You are quite right. OS/2 was killed by IBM itself. With a flamethrower. The remains run over with a bulldozer several times. Dumped into a tank full of acid.
In early '93 IBM Germany started a big campaign to get OS/2 to the public. You could get OS/2 2.0 for a more or less symbolic sum (I don't remember how much it was, but quite inexpensive), with a cheap upgrade to OS/2 2.1 coming out shortly after it. And it really rocked. Then Warp (3.0) came, even better. But then the Internet came. For Windows (3.x) at the time you had to use Trumpet Winsock, which sucked but at least was there. Warp had a dial-up client, but no real LAN TCP/IP functionality. The TCP/IP stack had to be purchased separately. Expensively. But even if you wanted to, there was no way to get it: IBM sold its OS/2 add-ons only through their local partners, which just were not interested to send some guy who didn't want to purchase an entire network from them a quote over a one software package for a measly 300 EUR. I never even got any kind of answer from them. So no TCP/IP in the LAN. So sooner or later goodbye OS/2 and hello Win95 and Linux (they changed this with OS/2 4.0, but then NT 4 was already coming out, so too little too late).
This is just one example of the boneheaded decisions IBM made regarding marketing and sales of OS/2. But there were many of them. It speaks for OS/2 that in spite of all this it was so hard to kill.
Re:The Secret to Futurama's success
on
Futurama Returns!
·
· Score: 1
Oh my god. I got the joke without having to resort to incomplete explanations in Wikipedia ! I did the GOTO 10 thing myself, back in the day ! I AM OLD ! *breaks down crying*
If IBM is vegetating I think lots of other companies would like to vegetate, too. They may be far away from their former total market domination, but they still are one of the leading IT companies worldwide and are still pretty damn big and influential.
It is right that they were on the brink of going under in the 90s, but I think that was more to grave management mistakes and a corporate culture not having adapted to the changes of the time than due to the nature of their products itself.
To even relate some (admittedly shady) license deals between some minor Linux player and MS with the Holocaust or genocide in general is not only somewhat tasteless but impossible to take seriously. If some people around here wouldn't be such drama queens and take themselves and their movement much too seriously it would make it easier for them not to be taken for some nutjobs in the non-technical world (which has to happen if you ever really want to make a change in patent law and how MS and its deals are perceived in the general public).
Sure. The same as on Usenet, any kind of Web forum etc.pp. And you get all kind of astroturfers, trolls, self important idiots and fanbois, but also lots of people with real experience and know-how (ok, now who's who ?).
Perhaps I formulated it wrong in that you do not necessarily find out what works but rather what not. If enough people say "xyz does not work because blablabla" and not another hundred people come in screaming "wrong ! wrong!" or the other way round you get at least some idea about the merits of a product and its service and of possible problems (and their possible solutions, if there are any). In that/. is just one source of information among many, and one that you have to take with a biiiig spoon of salt, but nevertheless it can be quite useful as a starter. Even if a lot of Ask Slashdots really can be solved with a simple Google search and do not give anyone the slightest insight about anything I think that in that case there is some value.
Certainly you are right in that if you use/. as your sole source of information on anything you deserve the beating you will get, but this is not different to most other sources of information today, I'm afraid. At least of/. noone expects that anything is unbiased, factually correct and up-to-date.;-)
Especially with firewalls it makes sense doing an Ask Slashdot. Google will give you myriads of possible solutions of all kind, and every vendor or consultant has some kind of firewall solution they are trying to push, often because they make shitloads of money selling broken or oversized commercial solutions.
Getting an impression of what works for whom is priceless, even/especially if you are already working with some kind of security consultant (I cannot count the ridiculously insecure, oversized/-priced and/or insane security setups I have seen that "security consultants" have sold some poor company).
I think there is almost no field of IT where that many totally incompetent people are trying to sell snakeoil than IT security.
For me it's not about giving anyone a chance. This is neither a person nor a religion, it's a product. Either I find a product compelling (which apparently more than enough people do with OS X, fine with me, more power to them) or I don't (BTW as I stated above I don't find Apple's main product - its hardware - not uncompelling).
