Pardon me for my skepticism, but if no method - or even a proof for the method - is published, how can we know that this is not flawed? I would like to look at some pure data, and a well-structured methodology before I lend any credence to this.
On a lighter note - even if it doesn't really work, wanna bet it gets a patent?:P
I confess I haven't kept my code snapshots properly updated, but this is still very exciting! I know the Mozilla project has had a number of snags and delays - I just hope that the result is a better chunk of code than any of its predecessors.
There are often times where it is necessary to make criticism of either GNU/Linux or a competing system when advocating OpenSource, but merely stating one's opinion seems to draw flame from whomever is being criticized. What is the best way to "soften the blow" without losing the intendent meaning or impact of a criticism?
IBM may have quite a lot of very nice software, but thier big business is in the hardware. After all, they have to compete with the likes of Sun and Microsoft, just like the article says.
This plays into a perfect little niche with Linux. Linux is on the upswing: more and more PHB's and admins alike are finding useful places for Linux, and as the corporate networks grow and spill over onto the Internet this trend will continue.
IBM has seen that supporting an OS on the upswing gets them more media and a speedy gain in hardware sales. They also realize that, as one of the more expensive hardware vendors, they can increase the value (real and percieved) of, say, a server by reducing the initial OS cost to zero (or close to it).
Do the math: if Compaq's hardware for a similar spec is $4000, and IBM's is $4600, IBM can point out that by offering pre-installed Linux at no additional charge, there is no need for the $2000 extra for NT server and approprate CAL's. Whammo. Suddenly, hardware that was more expensive looks cheaper.
Let's just hope they stick to Linux, and don't jump on the next wave of hype, abandoning thier Linux clients...
I never thought there would be such a lack of Linux hype that the pundits would drag up old issues like code forks.
For these people, I find the simple answer works: Linux code can be adapted into some other OS, but then it wouldn't be Linux anymore (thank you, Linus, for owning the TM). Besides, look at BSD: the BSD code base has been forked all over the place, and yet BSD in all its flavors is still alive and kicking (despite even the Linux hype).
Please, oh please, ZDNet: give us some new topic to have flamewars over, not this old hash!:P
I've found more use from getting a job at a smallish company who is open-minded than from a job at a "linux-friendly" company.
There's something about convincing the CEO that Linux has significant advantages for some project or other, and that it costs less too! The look of enlightenment on the face of a PHB who suddenly groks the advantages of OpenSource is priceless. And it gives a real chance for OpenSource advocacy when the BSA audits you and finds that you're using a whole lot of OpenSource software, so they can't say a damned thing!:)
Plus, it lets me put BSD in where I see fit too...
The biggest problem with portable devices (like MP3 players) is that storage is so expensive, because leaving a conventional HDD in a cold car can demagnitize and permanently damage it.
Huh? I know excessive heat can demagnetize, but excessive cold? IANAP, but I don't think so. At least not the kind of cold your car is likely to experience on the surface of the Earth...
You may have been very lucky indeed -- though I was mistaken in using the term "demagnetize." In reality, cold temperatures (rated @ All that aside, however, moving from cold to warm quickly -- say, by turning on the device while it's very cold -- can cause electrical shorts due to condensation on the board. There are HDD's designed to operate in these conditions, but they are not inexpensive.
Greater density on the same physical size is great (assuming reliability is not affected), but I'd really like to see affordable, large-capacity drives that can operate at very low/very high temperatures. Imagine the implications for portable/vehicular/MP3 type devices!
The biggest problem with portable devices (like MP3 players) is that storage is so expensive, because leaving a conventional HDD in a cold car can demagnitize and permanently damage it.
This is something that I, and many fellow Unix/Linux advocates, have been calling for. Finally, an article that acknowledges that there is a place for every OS - and that isn't fanatically for or against any one of them.
Once people, especially in the Open Source community, realize "one OS everywhere" is bad regardless of which OS it is we will make some real progress toward truly great computing systems. Our emphasis should be on interoperability and using the right tool for the right job -- articles like this are extremely valuable tools in this way.
