And if you happen to choose the FFS as your FS for OS X, they're still there, although the Unix FS doesn't have native support for them in the same way that HFS and HFS+ do.
That's what the._ files are - they store resource forks and type/creator information for a file (the._ file is in the format for AppleDouble).
They're also used for other file systems, such as NFS and SMB (although for AFP I think the native AFP calls are used, in which case, if the AFP server is using HFS+ you won't get._ files).
(Is it just me, or does the blue in their logo on their site look somewhat Windows XPish? Is that a consequence of them teaming up with Microsoft, as mentioned on their home page?)
(And, no, it doesn't stand for "Fix It Again, Tony", it stands for "Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino".)
...for properly-chosen values of "runs". Yes, it's the core OS underpinnings - but a lot of the OS X user interface is not part of Darwin, and is not open source, so the question that started this thread:
All i want to know is when can i run OS X on my SPARC architecture
if by "OS X" they really meant "OS X", complete with Aqua and the Finder and Quicktime and..., really isn't answered adequately by noting that Darwin is open source.
(My favorite: the PowerPC can run in either big-endian or little-endian mode - although every use I've heard of runs it in big-endian mode.)
Solaris ran it in little-endian mode. (Yes, "ran" - Solaris was ported to PowerPC ages ago, back when IBM was thinking of coming out with a line of PowerPC-based PC's, with various OSes available including Windows NT and Solaris.)
The distinction is becoming almost none now adays (again).
Cool! So I can install from a Panther CD onto a pServer or IntelliStation POWER workstation?
There's more to system architecture than just CPU instruction set architecture. Macs and RS/6000's/IntelliStation POWER workstations/pServers may share a CPU instruction set architecture, but they don't, as far as I know, have compatible firmware, and don't necessarily have the same support chips, I/O bus, peripherals, etc..
PowerPC is a subset of POWER, in the sense that PowerPC lacks some of the POWER instructions
True.
not the other way around.
False. PowerPC has multiply and divide instructions that don't use the POWER-only MQ register; those instructions were added to PowerPC to compensate for the loss of the MQ-based multiply and divide instructions.
The IBM "POWER" processors might happen to implement the full PowerPC instruction set; if so, that'd make them PowerPC processors as well.
and these guys say they're going to have 2TB in the same form factor by October?
No, they don't. The DigiTimes article says that the new type of memory card will be unveiled in October, mass production will begin in early 2005, and the maximum capacity of this type of card will be 2TB - nothing about 2TB cards being available in early 2005, much less October 2004.
Think "guaranteed not to exceed 2TB", not "guaranteed to contain 2TB".
There is a slim chance that this could be the first nanotech RAM product. Any wagers?
Yeah, I'll bet USD 5000 that it's not; see several postings indicating that the 2TB is the maximum capacity to be supported by the specification for the cards - I've seen nothing in the article saying that they will have 2TB cards in 2005.
OK, I've read the digitimes.com page closely, and it says that they will "soon mass produce a new type [emphasis mine] of memory card", but doesn't say that these cards will all have 2TB.
The "Memory cards specifications" table in that article has a "Maximum capacity" column that gives "2TB" for those cards, but it also gives "128GB" as the "Maximum capacity" value for CompactFlash cards; has anybody seen a 128GB CF card?
So I think any speculation on what technology might be used for these cards, based on an assumption that they'll have 2TB in 2005, is premature, as it is not at all clear that they'll have 2TB in 2005, even though the specification for those cards will allow cards of up to 2TB to be constructed (i.e., the spec is intended to allow that format to scale to 2TB if and when the memory technology gets to the point where that can be supported).
There are only a couple of manufacturers who would be in a position to manufacture the drugs (such as Glaxo-Wellcome or Smith-Klein) - the same people who make the insulin.
The LookSmart page about major pharmaceutical companies lists 3 companies that I know produce insulin (Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Lilly), and don't list another one (Novo Nordisk). They also list several companies that, as far as I know, don't, although Pfizer has an inhalable insulin (Exubera) under development (with Aventis and Nektar Theraputics).
For example, it replaces rc.* scripts (BSD) and run-levels (SysV) with SystemStarter.
Given that SystemStarter is run by a command in/etc/rc (and that there are rc scripts for various run levels in SV-style inits), you presumably meant "augments rc.* scripts with SystemStarter".
People who perceive that Dell does nothing in terms of R&D are naiive[sic].
