Kurt Skauen started the project with the intent of making an Amiga clone. He says in the FAQ, however, that there isn't much resemblance these days besides the window borders. The article did call him an ex-Amiga coder, he must like the look.
This is one of those things that I keep meaning to check out. Maybe now I will.
My Personal feeling is that we should drop the "10" crap all together. MacOSX is not the next evolution of MacOS 7-8-9-etc, it is an entirely different operating system.
IMHO the current version should be called MacOSX 1.1 (Mac Oh es ex). Remember, Apple tried to get us to pronounce SCSI as sexy. Just ignore them.
Also, it wouldn't be X.1 it'd be X.I (Roman numerals)
This is very hard. Weird sh*t happens when you try that. You get heavier, shorter and time slows down. IANAP (I am not a Physicist) but we aren't going to get close to the speed of light until we radically change our physics (read: find a loop hole in Relativity eg. worm holes etc).
If a physicist out there is planning on the whole "But it's impossible!" rant, skip it. We WILL find a way. I know that it can't be compared to breaking the speed of sound but you can't say it is impossible until you're sure that you know every bit of Physics there is to be learned.
Impossible is a word that shouldn't be used alone. Impossible with our current knowledge is more appropriate, and it stops you looking like a fool later.
I've got MacOSX running on a 7600 (unsupported machine) with 48MB of RAM. It is slow due to swapping but it does work. I've got a feeling it would work in 32 as well. Can't wait to try the compression hack.
Note: I'm not a masochist, my main system is a G4. I use the 7600 as a PPP router for our home network (using natd and ipfw). I put a VNC server on it, stuck it in a closet and it works like a charm.
Not sure, I've never really used it for more than just mucking around, ie 30 mins tops. I'm not really a Java programmer. Swear allegiance to C and all that.;-)
I'd suggest checking out that link in my post, I haven't read it in ages so I'm not sure if it's in there. I vaguely remember that it is possible. I was more concerned about using the abundant java libraries in ObjC programs, not about inheritance or anything like that.
They've created an interface that can be used in any language. Big Deal. Plenty of things can be done in almost any language. Manipulating a file is something that the library of almost every language can do. You don't see people jumping for joy because they're now not locked into language A because language B can also read the same files.
Basically they've made a bridge between languages. This has been done before. One example I have is Apple's Java Bridge. It allows you to use Java objects in ObjC programs and visa versa.
From this point on MyJavaObj can be used as if it were a native ObjC object.
Compare this to the normal ObjC way using ObjC classes:
MyObjCObject = [[MyObjCClass alloc] init];
One extra line of code! Note that strings, etc are translated from Cocoa's NSStrings to Java Strings and back.
The crucial bit is the NSClassFromString function. It will take the name of a class, whether ObjC or Java, and return an ObjC Class. I'm sure there are other examples of language bridging.
This sort of sounds like what Apple is starting (emphasize starting) to do with Web Services. It is an OS service that Apple is including with MacOSX 10.1 that allows you to make SOAP and XML-RPC calls to any web site that supports them.
Note: the link above is to an info page of their Apple Script interface but you can call the service from Carbon or Cocoa programs using the techniques outlined in this developer doc.
Can anyone who knows both post a comparison of them for us?
Yep, that's basically what I meant. Thanks for clearing it up. We need to rebuild any country we attack Marshal plan style, ie. give them whatever they need to get back on there feet, within reason. We definitely shouldn't "force capitalism down their throats". Forcing things on countries using the CIA is what got us in this trouble in the first place. Has anyone heard of a CIA *success* in interfering with another countries politics?
If there was a pilot in that plane it wouldn't have been put in such high risk. Those UAVs (Unmanned Air Vehicles) are meant to be lost. I remember hearing that during the Kosovo conflict 15 UAVs were lost surveying a single target (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong). We don't hear about the losses because they are unimportant. They are relatively cheap. Sometimes these planes are actually used to flush out the antiaircraft sites so that they can be destroyed. The Taliban shouldn't be boasting about this. Without UAVs, these high risk missions couldn't be performed. Suicide missions don't seem to be popular with the pilots.;-)
Yep, we flew into WWII in 1939 with mostly wooden biplanes. There were some metal planes (like the spitfire and the hurricane) but they weren't available in volume. By the end of the war 6 years later, we had jets and large rockets. Yes, I know Goddard was experimenting with rockets earlier but he had nothing that compared with the V2.
