Thank you mr. obvious. If you read the original post I was responding to, the person stated that you pay for NT and then you pay for IIS. That is not true.
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
You added bold font to "the unix world," but really I'd like to stress the words before that: "...that I've seen all too often...." I'm clearly not implying that unix users are freaks. (I like using unix sometimes.) My point was that most of the time, when I see someone making fun of someone for the OS they use, it's from a unix user.
I can see why this happens, since a lot of Linux users are former Windows users who hate Microsoft. But it's just a waste of time (and annoys the pig).
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Re:NEWS ALERT: Not every company is "like Microsof
on
Scott Hacker Responds
·
· Score: 1
Please elaborate. I don't quite understand what you mean by Be trying to be "another Microsoft"?
If you mean a successful OS and software company that does everything in its power to make more money, then I have no doubt you're correct.
If you mean stop at nothing to make more money, dirty deals, contract clauses with OEM's to force BeOS on the computer, etc., then I would have to disagree.
Microsoft is a unique company in its leader and bloodthirst. Just look at how they started out! They sold an OS they didn't have to IBM, with a hell of a license agreement.
BeOS started out as sort of a hippy-dippy ex-Mac company, similar to NeXT.
Every company has the potential to become like Microsoft, in the good and bad sense, but not every one of those companies has someone like Gates running them...
-WW
P.S. I love how my original article got knocked down to a zero rating. That's a first. Nothing like a little censorship by someone who can't handle the truth.
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
>...but for all other purposes this is enough > for home usage, well enough in fact.
I seem to remember a Bill Gates prophecy stating that 640K of RAM was more than anyone would EVER need to use. In 3 or 4 years, you will look at this statement and laugh, as most everyone (in the US anyway) will be averaging T1 speeds or better...
Besides, @Home advertised speeds 100's of times faster than regular modems. 128K is what, 4x faster than most modems?
I'm just glad I ordered DSL! It'll be installed July 5th, woohoo!
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
BeOS was started in 1990, but it's really been made in the past 5 years. Compare that to 20+ for the other OS's mentioned (except NextStep).
I have nothing bad to say about NeXT... cool company, cool OS, cool Cube.:-)
On the other hand, BeOS *IS* a significant leap. It's more than just a OOP API. It's the fact that it was built from the ground up with pervasive mult-threading, multiple CPU support, a 64-bit journaling filesystem with very cool features, POSIX compliant with an awesome GUI. A "server" layer between the OS and the apps to ensure stability. It's like a unix/mac hybrid, without all the baggage of those legacy OS's, and benefiting from everything learned in the past 30 years.
You can choose to play it down as "a microkernel based OS with an OOP API," but you're leaving out 90% of the stuff that makes it cool.
Of course, if you like another OS better, that's OK, too. I'm not one of those freaks that I've seen all too often in the unix world that likes to put people down for something trivial like an OS choice.
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Easier to use, faster (as mentioned already), easier to administer, management tools are better integrated into a central place with the new "Management Console" plugin features, it has support for the newer technologies in Windows98 (like USB), it is more stable, it is more polished.
It is just all-around the best version of NT yet.
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
In a position to take over what? The server market? Perhaps. But that is just a drop in the bucket to MS. The real money is in desktop software/OS's... there are more "normal people" using computers than high end servers using NT or Linux. Linux will never have a chance to compete against Windows, MacOS, or even BeOS when it comes to normal users... GUI GUI GUI. Unless Linux is rewritten from the ground up to be user-friendly, it will be confined to the server/geek market.
Besides, why does Linux have to "take over"? It'd be nicer if all the major OS's each had a roughly equal slice of the pie.
It's surreal to see Linux advocates yelling about a Microsoft monopoly and wishing for a Linux one.
Irony, no?
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Re:NEWS ALERT: Not every company is "like Microsof
on
Scott Hacker Responds
·
· Score: 1
I assume you mean IBM is an evil corporation, because their goals are to make money? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Money makes the world go round, it makes the USA powerful and a nice place to live. In some cases, it can go to far (Microsoft, IMHO).
But I don't think for one minute that this world would be any better without corporations. I love ice-cold Coca-Cola, my new Volkswagen bug, my Kodak digital camera. Those things are all made by greedy corporations, and I can live with that.
And yes, I even like my Microsoft USB digital speakers, even though I hate Microsoft!
