*XP/Vista are significantly more stable than the 9x series ever was.
XP/Vista are part of the Windows 2000 (from NT) line. Or did you miss that part?
* Visual Studio 2005 * IIS * Exchange Server * SQL Server
None of the above have ever been all that good. Visual Studio always had stiff competition, but managed to play the "OS Maker" card to get in the lead. (Anyone remember when the only C/C++ compiler that supported the "new" Windows 95 was Microsoft's?) Exchange Server has always sucked. It just sucked less than Notes. SQL Server is okay, but has always had a long list of failings that have kept it from being the best solution on the market. It just happens to get heavily discounted when your shop goes all Microsoft.
Sooo... whatever point you were trying to make? You didn't.
I can count on one hand the number of times Microsoft got it "right". And when they do get it right, they eventually piss it away because there's no one around to challenge them.
When did Microsoft get it right?
* Windows 95 * Windows 2000 * Microsoft Office 97 * IE 5.0
The 9x series went down the toilet with the release of 98 and ME, while 2000 has slowly evolved into that pretty but useless abomination known as "Vista", MS Office has added gobs of features that really are NOT great (do I want another MS XML Office Format? No thanks, two is enough.), and IE stopped being a good browser when Microsoft stopped keeping up with technology. Instead, IE7 is possibly the worst looking piece of software Microsoft has ever produced while simultaneously dropping usability to nil.
Compare that to Apple who knows how to make a success even more successful. OS X has actually had compelling improvements in each version, the iPod has only gotten sleeker and smaller while the interface improved, their hardware has gotten nicer looking and more usable with each release, their iLife software has gone from just "pretty looking" to "pretty looking and GOOD", and Safari (sorry to single this out) has gone from basic-internet-experience to being the first browser to pass the ACID2 test.
Because I was making a point? Specifically, that Linux is freely available to install, use, upgrade, and patch. Which would make the reason for the unpatched Windows machines (i.e. piracy) irrelevant. That's why the distinction was important in this case.
Oh, sorry. I was supposed to give the standard Slashdot response, wasn't I? Ok...
See! The same thing is going to happen to Macs and Linux as soon as they become popular! Because popularity means that these OSes will get pirated more. Which will lead to more infections of unpatched systems. Even though Linux is "free" (as in beer) and Mac OS X only works on legitimate Mac Hardware. Because free... and official hardware...
Unless Apple repositioned the iMac as a laptop, the article is about Macs and PCs in general. It's only the Slashdot summary that assumes it's just about laptops.
He actually compared three different Mac lines:
* MacBook Pro * MacBook * iMac
He then did some handwaving apologies for not reviewing the low-end and high-end desktops. Which is really journalist-ese for "I don't use these types of computers, so I'm not going to even try touching upon them.";-)
The fact remains that for $500 I can get a quite fast PC that DOES have expandability and an upgrade path.
I don't know the last time you got a low-end machine, but many of them are very poor in the internal expandability area. For one, they usually have very few expansion bays. Maybe a single PCI slot and an empty drive bay. Possibly an extra DIMM slot if you're lucky. The case is usually so small that these areas are difficult to gain access to and may be blocked by wiring or adjacent hardware. Furthermore, the internal hardware like the onboard video card, CPU, and memory are often composed of ancient technology that makes replacing the components impractical. (e.g. When AGP was common, you got PCI. Now that PCIe is common, you get AGP. The memory is so low-end that by the time you get a new chip you can't find one that's compatible. So on and so forth.)
In general, low-end PCs are a terrible value if you're looking for upgradability. And being honest for a moment, upgrades are nowhere near as important as they once were. The vast majority of buyers never crack the case. It's cheaper and easer to simply buy a new computer. If you're the type who wants to do a lot of upgrading, then you need to ask yourself why you didn't custom-build your PC in the first place?
it has only Fw400 which limits your external expansion options
How many low-end PCs even have firewire? Most low-end PCs use USB ports. (Which may not even be 2.0 compatible!) The Mac Mini currently ships with 4 USB 2.0 ports. So it's quite comparable in this area.