If you search the US Patent and Trademark Office database for patents with an assignee name of "Dell Products", you get 222 patents. A search for just "Dell" yields 1089 patents, at least one of which is for "Dell U.S.A." rather than "Dell Products" but is still Dell (Round Rock, Texas, and a patent on "Apparatus and method for a combination personal digital assistant and network portable device"). Searching for "Dell Computer" or "Dell Products" or "Dell USA" or "Dell U.S.A"[sic] in the "Advanced Search" page (that's an/(dell andnot ("dell computer" or "dell products" or "dell usa" or "dell u.s.a")) - there's no "not" operator, as far as I can tell, but there is "andnot", and if you try to search for "dell u.s.a." it "helpfully" removes the final ".")) found 61 patents, some of which are, alas, for "Dell U.S.A.". About 11 of those appear to be computer-related, so I'll be lazy and assume they're for some other part of Dell, leaving 50 non-Dell patents, for a grand total of 1039 Dell Computer patents.
Some of them are mechanical and electrical patents (for the parts of their equipment that don't come out of the box from Intel or Microsoft or {fill in a BIOS vendor} or {fill in your favorite Linux distribution vendor}, some are manufacturing patents (for example, 6,714,937, "System and method for virtual setup and configuration for a build-to-order computer") - i.e., the sort of stuff that their component makers wouldn't necessarily do.
A search for patents with "Apple" in the assignee name found 1813 patents, but at least one of them (6,723,044, "Abdominal retractor") isn't assigned to Apple Computer (it's Apple Medical Corporation, Marlboro, MA, USA). If you search for "Apple Computer", you get 1777 patents; if you search for "Apple" and not "Apple Computer" in the "Advanced Search" section you get 36 patents, at least one of which has Apple as one of the assignees (5,996,057, "Data processing system and method of permutation with replication within a vector register file", which is a PowerPC patent with the other two assignees being the obvious, i.e. IBM and Motorola). About 5 of those look as if they'd be Apple Computer patents, so make that a grand total of 1782 Apple Computer (or Apple+IBM+Motorola) patents.
Of course, Apple's been around longer than Dell, so let's restrict the search to, say, patents issued in 2002, 2003, or 2004, by adding "and ISD/1/1/2002->12/31/2004". Unfortunately, doing so causes the patent search engine to take Too Damn Long to search (Safari times out the request), so let's just look for patents assigned to something with "Apple" in its name in that range - oops, that times out, too. Sigh.
OK, let's try 2004 patents, with an/"apple computer" and ISD/$/$/2004 - 70 patents. an/dell and ISD/$/$/2004 yields 78 patents, most of which look Dell Computerish.
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide whether the number of "major" patents from Apple or Dell is higher - patents can range anywhere from a patent for a new I/O bus to a patent for a minor tweak on a hinge.
And, in the "offtopic but interesting" department, note that one of the examples on the Advanced Search page is "in/newmar-julie". I was curious whether Julie Newmar actually had any patents - yup, two: 4,003,094, "Pantyhose with shaping band for cheeky derrier[sic] relief" and 3,935,864, "Brassiere". I suspect there might be a fan of the old Batman TV show hiding somewhere in the US Patent and Trademark Office's IT department.... (And, yes, I know about Hedy Lamarr and spread-spectrum communications. Unfortunately, patent 2,292,387 was issued in 1942 and is only available in scanned form.)
CDMA and TDMA are different low-layer air interfaces; 2G systems use either TDMA or CDMA, as per the Wikipedia article on 2G. (Note that GSM uses TDMA, so it's not as if something is GSM, CDMA, or TDMA. GSM and IS-136 a/k/a D-AMPS use TDMA; IS-95, a/k/a cdmaOne, uses CDMA.)
...8051 compatible chips from numerous companies...
...but I'm not sure enumerating every single processor used for embedded applications is the right way to list the ARM competitors; for example, are there any applications for which an ARM processor and an 8051-compatible microcontroller would be competitors?
Slashdot Mirror
That's what the ._ files are - they store resource forks and type/creator information for a file (the ._ file is in the format for AppleDouble).
They're also used for other file systems, such as NFS and SMB (although for AFP I think the native AFP calls are used, in which case, if the AFP server is using HFS+ you won't get ._ files).
KDE, definitely (my KDE desktops have PDF files without ".pdf" at the end of the file name, and when I double-click on them the PDF reader starts up).