Do you think IBM is a "bad" company, like Microsoft? Or do you just not like them because they are large and successful?
IBM makes some good products, they have been very good to the Java language, and they seem to under- stand that not every OS must dominate (although I'm sure they wish OS/2 had).
I guess I'm a realist. I just want to be sure I'm not arguing points with someone who doesn't like REM because they're not still an alternative band. ("Sell outs!")
This Open Source movement could be a real wakeup call for many people that don't realize which side their bread is buttered on.
For example, how many big, bad, evil corporations have invested in improving the internet infrastructure that you and I prosper from every day? How many do you think it will take to build Internet2? Would you rather the government subsidized things like that?
Some things to think about before dismissing the big, bad wolves of the corporate world.
-WW
FYI... I work for a 4-person startup that could be crushed at any moment by a corporation... but that doesn't effect the realities of this corporate world. -- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
NEWS ALERT: Not every company is "like Microsoft"
on
Scott Hacker Responds
·
· Score: 0
I am so sick and tired of reading how any company that is closed source could "turn into the next Microsoft."
Yes Microsoft sucks. I hate that company with a passion. My stomache turns when their commercials come on. I feel an ulcer forming when Gates appears on TV.
But believe it or not, 99.9999999% of the companies out there are NOT Microsoft, are very successful, have great products, and are CLOSED SOURCE.
Live with it (because you do).
-WW
P.S. Just so you know where I stand on this whole issue of Open Source -- any program I write comes with the source, but the software/source are not FREE. I need to make money. They get the source. We're all happy. -- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
All the OS's you compared BeOS to are OLD. Based on OLD technology. All of them. You say you don't understand what the big deal is... the big deal is that BeOS takes advantage of new technology, new programming concepts, new models. Linux, Mac, Windows, are all based on old concepts. Would you really prefer that everyone just keep fixing/upgrading their OS's for all time?
I think it's time for a rewrite. A start from scratch. That's the big deal with BeOS.
-WW
-- Why are there so many Linux-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring up the commandline display, please!" -- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I hate to break this to you, but they'd be dead now if it weren't for the "x86 cruft." How long do you think BeOS would last without support for the G3 or x86?
-WW -- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Haha yeah right. I've run about 30 different configurations of windows, different machines, etc. If Win98 boots faster than 20 seconds, then I'd love to hear some details: What peripherals do you have installed? How fast is your CPU? How much RAM do you have? What kind of a hard drive is it on? etc...
BTW, I have BeOS R4.5, and it boots in 8 seconds. EIGHT!! This is running on a Celeron 300A OC'd to 450Mhz. On the same machine, Win98 takes about 40-50 seconds, and Win2000 Professional takes 2-3 minutes (yes that sucks).
-WW -- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Maybe Bob's just a realist. Not an optimist nor a pessimist. I don't always agree with him, but in this case I do. He and I both realize that the world is not filled with "educated technology-users." The majority of people want a user-friendly computer that runs a lot of applications and works most of the time. Windows 2000 fits that bill, for better or worse.
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Short story: I agree with Bob's outcome, unfortunately. Here's the email I sent him. Discuss amongst yourselves.
Hi Bob,
I applaud the apparantly huge cajones you must have to write such an article about Linux. I agree with you, but for slightly different reasons. Both Windows and Linux are based on old technology. Average people like Windows/Macs. Programmer geeks often like Linux (I use it affectionately... I'm a programmer geek, too). There are more average people than programmer geeks -- Linux doesn't stand a chance, unless it can re-draw itself as user friendly. And once it does that, those Linux geeks will leave in droves.
I actually spoke with one such geek at school this week who told me, "I don't like GUI's." I was blown away. Many of these Linux geeks love the Star Trek shows -- why aren't they enamored with cool user interfaces yet? Star Trek is full of them. When was the last time Capt. Picard said, "Computer, please bring up the command-line display." Do these same geeks REALLY think the future in operating systems has such an archaic interface as Linux?
These are the same people that tout X-windows, then laugh at Windows 9x users for their "GUI over a shell." Excuse me?
I wish it wasn't like this. I hate Microsoft's tactics and their monopoly. What we need is a new OS, built with modern technology and programming techniques. I believe that OS is BeOS. It's still very new, especially on the Intel platform, but it has a bright future if Be can stay in the black long enough to get a solid presence on store shelves. Gassee is one of the few people I've read that really understands how Microsoft is controlling the software/OS market, and has good ideas on how to defeat them. Read his article on "cracks in the walls."