Actually, Apple competes with their Mac Mini. ($599 and up) The problem was that the reviewer doesn't consider such low-end offerings to be a good value. The reason for this is detailed in his previous articles where he shows himself to be more of a "Power User" who needs a capable system. Personally, I think the Mac Mini fills the low-end niche quite well, but the reviewer simply doesn't want to touch upon it.
Speaking of the review, I enjoyed it but I wish he would have used tables for his data. It's quite difficult (not to mention frustrating) trying to extract the key specifications from the regular flow of text.
In this case (FTFA), Britain's figures are separated from continental Europe. To save space, it's shortened to just "Europe" in the table of numbers. Thus the total European sales are actually 1.78 million units. Australia probably has another 100-200K to add to that, as the AU division of Nintendo has been seeing record sales. Which is pretty impressive considering that Nintendo hasn't shipped them any games.:-/
(Australia has something like 7 games for the Wii. Even worse, they didn't get Turbografx-16 games on their VC until a week or two ago.)
It's *very* important to remember that while her pictures are real, her story isn't. While she claims to have a nuclear scientist for a father, she actually gives a lot of erroneous information that can lead the reader to incorrect conclusions about the number of deaths, sequence of events, and actions taken during the accident.
Sooo... for once read something for its pictures, not its articles.:P
If a drug had on its label that by using it, you would forfeit your rights to sue the drugmaker, I think most people would have an issue with that.
I almost guarantee that it would be held unenforceable. The terms in this particular situation do not take away the right to sue. What they do is that they require arbitration first. You can always sue later if the arbitration falls apart or shows undue preference.
Right now Gateway is trying to force this case into arbitration because the customer skipped straight to the lawsuit. The judge will probably agree and order the case dismissed.
In this case the gentleman is arguing he never had a chance to review the contract because the notice mechanism was defective.
If you read both this thread and TFA (sorry, I know I'm crazy:P), Gateway always includes a printed version of the contract in the box. So not being able to agree on the computer screen in no way impacts this suit. The fellow suing claims that he didn't get any such contract, but I doubt it. Gateway has been sued over this before (see my original post a few levels up) and is well versed in how important that slip of paper is.
Being naked is not a sin. Looking upon the nakedness of others is considered taboo in the Bible. The Old Testament talks about special architectural requirements for towers so that others would not be able to "look up and see their nakedness". Jesus clarified the problem in the New Testament when he explained that lusting after someone you're not married to is a sin. (And one which I'm sure most men have fallen into at some point or another. That's why we have "Grace" per Jesus's death at the cross.)
So in short, Adam and Eve became self-conscious about their state of dress after eating the apple, because they were starting to understand the concept of sins and evil.
FWIW, both the museum and the story strike of flamebait. Not much good will come of this. In fact, this whole "war" between science and religion is doing horrendous things to both sides. Let science be science and let religion be religion. Don't try to make religion science and don't try to make science into religion. The former is bad because it misses the possible truths about God's universe. The latter is bad, because science can blind itself to its self-correcting design if those running the show dig their heels in too far.:-(
It's a modification to contract law that is intended to make in-box agreements legal. The point of the law is to speed up transactions in cases where the cost involved in drafting a proper contract would negate the value of the transaction. Therefore the law provides the consumer the opportunity to review the contractual information in the form of a pack-in contract, which the consumer is free to reject by returning the product. Using the product constitutes acceptance of the contract.
Given that courts have ruled this legal several times (see: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, and - of course - Rich Hill and Enza Hill, v. Gateway 2000, Inc.), consumers should BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU AGREE TO. If the terms of the contract are considered reasonable, you may be held to them in a court of law.
I'm curious, how is leaving a meeting easier than texting during the meeting?
