IBM has been one of the most prominent supporters of Open Source and Linux. They have released cutting edge software to the community such as SOAP and Xerces.
I've always found their fascination with Linux strange though. I believe they want to destroy windows out of revenge. They've been screwed by Bill Gates with Dos and later with OS/2.
The largest computer magazine in the Netherlands tested it. The battery life was 59 minutes! That means you can hardly use it without access to a electricity socket.
That's truly awful. They wondered if that machine was broken. What are your experiences? Is it really this bad?
In comparison both Apple laptops have got real-life 3-4 hours of battery time (5 hours without doing anything).
PS. Personally I think the built-in 802.11 slot (Airport/Wi-FI) in Apple laptops is a killer. It saves you from using a rare PCMCIA-slot and features built-in attenna's.
Why not the amount of data processed, the number of clients served, etc, etc.
I don't think people would agree on a single measure, especially when it doesn't favor them.
I didn't mean to imply that assembly sux. PowerPC assembly is quite good. But x86 assembly is really bad. Why not learn a clean language, such as C, Java or PPC assembly.
Or any other language you may like, provided it is clean (ie. not C++ or x86 assembly or Visual Basic).
At the time it was revolutionary. But since it was hardly updated I can't see why it is still a compelling solution.
Why don't these people use tools like Supercard, which has evolved? And the legacy stacks can run under the Classic-emulation of MacOS X. Surely it doesn't access hardware directly;)
PS. x86 assembly sux, Why didn't you learn C or Java?
You should realise that Macs have a much, much longer battery life than most PC laptops (5hrs vs 3??). Especially if the OS supports power management. MacOS 9 is famed for this, but I'm unsure about Linux (look into it!).
Furthermore the Pentium III uses Speedstep-technology. It runs 100 to 200 mhz slower in battery-mode. So the advertised mhz's are quite deceptive, G4's always run at full speed.
Lastly you should realise the G4 does more per mhz. An 700 mhz G4 is certainly faster than an 1 ghz P3. And if you run Altivec-apps, they will usually run circles around P3's.
I didn't say the interface isn't important, it is. What I meant to say is that a lot of companies are aiming at reuse, while they should be aiming at reducing maintenance costs.
This comment says it all:
>I don't care how a module works, only that it does.
You want software that works. Only structured code can be debugged properly. Of course the interface should be good, so code gets used properly. But this has little do with the 'blind' aim for reuse. Companies should push their programmers to write solid code, not to reuse as much as possible.
Reuse should be based on a commitment at the beginning of a project. A reuseable piece of code should be identified and written as such (i.e. in a general, multi-purpose way). It then should be refined and used in multiple projects. Code reuse should not be based on just ripping code out of projects. Remember the ariane-missile? It failed because of improper reuse. The code was not designed for a launch with any missile, but only with a specific one. It worked with the first missile, but not with another.
The structuring it imposes is one of the most important benefits. Reuse is mostly applicabel to standard libaries(for instance the API of Java). Only the best of programmers can make universally useful libraries.
In specific cases reuse can make a lot of money for companies. But the major advantage is in well-structured, maintainable code. Most bussiness-software is used for many years and expanded or partially rewritten many times. Well structured code pays off in each and every debugging cycle during the life of the software.
Now if only I could learn to structure my code properly, it would end these horrifying debugging nightmares;)
So what's the big deal. Mac's have always been quite easily adapted to one's taste.
I don't know any Mac-user who doesn't first install an extension on a freshly installed MacOS. Everyone has their own wishes.
A lot of these extensions have been integrated into the OS by Apple. It's a natural evolution of an OS. Apple is trying to create a better OS with MacOS X. They are dumping some good stuff without good reasons, they'll repent. I can wait until MacOS X 1.2 for a perfectly useable OS.
If Apple would include X, it would have to support it. You can't seriously ask them to shell out big bucks for that (support is very costly).
And making it work perfectly under MacOS X is no picknick either. Apple likes to ship things that work (unlike m$).
All in all I can't see how you can seriously ask this from Apple. X-server under MacOS X is a perfect example of software for a select group of users(surely less than 5%). Third parties should create a distro with or without support. Otherwise you can compile it yourself.
Why not ask Apple to create the best platform for using software. You can't ask them to program and support your particular piece of software.
Slashdot Mirror
They tried to write the paper, but...Word crashed.
IBM has been one of the most prominent supporters of Open Source and Linux. They have released cutting edge software to the community such as SOAP and Xerces.
