I would "watch", but who? You are an amorpheus blob of good coders to MS, nothing more.
I stand by my comments. Your comments, distilled, imply that software making is akin to what becomes of "starving artists." Nice art, but it doesn't always change the world.
My definition of OSS may not be acceptable to you, but it is true. Software can be many things, but businesses aren't buying art. They buy product for a purpose. That doesn't mean that OSS can be all that and a floor wax. But MS doesn't care if OSS is also art. They are out to do a Borg to the idea. No negotiations, no pleas. Destruction. And you are trying to convince me that MS can be battled by the dream?
Even MLKing knew when to stop speaking and walk the streets with our people, organized, determined, and never losing their message of peace or losing sight of their goal.
Fortunately, MS is not a legislative body, so they can't directly change how or what we use for computing. However, their business model and monetary strength is formidable.
You seem to subscribe to the David-and-Goliath scenario. Here's a clue: David got a lucky shot. It was all it took, but it was luck, nonetheless.
Most mere mortals don't know what OSS is. That includes the corporate world, who've heard more about Linux and other OSS than the average Joe. Hasn't changed their minds much as a whole. Ironically, the way that these businesses hear of OSS is through other businesses such as IBM and other for-profit ventures. This helps the OSS cause?
It's not that the premise of OSS hasn't any power. It's just that history has shown that organized factions will overcome disorganized factions no matter how just or preferred it may be.
Microsoft has billions of dollars, thousands of people and a lot of motivation to attempt to implement.NET. Open Source has many coders, a few intellectual leaders in respective features, and perhaps a lawyer or two to help with GPL language. Who fights for OSS? Who will counter MS in this move directly, even surgically? In my view, I don't see anyone, and that is a challenge.
Perhaps you missed out on what goes on in the corporate world. They're capitalists. We create products to exchange for cash. That's not a bad thing. Most businesses are drones that don't easily think what's best or even what's efficient. That just go along with the corporate Joneses.
Are you so sure and naive of the power of OSS that you think it can sell itself in the magnitude necessary to keep this.NET initiative from happening?
I see OSS as hippies--young people with grand ideas to change the world. Well--they did, but only when they emmeshed themselves in the world they previously rebelled against to fight the system within the system. Once you get in, you can change the system to what you desire if your will is strong.
Ideas usually DO win out over time. Not everything that MS has thrown down our gullet has taken root. But.NET is a basis for many future MS work, and I don't see them backing down easily from this one. OSS has got to form a better group of soldiers to fight this attack at MS level, without becoming the monster they are fighting.
A positive analogy: Microsoft is a large, relentless Great White Shark. OSS are pirahna, but they aren't organized in a school. Get them organized, and nothing can deal with the tiny, deadly bites of hundreds of the little fish.
Don't let ideology blind you to reality, but don't lose touch with the vision as you fight.
This issue is pretty serious for OSS. Consider: While all the jaw-jacking about MS is typically justified in their stance on OSS, one thing is certain about the MS vs. Linux debate:
Microsoft could win it.
Imagine the software world as a big ocean. OSS is like coral. It's cooperative, works for the common good, shares its resources to build a community. As a result, a structure is built for the good of all.
Microsoft appears as waves in that ocean. None of these waves, paradoxically, are good for MS, the wave generator. Sometimes the waves are small and help to move the OSS coral's spores along to form other colonies (apps). In the case of the tidal wave known as.NET, coral may likely be destroyed if the wave is strong and deep enough.
A wave is as strong as its organization. Microsoft has succeeded (and unjustly much of the time, but that's another topic) because it is very organized at a corporate level and can utilize resources that other groups, particularly disorganized cooperatives such as OSS groups, find hard to counter.
OSS is mostly organized at the software level, writing code. But code writing doesn't "sell" the work to the business--marketing does. And that's the front where Microsoft is working. Microsoft thinks, "Why debate the facts where we can just act like the 800-pound gorilla and flood the schools with free stuff to boister interest?"
Unfortunately, no one group or person appears to speak for OSS. Without a bona fide, consolidated group that fights MS at whatever level it wants to move to,.NET and other MS-unique technologies have a good chance to convince the people who make decisions yet do not code--the school administrators. After all, this is a money argument, not a "mine is better" argument.
The OSS/MS fight is akin to hand-to-hand combat vs. carpetbombing. OSS can't fight without a general--an organized group that can move to counter MS and use its powers of hacking virtually ANYTHING into compliance or existence for UNIX systems without fee.
So , if you really really really like playing Mortal Kombat-style fighting games, go see Blade II. Also, if you want to see the trailer for the upcoming Friday the 13th movie, Jason X, Jason in Space, go see Blade II. Yes, I'm serious, Jason X. 10! In Space! Starring lots of Canadian sci-fi actors on break from Andromeda!
Jason X?
Wow. Microsoft's been really busy on that new operating system. They showed we can fly with Windows XP, and now, with Jason X, we can fly, see blood spill, and die along with our computer systems.
Neato. Hope it comes with some popcorn and a bladder-buster cola.
Apple won't sue--its a mutual benefit
on
iPod on Windows
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Apple generally does not litigate against third-party applications of their products. That would be silly--it would ultimately discourage software and hardware additions such as PCI cards and software which might augment the Mac OS or its hardware. A computer is a computer, and Apple learned long ago to allow other companies to play when the rewards work both for Apple and others.
Other products which have had third-party adaptations, although not necessarily with the tacit blessing from Apple that XPlay has includes:
--the original iMac (an early expansion slot was used for video cards, although Apple discouraged use of the port and discontinued it on later models) --LinuxPPC, other operating systems --USB floppy drives (when the iMac dispensed with them) --The Outback (the first, but unofficial, Mac portable, which used the ROM from a Mac Plus) --Basilisk (PC software which emulates an early Macintosh, ala Virtual PC for Macintosh)
Apple tends to keep to themselves unless someone appears to be directly violating their copyright, trademark, or intellectual property rights. Using the iPod is, well, using an iPod. Apple probably expects other companies to adapt it for their work. Saves Apple the trouble of manpower to create any software, but also releases them from supporting the iPod since a third-party (and non-Apple) product is in use, which may be a warranty violation.