I've used Windows 3.0 to 2000, Linux (various distributions), BeOS, MacOS. They all have their merits, and the popularity of one or the other has more to do with politics and monopolies than real benefits. However, Linux will never find a place on the average person's desktop until and unless they rewrite most of the OS to get away from the commandline-with-GUI-on-top approach.
No matter how nice KDE or Gnome look, they will always feel like a kludge: the look-and-feel across applications is not standardized, something that is necessary for a user-friendly UI. This is where BeOS, MacOS, and even Windows excel.
But I hear the Linux zealots screaming out, "We're more stable!" That might be true -- if you can correctly configure and install the OS, compile the customized kernel with the latest stable drivers, and have a good working knowledge of unix and network security. Windows NT and 2000 are stable (when compared to Windows 9x), without needing to know all the lower-level stuff.
BeOS, still in an early stage of it's life, is rock-solid stable. It takes 5-10 seconds for it to boot up. It rarely requires rebooting, even when upgrading key components on the machine. You can update your networking settings, and restart only the network. It is POSIX compliant, has a great bash shell. On the flip side, it doesn't sacrifice the GUI -- integrated from the beginning; no add-on hack.
It has cool, modern features which you've no doubt read about in most BeOS press releases. But they're not just buzzwords. The 64-bit, journaling filesystem allows for huge file sizes and fast recovery after power failures. The SMP (symmetric multi-processing) is indeed pervasive, because unlike NT (and perhaps Linux?), the threading of the applications runs deep. When you add 1, 3 or 7 more processors to your system, your application speeds will all increase. The OS is built upon object-oriented techniques. I haven't had a chance to write anything for it yet, but I've seen the API's like the Media Kit, and they make me WANT to write software for the BeOS. Much like Java's design makes so much sense to many people, the design and API's for BeOS are similarly ingenious.
But I'm not some marketing drone -- BeOS does have downsides. First and foremost, it needs more hardware support on Intel. That is to be understood, they've only had 3 releases on the Intel architecture, and they only have about 80 programmers, not the thousands available to Microsoft and Apple.
Second, they are positioning BeOS as an OS suited for "internet appliances." Perhaps its just a buzzword to help their IPO. However, if true, they need to support Java with a full port, ASAP. They also need to get the multi-user environment in place quickly (currently slated for their 5th or 6th release, I believe). Perhaps their network stack in the latest 4.5 release is improved, but based on the one in release 4, they need to spend more time on its performance.
I hope when BeOS matures a little more, they will release parts of their OS as open source. Especially things having to do with security, networking, and the like. Those areas are Microsoft's Achilles' heel right now. I get, seemingly, an email every week with the latest reported problem with Microsoft's security or networking bugs. The same is true with alerts regarding Linux security/networking, but at least these bugs can be found and fixed within hours.
You mentioned Java as a possibility for a new OS. I have to agree.
When I had more time, I was working on a project called JOS (jos.org). I believe once they get a working, stable kernel available, you will begin to see that project move along rapidly (or should I say, *rabidly*). They are in planning hell right now; something Linux didn't have to worry about because of the nature of its birth. The kernel is the key.
And I'm sure once they get going, they could use some help writing some networking classes. Perhaps an ethernet card driver, Bob? (Hint, hint.)
Regards, Thomas
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Apparantly some of you "deep thinkers" need to read more... preferably some stuff written by real deep thinkers, like Carl Sagan.
For example, if you'd read the book Contact, you wouldn't immediately assume we're only trying to detect signals being sent accidentally by aliens. What about the aliens that are advanced enough to attempt "Contact" with surrounding worlds?
How would they go about doing that? Well first off, they'd know that different civilizations evolve differently, so to do things right, they would build a transmitter that could broadcast on all possible spectrums, frequencies, modulations, and in all directions. So it would have to be big and spherical, and very high tech. It'd also have to be out away from the planet's atmosphere, for the best effects. And ideally, it would not just orbit around the homeworld, but travel through space sending these signals.
I'd feel really special right now, if I hadn't just stolen that entire scenario from Sagan's book. Instead of assuming you know everything, and that SETI is "stupid" for trying what they're trying, you ought to open your mind...
And read more Sagan.