Because a) your attention is divided and b) it's NEVER polite no matter what you think. There are times that it's a necessary evil, but that's not the same thing as "polite".
If people just wanted to make calls then they would buy phones that make a whole lot more sense for that.
What makes you think that people don't? The hottest phone on the market right now is the Motorola Razr. A phone that's valued more for its small size than its cunning text messaging features.
The general trend lately with phones is that they are getting bigger, not smaller, which is precisely to accomodate texting.
See paragraph above. If your statement was true, then the Razr wouldn't be so popular. You can't extrapolate your own specific wants/needs in high-end phones to the entire market if the data doesn't support it. Specifically, this engadget story lists the best selling phone as the Nokia 1100. A low-end candybar phone with a Black and White screen. The Razr trails behind with 50 million of its own sales. (According to the article.) "Big" phones like the Treo and Q don't even show up as a blip on the radar.
quick and effective texting on my motorola Q now means i can text without looking at the keys - as tactile response allows me to fly over the keypad.
Ugh. I can't imagine using a Q for texting. Nokia makes a variety of keyboard phones with much better interfaces. I don't know what else you're using your Q for, but you might want to look into a few of the Nokia units next time you upgrade.
the iphone has one potential dealbreaker for me and that is the lack of buttons. texting outstrips voice by orders of magnitude - for a long time abroad (Europe, for example) and a bit more recently in the US.
Apple is well aware of the issue, and has installed predictive text software combined with an automated spell checker. It won't be possible to tell how effective the software is until the iPhone is released, but if the demos are any indication it's worth giving Apple the benefit of the doubt.
It is possible that Apple will screw up on texting, but I don't think it will impact the iPhone's sales much. There's a huge market of people who are interested more in the other features of the phone than its text input capabilities. For example, the ability to visually navigate your voice mail is a big selling point for me. In comparison, I barely ever send text messages. (It's 100x easier to temporarily excuse yourself from a meeting and hit "dial".)
Finding the Higgs boson will confirm scientists' most complete theory of the universe and the matter from which it is created. "It's probably the closest to God that we'll get," said Jos Engelen, Cern's chief scientist.
Also, her mentor (chair of the Department of Computer Science) is female, so I should have said "her professor wouldn't approve a project like that, would she".
TFA is amazingly short on details. All it says is:
...a middle layer between hardware and software that can translate and communicate between software and hardware, allowing for cooperative problem solving. "This middle layer would allow software to adapt to the hardware it's running on, something engineers have not been able to do in the past," she says.
That doesn't really say much. In fact, without further details it sounds like dynamic tuning in virtual machines. Which can't be the case here, as that would be reinventing what has already been inventing. (Seriously, her professor wouldn't approve a project like that, would he?)
1. You don't seem to understand that one has to use POSIX to create a hole. The mere presence isn't necessarily enough.
2. Win32 is broken for the same reason that POSIX is. Lots of unchecked buffers all over creation.
3. He finally gets it! Yes, Java and other high-level languages provide "secure execution environments with no direct access to memory".
4. The Java environment pushes the Unix system out of the way. If you're going to write everything in Java, there's no real need for Unix other than as a host system. JNode (while still a Work in Progress) is an example of how Java can be its own OS.
5. Having a perfect execution environment like Java or.Net doesn't help if the underlying libraries are not secured. An attacker can simply pass through the attack to the lower levels. This sort of exploit has happened to Java a couple of times, and has probably happened to.Net. (Though I haven't kept up on that as much.)
6. XNU isn't Mach. NeXT and Apple removed many of the performance issues by removing most of the true microkernel advantages. Thus it is now described as a "hybrid kernel". Thus "Apple made lemonade." Not exactly a glowing recommendation for kernel writers to change their structure. If you had actually read the internals book you posted, you'd know that.
