Not to mention the fact that it's only really static content that archive.org can archive properly. From their FAQ:
How do you archive dynamic pages?
There are many different kinds of dynamic pages, some of which are easily stored in an archive and some of which fall apart completely. When a dynamic page renders standard html, the archive works beautifully. When a dynamic page contains forms, JavaScript, or other elements that require interaction with the originating host, the archive will not contain the original site's functionality.
Admittedly, archiving dynamic web content seems like a pretty intractable problem...
AIX/386 (aka AIX PS/2) had its last release in 1992. Even back then, I expect it it differed a lot from the contemporary AIX/6000 release (3.2?). I doubt it bears much resemblance to AIX 6.1 now...
The trouble with date-based versioning is that all it tells you is the date it was released. The whole point of hierarchical numbering schemes (eg. 2.6.24) is that they encode useful information - that version 2.6.24 is the 24th teeny release of the sixth minor release of the second major release. Pretty obviously really:-). Just because Linus decided to move away from the stable/unstable model seems like a lame excuse to freeze the major and minor version numbers.
If you really don't care about distinguishing major/minor/teeny releases, then fair enough, but generally it's a useful thing to do for any non-trivial project.
Graffiti 2 wasn't supposed to be an improvement in usability. Graffiti 2 was a result of Xerox suing Palm on the basis that Graffiti 1 violated Xerox's Unistroke patent. This forced Palm to replace G1 with a similar, but not too similar, system (Jot) and call it Graffiti 2.
Word on the street (or at least Wikipedia) is that the CPU is an "Aday-5F" made by Aday Technology - their previous Aday-5E was a 150 MHz "Super486". No, it doesn't sound like it's going to be fast:-)
Wouldn't it be easier and mainly better to start all over? You mean, hop in a time machine and go back to 1992? And this time, maybe design a microkernel system instead?:-)
The kernel right now is one big monolithic, undocumented blob of ever changing ugly interfaces that requires breaking the license if you want to add a closed source driver. There is no clear interface for any third-party work that doesn't involve the inclusion of core kernel code into closed-source modules. You mean you want a nice modular kernel with well-defined interfaces? Something a bit like.............. MINIX?;-)
the grandparent is right, they were both "dubbed" "Beta" because they are both called "beta" as a title or nickname.
Wow....that would be so confusing, having a project codenamed "Beta". "Is Beta in Beta yet?", " Beta is still Alpha right now", "Beta's not Beta any more!", etc....
Ignoring the MIPS systems, SGI's current hardware product line basically consists of IA64 Linux workstations (Prism), IA64 Linux servers/supercomputers (Altix) and EM64T Linux servers (Altix XE). No current Windows systems although they've tried several times in the past.
Come to think of it I could swear I saw an EOL announcement for the Prism line earlier this year on www.sgi.com, but I can't find it any more....
It's a lot easier to tell customers they need FireWire than to explain that OldWorld ROMs would no longer be supported.
Erm...but some Macs had NewWorld firmware but no FireWire (eg. Lombard PowerBook). Are you sure you're not thinking of the "Mac with USB" requirement of 10.3?
Like bad management, they ordered a bunch of desktop PC they couldn't use, and no one authorized their return. So they sat around in unopened boxes until his team decided to make a Beowulf cluster...
The exact opposite happened at an academic HPC centre I used to work in - we ordered a small pre-built cluster from a prominent specialist German vendor, complete with snazzy custom rack, presumably at great expense. By the time it arrived, the guy whose idea it was had left, so it languished in the corner of a room for several months due to lack of interest. Eventually it got installed in the corner of an office and someone ordered some monitor/keyboard/mouse extension cables to turn it into a bunch of "desktop" PCs for staff use...:-)
Before 386BSD, BSD releases either needed an AT&T UNIX license (everything up to 4.3BSD) or were incomplete (Net/1, Net/2). So either "full" or "open source", but not both.
BSD has been around longer then Linux. So saying their development process is better then the Linux process is accurate. I mean after all something has turned people off BSD. Why didn't people adopt BSD first?
The Linux kernel predates the first full open-source BSD distribution (386BSD) - first release was September 1991 versus March 1992. Also, 386BSD development stagnated until the formation of the NetBSD (first release April 1993) and FreeBSD (December 1993) projects. By this time there was a lot of momentum behind Linux, particularly from ex-MINIX hackers.
I'm not so sure OpenBSD's version numbering scheme is so sane...remember it started at 2.0, 3.0 followed 2.9 (was it really a "major" release?) and it seems the next release after 3.9 will be 4.0. Are they uncomfortable with double-digit minor version numbers? Remeber guys, its two numbers separated by a dot, not a decimal fraction!
People write "Mac OS X 10.4" because that's the way Apple write it. Of course, the X and the 10 are tautologous, but I guess Apple wanted to clearly differentiate Mac OS (<=9) and Mac OS (X) as products but still keep the usual release number format and sequence.