-- : remove whitespace to e-mail me
Killing Unix is like killing computers:
on
The End of Unix?
·
· Score: 1
It's just not feasable.
Immagine for a moment: someone invents a very powerful palm-top device that lets you word-process, surf the web, POP your mail, and all the other neat things a productivity PC does now. It's not based on current chipsets, etc, etc. This person may say "this concept will someday replace the computer."
We all know what I just described _is_ a computer. What the inventor really meant was "this will replace the computer as we know it today." Now apply this to Unix. Very few people are going to go out and create a new OS without building in someway upon UNIX -- even if it's only just the concept of Unix. Unix has been around for 30 years, and no matter where technology progresses, I have no doubt that we will be able to trace it's roots back to Unix.
Observe: MS-DOS was, IIRC, originally intended to be a 'simple' Unix-like OS for the PC. We all know that it never made it, but the influences are quitte clear. Windows95 evolved from DOS, and implemented more Unix ideas, like long file names and shared libraries (I know, I know, Win3.x had shared libraries too... but it wasn't an OS IMHO). NT is also an offshoot of both Win3.x and Unix ideas - offering network support and user/group-based file permissions.
Yes, each of these took a little different take on Unix, and tried to re-invent the wheel: but the influence of Unix cannot be safely ignored.
Generally, an increased audience (especially to a market that you normally can't reach) is something you WANT, not something you sue over...
When are these corporate thugs going to get a good infusion of Cloo(tm) about such matters? Some practices that the industry deems "piracy" could stand to benefit them more than hurt them - unless you listen to thier short-sighted marketing nutcases. Ugh. tnar
Many have been quick to point out potential problems: bandwidth "squatting", price increase to the consumer, large empires controlling more bandwidth, etc.
While all of those are valid concerns, there are some significant advantages to the FCC plan. Firstly, it opens up currently restricted broadcast bandwidth - this will allow those with the proper funds to make some very valuable advances: at the least, either more or better quality (image, sound, not content:) broadcasts. Secondly, opening the bandwidth will reduce the temptation for corporate entities to push the edges of public bands (i.e. CB radio, Shortwave, etc) to gain greater range and quality broadcasts. Thirdly, new services will expand to fill these channels: wireless ISP's and LAN/WAN's (as mentioned elsewhere) for example.
All in all, I would like to see the official FCC proposal before I make a call on wether this is a Good Thing(tm) or not.
Perhaps the best idea that I have is to simply have a convincing fake on hand to lure would be lawyers into thinking something else when it's really not the case
IANAL, but this could definately be obstruction of justice if discovered. Which brings an interesting point -- could someone who encrypts data and refuses to surrender the key be charged with obstruction of justice??
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
This will probably get lost in the hundreds of posts that I expect to come flooding in on such a hot topic, but here's my $0.02 anyhow:
Despite the article's premise that it doesn't matter how many layers of encryption, etc are used to protect e-mail, it is all discoverable. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of current US law is that the TEXT of any e-mail is discoverable: if the sender encrypted it, there is no current law on the books that would force surrender of the key. This changes a bit if only the servers encrypt the data -- which is a strong argument for public use of encryption.
On a side note, however, it is important to realize that if the authorities wish to take the time to track down the senders and recievers of e-mail messages, the plaintexts of even encrypted messages can be subpoenaed (sp?), so caution in what is said is still important.
This brings up one last issue, too: with the revision of Yahoo!'s ToS to state that they own all IP expressed over thier services, even instant messaging logs could be subject to this kind of discovery. Write your congressperson, as per usual...
In the meanwhile, encrypt, encrypt, encrypt! At least we'll make them work for the data.:)
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
Ergonomic devices abound: keyboards, mice, furniture, related accessories, and foolish gadgets. Many of these do have benifits, and I would never dissuade someone from using an Ergo keyboard (for instance). However, it's not a fix, there are other things that should be done:
Take regular typing breaks. Work for a while, take your hands off the KB and do something else with them.
