Even Apple themselves (until recently) would not support or even officially allow Windows to run on their PCs
Yeah, having a processor with an instruction set no longer supported by Windows kind of gets in the way of letting Windows run on a machine.:-) What happened "recently" was that x86-based Macs appeared, so that running Windows directly was something that could be considered (without digging up an ancient copy of PPC Windows NT and trying to boot it).
Note that unlocking the phone is not all that jailbreaking is about. Some people might not care about unlocking the phone, but might want to run some third-party apps, or just use a snippet from one of their own band's songs as a ringtone.
Note also that the "cat and mouse game" line was in response to a question about unlocking - see the question at 10:26 in the Engadget transcript of the UK iPhone announcement. At 10.37, he said, in response to a question about third-party apps, "Yes, we've already done that with Web 2.0. We're looking at more intimate apps. But people hold their phones to a higher standard than their PC. The more open you are, the less predictable."
Even conforming to the standard means that it is "UNIX" only in one sense; in terms of its internal architecture, OS X is still completely different from a traditional UNIX.
So what's the internal structure of a "traditional UNIX"? The internal structure of V7? If so, most if not all UNIXes and UNIX-like systems are "completely different" from a traditional UNIX.
UFS maintains a kind of free list to allocate new blocks, whereas HFS+ and JFS and XFS use bitmap allocation.
No, UFS uses a bitmap. You're probably thinking of the old V6 and V7 file systems, which did use a free list.
ZFS is not a journaled filesystem, it's a log-based one. "Journaled" filesystems only journal the metadata, because they have to do everything twice: first write to the journal anything that should be guarenteed, then wait for it to sync, then write the data to the 'disk'. A log-based filesystem basically writes the 'diff' to the disk then says 'this is the new state'.
From everything I've read, ZFS isn't a log-based file system, it's a "copy-on-write" file system, similar to WAFL. If a block is modified, the changed copy is written to a new block rather than overwriting the existing block; this includes indirect blocks, so you have the new copy of the data block pointed to by a new copy of an indirect block - at least in the case of WAFL, this goes all the way up to the root inode, which is updated last.
And, yes, WAFL has an fsck equivalent. On occasion, you need it, but on a typical reboot, you either have the new root inode, from which can be found a version of the file system with all updates for that consistency point finished, or the old root inode, from which can be found a version of the file system with no updates from that consistency point finished, plus the NVRAM log, from which you can reply all the changes that caused that update. In either case, the file system is consistent if no disk problems or software bugs corrupted the data.
Pardon my potential ignorance, but I was under the impression that there was nothing you couldn't store in a resource fork that you couldn't also store in a 'normal' extended attribute that file systems like ext3, xfs, reiser, etc. have supported for some time.
In theory, you can store an "arbitrary" mount of data in a resource fork (the Resource Manager might impose a limit, but the underlying file system doesn't). I think at least some file systems that support extended attributes (including HFS+) impose a limit on the size of extended attributes that's lower than the maximum file size. ZFS (and Solaris UFS) "extended attributes", however, are full-blown alternate data streams, and can get as large as a file.
For a while now Apple has been recommending that developers not store anything critical in the resource fork, since it gets lost easily when transferring to another system (and isn't supported on UFS I believe).
Apple's UFS doesn't support additional data streams such as a resource fork, so the resource fork would be stored in a._ file. Sun's UFS, however, supports multiple data streams in sufficiently recent versions of Solaris (I think they might've first appeared in Solaris 9), just as ZFS does.
some clever way to cache those wi-fi username/password webpages
And maybe they could come up with a clever name for it too - something such as "Keychain", say?:-) (And, of course, at least if you have a Mac, sync with its Keychain; perhaps the Windows version of iTunes could sync with the Windows equivalent.)
a stock app that isn't 20 mins delayed (come on, can't we get past this silly 20 min delay)
I suspect that's not an issue of the iPhone but of the stock quote provider - they may want to charge for up-to-date quotes.
iPhone owners share the dubious distinction of owning a computer they aren't legally allowed to program.
Where in any contract agreed to by iPhone users does it state that you're not legally allowed to write software for it? ("Write software for it" is different from "unlock it" - and I don't even know whether that is forbidden; the DMCA explicitly exempts phone unlocking (see PDF pages 1, 5, and 6).
With the advent of cellphones, especially locked ones, we are seeing a new trend in computers. Rather than expanding the functionality of computers, they seek to limit it, in order to serve the greed of Corporate America. A device which formerly could be repurposed for any task the owner thought fit is now restricted to performing only the functions which make the manufacturer money. Consumer benefit beyond the original purpose of the device is explicitly and legally forbidden.