It's people like you that try to turn a choice between several competing products that also doesn't have to be exclusive into some kind of crusade. Do you define yourself through your choice of OS ? If this is the case I really pity you. Oh, and try to get a username. You know, it's free.
I think it's really hard to say why I "switched back" (I never really completely switched, as I use my Macs (I also own a G4 Mini) in parallel with Windows machines and Linux). It's not that OS X is a bad OS IMO, also the hardware is adequately priced, seeing that you only recently got able to buy machines comparable to the MacMini from other vendors that are usually not much cheaper if at all, and that noone has an all-in-one machine comparable to the iMac.
On the contrary, OS X is really nice looking and all, and it still amazes me how Apple manages to make Macs boot as fast as they do, which makes look both Windows and Linux really bad in comparison. Also I think that especially the latest Parallels version with their coherence mode is just great and also performs quite well.
So why ? It is not bad, but it also it is not that much better than anything else that it really makes any sense for me to re-purchase most of the applications I am already owning for Windows for the Mac. The same for Parallels: If I end up booting up OS X just to fire up Parallels and use most of my existing Windows apps, then why not make the most use of my nice hardware and install Windows directly on the Mac ? In the end most things I did on the Mac side were playing with Dashboard and surfing the Web, but I hardly need a 2000 EUR laptop for that. Regarding the iLife suite (touted by many Mac fans as reason no. 1 to switch) I find iPhoto totally irritating and featurewise poor, iTunes I get for Windows anyways, and the rest I have no use for.
In the end the choice of one's OS - as so many things - comes down to ones personal taste and what one is used to. Everyone else's milelage is sure to vary.
Count me in (eventually installed Vista on my MBP C2D, would even be better if Apple's BIOS emulation wouldn't suck rocks, the same applies in my experience to running Linux on the MBP).
Hm. I think you are right that there should indeed be a certain gas exchange, as the mechanical conditions are given - the bellows effect applies also to the chest, as it is elatic and will get back by itself into a semi-expanded state causing some inhalation. The expansion will not be that effective as if someone is actually actively breathing, but it is there.
OTOH I think (but is really only a feeling, no data of any kind to support this) that the compression cycles in CPR are indeed too short to allow for any meaningful air flow (the disoxygenated air has to pass the entire airways from the lungs to the outside, and the oxygenated air the other way round, which needs some time; quite a lot of dead volume there which does not participate in gas exchange, so you will likely only pump the same used air back and fro. Especially if you do it alone you will always have the problem that you cannot both do CPR and overextend the patient's head into the neck.
This is a very important and live-saving move as it unblocks the airways, as otherwise the tongue and some parts of the palate will fall back and block everything. This applies to unconscious people in general; in Germany the recommendations are to put an unconscious but otherwise breathing patient in a lateral position with the head overextended to the back, mouth pointing down. So you both get the clearing of the airways and prevent the patient from getting vomit into the airways (extremely dangerous for a lot of reasons).
In that respect everything is much easier if the patient is intubated, as you both eliminate any blocking of the airways, reduce the resistance of the airways and prevent aspiration of stomach content. I agree that under such conditions you should be able to get some meaningful airflow going.
I agree with you that this likely only works for short resusicitations. The new German resusicitation guidelines from the German medical association recommend a cycle of 30 chest compressions to 1 cycle mouth-to-mouth (the old cycle was 5:2 for two helpers). They also say that in the first minutes there is enough residual oxygen in the blood to be able to get away without mouth-to-mouth. The hope is that more people will be willing to help if they don't have to do the mouth-to-mouth (I did it twice, it is quite yucky and you run a considerable risk of infecting yourself with whatever the usually unknown person has) and that until the oxygen is used up some kind of professional help will arrive.
No. There might be a slight effect like that, but for air circulation and oxygenation you do the mouth-to-mouth part. The compressions are used to manually provide some kind of heart function by compressing and releasing the heart muscle indirectly through chest compressions, thus keeping some basic blood circulation going to oxygenize the brain and other vital organs (one can also compress the heart directly, but this for obvious reasons is normally only used in an OR setting, never try this at home, kids, even if you got Mom's new bread knife handy !). The idea is the same like those bellows you use for pumping up kids' rubber boats (very very simplified). (IAAMDBTEIIDCN (I am an MD by training even if I do computers now)).