7. Make drove me crazy? No. The GNU Build system does. Almost every time I try to compile someone else's software. While solutions like Autoconf and pkgconfig are good tries, they collapse under their own complexity. You can learn more about the fun I have with the GNU Build system in my journal entry on Mono: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=234131
8. Neither Make nor Ant are "modules" of the operating system. They're usermode programs, genius.
9. Ant works well because it targets a sane environment. Java in specific. (Though I have heard of people using it for other tasks.) POSIX systems are nowhere near that sane, thus why the build system fails so often.
10. Search built into the filesystem. Apple hasn't done too badly, and BeOS did exceptionally well. Not that I'd expect you to know about such a system as BeOS. It wasn't Unix.
11. Funny thing, I wasn't aware that Google developed Google Desktop on Unix. Wait, they didn't. They did port it to Mac OS X, but that's got more to do with IOKit and the underlying Spotlight tools than Unix.
12. Love the insults. Really do. They're so... crass. They suit you well.
Actually, I agree with you 100%. I'm just tired of hearing about Linux-based GoogleOS, so I figured I'd point out that if Google *did* implement a Desktop OS, it probably wouldn't be Unix.;-)
* POSIX is Broken. With a capital B. The mere availability of it creates buffer overflows. * The wonderful design abstractions of OS X are pulled from another complete redesign: Into ObjectiveC * Mach is a very, very, very bad production kernel that Apple has had the displeasure of trying to hack into something that works well. Absolutely no one refactored their kernels around the Mach design, because it was slower than molasses running uphill in January. That wasn't a core problem with Microkernels in general (see:QNX), only the fact that Mach was an early research platform. It never should have been embreaced by NeXT. But it was, so Apple makes lemonade. * As long as you let unchecked buffers run rampant through your system, you're going to have security problems. * A good security infrastructure starts with a secure execution environment and no direct access to memory. * Minimalist design means "minimalist". As in, get it right or get rid of it. Don't pile a hack on top. * Wouldn't it be nice to have a filesystem built around search rather than POSIX? Even Google knows that, but they have to put a patch on top of the existing OSes. * Your average desktop user doesn't care if BASH compiles or not. * The GNU Build system is about as much fun as pulling your teeth out with a branding iron. * Can't say that most other C build systems are much better. * Mono is the new model of branding iron. * Have you tried ANT? Perfect example of what modern technology free from the shackles of cruft can do. Ahhh.
Here's your Zen tip for the day: Man who fails to broaden his OS Design horizons past books on Unix internals is doomed to reinvent Unix. Badly.
Slashdot Mirror
XP/Vista are part of the Windows 2000 (from NT) line. Or did you miss that part?
None of the above have ever been all that good. Visual Studio always had stiff competition, but managed to play the "OS Maker" card to get in the lead. (Anyone remember when the only C/C++ compiler that supported the "new" Windows 95 was Microsoft's?) Exchange Server has always sucked. It just sucked less than Notes. SQL Server is okay, but has always had a long list of failings that have kept it from being the best solution on the market. It just happens to get heavily discounted when your shop goes all Microsoft.
Sooo... whatever point you were trying to make? You didn't.
I can count on one hand the number of times Microsoft got it "right". And when they do get it right, they eventually piss it away because there's no one around to challenge them.
When did Microsoft get it right?
* Windows 95
* Windows 2000
* Microsoft Office 97
* IE 5.0
The 9x series went down the toilet with the release of 98 and ME, while 2000 has slowly evolved into that pretty but useless abomination known as "Vista", MS Office has added gobs of features that really are NOT great (do I want another MS XML Office Format? No thanks, two is enough.), and IE stopped being a good browser when Microsoft stopped keeping up with technology. Instead, IE7 is possibly the worst looking piece of software Microsoft has ever produced while simultaneously dropping usability to nil.
Compare that to Apple who knows how to make a success even more successful. OS X has actually had compelling improvements in each version, the iPod has only gotten sleeker and smaller while the interface improved, their hardware has gotten nicer looking and more usable with each release, their iLife software has gone from just "pretty looking" to "pretty looking and GOOD", and Safari (sorry to single this out) has gone from basic-internet-experience to being the first browser to pass the ACID2 test.
