What I pointed out was what mono will most likely do well is the same GNUStep does well, and that is open up the API's so they can be used in open source projects. Open source projects obviously don't mature overnight.
Ideally what this will do is not replace the commercial implementaion (.net or cocoa) but rather give developers access to these api's freely and openly, so that ideally they can take advantage of them.
The issue is what is making.net relevant? What is.net is trying to do? Enable people to write software in a different, object oriented way. People will only have a need to use.net enabled software when such software exists, does something meaningful, and works well.
This is not the case right now. Sure, Microsoft is pushing the tools, but you know damned well people aren't writing for.net as much as win32, and that's what they're going to continue to do in order to maintain Microsoft's legendary (and necessary) backwards compatibility.
SmallTalk is relevant because it is where most of the good aspects of.net are heavily drawn from. The issue between Java and.net isn't about who has it installed - it's about who's writing the next killer application and what it runs on.
If somebody creates something totally unique and new tomorrow, and it runs on Java or Cocoa, it doesn't matter who has it now or not, they will get what they need to run this killer application.
Look at the world wide web. Suddenly, most homes in America are networked to at least some degree. People bought modems. People bought routers. People bought NIC's. They bought what they needed to enable this killer application which is the world wide web.
The next killer application will do the same thing. People will go out and download and/or buy whatever they need to use it. I guess the idea is SmallTalk makes development really intuitive, and many great killer applications have come out of this background.
Believe it or not, but SmallTalk *is* alive and well, it's just not being used to write web browsers, games, or word processors, which is what most *home* users do. Most *home* users only do that because that's all their computer does well because that's all the good software that's available to them.
When new software comes out for the home user that does new things, and their old computer which handled all their old tasks fine can't handle this new application, that's when they'll buy a new computer. That's why this is relevant. That is why Microsoft is doing.net, because they want to make sure these programs are using their libraries (although their real target is the enterprise/server market).
The goals behind.net and SmallTalk are very similar, and perhaps familiarizing yourself with SmallTalk would give you a better perspective on OOP (object oriented programming) in general. Obviously it's not just a coincidence, and whether or not you agree with (or understand) the "technical merits".net, you must recognize Microsoft things important enough to create a whole new language and set of api's to ultimately replace win32. That's no small task.
I disagree with you. If you check your history, Apple has the jump in this situation - NextStep/Objective C was doing OOP way before Java was a glimmer in Gosling's eye. I don't know the history that well, but Objective C (written by Brad Cox) was trying to bring smalltalk like objected oriented functionality to C.
There are several key elements to Smalltalk. The big one is obviously its object oriented approach. This is at the heart of.net, as well as Java and Objective-C.
Another one of them is portability. Smalltalk uses a runtime environment (similar to the JVM), enabling great portability within applications. Rather then using a virtual machine type environment, NeXT created "fat" binaries which were applications were compiled into a wrapper which contained binaries for SPARC, Motorola, even Intel. Whether or not Intel compatibility is still being maintained as it's rumored (which isn't a huge stretch of the imagination), it has been shown that it can be done.
At one point Nextstep ran on Sparcs, and there was a close relationship within the Sun community and NeXT. It has been suggested that Java was influenced by NeXTstep, but regardless, they both have the same mission, which is to bring the power of smalltalk to C programmers.
Microsoft banked on C++ and realized what a nightmare it is to work with as a project grows (personal opinion). If C++ worked so well, they wouldn't have gone back to the drawing board for C# - which is described as very Java like. It is going to take years for.net to mature to the level Java and Cocoa are at, both in terms of the libraries themselves and their respective communities of developers.
Nextstep/Objective-C has been in some of the highest level production environments (e.g. FBI, CIA, MCI, Dell) for years now.
Cocoa is more mature then either.net or Java..Net is in it's infancy while Cocoa is just getting stride. Cocoa went through the equivalent of a "soul" transplant when it lept bodies from Nextstep to OS X. While the roots are very strongly connected, many changes were significant changes were made, including the ability to use cocoa classes in Java as well as Objective-C (in fact, interchangably within a project). Now via the open source community, cocoa is also accesible via python and perl.
