Err... I wouldn't call what Apple did 'squeezing'. They placed a $1/port licencing fee if the manufacturer wanted to use the word 'Firewire', rather than IEEE 1394. $1/port? Also, Firewire is an open standard. Anyone can make one. In order to even MAKE a Microchannel device, you had to licence it from IBM.
Gates having to share a room with, and WORK TOGETHER with Stallman, Jobs, and McNealy? I can see Gates waking up in a cold sweat from a nightmare about this on a regular basis.
Compliments for standards compliance in IE5 for Macintosh can be found in a press release from the WebStandards project. One sad, thing however, is that I've heard that recently, the Mac IE team has been moved over to the WebTV division. I hope this won't negatively impact the next version of IE for Macintosh.
Downtown would be out of the question for any sort of campus. There simply isn't enough room, regardless of traffic. Richmond would probably be a good bet, though. There is lots of space, real-estate is affordable there and other tech companies (IBM, for example) already have areas out there. The housing market, right now, is having a dip, since lots of families that moved here from Hong Kong are now moving back. The only problem I see with Richmond is that it be covered with a few dozen feet of water when the big earthquake we're over-do for hits.:-)
Actually, I believe you're incorrect about this. I did some reading about this to do with Corel suing the US government for unfairly putting them out of the running for use of their office suite in government offices. Corel is a Canadian company. I think part of the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) between US, Canada and Mexico, software purchases also have to include Canadian (and Mexican, I assume) products in the list of possibilities.
I just had to point out, as a regular Mac user/owner: 1) PPP is in a control panel called either PPP, or Remote Access, depending on if you're running MacOS9. Alternatively, there might be a Remote Access icon in your control strip in addition to a Control Panel, looking like a computer next to a telephone pole. 2) To save as a postscript document, select the Laserwriter driver from the chooser, hit print, and change the "Destination" drop-down menu from "Printer" to "File".
I'll give you this, though: The Chooser is a poor piece of UI. Even Apple admits so. It's GONE in MacOSX. I spend a good chunk of time working with Windows, MacOS and Linux, as my profession requires of me and despite the internal deficiencies of the MacOS, it still allows me to get my work done a fair bit faster and with FAR less aggrivation than Linux or Windows.
While I'm on the soapbox, I might as well say it, MacOSX IS going to be the OS that people will have a hard time complaining about. The kernel is Mach, which is BSD compatible. The kernel is also open-source, and thus, hackable (See Darwin). Is has: 1) MacOS interface. 2) UNIX reliability. 3) UNIX compatability (command line programs should compile without complaint as they would on FreeBSD, X Window server is availible as an option) 4) A great selection of business applications. 5) Runs on fast, pretty hardware. I could even go on to speculate that it should be possible to write support for PPCLinux executables into the kernel, the same way that X86 Linux executables will run on FreeBSD.
Now if only Apple will fix that stupid dock feature, and move the widgets on the window scroll bars back where they belong...
No, I don't see them opening up the Quartz sources, but... with all the talk of the world needing a brand new imaging model to replace/extend X11, wouldn't it be great if Apple published the specs for such an API? (Apple specifically chose PDF for the base because there are no licencing issues, as there were for Display Postscript). If they did, it would leave the door open for developers to write compatible implementations, and perhaps situate Apple as the leading force in a new standard.
Of course, any 'competing' implementations wouldn't actually be competing, because they would run on (likely) different hardware and (certainly) a different OS. Of course, NeXT tried this with OpenStep, didn't they? I've never heard of any other implementations other than GNUStep, and it's still pretty far from prime time. Perhaps Apple would have an easier time since they are higher profile, and many developers see them as 'getting it'.
I have a LaserWriter II with a IIg board in it, and I'm pretty sure that it drops to a low power mode after being idle for 5 minutes or so, since the fuser goes cold, and after an extended period the printer takes a minute or two to print something, needing to warm up first. I seriously would recommend getting yourself a IIg, as it has an Ethernet port and far better print quality than the IIntx. I actually find it amazing that Apple was able to produce a print engine (the LaserWriter II) that sold for 8 or 9 years, though 5 I/O board revisions, before finally being retired, and that a IISC (1 Meg of Ram, Postscript 1) can be upgraded to a IIf (up to 32 megs of RAM, Ethernet and Postscript II) by a simple I/O board swap.