In 1977, many people were astounded by the first console video games and arcade games--devices unimaginable by the scientists, much less entertainment industry because the technology at the time was rudimentary for such devices.
But the popularity helped to fund the technology improvements and the gaming industry took legs.
Now, we play games with millons of colors in 3D spaces with near-virtual reality situations. It only took the maturity of the technology to make it possible.
Would Java game playing require a new technological paradigm to work? Sure--it can't work under the current model. When games first appeared in the 70s on TV, there was NO significant competiton. Today, the competition is too fierce for a new idea to compete directly and the performance of current games easily exceed what platform-agnostic programming might offer right now.
But then, Atari's games started with a handful of very large pixels and simple game premise. Nobody thought a video game would point the way to what has become.
For Java to work, it would need to take on a new competitive edge. I would suggest taking the open-source approach to the commercial side. Make a MAME-like, open source game player (this may take care of the hooks needed for platform performance) that's freely distributable and extensible.
Next, sell games. Some may be free, others not. But ALL could be placed on any OS and platform desired that supports Java. You would think that we have the ability to improve Java through hardware (such as a PCI Java "processor" expansion, also available for all platforms) or even let processor evolution handle it.
I'm not a pro programmer, but Java's general specs could be made to work, if companies like Microsoft (who are so profit driven to stifle competition) don't intervene. It would have to take baby steps.
QuickTime, Apple's movie/multimedia technology, started with movies the size of a postage stamp and was the first viable movie technology for computers. Today, it allows you to watch "Star Wars" trailers (don't start with the "Pro" version stuff--that's just Apple being a business). What could the future hold tomorrow if the playing field stays fair, although not necessarily even?
HP laser printers with PostScript are first-rate. HP computers and their non-PostScript inkjet and multifunction line are what will spell doom for this company. The merger will only add more weight to their sinking business model.
Why merge with another computer company that does the same thing HP does in terms of PC design? HP and Compaq workstations are among the most proprietary PC designs around, making tech support a nightmare (I've handled both and still have shakes when I think of it).
HP has also stiffed me personally with crappy hardware--the OfficeJet multifunction printers have abysmal drivers that causes my computer to hang routinely, and the firmware of the printer is very faulty and wastes my time by giving off false hardware errors.
If HP thinks that a simple merger will help them, they are wrong. HP needs to concentrate on what they do best--and computers aren't it. How about an inexpensive PostScript printer that doesn't require an engineering degree to print one damned page?
I find Carly's determination admirable, but her goals are very suspect. HP is going the wrong way, and its too obvious.
Not quite. Open Firmware takes the place of most bootstrapping on a Macintosh logic board (motherboard). While the higher level functions of the "BIOS" are part of the OS, you cannot clone a Mac OS ROM unless you want a legion of lawyers with 5 billion dollars to burn on your case knocking on your door.
That said, Open Firmware is a open standard and could make the pleasant BIOS-less experience of a Mac startup possible with these new boards.
A cool idea...not quite a Mac logic board, but something new to play with.
By "closed architecture," I make the assumption that you mean that you can't go and build a Mac like one could do for a PC. True.
But then, you don't run out to your auto store to build a Jaguar. I know, the car analogy is cliched now, but it illustrates the point.
Apple doesn't expect every person to switch--only the people who consider the value of the Macintosh (both OS and hardware) worthwhile. Even if they get a fraction of Windows users to switch, they're successful.
Apple has been getting away from the "hardware proprietary" model since 1998 pretty well. Today, in their G4 towers, the only proprietary hardware (outside of the chassis) is the motherboard and perhaps the processor. Everything else can be bought and installed as you would a PC. I'm probably not telling you anything new.
I think Apple's computers meet a greater flexibility than a typical PC because they hold a tighter grip on the true standards. Some PCs offer the same standards but implement them strangely. The feel of the machine also is different from PC to PC. That's rare from a Mac perspective.
You're right on the cost--but people do seem to look a little more at looks now, too, as they would with cars. I think Apple needs to address how easy it would be to MOVE from Windows to Mac, and make it easy by making systems with Virtual PC bundled and a tool for moving data from the PC to the Mac.
I see one thing about the iMac that few have realized: Sales are through the roof and Apple is having a hard time with demand--for their HIGH END, MOST EXPENSIVE version!!! Imagine the sales numbers for the lower priced models once they work out the supply issue.
I guess baby steps is better than no progress at all in terms of turnover to Mac tech, however.
Many common software and docs are available from the online (free) subscription to ADC. Just register online, and you should be able to get SDK and tool packages by download until your eyes bleed.
For beta participation and other NDA software, you'll need to fork over cash for a stronger ADC membership, but there is a student version if you qualify. Go for it.
The elitist (yet still cool!) Jedi can't read into their own prophesies. Someone else (probably from Space.com's "Phantom Heresies" series got this idea published earlier, but I'll repeat here for fun.
The Jedi prophesy that the Chosen One would "bring balance to the Force" works, but as the Jedi discover, not in their favor. The Force doesn't need the Jedi or Sith--they need it more. The Chosen One creates the balance by DESTROYING some 10,000 Jedi and apprentices, leaving only one master and one apprentice on each side (Emperor/Vader, and Yoda/Obi-Wan).
The reason that these Force users are around also has something to do with their use of foretelling through the Force. Most Jedi, like Qui-Gon, probably do the "keep your mind on the here and now" thing. That philosophy ultimately gets them killed. Yoda and Obi-Wan can SEE the end coming--and take measures for another day. They can even see their demise, more or less, as Obi-Wan predicted to Luke before sacrificing himself to keep Vader from hindering Luke's first Death Star escape.