Excercise: use a "stress ball" or equivalent, or if you already have an RSI, see a physical therapist for an excercise regimen.
Use proper posture. Don't get a wrist rest -- they encourge poor posture: instead, follow proper posture taught in keyboarding (and piano) classes.
Don't skimp. All ergo devices are not created equal -- find one that is best for you, even if it costs more.
Above all, remember that the biggest improvement you'll see with a good ergo keyboard is performance. If you buy one, buy it for that, and use the tips above for healthy typing.
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
Distributing linux in an embedded system all takes place under the GPL, correct? ... Do the developers simply have to observe a "chinese-wall" model for developing, keeping the OS in one set of directories and the "app" in the other, and linking/stitching them together only as the last step before ROMming?
Now, IANAL, but if I recall, the viral nature of the GPL does not extend outside the actual OS. Therefore, if an embedded systems developer makes a modification to the kernel, source must be made available. However, if other OS components are developed ground-up without GPL'd code, the rest of the system need not be placed under the GPL.
Also, the GPL doesn't require that source be provided with the product, but that it must be made available for no more than the cost of conveying the media. This means online for free, or via CD for cost of media and shipping.
If an embedded systems developer were smart, they would use an embedded-linux kernel and build closed source tools around it (if they wanted to obfuscate the source). OTH, if there were a hypothetical LinuxPilot, the developer could give away the source, but need not disclose proprietary chip design used to build the device. So the GPL is not that large a hurdle to leap to the manufacture of Embedded systems using Linux.
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
IMHO, this regulation is defensible under current interstate trade law. IANAL, however...
My concern is that continued application of such law to the Internet will begin a trend of Internet-related regulations which will result in new legislation. The first thing that comes to mind is Internet taxation. It has been proposed (and defeated) before, but if the US Government can regulate aspects of Internet trade, I see the attitude toward Internet taxation relaxing a bit.
I think it's important, if you share my concern, to take an opportunity like this to write your Congressperson and express your concern over such controls. Make your opinion clear, complete, and concise -- staffers read such letters, and will get bored with them quickly if they are too long-winded.
What does everyone else think? Could decisions like this soften the attitude toward Internet regulation and lead to taxation of Internet commerce?
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
Just as I don't know the intricate details of how my stereo works, Joe Smith in Nowhere, Idaho doesn't need to know anything more than 'Netscape is the internet'. All he cares about is being able to click on a button to find out the going rate for 1000 pounds of potatoes.
Very simple -- I have had 30m discussions with customers attempting to explain why they had to be on the internet to get thier e-mail. I agree that everyone shouldn't need to know about TCP/IP or how it works, or even the protocols (http, ftp, etc), but if they are to use the Internet, they should understand that the web is a piece of it. It's far less confusing, then, when you train them about "Internet e-mail" or "Internet news".
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
I would give my left arm for a totally objective point of view.
The Internet grew from an ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Administration), later DARPA (Defense ARPA) project to create an indestructible "network of networks" wherein the total network would be intact until ALL possible routes of communication were destroyed. Let's call it the "they'll never get them all" mentality -- typical US gov't spending policy: why have one when you can have two at twice the price? But I digress.
Various protocols were experimented with, with TCP/IP finally chosen (and the Berkley implementation became the standard, IIRC) for it's routing capabilities.
The founder of Netscape, along with several collegues (who then were researchers at a university) created Mosaic and it's underlying principles, thus laying the framework for the WWW.
This was, of course, not before various government and educational institutions had created protocols for SMTP, POP, Gopher, NNTP, etc.
So you can credit the US Gov't for the creation of the Internet, and you can {credit|blame} Netscape for popularizing the WWW. So there.:) In lieu of your left arm, I would prefer a new Apple G4 system.:P -- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
Most people also believe that the WWW is the internet.
This is a larger problem than it might seem: try explaining to someone why they can't send e-mail or read news while the company Internet connection is down.
