Yes, there was Digital Research. About nobody else though. If Gary Kidall hadn't been flying that plane...
Check your facts. This is an urban legend.
It was the draconian non disclosure agreement that IBM wanted him to sign that stopped it. If he had signed IBM could have kept him from doing anything with work that he was already doing that related to the NDA and he couldn't know what that was. Signing the NDA could have destroyed his company. Microsoft barely was a company and could get away with signing it as there was so little to lose compared to what they could gain.
I haven't seen conclusive debunking of the legendary status of this claim. Microsoft, however, was not "barely a company" compared to digital research. They had a dominant role in the BASIC language business, and since at the time, most microcomputers came with BASIC, this must have been a considerable source of revenue; even in comparison to CP/M.
Theoretically good OS, neglectful company that focuses on consumer hardware.
Well, that brings up an interesting observation. The argument over whether or not Apple is primarily a hardware company or a software company has been going on for years, and it's not one that's going to be solved on Slashdot. However, Jobs evidently thinks of Apple as primarily a software company--it would seem to me that if this is the case, then maybe the neglect is one reason for the lack of market share.
Microsoft has historically been just as bad at security, if not worse, and they don't lack in market share. I wouldn't blame Apple's market share on a sudden cluefullness of upper management when it comes to security and reliability, unless their cluefullness is selective. Maybe you're right and Jobs views Apple as a software company (I suspect the "OS X in your phone and computer" is a marketing gimmick) however, if he does, he perhaps doesn't view it as a business software company; and definitely not as a server software company.
OSX is intrinsically far more secure than Windows, but all systems have their vulnerabilities. For Mac pros to acknowledge that "far more secure" does not equal "completely secure" is a good step in the right direction. Thanks for the review, jsuda. Yep, it's about time. Really OS X offers a lot of good security features, slightly beyond those standard in a non-security-hardened distro of Linux even. The main problem is getting Apple to patch both their operating system and its third party applications in a reasonable period of time. Apple needs to pay a lot more attention to issues like this, and others, in order to be ready for the enterprise. ("Is Linux ready for the desktop?" is sort of the reverse of what you ask about OS X "Is it ready for the enterprise?" Security is just one failing of Apple in this regard. Theoretically good OS, neglectful company that focuses on consumer hardware. I suspect, that as Apple tries to get the iPhone into the enterprise, they will do the same eventually for Macs; along hopefully with more of a security focus among other things.
Microsoft on the other hand had access to many internal APIs that Apple supplied them because MS said they needed them to develop MS products. Microsoft developed Windows based on these APIs. Slight difference. There is little similarity between the way Windows does things and the way MacOS does things. I have the API books from both Hillgraas and Petzold, and am familiar enough with Carbon to know that the classic MacOS is not that similar to Windows. Please point out non-trivial API functions that demonstrate the similarity in design between the two? Here's some help, in case you don't own any reference material:
Other people also saw that selling an OS without selling the hardware could be a viable business. Yet those other companies did NOT survive. Yes, there was Digital Research. About nobody else though. If Gary Kidall hadn't been flying that plane...
Again, Microsoft BOUGHT their OS from someone who wrote it because HE saw that the OS did not have to be sold with the machine BEFORE Bill Gates saw that No, the company that made QDOS was Seattle Computer Company. They made computers as well as DOS, in fact, they retained a license for a while to sell QDOS with their computers after they sold the rights to sell it minus the computer to Microsoft.
I'm no big fan of Microsoft, I'm writing this on a computer that's running OS X, but you're being inaccurate. (And the mods who modded your post up are on crack.)
It also was fixed in a way that typified open source development too, by a user not involved with the project. If it weren't for this user, known as "Head Geek" (a nom de gurre that belongs on/.;-) ), the project wouldn't have gone gold.
https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu-eee/+question/35194
I'll have to look into that. The website doesn't mention anything about it, only the ability to blacklist/whitelist different sites. Well, it'd be a mouse click, several of 'em, I didn't read what you said carefully enough I guess. It is finer-grained than per-site, it blacklists items, both javascript, plugins, and so on, and blocks against XSS attacks, on a single webpage, individually.
there is no way to stop all javascript with a keystroke in case of bombing (I would like to see this on a Mac too, actually) Run Firefox with the NoScript add-on. It has the feature you're looking for.
