Needless to remind that many predicted similar demise of Linux after release of OpenDarwin.
Say *what*?
I had a NeXT, I use Mac OS X daily, and even I didn't bother installing OpenDarwin. FreeBSD is far superior to Darwin in every respect but the ability to run OSX on top of it.
I don't recall anyone predicting that OpenDarwin would replace Linux. Where was this happening?
Where precisely did I say otherwise? The message I replied to was entitled:
You think Enron would have reported itself?
No, Enron didn't report itself. Not only didn't Enron report itself, Enron's whole operation was based on fraud and coercion, from the top down to the folks like "Bob" twisting the arms of power plant operators in California to create an artificial energy shortage to drive up prices, careless of the fact that the blackouts they triggered led to injuries and deaths.
Not only are the actions completely the opposite of what you're trying to imply (Apple reported the results of their internal investigation... the original report, that is, the one you seem to consider trustworthy despite the fact that it's from the same mob you're now dismissing), but even if every single overblown rumor about this were true it would be nowhere near what Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were up to their armpits in.
But the bottom line is that blowing the whistle on yourself is not normally seen as part of a coverup operation. Trying to smear Apple and Jobs by drawing parallels with Enron and Lay is insane.
Apple does an internal investigation, finds a problem, reports itself, and you're comparing this with Enron because they also say Steve Jobs didn't benefit from it?
I guess someone's activated an even more powerful reality distortion field than Steve's.
"if you really have a problem with DRM it's because you want the content for free"
DRM is not about keeping people who oppose DRM from getting the content for free. The people who oppose DRM are, in general, more than capable of bypassing any DRM scheme that's even vaguely likely to get accepted by the paying public. And the people who promote DRM should be quite aware of this. If they don't want to believe the likes of Cory Doctorow, even Steve Jobs has told them that DRM doesn't work, and that the people who want the content for free will always be able to get it. Here's Steve: "When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content."
"It's another thing entirely for you to make your copy of a movie available to anyone with an Internet connection who can download it on a 24/7/365 basis."
Yep, that's just one of the many reasons DRM doesn't work: "What's new is this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet -- and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it."
"Everything that I know about DRM I have learned from reading Slashdot and the articles that are linked to this site."
You've been doing some VERY selective reading, friend, if you've missed this.
DRM is about giving strangers intimate control over my computer. We're talking about people I don't know and who I have every reason not to trust access to anything on my computer with no way for me to tell what they're doing. Yes, really, that's what strong DRM means... it means that *I* am not 'root' when it comes to my own financial records or anything else I have on my computer, the MPAA is, because to make it work the DRM protected components have to be (a) outside my ability to examine and expose, and (b) able to examine everything else on my computer to make sure I'm not backdooring them. Anything weaker is no better than "honor system". This is a right you wouldn't give to the Federal Government if they can't get warrant, and you're giving it to some random yobbo who works at Universal? And for what? For making it a little less convenient for moderately dishonest people to get free movies.
DRM is about making it a little less convenient for moderately dishonest people to get free copies of digital content. Anyone who really cares will still be able to get it from a P2P service, from usenet, from a drop box on some FTP server, from this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet as Steve Jobs calls it.
The US had a revolution over less. And you want to give in because you think (incorrectly) that it'll keep persons unknown from being able to rob Hollywood blind? You're giving up your freedom for a mess of pottage, and you're not even the one who gets the soup? And you say our perception is a bit skewed?
The idea that Apple *wouldn't* keep a version running on Intel was always the staggering thing about this. It's like you said "Prince Charles has routine health checkups" and got the response "How do you know? have you ever seen him?"
"When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content.
What's new is this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet -- and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it." -- Steve Jobs
Could Apple follow Microsoft's lead to restrictive DRM? Yes.
Will they? I don't know.
Is it likely? Apple, following Microsoft? Let's ask Steve again.
Our friends up north spend over five billion dollars on research and development and all they seem to do is copy Google and Apple.