I tend to blame companies in the AOL/Prodigy genre for this ignorance: their "Internet Access" buttons take you straight to a browser. The amount of time it takes me to train customers that the WWW is a part of the Internet costs quite a lot... -- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
Granted, but Unix did play an enormous role in the development of the Internet as we know it today. Some here do seem to be a little Unix-centric, seeming to think that the Internet could never have existed without Unix.
The fact is, neither the PC or Unix is solely responsible for the current state of the Internet: but it is still a severe ommission by PCWeek to omit the role Unix played in the Internet's growth.
After all, credit where credit is due... -- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
First of all, I don't know how true that is unless you define "successful" to be "widely used." Let's just assume that definition for the duration of this post...
It's simple really: BSD users use(d) BSD because it serve{s|d} thier purpose. BSD is, like Linux, a free implementation of UNIX. The difference is, the BSD community never wanted to be any more than that -- so they succeeded extremely well at what they set out to do: reimplement UNIX under a (arguably) free license.
On the other hand, the Linux community decided that "a better UNIX than UNIX" and "world domination" were the goals for Linux. This lead to the main advocates (ESR, Linus, AC and others) being much more vocal than BSD advocates. The Linux community _wanted_ universal acceptance, whereas the BSD community was simply concerned with making the best OS possible for their own ends.
Not that either approach is worse (I use NetBSD for several web and intranet servers, and Linux on many desktops and app servers), but they have different results. -- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
I would really like to understand why you think this is anti-MS or a conspiracy theory of any kind. The article simply stated the facts about a rather embarrassing shipping snafu.
MS got the NYPD involved because there was suspicion of industrial espionage. We laugh, sure, and maybe some people here overreact and say "no way that was worth $1M US!! MS is controlling the cops!", but most of us just enjoy mocking a large corporation for being so careless with their valuables.
As an aside, to those who do feel that this exemplifies MS's influence over governmental agencies...
The prototype was worth about $1M US because having the design fall into competing hands before it could be mass-produced would be a potential loss of first-run profits, since a competitor could come to market before MS, or at roughly the same time, thus forcing MS to compete much more quickly than necessary.
If you sent a very sensitive package, such as this prototype, and it suddenly wound up in the wrong part of the country, you too would probably call the shipper, then the area PD to get your property back. There was suspicion of criminal activity, and the NYPD acted accordingly. In retrospect, it seems downright silly, but hindsight is 20/20...
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
While I agree that the market cannot solve all our problems, and that the government is right to get involved if AOL is not complying with legislation, I think the market -- and the media -- could solve this one.
For example: if a significant blind-persons' agency were to cry foul to the news media, I know of many, many people that would boycott non-compliant sites. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that someone would write browser plugins to help the tech-impaired to verify such sites before viewing them. Not visiting sites cuts into ad revenue, and it will hurt them.
I think enough media attention would force all the major non-compliant sites to redesign -- just to avoid bad publicity.
Posted by the Proteus
Probablisitic waves and the Prime Radiant.
on
Time Doesn't Exist
·
· Score: 1
Based on what I can tell from this article, what my more educated contacts have discussed with me, and a few of the posts right here, bascially what the author is proposing is that the entire Universe (i.e. our reality) is/can be defined by a system of Probablistic equations.
If that is true, then perhaps Asimov should get some credit for thinking up the "Prime Radiant" from the Foundation series. If you're curious about details, I suggest you check out Asimov's last book: Forward the Foundataion, which gives insight.
Basically, for those without the time, the Prime Radiant was a device that implemented complex chaotic equations to describe current events around the galaxy and predict -- with extreme accuracy -- the probability of a certain event occuring in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
On a lighter note - even if it doesn't really work, wanna bet it gets a patent? :P
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
Anyone run a rendering "benchmark" yet? :P
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
There are often times where it is necessary to make criticism of either GNU/Linux or a competing system when advocating OpenSource, but merely stating one's opinion seems to draw flame from whomever is being criticized. What is the best way to "soften the blow" without losing the intendent meaning or impact of a criticism?
