But if you are awarded a patent on something that has prior art (or known use in the industry) don't companies usually NOT say that there may be prior art? I doubt that this could be used for Quake like games - in fact the whole things seems silly to me. Anyone with real legal know-how on this one?
Same shit happened to me on thursday - my ISP (Reflex Communications) filed for Chapter 7 bankrupcy and just dissapeared. Unfortunately they did happen to hold a record for a few domain names etc. More or less was a pain in the ass for me to deal with =(
Balmer recently said that Microsoft.NET will interoperate on multiple platforms, including MacOS X and Linux to name a few. How do you suppose that this will be technically possible? Will Microsoft bring Internet Explorer to Linux or will they create Netscape 6 / Mozilla plugins for what will run Microsoft.NET.
Furthermore, how will it be marketed? I have learned that consumers typically do not take well to products that are turned into services. From the consumers standpoint they were able to own Microsoft Office, however with.NET it will follow a service bureau model instead.
Just for kicks I will throw out the 27 million dollar question, what is your opinion concerning the future of Linux in the server / desktop / small devices markets? Do you think that it has been successful, what (of the Linux market) would you improve if you could?
So if we will have a 1mbps line to Mars will we still need PAWS to be so flexible? Will I finally be able to send mp3's to the University of Mars? Personally I was hoping for sftp or scp - but all I've ever heard about is ftp to the UM.
[if you don't get it read linux/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c]
Consumers are a funny animal - they especially hate subscription based services, especially ones that make no sense to them. I'm a consumer and I'm still wondering why Microsoft is turning the product line that they have into subscription based services. "No Johnny, you can't do your homework because Mommy didn't pay the Microsoft bill" - I think not. Consumers enjoy ownership. Why don't we all have a an internet Jukebox that has every song ever recorded so on demand we can listen to a song? Why wouldn't this fly? Because people like to own things like music, cars, movies, and computers. If they feel that is being threatened they will just go to another Vendor. I'm quiet sure that Apple, RedHat, Linux-Mandrake, and TurboLinux wouldn't mind the business. Hell, I'm really just waiting for Microsoft to do this to more of the product line - it's going to be a great sweeping time for "alternative computing solutions" as people tell Microsoft to stick it.
I guess I forgot that the American way depends on becoming rich and wealthy. I guess that I forgot that it depends on making everyone pay for my work at amazingly high prices for low quality work. I really am suprised that the American way now means protecting monopolies instead of doing what is good for the people. This is bull shit - the only thing that Microsoft cares about when it comes to IP rights is making money and lots of it. The grossly perverted statement by microsoft saying that Napster and Linux have ANY connection at any level is completely insane. Napster is quite controversial - good arguments can be made from both sides. However with Linux you have nothing even close to that. It is sad that microsoft thinks that the only type of people who make any sort of code have to be paid so damn well... I'm just going to stop before I start bashing them. All that I have to say is with 80 billion versions of windows out there with each of them having differing incompatibilities and problems it doesn't take long to see WHY open source works so well especially as a server platform...
So what if Microsoft has more money? There are many companies that have more money than Microsoft and are not doing squat with it. I fail to see the importance of even bringing it up. As per Microsoft having better prospects, what the hell planet are you from? Microsoft has a a single point of failure in the business model that they are currently running with. If windows was to fail all other products would collapse underneath the sheer weight and media crap that would follow. Granted I do not know what would cause that - but the possibility always remains. You are off on your 95 percent shares, what with Apple's resurgence and the rise of Linux on desktops etc. I'm curious how Microsoft can keep up with this sort of FUD. Fact of the matter is that these sort of numbers come from Microsoft themselves - they are produced by the amount of OEM and retail purchases made over a year. The problem with this is that due to the model Microsoft employs every single x86 system that leaves a major manufacturer must have a Microsoft OS - else they loose out on the privilege to deal with that sort of cost. This figure doesn't even take the Macintosh platform and other alternatives.