Isn't that supposedly one of.net's big appeals - that it supports many languages? It appears as if Apple, Sun, and Microsoft have taken different paths, but Apple has the talent, the product, and the community to truly take advantage of cocoa and make creative new tools.
In the end it's not about how many people are using these tools, it's about what is made with them. Tim Berners Lee used NextStep, as did John Carmack at one point, and many other innovative programmers. They made killer apps. NextStep/Cocoa clearly proven to be capable of delivering killer apps.
Name one killer app written in Java. Or.net.
Mono is meaningful, but you're right to a degree. GNUStep (the Mono equivalent for Cocoa, but much older) is a good parallel here. What GNUStep does well isn't maintain parity or compatibility with Cocoa, it is in liberating the api's, so Cocoa/Nextstep programs can be compiled and run without those proprietary libraries. The goal is compatibility, but it takes time, and can't be expected to maintain pace with a company putting full-time resources behind their project.
I work in a high school IT dept, and CIPA is serious stuff. My problem with it is that even though all the research shows how flawed all existing solutions are (at both keeping out the "bad stuff" and letting through the "good stuff"), the government requires it be in place.
There are things on the internet that are far worse then porn. What bothers me way more then kids looking at porn are hate crimes as well as anything that brings viruses in the door. Given the resources at my disposal, I'd filter the internet whether the government required me to or not - even though I know at best it's only a deterrent.
I work in a private school, so from my perspective, the resources belong to the school, not the children. Therefore I feel the right to restrict (within reason) usage and access to resources (we also don't let the kids watch movies on the tv's from the AV room...).
But the day some kid sees something and has a bad day because of something that ideally shouldn't have been there, and in many ways is an unintentional violation (if not of rights then certainly of personal space), an angry parent (as well as their lawyer) has every right to see filtering as not only our responsibility, but rather something simple, effective, and common.
The decision belongs to the individual communities to make on their own and to enforce themselves. Not all situations where CIPA applies have the same needs, views, or situations. People should be free to address the realities of the internet on their own terms - whether they choose to sacrifice one group's rights for another's or not.
All my Macs running can browse my windows NT domains as well my Samba Domains, no problem.
Maybe your problem has to with the way your network is configured (I'd check out your WINS server as a hunch). OS X is using Samba. If you want to figure out why you can't browse, try checking the Samba page (or do a Google search).
Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean that it doesn't work.
There's more to Darwin then just BSD. If I'm not mistaken, Darwin includes NetInfo and OpenDirectory. Why is this relevant? NetInfo domains are very handy when it comes to sharing users across servers, and it will support LDAP at the same time via OpenDirectory. Now that's a pretty neat trick for a BSD distro out of the box without a lot of painful conifgurations (you just have to learn the NetInfo commandline utilities - that's all...). Not to mention how handy it is if you happen to have OS X clients....
I think you miss the point about Net BSD - no matter what hardware you have, it'll probably run Net BSD. I inherited some POS Dell server at work with some adaptec scsi card that wasn't supported by Free BSD. I grabbed my trusty Wasabi CD ROM (thanks to sizzla...) and I had a DNS server in no time. Whenever I get weird hardware I want to use, I go for Net BSD....
iMac version? You really believe Apple's going to go through the headache and expense of making a separate version for iMac's and splintering their already tiny market?
Let alone risk breaking compatibility with new apps for a new OS that may rely on all things invisible and holy (i.e. the BSD subsystem - or any elements of the OS which don't require user interaction).
Unix is in there and it ain't coming out.
Not that the average user would have a clue if they weren't told. It must be seen to be believed.
Wriggle how you like, this statement is incorrect. I do know what you mean, but it's not what this statement says. Over and out.
Master of semantics - apparently not. This is clearly an ambiguous statement. Bone up on your epistemology bucko - you're lacking in the certainty department....
The statement says:
With the release of OS X, Apple will literally be the largest Unix vendor on the planet.
Could it mean that they make the largest amount of money? Yes.
Could it mean that they have the largest building? Yes.
Could it mean that they have the largest group of employees? Yes.
Could it mean they have the largest user base? Yes.
Could it mean they've got the largest dilznicks? Yes.
As far as we know, the only interpretation that makes sense has to do with installed copies of OS X.
Or maybe Jordan knows something we don't know....