Because I was making a point? Specifically, that Linux is freely available to install, use, upgrade, and patch. Which would make the reason for the unpatched Windows machines (i.e. piracy) irrelevant. That's why the distinction was important in this case.
:P
Oh, sorry. I was supposed to give the standard Slashdot response, wasn't I? Ok...
*WHOOOOSH!*
See! The same thing is going to happen to Macs and Linux as soon as they become popular! Because popularity means that these OSes will get pirated more. Which will lead to more infections of unpatched systems. Even though Linux is "free" (as in beer) and Mac OS X only works on legitimate Mac Hardware. Because free... and official hardware...
Wait...
What was I saying again?
Unless Apple repositioned the iMac as a laptop, the article is about Macs and PCs in general. It's only the Slashdot summary that assumes it's just about laptops.
He actually compared three different Mac lines:
* MacBook Pro
* MacBook
* iMac
He then did some handwaving apologies for not reviewing the low-end and high-end desktops. Which is really journalist-ese for "I don't use these types of computers, so I'm not going to even try touching upon them."
I don't know the last time you got a low-end machine, but many of them are very poor in the internal expandability area. For one, they usually have very few expansion bays. Maybe a single PCI slot and an empty drive bay. Possibly an extra DIMM slot if you're lucky. The case is usually so small that these areas are difficult to gain access to and may be blocked by wiring or adjacent hardware. Furthermore, the internal hardware like the onboard video card, CPU, and memory are often composed of ancient technology that makes replacing the components impractical. (e.g. When AGP was common, you got PCI. Now that PCIe is common, you get AGP. The memory is so low-end that by the time you get a new chip you can't find one that's compatible. So on and so forth.)
In general, low-end PCs are a terrible value if you're looking for upgradability. And being honest for a moment, upgrades are nowhere near as important as they once were. The vast majority of buyers never crack the case. It's cheaper and easer to simply buy a new computer. If you're the type who wants to do a lot of upgrading, then you need to ask yourself why you didn't custom-build your PC in the first place?
How many low-end PCs even have firewire? Most low-end PCs use USB ports. (Which may not even be 2.0 compatible!) The Mac Mini currently ships with 4 USB 2.0 ports. So it's quite comparable in this area.
Actually, Apple competes with their Mac Mini. ($599 and up) The problem was that the reviewer doesn't consider such low-end offerings to be a good value. The reason for this is detailed in his previous articles where he shows himself to be more of a "Power User" who needs a capable system. Personally, I think the Mac Mini fills the low-end niche quite well, but the reviewer simply doesn't want to touch upon it.
;-)
Speaking of the review, I enjoyed it but I wish he would have used tables for his data. It's quite difficult (not to mention frustrating) trying to extract the key specifications from the regular flow of text.
Tabular data: Learn it, love it, live it.
In this case (FTFA), Britain's figures are separated from continental Europe. To save space, it's shortened to just "Europe" in the table of numbers. Thus the total European sales are actually 1.78 million units. Australia probably has another 100-200K to add to that, as the AU division of Nintendo has been seeing record sales. Which is pretty impressive considering that Nintendo hasn't shipped them any games. :-/
(Australia has something like 7 games for the Wii. Even worse, they didn't get Turbografx-16 games on their VC until a week or two ago.)
It's *very* important to remember that while her pictures are real, her story isn't. While she claims to have a nuclear scientist for a father, she actually gives a lot of erroneous information that can lead the reader to incorrect conclusions about the number of deaths, sequence of events, and actions taken during the accident.
:P
Sooo... for once read something for its pictures, not its articles.
I almost guarantee that it would be held unenforceable. The terms in this particular situation do not take away the right to sue. What they do is that they require arbitration first. You can always sue later if the arbitration falls apart or shows undue preference.
Right now Gateway is trying to force this case into arbitration because the customer skipped straight to the lawsuit. The judge will probably agree and order the case dismissed.
If you read both this thread and TFA (sorry, I know I'm crazy
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid= 25649
^^ In case you're more interested in TFA rather than Square Enix "clarifying" their position on Final Fantasy.
Being naked is not a sin. Looking upon the nakedness of others is considered taboo in the Bible. The Old Testament talks about special architectural requirements for towers so that others would not be able to "look up and see their nakedness". Jesus clarified the problem in the New Testament when he explained that lusting after someone you're not married to is a sin. (And one which I'm sure most men have fallen into at some point or another. That's why we have "Grace" per Jesus's death at the cross.)
:-(
So in short, Adam and Eve became self-conscious about their state of dress after eating the apple, because they were starting to understand the concept of sins and evil.
FWIW, both the museum and the story strike of flamebait. Not much good will come of this. In fact, this whole "war" between science and religion is doing horrendous things to both sides. Let science be science and let religion be religion. Don't try to make religion science and don't try to make science into religion. The former is bad because it misses the possible truths about God's universe. The latter is bad, because science can blind itself to its self-correcting design if those running the show dig their heels in too far.
Three words: Uniform Commercial Code
It's a modification to contract law that is intended to make in-box agreements legal. The point of the law is to speed up transactions in cases where the cost involved in drafting a proper contract would negate the value of the transaction. Therefore the law provides the consumer the opportunity to review the contractual information in the form of a pack-in contract, which the consumer is free to reject by returning the product. Using the product constitutes acceptance of the contract.
Given that courts have ruled this legal several times (see: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, and - of course - Rich Hill and Enza Hill, v. Gateway 2000, Inc.), consumers should BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU AGREE TO. If the terms of the contract are considered reasonable, you may be held to them in a court of law.
Caveat Emptor.
Generally, yes. Gateway has traditionally included its agreements in the box. Practically this exact same case has been tried before:
http://www.badsoftware.com/hill.htm
Because a) your attention is divided and b) it's NEVER polite no matter what you think. There are times that it's a necessary evil, but that's not the same thing as "polite".
What makes you think that people don't? The hottest phone on the market right now is the Motorola Razr. A phone that's valued more for its small size than its cunning text messaging features.
See paragraph above. If your statement was true, then the Razr wouldn't be so popular. You can't extrapolate your own specific wants/needs in high-end phones to the entire market if the data doesn't support it. Specifically, this engadget story lists the best selling phone as the Nokia 1100. A low-end candybar phone with a Black and White screen. The Razr trails behind with 50 million of its own sales. (According to the article.) "Big" phones like the Treo and Q don't even show up as a blip on the radar.
March 28th, 2007 at 19 hundred and 50 hours Zulu time
Ugh. I can't imagine using a Q for texting. Nokia makes a variety of keyboard phones with much better interfaces. I don't know what else you're using your Q for, but you might want to look into a few of the Nokia units next time you upgrade.
Apple is well aware of the issue, and has installed predictive text software combined with an automated spell checker. It won't be possible to tell how effective the software is until the iPhone is released, but if the demos are any indication it's worth giving Apple the benefit of the doubt.
It is possible that Apple will screw up on texting, but I don't think it will impact the iPhone's sales much. There's a huge market of people who are interested more in the other features of the phone than its text input capabilities. For example, the ability to visually navigate your voice mail is a big selling point for me. In comparison, I barely ever send text messages. (It's 100x easier to temporarily excuse yourself from a meeting and hit "dial".)
I don't think he was kidding. But hey, feel free to interpret it that way if you wish. :-)
"what has already been invented"
Also, her mentor (chair of the Department of Computer Science) is female, so I should have said "her professor wouldn't approve a project like that, would she".
That doesn't really say much. In fact, without further details it sounds like dynamic tuning in virtual machines. Which can't be the case here, as that would be reinventing what has already been inventing. (Seriously, her professor wouldn't approve a project like that, would he?)