Well, as I understood it, the StrongARM chips will NEVER be used in consumer computers (not including palmtops) for the simple fact that the StrongARM family of processors are designed without floating point units. The lack of a floating point unit (meaning all floating point calculations would have to be done in software) would not be all that large of a burdon for typical business applications, but it would make it completely and utterly useless for any sort of game. While gaming is usually not the focus of most laptop owners, I doubt that any laptop without gaming capability would ever become more than a special-use product. The Crusoe processor, when released, should allow for designs for laptops and notebook computers that were not availible until now because of power limitations, but I believe that because of the inherent tradeoffs involved in a technology such as Transmeta's code-morphing techniques, the performance of the Crusoe chips will be less constant and reliable than a 'hard-wired' processor, as it were. You may notice that of all the claims that Transmeta has made about the Crusoe chip, first-class performance is NOT one of them. They claim on their web page to support speeds up to 700Mhz in the Crusoe chip, however, as people are beginning to discover, clock speed is never the whole issue. I wish I could remember the original reference, but it has been suggested (and yes, I feel bad for not being able to cite this) that a 700Mhz Crusoe would be equivilent to a 450Mhz PIII (not mobile). While at the moment, this seems like a very nice speed, note that there are NO products using the Crusoe chip today, and PIII 450Mhz machines are availible to purchase today. Assuming that it will be another 3-6 months before a Crusoe laptop hits the market, it's pretty clear that at least in the near term, the Crusoe is going to be a whole level down in the performance race. However, if you NEED 6-8 hours of battery life, the Crusoe chip MAY be the way to go. Another good possibility is the Motorola/IBM PowerPC series of processors. The PowerPCs have, in general, been in the 4-6 watt range. The PPC 7400 (AKA G4), according the Motorola's data sheets, eats about 5 watts at 400Mhz, at 'typical' usage. This should get even lower as Motorola moves to a smaller fabrication size. The low power requirements of the PowerPC processors have allowed Apple to be able to produce laptops and desktops with identical processors (and even motherboards! The iMacs and PowerBooks use the same motherboards, with SMALL differences). Don't forget, as well, that power consumption of the processor is only one piece of the puzzle in a laptop. With displays getting bigger, rather than smaller, unless the efficiency of LCD displays gets a big boost in the near future, the power consumption of the LCD display is going to get enormous. Don't forget, the difference in area between a 14" and 15" (viewable) screen is not 7%, but around 15%! As it is, in my Apple PowerBook, the screen takes up OVER half of the power consumption. Hard drives, as well, are a factor, as are any other peripherals within the laptop. Anyways, hopefully after reading this, you'll realize that the problems in practical portable computing and battery life won't just be solved by dropping in a new, lower powered processor. Wow... I didn't mean for this to ramble so long.
Having to choose from a set of tasks (or make everyone agree that a task is needed) seems like an uncommon way of doing Open Source development. Usually, there is one (or maybe two) main contributers who write the bulk of the first part of the project, with several other contributers that feel that they need modifications for their own personal needs. Usually, the team does not have a set list of tasks that developers choose from, or organize beforehand. Well, this may be different depending on the particular project, but it seems to me that this might suffer from several problems: 1) Feature bloat. With more features to add to a project, each developer has the oppertunity to increase their share in the project. Developers might create work for themselves. 2) Infighting. Who ends up being the overall judge of this? What happens if two developers want to do the same task? I can see this causing a project to quickly break down.
Re:When will Red Hat join?
on
SuSE For PPC
·
· Score: 3
Red Hat buying LinuxPPC would be a very wise move, I think, especially considering the fact that the ppc linux reference release is based off of RedHat source packages. There would hardly be any work left to do to turn it into a real RedHat release. I'd be looking forward to more sane support for X. Right now there are 2 different types of X you can run. You can run Xpmac, which is older and tested, but I have no idea what sources it was originally based on. There's a more recent XFree86 port to PPC, but it's fairly flakey and lacking features that are typically needed on the Mac (like 3 button mouse emulation). I think I'd be very pleased to see a real PPC port of RedHat.
