> I don't believe that this is actually true. Win95 had excellent Win3.x compatibility, but developers nevertheless rushed to develop Win95 software. Why would Win3.x compatibility in OS/2 cause developers to forego native development, but not have the same effect on Win95?
Euuh, Microsoft had declared Win3.1x dead?
I don't think Microsoft will declare Windows dead to boost application development for Linux.
See release engineering schedule on the FreeBSD web site.
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.0R/schedule.ht ml
4 days before scheduled release:
"Heads up email to hubs@FreeBSD.org to give admins time to prepare for the load spike to come. The site administrators have frequently requested advance notice for new ISOs."
In some Dutch studies, it turned that out that girls (though indeed more bright on average) choose on average studies slightly below their capacities, and avoid all heavy studies. (beta studies and heavy other studies like econometrics), while boys had the tendancy to choose slightly above their capacities.
Develop for the corporate market, but make pretty sure that it can't be used in a commercial environment licensewise, and allow a no-nonsense license on registration.
Distribute with source (take piracy for granted, therefore the corporate market as target), support only 1) registered users 2) people that have something interesting (new features/ bug fix).
> Now if we could just get an open-source Delphi-compliant compiler on Linux, I
There is Free Pascal. If it isn't good enough, maybe you should put in some work:-)
The development version supports near all language features (including interfaces, default params, variants), and library compability will remain a problem as long as the original libraries are not open.
Specially in the libraries, a user can do good work.
Anyway, some Turbo Power libraries work with Free Pascal already.
Therefore I have no link, but maybe one can find one on their main site in a faq section, but probably not in English.
You'll have to find sb with a chello account (and IP, because they check the range too) to verify.
Since the mailservers are mostly unified over the countries (in Austria IIRC), that will be the same over most of the European countries. (don't know about Israel). At least for the larger countries(subscriberwise) like Belgium and the Netherlands.
Personally, I don't blame Microsoft, but the US government, and specially the anti trust authoroties.
Any large and (de-facto or real) monopoly is dangerous.
The damage is two-fold,
- the damage caused by the monopoly (killing of innovative companies, specially when they are smaller, and the fact that they can ignore customers)
- I think if they had put a brake on Microsoft say a few months before Windows 2000, we could now already see the fruits of a the synergy a more cooperative and interoperable Microsoft would bring
Indeed, note that the entire thing here is the NTFS driver.
A dos based NTFS driver system (like ntfsdos or locksmith) will work too. Maybe there are ways for OS/2 even.
The basic insecurity is that the filesystem is not encrypted (the avg unix system btw isn't also, since it is quite expensive performancewise without proper encrypto hardware) AND that the user stores data on his laptop (not a physically secured server)
But I don't agree with your argumentation. For me (and I think for most people both Tux and Beasty stand for their respective OSes, not for free software as a whole)
Then the GNU Gnu would be a better choice. (which is also not perfect for obvious reasons, but already a lot more general)
Slashdot Mirror
> I don't believe that this is actually true. Win95 had excellent Win3.x compatibility, but developers nevertheless rushed to develop Win95 software. Why would Win3.x compatibility in OS/2 cause developers to forego native development, but not have the same effect on Win95?
Euuh, Microsoft had declared Win3.1x dead?
I don't think Microsoft will declare Windows dead to boost application development for Linux.
He keeps talking about this GNU OS thingy. Does Wine run on the Hurd already?
Of course they are. They choose to enforce the ridiculous patent, don't they?
Yes, the answer is that Pentium I SMP is broken, as far as I understood both on 4.x as 5.x
(we indeed could run 4.x single processor, and SMP
kernels from both branches crashed)
>SMP at its finest IMHO.
In the RC's, SMP was broken for pentium-I's I found out with an old Proliant 1500.
So I suppose it is in release too.
See release engineering schedule on the FreeBSD web site.
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.0R/schedule.h
4 days before scheduled release:
"Heads up email to hubs@FreeBSD.org to give admins time to prepare for the load spike to come. The site administrators have frequently requested advance notice for new ISOs."