People had been saying that Apple is just about to release a new PDA to replace the Newton ever since the Newton got pulled, pointing to all kinds of never-capitalized-on patents. This looks like more of the same, except now Palm's gone to huffing on the Microsoft "PDA as laptop replacement" crack pipe full time and it's become obvious to even the most casual observer how that's such a bad idea. So for the past few years it's been "The l33t new Apple Cellphone" instead of "The l33t new Apple PDA".
Until Steve says they've got a product, I'm going to keep the Pundit Apple Prediction Scorecard (currently batting less than.100) in mind, and take any such predictions with a grain of salt and a bottle of antacid.
Not to mention that still locks out Windows 2000, UNIX, and automated management software.
Even a web interface isn't ideal, if it's the *only* interface outside proprietary software. A command line or SNMP management (or preferably both) is pretty essential for an automated network management environment.
Apple's reputation is definitely overhyped
on
Inside Apple's iPhone
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
it lacks a dead-simple web interface to administrate the device, replaced instead by an application.
Yeh, that's a typical Apple situation.
Alternatively, as in the firmware on the Macbooks, they don't give you control at all...
On the other hand you have their total standards-based OS and open API. They're definitely a mixed lot.
Apple has been integrating the revamped "iSight" into many of its new portables, and iMacs, but the fact that it has been yanked as a standalone product makes it difficult to defend as such a "hit".
Not to mention that the built-in iSight is completely worthless for anything but videoconferencing. I have a third party firewire webcam I use with my Macbook pro, and a bit of electrical tape over the iSight because I can't be arsed making sure nothing turns it on when I don't want it on.
Apple's hardware is mediocre in functionality and power, it's only a hit for style. I could go on with the annoying clickwheel on the iPod, and the passive-aggressive 'it's not really a onw button mouse' crap with the mighty mouse and the double-tap trackpads... but I better stop here.
In fact, 12-year olds do know UNIX (I did), and even better, what I knew back then still applies nearly perfectly to today's UNIX systems, decades later. In fact, it even applies to Macintosh, while little of the original Macintosh survives. And the UNIX command line is highly consistent. UNIX is probably the single best choice the script writers could have made for the movie plot, since, although it may seem a little confusing to the likes of Nielsen and home users, among existing, widely-used operating systems, it has the longest-lived and most consistent design and conventions.
The UNIX command line was really the first user-friendly user interface actually put into large scale use, at least it's the first one I know of designed for users who had to run multiple programs to do their work, rather than being designed around efficiently running standalone applications over and over again.
Now, 36 years later, the consistency at the command line level is still there, even on Mac OS X.
As for "this is a UNIX system"... that 3d user interface was SGI's 3d navigator. It's completely reasonable for a kid who'd been exposed to SGI's version of UNIX would find it familiar.
I believe I speak for every mail system admin when I say "About bloody time".
It's only 10 years too late. It was about 10 years ago that the email viruses piggybacking on "active" content in HTML mail in Outlook and Outlook Express really started taking off.
First of all, I can't even begin to see a rationale for "no rails" unless you ban runways or other ground improvements as well.
Second, who cares how the French define the meaning of an *English* word? These are the same people who are up in arms over the pollution of thier language with "Big Mac" and "Le Picnic", so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander... McDonalds keeps their fingers out of l'Academie Francais and they keep their fingers out of the OED.
Doh, yes, you're right, if you don't have a backing store for the window you don't have backing store, period. But there's still a huge difference between buffered and retained windows.
The backing store kept by "retained" windows was no larger than the window itself, and was only used for drawing into obscured portions of the window. It didn't write everything into the backing store then copy it to the display like "buffered" mode, or like all windows on Quartz. Retained is similar to the (optional) backing store on X11.
unbuffered was used very rarely (usually for something like a video playback window)
For anything where real-time perfomance mattered. As is still true for Quartz.
OS X's window system is more computationally expensive, but most of the heavy lifting happens on the GPU.
Embedded systems don't have much of a GPU.:)
Besides, that's more of a myth than reality for older Macs. Prior to QE3d the rendering for normal windows was done primarily on the CPU, with compositing being the only part done on the GPU. Before that, applications needed to use OpenGL directly to get rendering performed on the GPU.
Running DPS on your mini would be a lose.