The Cold War is similar. Some people wonder why we haven't gone back to the Moon or gone to Mars. The reason is simply that the Apollo program and its earlier brothers, were an anomaly. The rapid development during the 60s and enormous funds pumped into space meant that we could do things that now aren't feasible.
War is terrible, but I'd like to wager that, if the war is actually hard to win and the west faces a REAL threat, the world is a better place afterwards. The last time this happened was probably WWII. In 1945 the UN was formed. Notice how the enemies of that war are now our closest friends? Japan and Germany have both pledged to help in any way they can.
After WWI, the west has, for the most part, enjoyed over 50 years of peace. If we do this current war properly, we will probably enjoy another 50 years of peace. By "properly" I mean that we completely remove all the current threats to the west. IMHO, the only way we can do this is to get rid of the hatred. That means HELPING the countries that currently don't like the west. Western countries don't attack other western countries, the economy is at stake. Solution: make them western countries. I don't mean force them to give up their culture, Japan still has a different culture to America. Just get them into the Western mind set, ie Capitalism. If they are prosperous like us then they won't attack us. Some of the people in these countries know only war and fighting. We need to show them that there's another way.
Note: I still think that we should find bin Laden and put him on trial. Failing that, kill him where he stands. I so far agree with everything the US government has done. Dropping aid to the refugees is definitely the right thing to do. We need to increase this however. It will help show that we aren't at war with Islam and hopefully lower the level of hatred. The largest moslem country (Indonesia) is one of our nearest neighbors here in Australia and after the whole East Timor thing, were not exactly in their good books. I worry when I see anti US riots there as they could quickly turn into anti Australian riots.
This is all very IMHO, it's not meant as a flame or a troll. If you have a differing opinion, reply don't mod down.
IMHO UTF-8 would be more appropriate in this age of internationalization. Also xml as a storage type is starting to hit the mac in a semi-big way. The Cocoa and Carbon APIs offer convenient methods for flattening arrays, objects, etc into a UTF-8 string. Guess what, it uses xml and is called a property list. All conforming applications (ie. not quick ports) store their preference files in property list format. The Cocoa property list API is spread throughout the Cocoa docs so there isn't a good url I can post.
Apple's new APIs are really interesting once you get into them. There is a port of Cocoa to linux called GNUStep. If you want mac applications on linux, help them out.
Ah, but no matter how advanced it is, it is still a wheel. IMHO what they is trying to say is that we will improve the WIMPs idea rather than replacing it. There is nothing wrong with an old idea. Don't get caught up in the hype of a new product.
It reminds me of all the talk of flying cars in the past that were supposed to move like hovercraft ie. by blowing air under them. Yes, it is possible now but what nobody seemed to realize back then is that it is less fuel efficient than the wheel. You are constantly holding yourself up using energy. A wheel, OTOH, while not accelerating or decelerating, uses almost no power to keep going.
What I am trying to say is that we tend to get caught up in a new paradigm that will revolutionalize some aspect of our lives, until we find its flaws and realize that the old way was better. Being new doesn't straight away make it better.
IMHO is see communication with computers heading in the direction of a combination of English language speech commands and an adapted version of WIMPs. I see the keyboard becoming more Star Trek like ie. it is really a display that can change its configuration for each app. Think about it, instead of pressing b for drop bomb in a Flight Sim, you'd hit the bomb release trigger on a photorealistic instrument panel. Ok, the example's not great but think about it. BTW, for anyone saying "What about tactile response", I'm sure we'll think of something involving smart plastics etc.
You've just described the system that MacOSX Applications use. Apps have a file called Info.plist in their application bundle that outlines several things about the application. One of these is which file types it handles and whether it is a viewer or an editor for each. Newly installed applications don't take over associations from your current ones, they simply tell the system what they can handle.
When you try to open a file that the OS doesn't know how to handle, it presents a window that shows the applications that say they can handle the type and you get to choose. To change an association click on the file -> get info -> Open with application -> then pick from a list of apps that say they can handle the type. If you want the change to apply to all documents of that type instead of just that one file, press the change all button. It's not perfect but it beats MS's system.