First, realize that I have been using Linux _forever_... I think somewhere in the 0.8 kernel range. (I was absolutely in before 1.0, because I sent Linus a congratulatory message when he released it, asking if he had a favorite charity. He never answered me, which cost that entity, if it exists, $50.)
Your memory must be fading:-)...there was no Linux 0.8; the version went from 0.12 to 0.95 in 1992.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the fact that it's only really static content that archive.org can archive properly. From their FAQ:
Admittedly, archiving dynamic web content seems like a pretty intractable problem...
AIX/386 (aka AIX PS/2) had its last release in 1992. Even back then, I expect it it differed a lot from the contemporary AIX/6000 release (3.2?). I doubt it bears much resemblance to AIX 6.1 now...
Why? What's the point of a version number THAT NEVER CHANGES?!
The trouble with date-based versioning is that all it tells you is the date it was released. The whole point of hierarchical numbering schemes (eg. 2.6.24) is that they encode useful information - that version 2.6.24 is the 24th teeny release of the sixth minor release of the second major release. Pretty obviously really :-). Just because Linus decided to move away from the stable/unstable model seems like a lame excuse to freeze the major and minor version numbers.
If you really don't care about distinguishing major/minor/teeny releases, then fair enough, but generally it's a useful thing to do for any non-trivial project.
I take it you've never read Snow Crash... :-)
Graffiti 2 wasn't supposed to be an improvement in usability. Graffiti 2 was a result of Xerox suing Palm on the basis that Graffiti 1 violated Xerox's Unistroke patent. This forced Palm to replace G1 with a similar, but not too similar, system (Jot) and call it Graffiti 2.
Word on the street (or at least Wikipedia) is that the CPU is an "Aday-5F" made by Aday Technology - their previous Aday-5E was a 150 MHz "Super486". No, it doesn't sound like it's going to be fast :-)
AFAIK, the Tungsten T was the last model to have Grafitti 1.
NetBSD FFS has bi-endianness support. Not sure about other implementations.
I guess when he says "80686" he means "P6 architecture compatible"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I686
Wow....that would be so confusing, having a project codenamed "Beta". "Is Beta in Beta yet?", " Beta is still Alpha right now", "Beta's not Beta any more!", etc....
Yes, but if they had the time and money to do it themselves, why did they use someone else's GPL'd code in the first place?
And then what do you do with the vast yawning hole where the GPL code used to be?
Ignoring the MIPS systems, SGI's current hardware product line basically consists of IA64 Linux workstations (Prism), IA64 Linux servers/supercomputers (Altix) and EM64T Linux servers (Altix XE). No current Windows systems although they've tried several times in the past.
Come to think of it I could swear I saw an EOL announcement for the Prism line earlier this year on www.sgi.com, but I can't find it any more....
It's a lot easier to tell customers they need FireWire than to explain that OldWorld ROMs would no longer be supported.
Erm...but some Macs had NewWorld firmware but no FireWire (eg. Lombard PowerBook). Are you sure you're not thinking of the "Mac with USB" requirement of 10.3?
And then you go compete with that company and bury them because they don't know how to schedule...
And then you go compete with that company and the customer still chooses them, for political reasons...
The exact opposite happened at an academic HPC centre I used to work in - we ordered a small pre-built cluster from a prominent specialist German vendor, complete with snazzy custom rack, presumably at great expense. By the time it arrived, the guy whose idea it was had left, so it languished in the corner of a room for several months due to lack of interest. Eventually it got installed in the corner of an office and someone ordered some monitor/keyboard/mouse extension cables to turn it into a bunch of "desktop" PCs for staff use...:-)
postfix has been shipped with NetBSD since 1.5.
m4 configuration is for weenies. You're not a real sysadmin till you've hand-edited a sendmail.cf :-)
Before 386BSD, BSD releases either needed an AT&T UNIX license (everything up to 4.3BSD) or were incomplete (Net/1, Net/2). So either "full" or "open source", but not both.
The Linux kernel predates the first full open-source BSD distribution (386BSD) - first release was September 1991 versus March 1992. Also, 386BSD development stagnated until the formation of the NetBSD (first release April 1993) and FreeBSD (December 1993) projects. By this time there was a lot of momentum behind Linux, particularly from ex-MINIX hackers.
I'm not so sure OpenBSD's version numbering scheme is so sane...remember it started at 2.0, 3.0 followed 2.9 (was it really a "major" release?) and it seems the next release after 3.9 will be 4.0. Are they uncomfortable with double-digit minor version numbers? Remeber guys, its two numbers separated by a dot, not a decimal fraction!
People write "Mac OS X 10.4" because that's the way Apple write it. Of course, the X and the 10 are tautologous, but I guess Apple wanted to clearly differentiate Mac OS (<=9) and Mac OS (X) as products but still keep the usual release number format and sequence.
Your memory must be fading