I've always found their fascination with Linux strange though. I believe they want to destroy windows out of revenge. They've been screwed by Bill Gates with Dos and later with OS/2.
640x480 with 256 grays, no sound or ethernet ;)
But it does run.
The largest computer magazine in the Netherlands tested it. The battery life was 59 minutes! That means you can hardly use it without access to a electricity socket.
That's truly awful. They wondered if that machine was broken. What are your experiences? Is it really this bad?
In comparison both Apple laptops have got real-life 3-4 hours of battery time (5 hours without doing anything).
PS. Personally I think the built-in 802.11 slot (Airport/Wi-FI) in Apple laptops is a killer. It saves you from using a rare PCMCIA-slot and features built-in attenna's.
Why not the amount of data processed, the number of clients served, etc, etc.
I don't think people would agree on a single measure, especially when it doesn't favor them.
And how would you get all that data???
I didn't mean to imply that assembly sux. PowerPC assembly is quite good. But x86 assembly is really bad. Why not learn a clean language, such as C, Java or PPC assembly.
Or any other language you may like, provided it is clean (ie. not C++ or x86 assembly or Visual Basic).
At the time it was revolutionary. But since it was hardly updated I can't see why it is still a compelling solution.
;)
Why don't these people use tools like Supercard, which has evolved? And the legacy stacks can run under the Classic-emulation of MacOS X. Surely it doesn't access hardware directly
PS. x86 assembly sux, Why didn't you learn C or Java?
You should realise that Macs have a much, much longer battery life than most PC laptops (5hrs vs 3??). Especially if the OS supports power management. MacOS 9 is famed for this, but I'm unsure about Linux (look into it!).
;)
Furthermore the Pentium III uses Speedstep-technology. It runs 100 to 200 mhz slower in battery-mode. So the advertised mhz's are quite deceptive, G4's always run at full speed.
Lastly you should realise the G4 does more per mhz. An 700 mhz G4 is certainly faster than an 1 ghz P3. And if you run Altivec-apps, they will usually run circles around P3's.
And the new powerbook is damn pretty
6+14=20
;)
7-12 is the birthday of Poetin (Ok, it isn't, but I'm to lazy to go and find the real date)
I think the people of Chili are awake at 23:12:07. It would be fairer, since they'll be able to see the debris come down and can try to run away.
You don't really believe Poetin will let it go down over sea, did you?
I didn't say the interface isn't important, it is. What I meant to say is that a lot of companies are aiming at reuse, while they should be aiming at reducing maintenance costs.
This comment says it all:
>I don't care how a module works, only that it does.
You want software that works. Only structured code can be debugged properly. Of course the interface should be good, so code gets used properly. But this has little do with the 'blind' aim for reuse. Companies should push their programmers to write solid code, not to reuse as much as possible.
Reuse should be based on a commitment at the beginning of a project. A reuseable piece of code should be identified and written as such (i.e. in a general, multi-purpose way). It then should be refined and used in multiple projects. Code reuse should not be based on just ripping code out of projects. Remember the ariane-missile? It failed because of improper reuse. The code was not designed for a launch with any missile, but only with a specific one. It worked with the first missile, but not with another.
The structuring it imposes is one of the most important benefits. Reuse is mostly applicabel to standard libaries(for instance the API of Java). Only the best of programmers can make universally useful libraries.
In specific cases reuse can make a lot of money for companies. But the major advantage is in well-structured, maintainable code. Most bussiness-software is used for many years and expanded or partially rewritten many times. Well structured code pays off in each and every debugging cycle during the life of the software.
Now if only I could learn to structure my code properly, it would end these horrifying debugging nightmares ;)
I don't know any Mac-user who doesn't first install an extension on a freshly installed MacOS. Everyone has their own wishes.
A lot of these extensions have been integrated into the OS by Apple. It's a natural evolution of an OS. Apple is trying to create a better OS with MacOS X. They are dumping some good stuff without good reasons, they'll repent. I can wait until MacOS X 1.2 for a perfectly useable OS.
New projects are good for newbies who want to get a high ranking. Personally I stay with rc5, ranked 28,905 and rising ;)
All in all I can't see how you can seriously ask this from Apple. X-server under MacOS X is a perfect example of software for a select group of users(surely less than 5%). Third parties should create a distro with or without support. Otherwise you can compile it yourself.
Why not ask Apple to create the best platform for using software. You can't ask them to program and support your particular piece of software.