On the contrary, if you want to make the "computing tool" stable, you have to write the kernel first. Without a well defined kernel what does the virtual memory, memory protection, process scheduling, symmetric multiprocessing etc? What you have described is the environment of the early Macs, which was an application with a bunch of support routines, or "managers", in ROM. This turned out to be a terrible solution when Apple tried to extend it beyond these roots. VM was patched on, multitasking always was a hack etc. It's ironic that now the Mac's OS, MacOSX 10.1, is the exact opposite. It's based on the mach microkernel, which is probably one of the most well thought out microkernels in history.
Just because the user shouldn't have to worry about what kernel the GUI is running on doesn't make it irrelevant. It is the opposite. If you do the kernel well, the user won't have to worry about it. Do it badly or half-heartedly and the user will be VERY aware of it! It seems that you use a system with a good kernel, which might be why you don't see it as important. It is!!
In summary: you shouldn't write the applications first and then hack together an OS to support them. Write the kernel first, starting with VM and working up from there. Make it support multiprocessors right from the start. If you design it well then, to your users, it will seem like it's not there. Once you have a stable kernel then by all means hide it under a user-friendly interface but give it the attention it deserves!
The original Matrix was filmed in Sydney, Australia. Just like both new Star Wars movies, both mission impossibles and the new matrix. Hmm, hollywood must be worried right about now.
The only thing that stops me jumping to get one of these is the paltry 32MB storage. How much of that is taken up by the base install, if any, or is the OS stored separately? IMHO, even if that 32MB was all yours to use, it's not enough. The only saviour I see for this is having 802.11 and NFS-ing your stuff from your main computer. But then it's only good for around the home. Why didn't they put something like a microdrive in it? Does anyone have more information on its storage?
Note: if you want to check out its linux distro, it's here.
Yes, they are both PPC chips but the POWER4 is made by IBM. The PPC consortium was founded in the early 90s by Apple, IBM and Motorola. The main difference between them is that the POWER4 is a server chip while the G4 is a consumer chip. Because of this, cost, performance etc are VERY different. Basically the POWER4 is much better than the G4 but it costs a hell of a lot more.
The problem with this idea is that planes have circuit breakers. These terrorists were pilots and had been brushing up on the flight manuals for the planes they hijacked. They would have just flicked the autopilot circuit breakers on the panel. And if you're thinking "Well make it so that you can't override it" big mistake. What if the software goes ape sh#t? Or, here's a thought, what if the terrorists are computer programmers and join the boeing ranks?
Second: IANAC (I am not a chemist) but wouldn't the hydrogen still have to store the equivalent amount of energy as the AvGas? Yes, hydrogen burns faster so you wouldn't get the long lasting fires that the WTC got but wouldn't that mean that it would give up the energy quicker, ie HUGE explosion? Hell, it might have brought them down quicker. I'd hate to see what the equivalent of 37,000 litres of AvGas would do if it all burnt quickly! Then again, hydrogen needs lots of O2 to burn so it might only seriously burn once it left the building. And professional fuel chemists among us?
Firstly, to all those making jokes about methane smelling, yes they're funny but methane doesn't smell. IIRC, methane is the major component of natural gas and that is odorless (They add the smell so you are warned of gas leaks). Farts smell because of the *other* gases in them.
Ever since I first read about them in Spectrum, I admired them. Here is a company that has a very original idea and the CS behind it is very cool.
IMHO, the embedded market isn't as big as they claim. And if it is, why would anyone want x86 compatibility? The only use I can see for their current design is what it is doing now, Low power x86 compatible PC chip.
Personally, I would love to see how well the Crusoe goes running native code. The whole super-RISC VLIW architecture sounds a lot better than the x86 or even the PPC. Maybe they should try native BIOS AND a native Linux kernel. In fact, have everything possible native and leave the whole x86 'code morphing' bit for binaries you don't have the source for.
Another idea, since they are emulating/binary translating the code anyway, how big a job do you think it would be to have multiple virtual machines? Naturally they'd all need their own RAM but RAM is cheap. It could give dual booting linux with windows a new meaning!
Also, how easy would it be to add other architectures? I can see a PDA that not only runs Windows CE software but PalmOS stuff as well. Just some ideas, any of them feasible?