GNOME, possibly (I don't have a GNOME desktop I use much).
Mac OS pre-X, probably.
Mac OS X - not as far as I can tell. It's pretty much file extension-based.
No, he should check here instead.
(Is it just me, or does the blue in their logo on their site look somewhat Windows XPish? Is that a consequence of them teaming up with Microsoft, as mentioned on their home page?)
(And, no, it doesn't stand for "Fix It Again, Tony", it stands for "Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino".)
...or with the XUL stuff Gerald's working on, which uses the Windows native widgets, rather than Qt or GTK+ or....
But do you really mean "GTK+'s Windows version is free, Qt's isn't"?
...for properly-chosen values of "runs". Yes, it's the core OS underpinnings - but a lot of the OS X user interface is not part of Darwin, and is not open source, so the question that started this thread:
if by "OS X" they really meant "OS X", complete with Aqua and the Finder and Quicktime and..., really isn't answered adequately by noting that Darwin is open source.
They said "OS X", not "Darwin". There's more to OS X than Darwin, and most of that "more" isn't open-source.
not exactly. read this Guy's comment
...which happens to have a significant amount of BSD code in it. See, for example, this description of the OS X kernel architecture, which says
Solaris ran it in little-endian mode. (Yes, "ran" - Solaris was ported to PowerPC ages ago, back when IBM was thinking of coming out with a line of PowerPC-based PC's, with various OSes available including Windows NT and Solaris.)
Cool! So I can install from a Panther CD onto a pServer or IntelliStation POWER workstation?
There's more to system architecture than just CPU instruction set architecture. Macs and RS/6000's/IntelliStation POWER workstations/pServers may share a CPU instruction set architecture, but they don't, as far as I know, have compatible firmware, and don't necessarily have the same support chips, I/O bus, peripherals, etc..
True.
False. PowerPC has multiply and divide instructions that don't use the POWER-only MQ register; those instructions were added to PowerPC to compensate for the loss of the MQ-based multiply and divide instructions.
The IBM "POWER" processors might happen to implement the full PowerPC instruction set; if so, that'd make them PowerPC processors as well.
No, they don't. The DigiTimes article says that the new type of memory card will be unveiled in October, mass production will begin in early 2005, and the maximum capacity of this type of card will be 2TB - nothing about 2TB cards being available in early 2005, much less October 2004.
Think "guaranteed not to exceed 2TB", not "guaranteed to contain 2TB".
Yeah, I'll bet USD 5000 that it's not; see several postings indicating that the 2TB is the maximum capacity to be supported by the specification for the cards - I've seen nothing in the article saying that they will have 2TB cards in 2005.
OK, I've read the digitimes.com page closely, and it says that they will "soon mass produce a new type [emphasis mine] of memory card", but doesn't say that these cards will all have 2TB.
The "Memory cards specifications" table in that article has a "Maximum capacity" column that gives "2TB" for those cards, but it also gives "128GB" as the "Maximum capacity" value for CompactFlash cards; has anybody seen a 128GB CF card?
So I think any speculation on what technology might be used for these cards, based on an assumption that they'll have 2TB in 2005, is premature, as it is not at all clear that they'll have 2TB in 2005, even though the specification for those cards will allow cards of up to 2TB to be constructed (i.e., the spec is intended to allow that format to scale to 2TB if and when the memory technology gets to the point where that can be supported).
Does GlaxoSmithKline make insulin? There's no mention of it on their prescription medicines page, although a search for "insulin" on their Web site found a press release about an alliance to develop an oral insulin.
The LookSmart page about major pharmaceutical companies lists 3 companies that I know produce insulin (Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Lilly), and don't list another one (Novo Nordisk). They also list several companies that, as far as I know, don't, although Pfizer has an inhalable insulin (Exubera) under development (with Aventis and Nektar Theraputics).
In addition to the commercial UNIXes mentioned in other replies (Tru64, OS X), what about AIX? Or does AIX 5 use ELF now?
Given that SystemStarter is run by a command in /etc/rc (and that there are rc scripts for various run levels in SV-style inits), you presumably meant "augments rc.* scripts with SystemStarter".
There's documentation on the developer.apple.com site for the startup process in OS X.