The Emperor and Vader use the same talent, but it seems that mucking with the Dark Side doesn't give you the clarity that the Jedi had--otherwise, both Palpatine and Vader would have gotten a vague clue that they were about to part ways the Hard Way.
The Jedi have survived as stoics (like the Vulcans of Star Trek fame). They know that emotion taints the use of the Force. That's why they really should have left Anakin alone, but their curiosity got them killed.
Yep, ultimately, Anakin is a hero--he was the ONLY person capable of taking out the Emperor, who was more powerful than anyone except Vader. The Emperor knew this and subjugated Anakin to prevent what he ultimately did--kill the Emperor.
Why must Anakin become a Sith? It was the only way to get close enough to the Emperor.
There are many simple reasons why, if Ocaam's Razor were applied (and without any lubrication whatsoever) to this.
While I suspect that Harry has read of things from the movie (of that, things are leaked like crazy: visit http://theforce.net for lots of stuff), it is HIGHLY unlikely that he's seen the movie in its final form. Why?
Because, according to LFL, the movie still has a lot of post-production work (the CGI) to be done. In fact, the latest preview is missing a few key pieces...watch the last scene where 14 Jedi are on their last stand, surrounded by a lot of aliens and battle droids. Funny that the Jedi are reflecting blaster shots which come from nowhere.
The movie isn't complete. I checked my ass--it seems that someone has been trying to blow smoke up it.
Apple has sold its Network Assistant product separately in much the same way as this new product (which IS its replacement for remote administration). It also has bundled ANA with any Macintosh Server configuration sold.
I would think that the new product would be included with a Server hardware rig as ANA had because it improves the server's value.
For individuals and small places, I'd go the route of VNC or an alternative. However, none of these could provide the asset and admin functions of what ANA (and probably the new product) offers.
That's the nice thing about using OS X. Since it's a BSD family member, more alternatives for the software end are available.
This is such a troll that I almost ran into the bridge it hid on.
I won't even go into picking apart your rant. Your lack of power of the English language says it all.
Research your facts before you waste space. Whether Apple is wrong or not, no one is ever in the mood to listen to what seems to be a village idiot, talking much but saying little of factual consequence.
Mac OS X and X Server have all the pinnings of a manageable computer network, much of it compatible with or identical with other computer standards such as LDAP. I've read the PDF on interfacing Mac OS X users with Windows 2000 Active Directory, and it is a promising tool I can use in the future.
What Apple still needs is the breadth of documentation to teach and apply these tools. Try a search on Google on "NetInfo" and you'll find many topics, very few of which explains information about Apple's OS directory system.
It's a good system, mind you, with promise. However, I can find a book on a NetInfo counterpart, Windows 2000 Active Directory, easily. Apple still lacks sufficient IT professional credibility since there isn't as much documentation. They are trying to change this (through new certifications--see www.apple.com/service), but the way is glacial compared to Windows and UNIX services.
Perhaps Apple should extend NetInfo to other UNIX operating systems--maybe even open source it to gain a greater support and technical base.
Here's a link to this change, from the makers of the WebStar web server software for Mac OS. This was a couple of years ago.
http://www.webstar.com/army/
This was based on Mac OS 9 technology, which is pretty unhackable. Mac OS X is just another UNIX in the Web world (uses Apache) but WebStar is making a OS X version of its web server that doesn't sound like they're putting a GUI on Apache but using their own code.
Yep--I remember this feeling happening with Windows 95, too, and Mac OS 7, especially since it required (gasp!) a hard drive and scads of RAM.
Stick to OS 9 and fight the system--it's OK. It's more important to use what works for you. Apple typically doesn't kill us for that decision like some other software companies we know. Keep in mind, though, that time will win out in about a couple of years as the OS X train rolls through and 10-native apps are almost exclusive for the major things.
Funny that the users of the most flexible consumer OS are the most inflexible. Experienced Mac users are the hardest affected by the OS X change, yet UNIX nuts and Windows converts are more forgiving. Oh, well. Good luck to you--OS 9 will be around for some time to come. No worries.
I'm a tech, so don't feel that I'm centering you out. KNOW that I'm centering you out. I hate whiners.
As the original thread smartly noted, yes, there are several factions in the Mac camp. Sorry that your older Mac can't run OS X--here's a hankie. Buy the new Mac and stop whining--if you are who you claim to be, you know for a fact that you got a lot of use from your older Mac, but nothing--not even a Mac--lasts forever. You can't expect an auto dealer to upgrade your old car to the latest widgets, and its unreasonable to assume that your old Mac can do Mac OS X unless its a G3.
I've been using Macs since their inception and PCs slightly before that, with countless computers between those. And I've helped those with old Macs move on, whether to PC iron or a new Mac. It's disappointing to have to leave behind something that works well, but time affects all, including computers. A Macintosh's effective life is about 7 years. Stop feeling miserly. If you like the technology, buy it.
The original poster isn't "segregating' anything. He can run practically any OS on the planet under OS X--including all the OSs you mentioned. Can you do that right now? The answer, if you were happy with your situation is, "No, but I have what I need." That's fine. OS 9 and other OSs are great still, even in their twilight.
But stop whining already. Appreciate what others have or just resist the urge to babble about this topic.
And learn to separate your thoughts with paragraphs, for cryin' out loud.
Re:Linux versus Mac OS X is not a valid comparison
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Your information is a bit off on the "OS X runs well" part.
Mac OS X runs well on machinery as old as January 1999. I know--I'm writing this post from my Power Mac G4 Blue-and-White, where OS X is fine. I've also run it on older hardware with fair (but not suitable) results back in its beta days.
OS X, like any other OS, needs RAM. About 128MB is OK if you are NOT running any Classic apps. If you plan on doing Classic, add another 64MB minimum. OS X prefers a decent video card (the RAGE 128 16MB card built-in works fine) which is what causes slowdowns on older G3 hardware such as the Beige G3 desktop/tower and earlier iMacs which haven't great video at all.