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Actually, if you'd read the article, you'd see that they talk about the previous estimates being either 10 billion or 20 billion years old, depending on which "camp" you subscribed to... With this new evidence, they are all coming closer together (they said their calculations have a 10% error rate... much better than power of 2).
Of course, you should take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt... the fact that so many people don't is what is wrong with this world.
"Alternatively, the universe is pervaded by a mysterious 'dark force' pushing the galaxies farther apart, in which case the Hubble measurements point to an even older universe."
My point is, do you play these games written solely for the EMU's? Are they any good? Can they compete with the commercial games that people are illegally distributing?
Do you own illegal copies of ROM's? If so, why?
There's no arguing that it's cheaper to distribute games electronically... but that doesn't give anyone the right to illegally distribute commercial games. How would id Software respond if you started distributing the full version of one of their games?
"As I said before any fool with some discipline can make a game."
They might be able to make something that can loosely be called a game... but how many games do you own and love to play that were written by fools?
"The right to pursue happiness in not granted in the Constitution; it is stated in the Declaration of Independence..."
My faux paus... but my point does not change.
I am not arguing about copyright law, or whether it's right or wrong. I'm talking about companies that own copyrights to games, and those games are being illegaly copied and distributed. This hurts the companies, and the programmers that wrote the games. Yet these same people who are chanting that they want to have the freedom to do this are infringing on another person's freedom to make money from their hard work.
1. I never said "We believe" was anything other then their opinion. Not legal fact. Not able to stand in court, etc. But I'm sick of people hear twisting their words around.
2. When you say that you will resist going into reverse engineering practices and the like, you're admitting that you use RE to "figure out" the Nintendo consoles. This means you're not creating an emulator in a clean room, and the emulator would be illegal.
There is a major problem here that everyone seems to be forgetting when comparing Nintendo to Sony and the like. Nintendo uses cartridges, not CD's. So what if someone does come out with a clean-room emulator for N64? How many people could legitimately buy and use it? These people would need to have their own ROM extractor, and they would have to own the game cartridge. Any other use of an emulator would be illegal, because it is illegal to distribute a copyrighted work without the permission of the author or owner, Nintendo.
Didn't Sony sue one or more emulator companies trying to prevent them from selling their emulators? I wouldn't classify that as "not giving a crap about emulators."
"Second they should understand the full meaning of open source. The fact that anyone with the brain to let the lawn mower rot and get coding and read and learn can produce large scale software projects should remind Nintendo, Sony, M$, and the rest of the world that code is a natural or rather infinite virtual resource. The hierarchy is false and artificial. Enough inforacketeering already."
That's not true; code is not an infinite virtual resource. It takes people to write it. And although it's cool and noble to pretend we live in a Star Trek universe, where money doesn't matter, it DOES. People need money to buy things they need to live, and things they want to be happy and content. What would you have these freedom-coders pay for their computer with? Promises to create free programs? Idealism is great, just don't let it get out of hand, please.
"Third Piracy my ass. No one ambushed a Nintendo distributors shipment to steal the consoles kill the driver and burn the truck.. Wake up. "
Wow, this is the second time I've seen this argument today. So either you wrote both articles, or this is spreading around for some reason.
When someone says, "look at that gay man over there," do you immediately think they're talking about a homosexual man, or a happy man? That's right, the word gay has changed in the vernacular to mean homosexual. Sure, if a really old person says the word, you might think twice.
Now here comes "piracy." Yeah, it used to mean one-eyed pirates with swords and swashbuckles. And what did pirates do? They stole treasures and property out on the high seas. Pirates do still exist today, just like happy men, but when you hear someone refer to software piracy, you know what they mean. They stole the software.
Lo-and-behold, this definition is available in most dictionaries. Now, I know there are no Dictionary ROM's available, but go down to the library and pick one up when you get a chance. You might find out that piracy also means, "the unauthorized reproduction or use of copyrighted material, a patented invention, etc." (Random House Webster's Dictionary).
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you mr. obvious. If you read the original
post I was responding to, the person stated that
you pay for NT and then you pay for IIS. That is
not true.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
You added bold font to "the unix world," but
really I'd like to stress the words before that:
"...that I've seen all too often...." I'm
clearly not implying that unix users are freaks.
(I like using unix sometimes.) My point was that
most of the time, when I see someone making fun
of someone for the OS they use, it's from a unix
user.