I think what he is saying is that OSX has a built in download manager, regardless of browser, so the user indeed DOES have to authorize downloads. I don't know what you think a download manager is, it prompts one if one wants to execute. That's helpful, but that's not a download manager.
As a Linux user, I have to point out one thing in Microsoft's defense:
Lately, it seems to tag executables that have been downloaded and warns you about it when you try to run them.
Apparently, Safari does not have this mechanism, so users might assume it's a valid local icon.
I still run Firefox, though. OS X also has this feature, anything downloaded from the internet from *any* browser has a warning dialog before running, and *nothing* will run from your home directory. That having been said, Safari is a prime source of OS X vulnerabilities so I run Firefox.
150w-300w? What sort of PCs are you using???
A modern Dell PC pulls 100w unless you are running heavy gaming on it.
My personal PC pulls about 42w during most of my usage. My Mac Mini uses 24 watts. Apple has missed the marketing boat, they should sell it as a green PC.
linked up with Chapman and two other proponents, journalist Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science
Something makes me think, this will not be an entirely objective undertaking...
The/. blurb itself is biased when it calls people who don't support Darwinian biology "anti-science". If they are not against scientific theories in general, the term "anti-science" is propagandistic, isn't it? I know plenty of Orthodox Jews who are interested in science but don't accept Darwin, and there's even a Nobel Laurette who's one.
Speaking of "and again", Buffalo Tech. (makers of the one of the best wireless routers to put Linux on) is currently being sued by an Australian patent troll in the United States. An injunction has been decided by the relevant Federal District Court. They are appealing, but in the meantime the only routers from Buffalo you can get in the US are ones from old inventory, and when they're gone, well, until the appeal is successful or they pay the patent troll you won't be able to get some very nice wireless routers, perfect for putting Linux-based dd-wrt on, who recently became an official open-source firmware supplier for them, the first official Linux-based firmware for a non-homebrew wireless router.
Unfortunately the new dd-wrt model routers, to be produced, won't be officially on-sale in the US anytime soon. Ironically, amongst the "friends of the defendent" briefs of this Linux-friendly router are Microsoft, but then again, the entire industry has rallied behind them; precisely because what Wi-LAN is doing after they won with Cisco is a possibility should this suit succeed against Buffalo, for the same reasons. When will there be patent reform?!
While the rules require these "security" measures to prevent modification to software designed radios, as far as I can tell (based on several 802.11 devices I've messed with) the only actual "security" measures which have been taken have been to not publish the source. Which of course means that Linksys and others will no longer be able to allow people to put Linux on their routers with ease.:-( (Such as OpenWRT.)
This is really just the nature of business. Microsoft probably doesnt see this as a real issue for concern.
If Microsoft isn't concerned about Linux, why did they make a deal with Novell to sell SUSE Linux vouchers and patent indemnification for alleged "250 patent infringements"? They spent several hundred million on the Novell deal, albeit money Novell has to return in a few years once its a shell of its former self. That doesn't sound like the actions of a company unconcerned about its competition. (Which Microsoft scarcely has a history of.)
As a development platform, Java only had one new thing to offer. Perl, Python, PHP, C et al. are "write once, run anywhere" languages, as long as you publish the source. Sun's contribution is a language that supports "write once, run anywhere" without publishing the source. I'm no big fan of Java, but allow me to point out that GNU's biggest contribution to the open source world is arguably GNU C and glibc, which just as much aren't designed as vehicles for publishing source (i.e. what interpreted languages, well, unlike, say, Microsoft BASIC, Perl and Python are technically bytecoded too, but humor me.) Considering the environment that Java was originally marketed for (browser apps) there are good security, portability, as well as performance reasons more relevant at the time, for making client-side browser apps pseudocompiled.
512k, 1% contention which should be adequate for most users (ends up at 1.5G/month) You can easily use that up by downloading a Linux CD and apt-getting a few programs. In Australia, it's limited that way already - and people can't download a distro there or use youtube without getting their bandwidth throttled to dial-up speeds for the rest of the month.