I find that hard to believe, since my Mac Mini (PPC 1.42 GHz, Radeon 9200) doesn't support QE3d.
In any case, I was running DPS on a 68040 and it was more responsive than OS X on a PPC 604e running at five times the clock rate, with god only knows how much more memory bandwidth, simply because DPS was optimised for an environment where memory was scarce and processing was expensive. No fancy translucent windows or high color widgets, only one backing store for the screen rather than one for each window or widget... these are features and optimizations that simply make no sense in embedded systems.
No, really, you'd have to strip out everything but the Darwin core and build a less computationally expensive window system (like, say, the one they had in NeXTSTeP and Rhapsody, before they started pumping it full of glistening eye-candy steroids).
If they did that I'd beg them for a copy to run on my Mac Mini. Even if 99% of the apps that weren't ported from NeXT would refuse to run.
If this is indeed illegal, they shouldn't have to do things like that.
If my house sits between a street and a public beach, it's illegal for someone to tresspass on my property to reach the beach from the street. But unless I actually take measures to prevent them, up to and including putting up a fence and a locked gate, not only can they do so with impunity but I can lose the right to implement such measures. In fact a couple of times when we lived in Sydney I had to go all the way around the block to get from the gardon back to the house before I grew enough to climb over the fence when the gate was locked.
How the hell is this case any different?
Its kind of like a store owner who doesn't properly secure his shop at night.
If you leave the door open and the lights on, and the store unattended, you can actually get in trouble yourself for operating an "attractive nuisance".
Now now, the Java security model is a wee bit shonky, though a bit less so than it would have been if I hadn't brought up the way it messed up with proxies on the Firewalls list back when they were putting it together it would have been a good deal more shonky...
But comparing it with ActiveX?
If it weren't for ActiveX I'd be bucking at the traces rather than using Java, but it's so much the lesser risk that I can't get exercised about it. It's like worrying about washing your hands after petting a dog when there are zombies wandering around the neighborhood.
This is just like the classic Microsoft/ActiveX type of problems.
Except that it *is* possible to fix it without breaking half the software in the system, and it *is* possible to fix it without being the vendor. The Jackson trial made it abundantly clear what happens if you disable the HTML control... disabling Quicktime for Java, or using Gecko without invoking XUL, these are actually possible.
Oh, and you're making the same mistake as Microsoft and Apple:
The fundamental problem though, is that unsigned applets shouldn't be able to access anything outside of the standard Java classes.
A more fundamental problem is that whether an applet is signed or not shouldn't matter. The application should be making the determination as to what rights the applet has, and if it's an application intended to display untrusted content it shouldn't be granting ANY rights to ANY applet.
their corporate solution could've evolved from XENIX and could've much more closely resembled the competition of the day
Oh, god, I loved where Microsoft was taking Xenix before they abandoned it to those clowns at SCO. We had seamless networking between Xenix, MS-DOS, and VMS to the point where someone on DOS could open a tape drive on Xenix from a DOS port of tar and it would *just work*. We had programs on DOS and VMS talking through named pipes on Xenix and they *just worked*. Their Windows based networking has never reached this level of integration, and I haven't found a "native" UNIX network to touch it.
Thanks ever so much for opening up these old wounds. You're a lovely bastard...:)
What does the "robust permission scheme" matter when Internet Explorer is always there to give that "typhoid mary" effect to the OS.
Oh, I know, I know, every new release of Windows comes with new tools to cripple all your applications so they don't have to fix the fundamental design flaws in COM/ActiveX-based applications like IE and Word. But by now even the biggest Windows fans have to admit, surely, that this band-aid approach can't work... the basic design has to be fixed at the application level.
Slashdot Mirror
Needless to remind that many predicted similar demise of Linux after release of OpenDarwin.
Say *what*?
I had a NeXT, I use Mac OS X daily, and even I didn't bother installing OpenDarwin. FreeBSD is far superior to Darwin in every respect but the ability to run OSX on top of it.
I don't recall anyone predicting that OpenDarwin would replace Linux. Where was this happening?
"It might be true, it might not."
Where precisely did I say otherwise? The message I replied to was entitled:
You think Enron would have reported itself?