In some Dutch studies, it turned that out that girls
(though indeed more bright on average) choose on
average studies slightly below their capacities, and
avoid all heavy studies. (beta studies and heavy other studies like econometrics), while boys had the
tendancy to choose slightly above their capacities.
If I look at the specs, it looks more like Delphi with C++ syntax then a C++ derivate.
Some from the languages and compiler field:
- Niklaus Wirth
- Chomsky
- Authors of the legendary Dragon book
- Alfred Aho, (has several other texts)
- Ravi Sethi
- Heffrey D, Ullman
Unix and Network (TCP/IP illustrated Unix network programming advanced programming in the unix environment)
- Richard W Stevens
Technojocks toolkit (TTT) has been translated to FPC already afaik.
The only thing that could work:
Develop for the corporate market, but make pretty
sure that it can't be used in a commercial environment licensewise, and allow a no-nonsense
license on registration.
Distribute with source (take piracy for granted, therefore the corporate market as target), support only
1) registered users
2) people that have something interesting (new features/ bug fix).
And the Pascal RAD [under development]:
http://lazarus.freepascal.org
Free Pascal has about a 80 MB codebase that for 90% runs under Linux (and *BSD) including
Now what was the size of the Linux kernel again?
Correct entirely. It does have things like the classes unit though.
Some parts _are_ in fact portable, parts of Turbo Power components have been succesfully ported to FPC. The same with ICS.
> Now if we could just get an open-source Delphi-compliant compiler on Linux, I
:-)
There is Free Pascal. If it isn't good enough, maybe you should put in some work
The development version supports near all language features (including interfaces, default params, variants), and library compability will remain a problem as long as the original libraries are not open.
Specially in the libraries, a user can do good work.
Anyway, some Turbo Power libraries work with Free Pascal already.
Am Ex Chello-helldesker.
Therefore I have no link, but maybe one can find one on their main site in a faq section, but probably not in English.
You'll have to find sb with a chello account (and IP, because they check the range too) to verify.
Since the mailservers are mostly unified over the countries (in Austria IIRC), that will be the same over most of the European countries. (don't know about Israel). At least for the larger countries(subscriberwise) like Belgium and the Netherlands.
Personally, I don't blame Microsoft, but the US government, and specially the anti trust authoroties.
Any large and (de-facto or real) monopoly is dangerous.
The damage is two-fold,
- the damage caused by the monopoly (killing of innovative companies, specially when they are smaller, and the fact that they can ignore customers)
- I think if they had put a brake on Microsoft say a few months before Windows 2000, we could now already see the fruits of a the synergy a more cooperative and interoperable Microsoft would bring
I know for sure that European cable ISP Chello does.
There are a lot of ISP's that only allow their own
email adresses to pass. I think OP is hinting on this.
Indeed, note that the entire thing here is the
NTFS driver.
A dos based NTFS driver system (like ntfsdos or locksmith) will work too. Maybe there are ways for OS/2 even.
The basic insecurity is that the filesystem is not encrypted (the avg unix system btw isn't also, since it is quite expensive performancewise without proper encrypto hardware) AND that the user stores
data on his laptop (not a physically secured server)
An exploit utility is then only a matter of time.
What would ISO-C# help as long as the main vendor doesn't support multiple targets?
99% of the C# code will use some part of the Windows classes space, and will be inheritely importable.
So that leaves some academical playing with the rest. I'm also afraid that will be Mono's place.
This is no competition of Java (and I'm no Java lover btw, just a realist), which is already entrenched in a lot of companies.
Not standards, but decent vendor support is what
C# needs to make it credible for non M$-shop managerial eyes.
Because we are not all paranoid?
What's next? Scrambling your voice over the telephone?
It wasn't meant in a mean way, it just struck me.
But I don't agree with your argumentation. For me (and I think for most people both Tux and Beasty stand for their respective OSes, not for free software as a whole)
Then the GNU Gnu would be a better choice.
(which is also not perfect for obvious reasons, but already a lot more general)
See subj
Haven't they learned anything? Subscription in this
form doesn't work as a businessmodel!
Well, we got you to read Slashdot didn't we?
So somehow it does matter