That's not uncommon for groups that got IP space in the 80's. Back in the days of classful routing, one got a/16 if one had more than 254 and less than 16534 hosts on their network.
I know a hospital in Toronto that had a/16 hanging off a 128k ISDN link up until recently.
I gotta agree on the MicroKernal part. I suspect it was done that way simply because they could re-use so much code (From mkLinux and NeXT/Openstep).
As to Real Soon now, well, I suspect I'll be seeing 64 bit Mac's before AMD x86-64 Desktops, since AMD pushed back that launch(Athlon 64). Apple's reportedly announcing the G5 or whatever it's actually going to be called, at the end of the month, likely with availability in August or early September.
SysV was significantly different from BSD. There were IIRC 3 files in all of BSD4.4 that were descended from the old Release 7 version of AT&T Unix, but no SysV stuff.
Unfortunately for USL, there was a lot of BSD4.2 era code in SysV.
And IIRC SMP only came to SysV in the 90's, BSD variants had it earlier (SunOS for one).
It isn't so much that MS was ahead of Apple in the internals (A/UX argues that that simply wasn't the case) as that Apple spent the early and mid 90's chasing a dream OS-wise. An OS-X type solution could have been available in 1996 or so if Apple hadn't wasted years on Talingent Pink and Copeland.
MS went for 'Good enough', Apple went for 'Perfect', 'Good Enough' won that battle (And OS X is an example of 'Good Enough', even if it is better than XP).
And Mac OS was about as stable and multitasked as well as Win95 (95 had a better design, Mac OS was a more mature OS, except for System 7.5, the Win Me of Mac OS).
OS X will run on my 8 year old 8500/150 (via XPostoFacto), admittedly poorly, until I drop a G4/800 CPU card, 512MB of Ram (1/2 of what it supports) and a Radeon PCI mac Edition into it, then it'll run quite nicely, thank you very much.
OS X 10.1.5 is quite acceptable on my G3/333, about as well as Win2K does on a similar spec Duron 600.
And then the Mac II came out in 1987, with built-in multi-head (Just add Graphics Cards), high-res graphics, 24 bit colour available, decent on-board sound, built-in networking (Well, Apple had that in 1984) and support for 128MB of Ram. Not to mention standard hard drives internal floppies and a serial bus for peripherals.
The Amiga was a great system, but the Mac matched it in 1987 (Apart from pre-emptive multi-tasking, where Apple dropped the ball for over a decade) and had far surpassed it when the Quadra 840Av and Centris 660AV shipped in 1993. And everything the Mac didn't have, NeXT did (Pre-emptive multi-tasking, advanced audio capabilities, OO based OS and GUI).
XP Pro can authenticate over LDAP, as long as it's MS's LDAP implementation (Active Directory is really LDAP+Kerberos+obligatory obfuscation)
XP ain't bad, in fact it's at least as stable as OS/2 Warp 4 ever was, with abetter interface to boot. It ain't OS X, but it's closer than most, and has better integration to the hardware than GNOME or KDE.
That said, I still don't want to admin any Win2k3 Servers.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not uncommon for groups that got IP space in the 80's. Back in the days of classful routing, one got a /16 if one had more than 254 and less than 16534 hosts on their network.
/16 hanging off a 128k ISDN link up until recently.
I know a hospital in Toronto that had a
Considering that at MIT, Pop machines and Coffee Makers have IP's, they just might be using a reasonable amount of their /8
WebTV
No, that was OS X Hacks, not Hints. Similar, but different (Hacks has only 100, somewhat more involved articles, to Hints 500 hints).
Next Week: Mac OS X for Unix Geeks (Which is darn spiffy, IMHO, the best of the 3)
I gotta agree on the MicroKernal part. I suspect it was done that way simply because they could re-use so much code (From mkLinux and NeXT/Openstep).
As to Real Soon now, well, I suspect I'll be seeing 64 bit Mac's before AMD x86-64 Desktops, since AMD pushed back that launch(Athlon 64). Apple's reportedly announcing the G5 or whatever it's actually going to be called, at the end of the month, likely with availability in August or early September.