Welcome to the real world. Besides that it is neither a problem nor illegal if it is told in a fashion that noone can figure out who the client is. Where do you think case studies both in law and medicine come from ? IANAL but I am a MD by training. Docs talk among each other, the nursing staff and their families and friends all the time about the amazing, troubling and bizarre things happening to them each day; I can imagine it's the same for a lawyer. You need to talk about things to stay sane. As long as you don't go around "Yesterday that awful Miller guy from across your house came to me..." there's no problem neither it is illegal in any way.
It happened in 1985, to be exact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs). The mid-90s saw the fall of John Sculley and a sucession of catastrophic CEOs (Michael Spindler and Gil Amelio) until Amelio brought back Jobs as a consultant. Big mistake on his part. The rest is history.
Welcome to the wonderworld of SuSE. They always did this over the years: You got a version that was more or less the perfect Linux to the current state of the art, then they started a new cycle of introducing or "optimizing" new features that produced an unbelievably buggy, slow and broken POS for the next release, until it got gradually better over two or three releases until the next "perfect" one (e.g. 8.2 was perfect, the ones before so-la-la, 9.0 really sucked, then it got gradually better until 9.3 was really great again; lather, rinse, repeat). SuSE Linux - the masochist's choice.;->
Regarding the beachballing of death: Give your Mini a real harddisk if you still have the stock drive in it. The stock drive at least in the first series G4 MacMinis is an atrocity. Put in some faster 2.5'' drive and it will be a new machine (at least that did it for mine, before it was excruciatingly slow, now it is really fine).
If the University can afford to carry the journal. Seeing the trend at our local University Library (University of Ulm, Southern Germany) for the life sciences, it get fewer every year, while the journals get more and more and even more expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
This is still MY basement !
Your mother
You are quite right. OS/2 was killed by IBM itself. With a flamethrower. The remains run over with a bulldozer several times. Dumped into a tank full of acid.
In early '93 IBM Germany started a big campaign to get OS/2 to the public. You could get OS/2 2.0 for a more or less symbolic sum (I don't remember how much it was, but quite inexpensive), with a cheap upgrade to OS/2 2.1 coming out shortly after it. And it really rocked. Then Warp (3.0) came, even better. But then the Internet came. For Windows (3.x) at the time you had to use Trumpet Winsock, which sucked but at least was there. Warp had a dial-up client, but no real LAN TCP/IP functionality. The TCP/IP stack had to be purchased separately. Expensively. But even if you wanted to, there was no way to get it: IBM sold its OS/2 add-ons only through their local partners, which just were not interested to send some guy who didn't want to purchase an entire network from them a quote over a one software package for a measly 300 EUR. I never even got any kind of answer from them. So no TCP/IP in the LAN. So sooner or later goodbye OS/2 and hello Win95 and Linux (they changed this with OS/2 4.0, but then NT 4 was already coming out, so too little too late).
This is just one example of the boneheaded decisions IBM made regarding marketing and sales of OS/2. But there were many of them. It speaks for OS/2 that in spite of all this it was so hard to kill.
Oh my god. I got the joke without having to resort to incomplete explanations in Wikipedia ! I did the GOTO 10 thing myself, back in the day ! I AM OLD ! *breaks down crying*
Now get off my lawn, damn kids *mutter*
This is not rocket surgery. It's not even the slightest bit confusing
Weeellll......
If IBM is vegetating I think lots of other companies would like to vegetate, too. They may be far away from their former total market domination, but they still are one of the leading IT companies worldwide and are still pretty damn big and influential.
It is right that they were on the brink of going under in the 90s, but I think that was more to grave management mistakes and a corporate culture not having adapted to the changes of the time than due to the nature of their products itself.
Yes, but Gate's mother knew some high-up IBM execs (and you know how convincing Moms can be ;-)).
To even relate some (admittedly shady) license deals between some minor Linux player and MS with the Holocaust or genocide in general is not only somewhat tasteless but impossible to take seriously. If some people around here wouldn't be such drama queens and take themselves and their movement much too seriously it would make it easier for them not to be taken for some nutjobs in the non-technical world (which has to happen if you ever really want to make a change in patent law and how MS and its deals are perceived in the general public).