Errm... how about trying it out before judging it? As has been covered god knows how many times before, Java is capable of runtime optimisations not possible with statically compiled languages like C++. Maybe so, but it is running much slower than DOSEMU or DOSBOX does in Linux here, which are probably written in C or C++, with possibly some assembly; and can do emulation of all the games it emulates. Java is indeed capable of certain optimizations that are not done in a non-JIT compiler, but that simply is because it needs them. Anyone who tells you that Java operating system emulators typically run faster than C operating system emulators has been smoking SUNW crack. That having been said, there are reasons for choosing Java over C. One of them is built-in security sandboxing, which was obviously the reason for the choice.
You can remove the application itself, but what about all those libxxxxx.rpm packages which it depended on. I can remove them if I can remember which ones they were, but otherwise they just hang around getting in the way.
"Disks are cheap you Bozo!" Yes, I know, but I keep my systems up to date and unwanted libraries mean unwanted security updates. With Gentoo, this problem is entirely solved with the 'emerge --depclean' command. Well, as has been pointed out, Debian and its derivitives such as Ubuntu can also do this, as well as *BSD. As far as disk space goes, a ports system uses a *ton* of disk space, much more than the amount saved by an occasional pruning of libraries. I recognize the utility of ports systems (Though I like the original *BSD system better for its higher speed, relaibility, and lesser degree of baroqueness) for keeping software up to date, but being space efficient they aren't, nor are they the only system that can get rid of unnecessary dependency gunk.
What does Ockham's razor imply? It should be noted, that William of Ockham was a theist, a Fransciscan Friar at that. (Albeit one who got on the wrong side of the Pope.)
Windows threads work on BOTH platforms, Windows XP/Vista and Windows CE. No, truly portable programs are when it compiles under *both* System V and BSD.
Slashdot Mirror
Check your facts. This is an urban legend.
It was the draconian non disclosure agreement that IBM wanted him to sign that stopped it. If he had signed IBM could have kept him from doing anything with work that he was already doing that related to the NDA and he couldn't know what that was. Signing the NDA could have destroyed his company. Microsoft barely was a company and could get away with signing it as there was so little to lose compared to what they could gain.
I haven't seen conclusive debunking of the legendary status of this claim. Microsoft, however, was not "barely a company" compared to digital research. They had a dominant role in the BASIC language business, and since at the time, most microcomputers came with BASIC, this must have been a considerable source of revenue; even in comparison to CP/M.Well, that brings up an interesting observation. The argument over whether or not Apple is primarily a hardware company or a software company has been going on for years, and it's not one that's going to be solved on Slashdot. However, Jobs evidently thinks of Apple as primarily a software company--it would seem to me that if this is the case, then maybe the neglect is one reason for the lack of market share.
Microsoft has historically been just as bad at security, if not worse, and they don't lack in market share. I wouldn't blame Apple's market share on a sudden cluefullness of upper management when it comes to security and reliability, unless their cluefullness is selective. Maybe you're right and Jobs views Apple as a software company (I suspect the "OS X in your phone and computer" is a marketing gimmick) however, if he does, he perhaps doesn't view it as a business software company; and definitely not as a server software company.http://msdn.microsoft.com/
http://developer.apple.com/
I'm no big fan of Microsoft, I'm writing this on a computer that's running OS X, but you're being inaccurate. (And the mods who modded your post up are on crack.)
It also was fixed in a way that typified open source development too, by a user not involved with the project. If it weren't for this user, known as "Head Geek" (a nom de gurre that belongs on /. ;-) ), the project wouldn't have gone gold.
https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu-eee/+question/35194
I don't think it was the money, he was Jewish and there was this little thing in Germany called the Nazi party...
Something makes me think, this will not be an entirely objective undertaking...
TheUnfortunately the new dd-wrt model routers, to be produced, won't be officially on-sale in the US anytime soon. Ironically, amongst the "friends of the defendent" briefs of this Linux-friendly router are Microsoft, but then again, the entire industry has rallied behind them; precisely because what Wi-LAN is doing after they won with Cisco is a possibility should this suit succeed against Buffalo, for the same reasons. When will there be patent reform?!
Emacs would make an excellent operating system, if only if it had a good editor.
Then why did you write that as an Anonymous Coward? (Not a flame, a serious question.)