Ever heard of the PowerPC 970? There's a reason that OS X 10.3 (Panther) is going to be 64bit native.
Coming this summer.
And it'll eat your UltraSparc for lunch, being a Power4 core.
Note at this point that Fisking is also used by the left.
Print Bullshit, expect to be fisked.
The original 22" was Samsung, they must have changed it later.
A goody number of the more prominent Warbloggers are hackers, of one sort or another, especially Steven Den Beste.
And 'Fisking' is a righteous term.
Apple uses Samsung Panels.
4 already happened. MS Unix (aka Xenix) was sold to SCO in 1983.
SysV was significantly different from BSD. There were IIRC 3 files in all of BSD4.4 that were descended from the old Release 7 version of AT&T Unix, but no SysV stuff.
Unfortunately for USL, there was a lot of BSD4.2 era code in SysV.
And IIRC SMP only came to SysV in the 90's, BSD variants had it earlier (SunOS for one).
Unixware might share a bit of code with Solaris, the bits they both stole from BSD. Note that Unixware is SysV+OpenServer.
While Solaris is very SysV'ish compared to SunOS, it was split off from the AT&T code base years ago.
But Novell actually holds the patents SCO claims to own.
It isn't so much that MS was ahead of Apple in the internals (A/UX argues that that simply wasn't the case) as that Apple spent the early and mid 90's chasing a dream OS-wise. An OS-X type solution could have been available in 1996 or so if Apple hadn't wasted years on Talingent Pink and Copeland.
MS went for 'Good enough', Apple went for 'Perfect', 'Good Enough' won that battle (And OS X is an example of 'Good Enough', even if it is better than XP).
And Mac OS was about as stable and multitasked as well as Win95 (95 had a better design, Mac OS was a more mature OS, except for System 7.5, the Win Me of Mac OS).
Never heard of A/UX have you then.
It was a SysV unix, running Finder on top (in either 24bit or 32 bit modes) or X.
Circa 1992.
Of course, it was, like Windows NT prior to v4, intended merely for servers.
meh, all they did was rip out the Strings they forgot to previously.
And you know there's a reason why the core NT team were all ex-VMS types.
See the post I was replying to. OS X certainly runs on Macs older than 3 years, and runs quite acceptably on a 5 year old G3.
Preceded Actually.
1992 to be exact.
You're likely thinking of Apple's Network Servers, the AIX Servers that Apple sold circa 1995.
Nope, Apple had that back around the same time MS did. A/UX. And it had about the same share of the Mac market that NT 3.1 did of the Windows Market.
OS X will run on my 8 year old 8500/150 (via XPostoFacto), admittedly poorly, until I drop a G4/800 CPU card, 512MB of Ram (1/2 of what it supports) and a Radeon PCI mac Edition into it, then it'll run quite nicely, thank you very much.
OS X 10.1.5 is quite acceptable on my G3/333, about as well as Win2K does on a similar spec Duron 600.
And then the Mac II came out in 1987, with built-in multi-head (Just add Graphics Cards), high-res graphics, 24 bit colour available, decent on-board sound, built-in networking (Well, Apple had that in 1984) and support for 128MB of Ram. Not to mention standard hard drives internal floppies and a serial bus for peripherals.
The Amiga was a great system, but the Mac matched it in 1987 (Apart from pre-emptive multi-tasking, where Apple dropped the ball for over a decade) and had far surpassed it when the Quadra 840Av and Centris 660AV shipped in 1993. And everything the Mac didn't have, NeXT did (Pre-emptive multi-tasking, advanced audio capabilities, OO based OS and GUI).
XP Pro can authenticate over LDAP, as long as it's MS's LDAP implementation (Active Directory is really LDAP+Kerberos+obligatory obfuscation)
XP ain't bad, in fact it's at least as stable as OS/2 Warp 4 ever was, with abetter interface to boot. It ain't OS X, but it's closer than most, and has better integration to the hardware than GNOME or KDE.
That said, I still don't want to admin any Win2k3 Servers.
CCNA hasn't been 'much desired' since 99-2000, it is about the only meaningful entry-level cert these days though.
And it's pretty easy to get as well, shouldn't take you more than a couple of weeks.