"Locked" in what sense? I suspect most cellphones sold in the US are locked to the carrier they were sold to work with, but there are SDKs for Symbian, Windows Mobile, and what I assume is the successor to the Palm OS. "Locked to a carrier" is not the same as "locked shut so that you can't run third-party apps"; even the iPhone has third-party apps, Apple's lack of assistance to developers of them nonwithstanding.
Ever open Activity Monitor? See the memory listed as "Wired"? Those are pages locked in real memory; 'wired' is the Darwin terminology for locking memory.
A lot of those are "kernel wired memory" pages, not pages locked in memory from userland. However, OS X offers the standard UN*X mlock() and munlock() calls; they might well be wired up to the VM system so that they do lock pages in memory.
As far as OSX goes - I own a mac mini. I used OSX, and it frustrated me. I did not appreciate the way many decisions were made for me and many options were hidden. It took me a lot longer to get simple things done. I installed Ubuntu on it
You mean the sentence that says "This product includes software developed or owned by Caldera International, Inc." (emphasis mine)?
If that's "Caldera before SCO", it says nothing about whether PCC was "developed by SCO". If that's "Caldera after SCO", the question is whether it's "developed by" or "owned by"; if it refers to PCC being part of the UNIX source code base, well, that's "developed by AT&T, owned by SCO", not "developed by SCO" (which PCC wasn't, although SCO might have done some work on their version of it, just as they presumably did work on other parts of the UNIX they originally licensed from, and ultimately bought from, AT&T/USL/Novell).
If the iPhone were a CDMA device, it would be fair to say that there would be no story here, the user would not have run up any roaming bill at all from Europe.
Unless it were a WCDMA device. (Whose bright idea was it to use "TDMA" to mean both "Time Division Multiple Access" and "IS-54 and IS-136", and to use "CDMA" to mean both "Code Division Multiple Access" and "IS-95 and CDMA2000"?)
I vaguely remember that NetApp machines run a stripped down version of BSD.
Data ONTAP (dating back to NetApp's first product, which means "before the marketing department came up with the name 'Data ONTAP'") isn't, and never was, a stripped-down version of BSD. It incorporated the BSD networking stack, and some BSD commands, but incorporated them into an OS that ran all processes in the same address space, in kernel mode, using message-passing.
The newer ONTAP GX is based on FreeBSD, as noted by another poster.
The most compelling feature of ZFS is something that no storage appliance, RAID, or other self-contained subsystem can offer - end-to-end integrity.
I presume you mean something other than "they checksum blocks and store the checksums on disk" by "end-to-end integrity", because NetApp were doing that before ZFS hit the streets.
They aren't; they really are producing useful products
...which actually use at least some of the technologies they've patented (e.g., WAFL and row-diagonal parity). (A quick look at the titles of patents assigned to "Network Appliance" shows a bunch of patents for technologies I remember going into products. Patent squatters they ain't.)
Slashdot Mirror
At least in part, it was Microsoft's doing, given that they discontinued the PowerPC version of Windows NT.
Yeah, having a processor with an instruction set no longer supported by Windows kind of gets in the way of letting Windows run on a machine. :-) What happened "recently" was that x86-based Macs appeared, so that running Windows directly was something that could be considered (without digging up an ancient copy of PPC Windows NT and trying to boot it).
Note that unlocking the phone is not all that jailbreaking is about. Some people might not care about unlocking the phone, but might want to run some third-party apps, or just use a snippet from one of their own band's songs as a ringtone.
Note also that the "cat and mouse game" line was in response to a question about unlocking - see the question at 10:26 in the Engadget transcript of the UK iPhone announcement. At 10.37, he said, in response to a question about third-party apps, "Yes, we've already done that with Web 2.0. We're looking at more intimate apps. But people hold their phones to a higher standard than their PC. The more open you are, the less predictable."
(No, I don't want to think about more intimate mobile phone apps. Really.)
So what's the internal structure of a "traditional UNIX"? The internal structure of V7? If so, most if not all UNIXes and UNIX-like systems are "completely different" from a traditional UNIX.
No, UFS uses a bitmap. You're probably thinking of the old V6 and V7 file systems, which did use a free list.
From everything I've read, ZFS isn't a log-based file system, it's a "copy-on-write" file system, similar to WAFL. If a block is modified, the changed copy is written to a new block rather than overwriting the existing block; this includes indirect blocks, so you have the new copy of the data block pointed to by a new copy of an indirect block - at least in the case of WAFL, this goes all the way up to the root inode, which is updated last.
