Or, you could skip the link and just look at a 707, 757, 767 or 777. (Of course, if you look at a 727, 737 or 747 you'll see amazingly successful, innovative designs but Boeing doesn't do innovation anymore)
Nope. The Sonic Cruiser sales were fine. American ordered the first two years total production just to make sure that they'd be the only ones flying the only distinctive plane in the sky.
Ah so you think a newbie is likely to assume that case sensitivity in a programming language is really a fight between the Unix and Microsoft camps? And you expect us to believe that? You know, Ari Fleisher's job is open.
As for beginners needing a deep knowledge of what goes on inside a computer, why not just give them machine language? After all, any programming language, even assembler, is an abstraction that hides "what goes on inside a computer" as is any operating system's API. (or are you just justfying C's idiotic choices any way you can)
Nope. Only in Case SeNsItIvE languages like C and it's decendants.
That you would think case sensitivity is universal is more than slightly depressing since it hasn't been necessary in modern programming languages for over 40 years...
Yeah, if you really like case sensitivity, easy typos, no concept of strings, no concept of block data, etc.
Face it, the common use of C was the worst disaster that ever happened to programming. Most languages in the mid-'60s were more sophisticated and better thought out. (Of course, the lack of the concept of string length has done wonders for tapeworm writers and the lack of decent memory managment has done wonders for people writing debug utilities...
Actually that was IBM that used the "x is a better y than y" ad campaign and it was "OS/2 is a better Windows than Windows".
Sorry to burst your false memories but Microsoft isn't that stupid.
No, the use if *nix and *ix came about because AT&T (yes it goes back that long) protected their copyright and would file a cease and desist order if you used Unix to describe anything but their own system. It wasn't a generic to mean "we run on Unix and others" it was "we're a clone of Unix but don't have the right to the name because AT&T won't license it"
Close. Two minor errors.
SCO did exist prior to the Xenix sale but they were tiny.
Xenix wasn't a clone, it was a licensed UNIX under license from AT&T
Microsoft is acquiring the rights to Unix technology from SCO Group, a move that could dramatically impact the battle between Windows and Linux in the market for computer operating systems.
According to a statement from Microsoft, the company will license SCO's Unix patents and the source code. That code is at the heart of a high-stakes, billion-dollar lawsuit between SCO and IBM that could alter the computing landscape.
Hate to interrupt your ignorance demonstration but Win95 had a preemptive multitasking engine for Win32 apps. It only used cooperative multitasking for Win16 apps (which were designed to do cooperative) and all of those apps were run inside a Win16 VM which was itself a Win32 app preemptively scheduled by the real multitasker.
Nice conspiracy theory except you are totally incorrect.
The OEM versions of Windows 95 ALL bundled IE starting with the very first release in August 1995 when IE 1.0 was bundled in with Windows 95 OEM.
What probably confused you was not knowing what bundling means and confusing it with building functionality into a product. IE4 in 1998 was built into the OS (Windows 98 not Windows 95) but IE was bundled with Windows 95 on.
Oh and even if you only count building the functionality into the OS as the key measure, IE3 had already killed Netscape's monopoly before Windows 98 so your theory doesn't work anyway.
Let's look at this rationally (not a common idea here on/.)
IE1 - bundled with the OS. Pretty awful. Netscape dominant IE2 - bundled with the OS. Better but not as good as Netscape. Netscape dominant IE3 - bundled with the OS. Slightly better than Netscape. Netscape loses market monopoly. IE4 - bundled with the OS. Much better than Netscape. Netscape reduced to small player.
Care to explain why you think the part that stayed the same made the difference and the part that changed wasn't a factor?
Yep. Apple, after pissing off or firing all their talent in the 1980s blew not one (Taligent), not two (Gershwin), but three (Copland) separate tries at creating a new operating system so, in total desparation and nearly bankrupt, they decided to skip innovation put lipstick on a pig, pretend they'd actually created something and hope that the Apple and Unix faithful would keep quiet and go along with it.
that this is a little "thank you" present from FCC Chairman Michael Powell (Colin Powell's son) to Fox for supporting his dad's foreign policy.
"Liberal Media", my ass...
Windows NT for PPC was going to be built for the common architecture that IBM and Apple were going to develop (they did the PREP and CHRP specs together) as part of their new alliance.
Unfortunately Apple and IBM got into a pissing war and never could agree on a platform. There were huge fights over whether the platform should support a parallel port (IBM said yes and Apple said no) and other stupid trivia that the arrogance of the two companies allowed to kill the project. So, it died the same way that Talligent did.
The reason the NT4 version worked on IBM was that it was developed jointly by Microsoft and the IBM site in Kirkland, Washington.
An informative and informed post about a Microsoft product on/.
And it's also a posting on a product by someone who has actually used it!
Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse?
Slashdot Mirror
Or, you could skip the link and just look at a 707, 757, 767 or 777. (Of course, if you look at a 727, 737 or 747 you'll see amazingly successful, innovative designs but Boeing doesn't do innovation anymore)
Nope. The Sonic Cruiser sales were fine. American ordered the first two years total production just to make sure that they'd be the only ones flying the only distinctive plane in the sky.
Ah so you think a newbie is likely to assume that case sensitivity in a programming language is really a fight between the Unix and Microsoft camps? And you expect us to believe that? You know, Ari Fleisher's job is open.
