I would joke that it was running Windows NT, and NO ALIEN would want to touch that POS OS for fear of assimiliation.
It may be nice to know for brag rights that the spacecraft is using a radiation-hardened version of the POWER chip, of which the PowerPC chip family is included. No Pentiums there, unless they want to start global warning by landing the thing.
/././.
Re:Which releases are production stable?
on
Linux 2.4.13
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Mac OS X 10.1.
Aw, hell, even Darwin sounds better than the holy hell that a Linux kernel update can bring. The current yelling in here makes me wonder if the yellers should just blow up their PCs and use an abacus.
But then, they would be back, complaining that they can't use their DVD or joysticks with their abacus, and want the latest abacus kernel...
/./././.
Re:Sense when as MS set computing standards?
on
Microsoft's Future
·
· Score: 1
Apple DID invent FireWire, and placed it as the 1394 standard. Sony only uses it, and is one of its biggest fans.
Apple DID commercialize the graphic interface. Windows only rode the bandwagon (and, graphically speaking, badly).
Apple did not invent USB, but the introduction of the iMac with USB technologies brought the otherwise-mortibund serial port to popularity on both sides. Microsoft didn't care--at the time, Windows 95 USB features were virtually broken, and sadly, Linux wasn't up on it yet either (but was closer than MS).
The Joliet formats (crappy tech that it is) came after the Red Book, Yellow Book, and High Sierra standards which allow all platforms to use a common CD-ROM base. ISO 9660 is a standard not created by any one company.
You wouldn't have a mouse if it weren't for companies that don't toe the line.
Apple users are no less intelligent than your puny attempts at trolling, wise guy. Microsoft has brought practically every technology they have shoved on us. Recent examples:
Windows Media Player: technologies from VivoActive, a great RealPlayer competitor in 1996.
IntelliMouse: Great mice (I use them exclusively on my computers) but licensed from Logitech (the mouse guys)
Internet Explorer: Mosaic.
I can go on with older examples. Other companies, including Apple, do this as well, but not with the same monotone zeal as MS. The only thing MS has innovated is the way they can shaft companies for more money in software licensing for useful (if you use a Mac) to horrid (for PCs) software.
Don't open your face without the facts to back it up.
/.
Re:What's with the hostility for VB?
on
Microsoft's Future
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Simple: VIRUSES AND WORMS.
VB is the biggest liability for Microsoft, and it opened thousands of companies up to downtime and excess labor costs while fighting features that basically created a giant "hack me" sign to those who took advantage.
VB may be easy to code, but its support in the OS creates holes large enough for the Queen Mary to pass through.
I would suggest a more secure way to code in Windows, but I don't think there are any...
It's obvious they didn't learn their lesson when the USS Yorktown had to be towed back to port when their NT-based automation that ran the ship crashed.
Further, it shows that they don't read: they can't make the coorelation that MS technology can be easily compromised through viruses and hacks. UNIX (in most of its forms) is highly resistance to this. As I've learned with the infant Mac OS X, you can't even sneeze next that OS without permissions!
I loved the show. It felt more like TOS than any other show, and the RoT (Rate of Technobabble) was very low--they REALLY tried to keep the technology way behind the humanity needed to make the new characters real. They succeeded for a two-hour premiere.
Now, let's get something really straight (aside from T'Pol's chest--ahhhh) about ST. NOTHING IS CANON. EVER. We'd like to think that the ST universe is consistent. We'd also like to see Usama bin Laden's head on a pike. Only one of these possibilities may come to pass.
Although it tried initially, too many cooks put their hands in ST's pot, from the various series to the books and movies, and even games. NOTHING is consistent. Treat ST more like Mystery Science Theater and you'll breathe easier.
ST's current writers and producers did rediscover a part of the goodness, and I hope it continues. If you need canons and continuity, go enjoy Farscape, B5, and Stargate. All good, with little of that ST "let's pretend we're DC Comics and reinvent the f***ing universe again" schtick.
It's a little early to tell, but the design of the OS should get rid of a lot of this. When apps are ported, the peculiarities of the OS get in the way. The original Mac OS code handled apps differently than more modern (though not necessarily better) OSs like Windows. Porting was HARD. Today, I've personally downloaded and installed software written specifically for Linux and UNIX and used it on Mac OS X without modification. Sure, that's not OS X native, but its native enough. For many *nix apps out there, it's a matter of throwing an interface on it to make it available in Aqua.
