The solution Apple hit upon was the next best thing-- put them in their own memory space all together, but protect them from other non-classic apps
This is, of course, exactly the same technique that NT4 and 2000 use for 16 bit apps.
Look how long it's taken Microsoft to wean the Win 9x line of 16-bit apps-- they *still* have some hooks down to the lower levels of the OS 6 years after Win95 debuted. This is undoubtedly one of the causes of the OS's crappy stability and sluggish performance. Had they adopted a "virtual box" approach as Apple has, they'd probably have a much better OS today.
They did, in their serious OSes. Looking for NTVDM in taskmanager. Why do you make statements about something you clearly know nothing about?
NAT effectively hides a network of computers behind a single machine. Computers out there on the Net can only see the NAT machine so they can't connect directly to anything else on the local network (the machines behind the NAT server have to initiate all connections). Both Napster and Gnutella have solutions to this (and I imagine every other P2P system does too). Basically the idea is to use a machine that already has a connection to the desired target to request that the target initiate a connection. In the case of Napster the central server can do this, in the case of Gnutella a 'push' request is issued to network at large. For Napster this works quite well, but Napster is entirely P2P. In Gnutella's case it's less effective.
I think the X Files has had a far greater influence on the public's perception of nerds than any of the films mentioned in the article (except perhaps Sneakers). The Lone Gunmen are certainly cool, if slightly weird. They're very popular characters which is why they're getting their own spinoff series.
Oh come on. How many times was the Amiga name and associated OS sold? Was it 3 or 4? And whereas AmigaOS was already showing it's age before Commodore folded BeOS is still technically very good. There are plenty of sucessful niche operating systems around. Someone will snap this up.
"GLScene" and "DemoGL" are far more tenuous claims. In fact, the use of "GL" in this context is so widespread that the argument could probably be made that this has "passed" into common usage... which assumes that it ever did belong exclusively to SGI which I have to doubt.
You'd have a lot of trouble convincing a court of that. GL is certainly not in common usage outside the IT industry and arguably not in it. A court is going to say "OpenGL, DemoGL, they're both computer programs and are quite similar sounding".
Also note that SGI did have a product called GL (OpenGL is of course the successor) so they certainly own a trademark on "GL" alone.
Companies don't just disappear, they wind up and sell their assets, or rather the creditors sell their assets. BeOS is probably Be's only significant asset and if they give it away they (the directors) can become liable (to their creditors) for the reduced sale value of the remaining assets.
BeOS is unlikely to be released as Open Source for the simple reason that BeOS is the major piece of property the company has left. If they gave it away the creditors would probably be able to sue the directors. The only real hope is that some company (or organisation) buys BeOS and then releases it.
I hope that, if they do come out witha new ipaq that addresses these concerns, they keep the case the same and of course the sleeve interface the same. It's a great product, with two annoying shortcomings.
In other words, for Napster to distribute one of my spoken-word pieces, I'd have to tell Napster that it was okay to distribute it, exactly the same way I give permission to distribute my software by slapping a GPL on it.
By announcing on Napster that you have a song to share you are asserting that i) you own the copyright and ii) you give permission to other people to download. Currently that's implied, what this opt-in plan will mean is that those two assertions have to be explictly stated. Obviously that's not going to satisfy the RIAA, they'll still want to be able to say "we own these songs, ignore anyone else who claims them". The only way that can work (other than providing the list like they currently do) is if they examine each file manually.
Optus@Home is one of two cable Internet services available in Australia - the other is run by Telstra, who are Australias national, partly-government owned Telecommunications company/carrier. Telstra offer two kinds of accounts - an "unlimited download" account, which is speed capped (I'm not aware of what speed this service is capped at) and an uncapped service, for which you pay per megabyte once you have downloaded over 200MB (it could be 500MB, but for some reason 200MB sticks in my head). The unlimited download account is quite slow compared to Optus' cable service, but from all reports the pay-per-megabyte service is just as fast, if not faster.