The differences between a G3 and G4 chip are subtle. What makes the speed is the same as on a PC motherboard--RAM, video, bus, and processor. Sure, OS X screams on G4 iron, but you don't -have- to go there.
The fact that it is possible is found in Office for Mac OS X. While this isn't a true recompile (it uses updated Mac OS X APIs), it still is, in essence, a UNIX application.
But politically, it may a frosty day in Hades before MS considers it. Too bad. They're losing bucks.
Imagine Microsoft deciding to take a Linux distro for a new version of Windows. That's possible, even just to piss off other distro makers. Now, MS logically would port their primary apps to this new distro, such as Office.
And, if they could do that, they would have no problem porting to other UNiX versions. And this still would be no threat to traditional Windows, which is still so damned entrenched in number of users. MS would only be extending their application market to UNIX users as they continue to make Mac OS versions of some of their apps.
Re:The Real Deal
on
Hack in Space
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Some major operating systems (hint-it ain't Windows) lends itself to troubleshooting and repair in a little over 1 hour. And, yes, I -am- in IT and have been for some time.
Some operating systems don't suffer "file rot" like Windows where the OS becomes so decrepit that it HAS to be reimaged after only a few months.
Sure, experience counts in this (most MCSEs aren't worth the paper they're printed on since they lack true field experience), but, honestly, an operating system shouldn't bugger out at the frequency that Windows does (pick one, even XP, which I watched BSOD on national TV a few times recently) anymore than a car does.
Considering that NASA likely makes their OWN operating systems or variants of UNIX to handle probes lends more to their skill when the chips are down/burned/otherwise offline.
I'm not trying to flame, but this "reimage" mentality in Windows IT always chaps my ass. UNIX users look at us as if we grew a third eye for such procedures. It's easy to reimage a secretary's system, but some computer users have more complex environments that "cloned OS"s don't cover. Ask a specialized prepress or scientific user. Recovery and redundancy measures are needed, but your example doesn't cover these kind of users.
...has an interesting origin, although space buffs may see more into it.
The probe was named "2001 Mars Odyssey" in respect to Arthur C. Clarke and his works, keeping in mind that the name "Odyssey" comes from the story of Odysseus, who did that "Flying Dutchman" thing for many years after pissing Poseidon off.
Odyssey was also the name of the doomed Command/Service Module of Apollo 13.
NASA sometimes can't figure out bad luck markers when they see it--
1. Don't push every superstitious button that Fate offers you (Apollo 13, lifted off on 4/11/70 at military 13:13 hours, entered lunar gravity on the third day of their flight, 4/13)
2. Don't do anything daring or new in January. (Apollo 1, died in pad fire 1/27/67)
3. Be sure to review item 2. (Challenger disaster, with a civilian (new), on a cold (daring) January day, 1/28/86)
4. Make sure the spacecraft hatches stay where they're expected (Gus Grissom's near-drowning after Liberty Bell 7 blows hatch after splashdown, 1961)
5. Make sure the spacecraft hatches can open when the crew really needs to go (Apollo 1 fire, where Gus G. dies from suffocation from a very secure hatch).
6. Never name any project after anything that rhymes with "trouble." (Hubble multi-million optics goof, 1990)
Apple knew that experienced OS 9 users would create HAVOC with the OS if they gave them a root account. Mac OS 9 practically encourages major modifications to the OS and Apple didn't want OS X users to get into the same habit for good reason. They also knew that people would want one who understood it, so they disabled it for user stupidity's sake.
OS X asks for an admin password on every account but root as an extra security measure when software is installed. Many Mac techs can understand me when I say that it is good that users can't change critical stuff, including installing unapproved software on their computer, even if you (the bonehead tech) logged in as an admin (NOT ROOT!) and forgot to log off. Even with the account still up, a user will still need an admin login to install anything. Good.
Not that Apple gave their reasons for doing what they did--most of us had to figure it out the hard way. Bad.
Nothing's perfect. Remember that Mac OS X is a "1.0" in reality, and, given that, it's working pretty well for most. I've never had any system crashes since I started its use last March.
Zarf's experience confirms three issues about using Mac OS X:
-If you are an experienced Mac OS 9 user, you will do things to your computer (and vice versa) that will be adverse. Example--moving applications out of the Applications folder. OS X updaters expect to find all Apple-installed apps in their original locations. Previous OS versions generally did not care, but this breaks OS X updates.
Tip: LEAVE OS X application locations alone. X apps and other non-Apple OS X apps can be placed whereever you want, but the Applications folder is preferable.
--If you are an experienced UNIX/Linux user, OS X feels fine, but the GUI gets a little in the way, particularly when you're trying to get to the CLI and stay there awhile. The way OS X handles configuration files threw him, too--OS X preferences can be edited, but you don't have dotfiles, but.plist files. Ditto for the transparencies and such.
--If you hate the fluff of Windows, a few interface issues will annoy both kinds of users. Fortunately, unlike Windows XP, the OS does not attempt to find a way to sell you something on launching any app. Also, (Office X excluded) Mac apps are usually not so overly helpful that you want to assassinate the MS Clippy team and their families for bringing up the "assistant" idea.
It will be interesting when he installs XDarwin for an XFree86 GUI (it can run concurrently w/Agua or alone on the display)
We can foster world peace and greater understanding by using the virtual tools at our disposal:
A railgun, rocket launcher, attack shotgun, and lots of Quad Damage. Oh, and since we need to simulate reality as we want it: Lots and lots of hot, redhead girls with infinite anime-style hair--with body armor and a willingness for world unity through, oh--I don't know--sex and blowing things up.
And this time, when They say, "Impressive", you WILL be.
Slashdot Mirror
I would "watch", but who? You are an amorpheus blob of good coders to MS, nothing more.
