Are you seriously suggesting that Windows NT was around before Unix? You do realize that Unix dates back to 1971, don't you?
Some people like to point out that Windows NT inherited a lot of its concepts from VMS, which did predate Unix. However, while NT on paper took a lot of concepts from VMS, in implementation it tended to sacrifice them in the interests of perceived at-keyboard performance.
And even that said, VMS was first seen on the VAX in 1977, and its first non-beta release was in 1978.
Other, older OSes did have different multi-user paradigms, but they were far, far more baroque than the simple file/directory ownership one that most modern OSes inherited from Unix and tended to be based more on volume ownership than file ownership (because they in turn tended to look at the world as a series of mounted tapes rather than random access hard drives).
Maybe so - but if we find out that Dr. Zee and the superior Cylons from Galactic 1980 are fighting a temporal cold war, I'm outta here. Aw hell, that'd even bring the original BSG and the Moore version into the same "continuity"...
I hear that Berman & Braga are looking for jobs now, after all, and Moore worked with Berman on DS9... [Shudder]
I hope people will read this site instead of (or at least in addition to) the Snopes article.
It's a much more complete and coherent explanation of exactly what Al Gore's legitimate claim is with respect to contributing to the creation of the modern Internet.
You really need to read deeper than Snopes and remove your own blinders. Educated yourself about how different "the Internet" was as the ARPAnet, as the NSF-net, and the modern commercial Internet.
This is a much more, in depth description of Gore's role. It suggests the better formulation of Gore's claim to be:
While I was serving in the Senate, I took the initiative in supporting the basic research necessary to create the Internet as we know it today.
Those of us who were actually there know that the "Internet" of the mid 80s to early 90s was a substantially different beast than what we know as the modern Internet. That transition, from the ARPA- and university-run networks to the wider NSF-funded Internet, to the fully commercial Internet as we know it today, was what Gore was making a reasonable claim to having spearheaded in Congress.
It was a long, multistage process but Gore does have a credible claim to having first legislative mover cred in the birth of the Internet as we know it today.
If that was their calculation, they certainly thought the case was strong enough that it wouldn't be dismissed quickly - $65 Million is a lot of defense.
The sad part is that Burst has already one once against Microsoft, that'll weigh heavily on Apple going in to this.
Sigh. I'm still waiting for that (-1, WRONG WRONG WRONG) moderation tag that Slashdot needs so badly...
Burst.com has not "one" (sic) once against Microsoft in any legal sense, Microsoft settled. Such a settlement does not set any legal expectation to "weigh heavily on Apple," all it does is imply that Microsoft's lawyers thought that Burst.com had a strong case.
Even that isn't directly comparable, because the suit against Microsoft included antitrust claims that aren't applicable against Apple, since (regardless of complaints/.ers might make of Apple's dominance with the iTMS) there is no legal finding of fact that Apple is a monopoly.
Oy. Slashdot poster continues the tradition of maintaining a high level of reasoning ability. GIFs at 11.
MacWorld is not the source, they're just summmarizing. Forrester reserach, upon whose research many large companies (and financial analysts) base their future plans, is the source. Forrester might not be the very best source of research, but they're a very good, well respected source.
Nope, it was fraudulent - it didn't actually implement POSIX.1. We didn't need anything fancy, just some basic file interactions for a CGI-driven message board.
One thing I recall (this was over 10 years ago, the details are fuzzy) was that:
fd = open(filename, O_CREAT | O_RDWR);
did not actually create a file that accepted binary data and that you had to use some candyass windows-only flag that was something like O_BINARY. This wasn't actually mentioned in the call's documentation - I had to get help from a friend in Microsoft's NT Kernel Group.
I also recall that advisory file locking didn't work properly with fcntl(), which made the whole CGI system step on itself under heavy server load.
Most of my professional work for the last 20 years has been on VMS and Unix (and Unix-alikes, including Linux). The only OSes I've used for apps at home since 1987 have been Mac OS and Amiga OS. You can imagine my joy when Mac OS became Unix.
With the exception of a two-week forray into that fraud that Microsoft called Windows NT's POSIX.1 compatability layer, the only thing I've used Windows for, ever has been as a loader for games and for two very niche applications that interface with a diving computer and an aviation GPS. The only other reason I have a PC is to hack TiVos.
You have a very, very narrow worldview if you think every technically savvy person has had to screw with Windows. Some of us have managed to avoid that hellhole.
Hate to break it to you, but sci-fi weapons have been in our arsenal for years.
Namely, the geostationary communications satellites that are the backbone of our military communications system (and not to mention the later GPS system). If you told a commander in the field in the early 1970s (in, say, Vietnam) that he'd be able to have maps with his location pinpointed by meters, or that he'd be able to guide a cruise missile air strike just by pointing a pencil-sized cylinder at a target, or that he could have a live, secure telephone call with anybody in the world from anywhere with open sky, he'd cream his pants.