Since I'm on Telstra I'll fill in the rest of the story. Telstra has two levels of capping for unlimited downloads: 256Kb/64Kb (kilobit) and 512Kb/128Kb. I'm on 512Kb and it costs about AU$75 per month (about US$30). It is easy to saturate that bandwidth to foreign servers (at least US servers). The uptake of broadband has been slow over here. Part of the cause is a lack of competition. Even though I live in the largest city in Australia I could only get Telstra's service because when I signed up (about 18 months ago) Optus would not provide service to "multi-dwelling buildings" (i.e. apartment blocks).
IBM's second generation (but still completely useless) linux watch uses an OLED for all the reasons mentioned here: bright display, low batter consumption, etc.
You missed one significant advantage to OLED: resolution. That IBM watch has a resolution of 640x480 packed display which is 0.87x0.65 inches. That's a resolution of around 740dpi far better than anything a CRT or and LCD can acheive and even better than most home printers.
I don't know WHAT they are talking about -- I can find ANYTHING that I look for on Google -- even sites that I have just created a day or two ago have been found. These people just aren't using the right search engine, dammit! =)
They're talking about using the Web for serious research. The article actually misrepresents the problem for hardcore researchers on the Web. The problem is not so much finding information, it's finding information you can trust. But for most other people the problem is just finding the information and it's not just that they're not all using Google, it's also that they don't know how to search properly. They don't know who to formulate queries which are specific enough to weed out the bad pages.
Here is a 1992 conversation between linus and Tenanbaum
Tanenbaum had two points: that monolithic kernels were obsolete and that Linux was not desinged for portability. Monolithic vs microkernel is really a religious war, but I think it's safe to say that monolithic kernels are faster to develop than microkernels. Speed of development is probably the fundamental reason Linux caught on - Linus was able to get it to a usable state by himself. On portability Tanenbaum clearly had a point, but one which is meaningless in todays context. The bits of Linux that made portability difficult in the early versions are long gone and indeed Linux has extremely good portability now. It's also quite clear that Tanenbaum does not understand Open Source / Free Software. He particularly focuses on the mutation myth that Microsoft is so fond of. In conclusion Tanenbaum's comments made a lot of sense then (and I'm sure Linus took them on board), but with the benefit of nearly 10 years of hindsight I'd say he was almost dead wrong.
I'm assuming that Canada uses the same television standard as at least one other country. Many manufactuers likely would consider it less expensive to put these chips in *all* of their televisions rather than making specialized additions for Canada.
Doubtfull. Most home electronics companies are willing to do country specific versions for countries far smaller than Canada (e.g. New Zealand with it's population of less than 4 million). At worst they'd use the same circuit boards but not insert the chips (which will almost always save them money).
We can thank them for the pathetic shell of a former gaming company that Sierra is too.
As of about two months ago Hasbro Interactive (i.e. the computer game divsion) was bought by Infogrames for $100M in stock and cash. Hasbro Interactive owned both the MicroProse and Atari brands. Infogrames also owns GT Interactive.
Sierra is owned by Havas Interactive which was called Cendant Software, and also owns Blizzard. Havas and is ultimately owned by Vivendi, which is a fairly large company (some 300,000 employees). Interestingly both Havas/Vivendi and Infogrames are French companies.
The GPL does not say that you have a right to get anything for free: It just says that you have a right to the source if you get the program, that changes are GPL as well if you distrbute them and that you can redistribute the program freely with the same license.
Exactly right. Clearly few people here on/. have read and understood the GPL, which is pretty disappointing.
In this situation what the GPL means is that anyone could buy the product and then redistribute it for less. Naturally that means that it will only be possible to charge reasonable prices. I don't think $15 is unreasonable, provided it's as good as they say (given the free alternatives).
I mean, come on. It's not new. We've already had at least one story on this and the interview doesn't add any real info. Trying to generate some more click throughs? Maybe the Mac stories haven't generated enough flames?
In general the problem is that programs may scan the directory in order to determine if they are going to write over a file and fail to detect if they are. This is a serious problem even if the program is aware that the file system is case insensitive, because the program's idea of what letters match may be different than the file systems (especially true for Unicode filenames!)