What I want to know is why is Apple only bundling IE with MacOSX? There are plenty of good browsers for MacOSX. Hell, they're all better than IE. I've got Opera, Netscape 6.1, Mozilla, and my personal favorite OmniWeb (Must try iCab). Apple used to bundle both Netscape and IE, why the change? OK, I'm not suggesting they bundle Netscape, it *really* sucks for MacOSX. But how about OmniWeb or Opera? Some choice would be good. Yes, I know that the user could download another browser, but how many novices would? They've got plenty more room on the CD. It seems like Apple signed a black deal with microsoft.
Sorry, should have made myself more clear. I was referring to when patents were first introduced, period, not when they were first applied to software. IMHO most of the patents given to software, like the GIF/LZW patent, should never have been granted.
We have to remember that it's not just software patents that currently suck. There are biotech firms trying to patent human genes. This is very similar to what I said in my previous post, after all DNA is a programming language for humans. These biotech companies are trying to patent a data structure (the gene) when they should only be allowed to patent their changes and the process use to implement the changes (the algorithm, OK I'm reaching).
The current patent system as a whole sucks. A lawyer in Australia successfully patented the wheel (Newscientist, sorry no link) as an example of the stupidity of the patent office here.
However patents are necessary. Patents help protect the company that spent good money to do the R&D. A company that doesn't spend millions on R&D but copies a competitor who does will almost always be able to undercut the other company. This way the real innovator goes broke. This is NOT what we want to happen. We DO, however, need to get some patent clerks that have a clue.
Slashdot Mirror
Kurt Skauen started the project with the intent of making an Amiga clone. He says in the FAQ, however, that there isn't much resemblance these days besides the window borders. The article did call him an ex-Amiga coder, he must like the look.
This is one of those things that I keep meaning to check out. Maybe now I will.
19.48 teraflops/sec is 19.48 FLoating-point Operations Per Second per second.
This is acceleration, probably not what you meant. (Unless it is a measure of how much new computer power people are giving them a second!)
</pedantic>
IMHO the current version should be called MacOSX 1.1 (Mac Oh es ex). Remember, Apple tried to get us to pronounce SCSI as sexy. Just ignore them.
Also, it wouldn't be X.1 it'd be X.I (Roman numerals)
This is very hard. Weird sh*t happens when you try that. You get heavier, shorter and time slows down. IANAP (I am not a Physicist) but we aren't going to get close to the speed of light until we radically change our physics (read: find a loop hole in Relativity eg. worm holes etc).
If a physicist out there is planning on the whole "But it's impossible!" rant, skip it. We WILL find a way. I know that it can't be compared to breaking the speed of sound but you can't say it is impossible until you're sure that you know every bit of Physics there is to be learned.
Impossible is a word that shouldn't be used alone. Impossible with our current knowledge is more appropriate, and it stops you looking like a fool later.
Minor point, I know.
I've got MacOSX running on a 7600 (unsupported machine) with 48MB of RAM. It is slow due to swapping but it does work. I've got a feeling it would work in 32 as well. Can't wait to try the compression hack.
Note: I'm not a masochist, my main system is a G4. I use the 7600 as a PPP router for our home network (using natd and ipfw). I put a VNC server on it, stuck it in a closet and it works like a charm.
BSD is dead
Ya, right, especially now that it's set to be the most widely distributed branch of Unix due to MacOSX.
I'd suggest checking out that link in my post, I haven't read it in ages so I'm not sure if it's in there. I vaguely remember that it is possible. I was more concerned about using the abundant java libraries in ObjC programs, not about inheritance or anything like that.
Basically they've made a bridge between languages. This has been done before. One example I have is Apple's Java Bridge. It allows you to use Java objects in ObjC programs and visa versa.
Example: A java object in an ObjC app.
MyJavaClass = NSClassFromString(@"java.util.AJavaClass");
MyJavaObj = [[MyJavaClass alloc] init];
From this point on MyJavaObj can be used as if it were a native ObjC object.
Compare this to the normal ObjC way using ObjC classes:
MyObjCObject = [[MyObjCClass alloc] init];
One extra line of code! Note that strings, etc are translated from Cocoa's NSStrings to Java Strings and back.
The crucial bit is the NSClassFromString function. It will take the name of a class, whether ObjC or Java, and return an ObjC Class. I'm sure there are other examples of language bridging.