What makes you think that it's illegal to reverse engineer Apple's hardware? Besides, Apple, as a company, obviously fully supports the non-Apple efforts to have Linux on the Mac, otherwise I'd hardly think they'd dedicate a small section of their website to links and information about linux on the PPC. http://ppclinux.apple.com/ I believe Be blaming Apple for the fact they haven't done a port to the G3 is an excuse, and a poor one at that. HOW difficult could it be to port BeOS from the 9500/9600/8500/8600 series of 604 and 604e based machines to the G3 machines when the ppclinux team got it working several days after the machines came out. Please.
My personal favorite (at the moment) is Rapster, since it gives you the choice of connecting directly to any of the known Napster servers, as well, as the OpenNap servers. Btw, the MacStar page doesn't appear to be working at the moment.
I keep hearing that Be is complaining that Apple won't open the specs they need to do their stuff. I'm left wondering, however, if this is simply an excuse of some sort. There are quite a few open-source OS's that already run on the G3 and G4. These include: Linux mkLinux (Not made by Apple anymore, but someone else is developing it) Darwin NetBSD (I'm pretty sure there's a Mac port of this)
What specs could Be POSSIBLY need from Apple in order to complete their port when there are at least 4 open-source OS's out there that had NO problem moving from the 603s and 604s to the G3s and G4s.
It's pretty obvious that there is NOT a way for ISP's to police the contect of the traffic that leaves their networks. That's just silly. However, this does not seem to be what went on here. What went on here was that someone posted a libelous message up to a newsserver run by an ISP. The ISP was informed of this and did not TRY to remove the message from their system. They refused to do so. If they had TRIED to cancel the message (yes, some news servers don't honor cancels) and had removed it from their own server, I cannot see how they could be held accountable for it. I do not see much of a difference between running a newspaper with classifieds and a news server or/.-type forum when it comes to this. If somebody posts something that is libelous and the maintainers of the forum are informed of this, I'd say that it IS their responsibility to remove the offending message. This does NOT mean that ISPs should need to monitor what goes in and out of the system. What this DOES mean is that they need to be responsive to complaints, just as any newspaper would be. Now... As far as what country's laws to use when it comes to matters like that, I have no idea. The most logical solution would seem to be the country that the forum is hosted in, but this obviously does not work well for forums like usenet that does not have a single central location. I realize all of the above argument is pretty useless without a clear definition as to what SHOULD be illegal to publish, but this seems to make the most sense. Please note that I am not making any sort of judgement of what I think of libel and slander laws. I DO believe it is possible to use words to harm another, however, so... you figure it out for yourself.
Whistler (the code name for Win2001) and Blackcomb (the code name for Win200x?) are two mountains in the Whistler/Blackcomb ski resort near Vancouver, B.C. Ya, I know we're just north, across the border, from Redmond, Washington, but come on, leave us poor Canucks alone already! I suppose it's just a matter of time before Microsoft and Starbucks are battling it out over for the spoils of British Columbia.
Oh ya. Eh. You were begging to hear it, I know it.
Seriously. Think about schools these days. Most high schools these days are run on shoestring budgets and often computer science departments are an absolute joke when it comes to the state of their hardware. With Linux, you get two big pluses: 1) It runs just fine on old hardware. 2) You don't have to pay software licencing fees for any applications, development kits or compilers.
As an added bonus (I suppose I'm cynical as to school's priorities these days) they'd be giving their students a leg up on the competition, since students could take anything they use at their schools home to their own computers, and experiment to their heart's content. That was one thing that I was disappointed about in my comp-sci courses in high school. I couldn't take a copy of the software home so I could experiment on my own.
I recommend that anybody interested in seamless IP encryption that supports any IP application without any changes look into IPSec. There's a free implementation called FreeS/WAN for linux. For PCs and Macs there are free client-side implementations availible in the form of PGP Freeware's PGPNet module.
IPSec can easily be set up to support an entire Internet subnet, where it encrypts all data between IPSec-enabled gateways, or encryption and authentication directly between two IPSec configured hosts.
As an added bonus, the Internet Engineering Task Force has included IPSec in the IPv6 specification, so there's a very high chance the protocol will become widely adopted in the near future.
