Hell, I've almost done that with my Pilot! However, I swapped out my Startac for a big, clunky iDen phone, so I am no longer in danger of losing my phone... or getting a Vader (V) phone and losing that!
In the next Bond movie, tenatively titled 007: Sponsored by Sony Corp., we'll see Sony's newest invention - not just a camera the size of a piece of chewing gum, but actually is a pack of chewing gum! Bond will be able to take pictures and swallow the evidence! When it comes out the, well, other end, the piece of gum can be hardned with a special chemical and inserted into the new Sony Memory Stick PDA to view the pictures.
I'll reply to you instead of every one of the posters who pointed it out.
In terms of porting UNIX software, there are quite a few commercial UNIX programs, and that's what the story seemed to suggest. You cannot port a commercial program with the free version of Solaris. Plain and simple.
Oops - I must have thought otherwhise, but what I meant is that they're adopting a lot of the software the Linux community worked on. The idea of my original post still stands, even if I screwed up the license. I don't think that deserved a flame, esp. because I am at work and cannot get to the FreeBSD tree.
Linux's market share is below that of the Mac. That's a fact. Most Linux users are for servers, so strike one up for the Mac being the first widely-used commercial UNIX for the desktop. And when do we get a Fry's in Chicago? Oh, wait - you're in Geeksvile, California.
And why is OSX not *NIX? It's simply the next evolution of NeXT, from what I can see. Terminal available and everything, with a pure BSD base.
The csh(1) shell has been replaced by tcsh(1), although it can still be run as csh(1).
The more(1) command has been replaced by less(1), although it can still be run as more(1).
I see they're getting with the GNU bandwagon, but I hope that the original BSD sources for csh, more, etc. get kept somewhere for posterity - when/if all BSD's switch to using GNU userland software, we lose the original BSD software, which wouldn't be a good thing.
I wonder if it could still be made an option to have a FreeBSD 4.1 kernel without the GNU utilities but with original BSD utilities. Anybody from FreeBSD care to comment?
More fields. Anything new, or is it just pure mathematics with no room for creative innovation? Yeal, ECC is the future. But it's hardly creative, just a mathematical extention.
Try getting a recent config.sub and config.guess from somewhere, and copying them into packages. That usually makes 90% of Linux packages port to BeOS with no modification. I assume Rhapsody->Darwin would be similar.
Within twenty-four hours, every phone number we gave out will be disconnected. Every mail address will return unopened. You'll attempt to go to those addresses and see abandoned warehouses. And all traces of those names will dissapear from public records.
We told you that we had connections. We told you that you didn't want to mess with us. See it in action. We're not afraid of anyone leaving, because anything they bring with them is useless - disconnected phone numbers, nonexistant sid names, and addresses of abandoned warehouses!
You don't have the connections. You have everything to lose. You can't touch us.
Every once in a while, a new approach to cryptography like the code talkers comes up - something that returns cryptography to its roots, which is really a mapping between a source set and a destination set. However, the japanese had modest success decrypting the code talkers before new words for letters were added. With time and computer technology, it's probable that they could have succeded in breaking the whole code.
Now cryptography seems to focus mostly on RSA and other public-key crypto systems. Do you see any future innovations in cryptography, or has the science of cryptography been reduced to nothing but fields and binary relations?
First of all, I meant that you couldn't tell that I wasn't trolling.
OSX=$99. Puts it all into context, doesn't it?
SCO does cost an arm and a leg. So does Solaris. OSX is cheaper than both of those.
Forgot the quotes: "Most available" referred to where it's being sold and market attention.
The Mac is a platform. Quite a few users will buy MacOS X. Market Attention keeps the Mac going. Solaris has no market attention. NT does. So, why do you think so many people are replacing Solaris with NT here?
Actually OS X will run on the iMac with ease. I was simply comparing prices of UNIX workstations. The iMac is cheaper than most hardware you'd want to run *NIX on, and a lot better looking to boot.
The article said UNIX. The Slashdot story said UNIX. UNIX means Solaris and SCO, not *BSD and Linux.
Actually, you're losing your touch. While Linux might be cheapest of them all, among commercial unicies OSX will be the cheapest. SCO costs an arm and a leg, along with Solaris. Most available referred to where it's being sold and market attention. The Mac has the combination of installed base, cost, and market attention that makes it perfect for posts.
Will UNIX developers want to port their applications to an operating system that costs more in hardware and OS software both?
iMac: ~$799
Cheapest new Sun workstation: ~$2000
Draw your own conclutions. The Macintosh will be the cheapest and most available system ever to come with a UNIX preloaded. No other UNIX-like platform alone will match the cost and installed base of the Macintosh. Port? You betcha. Why do so many people port to NT? Porting to OS X is even easier than porting to NT. Win for Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, I've almost done that with my Pilot! However, I swapped out my Startac for a big, clunky iDen phone, so I am no longer in danger of losing my phone... or getting a Vader (V) phone and losing that!