Note: the link above is to an info page of their Apple Script interface but you can call the service from Carbon or Cocoa programs using the techniques outlined in this developer doc.
Can anyone who knows both post a comparison of them for us?
Yep, that's basically what I meant. Thanks for clearing it up. We need to rebuild any country we attack Marshal plan style, ie. give them whatever they need to get back on there feet, within reason. We definitely shouldn't "force capitalism down their throats". Forcing things on countries using the CIA is what got us in this trouble in the first place. Has anyone heard of a CIA *success* in interfering with another countries politics?
If there was a pilot in that plane it wouldn't have been put in such high risk. Those UAVs (Unmanned Air Vehicles) are meant to be lost. I remember hearing that during the Kosovo conflict 15 UAVs were lost surveying a single target (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong). We don't hear about the losses because they are unimportant. They are relatively cheap. Sometimes these planes are actually used to flush out the antiaircraft sites so that they can be destroyed. The Taliban shouldn't be boasting about this. Without UAVs, these high risk missions couldn't be performed. Suicide missions don't seem to be popular with the pilots. ;-)
The Cold War is similar. Some people wonder why we haven't gone back to the Moon or gone to Mars. The reason is simply that the Apollo program and its earlier brothers, were an anomaly. The rapid development during the 60s and enormous funds pumped into space meant that we could do things that now aren't feasible.
War is terrible, but I'd like to wager that, if the war is actually hard to win and the west faces a REAL threat, the world is a better place afterwards. The last time this happened was probably WWII. In 1945 the UN was formed. Notice how the enemies of that war are now our closest friends? Japan and Germany have both pledged to help in any way they can.
After WWI, the west has, for the most part, enjoyed over 50 years of peace. If we do this current war properly, we will probably enjoy another 50 years of peace. By "properly" I mean that we completely remove all the current threats to the west. IMHO, the only way we can do this is to get rid of the hatred. That means HELPING the countries that currently don't like the west. Western countries don't attack other western countries, the economy is at stake. Solution: make them western countries. I don't mean force them to give up their culture, Japan still has a different culture to America. Just get them into the Western mind set, ie Capitalism. If they are prosperous like us then they won't attack us. Some of the people in these countries know only war and fighting. We need to show them that there's another way.
Note: I still think that we should find bin Laden and put him on trial. Failing that, kill him where he stands. I so far agree with everything the US government has done. Dropping aid to the refugees is definitely the right thing to do. We need to increase this however. It will help show that we aren't at war with Islam and hopefully lower the level of hatred. The largest moslem country (Indonesia) is one of our nearest neighbors here in Australia and after the whole East Timor thing, were not exactly in their good books. I worry when I see anti US riots there as they could quickly turn into anti Australian riots.
This is all very IMHO, it's not meant as a flame or a troll. If you have a differing opinion, reply don't mod down.
Apple's new APIs are really interesting once you get into them. There is a port of Cocoa to linux called GNUStep. If you want mac applications on linux, help them out.
It reminds me of all the talk of flying cars in the past that were supposed to move like hovercraft ie. by blowing air under them. Yes, it is possible now but what nobody seemed to realize back then is that it is less fuel efficient than the wheel. You are constantly holding yourself up using energy. A wheel, OTOH, while not accelerating or decelerating, uses almost no power to keep going.
What I am trying to say is that we tend to get caught up in a new paradigm that will revolutionalize some aspect of our lives, until we find its flaws and realize that the old way was better. Being new doesn't straight away make it better.
IMHO is see communication with computers heading in the direction of a combination of English language speech commands and an adapted version of WIMPs. I see the keyboard becoming more Star Trek like ie. it is really a display that can change its configuration for each app. Think about it, instead of pressing b for drop bomb in a Flight Sim, you'd hit the bomb release trigger on a photorealistic instrument panel. Ok, the example's not great but think about it. BTW, for anyone saying "What about tactile response", I'm sure we'll think of something involving smart plastics etc.
When you try to open a file that the OS doesn't know how to handle, it presents a window that shows the applications that say they can handle the type and you get to choose. To change an association click on the file -> get info -> Open with application -> then pick from a list of apps that say they can handle the type. If you want the change to apply to all documents of that type instead of just that one file, press the change all button. It's not perfect but it beats MS's system.