I can see why this happens, since a lot of Linux
users are former Windows users who hate Microsoft.
But it's just a waste of time (and annoys the pig).
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Please elaborate. I don't quite understand what
you mean by Be trying to be "another Microsoft"?
If you mean a successful OS and software company
that does everything in its power to make more
money, then I have no doubt you're correct.
If you mean stop at nothing to make more money,
dirty deals, contract clauses with OEM's to force
BeOS on the computer, etc., then I would have to
disagree.
Microsoft is a unique company in its leader and
bloodthirst. Just look at how they started out!
They sold an OS they didn't have to IBM, with a
hell of a license agreement.
BeOS started out as sort of a hippy-dippy ex-Mac
company, similar to NeXT.
Every company has the potential to become like
Microsoft, in the good and bad sense, but not
every one of those companies has someone like
Gates running them...
-WW
P.S. I love how my original article got knocked
down to a zero rating. That's a first. Nothing
like a little censorship by someone who can't
handle the truth.
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
> ...but for all other purposes this is enough
> for home usage, well enough in fact.
I seem to remember a Bill Gates prophecy stating
that 640K of RAM was more than anyone would EVER
need to use. In 3 or 4 years, you will look at
this statement and laugh, as most everyone (in
the US anyway) will be averaging T1 speeds or better...
Besides, @Home advertised speeds 100's of times
faster than regular modems. 128K is what, 4x faster than most modems?
I'm just glad I ordered DSL! It'll be installed
July 5th, woohoo!
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
BeOS was started in 1990, but it's really been
:-)
made in the past 5 years. Compare that to 20+
for the other OS's mentioned (except NextStep).
I have nothing bad to say about NeXT... cool
company, cool OS, cool Cube.
On the other hand, BeOS *IS* a significant leap.
It's more than just a OOP API. It's the fact that
it was built from the ground up with pervasive mult-threading, multiple CPU support, a 64-bit journaling filesystem with very cool features,
POSIX compliant with an awesome GUI. A "server"
layer between the OS and the apps to ensure stability. It's like a unix/mac hybrid, without
all the baggage of those legacy OS's, and
benefiting from everything learned in the past 30
years.
You can choose to play it down as "a microkernel
based OS with an OOP API," but you're leaving out
90% of the stuff that makes it cool.
Of course, if you like another OS better, that's
OK, too. I'm not one of those freaks that I've
seen all too often in the unix world that likes
to put people down for something trivial like an
OS choice.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Well I can piss further than you.
(After all, this *IS* just a pissing match, right?)
::sigh::
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
We never paid for IIS... it comes with the OS.
FUD from the anti-FUD crowd. Interesting...
-WW
P.S. I'm so goddamned sick and tired of reading
about OS A is going to kill OS B, and OS C sucks
because it doesn't have the ULTIMATE feature D.
Software is just a tool! Get over it.
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
>Better in what way?
Easier to use, faster (as mentioned already), easier to administer, management tools are better
integrated into a central place with the new
"Management Console" plugin features, it has
support for the newer technologies in Windows98
(like USB), it is more stable, it is more
polished.
It is just all-around the best version of NT yet.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
In a position to take over what? The server market? Perhaps. But that is just a drop in
the bucket to MS. The real money is in desktop
software/OS's... there are more "normal people"
using computers than high end servers using NT or
Linux. Linux will never have a chance to compete
against Windows, MacOS, or even BeOS when it comes
to normal users... GUI GUI GUI. Unless Linux is
rewritten from the ground up to be user-friendly,
it will be confined to the server/geek market.
Besides, why does Linux have to "take over"? It'd
be nicer if all the major OS's each had a roughly
equal slice of the pie.
It's surreal to see Linux advocates yelling about
a Microsoft monopoly and wishing for a Linux one.
Irony, no?
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I assume you mean IBM is an evil corporation,
because their goals are to make money? You can't
have your cake and eat it, too. Money makes the
world go round, it makes the USA powerful and a
nice place to live. In some cases, it can go to far (Microsoft, IMHO).
But I don't think for one minute that this world
would be any better without corporations. I love
ice-cold Coca-Cola, my new Volkswagen bug, my Kodak digital camera. Those things are all made
by greedy corporations, and I can live with that.
And yes, I even like my Microsoft USB digital speakers, even though I hate Microsoft!