They're such a part of our everyday world now that many people forget (or never learn) that the notion of communications satellites were invented by Science Fiction author Arthur C Clarke.
Yesterday's science fiction is taken for granted by tomorrow.
Ah, it does my heart good that someone at least remembers CCVS. Extra points to anybody who remembers seeing the version we had that could run on a Palm Pilot (and good luck getting Red Hat senior management to understand the potential of that product...)
That said, I have one minor correction to make: CCVS was designed to be partially open source, but the heart of the system, especially the protocol modules, were always closed source, due to contractual obligations with the payment networks whose protocols were proprietary. In practice that amounted to the bulk of the product being under some closed source, well documented APIs, with a growing layer of open source examples of how to integrate those APIs.
It was a situation analagous to providing proprietary drivers for hardware.
And yeah, this was at the same time that Matthew Szulik would tell the press that Red Hat was and always would be entirely open source (Stronghold, Apache with SSL support, was also closed source at the time).
We always wanted to make a completely open source protocol module that would show people how to implement a module supporting a new protocol for themselves, but that would have required some not-insubstantial work and never happened - before the Red Hat acquisition the constant demand from customers was for more protocols, and after the acquisition there was never management support for doing anything else.
Anyway, suffice it to say that the situation with JBoss will almost certainly be much more like the situation with Cygnus than the one with HKS / CCVS. I don't think senior management at Red Hat ever had a very good understanding of what it took to succeed with CCVS (and the rest of the low-end commerce concept), until well after the acquisition - and once they did they were unwilling to make the kind of investments that were necessary.
The key thing is that JBoss is a stable, well established company with some serious cash flow. HKS was a middle stage startup with a working product and a small customer base, but its business was still in need of a good bit of investment at a time when Red Hat was not willing to spend much cash.
Ugh, sorry for the formatting on that. Most of the sites I post on have recently changed to inserting linebreaks automatically. I'll repost a correctly formatted version.
Ah, it does my heart good that someone at least remembers CCVS. Extra points to anybody who remembers seeing the version we had that could run on a Palm Pilot (and good luck getting Red Hat senior management to understand the potential of that product...)
That said, I have one minor correction to make: CCVS was designed to be partially open source, but the heart of the system, especially the protocol modules, were always closed source, due to contractual obligations with the payment networks whose protocols were proprietary. In practice that amounted to the bulk of the product being under some closed source, well documented APIs, with a growing layer of open source examples of how to integrate those APIs.
It was a situation analagous to providing proprietary drivers for hardware.
And yeah, this was at the same time that Matthew Szulik would tell the press that Red Hat was and always would be entirely open source (Stronghold, Apache with SSL support, was also closed source at the time).
We always wanted to make a completely open source protocol module that would show people how to implement a module supporting a new protocol for themselves, but that would have required some not-insubstantial work and never happened - before the Red Hat acquisition the constant demand from customers was for more protocols, and after the acquisition there was never management support for doing anything else.
Anyway, suffice it to say that the situation with JBoss will almost certainly be much more like the situation with Cygnus than the one with HKS / CCVS. I don't think senior management at Red Hat ever had a very good understanding of what it took to succeed with CCVS (and the rest of the low-end commerce concept), until well after the acquisition - and once they did they were unwilling to make the kind of investments that were necessary.
The key thing is that JBoss is a stable, well established company with some serious cash flow. HKS was a middle stage startup with a working product and a small customer base, but its business was still in need of a good bit of investment at a time when Red Hat was not willing to spend much cash.
But, all that being said, the main reason why Apple's not going to revive Cocoa on Windows is that there just isn't enough money to be made selling developer tools on Windows.
Not directly, no. But it definitely is is Apple's interest to have more software out there use the Cocoa APIs.
Just as they do for Mac OS X, Apple should give Cocoa on Windows away, and thereby encourage the use of the Cocoa APIs (while at the same time undercutting Microsoft's devtools business) among free & cheap software authors.
I'm truly amused at how many people assumed I meant "doctors" and then immediately jumped to "arrogant." One example of the people I meant are "operating room techs," who have to be on call 24x7 during their coverage periods.
If the guy who knows how to keep the technology running in the operating room doesn't make it to the hospital in time, your chances of survival just went down.
We have a very complex technological infrastructure supporting our current level of medical care, which did not exist before communications technology. That infrastructure depends upon more kinds of knowledge than just strictly medical.
LOL, "clueless." I've been the principle of a business acquired by a publicly traded company, have you?