FreeS/WAn can be found here and PGP Freeware here.
The most important thing about making ANY decision involving getting a service that your business relies on, web-based or otherwise is research!
Research the company that you are considering using. Find out who their clients are. Talk to them. Reputations exist for a reason and they do not appear out of thin air.
Find out something about their technical setup. Do they run their servers on PCs or Sparcs or what? Software quality aside, the quality of the hardware they're running DOES make a difference. Then, obviously, are they using a reliable OS?
Do they recieve all of their bandwidth from the same providor, or do they maintain multiple routes in case one of them goes down?
Here's a big one: What's their backup policy? Do they maintain daily backups or weekly? Are backups extra or standard?
What happens when your bandwidth is exceeded? Are you simply cut off, or are you given fair warning and time to buy more?
The list goes on and on: logging, cgi's, do they support servlets?
My point: You can NEVER know enough about a service providor before making a decision.
Well, remember all the things we said we'd be predicting, like the downfall of Linux and mp3s taking over the world? Well, sorry, we were a bit late on that. THIS year, that will happen.
Oh ya, remember those flying cars, where you snap on a pair of wings, find a stretch of highway and take off? Those will FINALLY make it this year too.
I believe this is just the beginning of an evil plot by Nintendo to replace all the important and famous people in the world with Pokemon characters.
Picture if you would a grotesque little monster with greying hair named Clintoboinko that defeats his opponents by whipping out his... umm... on second thought, actually, don't picture that.
Outselling the Mac? Was:The problem with variety
on
V2 OS
·
· Score: 1
Saying that Linux is outselling the Mac is no more relevant than saying that Netscape Navigator is outselling the Mac. Both of them can be had for free and both of them will run on the Mac. There are a growing number of Linux distributions for the PPC that will run on Apple Macintosh's, for example, LinuxPPC, Yellow Dog Linux and Turbolinux.
I don't have any hard numbers, but I strongly suspect that the number of people using a Mac as their primary OS outweighs, by far, the number of people using Linux as their primary OS. (Primary being the one they spend the majority of their computing time using).
Anyways, this is comparing (no pun intended) apples to oranges. Someone running NT on their computer is one person who's NOT running MacOS. The same is not necissarily true for Linux. (I run MacOS and Yellow Dog Linux on my G3 Laptop)
>The drawbacks? Mach is _really_ slow -- the message passing just ain't fast.
mklinux is a version of linux originally developed with a team from Apple to run on PowerMacs. It ran on the Mach 3.0 kernel, with linux on top. There's another version of linux for the PPC, called LinuxPPC, which is a monolithic kernel. Here you can read an article that states that the Mach based version was about 3.5% slower than the monolithic version. 3.5% is not a significant measure by any means. (The original article seems to be down, which is why I linked to the cached google page.)
> NT was/is based on a microkernel design
I have nothing concrete to back this up, but I remember reading that NT being a microkernel design is a myth. NT, as I understood, was based on VMS.
At a certain point in the past, MacOSX Server was rated the fastest web server running on a PC on the market (with a tweaked version of Apache on it) and MacOSX Server is a Mach based system.
To me, this seems more like a plain-old security exploit, no different than the dozen or so major security flaws in IE and Navigator found in the last 3 years or so.
There are thousands of pieces of code out there that exploit security flaws such as buffer overruns right now and most of them are labled as pieces of code that expose programming flaws in the targeted application/server.
How is this any different and why is it being branded as a 'virus'? It uses a security flaw in Microsoft code to introduce unexpected/unwanted behavior.
I don't see this as furthering the viewpoint of "Well, the day has come when people can catch a virus from reading their email" any more than web servers having buffer overrun probelms furthers the viewpoint of "the day has come when people can catch a virus from running a web server". If a piece of software is poorly written, it will be exploited.
Do you think perhaps it is because a good majority of computer users use email, but a very small number run server software susceptable to typical server attacks? Though if you remember the WinNuke exploit exposed in Win95 several years back, that is an example of a security flaw that could attack any Win95 machine attacked to the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Err...
I wouldn't call what Apple did 'squeezing'. They placed a $1/port licencing fee if the manufacturer wanted to use the word 'Firewire', rather than IEEE 1394.
$1/port?
