be subject to an order of the Federal Communication Commission to refrain from further mailings of such materials to designated addresses of the recipient.
Oh, so I can still get spammed at least once by JoeSpammer and NOT collect right away... only after the Handshake (the "Notice" sent after the spamming) is complete can i take it to court... hmmmm, that's a loophole.
Does anyone have the current rate for sneaking a peak at Windows source...? i know back in '97 a license could go for $300,000 (and that would only allow a look at a tiny bit of code)... it must be a tremendous revenue stream (thus their determination to keep the source closed in the antitrust case)... of course, since one coder on the Office team (for example) can't see the source either, well its no wonder the line of products is in constant disarray.
Sketchpad
"...Ivan Sutherland designed Sketchpad in the early 1960's for his graduate thesis."
Xerox
"Xerox was researching [GUI] tools at [PARC] throughout the 1970s. The historical roots of GUIs at Xerox go back to early work done in Smalltalk and the Star. Nearly all the features that are now expected on a windowing system were available on the Xerox Star... Star was the first fairly complete implementation of what is now considered a GUI... even though the Xerox Star is generally recognized as the main introduction of the GUI, Xerox's own developers cite 14 earlier computer systems that influenced their work."
Englebark
"The inventor of the mouse was Douglas Englebark at Xerox Parc... because of the inaccuracy of Englebark's early analog mouse, his design did not include what is known today as modeless interactivity... the schema was: move word, the click the mouse to indicate which word, then pick the object, and then do a command accept."
RAND SYSTEM
"One of the first systems to offer intimacy between computer and user (i.e. the threshold of charm) was the RAND system developed... in 1967. Initially done as an interface system for financial analysts who couldn't type, it employed the world's first data tablet. It had automatic sizing and object linking capabilities and character recognition. The user could draw symbolic boxes, interconnect them for their relationships, and label them (using hand printed characters), as well as erase and other logical, normal day-to-day functions.
"This system also had automatic geometry correction so that the user could draw an approximation of a box and the computer would automatically square it up and make it look like a box. The system had the first resizable capabilities, which were the inspiration for resizable windows on the Macintosh. The RAND system is literally where the Macintosh Window control capability came from, according to Alan Kay, one of the inventors of the GUI at Xerox PARC."
X Windows
"The X Window system originated with James Gettys, a [DEC] researcher assigned to MIT's Project Athena, and Robert Scheifler, a reseracher with the MIT [Lab for C.S.] In the summer of 1984 both had been struggling with a need for a windowing system in their separate projects... The only window software available at the time for the VS100 was some software called W, which Paul Asente and Brian Reed had worked on at Stanford University to run under the Stanford V [OS]. So the project started with W, but after they had been working (hacking) on it for a few weeks, it clearly wasn't W anymore. They had to call it something, so they decided to use the next letter, and that is why X is called X."
On page 32 there is a wonderful visual history of OS and GUIs which i'll try to render here (my fiefdom for a "pre" tag!):("--" == begat)
AppleDOS--ProDos
CP/M-80--CP/M-86--Conc-CP/M-86
CP/M-80--(2nd branch)--DOS1.0--DOS-2--(DOS-2 then branches into 4 sub groups: DOS3.0 (ends with DOS5.0 and another branch to OS/21.0--OS/2 PM); Windows1.0 (branches into Windows2.x and Windows386 which reunite into Windows32.x(NT) but since this is from 1991 it would of course branch also into Win9.x later); GEM; Desqview
Xerox Alto (and) Xerox Star--Apple Lisa--Apple Mac
Multics--(in one gigantic conglomeration)--UNIX, XENIX, AIX, AUX, MACH (out of which emerges)--Open Look, --OSF/1 Motif, --NeXTstep, and --MS System v/386 3.2--MS System V/386 4.0
There is still more historical detail on the other, later GUI systems... Windows, NewWave, NeWS, NeXTstep, etc. but my hands are a bit raw from the typing!
Thank You and Goodnight!
To quote from yesterday's Washington Post article about the ./ gang: ****** quote starts here ********** the boys do have some adult supervision robin miller managing editor of all andover sites makes sure that slashdots articles are grammatical and libel-free and not spelled with the numeric-letter mixture (d00d!!! lets rip some warezzz!) that charac' ************end quote************ (ugly copy job...) So it seems some (sane) editing does occur; its the right of the site owners to do so. I cant wait for some TOP SECRET EYES ONLY stuff to come out on ./ !!