Good that Apple never releases security updates and fixes for OS X that don't increase the version number...
your
:-)
Irony indeed.
Sure. The same as on Usenet, any kind of Web forum etc.pp. And you get all kind of astroturfers, trolls, self important idiots and fanbois, but also lots of people with real experience and know-how (ok, now who's who ?).
/. is just one source of information among many, and one that you have to take with a biiiig spoon of salt, but nevertheless it can be quite useful as a starter. Even if a lot of Ask Slashdots really can be solved with a simple Google search and do not give anyone the slightest insight about anything I think that in that case there is some value.
/. as your sole source of information on anything you deserve the beating you will get, but this is not different to most other sources of information today, I'm afraid. At least of /. noone expects that anything is unbiased, factually correct and up-to-date. ;-)
Perhaps I formulated it wrong in that you do not necessarily find out what works but rather what not. If enough people say "xyz does not work because blablabla" and not another hundred people come in screaming "wrong ! wrong!" or the other way round you get at least some idea about the merits of a product and its service and of possible problems (and their possible solutions, if there are any). In that
Certainly you are right in that if you use
Especially with firewalls it makes sense doing an Ask Slashdot. Google will give you myriads of possible solutions of all kind, and every vendor or consultant has some kind of firewall solution they are trying to push, often because they make shitloads of money selling broken or oversized commercial solutions.
Getting an impression of what works for whom is priceless, even/especially if you are already working with some kind of security consultant (I cannot count the ridiculously insecure, oversized/-priced and/or insane security setups I have seen that "security consultants" have sold some poor company).
I think there is almost no field of IT where that many totally incompetent people are trying to sell snakeoil than IT security.
For me it's not about giving anyone a chance. This is neither a person nor a religion, it's a product. Either I find a product compelling (which apparently more than enough people do with OS X, fine with me, more power to them) or I don't (BTW as I stated above I don't find Apple's main product - its hardware - not uncompelling).
It's people like you that try to turn a choice between several competing products that also doesn't have to be exclusive into some kind of crusade. Do you define yourself through your choice of OS ? If this is the case I really pity you. Oh, and try to get a username. You know, it's free.
I think it's really hard to say why I "switched back" (I never really completely switched, as I use my Macs (I also own a G4 Mini) in parallel with Windows machines and Linux). It's not that OS X is a bad OS IMO, also the hardware is adequately priced, seeing that you only recently got able to buy machines comparable to the MacMini from other vendors that are usually not much cheaper if at all, and that noone has an all-in-one machine comparable to the iMac.
On the contrary, OS X is really nice looking and all, and it still amazes me how Apple manages to make Macs boot as fast as they do, which makes look both Windows and Linux really bad in comparison. Also I think that especially the latest Parallels version with their coherence mode is just great and also performs quite well.
So why ? It is not bad, but it also it is not that much better than anything else that it really makes any sense for me to re-purchase most of the applications I am already owning for Windows for the Mac. The same for Parallels: If I end up booting up OS X just to fire up Parallels and use most of my existing Windows apps, then why not make the most use of my nice hardware and install Windows directly on the Mac ? In the end most things I did on the Mac side were playing with Dashboard and surfing the Web, but I hardly need a 2000 EUR laptop for that. Regarding the iLife suite (touted by many Mac fans as reason no. 1 to switch) I find iPhoto totally irritating and featurewise poor, iTunes I get for Windows anyways, and the rest I have no use for.
In the end the choice of one's OS - as so many things - comes down to ones personal taste and what one is used to. Everyone else's milelage is sure to vary.
Count me in (eventually installed Vista on my MBP C2D, would even be better if Apple's BIOS emulation wouldn't suck rocks, the same applies in my experience to running Linux on the MBP).
Huh ? Ever heard of Remote Desktop, or for older machines VNC in its many many variants ? It doesn't get much easier.
Hm. I think you are right that there should indeed be a certain gas exchange, as the mechanical conditions are given - the bellows effect applies also to the chest, as it is elatic and will get back by itself into a semi-expanded state causing some inhalation. The expansion will not be that effective as if someone is actually actively breathing, but it is there.