Also, Firewire is an open standard. Anyone can make one. In order to even MAKE a Microchannel device, you had to licence it from IBM.
Gates having to share a room with, and WORK TOGETHER with Stallman, Jobs, and McNealy?
I can see Gates waking up in a cold sweat from a nightmare about this on a regular basis.
Compliments for standards compliance in IE5 for Macintosh can be found in a press release from the WebStandards project.
One sad, thing however, is that I've heard that recently, the Mac IE team has been moved over to the WebTV division. I hope this won't negatively impact the next version of IE for Macintosh.
I live in Vancouver.
:-)
Downtown would be out of the question for any sort of campus. There simply isn't enough room, regardless of traffic. Richmond would probably be a good bet, though. There is lots of space, real-estate is affordable there and other tech companies (IBM, for example) already have areas out there. The housing market, right now, is having a dip, since lots of families that moved here from Hong Kong are now moving back. The only problem I see with Richmond is that it be covered with a few dozen feet of water when the big earthquake we're over-do for hits.
Actually, I believe you're incorrect about this. I did some reading about this to do with Corel suing the US government for unfairly putting them out of the running for use of their office suite in government offices. Corel is a Canadian company. I think part of the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) between US, Canada and Mexico, software purchases also have to include Canadian (and Mexican, I assume) products in the list of possibilities.
I just had to point out, as a regular Mac user/owner:
1) PPP is in a control panel called either PPP, or Remote Access, depending on if you're running MacOS9.
Alternatively, there might be a Remote Access icon in your control strip in addition to a Control Panel, looking like a computer next to a telephone pole.
2) To save as a postscript document, select the Laserwriter driver from the chooser, hit print, and change the "Destination" drop-down menu from "Printer" to "File".
I'll give you this, though: The Chooser is a poor piece of UI. Even Apple admits so. It's GONE in MacOSX.
I spend a good chunk of time working with Windows, MacOS and Linux, as my profession requires of me and despite the internal deficiencies of the MacOS, it still allows me to get my work done a fair bit faster and with FAR less aggrivation than Linux or Windows.
While I'm on the soapbox, I might as well say it, MacOSX IS going to be the OS that people will have a hard time complaining about. The kernel is Mach, which is BSD compatible. The kernel is also open-source, and thus, hackable (See Darwin). Is has:
1) MacOS interface.
2) UNIX reliability.
3) UNIX compatability (command line programs should compile without complaint as they would on FreeBSD, X Window server is availible as an option)
4) A great selection of business applications.
5) Runs on fast, pretty hardware.
I could even go on to speculate that it should be possible to write support for PPCLinux executables into the kernel, the same way that X86 Linux executables will run on FreeBSD.
Now if only Apple will fix that stupid dock feature, and move the widgets on the window scroll bars back where they belong...
No, I don't see them opening up the Quartz sources, but... with all the talk of the world needing a brand new imaging model to replace/extend X11, wouldn't it be great if Apple published the specs for such an API? (Apple specifically chose PDF for the base because there are no licencing issues, as there were for Display Postscript). If they did, it would leave the door open for developers to write compatible implementations, and perhaps situate Apple as the leading force in a new standard.
Of course, any 'competing' implementations wouldn't actually be competing, because they would run on (likely) different hardware and (certainly) a different OS. Of course, NeXT tried this with OpenStep, didn't they? I've never heard of any other implementations other than GNUStep, and it's still pretty far from prime time. Perhaps Apple would have an easier time since they are higher profile, and many developers see them as 'getting it'.
I have a LaserWriter II with a IIg board in it, and I'm pretty sure that it drops to a low power mode after being idle for 5 minutes or so, since the fuser goes cold, and after an extended period the printer takes a minute or two to print something, needing to warm up first.
I seriously would recommend getting yourself a IIg, as it has an Ethernet port and far better print quality than the IIntx.
I actually find it amazing that Apple was able to produce a print engine (the LaserWriter II) that sold for 8 or 9 years, though 5 I/O board revisions, before finally being retired, and that a IISC (1 Meg of Ram, Postscript 1) can be upgraded to a IIf (up to 32 megs of RAM, Ethernet and Postscript II) by a simple I/O board swap.