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
This plays into a perfect little niche with Linux. Linux is on the upswing: more and more PHB's and admins alike are finding useful places for Linux, and as the corporate networks grow and spill over onto the Internet this trend will continue.
IBM has seen that supporting an OS on the upswing gets them more media and a speedy gain in hardware sales. They also realize that, as one of the more expensive hardware vendors, they can increase the value (real and percieved) of, say, a server by reducing the initial OS cost to zero (or close to it).
Do the math: if Compaq's hardware for a similar spec is $4000, and IBM's is $4600, IBM can point out that by offering pre-installed Linux at no additional charge, there is no need for the $2000 extra for NT server and approprate CAL's. Whammo. Suddenly, hardware that was more expensive looks cheaper.
Let's just hope they stick to Linux, and don't jump on the next wave of hype, abandoning thier Linux clients...
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
For these people, I find the simple answer works: Linux code can be adapted into some other OS, but then it wouldn't be Linux anymore (thank you, Linus, for owning the TM). Besides, look at BSD: the BSD code base has been forked all over the place, and yet BSD in all its flavors is still alive and kicking (despite even the Linux hype).
Please, oh please, ZDNet: give us some new topic to have flamewars over, not this old hash! :P
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
There's something about convincing the CEO that Linux has significant advantages for some project or other, and that it costs less too! The look of enlightenment on the face of a PHB who suddenly groks the advantages of OpenSource is priceless. And it gives a real chance for OpenSource advocacy when the BSA audits you and finds that you're using a whole lot of OpenSource software, so they can't say a damned thing! :)
Plus, it lets me put BSD in where I see fit too...
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
You may have been very lucky indeed -- though I was mistaken in using the term "demagnetize." In reality, cold temperatures (rated @ All that aside, however, moving from cold to warm quickly -- say, by turning on the device while it's very cold -- can cause electrical shorts due to condensation on the board. There are HDD's designed to operate in these conditions, but they are not inexpensive.
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
The biggest problem with portable devices (like MP3 players) is that storage is so expensive, because leaving a conventional HDD in a cold car can demagnitize and permanently damage it.
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
Once people, especially in the Open Source community, realize "one OS everywhere" is bad regardless of which OS it is we will make some real progress toward truly great computing systems. Our emphasis should be on interoperability and using the right tool for the right job -- articles like this are extremely valuable tools in this way.
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
Immagine for a moment: someone invents a very powerful palm-top device that lets you word-process, surf the web, POP your mail, and all the other neat things a productivity PC does now. It's not based on current chipsets, etc, etc. This person may say "this concept will someday replace the computer."
We all know what I just described _is_ a computer. What the inventor really meant was "this will replace the computer as we know it today." Now apply this to Unix. Very few people are going to go out and create a new OS without building in someway upon UNIX -- even if it's only just the concept of Unix. Unix has been around for 30 years, and no matter where technology progresses, I have no doubt that we will be able to trace it's roots back to Unix.
Observe: MS-DOS was, IIRC, originally intended to be a 'simple' Unix-like OS for the PC. We all know that it never made it, but the influences are quitte clear. Windows95 evolved from DOS, and implemented more Unix ideas, like long file names and shared libraries (I know, I know, Win3.x had shared libraries too... but it wasn't an OS IMHO). NT is also an offshoot of both Win3.x and Unix ideas - offering network support and user/group-based file permissions.
Yes, each of these took a little different take on Unix, and tried to re-invent the wheel: but the influence of Unix cannot be safely ignored.