Do you think IBM is a "bad" company, like Microsoft? Or do you just not like them because
they are large and successful?
IBM makes some good products, they have been very
good to the Java language, and they seem to under-
stand that not every OS must dominate (although
I'm sure they wish OS/2 had).
I guess I'm a realist. I just want to be sure I'm not arguing points with someone who doesn't like
REM because they're not still an alternative band. ("Sell outs!")
This Open Source movement could be a real wakeup
call for many people that don't realize which
side their bread is buttered on.
For example, how many big, bad, evil corporations
have invested in improving the internet
infrastructure that you and I prosper from every
day? How many do you think it will take to build
Internet2? Would you rather the government subsidized things like that?
Some things to think about before dismissing the
big, bad wolves of the corporate world.
-WW
FYI... I work for a 4-person startup that could be
crushed at any moment by a corporation... but that
doesn't effect the realities of this corporate
world.
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I am so sick and tired of reading how any company that
is closed source could "turn into the next Microsoft."
Yes Microsoft sucks. I hate that company with a passion.
My stomache turns when their commercials come on. I feel
an ulcer forming when Gates appears on TV.
But believe it or not, 99.9999999% of the companies out
there are NOT Microsoft, are very successful, have great
products, and are CLOSED SOURCE.
Live with it (because you do).
-WW
P.S. Just so you know where I stand on this whole issue
of Open Source -- any program I write comes with the
source, but the software/source are not FREE. I need to
make money. They get the source. We're all happy.
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
All the OS's you compared BeOS to are OLD. Based on ... the big deal is
OLD technology. All of them. You say you don't
understand what the big deal is
that BeOS takes advantage of new technology, new
programming concepts, new models. Linux, Mac, Windows,
are all based on old concepts. Would you really prefer
that everyone just keep fixing/upgrading their OS's for
all time?
I think it's time for a rewrite. A start from scratch.
That's the big deal with BeOS.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Linux-using Star Trek fans? When
was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring up the
commandline display, please!"
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I hate to break this to you, but they'd be dead
now if it weren't for the "x86 cruft." How long
do you think BeOS would last without support for
the G3 or x86?
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Haha yeah right. I've run about 30 different
configurations of windows, different machines,
etc. If Win98 boots faster than 20 seconds, then
I'd love to hear some details: What peripherals do you have installed? How fast is your CPU? How much
RAM do you have? What kind of a hard drive is it on? etc...
BTW, I have BeOS R4.5, and it boots in 8 seconds.
EIGHT!! This is running on a Celeron 300A OC'd to 450Mhz. On the same machine, Win98 takes about 40-50 seconds, and Win2000 Professional takes 2-3 minutes (yes that sucks).
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Maybe Bob's just a realist. Not an optimist nor a pessimist. I don't always agree with him, but in this case I do. He and I both realize that the world is not filled with "educated technology-users." The majority of people want a
user-friendly computer that runs a lot of applications and works most of the time. Windows 2000 fits that bill, for better or worse.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Short story: I agree with Bob's outcome, unfortunately. Here's the email I sent him.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Hi Bob,
I applaud the apparantly huge cajones you must have to write
such an article about Linux. I agree with you, but for slightly
different reasons. Both Windows and Linux are based on old
technology. Average people like Windows/Macs. Programmer geeks
often like Linux (I use it affectionately... I'm a programmer
geek, too). There are more average people than programmer geeks --
Linux doesn't stand a chance, unless it can re-draw itself as
user friendly. And once it does that, those Linux geeks will
leave in droves.
I actually spoke with one such geek at school this week who told
me, "I don't like GUI's." I was blown away. Many of these Linux
geeks love the Star Trek shows -- why aren't they enamored with
cool user interfaces yet? Star Trek is full of them. When was the
last time Capt. Picard said, "Computer, please bring up the
command-line display." Do these same geeks REALLY think the
future in operating systems has such an archaic interface as Linux?
These are the same people that tout X-windows, then laugh at
Windows 9x users for their "GUI over a shell." Excuse me?
I wish it wasn't like this. I hate Microsoft's tactics and
their monopoly. What we need is a new OS, built with modern
technology and programming techniques. I believe that OS is
BeOS. It's still very new, especially on the Intel platform,
but it has a bright future if Be can stay in the black long
enough to get a solid presence on store shelves. Gassee is one
of the few people I've read that really understands how Microsoft
is controlling the software/OS market, and has good ideas on
how to defeat them. Read his article on "cracks in the walls."