No, Enron didn't report itself. Not only didn't Enron report itself, Enron's whole operation was based on fraud and coercion, from the top down to the folks like "Bob" twisting the arms of power plant operators in California to create an artificial energy shortage to drive up prices, careless of the fact that the blackouts they triggered led to injuries and deaths.
Not only are the actions completely the opposite of what you're trying to imply (Apple reported the results of their internal investigation... the original report, that is, the one you seem to consider trustworthy despite the fact that it's from the same mob you're now dismissing), but even if every single overblown rumor about this were true it would be nowhere near what Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were up to their armpits in.
But the bottom line is that blowing the whistle on yourself is not normally seen as part of a coverup operation. Trying to smear Apple and Jobs by drawing parallels with Enron and Lay is insane.
OK, let's get this straight.
Apple does an internal investigation, finds a problem, reports itself, and you're comparing this with Enron because they also say Steve Jobs didn't benefit from it?
I guess someone's activated an even more powerful reality distortion field than Steve's.
"if you really have a problem with DRM it's because you want the content for free"
DRM is not about keeping people who oppose DRM from getting the content for free. The people who oppose DRM are, in general, more than capable of bypassing any DRM scheme that's even vaguely likely to get accepted by the paying public. And the people who promote DRM should be quite aware of this. If they don't want to believe the likes of Cory Doctorow, even Steve Jobs has told them that DRM doesn't work, and that the people who want the content for free will always be able to get it. Here's Steve: "When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content."
"It's another thing entirely for you to make your copy of a movie available to anyone with an Internet connection who can download it on a 24/7/365 basis."
Yep, that's just one of the many reasons DRM doesn't work: "What's new is this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet -- and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it."
"Everything that I know about DRM I have learned from reading Slashdot and the articles that are linked to this site."
You've been doing some VERY selective reading, friend, if you've missed this.
DRM is about giving strangers intimate control over my computer. We're talking about people I don't know and who I have every reason not to trust access to anything on my computer with no way for me to tell what they're doing. Yes, really, that's what strong DRM means... it means that *I* am not 'root' when it comes to my own financial records or anything else I have on my computer, the MPAA is, because to make it work the DRM protected components have to be (a) outside my ability to examine and expose, and (b) able to examine everything else on my computer to make sure I'm not backdooring them. Anything weaker is no better than "honor system". This is a right you wouldn't give to the Federal Government if they can't get warrant, and you're giving it to some random yobbo who works at Universal? And for what? For making it a little less convenient for moderately dishonest people to get free movies.
DRM is about making it a little less convenient for moderately dishonest people to get free copies of digital content. Anyone who really cares will still be able to get it from a P2P service, from usenet, from a drop box on some FTP server, from this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet as Steve Jobs calls it.
The US had a revolution over less. And you want to give in because you think (incorrectly) that it'll keep persons unknown from being able to rob Hollywood blind? You're giving up your freedom for a mess of pottage, and you're not even the one who gets the soup? And you say our perception is a bit skewed?
Wow. Just, wow.
OS X started out running on Intel.
The idea that Apple *wouldn't* keep a version running on Intel was always the staggering thing about this. It's like you said "Prince Charles has routine health checkups" and got the response "How do you know? have you ever seen him?"
"When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content.
What's new is this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet -- and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it." -- Steve Jobs
Could Apple follow Microsoft's lead to restrictive DRM? Yes.
Will they? I don't know.
Is it likely? Apple, following Microsoft? Let's ask Steve again.
Our friends up north spend over five billion dollars on research and development and all they seem to do is copy Google and Apple.
It goes further than that, into the realm of coercing power plant managers and tampering with the energy market itself.
... we want you guys to get a little creative ... come up with a reason to go down..." "... our electricity happens to be on-shift tonight ..."
No kidding.
"Tonight
"What kind of computer produces annual reports like this?"
People had been saying that Apple is just about to release a new PDA to replace the Newton ever since the Newton got pulled, pointing to all kinds of never-capitalized-on patents. This looks like more of the same, except now Palm's gone to huffing on the Microsoft "PDA as laptop replacement" crack pipe full time and it's become obvious to even the most casual observer how that's such a bad idea. So for the past few years it's been "The l33t new Apple Cellphone" instead of "The l33t new Apple PDA".