Just my $0,03 :P
:: remove the whitespace to e-mail me ::
--
When are these corporate thugs going to get a good infusion of Cloo(tm) about such matters? Some practices that the industry deems "piracy" could stand to benefit them more than hurt them - unless you listen to thier short-sighted marketing nutcases. Ugh. tnar
:: remove the whitespace to e-mail me ::
--
While all of those are valid concerns, there are some significant advantages to the FCC plan. Firstly, it opens up currently restricted broadcast bandwidth - this will allow those with the proper funds to make some very valuable advances: at the least, either more or better quality (image, sound, not content :) broadcasts. Secondly, opening the bandwidth will reduce the temptation for corporate entities to push the edges of public bands (i.e. CB radio, Shortwave, etc) to gain greater range and quality broadcasts. Thirdly, new services will expand to fill these channels: wireless ISP's and LAN/WAN's (as mentioned elsewhere) for example.
All in all, I would like to see the official FCC proposal before I make a call on wether this is a Good Thing(tm) or not.
:: remove the whitespace to e-mail me ::
--
IANAL, but this could definately be obstruction of justice if discovered. Which brings an interesting point -- could someone who encrypts data and refuses to surrender the key be charged with obstruction of justice??
--
Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
Despite the article's premise that it doesn't matter how many layers of encryption, etc are used to protect e-mail, it is all discoverable. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of current US law is that the TEXT of any e-mail is discoverable: if the sender encrypted it, there is no current law on the books that would force surrender of the key. This changes a bit if only the servers encrypt the data -- which is a strong argument for public use of encryption.
On a side note, however, it is important to realize that if the authorities wish to take the time to track down the senders and recievers of e-mail messages, the plaintexts of even encrypted messages can be subpoenaed (sp?), so caution in what is said is still important.
This brings up one last issue, too: with the revision of Yahoo!'s ToS to state that they own all IP expressed over thier services, even instant messaging logs could be subject to this kind of discovery. Write your congressperson, as per usual...
In the meanwhile, encrypt, encrypt, encrypt! At least we'll make them work for the data. :)
--
Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
- Take regular typing breaks. Work for a while, take your hands off the KB and do something else with them.
- Excercise: use a "stress ball" or equivalent, or if you already have an RSI, see a physical therapist for an excercise regimen.
- Use proper posture. Don't get a wrist rest -- they encourge poor posture: instead, follow proper posture taught in keyboarding (and piano) classes.
- Don't skimp. All ergo devices are not created equal -- find one that is best for you, even if it costs more.
Above all, remember that the biggest improvement you'll see with a good ergo keyboard is performance. If you buy one, buy it for that, and use the tips above for healthy typing.--
Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
...
Do the developers simply have to observe a "chinese-wall" model for developing, keeping the OS in one set of directories and the "app" in the other, and linking/stitching them together only as the last step before ROMming?
Now, IANAL, but if I recall, the viral nature of the GPL does not extend outside the actual OS. Therefore, if an embedded systems developer makes a modification to the kernel, source must be made available. However, if other OS components are developed ground-up without GPL'd code, the rest of the system need not be placed under the GPL.
Also, the GPL doesn't require that source be provided with the product, but that it must be made available for no more than the cost of conveying the media. This means online for free, or via CD for cost of media and shipping.
If an embedded systems developer were smart, they would use an embedded-linux kernel and build closed source tools around it (if they wanted to obfuscate the source). OTH, if there were a hypothetical LinuxPilot, the developer could give away the source, but need not disclose proprietary chip design used to build the device. So the GPL is not that large a hurdle to leap to the manufacture of Embedded systems using Linux.
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
My concern is that continued application of such law to the Internet will begin a trend of Internet-related regulations which will result in new legislation. The first thing that comes to mind is Internet taxation. It has been proposed (and defeated) before, but if the US Government can regulate aspects of Internet trade, I see the attitude toward Internet taxation relaxing a bit.
I think it's important, if you share my concern, to take an opportunity like this to write your Congressperson and express your concern over such controls. Make your opinion clear, complete, and concise -- staffers read such letters, and will get bored with them quickly if they are too long-winded.
What does everyone else think? Could decisions like this soften the attitude toward Internet regulation and lead to taxation of Internet commerce?