As for beginners needing a deep knowledge of what goes on inside a computer, why not just give them machine language? After all, any programming language, even assembler, is an abstraction that hides "what goes on inside a computer" as is any operating system's API. (or are you just justfying C's idiotic choices any way you can)
Compared with the arcane C
#include
main()
{
printf ("HELLO WORLD\n");
}
Or the ever elegant APL
'HELLO WORLD'
Speaking of stupidity...
The debate over case sensitivity predates Unix or Microsoft. But thanks for demonstrating an astounding lack of knowledge.
BTW: C is a throwback - a punchcard mindset language family. Everybody had moved beyond case sensitivity long before C was derived from BCPL.
Nope. Only in Case SeNsItIvE languages like C and it's decendants.
That you would think case sensitivity is universal is more than slightly depressing since it hasn't been necessary in modern programming languages for over 40 years...
Exactly what does IBM get by buying out Sun?
A licensed version of Unix after Monday...
Actually, the line number references in the code get renumbered as well. What you do lose is any neat line numbering scheme you started with.
Yeah, if you really like case sensitivity, easy typos, no concept of strings, no concept of block data, etc.
Face it, the common use of C was the worst disaster that ever happened to programming. Most languages in the mid-'60s were more sophisticated and better thought out. (Of course, the lack of the concept of string length has done wonders for tapeworm writers and the lack of decent memory managment has done wonders for people writing debug utilities...
try:
Print "C decended languages suck worse than any BASIC"
No, that's when you do a
RENUM 100,10
Actually that was IBM that used the "x is a better y than y" ad campaign and it was "OS/2 is a better Windows than Windows". Sorry to burst your false memories but Microsoft isn't that stupid.
No, the use if *nix and *ix came about because AT&T (yes it goes back that long) protected their copyright and would file a cease and desist order if you used Unix to describe anything but their own system. It wasn't a generic to mean "we run on Unix and others" it was "we're a clone of Unix but don't have the right to the name because AT&T won't license it"
Of course you know that Windows NT is POSIX compliant as well (POSIX-1) but Microsoft isn't stupid enough to say that it's Unix.
Close. Two minor errors. SCO did exist prior to the Xenix sale but they were tiny. Xenix wasn't a clone, it was a licensed UNIX under license from AT&T
According to CNET tonight:
Microsoft is acquiring the rights to Unix technology from SCO Group, a move that could dramatically impact the battle between Windows and Linux in the market for computer operating systems.
According to a statement from Microsoft, the company will license SCO's Unix patents and the source code. That code is at the heart of a high-stakes, billion-dollar lawsuit between SCO and IBM that could alter the computing landscape.
Hate to interrupt your ignorance demonstration but Win95 had a preemptive multitasking engine for Win32 apps. It only used cooperative multitasking for Win16 apps (which were designed to do cooperative) and all of those apps were run inside a Win16 VM which was itself a Win32 app preemptively scheduled by the real multitasker.
You didn't get it pre-installed. You see, that's what we call OEM. (As I said in the postings)
Nice conspiracy theory except you are totally incorrect.
The OEM versions of Windows 95 ALL bundled IE starting with the very first release in August 1995 when IE 1.0 was bundled in with Windows 95 OEM.
What probably confused you was not knowing what bundling means and confusing it with building functionality into a product. IE4 in 1998 was built into the OS (Windows 98 not Windows 95) but IE was bundled with Windows 95 on.
Oh and even if you only count building the functionality into the OS as the key measure, IE3 had already killed Netscape's monopoly before Windows 98 so your theory doesn't work anyway.
Let's look at this rationally (not a common idea here on /.)
IE1 - bundled with the OS. Pretty awful. Netscape dominant
IE2 - bundled with the OS. Better but not as good as Netscape. Netscape dominant
IE3 - bundled with the OS. Slightly better than Netscape. Netscape loses market monopoly.
IE4 - bundled with the OS. Much better than Netscape. Netscape reduced to small player.
Care to explain why you think the part that stayed the same made the difference and the part that changed wasn't a factor?
Yep. Apple, after pissing off or firing all their talent in the 1980s blew not one (Taligent), not two (Gershwin), but three (Copland) separate tries at creating a new operating system so, in total desparation and nearly bankrupt, they decided to skip innovation put lipstick on a pig, pretend they'd actually created something and hope that the Apple and Unix faithful would keep quiet and go along with it.
that this is a little "thank you" present from FCC Chairman Michael Powell (Colin Powell's son) to Fox for supporting his dad's foreign policy. "Liberal Media", my ass...
Windows NT for PPC was going to be built for the common architecture that IBM and Apple were going to develop (they did the PREP and CHRP specs together) as part of their new alliance. Unfortunately Apple and IBM got into a pissing war and never could agree on a platform. There were huge fights over whether the platform should support a parallel port (IBM said yes and Apple said no) and other stupid trivia that the arrogance of the two companies allowed to kill the project. So, it died the same way that Talligent did. The reason the NT4 version worked on IBM was that it was developed jointly by Microsoft and the IBM site in Kirkland, Washington.
An informative and informed post about a Microsoft product on /.
And it's also a posting on a product by someone who has actually used it!
Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse?