"By 1983, the PC XT came with a standard hard drive and between 256 and 512K of memory. In comparison, the original Mac looked pretty lame in certain departments -- only 128K RAM, no hard drive, etc."
The XT was originally a high-end, very expensive version of the PC. Most people couldn't afford them at first. Also keep in mind that many programs at the time didn't support more than 64K of memory since doing so required more complicated programming due to the 8088's memory segmentation.
On the other hand, the Mac's 68000 could address up to 1MB linearly without any segment management. So 128K on a Mac was far more useful to most people in 1983 than 256K on a PC XT.
Your forgetting that Apple was developing a computer and MS an OS. So Apple had the potential of making a lot more money on a unit sale then MS.
You should also remember that it was IBM that set the hardware requirements for the PC. The original PC had an 8088 with 16K of memory. The original Mac had 68000 with 128K of memory.
The fact is that DOS was a pretty good OS given the limitations of the hardware and the accelerated development schedule.
You can spin things any way you like, but the fact of the matter is Xerox didn't grant any rights to Apple.
Eventually Xerox sued Apple, but the case was thrown out for the same reason that Apple's case against MS was thrown out. The courts didn't buy the argument that a program's "look and feel" were covered by copyright.
Apple never tried to argue in that case that their tour of Xerox entitled them to any rights, by the way.
"Try telling the masses that the next big thing is a new data model for the web, based on semantics, and 99% of them will ask you what "semantic" means, never mind the intangible data model that is the real underlying improvement"
Actually, it's a quite logical question to ask. Research projects without any discernable end or application are often indistinguishable from Bullshit.
Re:BSD code can't be "closed"
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
"In reality your code has been commercialized, closed and you're seeing none of the profits.Want to be free labour? Any company will take you up on that. It's not an accomplishment."
Using the phrase "in reality" doesn't eliminate the deception in your argument. People who use the BSD license know that they are giving their labor away for free and have no desire to attach strings to the gift.
If you wish to license your code under the GPL, that's fine, but if you think you're not also giving your labor away for free, you're just deceiving yourself.
BSD code can't be "closed"
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"Sorry, but when you said "use" there I guess you really meant "close". Which is really more like "prevent others from using". Which is exactly what I was saying to begin with."
This is the major deceptive argument made by some GPL fans. Software licensed under BSD remains free forever and ever. The fact that people are allowed to modify it without distributing the modifications in no way makes the orginal code "closed".
We can debate the merits of GPL vs. BSD, but let's keep it honest.
I was implying that Microsoft was one of the few companies with a fairly high degree of job security for software developers over many years.
The idea that only incompetent people can lose a job is absurd. When Carly Fiorina took over HP and decided to merge with Compaq many people lost their jobs. Did those people who lost their jobs suddenly become clueless the day she made the decision?
The idea that competent people have job security is true in a world without PHBs or strong competitors, but not in the one we live in.
Since IBM is so pro-OSS they're releasing the source for Rational Visual Test a popular product they discont... What is that? You mean IBM is not releasing the code? But I thought you couldn't buy any more licenses for it? You mean IBM says OSS stands for Old Slippery Snake-oil?
"The Unix programming culture holds in high esteem programs which can be called from the command line, which take arguments that control every aspect of their behavior, and the output of which can be captured as regularly-formatted, machine readable plain text. Such programs are valued because they can easily be incorporated into other programs or larger software systems by programmers."
If your idea of programming is piping one command line utility to another or writing scripts to manipulate existing GUIs.
Whether I'm writing a Windows application or a UNIX application I don't feel the need to make a detour through an existing program. I use code libraries or components for reuse, not entire programs.
"Having the source code matters too. It doesn't matter to mom or grandma, but it sure matters if your IT dept has more than 50 people in it."
I suspect that the last thing that most IT managers want is for their staff to start making changes to OS code. IT departments aren't exactly at the bleeding-edge of software development.
"it was just about the cost, then we'd see Linux used on the desktop, but not by Fortune 500."
Your logic escapes me. Linux is popular for servers because it is mostly compatible with the proprietary UNIXs it is replacing and is cheaper. Linux is not popular on the desktop because it's not compatible with Windows and its lower initial cost is outweighed by transitional costs such as retraining.