If you think that Microsoft is poised to seize control of the console market you should think again. The x-box is going to be interesting, of that I have no doubt - but exactly HOW Microsoft goes about marketing, distributing, and selling the licenses for the development platform will be vastly more important than anything else. The Nintendo 64 was "poised to seize control of the console market", as was the Atari Jaguar -- the problem? REALLY EXPENSIVE developer licenses and a company that did not want to work very closely with those developers. IMHO Microsoft isn't as cheap in the development department, nor as rich in the Windows CE environment to handle this. However - we shall see.
Sun has written games, nothing fully 3d and interactive and "gee wow" - but that's not what they do. You really don't get it - look at the game giants of time past: Sierra On-Line, Accolade, EA, Atari, etc. It's a difficult business that you must be VERY aggressive in. Sun isn't stupid - they are more concerned with profitability then market ubiquity.
Better products? Dude - you really gotta learn something. I have used IIS, Apache, and Netscape
Enterprise Server on NT with various preprocessing engines (such as ColdFusion, Webobjects, etc). They ran pretty well for a fairly small amount of traffic - however the moment that we went from a few thousand to a few hundred thousand of hits a day we got screwed. The problem wasn't so much the hardware, or even the software - but in the OS itself - in fact IIS did MUCH poorer than Netscape Enterprise Server (which was quite astounding). As per management of it, you've got to be kidding. I can write scripts, wrappers, use products such as Micromuse Netcool, HP Vantagepoint (ITO), Lord - pretty much *anything* I want to manage a web server running almost/any/ form of UNIX - Solaris or otherwise.
As per a "standard". All I have to say is "what the fuck?" - any company cannot simply REWRITE a
standard, they go through a process through a/real/ standards org - something Microsoft is not used to. Get a grip my friend Microsoft just cannot say "IT WILL BE SO" and make it so. They may have a lot of
influence in the market place but they are not Gods.
Hardware is something that's always fun. You've got me here - yes Sun does have expensive hardware. Shit look at the E-line. It's a lot of damn money, into the tens of thousands of dollars range. Wow - well look at the Netra line if you are cheap. The Netra T-1 is 7 grand (give or take) and the Netra X-1 is going to be 995 bucks. Take that and look at Compaq equipment it's just as expensive - if not more. Ever priced out an IBM S/390? You'd probably choke. Just because you CAN run windows NT on your 300 dollar pile of shit you threw together out of the 5-and-dime doesn't mean it is a "server" I wouldn't trust running carrier grade to that - not in my lifetime. That's why there are/server/ systems Sun boxes are actually really REALLY cheap in comparison to what there has been in the past. And if you really, REALLY wanted to - you always could run Solaris x86 on you're 5-and-dime pile of junk system. Just fyi.
Overall I have problems with your argument - you essentially say that Microsoft owns the market in every possible sense of the technology when in fact they own very *VERY* little. Most enterprise level systems are managed in a way completely unlike how Microsoft works. To hear you say that they can rewrite standards and deliver the same level of service to other businesses on cheap hardware makes me cringe and tells me you just don't get it. What is more is that you defend the very thing that the government is saying is a "very bad thing" - you simply validate the decision to break up Microsoft.
I agree with the tenant that he is saying, the problem is that he doesn't realize how big the statement is that he is saying. An operating system should be able to facilitate some method of interaction. However, it is important to remember that not everyone interacts with the computer via a GUI. And as creating a general purpose GUI is very difficult the only correct thing to do is have a general purpose command prompt variant of the OS (E.g. as Darwin is for OSX) and a gui portion (E.g. Aqua for OSX). If he says that the user needs to be able to have an interface (GUI) to do what the user needs - yet to ONLY provide a GUI is a flawed concept - because not all users are alike. Some (if not all) of the most powerful command line interfaces are exclusively UNIX based. I believe that Aqua is going to evolve into a very powerful general purpose GUI. Both will try to give the user as much control over the system as he needs - it's not backwards - it's correct for the market they are going for.