Just because the user shouldn't have to worry about what kernel the GUI is running on doesn't make it irrelevant. It is the opposite. If you do the kernel well, the user won't have to worry about it. Do it badly or half-heartedly and the user will be VERY aware of it! It seems that you use a system with a good kernel, which might be why you don't see it as important. It is!!
In summary: you shouldn't write the applications first and then hack together an OS to support them. Write the kernel first, starting with VM and working up from there. Make it support multiprocessors right from the start. If you design it well then, to your users, it will seem like it's not there. Once you have a stable kernel then by all means hide it under a user-friendly interface but give it the attention it deserves!
The original Matrix was filmed in Sydney, Australia. Just like both new Star Wars movies, both mission impossibles and the new matrix. Hmm, hollywood must be worried right about now.
Note: if you want to check out its linux distro, it's here.
Yes, they are both PPC chips but the POWER4 is made by IBM. The PPC consortium was founded in the early 90s by Apple, IBM and Motorola. The main difference between them is that the POWER4 is a server chip while the G4 is a consumer chip. Because of this, cost, performance etc are VERY different. Basically the POWER4 is much better than the G4 but it costs a hell of a lot more.
Second: IANAC (I am not a chemist) but wouldn't the hydrogen still have to store the equivalent amount of energy as the AvGas? Yes, hydrogen burns faster so you wouldn't get the long lasting fires that the WTC got but wouldn't that mean that it would give up the energy quicker, ie HUGE explosion? Hell, it might have brought them down quicker. I'd hate to see what the equivalent of 37,000 litres of AvGas would do if it all burnt quickly! Then again, hydrogen needs lots of O2 to burn so it might only seriously burn once it left the building. And professional fuel chemists among us?
Secondly, this was only a matter of time. I hope we switch from methane to hydrogen soon though. Anywho, Scientific American has a pretty informative article on fuel cells in mobile devices. It's a bit old (1998) but still relevant. A quick Google search turned up some more:
CNN: NEC develops fuel cell for handhelds
ABCNEWS: Fuel Cell Batteries Could Power Next Wave of Technology
IMHO, the embedded market isn't as big as they claim. And if it is, why would anyone want x86 compatibility? The only use I can see for their current design is what it is doing now, Low power x86 compatible PC chip.
Personally, I would love to see how well the Crusoe goes running native code. The whole super-RISC VLIW architecture sounds a lot better than the x86 or even the PPC. Maybe they should try native BIOS AND a native Linux kernel. In fact, have everything possible native and leave the whole x86 'code morphing' bit for binaries you don't have the source for.
Another idea, since they are emulating/binary translating the code anyway, how big a job do you think it would be to have multiple virtual machines? Naturally they'd all need their own RAM but RAM is cheap. It could give dual booting linux with windows a new meaning!
Also, how easy would it be to add other architectures? I can see a PDA that not only runs Windows CE software but PalmOS stuff as well. Just some ideas, any of them feasible?
What I want to know is why is Apple only bundling IE with MacOSX? There are plenty of good browsers for MacOSX. Hell, they're all better than IE. I've got Opera, Netscape 6.1, Mozilla, and my personal favorite OmniWeb (Must try iCab). Apple used to bundle both Netscape and IE, why the change? OK, I'm not suggesting they bundle Netscape, it *really* sucks for MacOSX. But how about OmniWeb or Opera? Some choice would be good. Yes, I know that the user could download another browser, but how many novices would? They've got plenty more room on the CD. It seems like Apple signed a black deal with microsoft.
We have to remember that it's not just software patents that currently suck. There are biotech firms trying to patent human genes. This is very similar to what I said in my previous post, after all DNA is a programming language for humans. These biotech companies are trying to patent a data structure (the gene) when they should only be allowed to patent their changes and the process use to implement the changes (the algorithm, OK I'm reaching).
The current patent system as a whole sucks. A lawyer in Australia successfully patented the wheel (Newscientist, sorry no link) as an example of the stupidity of the patent office here.
However patents are necessary. Patents help protect the company that spent good money to do the R&D. A company that doesn't spend millions on R&D but copies a competitor who does will almost always be able to undercut the other company. This way the real innovator goes broke. This is NOT what we want to happen. We DO, however, need to get some patent clerks that have a clue.