Shrug. The box I have, labelled "NT Server" (5 client licenses included!), claims to contain IIS also. I've never been interested in loading IIS (not much interest in loading NT4, either, but I had to do that) so I don't recall if it really lived on the disc or not, I'd have to check.
There's more to PPC than the G5. Variations are used in a lot of embedded apps.
Heck, IBM even makes a set-top box chip based around the PPC core, and Hauppauge's MediaMVP runs Linux on it (google for MediaMVP and linux -- lots of folks hacking this box).
NT4 never came out on a hardware platform that MacOS would run on.
Not quite true. Remember Mac clones? Based on a standard reference design (CHRP? PREP? one of those) they could in theory run either NT4 or MacOS. I don't know if Apple hardware ever ran it, Apple could get away with having not-quite-conformant hardware that would still run MacOS.
As for software, AFAIK the only stuff available was from MSFT. NT4 Server included IIS, and the SQL Server 6.5 disk included Alpha, MIPS and PPC versions as well as i386. Never saw a version of Office for those other platforms, although it might have existed.
Other things being equal, performance suffers too. More registers means fewer trips to cache, which at the margin means fewer trips to memory, etc -- all of which are vastly slower than what processors typically operate at these days. Intel cranks up the clock, which increases power consumption and heat load, etc.
There's a reason that many, many embedded computers (everything from cars to set-top boxes) use PPC rather than x86, and it's not just the ease of assembly programming.
Sure, Joe User running a GUI based program that spends most of its life waiting for the user to do something won't notice much difference -- except in fan noise and heat load, or battery life on a laptop.
The NT4 disks came with Windows for x86, MIPS, Alpha, and PPC.
It didn't succeed then, it sure wouldn't now.
OTOH, I wouldn't mind if I could get a commodity PPC platform to run, say, Yellow Dog Linux on. The x86 architecture um, how to put this delicately, leaves something to be desired.
Crap is crap no matter who writes it -- and Sturgeon's Law probably applies to an individual author's output too. Moderators go by content, not authorship.
(BTW, liked the first three "Uplift War" books, but everything's been downhill from there. The Postman seemed pretty derivative of Lucifer's Hammer's "Harry the mailman".)
It's just a piece of bafflegab that Solo throws out to see how clueless his passengers are. Observe that Kenobi rolls his eyes at the idiocy of this claim.
That's why I couched it in terms of "tend to" and "more likely".
As far as technical issues go, the not technically inclined are unlikely to have any opinion at all (other than an aversion to having to learn something new), so the comparison is moot.
To my mind "irrational hatred" is something like what, say, a Denver Broncos fan might have for the Oakland Raiders (or pick any other pro sports intense rivalry).
there's a great deal of irrational hatred of Microsoft among technically inclined individuals,
Really? Technically inclined individuals tend to look at things with a logical, rational approach. Most non-technically inclined individuals tend not to understand the technically inclined.
Therefore, it's more likely that technically inclined individuals have a rational hatred of Microsoft, but most people are lacking sufficient clue to understand why.
As for crackers and script kiddies, yeah, there's something irrational about their thought processes (if any).
Re:Novell buying SuSE could be the best thing for
on
SUSE 9.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Yes, you've been able to do network installs of SUSE since they discontinued the ISO images (and maybe before that, too). It's pretty easy, assuming you have a reasonable internet connection. (Don't try this on dial-up;-)
Give it a few weeks for the CDs and DVDs to be pressed, the manuals and boxes printed, everything assembled and then shipped to distributers and retailers.
They're nice enough to announce that now so that you don't get pissed off when you buy yourself 9.1 as a Halloween present and then see 9.2 in the stores the next week;-)
Could someone make a decent argument why Exchange is so damned "important" in the private sector? I'm serious here. Managerial groupthink does not count.
Unfortunately, managerial groupthink does count. It's the managers that authorize the POs and sign the checks.
And I imagine mostly it's just historical reasons -- the client software came with the desktop boxes they were buying anyway, the server software with the print and file servers they were buying, and the next thing you know, it's entrenched. The exceptions would be places that already had some sort of corporate email/conferencing/groupware thingy in place (probably mainframe based) before it came bundled with Windows.