That it quite true, however the nyse doesn't always look at intellectual profit;-) - even though I wish they would, sure would make open source companies valuable beyond what my (current) options are worth.
Most business has its own (separate) theory of software, operation, product, and business development and engineering. Most of the time corporations will craft a document (such as the ASPL, SCSL, etc.) to fit those parameters using one of the current "more common" open source license scheme. It's not fair to compare companies such as Sun, IBM, Compaq, and Nvidia to companies like Red Hat, SuSE, BSDi, VA Linux, etc. All of these companies have been influenced by the license scheme that either they developed (such as the BSD license), or was outstanding prior (such as the GPL). I think that we have seen an "industry standard" of what open source software is come about but we also must understand that companies don't usually play well together on such fundamental differences. I'm really quite amazed to see it this far this fast We also have to let the market take this in stride and get used to it because these corporations are all going to be profit based, while open source software is not BASED upon profit. Once the market changes the latitude on this I am certain that we will see progressive change.
As I live in Seattle I figured I would just see if it would work. Oddly enough the "submit" button does not work in Netscape for Linux. Perhaps Mozilla?;-)
Silly question about vacuums
on
Going Up?
·
· Score: 1
I don't know about you, but last time I checked space was a vacuum. If we put a platform in orbit that had an elevator going from earth to outside our gravity well wouldn't it serve as a tube to just suck our atmosphere out into space?
Could someone explain/why/ they would include a Sega Master System on this DVD player? - Even if all the games are small and included ON the player the Sega Master System came out what more than 10 years ago? Not to mention, are any of these games legal? "Over 700 classic arcade games" may be cool but I'm not going to pay extra for something that isn't legal - it's like paying 20 bucks for a burned CD.
I'm not going to make a big deal about this except to tell you that you're not an idiot - you just have limited understanding of what I'm talking about. I agree that yes there can be a CNAME record ie www1, www2, www3, www4, www5 that all point to an ip adress e.g. 1.1.1.1 What I'm saying is that 192.168.250.50 is a box, such as a cisco localdirector that roundrobins, or tunnels traffic for www1, www2, www3 to an internal address such as 192.168.253.50-55. This is what I suspected - do some reading, take a few pills and get back to me when you understand what the fsck I'm saying.
That doesn't mean much of anything - just means one interface on a localdirector gets ftpX.netscape.com. I doubt you tried visiting ftp30.netscape.com to see that I am correct.
The difference is proven by visiting the following urls:
If anyone here went through ftp1-29.netscape.com you would find that/pub/netscape6/english is cut off. If you go to ftp30+ you will find that there are three directories, 6.0/, 6.0_netbiz_edition, & 6_PR3/. Obviously they are not done sending this out to the ftp farm. Wait until morning and download it. I know all of us Linux fans are jonsin' for a new browser but this will have to wait a few more hours =)
I just love the verbage here - making Linux sound like a "renegade", having it "sneak" into an IT department on people's *GASP* workstations! So we are obviously not dealing with a server or production system here - we are talking about workstations.
It is my understanding that most IT departments are SO lax that they don't have the time to worry about what people are running except for those who are always asking the questions - usually these people do not want to run Linux. In most places Linux is ran by Administrators and people who need a real X server or something with a REAL terminal program. Hell half of the people in the Operations Department where I work run Linux with VMWare simply for Outlook.
Often times we hear the term "modern OS". Generally this implies some sort of windowing GUI that has N amount of applications etc. etc. It has long been my idea that this term was dreamed up by some slightly FUD oriented marketing boob to scare people away from the command line - or thinking that anything that deals directly with hardware is an "OS". All I do is examine those two letters "operating system". This term doesn't leave any room for a user part, nor does it give any context of what sort of interface that the user should have. The only thing it implies is that the software must operate. UNIX fills this void. Most "modern" OSes are no more modern than UNIX at the base - in fact they are usually so archaic under the hood that nothing can be "real" in the OS. Everything must be virtual - take windows for instance. Virtual drivers, virtual memory, virtual Bob - it's silly.