Well, as I understood it, the StrongARM chips will NEVER be used in consumer computers (not including palmtops) for the simple fact that the StrongARM family of processors are designed without floating point units. The lack of a floating point unit (meaning all floating point calculations would have to be done in software) would not be all that large of a burdon for typical business applications, but it would make it completely and utterly useless for any sort of game. While gaming is usually not the focus of most laptop owners, I doubt that any laptop without gaming capability would ever become more than a special-use product.
The Crusoe processor, when released, should allow for designs for laptops and notebook computers that were not availible until now because of power limitations, but I believe that because of the inherent tradeoffs involved in a technology such as Transmeta's code-morphing techniques, the performance of the Crusoe chips will be less constant and reliable than a 'hard-wired' processor, as it were. You may notice that of all the claims that Transmeta has made about the Crusoe chip, first-class performance is NOT one of them. They claim on their web page to support speeds up to 700Mhz in the Crusoe chip, however, as people are beginning to discover, clock speed is never the whole issue. I wish I could remember the original reference, but it has been suggested (and yes, I feel bad for not being able to cite this) that a 700Mhz Crusoe would be equivilent to a 450Mhz PIII (not mobile). While at the moment, this seems like a very nice speed, note that there are NO products using the Crusoe chip today, and PIII 450Mhz machines are availible to purchase today. Assuming that it will be another 3-6 months before a Crusoe laptop hits the market, it's pretty clear that at least in the near term, the Crusoe is going to be a whole level down in the performance race. However, if you NEED 6-8 hours of battery life, the Crusoe chip MAY be the way to go.
Another good possibility is the Motorola/IBM PowerPC series of processors. The PowerPCs have, in general, been in the 4-6 watt range. The PPC 7400 (AKA G4), according the Motorola's data sheets, eats about 5 watts at 400Mhz, at 'typical' usage. This should get even lower as Motorola moves to a smaller fabrication size. The low power requirements of the PowerPC processors have allowed Apple to be able to produce laptops and desktops with identical processors (and even motherboards! The iMacs and PowerBooks use the same motherboards, with SMALL differences).
Don't forget, as well, that power consumption of the processor is only one piece of the puzzle in a laptop. With displays getting bigger, rather than smaller, unless the efficiency of LCD displays gets a big boost in the near future, the power consumption of the LCD display is going to get enormous. Don't forget, the difference in area between a 14" and 15" (viewable) screen is not 7%, but around 15%! As it is, in my Apple PowerBook, the screen takes up OVER half of the power consumption. Hard drives, as well, are a factor, as are any other peripherals within the laptop.
Anyways, hopefully after reading this, you'll realize that the problems in practical portable computing and battery life won't just be solved by dropping in a new, lower powered processor. Wow... I didn't mean for this to ramble so long.
Having to choose from a set of tasks (or make everyone agree that a task is needed) seems like an uncommon way of doing Open Source development. Usually, there is one (or maybe two) main contributers who write the bulk of the first part of the project, with several other contributers that feel that they need modifications for their own personal needs. Usually, the team does not have a set list of tasks that developers choose from, or organize beforehand.
Well, this may be different depending on the particular project, but it seems to me that this might suffer from several problems:
1) Feature bloat. With more features to add to a project, each developer has the oppertunity to increase their share in the project. Developers might create work for themselves.
2) Infighting. Who ends up being the overall judge of this? What happens if two developers want to do the same task?
I can see this causing a project to quickly break down.
Red Hat buying LinuxPPC would be a very wise move, I think, especially considering the fact that the ppc linux reference release is based off of RedHat source packages. There would hardly be any work left to do to turn it into a real RedHat release. I'd be looking forward to more sane support for X. Right now there are 2 different types of X you can run. You can run Xpmac, which is older and tested, but I have no idea what sources it was originally based on. There's a more recent XFree86 port to PPC, but it's fairly flakey and lacking features that are typically needed on the Mac (like 3 button mouse emulation). I think I'd be very pleased to see a real PPC port of RedHat.
