Snow Leopard is about 95% of the way there. They need to break 10.5 compatibility in hardware to be fully 64 bit at the OS.
The real issue though will be applications. Most of those are still 32 bit. I see Snow Leopard as more like a step getting rid of the driver problem by 2011 so that Apple can break 10.5 compatibility.
OS/2 had a cooperative multitasking model. Applications assisted the OS in organizing information. The net result was that:
1) The data you you were likely to want was more likely in memory
2) The system did less pointless switching and switch more elegantly.
That did result in a noticeable difference to the user. There is no way to go back in time and say what 100 mb web browsers running 50 tabs would look like today if OS/2 had won.
Finally at the time IBM's systems (RISC/6000) were using multi-cores essentially a divided CPU. That might have gone mainstream in our "what if" version of the universe.
It doesn't go into the kernel. The database sits as part of the app layer. The kernel itself just contains very basic file systems which boot up the database + other stuff.
True. And I think that's a good idea too. But once you have transactions why not go all out and get all the other advantages of a database filesystem: terrific metadata, flexible organization, built in shared databases for all apps, system configuration on a database, a single shared engine handling the disk writes (i.e. low level filesystems are database native)....
This seems to me exactly what databases do. Make sure there is a consistent and usable version of the data even if the system fails during transaction. More and more I don't see why we don't move to database file systems for applications like the iSeries uses.
You can just assume that jurors can't prejudice themselves. If the jurors have prejudices you need to deal with it.
Take an example like "assumes facts not in evidence". This is excellent it allows the attorneys to be aware a juror is assuming a fact not in evidence and address it.
Sure it is their job, they may fail. Something which seems clear to them may not be clear to the jury. Should failures have random effect or be corrected?
True. Jurors want broader background on the defendant. OTOH they may also find broader background on the prosecution:
This cop has been involved in lots of questionable cases. This DA has had many complaints about over zealous prosecution. This judge is running for higher office and so doesn't want to let a high profile defendant be found not guilty.
Mark Furman perjured himself on the stand and the defense showed that he had violated the law as a matter of course. Obviously evidence he collected needed to be questioned. The prosecution should have double and triple checked the evidence, and had more of it. A murder trial should not come down to a single glove.
One of the things that was experimented with about a decade ago was allowing jurors to ask questions. This would apply to both witnesses and council. The reason jurors are looking things up is because they have unanswered questions about the case. Get them an official answer.
An icon or something. I was just picking an example piece of software. Any full featured desktop (particular unix desktop) had tons of software. Besides vim is often embedded as an editor (or an editor option) in Unix software.
Mostly running software. But for example they make use of things network transparency from X to push windows from machine/register across to another machine/register pretty freely. Their employees wouldn't know what the words "network transparency means" but they do understand the concept that there is get that there is no tie between where they are viewing a window and where they could be viewing it.
So they HS level employees use the OS, but they don't admin the boxes. OTOH their admins most certainly do admin Unix systems and they don't find it time consuming at all, just the opposite. But they are Unix admins not Windows admins trying to manage Unix boxes.
On the other end of the spectrum, you'll get business side guys who start hacking together batch scripts, VBScript, and Excel macros into a mission-critical system for which IT must now take on support responsibility.
That's called the "rogue IS" problem and is totally distinct from the IT desktop management problem. That comes from not having access to department level of programmer support so that IS work starts migrating out of IS. In many ways it is a canary in the coal mine letting you know that your departments don't have the IS support they need.
Locking down systems won't matter. Those guys are competent and have business manager support for what they do.
Companies like Burlington Coat factory and PepBoys have low level employees using Unixes fine for the last few decades. Now you are talking hourly workers often with HS or less education.
Using unix systems is not that difficult. It is however different.
Did you bother to ask him why he was burning DVDs? He may very well be distributing large collections of data to clients that take over 700megs. He may be creating custom video presentations for them. He may have something that is already on a company DVD and he needs to make copies.
Don't assume that because things have an entertainment usage they don't have a legitimate usage. I've seen companies shoot themselves in the foot far too many times worried about stuff like that.
Slashdot Mirror
How many tabs did you have open on your web browser.
BTW my first PC that I used was a commodore PET with I believe 8kb of ram.
Snow Leopard is about 95% of the way there. They need to break 10.5 compatibility in hardware to be fully 64 bit at the OS.
The real issue though will be applications. Most of those are still 32 bit. I see Snow Leopard as more like a step getting rid of the driver problem by 2011 so that Apple can break 10.5 compatibility.
All it would have took is IBM to have acted in a coordinated fashion. That's the real pity. It was just indifference.