My assessment is that, if the application was built for UNIX or cocoa (Mac OS X/OpenStep/Objective C design), it will sing in OS X, especially with the OS X 10.1 optimizations. I'm sure Office v.X will enjoy much of these optimizations, but it's still Microsoft who produces it (although the Mac division does its best to ignore that, it seems).
Not OS X per se, but its core software, Darwin, is essentially an open source BSD release. Quite a lot of work has been done on it. You can't run OS X-specific apps (things that expect the Aqua interface), but Linux and UNIX apps should port as well as they do in OS X.
It's the power and integration of the Macintosh hardware and software that makes OS X shine. Even if Apple chose to port the Whole Thing to x86, you would need a much more fortified PC than you would normally buy off the street.
Better than nothing, or maybe just do FreeBSD. Try www.darwinfo.org.
Isn't the whole idea of having a computer (according to most Linux/open source-friendly sites I visit) is the freedom to be as diverse as you want to be?
If that's the case, this iBook has come the closest to that ideal, with the ability of running so many operating systems that it would make Bill Gates' head swim. Nice as some of them are, a PC laptop can't run classic Mac OS or not--although I understand if none of us want to. I'd prefer OS X.
Or, actually, Mac OS X with X Windows up to run everything that the Linux folks enjoy until a OS X native app comes along. Or, what the hell, install Linux PPC or Debian Linux, or Yellow Dog Linux....
...ad infinitum. There's no "zealotry" in this anymore than the snobbery of Apple hardware over PC hardware. This is an area we need not touch--there's Microsoft, and there's the UNIX family (Mac OS X is still a baby but it beats the living hell out of much of what Redmond has to offer).
The PC was popular for all that you said, but also because it was cheap. Now, that "cheap" means "poor quality" more than inexpensive.
True, Apple made mistakes in its initial compact box, which was closed. But Apple's boxes have been as open as PCs since 1987 with the introduction of the Mac II. Your information is beyond old. True, you can't swap out a logic board, but you wouldn't need to do that to a Mac anymore than to a Jaguar or Porsche. They're built the right way the first time. Anything you -could- improve upon is replaceable--drives, RAM, the usual stuff.
I agree a little in the software side, but then, the Macintosh world does not tolerate crap. Apple's problem was that Mac development was more complex than any OS. (BTW, this also explains why they are only 55 or so conventional Mac viruses vs. over 20,000 for PC systems with Windows--it's too easy to program there, if there is such a thing).
The relatively few (14,000) Mac apps there are actually useful, just as they are in the *nix world (also crap-resistant). How many word processors and first-person shooter games do you need?? The PC world is loaded with useless, bloated and buggy apps. Just walk through a CompUSA.
And unfortunately we can't walk in there and pick up a ready to use word processor for a Linux box. There's tradeoffs to everything, but I'd rather stick with a Linux or Mac box that has stuff that works efficiently.
You're right---Microsoft is asking for it, especially but controlling how you install their OS (what happens in a crash?--an all too frequent occurence--and you have to rebuild the box?).
I think Microsoft has had plenty of years to become evil. They're merely reaping the fruits as they have for years already.
I didn't say that *Mac OS X* ran on Intel hardware (although, if Apple wanted it to, it could with little problem). Apple took the core OS components (a fusion of BSD with Mach) and made it open source as "Darwin", which will run on Intel as well as Mac hardware. Anything you build for Darwin does indeed run on Mac OS X (provided no platform dependencies exist).
Darwin's development is moving fast; X is installed and up, and many apps have been ported. It's nowhere close to Linux's maturity, but it's essentially a form of BSD that may help move *nix use more into the mainstream--which may create more interest in the major software makers to develop for Linux, BSD, Darwin, and Mac OS X, since they can all run the same apps with minor tweaking and recompiling (helped more if XDarwin, an app that runs XWindows in Mac OS X, is used).
Interesting thread. As a dominant Mac OS user, I'm frequently stuck with Microsoft-only solutions (Mac OS 9 isn't that hackable, you see, and I'm not quite the best programmer) such as Internet Explorer for Mac (generally good app) and Office 2001 (leagues above its Windows counterpart).