Lord, will someone please educate Xi graphics on how to make money? The X server product is riddled with problems ranging from hardware support down to simple tech support & price. Lord - who's going to pay 100 bucks for an X server at home? The world of UNIX has opened up to a lot more than just corporations who have money - it has opened up to the individual. How many individuals do you see using CDE at home? How many could you invision using KDE or GNOME? I really hope that the answer becomes apparent. The UNIX marketplace has evolved and Xi has been left in the dust - much because of themselves.
Yes, and it has far outstripped that goal. Although the primary protocol used on top of ethernet is tcp these days it doesn't really matter. Let's look at these big fat ISP's who provide broadband internet access through nothing more than switched ethernet every other block.
Whenever you hear about Bob Metcalfe you hear him referred about as the "inventor of ethernet". He talks about how insecure and terrible open source is and how awful it can be. The one thing that gets me is that Ethernet was developed in a very tight corporate world -- and gee guess what? It's about as insecure as they get.
What about the VW beetle? Last time I checked that thing was tore apart every which way, modified, published, and more. This sparked a craze that continues even today - the VW beetle is apart of US history as one of the longest selling cars, most popular, etc - even though the thing came from Germany.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you are awarded a patent on something that has prior art (or known use in the industry) don't companies usually NOT say that there may be prior art? I doubt that this could be used for Quake like games - in fact the whole things seems silly to me. Anyone with real legal know-how on this one?
Same shit happened to me on thursday - my ISP (Reflex Communications) filed for Chapter 7 bankrupcy and just dissapeared. Unfortunately they did happen to hold a record for a few domain names etc. More or less was a pain in the ass for me to deal with =(
Balmer recently said that Microsoft.NET will interoperate on multiple platforms, including MacOS X and Linux to name a few. How do you suppose that this will be technically possible? Will Microsoft bring Internet Explorer to Linux or will they create Netscape 6 / Mozilla plugins for what will run Microsoft.NET.
Furthermore, how will it be marketed? I have learned that consumers typically do not take well to products that are turned into services. From the consumers standpoint they were able to own Microsoft Office, however with .NET it will follow a service bureau model instead.
Just for kicks I will throw out the 27 million dollar question, what is your opinion concerning the future of Linux in the server / desktop / small devices markets? Do you think that it has been successful, what (of the Linux market) would you improve if you could?
So if we will have a 1mbps line to Mars will we still need PAWS to be so flexible? Will I finally be able to send mp3's to the University of Mars? Personally I was hoping for sftp or scp - but all I've ever heard about is ftp to the UM.
[if you don't get it read linux/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c]
Consumers are a funny animal - they especially hate subscription based services, especially ones that make no sense to them. I'm a consumer and I'm still wondering why Microsoft is turning the product line that they have into subscription based services. "No Johnny, you can't do your homework because Mommy didn't pay the Microsoft bill" - I think not. Consumers enjoy ownership. Why don't we all have a an internet Jukebox that has every song ever recorded so on demand we can listen to a song? Why wouldn't this fly? Because people like to own things like music, cars, movies, and computers. If they feel that is being threatened they will just go to another Vendor. I'm quiet sure that Apple, RedHat, Linux-Mandrake, and TurboLinux wouldn't mind the business. Hell, I'm really just waiting for Microsoft to do this to more of the product line - it's going to be a great sweeping time for "alternative computing solutions" as people tell Microsoft to stick it.