Acquiring businesses do not constrain their future business practices in contracts with principles, they talk about the employment conditions (and exit conditions) of those principles. There's no way in this reality or the next that Dell would contract with the Alienware principles to not place the Dell logo on future products.
How in the world would they have a contract? Alienware is Dell now, it would be a contract between Dell and itself. Dell could cancel the contract at any point it liked.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you seriously suggesting that Windows NT was around before Unix? You do realize that Unix dates back to 1971, don't you?
Some people like to point out that Windows NT inherited a lot of its concepts from VMS, which did predate Unix. However, while NT on paper took a lot of concepts from VMS, in implementation it tended to sacrifice them in the interests of perceived at-keyboard performance.
And even that said, VMS was first seen on the VAX in 1977, and its first non-beta release was in 1978.
Other, older OSes did have different multi-user paradigms, but they were far, far more baroque than the simple file/directory ownership one that most modern OSes inherited from Unix and tended to be based more on volume ownership than file ownership (because they in turn tended to look at the world as a series of mounted tapes rather than random access hard drives).
Maybe so - but if we find out that Dr. Zee and the superior Cylons from Galactic 1980 are fighting a temporal cold war, I'm outta here. Aw hell, that'd even bring the original BSG and the Moore version into the same "continuity"...
I hear that Berman & Braga are looking for jobs now, after all, and Moore worked with Berman on DS9... [Shudder]
I hope people will read this site instead of (or at least in addition to) the Snopes article.
It's a much more complete and coherent explanation of exactly what Al Gore's legitimate claim is with respect to contributing to the creation of the modern Internet.
This is a much more, in depth description of Gore's role. It suggests the better formulation of Gore's claim to be: Those of us who were actually there know that the "Internet" of the mid 80s to early 90s was a substantially different beast than what we know as the modern Internet. That transition, from the ARPA- and university-run networks to the wider NSF-funded Internet, to the fully commercial Internet as we know it today, was what Gore was making a reasonable claim to having spearheaded in Congress.
It was a long, multistage process but Gore does have a credible claim to having first legislative mover cred in the birth of the Internet as we know it today.
If that was their calculation, they certainly thought the case was strong enough that it wouldn't be dismissed quickly - $65 Million is a lot of defense.
Hmmm. Didn't Magneto have that plan, in essence?
Burst.com has not "one" (sic) once against Microsoft in any legal sense, Microsoft settled. Such a settlement does not set any legal expectation to "weigh heavily on Apple," all it does is imply that Microsoft's lawyers thought that Burst.com had a strong case.
Even that isn't directly comparable, because the suit against Microsoft included antitrust claims that aren't applicable against Apple, since (regardless of complaints
Oy. Slashdot poster continues the tradition of maintaining a high level of reasoning ability. GIFs at 11.
MacWorld is not the source, they're just summmarizing. Forrester reserach, upon whose research many large companies (and financial analysts) base their future plans, is the source. Forrester might not be the very best source of research, but they're a very good, well respected source.
In other news, perpetual motion proponents are also being viciously suppressed.
One thing I recall (this was over 10 years ago, the details are fuzzy) was that:did not actually create a file that accepted binary data and that you had to use some candyass windows-only flag that was something like O_BINARY. This wasn't actually mentioned in the call's documentation - I had to get help from a friend in Microsoft's NT Kernel Group.
I also recall that advisory file locking didn't work properly with fcntl(), which made the whole CGI system step on itself under heavy server load.
It was a freakin' nightmare.
Horseshit.
Most of my professional work for the last 20 years has been on VMS and Unix (and Unix-alikes, including Linux). The only OSes I've used for apps at home since 1987 have been Mac OS and Amiga OS. You can imagine my joy when Mac OS became Unix.
With the exception of a two-week forray into that fraud that Microsoft called Windows NT's POSIX.1 compatability layer, the only thing I've used Windows for, ever has been as a loader for games and for two very niche applications that interface with a diving computer and an aviation GPS. The only other reason I have a PC is to hack TiVos.
You have a very, very narrow worldview if you think every technically savvy person has had to screw with Windows. Some of us have managed to avoid that hellhole.
Hate to break it to you, but sci-fi weapons have been in our arsenal for years.
Namely, the geostationary communications satellites that are the backbone of our military communications system (and not to mention the later GPS system). If you told a commander in the field in the early 1970s (in, say, Vietnam) that he'd be able to have maps with his location pinpointed by meters, or that he'd be able to guide a cruise missile air strike just by pointing a pencil-sized cylinder at a target, or that he could have a live, secure telephone call with anybody in the world from anywhere with open sky, he'd cream his pants.
They're such a part of our everyday world now that many people forget (or never learn) that the notion of communications satellites were invented by Science Fiction author Arthur C Clarke.
Yesterday's science fiction is taken for granted by tomorrow.