"It gets wide support because it is good, not because it is cheap, or flashy, or easy to use, or whatever the reason is why the masses buy computers."
I'm not sure what you mean by "wide support". I assume you don't mean "widely used" in your statement because clearly a lot of oganizations have moved from other Unixs to Linux precisely because of it's lower cost, not becuase of any widespread belief that it is technically superior to other Unixs.
"yes, I still use Windows for games; that's all that it's good for"
Well, if CHARLES W. GRISWOLD says that Windows is only good for games, far be it from me to suggest that millions of other people who use Windows for other purposes might have their own ideas about what they value.
I'd have to see the benchmarks. I'm not saying that C++ is the fastest language available, but I really don't think there's much debate that it's one of the fastest.
People have been talking for years about languages with virtual machines having the potential to outperform traditional languages, but so far, it's just been talk. For example, after 10 years of intensive Java development, C++ still outperforms it.
"I made the switch back in (I think) '98 or '99. I was running Windows 98, with the latest patches and nothing really weird installed. As soon as I switch to Linux, my computer stopped crashing. You do the math."
Yes, you were using Win9x but Windows NT had already been available for about 4 years. You do the math.
"Those are all better languages for writing compilers than C++, as well as being higher level languages (in fact, they're all higher level than C++). C++ is not a great language for compiler writing."
It depends on what "better" means. If execution time is not a factor choose whichever language makes the implementation job easier. In the real world compiler efficiency has a value > 0, so a trade-off must be made between easy and efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
What if my heart's content is a IBM PC with an 8088 processor?
You mean 10 year old version of Linux runs better on 15 year old hardware than a 2-3 year old version of Windows. I'm impressed.
Have you checked out the hardware requirements for Linux lately? It's not as if you can run a current version on a 386 system with 4MB of RAM.
with a trendy name. It's like podcasting: the newest phenom that we've been doing for the last decade.
"By 1983, the PC XT came with a standard hard drive and between 256 and 512K of memory. In comparison, the original Mac looked pretty lame in certain departments -- only 128K RAM, no hard drive, etc."
The XT was originally a high-end, very expensive version of the PC. Most people couldn't afford them at first. Also keep in mind that many programs at the time didn't support more than 64K of memory since doing so required more complicated programming due to the 8088's memory segmentation.
On the other hand, the Mac's 68000 could address up to 1MB linearly without any segment management. So 128K on a Mac was far more useful to most people in 1983 than 256K on a PC XT.
I used an Alto for a number of years and I can tell you it wasn't very difficult to use.
Your forgetting that Apple was developing a computer and MS an OS. So Apple had the potential of making a lot more money on a unit sale then MS.
You should also remember that it was IBM that set the hardware requirements for the PC. The original PC had an 8088 with 16K of memory. The original Mac had 68000 with 128K of memory.
The fact is that DOS was a pretty good OS given the limitations of the hardware and the accelerated development schedule.
You can spin things any way you like, but the fact of the matter is Xerox didn't grant any rights to Apple.
Eventually Xerox sued Apple, but the case was thrown out for the same reason that Apple's case against MS was thrown out. The courts didn't buy the argument that a program's "look and feel" were covered by copyright.
Apple never tried to argue in that case that their tour of Xerox entitled them to any rights, by the way.
The best part of HP went to Agilent. HP was no longer HP long before Carly came along.
"Try telling the masses that the next big thing is a new data model for the web, based on semantics, and 99% of them will ask you what "semantic" means, never mind the intangible data model that is the real underlying improvement"
Actually, it's a quite logical question to ask. Research projects without any discernable end or application are often indistinguishable from Bullshit.
"In reality your code has been commercialized, closed and you're seeing none of the profits.Want to be free labour? Any company will take you up on that. It's not an accomplishment."
Using the phrase "in reality" doesn't eliminate the deception in your argument. People who use the BSD license know that they are giving their labor away for free and have no desire to attach strings to the gift.
If you wish to license your code under the GPL, that's fine, but if you think you're not also giving your labor away for free, you're just deceiving yourself.