.NET. Open Source has many coders, a few intellectual leaders in respective features, and perhaps a lawyer or two to help with GPL language. Who fights for OSS? Who will counter MS in this move directly, even surgically? In my view, I don't see anyone, and that is a challenge.
.NET initiative from happening?
.NET is a basis for many future MS work, and I don't see them backing down easily from this one. OSS has got to form a better group of soldiers to fight this attack at MS level, without becoming the monster they are fighting.
I stand by my comments. Your comments, distilled, imply that software making is akin to what becomes of "starving artists." Nice art, but it doesn't always change the world.
My definition of OSS may not be acceptable to you, but it is true. Software can be many things, but businesses aren't buying art. They buy product for a purpose. That doesn't mean that OSS can be all that and a floor wax. But MS doesn't care if OSS is also art. They are out to do a Borg to the idea. No negotiations, no pleas. Destruction. And you are trying to convince me that MS can be battled by the dream?
Even MLKing knew when to stop speaking and walk the streets with our people, organized, determined, and never losing their message of peace or losing sight of their goal.
Fortunately, MS is not a legislative body, so they can't directly change how or what we use for computing. However, their business model and monetary strength is formidable.
You seem to subscribe to the David-and-Goliath scenario. Here's a clue: David got a lucky shot. It was all it took, but it was luck, nonetheless.
Most mere mortals don't know what OSS is. That includes the corporate world, who've heard more about Linux and other OSS than the average Joe. Hasn't changed their minds much as a whole. Ironically, the way that these businesses hear of OSS is through other businesses such as IBM and other for-profit ventures. This helps the OSS cause?
It's not that the premise of OSS hasn't any power. It's just that history has shown that organized factions will overcome disorganized factions no matter how just or preferred it may be.
Microsoft has billions of dollars, thousands of people and a lot of motivation to attempt to implement
Perhaps you missed out on what goes on in the corporate world. They're capitalists. We create products to exchange for cash. That's not a bad thing. Most businesses are drones that don't easily think what's best or even what's efficient. That just go along with the corporate Joneses.
Are you so sure and naive of the power of OSS that you think it can sell itself in the magnitude necessary to keep this
I see OSS as hippies--young people with grand ideas to change the world. Well--they did, but only when they emmeshed themselves in the world they previously rebelled against to fight the system within the system. Once you get in, you can change the system to what you desire if your will is strong.
Ideas usually DO win out over time. Not everything that MS has thrown down our gullet has taken root. But
A positive analogy: Microsoft is a large, relentless Great White Shark. OSS are pirahna, but they aren't organized in a school. Get them organized, and nothing can deal with the tiny, deadly bites of hundreds of the little fish.
Don't let ideology blind you to reality, but don't lose touch with the vision as you fight.
This issue is pretty serious for OSS. Consider: While all the jaw-jacking about MS is typically justified in their stance on OSS, one thing is certain about the MS vs. Linux debate:
.NET, coral may likely be destroyed if the wave is strong and deep enough.
.NET and other MS-unique technologies have a good chance to convince the people who make decisions yet do not code--the school administrators. After all, this is a money argument, not a "mine is better" argument.
Microsoft could win it.
Imagine the software world as a big ocean. OSS is like coral. It's cooperative, works for the common good, shares its resources to build a community. As a result, a structure is built for the good of all.
Microsoft appears as waves in that ocean. None of these waves, paradoxically, are good for MS, the wave generator. Sometimes the waves are small and help to move the OSS coral's spores along to form other colonies (apps). In the case of the tidal wave known as
A wave is as strong as its organization. Microsoft has succeeded (and unjustly much of the time, but that's another topic) because it is very organized at a corporate level and can utilize resources that other groups, particularly disorganized cooperatives such as OSS groups, find hard to counter.
OSS is mostly organized at the software level, writing code. But code writing doesn't "sell" the work to the business--marketing does. And that's the front where Microsoft is working. Microsoft thinks, "Why debate the facts where we can just act like the 800-pound gorilla and flood the schools with free stuff to boister interest?"
Unfortunately, no one group or person appears to speak for OSS. Without a bona fide, consolidated group that fights MS at whatever level it wants to move to,
The OSS/MS fight is akin to hand-to-hand combat vs. carpetbombing. OSS can't fight without a general--an organized group that can move to counter MS and use its powers of hacking virtually ANYTHING into compliance or existence for UNIX systems without fee.
So , if you really really really like playing Mortal Kombat-style fighting games, go see Blade II. Also, if you want to see the trailer for the upcoming Friday the 13th movie, Jason X, Jason in Space, go see Blade II. Yes, I'm serious, Jason X. 10! In Space! Starring lots of Canadian sci-fi actors on break from Andromeda!
Jason X?
Wow. Microsoft's been really busy on that new operating system. They showed we can fly with Windows XP, and now, with Jason X, we can fly, see blood spill, and die along with our computer systems.
Neato. Hope it comes with some popcorn and a bladder-buster cola.
Apple generally does not litigate against third-party applications of their products. That would be silly--it would ultimately discourage software and hardware additions such as PCI cards and software which might augment the Mac OS or its hardware. A computer is a computer, and Apple learned long ago to allow other companies to play when the rewards work both for Apple and others.
Other products which have had third-party adaptations, although not necessarily with the tacit blessing from Apple that XPlay has includes:
--the original iMac (an early expansion slot was used for video cards, although Apple discouraged use of the port and discontinued it on later models)
--LinuxPPC, other operating systems
--USB floppy drives (when the iMac dispensed with them)
--The Outback (the first, but unofficial, Mac portable, which used the ROM from a Mac Plus)
--Basilisk (PC software which emulates an early Macintosh, ala Virtual PC for Macintosh)
Apple tends to keep to themselves unless someone appears to be directly violating their copyright, trademark, or intellectual property rights. Using the iPod is, well, using an iPod. Apple probably expects other companies to adapt it for their work. Saves Apple the trouble of manpower to create any software, but also releases them from supporting the iPod since a third-party (and non-Apple) product is in use, which may be a warranty violation.