.100) in mind, and take any such predictions with a grain of salt and a bottle of antacid.
Until Steve says they've got a product, I'm going to keep the Pundit Apple Prediction Scorecard (currently batting less than
They probably just want to make an iPod that can occasionally make phone calls.
That would put them in fine company with half the "smartphones" out there.
Not to mention that still locks out Windows 2000, UNIX, and automated management software.
Even a web interface isn't ideal, if it's the *only* interface outside proprietary software. A command line or SNMP management (or preferably both) is pretty essential for an automated network management environment.
it lacks a dead-simple web interface to administrate the device, replaced instead by an application.
Yeh, that's a typical Apple situation.
Alternatively, as in the firmware on the Macbooks, they don't give you control at all...
On the other hand you have their total standards-based OS and open API. They're definitely a mixed lot.
Apple has been integrating the revamped "iSight" into many of its new portables, and iMacs, but the fact that it has been yanked as a standalone product makes it difficult to defend as such a "hit".
Not to mention that the built-in iSight is completely worthless for anything but videoconferencing. I have a third party firewire webcam I use with my Macbook pro, and a bit of electrical tape over the iSight because I can't be arsed making sure nothing turns it on when I don't want it on.
Apple's hardware is mediocre in functionality and power, it's only a hit for style. I could go on with the annoying clickwheel on the iPod, and the passive-aggressive 'it's not really a onw button mouse' crap with the mighty mouse and the double-tap trackpads... but I better stop here.
In fact, 12-year olds do know UNIX (I did), and even better, what I knew back then still applies nearly perfectly to today's UNIX systems, decades later. In fact, it even applies to Macintosh, while little of the original Macintosh survives. And the UNIX command line is highly consistent. UNIX is probably the single best choice the script writers could have made for the movie plot, since, although it may seem a little confusing to the likes of Nielsen and home users, among existing, widely-used operating systems, it has the longest-lived and most consistent design and conventions.
The UNIX command line was really the first user-friendly user interface actually put into large scale use, at least it's the first one I know of designed for users who had to run multiple programs to do their work, rather than being designed around efficiently running standalone applications over and over again.
Now, 36 years later, the consistency at the command line level is still there, even on Mac OS X.
As for "this is a UNIX system"... that 3d user interface was SGI's 3d navigator. It's completely reasonable for a kid who'd been exposed to SGI's version of UNIX would find it familiar.
I believe I speak for every mail system admin when I say "About bloody time".
It's only 10 years too late. It was about 10 years ago that the email viruses piggybacking on "active" content in HTML mail in Outlook and Outlook Express really started taking off.
First of all, I can't even begin to see a rationale for "no rails" unless you ban runways or other ground improvements as well.
Second, who cares how the French define the meaning of an *English* word? These are the same people who are up in arms over the pollution of thier language with "Big Mac" and "Le Picnic", so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander... McDonalds keeps their fingers out of l'Academie Francais and they keep their fingers out of the OED.
Doh, yes, you're right, if you don't have a backing store for the window you don't have backing store, period. But there's still a huge difference between buffered and retained windows.
The backing store kept by "retained" windows was no larger than the window itself, and was only used for drawing into obscured portions of the window. It didn't write everything into the backing store then copy it to the display like "buffered" mode, or like all windows on Quartz. Retained is similar to the (optional) backing store on X11.
unbuffered was used very rarely (usually for something like a video playback window)
For anything where real-time perfomance mattered. As is still true for Quartz.
OS X's window system is more computationally expensive, but most of the heavy lifting happens on the GPU.
:)
Embedded systems don't have much of a GPU.
Besides, that's more of a myth than reality for older Macs. Prior to QE3d the rendering for normal windows was done primarily on the CPU, with compositing being the only part done on the GPU. Before that, applications needed to use OpenGL directly to get rendering performed on the GPU.
Running DPS on your mini would be a lose.