Either way, based on that statement, there sure as hell ain't no way you do.
Sorry - not sure about the spelling of dilznick....
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get it.
.net relevant? What is .net is trying to do? Enable people to write software in a different, object oriented way. People will only have a need to use .net enabled software when such software exists, does something meaningful, and works well.
.net as much as win32, and that's what they're going to continue to do in order to maintain Microsoft's legendary (and necessary) backwards compatibility.
.net are heavily drawn from. The issue between Java and .net isn't about who has it installed - it's about who's writing the next killer application and what it runs on.
.net, because they want to make sure these programs are using their libraries (although their real target is the enterprise/server market).
.net and SmallTalk are very similar, and perhaps familiarizing yourself with SmallTalk would give you a better perspective on OOP (object oriented programming) in general. Obviously it's not just a coincidence, and whether or not you agree with (or understand) the "technical merits" .net, you must recognize Microsoft things important enough to create a whole new language and set of api's to ultimately replace win32. That's no small task.
What I pointed out was what mono will most likely do well is the same GNUStep does well, and that is open up the API's so they can be used in open source projects. Open source projects obviously don't mature overnight.
Ideally what this will do is not replace the commercial implementaion (.net or cocoa) but rather give developers access to these api's freely and openly, so that ideally they can take advantage of them.
The issue is what is making
This is not the case right now. Sure, Microsoft is pushing the tools, but you know damned well people aren't writing for
SmallTalk is relevant because it is where most of the good aspects of
If somebody creates something totally unique and new tomorrow, and it runs on Java or Cocoa, it doesn't matter who has it now or not, they will get what they need to run this killer application.
Look at the world wide web. Suddenly, most homes in America are networked to at least some degree. People bought modems. People bought routers. People bought NIC's. They bought what they needed to enable this killer application which is the world wide web.
The next killer application will do the same thing. People will go out and download and/or buy whatever they need to use it. I guess the idea is SmallTalk makes development really intuitive, and many great killer applications have come out of this background.
Believe it or not, but SmallTalk *is* alive and well, it's just not being used to write web browsers, games, or word processors, which is what most *home* users do. Most *home* users only do that because that's all their computer does well because that's all the good software that's available to them.
When new software comes out for the home user that does new things, and their old computer which handled all their old tasks fine can't handle this new application, that's when they'll buy a new computer. That's why this is relevant. That is why Microsoft is doing
The goals behind
I disagree with you. If you check your history, Apple has the jump in this situation - NextStep/Objective C was doing OOP way before Java was a glimmer in Gosling's eye.
.net, as well as Java and Objective-C.
.net to mature to the level Java and Cocoa are at, both in terms of the libraries themselves and their respective communities of developers.
.net or Java. .Net is in it's infancy while Cocoa is just getting stride. Cocoa went through the equivalent of a "soul" transplant when it lept bodies from Nextstep to OS X. While the roots are very strongly connected, many changes were significant changes were made, including the ability to use cocoa classes in Java as well as Objective-C (in fact, interchangably within a project). Now via the open source community, cocoa is also accesible via python and perl.
.net's big appeals - that it supports many languages? It appears as if Apple, Sun, and Microsoft have taken different paths, but Apple has the talent, the product, and the community to truly take advantage of cocoa and make creative new tools.
.net.
I don't know the history that well, but Objective C (written by Brad Cox) was trying to bring smalltalk like objected oriented functionality to C.
There are several key elements to Smalltalk. The big one is obviously its object oriented approach. This is at the heart of
Another one of them is
portability. Smalltalk uses a runtime environment (similar to the JVM), enabling great portability within applications. Rather then using a virtual machine type environment, NeXT created "fat" binaries which were applications were compiled into a wrapper which contained binaries for SPARC, Motorola, even Intel. Whether or not Intel compatibility is still being maintained as it's rumored (which isn't a huge stretch of the imagination), it has been shown that it can be done.
At one point Nextstep ran on Sparcs, and there was a close relationship within the Sun community and NeXT. It has been suggested that Java was influenced by NeXTstep, but regardless, they both have the same mission, which is to bring the power of smalltalk to C programmers.