In 1977, many people were astounded by the first console video games and arcade games--devices unimaginable by the scientists, much less entertainment industry because the technology at the time was rudimentary for such devices.
But the popularity helped to fund the technology improvements and the gaming industry took legs.
Now, we play games with millons of colors in 3D spaces with near-virtual reality situations. It only took the maturity of the technology to make it possible.
Would Java game playing require a new technological paradigm to work? Sure--it can't work under the current model. When games first appeared in the 70s on TV, there was NO significant competiton. Today, the competition is too fierce for a new idea to compete directly and the performance of current games easily exceed what platform-agnostic programming might offer right now.
But then, Atari's games started with a handful of very large pixels and simple game premise. Nobody thought a video game would point the way to what has become.
For Java to work, it would need to take on a new competitive edge. I would suggest taking the open-source approach to the commercial side. Make a MAME-like, open source game player (this may take care of the hooks needed for platform performance) that's freely distributable and extensible.
Next, sell games. Some may be free, others not. But ALL could be placed on any OS and platform desired that supports Java. You would think that we have the ability to improve Java through hardware (such as a PCI Java "processor" expansion, also available for all platforms) or even let processor evolution handle it.
I'm not a pro programmer, but Java's general specs could be made to work, if companies like Microsoft (who are so profit driven to stifle competition) don't intervene. It would have to take baby steps.
QuickTime, Apple's movie/multimedia technology, started with movies the size of a postage stamp and was the first viable movie technology for computers. Today, it allows you to watch "Star Wars" trailers (don't start with the "Pro" version stuff--that's just Apple being a business). What could the future hold tomorrow if the playing field stays fair, although not necessarily even?
HP laser printers with PostScript are first-rate. HP computers and their non-PostScript inkjet and multifunction line are what will spell doom for this company. The merger will only add more weight to their sinking business model.
Why merge with another computer company that does the same thing HP does in terms of PC design? HP and Compaq workstations are among the most proprietary PC designs around, making tech support a nightmare (I've handled both and still have shakes when I think of it).
HP has also stiffed me personally with crappy hardware--the OfficeJet multifunction printers have abysmal drivers that causes my computer to hang routinely, and the firmware of the printer is very faulty and wastes my time by giving off false hardware errors.
If HP thinks that a simple merger will help them, they are wrong. HP needs to concentrate on what they do best--and computers aren't it. How about an inexpensive PostScript printer that doesn't require an engineering degree to print one damned page?
I find Carly's determination admirable, but her goals are very suspect. HP is going the wrong way, and its too obvious.
Not quite. Open Firmware takes the place of most bootstrapping on a Macintosh logic board (motherboard). While the higher level functions of the "BIOS" are part of the OS, you cannot clone a Mac OS ROM unless you want a legion of lawyers with 5 billion dollars to burn on your case knocking on your door.
That said, Open Firmware is a open standard and could make the pleasant BIOS-less experience of a Mac startup possible with these new boards.
A cool idea...not quite a Mac logic board, but something new to play with.
I disagree, but understand your opinion.
By "closed architecture," I make the assumption that you mean that you can't go and build a Mac like one could do for a PC. True.
But then, you don't run out to your auto store to build a Jaguar. I know, the car analogy is cliched now, but it illustrates the point.
Apple doesn't expect every person to switch--only the people who consider the value of the Macintosh (both OS and hardware) worthwhile. Even if they get a fraction of Windows users to switch, they're successful.
Apple has been getting away from the "hardware proprietary" model since 1998 pretty well. Today, in their G4 towers, the only proprietary hardware (outside of the chassis) is the motherboard and perhaps the processor. Everything else can be bought and installed as you would a PC. I'm probably not telling you anything new.
I think Apple's computers meet a greater flexibility than a typical PC because they hold a tighter grip on the true standards. Some PCs offer the same standards but implement them strangely. The feel of the machine also is different from PC to PC. That's rare from a Mac perspective.
You're right on the cost--but people do seem to look a little more at looks now, too, as they would with cars. I think Apple needs to address how easy it would be to MOVE from Windows to Mac, and make it easy by making systems with Virtual PC bundled and a tool for moving data from the PC to the Mac.
I see one thing about the iMac that few have realized: Sales are through the roof and Apple is having a hard time with demand--for their HIGH END, MOST EXPENSIVE version!!! Imagine the sales numbers for the lower priced models once they work out the supply issue.
I guess baby steps is better than no progress at all in terms of turnover to Mac tech, however.
Many common software and docs are available from the online (free) subscription to ADC. Just register online, and you should be able to get SDK and tool packages by download until your eyes bleed.
For beta participation and other NDA software, you'll need to fork over cash for a stronger ADC membership, but there is a student version if you qualify. Go for it.
You hit the nail right on the head.
The elitist (yet still cool!) Jedi can't read into their own prophesies. Someone else (probably from Space.com's "Phantom Heresies" series got this idea published earlier, but I'll repeat here for fun.
The Jedi prophesy that the Chosen One would "bring balance to the Force" works, but as the Jedi discover, not in their favor. The Force doesn't need the Jedi or Sith--they need it more. The Chosen One creates the balance by DESTROYING some 10,000 Jedi and apprentices, leaving only one master and one apprentice on each side (Emperor/Vader, and Yoda/Obi-Wan).
The reason that these Force users are around also has something to do with their use of foretelling through the Force. Most Jedi, like Qui-Gon, probably do the "keep your mind on the here and now" thing. That philosophy ultimately gets them killed. Yoda and Obi-Wan can SEE the end coming--and take measures for another day. They can even see their demise, more or less, as Obi-Wan predicted to Luke before sacrificing himself to keep Vader from hindering Luke's first Death Star escape.