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
Just as I don't know the intricate details of how my stereo works, Joe Smith in Nowhere, Idaho doesn't need to know anything more than 'Netscape is the internet'. All he cares about is being able to click on a button to find out the going rate for 1000 pounds of potatoes.
Very simple -- I have had 30m discussions with customers attempting to explain why they had to be on the internet to get thier e-mail. I agree that everyone shouldn't need to know about TCP/IP or how it works, or even the protocols (http, ftp, etc), but if they are to use the Internet, they should understand that the web is a piece of it. It's far less confusing, then, when you train them about "Internet e-mail" or "Internet news".
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
The Internet grew from an ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Administration), later DARPA (Defense ARPA) project to create an indestructible "network of networks" wherein the total network would be intact until ALL possible routes of communication were destroyed. Let's call it the "they'll never get them all" mentality -- typical US gov't spending policy: why have one when you can have two at twice the price? But I digress.
Various protocols were experimented with, with TCP/IP finally chosen (and the Berkley implementation became the standard, IIRC) for it's routing capabilities.
The founder of Netscape, along with several collegues (who then were researchers at a university) created Mosaic and it's underlying principles, thus laying the framework for the WWW.
This was, of course, not before various government and educational institutions had created protocols for SMTP, POP, Gopher, NNTP, etc.
So you can credit the US Gov't for the creation of the Internet, and you can {credit|blame} Netscape for popularizing the WWW. So there. :) In lieu of your left arm, I would prefer a new Apple G4 system. :P
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
This is a larger problem than it might seem: try explaining to someone why they can't send e-mail or read news while the company Internet connection is down.
I tend to blame companies in the AOL/Prodigy genre for this ignorance: their "Internet Access" buttons take you straight to a browser. The amount of time it takes me to train customers that the WWW is a part of the Internet costs quite a lot...
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
The fact is, neither the PC or Unix is solely responsible for the current state of the Internet: but it is still a severe ommission by PCWeek to omit the role Unix played in the Internet's growth.
After all, credit where credit is due...
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
First of all, I don't know how true that is unless you define "successful" to be "widely used." Let's just assume that definition for the duration of this post...
It's simple really: BSD users use(d) BSD because it serve{s|d} thier purpose. BSD is, like Linux, a free implementation of UNIX. The difference is, the BSD community never wanted to be any more than that -- so they succeeded extremely well at what they set out to do: reimplement UNIX under a (arguably) free license.
On the other hand, the Linux community decided that "a better UNIX than UNIX" and "world domination" were the goals for Linux. This lead to the main advocates (ESR, Linus, AC and others) being much more vocal than BSD advocates. The Linux community _wanted_ universal acceptance, whereas the BSD community was simply concerned with making the best OS possible for their own ends.
Not that either approach is worse (I use NetBSD for several web and intranet servers, and Linux on many desktops and app servers), but they have different results.
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
MS got the NYPD involved because there was suspicion of industrial espionage. We laugh, sure, and maybe some people here overreact and say "no way that was worth $1M US!! MS is controlling the cops!", but most of us just enjoy mocking a large corporation for being so careless with their valuables.
As an aside, to those who do feel that this exemplifies MS's influence over governmental agencies...
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
For example: if a significant blind-persons' agency were to cry foul to the news media, I know of many, many people that would boycott non-compliant sites. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that someone would write browser plugins to help the tech-impaired to verify such sites before viewing them. Not visiting sites cuts into ad revenue, and it will hurt them.
I think enough media attention would force all the major non-compliant sites to redesign -- just to avoid bad publicity.
Posted by the Proteus
If that is true, then perhaps Asimov should get some credit for thinking up the "Prime Radiant" from the Foundation series. If you're curious about details, I suggest you check out Asimov's last book: Forward the Foundataion, which gives insight.
Basically, for those without the time, the Prime Radiant was a device that implemented complex chaotic equations to describe current events around the galaxy and predict -- with extreme accuracy -- the probability of a certain event occuring in the future.
Interesting, and worth a read!
Posted by the Proteus