I guess I forgot that the American way depends on becoming rich and wealthy. I guess that I forgot that it depends on making everyone pay for my work at amazingly high prices for low quality work. I really am suprised that the American way now means protecting monopolies instead of doing what is good for the people. This is bull shit - the only thing that Microsoft cares about when it comes to IP rights is making money and lots of it. The grossly perverted statement by microsoft saying that Napster and Linux have ANY connection at any level is completely insane. Napster is quite controversial - good arguments can be made from both sides. However with Linux you have nothing even close to that. It is sad that microsoft thinks that the only type of people who make any sort of code have to be paid so damn well ... I'm just going to stop before I start bashing them. All that I have to say is with 80 billion versions of windows out there with each of them having differing incompatibilities and problems it doesn't take long to see WHY open source works so well especially as a server platform...
sad, Microsoft - you STILL don't get it
So what if Microsoft has more money? There are many companies that have more money than Microsoft and are not doing squat with it. I fail to see the importance of even bringing it up. As per Microsoft having better prospects, what the hell planet are you from? Microsoft has a a single point of failure in the business model that they are currently running with. If windows was to fail all other products would collapse underneath the sheer weight and media crap that would follow. Granted I do not know what would cause that - but the possibility always remains. You are off on your 95 percent shares, what with Apple's resurgence and the rise of Linux on desktops etc. I'm curious how Microsoft can keep up with this sort of FUD. Fact of the matter is that these sort of numbers come from Microsoft themselves - they are produced by the amount of OEM and retail purchases made over a year. The problem with this is that due to the model Microsoft employs every single x86 system that leaves a major manufacturer must have a Microsoft OS - else they loose out on the privilege to deal with that sort of cost. This figure doesn't even take the Macintosh platform and other alternatives.
/any/ form of UNIX - Solaris or otherwise.
/real/ standards org - something Microsoft is not used to. Get a grip my friend Microsoft just cannot say "IT WILL BE SO" and make it so. They may have a lot of
/server/ systems Sun boxes are actually really REALLY cheap in comparison to what there has been in the past. And if you really, REALLY wanted to - you always could run Solaris x86 on you're 5-and-dime pile of junk system. Just fyi.
If you think that Microsoft is poised to seize control of the console market you should think again. The x-box is going to be interesting, of that I have no doubt - but exactly HOW Microsoft goes about marketing, distributing, and selling the licenses for the development platform will be vastly more important than anything else. The Nintendo 64 was "poised to seize control of the console market", as was the Atari Jaguar -- the problem? REALLY EXPENSIVE developer licenses and a company that did not want to work very closely with those developers. IMHO Microsoft isn't as cheap in the development department, nor as rich in the Windows CE environment to handle this. However - we shall see.
Sun has written games, nothing fully 3d and interactive and "gee wow" - but that's not what they do. You really don't get it - look at the game giants of time past: Sierra On-Line, Accolade, EA, Atari, etc. It's a difficult business that you must be VERY aggressive in. Sun isn't stupid - they are more concerned with profitability then market ubiquity.
Better products? Dude - you really gotta learn something. I have used IIS, Apache, and Netscape
Enterprise Server on NT with various preprocessing engines (such as ColdFusion, Webobjects, etc). They ran pretty well for a fairly small amount of traffic - however the moment that we went from a few thousand to a few hundred thousand of hits a day we got screwed. The problem wasn't so much the hardware, or even the software - but in the OS itself - in fact IIS did MUCH poorer than Netscape Enterprise Server (which was quite astounding). As per management of it, you've got to be kidding. I can write scripts, wrappers, use products such as Micromuse Netcool, HP Vantagepoint (ITO), Lord - pretty much *anything* I want to manage a web server running almost
As per a "standard". All I have to say is "what the fuck?" - any company cannot simply REWRITE a
standard, they go through a process through a
influence in the market place but they are not Gods.