But I'm still stuck on these options--at least, until Mac OS X came along.
NOW--I have the power to use what most Linux/Unix folks have and enjoy a GUI that will be written for the masses, which can still run its apps from the earlier non-Unix Mac OS.
Consider this: Apple is now the largest distributor of a form of UNIX. That's a Good Thing because what Linux has lacked was a vehicle with sufficient visibility and capital to make it more than a "fringe" OS (I know, the Mac OS is called those dirty names too--I'm repeating them here for the sake of brotherly love between Linux and Mac). Since Apple has a generally good GPL with its Darwin port of Mac OS X, the FreeBSD folks may be able to pull the benefits placed in Darwin by Apple and others to other BSD and Linux ports because they have the money to do so. Think about it. MS is now the only major OS maker with a closed box. Mac OS X is open (with Darwin) along with most UNIX/Linux distributions.
And, most importantly, MS will HAVE to write code that works for UNIX eventually--Apple is one of their customers, and Steve Jobs always deals with the Devils to get product. Eventually, UNIX code will be more efficient than Mac OS Carbonization of existing code.
Thus, MS may eventually write for UNIX because that's the only other OS class out there--and because Apple brought UNIX into the mainstream (don't flame--not all of us are whiz kids who can./configure).
Sure, if you're completely anti-establishment and think Apple is as "evil" as MS, then your opinion will differ. I don't see Apple as a savior or anything, but its presence in the UNIX family is a breath of fresh air in some circles. And, while I liked the possibilities of Linux PPC and Yellow Dog, without a capital push behind it (or compatibility with my current apps), they remained only possibilities.
I'm continually surprised and grateful at the many folks who've ported *nix apps to Mac OS X with good to great results (GIMP is available now, if that's any indication). Apple's presence may help bring interest to the whole UNIX family--and as we know, once you make the code, the porting is simple. Will the code be GPL? Probably not, especially not from Redmond. Will it run on our systems? Hell, yes! Will we still have options? As long as the *nix GPL family keeps doing what it's been doing.
Slashdot Mirror
I would joke that it was running Windows NT, and NO ALIEN would want to touch that POS OS for fear of assimiliation.
It may be nice to know for brag rights that the spacecraft is using a radiation-hardened version of the POWER chip, of which the PowerPC chip family is included. No Pentiums there, unless they want to start global warning by landing the thing.
/././.
Mac OS X 10.1.
Aw, hell, even Darwin sounds better than the holy hell that a Linux kernel update can bring. The current yelling in here makes me wonder if the yellers should just blow up their PCs and use an abacus.
But then, they would be back, complaining that they can't use their DVD or joysticks with their abacus, and want the latest abacus kernel...
/./././.
Apple DID invent FireWire, and placed it as the 1394 standard. Sony only uses it, and is one of its biggest fans.
Apple DID commercialize the graphic interface. Windows only rode the bandwagon (and, graphically speaking, badly).
Apple did not invent USB, but the introduction of the iMac with USB technologies brought the otherwise-mortibund serial port to popularity on both sides. Microsoft didn't care--at the time, Windows 95 USB features were virtually broken, and sadly, Linux wasn't up on it yet either (but was closer than MS).
The Joliet formats (crappy tech that it is) came after the Red Book, Yellow Book, and High Sierra standards which allow all platforms to use a common CD-ROM base. ISO 9660 is a standard not created by any one company.
You wouldn't have a mouse if it weren't for companies that don't toe the line.
Apple users are no less intelligent than your puny attempts at trolling, wise guy. Microsoft has brought practically every technology they have shoved on us. Recent examples:
Windows Media Player: technologies from VivoActive, a great RealPlayer competitor in 1996.
IntelliMouse: Great mice (I use them exclusively on my computers) but licensed from Logitech (the mouse guys)
Internet Explorer: Mosaic.
I can go on with older examples. Other companies, including Apple, do this as well, but not with the same monotone zeal as MS. The only thing MS has innovated is the way they can shaft companies for more money in software licensing for useful (if you use a Mac) to horrid (for PCs) software.
Don't open your face without the facts to back it up.
/.