If you search the US Patent and Trademark Office database for patents with an assignee name of "Dell Products", you get 222 patents. A search for just "Dell" yields 1089 patents, at least one of which is for "Dell U.S.A." rather than "Dell Products" but is still Dell (Round Rock, Texas, and a patent on "Apparatus and method for a combination personal digital assistant and network portable device"). Searching for "Dell Computer" or "Dell Products" or "Dell USA" or "Dell U.S.A"[sic] in the "Advanced Search" page (that's an/(dell andnot ("dell computer" or "dell products" or "dell usa" or "dell u.s.a")) - there's no "not" operator, as far as I can tell, but there is "andnot", and if you try to search for "dell u.s.a." it "helpfully" removes the final ".")) found 61 patents, some of which are, alas, for "Dell U.S.A.". About 11 of those appear to be computer-related, so I'll be lazy and assume they're for some other part of Dell, leaving 50 non-Dell patents, for a grand total of 1039 Dell Computer patents.
Some of them are mechanical and electrical patents (for the parts of their equipment that don't come out of the box from Intel or Microsoft or {fill in a BIOS vendor} or {fill in your favorite Linux distribution vendor}, some are manufacturing patents (for example, 6,714,937, "System and method for virtual setup and configuration for a build-to-order computer") - i.e., the sort of stuff that their component makers wouldn't necessarily do.
A search for patents with "Apple" in the assignee name found 1813 patents, but at least one of them (6,723,044, "Abdominal retractor") isn't assigned to Apple Computer (it's Apple Medical Corporation, Marlboro, MA, USA). If you search for "Apple Computer", you get 1777 patents; if you search for "Apple" and not "Apple Computer" in the "Advanced Search" section you get 36 patents, at least one of which has Apple as one of the assignees (5,996,057, "Data processing system and method of permutation with replication within a vector register file", which is a PowerPC patent with the other two assignees being the obvious, i.e. IBM and Motorola). About 5 of those look as if they'd be Apple Computer patents, so make that a grand total of 1782 Apple Computer (or Apple+IBM+Motorola) patents.
Of course, Apple's been around longer than Dell, so let's restrict the search to, say, patents issued in 2002, 2003, or 2004, by adding "and ISD/1/1/2002->12/31/2004". Unfortunately, doing so causes the patent search engine to take Too Damn Long to search (Safari times out the request), so let's just look for patents assigned to something with "Apple" in its name in that range - oops, that times out, too. Sigh.
OK, let's try 2004 patents, with an/"apple computer" and ISD/$/$/2004 - 70 patents. an/dell and ISD/$/$/2004 yields 78 patents, most of which look Dell Computerish.
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide whether the number of "major" patents from Apple or Dell is higher - patents can range anywhere from a patent for a new I/O bus to a patent for a minor tweak on a hinge.
And, in the "offtopic but interesting" department, note that one of the examples on the Advanced Search page is "in/newmar-julie". I was curious whether Julie Newmar actually had any patents - yup, two: 4,003,094, "Pantyhose with shaping band for cheeky derrier[sic] relief" and 3,935,864, "Brassiere". I suspect there might be a fan of the old Batman TV show hiding somewhere in the US Patent and Trademark Office's IT department.... (And, yes, I know about Hedy Lamarr and spread-spectrum communications. Unfortunately, patent 2,292,387 was issued in 1942 and is only available in scanned form.)
Note that shipping a dual-processor machine doesn't mean two CPUs were shipped; a "CPU" is a system unit, not a processor chip.
Yes - UMTS uses "Wideband CDMA", as per this page on the UMTS World website.
CDMA and TDMA are different low-layer air interfaces; 2G systems use either TDMA or CDMA, as per the Wikipedia article on 2G. (Note that GSM uses TDMA, so it's not as if something is GSM, CDMA, or TDMA. GSM and IS-136 a/k/a D-AMPS use TDMA; IS-95, a/k/a cdmaOne, uses CDMA.)
Yes, I know there are other competitors...
...but I'm not sure enumerating every single processor used for embedded applications is the right way to list the ARM competitors; for example, are there any applications for which an ARM processor and an 8051-compatible microcontroller would be competitors?
MIPS, for one, although their list of products using MIPS-architecture processors doesn't say anything about mobile phones other than a satellite phone.
You forgot "what about a Beowulf cluster of ARM chips?" - or is that one no longer in use?
And Linux has NdisWrapper.
Dunno. Maybe you have to pay the big bucks to get the document containing that particular bit of pulp SF. I guess if "Revolt In The Stars" had been finished and filmed, you could have gotten it much cheaper on DVD.