Programs which do that are poorly written. A program should always ask the filesystem if a file exists. The program is never qualified to make that judgement. Ok, that's an exaggeration, specific filesystems may guarantee cetain behaviour.
Take a look at this page from the Hardware Central article by Vince Freeman. In particular check out this graph (which is curiously not hosted on the Hardware Central website).
The second pages of both articles are also very similar in structure, both discussing (in the same order) the fact that it's the same core, the cache, the bus, and then the chipsets. The comments are different though. Are these two sites getting the same person to do the benchmarking?
I've seen a few AMD commercials, which is a few more than I expected considering their practically non-existant revenue compared to Intel.
AMD made a profit of just under a billion last year (on revenue of around 4.5B), which is more than enough to pay for a few ads. Of course Intel made about 10 times that, but still AMD's revenue is hardly non-existant.
Beneath this IE window that I am typing this on, is a zsh window, running vim on NT 4SP5, inside a multi-dimensional DB that works on 4 unices and NT. This same machine is running Python (which can be hooked up to the Windows Scripting Host and take over the entire system) and Apache+PHP+MySQL. With a little bit of effort, all these Unix-toys play fine on my NT laptop and let me use MS Word, MS Visual Studio and all my wonderful Unix utilities, so I can then deploy to a Linux/Unix server.
So basically what you're saying is that to make Windows productive you've installed a bunch of Unix tools? You've pretty much proved the other guy's point.
Hell, the average desktop should be installed with firewalling out the wazoo (but in a newbie usable state).
The installer for the 7.1 beta does this. At least in custom mode you are presented with a choice of low, medium, or high security with the default being medium. I imagine that the normal workstation install does this without even asking.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant that Napster is not entirely P2P, of course.
NAT effectively hides a network of computers behind a single machine. Computers out there on the Net can only see the NAT machine so they can't connect directly to anything else on the local network (the machines behind the NAT server have to initiate all connections). Both Napster and Gnutella have solutions to this (and I imagine every other P2P system does too). Basically the idea is to use a machine that already has a connection to the desired target to request that the target initiate a connection. In the case of Napster the central server can do this, in the case of Gnutella a 'push' request is issued to network at large. For Napster this works quite well, but Napster is entirely P2P. In Gnutella's case it's less effective.
I think the X Files has had a far greater influence on the public's perception of nerds than any of the films mentioned in the article (except perhaps Sneakers). The Lone Gunmen are certainly cool, if slightly weird. They're very popular characters which is why they're getting their own spinoff series.
Yes, it's pretty ironic.
Oh come on. How many times was the Amiga name and associated OS sold? Was it 3 or 4? And whereas AmigaOS was already showing it's age before Commodore folded BeOS is still technically very good. There are plenty of sucessful niche operating systems around. Someone will snap this up.
Naturally, IANAL.
BeOS is unlikely to be released as Open Source for the simple reason that BeOS is the major piece of property the company has left. If they gave it away the creditors would probably be able to sue the directors. The only real hope is that some company (or organisation) buys BeOS and then releases it.
WTF are you looking for?
Sierra is owned by Havas Interactive which was called Cendant Software, and also owns Blizzard. Havas and is ultimately owned by Vivendi, which is a fairly large company (some 300,000 employees). Interestingly both Havas/Vivendi and Infogrames are French companies.
In this situation what the GPL means is that anyone could buy the product and then redistribute it for less. Naturally that means that it will only be possible to charge reasonable prices. I don't think $15 is unreasonable, provided it's as good as they say (given the free alternatives).
I mean, come on. It's not new. We've already had at least one story on this and the interview doesn't add any real info. Trying to generate some more click throughs? Maybe the Mac stories haven't generated enough flames?
Take a look at this page from the Hardware Central article by Vince Freeman. In particular check out this graph (which is curiously not hosted on the Hardware Central website).
Now look at the Sharky article by Chris Angelini and Ben Hirsch. Compare their graph.
The second pages of both articles are also very similar in structure, both discussing (in the same order) the fact that it's the same core, the cache, the bus, and then the chipsets. The comments are different though. Are these two sites getting the same person to do the benchmarking?