Simple: VIRUSES AND WORMS.
VB is the biggest liability for Microsoft, and it opened thousands of companies up to downtime and excess labor costs while fighting features that basically created a giant "hack me" sign to those who took advantage.
VB may be easy to code, but its support in the OS creates holes large enough for the Queen Mary to pass through.
I would suggest a more secure way to code in Windows, but I don't think there are any...
Simple:
It's now "The Nerd Network."
It's obvious they didn't learn their lesson when the USS Yorktown had to be towed back to port when their NT-based automation that ran the ship crashed.
Further, it shows that they don't read: they can't make the coorelation that MS technology can be easily compromised through viruses and hacks. UNIX (in most of its forms) is highly resistance to this. As I've learned with the infant Mac OS X, you can't even sneeze next that OS without permissions!
I loved the show. It felt more like TOS than any other show, and the RoT (Rate of Technobabble) was very low--they REALLY tried to keep the technology way behind the humanity needed to make the new characters real. They succeeded for a two-hour premiere.
Now, let's get something really straight (aside from T'Pol's chest--ahhhh) about ST. NOTHING IS CANON. EVER. We'd like to think that the ST universe is consistent. We'd also like to see Usama bin Laden's head on a pike. Only one of these possibilities may come to pass.
Although it tried initially, too many cooks put their hands in ST's pot, from the various series to the books and movies, and even games. NOTHING is consistent. Treat ST more like Mystery Science Theater and you'll breathe easier.
ST's current writers and producers did rediscover a part of the goodness, and I hope it continues. If you need canons and continuity, go enjoy Farscape, B5, and Stargate. All good, with little of that ST "let's pretend we're DC Comics and reinvent the f***ing universe again" schtick.
It's a little early to tell, but the design of the OS should get rid of a lot of this. When apps are ported, the peculiarities of the OS get in the way. The original Mac OS code handled apps differently than more modern (though not necessarily better) OSs like Windows. Porting was HARD. Today, I've personally downloaded and installed software written specifically for Linux and UNIX and used it on Mac OS X without modification. Sure, that's not OS X native, but its native enough. For many *nix apps out there, it's a matter of throwing an interface on it to make it available in Aqua.
My assessment is that, if the application was built for UNIX or cocoa (Mac OS X/OpenStep/Objective C design), it will sing in OS X, especially with the OS X 10.1 optimizations. I'm sure Office v.X will enjoy much of these optimizations, but it's still Microsoft who produces it (although the Mac division does its best to ignore that, it seems).
Bite us, you coward.
Try making that Gateway POS handle professional quality digital video and playback in your lifetime.
Not OS X per se, but its core software, Darwin, is essentially an open source BSD release. Quite a lot of work has been done on it. You can't run OS X-specific apps (things that expect the Aqua interface), but Linux and UNIX apps should port as well as they do in OS X.
It's the power and integration of the Macintosh hardware and software that makes OS X shine. Even if Apple chose to port the Whole Thing to x86, you would need a much more fortified PC than you would normally buy off the street.
Better than nothing, or maybe just do FreeBSD. Try www.darwinfo.org.
Isn't the whole idea of having a computer (according to most Linux/open source-friendly sites I visit) is the freedom to be as diverse as you want to be?
If that's the case, this iBook has come the closest to that ideal, with the ability of running so many operating systems that it would make Bill Gates' head swim. Nice as some of them are, a PC laptop can't run classic Mac OS or not--although I understand if none of us want to. I'd prefer OS X.
Or, actually, Mac OS X with X Windows up to run everything that the Linux folks enjoy until a OS X native app comes along. Or, what the hell, install Linux PPC or Debian Linux, or Yellow Dog Linux....
...ad infinitum. There's no "zealotry" in this anymore than the snobbery of Apple hardware over PC hardware. This is an area we need not touch--there's Microsoft, and there's the UNIX family (Mac OS X is still a baby but it beats the living hell out of much of what Redmond has to offer).
The PC was popular for all that you said, but also because it was cheap. Now, that "cheap" means "poor quality" more than inexpensive.