I find that hard to believe, since my Mac Mini (PPC 1.42 GHz, Radeon 9200) doesn't support QE3d.
In any case, I was running DPS on a 68040 and it was more responsive than OS X on a PPC 604e running at five times the clock rate, with god only knows how much more memory bandwidth, simply because DPS was optimised for an environment where memory was scarce and processing was expensive. No fancy translucent windows or high color widgets, only one backing store for the screen rather than one for each window or widget... these are features and optimizations that simply make no sense in embedded systems.
No, really, you'd have to strip out everything but the Darwin core and build a less computationally expensive window system (like, say, the one they had in NeXTSTeP and Rhapsody, before they started pumping it full of glistening eye-candy steroids).
If they did that I'd beg them for a copy to run on my Mac Mini. Even if 99% of the apps that weren't ported from NeXT would refuse to run.
If this is indeed illegal, they shouldn't have to do things like that.
If my house sits between a street and a public beach, it's illegal for someone to tresspass on my property to reach the beach from the street. But unless I actually take measures to prevent them, up to and including putting up a fence and a locked gate, not only can they do so with impunity but I can lose the right to implement such measures. In fact a couple of times when we lived in Sydney I had to go all the way around the block to get from the gardon back to the house before I grew enough to climb over the fence when the gate was locked.
How the hell is this case any different?
Its kind of like a store owner who doesn't properly secure his shop at night.
If you leave the door open and the lights on, and the store unattended, you can actually get in trouble yourself for operating an "attractive nuisance".
Now now, the Java security model is a wee bit shonky, though a bit less so than it would have been if I hadn't brought up the way it messed up with proxies on the Firewalls list back when they were putting it together it would have been a good deal more shonky...
But comparing it with ActiveX?
If it weren't for ActiveX I'd be bucking at the traces rather than using Java, but it's so much the lesser risk that I can't get exercised about it. It's like worrying about washing your hands after petting a dog when there are zombies wandering around the neighborhood.
This is just like the classic Microsoft/ActiveX type of problems.
Except that it *is* possible to fix it without breaking half the software in the system, and it *is* possible to fix it without being the vendor. The Jackson trial made it abundantly clear what happens if you disable the HTML control... disabling Quicktime for Java, or using Gecko without invoking XUL, these are actually possible.
Oh, and you're making the same mistake as Microsoft and Apple:
The fundamental problem though, is that unsigned applets shouldn't be able to access anything outside of the standard Java classes.
A more fundamental problem is that whether an applet is signed or not shouldn't matter. The application should be making the determination as to what rights the applet has, and if it's an application intended to display untrusted content it shouldn't be granting ANY rights to ANY applet.
Plus I think he was jealous of Jobs and he wanted for Mocrosoft everything Apple had--including the chronic case of "not invented here syndrome".
:)
Makes OS X triply ironic.
their corporate solution could've evolved from XENIX and could've much more closely resembled the competition of the day
:)
Oh, god, I loved where Microsoft was taking Xenix before they abandoned it to those clowns at SCO. We had seamless networking between Xenix, MS-DOS, and VMS to the point where someone on DOS could open a tape drive on Xenix from a DOS port of tar and it would *just work*. We had programs on DOS and VMS talking through named pipes on Xenix and they *just worked*. Their Windows based networking has never reached this level of integration, and I haven't found a "native" UNIX network to touch it.
Thanks ever so much for opening up these old wounds. You're a lovely bastard...
I only upgraded to IE6 from IE5.5 because I had to. I'll upgrade to IE7 when I have to.
On my old laptop, a Toshiba Libretto with 64M (and that was the max you could fit in it) I used Opera as the browser.
I'm kind of at a loss as to why anyone running into resource limits on a Windows PC would use anything else
What does the "robust permission scheme" matter when Internet Explorer is always there to give that "typhoid mary" effect to the OS.
Oh, I know, I know, every new release of Windows comes with new tools to cripple all your applications so they don't have to fix the fundamental design flaws in COM/ActiveX-based applications like IE and Word. But by now even the biggest Windows fans have to admit, surely, that this band-aid approach can't work... the basic design has to be fixed at the application level.