The Emperor and Vader use the same talent, but it seems that mucking with the Dark Side doesn't give you the clarity that the Jedi had--otherwise, both Palpatine and Vader would have gotten a vague clue that they were about to part ways the Hard Way.
The Jedi have survived as stoics (like the Vulcans of Star Trek fame). They know that emotion taints the use of the Force. That's why they really should have left Anakin alone, but their curiosity got them killed.
Yep, ultimately, Anakin is a hero--he was the ONLY person capable of taking out the Emperor, who was more powerful than anyone except Vader. The Emperor knew this and subjugated Anakin to prevent what he ultimately did--kill the Emperor.
Why must Anakin become a Sith? It was the only way to get close enough to the Emperor.
There are many simple reasons why, if Ocaam's Razor were applied (and without any lubrication whatsoever) to this.
While I suspect that Harry has read of things from the movie (of that, things are leaked like crazy: visit http://theforce.net for lots of stuff), it is HIGHLY unlikely that he's seen the movie in its final form. Why?
Because, according to LFL, the movie still has a lot of post-production work (the CGI) to be done. In fact, the latest preview is missing a few key pieces...watch the last scene where 14 Jedi are on their last stand, surrounded by a lot of aliens and battle droids. Funny that the Jedi are reflecting blaster shots which come from nowhere.
The movie isn't complete. I checked my ass--it seems that someone has been trying to blow smoke up it.
Apple has sold its Network Assistant product separately in much the same way as this new product (which IS its replacement for remote administration). It also has bundled ANA with any Macintosh Server configuration sold.
I would think that the new product would be included with a Server hardware rig as ANA had because it improves the server's value.
For individuals and small places, I'd go the route of VNC or an alternative. However, none of these could provide the asset and admin functions of what ANA (and probably the new product) offers.
That's the nice thing about using OS X. Since it's a BSD family member, more alternatives for the software end are available.
This is such a troll that I almost ran into the bridge it hid on.
I won't even go into picking apart your rant. Your lack of power of the English language says it all.
Research your facts before you waste space. Whether Apple is wrong or not, no one is ever in the mood to listen to what seems to be a village idiot, talking much but saying little of factual consequence.
Mac OS X and X Server have all the pinnings of a manageable computer network, much of it compatible with or identical with other computer standards such as LDAP. I've read the PDF on interfacing Mac OS X users with Windows 2000 Active Directory, and it is a promising tool I can use in the future.
What Apple still needs is the breadth of documentation to teach and apply these tools. Try a search on Google on "NetInfo" and you'll find many topics, very few of which explains information about Apple's OS directory system.
It's a good system, mind you, with promise. However, I can find a book on a NetInfo counterpart, Windows 2000 Active Directory, easily. Apple still lacks sufficient IT professional credibility since there isn't as much documentation. They are trying to change this (through new certifications--see www.apple.com/service), but the way is glacial compared to Windows and UNIX services.
Perhaps Apple should extend NetInfo to other UNIX operating systems--maybe even open source it to gain a greater support and technical base.
Here's a link to this change, from the makers of the WebStar web server software for Mac OS. This was a couple of years ago.
http://www.webstar.com/army/
This was based on Mac OS 9 technology, which is pretty unhackable. Mac OS X is just another UNIX in the Web world (uses Apache) but WebStar is making a OS X version of its web server that doesn't sound like they're putting a GUI on Apache but using their own code.
Yep--I remember this feeling happening with Windows 95, too, and Mac OS 7, especially since it required (gasp!) a hard drive and scads of RAM.
Stick to OS 9 and fight the system--it's OK. It's more important to use what works for you. Apple typically doesn't kill us for that decision like some other software companies we know. Keep in mind, though, that time will win out in about a couple of years as the OS X train rolls through and 10-native apps are almost exclusive for the major things.
Funny that the users of the most flexible consumer OS are the most inflexible. Experienced Mac users are the hardest affected by the OS X change, yet UNIX nuts and Windows converts are more forgiving. Oh, well. Good luck to you--OS 9 will be around for some time to come. No worries.
I'm a tech, so don't feel that I'm centering you out. KNOW that I'm centering you out. I hate whiners.
As the original thread smartly noted, yes, there are several factions in the Mac camp. Sorry that your older Mac can't run OS X--here's a hankie. Buy the new Mac and stop whining--if you are who you claim to be, you know for a fact that you got a lot of use from your older Mac, but nothing--not even a Mac--lasts forever. You can't expect an auto dealer to upgrade your old car to the latest widgets, and its unreasonable to assume that your old Mac can do Mac OS X unless its a G3.
I've been using Macs since their inception and PCs slightly before that, with countless computers between those. And I've helped those with old Macs move on, whether to PC iron or a new Mac. It's disappointing to have to leave behind something that works well, but time affects all, including computers. A Macintosh's effective life is about 7 years. Stop feeling miserly. If you like the technology, buy it.
The original poster isn't "segregating' anything. He can run practically any OS on the planet under OS X--including all the OSs you mentioned. Can you do that right now? The answer, if you were happy with your situation is, "No, but I have what I need." That's fine. OS 9 and other OSs are great still, even in their twilight.
But stop whining already. Appreciate what others have or just resist the urge to babble about this topic.
And learn to separate your thoughts with paragraphs, for cryin' out loud.
Your information is a bit off on the "OS X runs well" part.
Mac OS X runs well on machinery as old as January 1999. I know--I'm writing this post from my Power Mac G4 Blue-and-White, where OS X is fine. I've also run it on older hardware with fair (but not suitable) results back in its beta days.
OS X, like any other OS, needs RAM. About 128MB is OK if you are NOT running any Classic apps. If you plan on doing Classic, add another 64MB minimum. OS X prefers a decent video card (the RAGE 128 16MB card built-in works fine) which is what causes slowdowns on older G3 hardware such as the Beige G3 desktop/tower and earlier iMacs which haven't great video at all.