Anyone have any more details?
Make your case? You're too funny. :-)
.Net doesn't help if the underlying libraries are not secured. An attacker can simply pass through the attack to the lower levels. This sort of exploit has happened to Java a couple of times, and has probably happened to .Net. (Though I haven't kept up on that as much.)
1. You don't seem to understand that one has to use POSIX to create a hole. The mere presence isn't necessarily enough.
2. Win32 is broken for the same reason that POSIX is. Lots of unchecked buffers all over creation.
3. He finally gets it! Yes, Java and other high-level languages provide "secure execution environments with no direct access to memory".
4. The Java environment pushes the Unix system out of the way. If you're going to write everything in Java, there's no real need for Unix other than as a host system. JNode (while still a Work in Progress) is an example of how Java can be its own OS.
5. Having a perfect execution environment like Java or
6. XNU isn't Mach. NeXT and Apple removed many of the performance issues by removing most of the true microkernel advantages. Thus it is now described as a "hybrid kernel". Thus "Apple made lemonade." Not exactly a glowing recommendation for kernel writers to change their structure. If you had actually read the internals book you posted, you'd know that.
7. Make drove me crazy? No. The GNU Build system does. Almost every time I try to compile someone else's software. While solutions like Autoconf and pkgconfig are good tries, they collapse under their own complexity. You can learn more about the fun I have with the GNU Build system in my journal entry on Mono: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=234131
8. Neither Make nor Ant are "modules" of the operating system. They're usermode programs, genius.
9. Ant works well because it targets a sane environment. Java in specific. (Though I have heard of people using it for other tasks.) POSIX systems are nowhere near that sane, thus why the build system fails so often.
10. Search built into the filesystem. Apple hasn't done too badly, and BeOS did exceptionally well. Not that I'd expect you to know about such a system as BeOS. It wasn't Unix.
11. Funny thing, I wasn't aware that Google developed Google Desktop on Unix. Wait, they didn't. They did port it to Mac OS X, but that's got more to do with IOKit and the underlying Spotlight tools than Unix.
12. Love the insults. Really do. They're so... crass. They suit you well.
Merry Christmas:
s s/archives/9
http://akaimbatman.intelligentblogger.com/wordpre
Actually, I agree with you 100%. I'm just tired of hearing about Linux-based GoogleOS, so I figured I'd point out that if Google *did* implement a Desktop OS, it probably wouldn't be Unix. ;-)
Let me spell it out for you:
* POSIX is Broken. With a capital B. The mere availability of it creates buffer overflows.
* The wonderful design abstractions of OS X are pulled from another complete redesign: Into ObjectiveC
* Mach is a very, very, very bad production kernel that Apple has had the displeasure of trying to hack into something that works well. Absolutely no one refactored their kernels around the Mach design, because it was slower than molasses running uphill in January. That wasn't a core problem with Microkernels in general (see:QNX), only the fact that Mach was an early research platform. It never should have been embreaced by NeXT. But it was, so Apple makes lemonade.
* As long as you let unchecked buffers run rampant through your system, you're going to have security problems.
* A good security infrastructure starts with a secure execution environment and no direct access to memory.
* Minimalist design means "minimalist". As in, get it right or get rid of it. Don't pile a hack on top.
* Wouldn't it be nice to have a filesystem built around search rather than POSIX? Even Google knows that, but they have to put a patch on top of the existing OSes.
* Your average desktop user doesn't care if BASH compiles or not.
* The GNU Build system is about as much fun as pulling your teeth out with a branding iron.
* Can't say that most other C build systems are much better.
* Mono is the new model of branding iron.
* Have you tried ANT? Perfect example of what modern technology free from the shackles of cruft can do. Ahhh.
Here's your Zen tip for the day: Man who fails to broaden his OS Design horizons past books on Unix internals is doomed to reinvent Unix. Badly.