Ah, it does my heart good that someone at least remembers CCVS. Extra points to anybody who remembers seeing the version we had that could run on a Palm Pilot (and good luck getting Red Hat senior management to understand the potential of that product...)
That said, I have one minor correction to make: CCVS was designed to be partially open source, but the heart of the system, especially the protocol modules, were always closed source, due to contractual obligations with the payment networks whose protocols were proprietary. In practice that amounted to the bulk of the product being under some closed source, well documented APIs, with a growing layer of open source examples of how to integrate those APIs.
It was a situation analagous to providing proprietary drivers for hardware.
And yeah, this was at the same time that Matthew Szulik would tell the press that Red Hat was and always would be entirely open source (Stronghold, Apache with SSL support, was also closed source at the time).
We always wanted to make a completely open source protocol module that would show people how to implement a module supporting a new protocol for themselves, but that would have required some not-insubstantial work and never happened - before the Red Hat acquisition the constant demand from customers was for more protocols, and after the acquisition there was never management support for doing anything else.
Anyway, suffice it to say that the situation with JBoss will almost certainly be much more like the situation with Cygnus than the one with HKS / CCVS. I don't think senior management at Red Hat ever had a very good understanding of what it took to succeed with CCVS (and the rest of the low-end commerce concept), until well after the acquisition - and once they did they were unwilling to make the kind of investments that were necessary.
The key thing is that JBoss is a stable, well established company with some serious cash flow. HKS was a middle stage startup with a working product and a small customer base, but its business was still in need of a good bit of investment at a time when Red Hat was not willing to spend much cash.
Ugh, sorry for the formatting on that. Most of the sites I post on have recently changed to inserting linebreaks automatically. I'll repost a correctly formatted version.
Ah, it does my heart good that someone at least remembers CCVS. Extra points to anybody who remembers seeing the version we had that could run on a Palm Pilot (and good luck getting Red Hat senior management to understand the potential of that product...) That said, I have one minor correction to make: CCVS was designed to be partially open source, but the heart of the system, especially the protocol modules, were always closed source, due to contractual obligations with the payment networks whose protocols were proprietary. In practice that amounted to the bulk of the product being under some closed source, well documented APIs, with a growing layer of open source examples of how to integrate those APIs. It was a situation analagous to providing proprietary drivers for hardware. And yeah, this was at the same time that Matthew Szulik would tell the press that Red Hat was and always would be entirely open source (Stronghold, Apache with SSL support, was also closed source at the time). We always wanted to make a completely open source protocol module that would show people how to implement a module supporting a new protocol for themselves, but that would have required some not-insubstantial work and never happened - before the Red Hat acquisition the constant demand from customers was for more protocols, and after the acquisition there was never management support for doing anything else. Anyway, suffice it to say that the situation with JBoss will almost certainly be much more like the situation with Cygnus than the one with HKS / CCVS. I don't think senior management at Red Hat ever had a very good understanding of what it took to succeed with CCVS (and the rest of the low-end commerce concept), until well after the acquisition - and once they did they were unwilling to make the kind of investments that were necessary. The key thing is that JBoss is a stable, well established company with some serious cash flow. HKS was a middle stage startup with a working product and a small customer base, but its business was still in need of a good bit of investment at a time when Red Hat was not willing to spend much cash.
Just as they do for Mac OS X, Apple should give Cocoa on Windows away, and thereby encourage the use of the Cocoa APIs (while at the same time undercutting Microsoft's devtools business) among free & cheap software authors.
Do you realize that Steve Jobs already tried this once, and it nearly destroyed NeXT?
I'm truly amused at how many people assumed I meant "doctors" and then immediately jumped to "arrogant." One example of the people I meant are "operating room techs," who have to be on call 24x7 during their coverage periods.
If the guy who knows how to keep the technology running in the operating room doesn't make it to the hospital in time, your chances of survival just went down.
We have a very complex technological infrastructure supporting our current level of medical care, which did not exist before communications technology. That infrastructure depends upon more kinds of knowledge than just strictly medical.
And many more died, before we had the current technological infrastructure.
Sorry, sunshine, some people actually do need to be continually accessible. Engaged, no, but connected, yes (for the cellphone example).
LOL, "clueless." I've been the principle of a business acquired by a publicly traded company, have you?
Acquiring businesses do not constrain their future business practices in contracts with principles, they talk about the employment conditions (and exit conditions) of those principles. There's no way in this reality or the next that Dell would contract with the Alienware principles to not place the Dell logo on future products.
How in the world would they have a contract? Alienware is Dell now, it would be a contract between Dell and itself. Dell could cancel the contract at any point it liked.
Reminds me of the joke that was going around Red Hat when we were going through a series of CIOs:
"CIO == Career Is Over"