OS/2 had a cooperative multitasking model. Applications assisted the OS in organizing information. The net result was that:
1) The data you you were likely to want was more likely in memory
2) The system did less pointless switching and switch more elegantly.
That did result in a noticeable difference to the user. There is no way to go back in time and say what 100 mb web browsers running 50 tabs would look like today if OS/2 had won.
Finally at the time IBM's systems (RISC/6000) were using multi-cores essentially a divided CPU. That might have gone mainstream in our "what if" version of the universe.
It doesn't go into the kernel. The database sits as part of the app layer. The kernel itself just contains very basic file systems which boot up the database + other stuff.
True. And I think that's a good idea too. But once you have transactions why not go all out and get all the other advantages of a database filesystem: terrific metadata, flexible organization, built in shared databases for all apps, system configuration on a database, a single shared engine handling the disk writes (i.e. low level filesystems are database native)....
This seems to me exactly what databases do. Make sure there is a consistent and usable version of the data even if the system fails during transaction. More and more I don't see why we don't move to database file systems for applications like the iSeries uses.
You can just assume that jurors can't prejudice themselves. If the jurors have prejudices you need to deal with it.
Take an example like "assumes facts not in evidence". This is excellent it allows the attorneys to be aware a juror is assuming a fact not in evidence and address it.
Appeals are very hard with a high burden. Questions are easy. Why replace an easy solution with a complex solution?
Yep. What a jury pool looks like being a geographic as it, is a real problem with the system.
Sure it is their job, they may fail. Something which seems clear to them may not be clear to the jury. Should failures have random effect or be corrected?
True. Jurors want broader background on the defendant. OTOH they may also find broader background on the prosecution:
This cop has been involved in lots of questionable cases. This DA has had many complaints about over zealous prosecution. This judge is running for higher office and so doesn't want to let a high profile defendant be found not guilty.
May cut both ways.
Mark Furman perjured himself on the stand and the defense showed that he had violated the law as a matter of course. Obviously evidence he collected needed to be questioned. The prosecution should have double and triple checked the evidence, and had more of it. A murder trial should not come down to a single glove.
One of the things that was experimented with about a decade ago was allowing jurors to ask questions. This would apply to both witnesses and council. The reason jurors are looking things up is because they have unanswered questions about the case. Get them an official answer.
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/04/State/Change_lets_jurors_su.shtml
An icon or something. I was just picking an example piece of software. Any full featured desktop (particular unix desktop) had tons of software. Besides vim is often embedded as an editor (or an editor option) in Unix software.
Mostly running software. But for example they make use of things network transparency from X to push windows from machine/register across to another machine/register pretty freely. Their employees wouldn't know what the words "network transparency means" but they do understand the concept that there is get that there is no tie between where they are viewing a window and where they could be viewing it.
So they HS level employees use the OS, but they don't admin the boxes. OTOH their admins most certainly do admin Unix systems and they don't find it time consuming at all, just the opposite. But they are Unix admins not Windows admins trying to manage Unix boxes.
On the other end of the spectrum, you'll get business side guys who start hacking together batch scripts, VBScript, and Excel macros into a mission-critical system for which IT must now take on support responsibility.
That's called the "rogue IS" problem and is totally distinct from the IT desktop management problem. That comes from not having access to department level of programmer support so that IS work starts migrating out of IS. In many ways it is a canary in the coal mine letting you know that your departments don't have the IS support they need.
Locking down systems won't matter. Those guys are competent and have business manager support for what they do.
We are talking about professionally administrated boxes. Just change /etc/sudoers it doesn't matter what order you install.
Companies like Burlington Coat factory and PepBoys have low level employees using Unixes fine for the last few decades. Now you are talking hourly workers often with HS or less education.
Using unix systems is not that difficult. It is however different.
The thing with Unix is virtually nothing needs to be installed locally. That's the big difference from windows.
1) Replace adobe reader 8 with 9 in the mounted: /usr. Done
2) Add link to a file which automatically included on everyone's list of links. Happens instantly.
3) Create RPM and have the system in a system repository that the system uses everytime it reboots.
Remember no copyright means a lot of hassles go away.
That's called wrongful termination. You have to spell out grounds for termination explicitly.
There are no ad supported screen savers for linux. They don't exist.
Desktop management has existed for Unixes since it was created.
Did you bother to ask him why he was burning DVDs? He may very well be distributing large collections of data to clients that take over 700megs. He may be creating custom video presentations for them. He may have something that is already on a company DVD and he needs to make copies.
Don't assume that because things have an entertainment usage they don't have a legitimate usage. I've seen companies shoot themselves in the foot far too many times worried about stuff like that.
start vim
:! /bin/bash
or even
:! chmod +x ~/downloads/bash
:! ~/downloads/bash