The differences between a G3 and G4 chip are subtle. What makes the speed is the same as on a PC motherboard--RAM, video, bus, and processor. Sure, OS X screams on G4 iron, but you don't -have- to go there.
Never say never.
The fact that it is possible is found in Office for Mac OS X. While this isn't a true recompile (it uses updated Mac OS X APIs), it still is, in essence, a UNIX application.
But politically, it may a frosty day in Hades before MS considers it. Too bad. They're losing bucks.
Imagine Microsoft deciding to take a Linux distro for a new version of Windows. That's possible, even just to piss off other distro makers. Now, MS logically would port their primary apps to this new distro, such as Office.
And, if they could do that, they would have no problem porting to other UNiX versions. And this still would be no threat to traditional Windows, which is still so damned entrenched in number of users. MS would only be extending their application market to UNIX users as they continue to make Mac OS versions of some of their apps.
Some major operating systems (hint-it ain't Windows) lends itself to troubleshooting and repair in a little over 1 hour. And, yes, I -am- in IT and have been for some time.
Some operating systems don't suffer "file rot" like Windows where the OS becomes so decrepit that it HAS to be reimaged after only a few months.
Sure, experience counts in this (most MCSEs aren't worth the paper they're printed on since they lack true field experience), but, honestly, an operating system shouldn't bugger out at the frequency that Windows does (pick one, even XP, which I watched BSOD on national TV a few times recently) anymore than a car does.
Considering that NASA likely makes their OWN operating systems or variants of UNIX to handle probes lends more to their skill when the chips are down/burned/otherwise offline.
I'm not trying to flame, but this "reimage" mentality in Windows IT always chaps my ass. UNIX users look at us as if we grew a third eye for such procedures. It's easy to reimage a secretary's system, but some computer users have more complex environments that "cloned OS"s don't cover. Ask a specialized prepress or scientific user. Recovery and redundancy measures are needed, but your example doesn't cover these kind of users.
Even free speech under the Constitution is restricted under specific, remarkably stupid applications. These would include:
--Standing up in a crowd with the intent to incite a riot
I would think that his free speech notion is invalid because it endangers an actual process with possibility of harm. In this case:
--Internet mail servers
--Operating systems (Windows primarily--hah!)
--Our common fscking sensibilities
...has an interesting origin, although space buffs may see more into it.
The probe was named "2001 Mars Odyssey" in respect to Arthur C. Clarke and his works, keeping in mind that the name "Odyssey" comes from the story of Odysseus, who did that "Flying Dutchman" thing for many years after pissing Poseidon off.
Odyssey was also the name of the doomed Command/Service Module of Apollo 13.
NASA sometimes can't figure out bad luck markers when they see it--
1. Don't push every superstitious button that Fate offers you (Apollo 13, lifted off on 4/11/70 at military 13:13 hours, entered lunar gravity on the third day of their flight, 4/13)
2. Don't do anything daring or new in January. (Apollo 1, died in pad fire 1/27/67)
3. Be sure to review item 2. (Challenger disaster, with a civilian (new), on a cold (daring) January day, 1/28/86)
4. Make sure the spacecraft hatches stay where they're expected (Gus Grissom's near-drowning after Liberty Bell 7 blows hatch after splashdown, 1961)
5. Make sure the spacecraft hatches can open when the crew really needs to go (Apollo 1 fire, where Gus G. dies from suffocation from a very secure hatch).
6. Never name any project after anything that rhymes with "trouble." (Hubble multi-million optics goof, 1990)
Apple knew that experienced OS 9 users would create HAVOC with the OS if they gave them a root account. Mac OS 9 practically encourages major modifications to the OS and Apple didn't want OS X users to get into the same habit for good reason. They also knew that people would want one who understood it, so they disabled it for user stupidity's sake.
OS X asks for an admin password on every account but root as an extra security measure when software is installed. Many Mac techs can understand me when I say that it is good that users can't change critical stuff, including installing unapproved software on their computer, even if you (the bonehead tech) logged in as an admin (NOT ROOT!) and forgot to log off. Even with the account still up, a user will still need an admin login to install anything. Good.
Not that Apple gave their reasons for doing what they did--most of us had to figure it out the hard way. Bad.
Nothing's perfect. Remember that Mac OS X is a "1.0" in reality, and, given that, it's working pretty well for most. I've never had any system crashes since I started its use last March.
.plist files. Ditto for the transparencies and such.
Zarf's experience confirms three issues about using Mac OS X:
-If you are an experienced Mac OS 9 user, you will do things to your computer (and vice versa) that will be adverse. Example--moving applications out of the Applications folder. OS X updaters expect to find all Apple-installed apps in their original locations. Previous OS versions generally did not care, but this breaks OS X updates.
Tip: LEAVE OS X application locations alone. X apps and other non-Apple OS X apps can be placed whereever you want, but the Applications folder is preferable.
--If you are an experienced UNIX/Linux user, OS X feels fine, but the GUI gets a little in the way, particularly when you're trying to get to the CLI and stay there awhile. The way OS X handles configuration files threw him, too--OS X preferences can be edited, but you don't have dotfiles, but
--If you hate the fluff of Windows, a few interface issues will annoy both kinds of users. Fortunately, unlike Windows XP, the OS does not attempt to find a way to sell you something on launching any app. Also, (Office X excluded) Mac apps are usually not so overly helpful that you want to assassinate the MS Clippy team and their families for bringing up the "assistant" idea.
It will be interesting when he installs XDarwin for an XFree86 GUI (it can run concurrently w/Agua or alone on the display)
We can foster world peace and greater understanding by using the virtual tools at our disposal:
A railgun, rocket launcher, attack shotgun, and lots of Quad Damage. Oh, and since we need to simulate reality as we want it: Lots and lots of hot, redhead girls with infinite anime-style hair--with body armor and a willingness for world unity through, oh--I don't know--sex and blowing things up.
And this time, when They say, "Impressive", you WILL be.