Since then it's just been inertia and resistance to change. Heck, I know companies that deal with the virus/spam/etc problems by sandwiching Linux/Postfix based filters between their Exchange servers and the firewall. (And then defeating a lot of that to pass through ActiveSync and webclient and etc. traffic so it can all be accessed from laptops and Pocket PCs by the employees in the field.)
Yes, I believe I said that, although perhaps my phrasing was too subtle.
And it wasn't just the DEC linker. I had the problem rear its ugly head on other Version 7 based systems, on code that had run fine on a VAX (running BSD).
The early unix filename limit was 14 chars. That gave you two bytes for the inode number in a 16-byte directory entry.
Early C also had the 6 letter limit, not so much in the language itself as a limitation in early linkers/loaders, which only distinguished the first few characters of an identifier. (So for sanity's sake you limited the identifiers in your program to that so you would accidentally get a collision. This is one reason that old C code looks, well, old. (And why some old C coders still tend toward using short variable names.)
(because something is only visible in the radio, like a pulsar)
Come now, pulsars (some, anyway) are visible in the optical. The Crab pulsar probably being the best known and most photographed, but also newer ones such as the pulsar in SN1987A. Of course the high frequency of newer pulsars makes time exposures tricky.
Actually it has been fairly common practise in R&D contracts for the companies to throw in some of their own money, and so retain rights to the technology developed.
Slashdot Mirror
Shrug. The box I have, labelled "NT Server" (5 client licenses included!), claims to contain IIS also. I've never been interested in loading IIS (not much interest in loading NT4, either, but I had to do that) so I don't recall if it really lived on the disc or not, I'd have to check.
There's more to PPC than the G5. Variations are used in a lot of embedded apps.
Heck, IBM even makes a set-top box chip based around the PPC core, and Hauppauge's MediaMVP runs Linux on it (google for MediaMVP and linux -- lots of folks hacking this box).
Oh, come now, System 7 had numerous improvements over Mac OS 6.
Give me a few minutes and I'll probably remember some...
NT4 never came out on a hardware platform that MacOS would run on.
Not quite true. Remember Mac clones? Based on a standard reference design (CHRP? PREP? one of those) they could in theory run either NT4 or MacOS. I don't know if Apple hardware ever ran it, Apple could get away with having not-quite-conformant hardware that would still run MacOS.
As for software, AFAIK the only stuff available was from MSFT. NT4 Server included IIS, and the SQL Server 6.5 disk included Alpha, MIPS and PPC versions as well as i386. Never saw a version of Office for those other platforms, although it might have existed.
Other things being equal, performance suffers too. More registers means fewer trips to cache, which at the margin means fewer trips to memory, etc -- all of which are vastly slower than what processors typically operate at these days. Intel cranks up the clock, which increases power consumption and heat load, etc.
There's a reason that many, many embedded computers (everything from cars to set-top boxes) use PPC rather than x86, and it's not just the ease of assembly programming.
Sure, Joe User running a GUI based program that spends most of its life waiting for the user to do something won't notice much difference -- except in fan noise and heat load, or battery life on a laptop.
The NT4 disks came with Windows for x86, MIPS, Alpha, and PPC.
It didn't succeed then, it sure wouldn't now.
OTOH, I wouldn't mind if I could get a commodity PPC platform to run, say, Yellow Dog Linux on. The x86 architecture um, how to put this delicately, leaves something to be desired.
It's no good defending yourself, Brin ;-)
Crap is crap no matter who writes it -- and Sturgeon's Law probably applies to an individual author's output too. Moderators go by content, not authorship.
(BTW, liked the first three "Uplift War" books, but everything's been downhill from there. The Postman seemed pretty derivative of Lucifer's Hammer's "Harry the mailman".)
It's just a piece of bafflegab that Solo throws out to see how clueless his passengers are. Observe that Kenobi rolls his eyes at the idiocy of this claim.
I thought the first rule was "Never become involved in a land war in Asia."
Close. It's actually "Never become involved in a patent (or copyright) war with IBM."
Here in NorthAm, Dec 22nd (or thereabouts) is the first day of winter. Likewise the other equinox/solstice days mark the start of their season.
Given the effects of thermal lag -- eg, late January/early February is typically the coldest part of winter -- that's actually quite reasonable.