True, Apple made mistakes in its initial compact box, which was closed. But Apple's boxes have been as open as PCs since 1987 with the introduction of the Mac II. Your information is beyond old. True, you can't swap out a logic board, but you wouldn't need to do that to a Mac anymore than to a Jaguar or Porsche. They're built the right way the first time. Anything you -could- improve upon is replaceable--drives, RAM, the usual stuff.
I agree a little in the software side, but then, the Macintosh world does not tolerate crap. Apple's problem was that Mac development was more complex than any OS. (BTW, this also explains why they are only 55 or so conventional Mac viruses vs. over 20,000 for PC systems with Windows--it's too easy to program there, if there is such a thing).
The relatively few (14,000) Mac apps there are actually useful, just as they are in the *nix world (also crap-resistant). How many word processors and first-person shooter games do you need?? The PC world is loaded with useless, bloated and buggy apps. Just walk through a CompUSA.
And unfortunately we can't walk in there and pick up a ready to use word processor for a Linux box. There's tradeoffs to everything, but I'd rather stick with a Linux or Mac box that has stuff that works efficiently.
You're right---Microsoft is asking for it, especially but controlling how you install their OS (what happens in a crash?--an all too frequent occurence--and you have to rebuild the box?).
I think Microsoft has had plenty of years to become evil. They're merely reaping the fruits as they have for years already.
I didn't say that *Mac OS X* ran on Intel hardware (although, if Apple wanted it to, it could with little problem). Apple took the core OS components (a fusion of BSD with Mach) and made it open source as "Darwin", which will run on Intel as well as Mac hardware. Anything you build for Darwin does indeed run on Mac OS X (provided no platform dependencies exist).
Darwin's development is moving fast; X is installed and up, and many apps have been ported. It's nowhere close to Linux's maturity, but it's essentially a form of BSD that may help move *nix use more into the mainstream--which may create more interest in the major software makers to develop for Linux, BSD, Darwin, and Mac OS X, since they can all run the same apps with minor tweaking and recompiling (helped more if XDarwin, an app that runs XWindows in Mac OS X, is used).
Interesting thread. As a dominant Mac OS user, I'm frequently stuck with Microsoft-only solutions (Mac OS 9 isn't that hackable, you see, and I'm not quite the best programmer) such as Internet Explorer for Mac (generally good app) and Office 2001 (leagues above its Windows counterpart).
./configure).
But I'm still stuck on these options--at least, until Mac OS X came along.
NOW--I have the power to use what most Linux/Unix folks have and enjoy a GUI that will be written for the masses, which can still run its apps from the earlier non-Unix Mac OS.
Consider this: Apple is now the largest distributor of a form of UNIX. That's a Good Thing because what Linux has lacked was a vehicle with sufficient visibility and capital to make it more than a "fringe" OS (I know, the Mac OS is called those dirty names too--I'm repeating them here for the sake of brotherly love between Linux and Mac). Since Apple has a generally good GPL with its Darwin port of Mac OS X, the FreeBSD folks may be able to pull the benefits placed in Darwin by Apple and others to other BSD and Linux ports because they have the money to do so. Think about it. MS is now the only major OS maker with a closed box. Mac OS X is open (with Darwin) along with most UNIX/Linux distributions.
And, most importantly, MS will HAVE to write code that works for UNIX eventually--Apple is one of their customers, and Steve Jobs always deals with the Devils to get product. Eventually, UNIX code will be more efficient than Mac OS Carbonization of existing code.
Thus, MS may eventually write for UNIX because that's the only other OS class out there--and because Apple brought UNIX into the mainstream (don't flame--not all of us are whiz kids who can
Sure, if you're completely anti-establishment and think Apple is as "evil" as MS, then your opinion will differ. I don't see Apple as a savior or anything, but its presence in the UNIX family is a breath of fresh air in some circles. And, while I liked the possibilities of Linux PPC and Yellow Dog, without a capital push behind it (or compatibility with my current apps), they remained only possibilities.
I'm continually surprised and grateful at the many folks who've ported *nix apps to Mac OS X with good to great results (GIMP is available now, if that's any indication). Apple's presence may help bring interest to the whole UNIX family--and as we know, once you make the code, the porting is simple. Will the code be GPL? Probably not, especially not from Redmond. Will it run on our systems? Hell, yes! Will we still have options? As long as the *nix GPL family keeps doing what it's been doing.