I've used Windows 3.0 to 2000, Linux (various distributions),
BeOS, MacOS. They all have their merits, and the popularity of
one or the other has more to do with politics and monopolies
than real benefits. However, Linux will never find a place on the
average person's desktop until and unless they rewrite most of
the OS to get away from the commandline-with-GUI-on-top approach.
No matter how nice KDE or Gnome look, they will always feel like
a kludge: the look-and-feel across applications is not standardized,
something that is necessary for a user-friendly UI. This is where
BeOS, MacOS, and even Windows excel.
But I hear the Linux zealots screaming out, "We're more stable!"
That might be true -- if you can correctly configure and install
the OS, compile the customized kernel with the latest stable
drivers, and have a good working knowledge of unix and network
security. Windows NT and 2000 are stable (when compared to
Windows 9x), without needing to know all the lower-level stuff.
BeOS, still in an early stage of it's life, is rock-solid stable. It
takes 5-10 seconds for it to boot up. It rarely requires rebooting,
even when upgrading key components on the machine. You can update
your networking settings, and restart only the network. It is POSIX
compliant, has a great bash shell. On the flip side, it doesn't
sacrifice the GUI -- integrated from the beginning; no add-on hack.
It has cool, modern features which you've no doubt read about in
most BeOS press releases. But they're not just buzzwords. The 64-bit,
journaling filesystem allows for huge file sizes and fast recovery
after power failures. The SMP (symmetric multi-processing) is indeed
pervasive, because unlike NT (and perhaps Linux?), the threading of
the applications runs deep. When you add 1, 3 or 7 more processors
to your system, your application speeds will all increase. The OS
is built upon object-oriented techniques. I haven't had a chance to
write anything for it yet, but I've seen the API's like the Media Kit,
and they make me WANT to write software for the BeOS. Much like Java's
design makes so much sense to many people, the design and API's for
BeOS are similarly ingenious.
But I'm not some marketing drone -- BeOS does have downsides. First
and foremost, it needs more hardware support on Intel. That is to
be understood, they've only had 3 releases on the Intel architecture,
and they only have about 80 programmers, not the thousands available
to Microsoft and Apple.
Second, they are positioning BeOS as an OS suited for "internet
appliances." Perhaps its just a buzzword to help their IPO. However,
if true, they need to support Java with a full port, ASAP. They also
need to get the multi-user environment in place quickly (currently
slated for their 5th or 6th release, I believe). Perhaps their network
stack in the latest 4.5 release is improved, but based on the one in
release 4, they need to spend more time on its performance.
I hope when BeOS matures a little more, they will release parts of
their OS as open source. Especially things having to do with security,
networking, and the like. Those areas are Microsoft's Achilles' heel
right now. I get, seemingly, an email every week with the latest
reported problem with Microsoft's security or networking bugs. The same
is true with alerts regarding Linux security/networking, but at least
these bugs can be found and fixed within hours.
You mentioned Java as a possibility for a new OS. I have to agree.
When I had more time, I was working on a project called JOS (jos.org).
I believe once they get a working, stable kernel available, you will
begin to see that project move along rapidly (or should I say, *rabidly*).
They are in planning hell right now; something Linux didn't have to
worry about because of the nature of its birth. The kernel is the key.
And I'm sure once they get going, they could use some help writing
some networking classes. Perhaps an ethernet card driver, Bob? (Hint, hint.)
Regards,
Thomas
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
"Quite probably the guy that wrote the piece for News.com got his info screwed."
;-)
Nah, that NEVER happens.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Apparantly some of you "deep thinkers" need to read more... preferably some stuff written by
real deep thinkers, like Carl Sagan.
For example, if you'd read the book Contact, you
wouldn't immediately assume we're only trying to
detect signals being sent accidentally by aliens.
What about the aliens that are advanced enough to
attempt "Contact" with surrounding worlds?
How would they go about doing that? Well first
off, they'd know that different civilizations
evolve differently, so to do things right, they
would build a transmitter that could broadcast on
all possible spectrums, frequencies, modulations,
and in all directions. So it would have to be big
and spherical, and very high tech. It'd also have
to be out away from the planet's atmosphere, for
the best effects. And ideally, it would not just
orbit around the homeworld, but travel through
space sending these signals.