Reflashing the firmware in a million CPU-based systems is a hell of a lot cheaper than redesigning, remanufacturing and replacing a million ASICs.
Recalls do happen.
I'd just as soon not send money to Microsoft.
Yeah, I've heard the rumors that Microsoft loses money on every Xbox they sell -- that might even have been true once.
But think how much more money they lose for every one they make and don't sell.
There are plenty of sub-$100 linux appliances out there if you want to hack on something that wasn't originally intended to be hacked on.
That's why I couched it in terms of "tend to" and "more likely".
As far as technical issues go, the not technically inclined are unlikely to have any opinion at all (other than an aversion to having to learn something new), so the comparison is moot.
To my mind "irrational hatred" is something like what, say, a Denver Broncos fan might have for the Oakland Raiders (or pick any other pro sports intense rivalry).
The "obvious" solution to the brightness problem is brighter lightbulbs, not an array of lenses and other optics.
Right, which is why no flashlight manufactured before Honeywell's 1994 invention had either a reflector or a lens.
Oh, wait...
There is a patch coming, but it's not available yet.
It'll be fixed in Longhorn.
there's a great deal of irrational hatred of Microsoft among technically inclined individuals,
Really? Technically inclined individuals tend to look at things with a logical, rational approach. Most non-technically inclined individuals tend not to understand the technically inclined.
Therefore, it's more likely that technically inclined individuals have a rational hatred of Microsoft, but most people are lacking sufficient clue to understand why.
As for crackers and script kiddies, yeah, there's something irrational about their thought processes (if any).
Yes, you've been able to do network installs of SUSE since they discontinued the ISO images (and maybe before that, too). It's pretty easy, assuming you have a reasonable internet connection. (Don't try this on dial-up ;-)
Would you settle for "released to production"?
;-)
Give it a few weeks for the CDs and DVDs to be pressed, the manuals and boxes printed, everything assembled and then shipped to distributers and retailers.
They're nice enough to announce that now so that you don't get pissed off when you buy yourself 9.1 as a Halloween present and then see 9.2 in the stores the next week
Could someone make a decent argument why Exchange is so damned "important" in the private sector? I'm serious here. Managerial groupthink does not count.
Unfortunately, managerial groupthink does count. It's the managers that authorize the POs and sign the checks.
And I imagine mostly it's just historical reasons -- the client software came with the desktop boxes they were buying anyway, the server software with the print and file servers they were buying, and the next thing you know, it's entrenched. The exceptions would be places that already had some sort of corporate email/conferencing/groupware thingy in place (probably mainframe based) before it came bundled with Windows.
Since then it's just been inertia and resistance to change. Heck, I know companies that deal with the virus/spam/etc problems by sandwiching Linux/Postfix based filters between their Exchange servers and the firewall. (And then defeating a lot of that to pass through ActiveSync and webclient and etc. traffic so it can all be accessed from laptops and Pocket PCs by the employees in the field.)
-- Alastair
Yes, I believe I said that, although perhaps my phrasing was too subtle.
And it wasn't just the DEC linker. I had the problem rear its ugly head on other Version 7 based systems, on code that had run fine on a VAX (running BSD).
The early unix filename limit was 14 chars. That gave you two bytes for the inode number in a 16-byte directory entry.
Early C also had the 6 letter limit, not so much in the language itself as a limitation in early linkers/loaders, which only distinguished the first few characters of an identifier. (So for sanity's sake you limited the identifiers in your program to that so you would accidentally get a collision. This is one reason that old C code looks, well, old. (And why some old C coders still tend toward using short variable names.)
He also worked on Version 8 Unix and (IIRC) came up with an early version of the /proc filesystem.
He's certainly a co-creator of what we now know as Unix.
That would explain the problem with the creat(2) system call too.
Oh wait, that would be crat(2).
(because something is only visible in the radio, like a pulsar)
Come now, pulsars (some, anyway) are visible in the optical. The Crab pulsar probably being the best known and most photographed, but also newer ones such as the pulsar in SN1987A. Of course the high frequency of newer pulsars makes time exposures tricky.
Actually it has been fairly common practise in R&D contracts for the companies to throw in some of their own money, and so retain rights to the technology developed.