Microsoft banked on C++ and realized what a nightmare it is to work with as a project grows (personal opinion). If C++ worked so well, they wouldn't have gone back to the drawing board for C# - which is described as very Java like. It is going to take years for
Nextstep/Objective-C has been in some of the highest level production environments (e.g. FBI, CIA, MCI, Dell) for years now.
Cocoa is more mature then either
Isn't that supposedly one of
In the end it's not about how many people are using these tools, it's about what is made with them. Tim Berners Lee used NextStep, as did John Carmack at one point, and many other innovative programmers. They made killer apps. NextStep/Cocoa clearly proven to be capable of delivering killer apps.
Name one killer app written in Java. Or
Mono is meaningful, but you're right to a degree. GNUStep (the Mono equivalent for Cocoa, but much older) is a good parallel here. What GNUStep does well isn't maintain parity or compatibility with Cocoa, it is in liberating the api's, so Cocoa/Nextstep programs can be compiled and run without those proprietary libraries. The goal is compatibility, but it takes time, and can't be expected to maintain pace with a company putting full-time resources behind their project.
I work in a high school IT dept, and CIPA is serious stuff. My problem with it is that even though all the research shows how flawed all existing solutions are (at both keeping out the "bad stuff" and letting through the "good stuff"), the government requires it be in place.
There are things on the internet that are far worse then porn. What bothers me way more then kids looking at porn are hate crimes as well as anything that brings viruses in the door. Given the resources at my disposal, I'd filter the internet whether the government required me to or not - even though I know at best it's only a deterrent.
I work in a private school, so from my perspective, the resources belong to the school, not the children. Therefore I feel the right to restrict (within reason) usage and access to resources (we also don't let the kids watch movies on the tv's from the AV room...).
But the day some kid sees something and has a bad day because of something that ideally shouldn't have been there, and in many ways is an unintentional violation (if not of rights then certainly of personal space), an angry parent (as well as their lawyer) has every right to see filtering as not only our responsibility, but rather something simple, effective, and common.
The decision belongs to the individual communities to make on their own and to enforce themselves. Not all situations where CIPA applies have the same needs, views, or situations. People should be free to address the realities of the internet on their own terms - whether they choose to sacrifice one group's rights for another's or not.
All my Macs running can browse my windows NT domains as well my Samba Domains, no problem.
Maybe your problem has to with the way your network is configured (I'd check out your WINS server as a hunch). OS X is using Samba. If you want to figure out why you can't browse, try checking the Samba page (or do a Google search).
Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean that it doesn't work.
There's more to Darwin then just BSD. If I'm not mistaken, Darwin includes NetInfo and OpenDirectory. Why is this relevant? NetInfo domains are very handy when it comes to sharing users across servers, and it will support LDAP at the same time via OpenDirectory. Now that's a pretty neat trick for a BSD distro out of the box without a lot of painful conifgurations (you just have to learn the NetInfo commandline utilities - that's all...).
Not to mention how handy it is if you happen to have OS X clients....
I think you miss the point about Net BSD - no matter what hardware you have, it'll probably run Net BSD.
I inherited some POS Dell server at work with some adaptec scsi card that wasn't supported by Free BSD. I grabbed my trusty Wasabi CD ROM (thanks to sizzla...) and I had a DNS server in no time.
Whenever I get weird hardware I want to use, I go for Net BSD....
I believe the default is in fact to leave it in. How else could it support apache (amongst other things)?
iMac version? You really believe Apple's going to go through the headache and expense of making a separate version for iMac's and splintering their already tiny market? Let alone risk breaking compatibility with new apps for a new OS that may rely on all things invisible and holy (i.e. the BSD subsystem - or any elements of the OS which don't require user interaction). Unix is in there and it ain't coming out. Not that the average user would have a clue if they weren't told. It must be seen to be believed.
Could it mean that they make the largest amount of money? Yes.
Could it mean that they have the largest building? Yes.
Could it mean that they have the largest group of employees? Yes.
Could it mean they have the largest user base? Yes.
Could it mean they've got the largest dilznicks? Yes.
As far as we know, the only interpretation that makes sense has to do with installed copies of OS X. Or maybe Jordan knows something we don't know.... Either way, based on that statement, there sure as hell ain't no way you do.