I'd feel really special right now, if I hadn't
just stolen that entire scenario from Sagan's
book. Instead of assuming you know everything, and
that SETI is "stupid" for trying what they're
trying, you ought to open your mind...
And read more Sagan.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Actually, if you'd read the article, you'd see that they talk about the previous estimates being either 10 billion or 20 billion years old, depending on which "camp" you subscribed to... With this new evidence, they are all coming closer together (they said their calculations have a 10% error rate... much better than power of 2).
Of course, you should take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt... the fact that so many people don't is what is wrong with this world.
-WW
Here's a quote from the article (no joke):
"Alternatively, the universe is pervaded by a mysterious 'dark force' pushing the galaxies farther apart, in which case the Hubble measurements point to an even older universe."
Damn that Darth Vader...
My point is, do you play these games written solely for the EMU's? Are they any good? Can they compete with the commercial games that people are illegally distributing?
Do you own illegal copies of ROM's? If so, why?
There's no arguing that it's cheaper to distribute games electronically... but that doesn't give anyone the right to illegally distribute commercial games. How would id Software respond if you started distributing the full version of one of their games?
"As I said before any fool with some discipline can make a game."
They might be able to make something that can loosely be called a game... but how many games do you own and love to play that were written by fools?
"The right to pursue happiness in not granted in the Constitution; it is stated in the Declaration of Independence..."
My faux paus... but my point does not change.
I am not arguing about copyright law, or whether it's right or wrong. I'm talking about companies that own copyrights to games, and those games are being illegaly copied and distributed. This hurts the companies, and the programmers that wrote the games. Yet these same people who are chanting that they want to have the freedom to do this are infringing on another person's freedom to make money from their hard work.
You're one of those "politically correct" people, aren't you?
1. I never said "We believe" was anything other then their opinion. Not legal fact. Not able to stand in court, etc. But I'm sick of people hear twisting their words around.
2. When you say that you will resist going into reverse engineering practices and the like, you're admitting that you use RE to "figure out" the Nintendo consoles. This means you're not creating an emulator in a clean room, and the emulator would be illegal.
There is a major problem here that everyone seems to be forgetting when comparing Nintendo to Sony and the like. Nintendo uses cartridges, not CD's. So what if someone does come out with a clean-room emulator for N64? How many people could legitimately buy and use it? These people would need to have their own ROM extractor, and they would have to own the game cartridge. Any other use of an emulator would be illegal, because it is illegal to distribute a copyrighted work without the permission of the author or owner, Nintendo.
Didn't Sony sue one or more emulator companies trying to prevent them from selling their emulators? I wouldn't classify that as "not giving a crap about emulators."
"Second they should understand the full meaning of open source. The fact that anyone with the brain to let the lawn mower rot and get coding and read and learn can produce large scale software projects should remind Nintendo, Sony, M$, and the rest of the world that code is a natural or rather infinite virtual resource. The hierarchy is false and artificial. Enough inforacketeering already."
That's not true; code is not an infinite virtual resource. It takes people to write it. And although it's cool and noble to pretend we live in a Star Trek universe, where money doesn't matter, it DOES. People need money to buy things they need to live, and things they want to be happy and content. What would you have these freedom-coders pay for their computer with? Promises to create free programs? Idealism is great, just don't let it get out of hand, please.
"Third Piracy my ass. No one ambushed a Nintendo distributors shipment to steal the consoles kill the driver and burn the truck.. Wake up. "
Wow, this is the second time I've seen this argument today. So either you wrote both articles, or this is spreading around for some reason.
When someone says, "look at that gay man over there," do you immediately think they're talking about a homosexual man, or a happy man? That's right, the word gay has changed in the vernacular to mean homosexual. Sure, if a really old person says the word, you might think twice.
Now here comes "piracy." Yeah, it used to mean one-eyed pirates with swords and swashbuckles. And what did pirates do? They stole treasures and property out on the high seas. Pirates do still exist today, just like happy men, but when you hear someone refer to software piracy, you know what they mean. They stole the software.
Lo-and-behold, this definition is available in most dictionaries. Now, I know there are no Dictionary ROM's available, but go down to the library and pick one up when you get a chance. You might find out that piracy also means, "the unauthorized reproduction or use of copyrighted material, a patented invention, etc." (Random House Webster's Dictionary).
-WW