Hardware is something that's always fun. You've got me here - yes Sun does have expensive hardware. Shit look at the E-line. It's a lot of damn money, into the tens of thousands of dollars range. Wow - well look at the Netra line if you are cheap. The Netra T-1 is 7 grand (give or take) and the Netra X-1 is going to be 995 bucks. Take that and look at Compaq equipment it's just as expensive - if not more. Ever priced out an IBM S/390? You'd probably choke. Just because you CAN run windows NT on your 300 dollar pile of shit you threw together out of the 5-and-dime doesn't mean it is a "server" I wouldn't trust running carrier grade to that - not in my lifetime. That's why there are
Overall I have problems with your argument - you essentially say that Microsoft owns the market in every possible sense of the technology when in fact they own very *VERY* little. Most enterprise level systems are managed in a way completely unlike how Microsoft works. To hear you say that they can rewrite standards and deliver the same level of service to other businesses on cheap hardware makes me cringe and tells me you just don't get it. What is more is that you defend the very thing that the government is saying is a "very bad thing" - you simply validate the decision to break up Microsoft.
I agree with the tenant that he is saying, the problem is that he doesn't realize how big the statement is that he is saying. An operating system should be able to facilitate some method of interaction. However, it is important to remember that not everyone interacts with the computer via a GUI. And as creating a general purpose GUI is very difficult the only correct thing to do is have a general purpose command prompt variant of the OS (E.g. as Darwin is for OSX) and a gui portion (E.g. Aqua for OSX). If he says that the user needs to be able to have an interface (GUI) to do what the user needs - yet to ONLY provide a GUI is a flawed concept - because not all users are alike. Some (if not all) of the most powerful command line interfaces are exclusively UNIX based. I believe that Aqua is going to evolve into a very powerful general purpose GUI. Both will try to give the user as much control over the system as he needs - it's not backwards - it's correct for the market they are going for.
Anyone notice how this CERT advisory comes out only a few days after Microsoft had it's DNS borked? Coincidence? I think not ;-)
That it quite true, however the nyse doesn't always look at intellectual profit ;-) - even though I wish they would, sure would make open source companies valuable beyond what my (current) options are worth.
Most business has its own (separate) theory of software, operation, product, and business development and engineering. Most of the time corporations will craft a document (such as the ASPL, SCSL, etc.) to fit those parameters using one of the current "more common" open source license scheme. It's not fair to compare companies such as Sun, IBM, Compaq, and Nvidia to companies like Red Hat, SuSE, BSDi, VA Linux, etc. All of these companies have been influenced by the license scheme that either they developed (such as the BSD license), or was outstanding prior (such as the GPL). I think that we have seen an "industry standard" of what open source software is come about but we also must understand that companies don't usually play well together on such fundamental differences. I'm really quite amazed to see it this far this fast We also have to let the market take this in stride and get used to it because these corporations are all going to be profit based, while open source software is not BASED upon profit. Once the market changes the latitude on this I am certain that we will see progressive change.
Nor does Mozilla (latest nightly)
snicker
As I live in Seattle I figured I would just see if it would work. Oddly enough the "submit" button does not work in Netscape for Linux. Perhaps Mozilla? ;-)
I don't know about you, but last time I checked space was a vacuum. If we put a platform in orbit that had an elevator going from earth to outside our gravity well wouldn't it serve as a tube to just suck our atmosphere out into space?
Just a silly question.
Could someone explain /why/ they would include a Sega Master System on this DVD player? - Even if all the games are small and included ON the player the Sega Master System came out what more than 10 years ago? Not to mention, are any of these games legal? "Over 700 classic arcade games" may be cool but I'm not going to pay extra for something that isn't legal - it's like paying 20 bucks for a burned CD.
I'm not going to make a big deal about this except to tell you that you're not an idiot - you just have limited understanding of what I'm talking about. I agree that yes there can be a CNAME record ie www1, www2, www3, www4, www5 that all point to an ip adress e.g. 1.1.1.1 What I'm saying is that 192.168.250.50 is a box, such as a cisco localdirector that roundrobins, or tunnels traffic for www1, www2, www3 to an internal address such as 192.168.253.50-55. This is what I suspected - do some reading, take a few pills and get back to me when you understand what the fsck I'm saying.