OTOH I think (but is really only a feeling, no data of any kind to support this) that the compression cycles in CPR are indeed too short to allow for any meaningful air flow (the disoxygenated air has to pass the entire airways from the lungs to the outside, and the oxygenated air the other way round, which needs some time; quite a lot of dead volume there which does not participate in gas exchange, so you will likely only pump the same used air back and fro. Especially if you do it alone you will always have the problem that you cannot both do CPR and overextend the patient's head into the neck.
This is a very important and live-saving move as it unblocks the airways, as otherwise the tongue and some parts of the palate will fall back and block everything. This applies to unconscious people in general; in Germany the recommendations are to put an unconscious but otherwise breathing patient in a lateral position with the head overextended to the back, mouth pointing down. So you both get the clearing of the airways and prevent the patient from getting vomit into the airways (extremely dangerous for a lot of reasons).
In that respect everything is much easier if the patient is intubated, as you both eliminate any blocking of the airways, reduce the resistance of the airways and prevent aspiration of stomach content. I agree that under such conditions you should be able to get some meaningful airflow going.
I agree with you that this likely only works for short resusicitations. The new German resusicitation guidelines from the German medical association recommend a cycle of 30 chest compressions to 1 cycle mouth-to-mouth (the old cycle was 5:2 for two helpers). They also say that in the first minutes there is enough residual oxygen in the blood to be able to get away without mouth-to-mouth. The hope is that more people will be willing to help if they don't have to do the mouth-to-mouth (I did it twice, it is quite yucky and you run a considerable risk of infecting yourself with whatever the usually unknown person has) and that until the oxygen is used up some kind of professional help will arrive.
No. There might be a slight effect like that, but for air circulation and oxygenation you do the mouth-to-mouth part. The compressions are used to manually provide some kind of heart function by compressing and releasing the heart muscle indirectly through chest compressions, thus keeping some basic blood circulation going to oxygenize the brain and other vital organs (one can also compress the heart directly, but this for obvious reasons is normally only used in an OR setting, never try this at home, kids, even if you got Mom's new bread knife handy !). The idea is the same like those bellows you use for pumping up kids' rubber boats (very very simplified). (IAAMDBTEIIDCN (I am an MD by training even if I do computers now)).
Welcome to the real world. Besides that it is neither a problem nor illegal if it is told in a fashion that noone can figure out who the client is. Where do you think case studies both in law and medicine come from ? IANAL but I am a MD by training. Docs talk among each other, the nursing staff and their families and friends all the time about the amazing, troubling and bizarre things happening to them each day; I can imagine it's the same for a lawyer. You need to talk about things to stay sane. As long as you don't go around "Yesterday that awful Miller guy from across your house came to me..." there's no problem neither it is illegal in any way.
It happened in 1985, to be exact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs). The mid-90s saw the fall of John Sculley and a sucession of catastrophic CEOs (Michael Spindler and Gil Amelio) until Amelio brought back Jobs as a consultant. Big mistake on his part. The rest is history.
Welcome to the wonderworld of SuSE. They always did this over the years: You got a version that was more or less the perfect Linux to the current state of the art, then they started a new cycle of introducing or "optimizing" new features that produced an unbelievably buggy, slow and broken POS for the next release, until it got gradually better over two or three releases until the next "perfect" one (e.g. 8.2 was perfect, the ones before so-la-la, 9.0 really sucked, then it got gradually better until 9.3 was really great again; lather, rinse, repeat). SuSE Linux - the masochist's choice. ;->
Good you tell me that I have to relocate immediately to the US due to having two .net domains in spite of being in Germany. Dude, get a clue.
Regarding the beachballing of death: Give your Mini a real harddisk if you still have the stock drive in it. The stock drive at least in the first series G4 MacMinis is an atrocity. Put in some faster 2.5'' drive and it will be a new machine (at least that did it for mine, before it was excruciatingly slow, now it is really fine).
Now you just have to show me the closed parts both in Suse and especially in RedHat.
If the University can afford to carry the journal. Seeing the trend at our local University Library (University of Ulm, Southern Germany) for the life sciences, it get fewer every year, while the journals get more and more and even more expensive.
Especially as this refers to WW II... damn World Wars, always mixing up with each other.