It's digital. You don't want it coming out the other end, umm, hard.
In the next Bond movie, tenatively titled 007: Sponsored by Sony Corp., we'll see Sony's newest invention - not just a camera the size of a piece of chewing gum, but actually is a pack of chewing gum! Bond will be able to take pictures and swallow the evidence! When it comes out the, well, other end, the piece of gum can be hardned with a special chemical and inserted into the new Sony Memory Stick PDA to view the pictures.
Don't recall the source. Actually, the comment was that it wouldn't be any more expensive that MacOS 9 was.
In terms of porting UNIX software, there are quite a few commercial UNIX programs, and that's what the story seemed to suggest. You cannot port a commercial program with the free version of Solaris. Plain and simple.
Oops - I must have thought otherwhise, but what I meant is that they're adopting a lot of the software the Linux community worked on. The idea of my original post still stands, even if I screwed up the license. I don't think that deserved a flame, esp. because I am at work and cannot get to the FreeBSD tree.
Why does it feel like you're stalking me? Are you trying to troll me?
Actually, what's next might be dropping nvi for vim, which once again IMHO would be a mistake.
And why is OSX not *NIX? It's simply the next evolution of NeXT, from what I can see. Terminal available and everything, with a pure BSD base.
Hah! :-P Somebody needs to make a line of geek action figures.
Heritage. That's what you're missing. I've got no problems with the GNU stuff, but the original BSD stuff needs to be kept for posterity.
The more(1) command has been replaced by less(1), although it can still be run as more(1).
I see they're getting with the GNU bandwagon, but I hope that the original BSD sources for csh, more, etc. get kept somewhere for posterity - when/if all BSD's switch to using GNU userland software, we lose the original BSD software, which wouldn't be a good thing.
I wonder if it could still be made an option to have a FreeBSD 4.1 kernel without the GNU utilities but with original BSD utilities. Anybody from FreeBSD care to comment?
Actually, I was pretty sure it was assigned to SIGSEGV. SIGSTOP is an unassignable signal, last I checked.
More fields. Anything new, or is it just pure mathematics with no room for creative innovation? Yeal, ECC is the future. But it's hardly creative, just a mathematical extention.
Read the fscking story before you post. Gee, you think that would be in the way of national security?
Try getting a recent config.sub and config.guess from somewhere, and copying them into packages. That usually makes 90% of Linux packages port to BeOS with no modification. I assume Rhapsody->Darwin would be similar.
We told you that we had connections. We told you that you didn't want to mess with us. See it in action. We're not afraid of anyone leaving, because anything they bring with them is useless - disconnected phone numbers, nonexistant sid names, and addresses of abandoned warehouses!
You don't have the connections. You have everything to lose. You can't touch us.
Now cryptography seems to focus mostly on RSA and other public-key crypto systems. Do you see any future innovations in cryptography, or has the science of cryptography been reduced to nothing but fields and binary relations?
Actually, what's the incentive to use PPCLinux if your default OS is already UNIX?
OSX=$99. Puts it all into context, doesn't it?
SCO does cost an arm and a leg. So does Solaris. OSX is cheaper than both of those.
Forgot the quotes: "Most available" referred to where it's being sold and market attention.
The Mac is a platform. Quite a few users will buy MacOS X. Market Attention keeps the Mac going. Solaris has no market attention. NT does. So, why do you think so many people are replacing Solaris with NT here?
The article said UNIX. The Slashdot story said UNIX. UNIX means Solaris and SCO, not *BSD and Linux.
OT: You can do http://sourceforge.net/projects/DBMix instead of the number, which makes it an easier to read URL.
Actually, you're losing your touch. While Linux might be cheapest of them all, among commercial unicies OSX will be the cheapest. SCO costs an arm and a leg, along with Solaris. Most available referred to where it's being sold and market attention. The Mac has the combination of installed base, cost, and market attention that makes it perfect for posts.
iMac: ~$799
Cheapest new Sun workstation: ~$2000
Draw your own conclutions. The Macintosh will be the cheapest and most available system ever to come with a UNIX preloaded. No other UNIX-like platform alone will match the cost and installed base of the Macintosh. Port? You betcha. Why do so many people port to NT? Porting to OS X is even easier than porting to NT. Win for Apple.
I'm not very good at sound effects... that's the sound of a piece of metal being drawn to a magnet.