That doesn't mean much of anything - just means one interface on a localdirector gets ftpX.netscape.com. I doubt you tried visiting ftp30.netscape.com to see that I am correct.
/pub/netscape6/english
/pub/netscape6/english
The difference is proven by visiting the following urls:
ftp://ftp.netscape.com/pub/netscape6/english/ shows:
Current directory is
where as ftp://ftp30.netscape.com/pub/netscape6/english/ shows:
Up to higher level directory
ftp://ftp30.netscape.com/pub/netscape6/english/
Current directory is
Up to higher level directory
6.0/ Thu Nov 9 17:04:00 2000 Directory
6.0_netbiz_edition/ Thu Nov 9 17:09:00 2000 Directory
6_PR3/ Sat Sep 30 10:55:00 2000 Directory
Sorry man, good idea. I doubt that we will see this 6.0 directory accessable until netscape officially releases the PR though.
If anyone here went through ftp1-29.netscape.com you would find that /pub/netscape6/english is cut off. If you go to ftp30+ you will find that there are three directories, 6.0/, 6.0_netbiz_edition, & 6_PR3/. Obviously they are not done sending this out to the ftp farm. Wait until morning and download it. I know all of us Linux fans are jonsin' for a new browser but this will have to wait a few more hours =)
I agree, in fact I'm using it on my iBook in OSX at the moment.
I just love the verbage here - making Linux sound like a "renegade", having it "sneak" into an IT department on people's *GASP* workstations! So we are obviously not dealing with a server or production system here - we are talking about workstations.
It is my understanding that most IT departments are SO lax that they don't have the time to worry about what people are running except for those who are always asking the questions - usually these people do not want to run Linux. In most places Linux is ran by Administrators and people who need a real X server or something with a REAL terminal program. Hell half of the people in the Operations Department where I work run Linux with VMWare simply for Outlook.
Often times we hear the term "modern OS". Generally this implies some sort of windowing GUI that has N amount of applications etc. etc. It has long been my idea that this term was dreamed up by some slightly FUD oriented marketing boob to scare people away from the command line - or thinking that anything that deals directly with hardware is an "OS". All I do is examine those two letters "operating system". This term doesn't leave any room for a user part, nor does it give any context of what sort of interface that the user should have. The only thing it implies is that the software must operate. UNIX fills this void. Most "modern" OSes are no more modern than UNIX at the base - in fact they are usually so archaic under the hood that nothing can be "real" in the OS. Everything must be virtual - take windows for instance. Virtual drivers, virtual memory, virtual Bob - it's silly.
So yes, Unix is still an operating system.
Lord, will someone please educate Xi graphics on how to make money? The X server product is riddled with problems ranging from hardware support down to simple tech support & price. Lord - who's going to pay 100 bucks for an X server at home? The world of UNIX has opened up to a lot more than just corporations who have money - it has opened up to the individual. How many individuals do you see using CDE at home? How many could you invision using KDE or GNOME? I really hope that the answer becomes apparent. The UNIX marketplace has evolved and Xi has been left in the dust - much because of themselves.
Yes, and it has far outstripped that goal. Although the primary protocol used on top of ethernet is tcp these days it doesn't really matter. Let's look at these big fat ISP's who provide broadband internet access through nothing more than switched ethernet every other block.
Goal or no, it's still not secure.
Whenever you hear about Bob Metcalfe you hear him referred about as the "inventor of ethernet". He talks about how insecure and terrible open source is and how awful it can be. The one thing that gets me is that Ethernet was developed in a very tight corporate world -- and gee guess what? It's about as insecure as they get.
Chalking another one up to windbagism...
What about the VW beetle? Last time I checked that thing was tore apart every which way, modified, published, and more. This sparked a craze that continues even today - the VW beetle is apart of US history as one of the longest selling cars, most popular, etc - even though the thing came from Germany.
What is the difference here?