And, yes, WAFL has an fsck equivalent. On occasion, you need it, but on a typical reboot, you either have the new root inode, from which can be found a version of the file system with all updates for that consistency point finished, or the old root inode, from which can be found a version of the file system with no updates from that consistency point finished, plus the NVRAM log, from which you can reply all the changes that caused that update. In either case, the file system is consistent if no disk problems or software bugs corrupted the data.
In theory, you can store an "arbitrary" mount of data in a resource fork (the Resource Manager might impose a limit, but the underlying file system doesn't). I think at least some file systems that support extended attributes (including HFS+) impose a limit on the size of extended attributes that's lower than the maximum file size. ZFS (and Solaris UFS) "extended attributes", however, are full-blown alternate data streams, and can get as large as a file.
Apple's UFS doesn't support additional data streams such as a resource fork, so the resource fork would be stored in a ._ file. Sun's UFS, however, supports multiple data streams in sufficiently recent versions of Solaris (I think they might've first appeared in Solaris 9), just as ZFS does.
And, besides, apps do run as root on the iPhone, unless that's been fixed in 1.1.1.
And maybe they could come up with a clever name for it too - something such as "Keychain", say? :-) (And, of course, at least if you have a Mac, sync with its Keychain; perhaps the Windows version of iTunes could sync with the Windows equivalent.)
I suspect that's not an issue of the iPhone but of the stock quote provider - they may want to charge for up-to-date quotes.
Where in any contract agreed to by iPhone users does it state that you're not legally allowed to write software for it? ("Write software for it" is different from "unlock it" - and I don't even know whether that is forbidden; the DMCA explicitly exempts phone unlocking (see PDF pages 1, 5, and 6).
"Locked" in what sense? I suspect most cellphones sold in the US are locked to the carrier they were sold to work with, but there are SDKs for Symbian, Windows Mobile, and what I assume is the successor to the Palm OS. "Locked to a carrier" is not the same as "locked shut so that you can't run third-party apps"; even the iPhone has third-party apps, Apple's lack of assistance to developers of them nonwithstanding.
...except for AppKit.
...and use UIKit rather than AppKit if you're doing a GUI app.
...if /Volumes/Mountpoint exists. (I usually just use /mnt, after having created it if necessary, but I'm a traditionalist. :-))
You can even leave off the "_nfs" - the mount command recognizes server:/path as an NFS specifier.
A lot of those are "kernel wired memory" pages, not pages locked in memory from userland. However, OS X offers the standard UN*X mlock() and munlock() calls; they might well be wired up to the VM system so that they do lock pages in memory.
Didn't you mean "Kubuntu"? :-)
You mean the sentence that says "This product includes software developed or owned by Caldera International, Inc." (emphasis mine)?
If that's "Caldera before SCO", it says nothing about whether PCC was "developed by SCO". If that's "Caldera after SCO", the question is whether it's "developed by" or "owned by"; if it refers to PCC being part of the UNIX source code base, well, that's "developed by AT&T, owned by SCO", not "developed by SCO" (which PCC wasn't, although SCO might have done some work on their version of it, just as they presumably did work on other parts of the UNIX they originally licensed from, and ultimately bought from, AT&T/USL/Novell).
And which of those problems does a.out not have?
How about Mach-O?
Same thing.
Unless it were a WCDMA device. (Whose bright idea was it to use "TDMA" to mean both "Time Division Multiple Access" and "IS-54 and IS-136", and to use "CDMA" to mean both "Code Division Multiple Access" and "IS-95 and CDMA2000"?)
Data ONTAP (dating back to NetApp's first product, which means "before the marketing department came up with the name 'Data ONTAP'") isn't, and never was, a stripped-down version of BSD. It incorporated the BSD networking stack, and some BSD commands, but incorporated them into an OS that ran all processes in the same address space, in kernel mode, using message-passing.
The newer ONTAP GX is based on FreeBSD, as noted by another poster.
Yeah, it's not as if the iPhone is running, say, a UN*X-derived OS that could fork off a process to do that in the background, after all....
If "almost as long as" is defined as "about 2/3s as long as". Sun: 25 years. NetApp: 15 years.
No. Go read NetApp's complaint, which enumerates the patents Sun claims NetApp is infringing and NetApp claims Sun is infringing, then look up the patents at the US Patent and Trademark Office patent search-by-number page.
And NetApp isn't a true innovator, and WAFL isn't truly innovative?
And IBM has been around a lot longer than StorageTek. Your point being?
I presume you mean something other than "they checksum blocks and store the checksums on disk" by "end-to-end integrity", because NetApp were doing that before ZFS hit the streets.
...which actually use at least some of the technologies they've patented (e.g., WAFL and row-diagonal parity). (A quick look at the titles of patents assigned to "Network Appliance" shows a bunch of patents for technologies I remember going into products. Patent squatters they ain't.)