"Sorry, but when you said "use" there I guess you really meant "close". Which is really more like "prevent others from using". Which is exactly what I was saying to begin with."
This is the major deceptive argument made by some GPL fans. Software licensed under BSD remains free forever and ever. The fact that people are allowed to modify it without distributing the modifications in no way makes the orginal code "closed".
We can debate the merits of GPL vs. BSD, but let's keep it honest.
I was implying that Microsoft was one of the few companies with a fairly high degree of job security for software developers over many years.
The idea that only incompetent people can lose a job is absurd. When Carly Fiorina took over HP and decided to merge with Compaq many people lost their jobs. Did those people who lost their jobs suddenly become clueless the day she made the decision?
The idea that competent people have job security is true in a world without PHBs or strong competitors, but not in the one we live in.
Since IBM is so pro-OSS they're releasing the source for Rational Visual Test a popular product they discont... What is that? You mean IBM is not releasing the code? But I thought you couldn't buy any more licenses for it? You mean IBM says OSS stands for Old Slippery Snake-oil?
That's very different. Never mind.
"I have job security and have been getting paid well for a very long time so have many others I know."
Yes, but we can't all work at Microsoft.
"The Unix programming culture holds in high esteem programs which can be called from the command line, which take arguments that control every aspect of their behavior, and the output of which can be captured as regularly-formatted, machine readable plain text. Such programs are valued because they can easily be incorporated into other programs or larger software systems by programmers."
If your idea of programming is piping one command line utility to another or writing scripts to manipulate existing GUIs.
Whether I'm writing a Windows application or a UNIX application I don't feel the need to make a detour through an existing program. I use code libraries or components for reuse, not entire programs.
Sounds like just another unscientific survey reported on Slashdot.
"Having the source code matters too. It doesn't matter to mom or grandma, but it sure matters if your IT dept has more than 50 people in it."
I suspect that the last thing that most IT managers want is for their staff to start making changes to OS code. IT departments aren't exactly at the bleeding-edge of software development.
"it was just about the cost, then we'd see Linux used on the desktop, but not by Fortune 500."
Your logic escapes me. Linux is popular for servers because it is mostly compatible with the proprietary UNIXs it is replacing and is cheaper. Linux is not popular on the desktop because it's not compatible with Windows and its lower initial cost is outweighed by transitional costs such as retraining.
"It gets wide support because it is good, not because it is cheap, or flashy, or easy to use, or whatever the reason is why the masses buy computers."
I'm not sure what you mean by "wide support". I assume you don't mean "widely used" in your statement because clearly a lot of oganizations have moved from other Unixs to Linux precisely because of it's lower cost, not becuase of any widespread belief that it is technically superior to other Unixs.
"yes, I still use Windows for games; that's all that it's good for"
Well, if CHARLES W. GRISWOLD says that Windows is only good for games, far be it from me to suggest that millions of other people who use Windows for other purposes might have their own ideas about what they value.
"??? I'm not sure what you mean."
You chose Windows 98 over NT and Linux at one time.
Consumers wanted backward compatiblity more than they wanted stability and I guess you're proof of that despite your complaints.
Windows, of course, started on a platform (8088 etc) that Linux could never run on without the same sort of problems.
I'd have to see the benchmarks. I'm not saying that C++ is the fastest language available, but I really don't think there's much debate that it's one of the fastest.
People have been talking for years about languages with virtual machines having the potential to outperform traditional languages, but so far, it's just been talk. For example, after 10 years of intensive Java development, C++ still outperforms it.
"I made the switch back in (I think) '98 or '99. I was running Windows 98, with the latest patches and nothing really weird installed. As soon as I switch to Linux, my computer stopped crashing. You do the math."
Yes, you were using Win9x but Windows NT had already been available for about 4 years. You do the math.
"Those are all better languages for writing compilers than C++, as well as being higher level languages (in fact, they're all higher level than C++). C++ is not a great language for compiler writing."
It depends on what "better" means. If execution time is not a factor choose whichever language makes the implementation job easier. In the real world compiler efficiency has a value > 0, so a trade-off must be made between easy and efficient.