What makes you think that it's illegal to reverse engineer Apple's hardware? Besides, Apple, as a company, obviously fully supports the non-Apple efforts to have Linux on the Mac, otherwise I'd hardly think they'd dedicate a small section of their website to links and information about linux on the PPC. http://ppclinux.apple.com/
I believe Be blaming Apple for the fact they haven't done a port to the G3 is an excuse, and a poor one at that. HOW difficult could it be to port BeOS from the 9500/9600/8500/8600 series of 604 and 604e based machines to the G3 machines when the ppclinux team got it working several days after the machines came out. Please.
- MacStar
- Macster
- Rapster
My personal favorite (at the moment) is Rapster, since it gives you the choice of connecting directly to any of the known Napster servers, as well, as the OpenNap servers. Btw, the MacStar page doesn't appear to be working at the moment.I keep hearing that Be is complaining that Apple won't open the specs they need to do their stuff. I'm left wondering, however, if this is simply an excuse of some sort.
There are quite a few open-source OS's that already run on the G3 and G4. These include:
Linux
mkLinux (Not made by Apple anymore, but someone else is developing it)
Darwin
NetBSD (I'm pretty sure there's a Mac port of this)
What specs could Be POSSIBLY need from Apple in order to complete their port when there are at least 4 open-source OS's out there that had NO problem moving from the 603s and 604s to the G3s and G4s.
Confused...
It's pretty obvious that there is NOT a way for ISP's to police the contect of the traffic that leaves their networks. That's just silly. However, this does not seem to be what went on here. /.-type forum when it comes to this. If somebody posts something that is libelous and the maintainers of the forum are informed of this, I'd say that it IS their responsibility to remove the offending message.
What went on here was that someone posted a libelous message up to a newsserver run by an ISP. The ISP was informed of this and did not TRY to remove the message from their system. They refused to do so. If they had TRIED to cancel the message (yes, some news servers don't honor cancels) and had removed it from their own server, I cannot see how they could be held accountable for it.
I do not see much of a difference between running a newspaper with classifieds and a news server or
This does NOT mean that ISPs should need to monitor what goes in and out of the system. What this DOES mean is that they need to be responsive to complaints, just as any newspaper would be.
Now... As far as what country's laws to use when it comes to matters like that, I have no idea. The most logical solution would seem to be the country that the forum is hosted in, but this obviously does not work well for forums like usenet that does not have a single central location. I realize all of the above argument is pretty useless without a clear definition as to what SHOULD be illegal to publish, but this seems to make the most sense.
Please note that I am not making any sort of judgement of what I think of libel and slander laws. I DO believe it is possible to use words to harm another, however, so... you figure it out for yourself.
Whistler (the code name for Win2001) and Blackcomb (the code name for Win200x?) are two mountains in the Whistler/Blackcomb ski resort near Vancouver, B.C.
Ya, I know we're just north, across the border, from Redmond, Washington, but come on, leave us poor Canucks alone already!
I suppose it's just a matter of time before Microsoft and Starbucks are battling it out over for the spoils of British Columbia.
Oh ya. Eh.
You were begging to hear it, I know it.
Seriously. Think about schools these days. Most high schools these days are run on shoestring budgets and often computer science departments are an absolute joke when it comes to the state of their hardware. With Linux, you get two big pluses:
1) It runs just fine on old hardware.
2) You don't have to pay software licencing fees for any applications, development kits or compilers.
As an added bonus (I suppose I'm cynical as to school's priorities these days) they'd be giving their students a leg up on the competition, since students could take anything they use at their schools home to their own computers, and experiment to their heart's content. That was one thing that I was disappointed about in my comp-sci courses in high school. I couldn't take a copy of the software home so I could experiment on my own.
I recommend that anybody interested in seamless IP encryption that supports any IP application without any changes look into IPSec. There's a free implementation called FreeS/WAN for linux. For PCs and Macs there are free client-side implementations availible in the form of PGP Freeware's PGPNet module.
IPSec can easily be set up to support an entire Internet subnet, where it encrypts all data between IPSec-enabled gateways, or encryption and authentication directly between two IPSec configured hosts.
As an added bonus, the Internet Engineering Task Force has included IPSec in the IPv6 specification, so there's a very high chance the protocol will become widely adopted in the near future.
FreeS/WAn can be found here and PGP Freeware here.
The most important thing about making ANY decision involving getting a service that your business relies on, web-based or otherwise is research!
Research the company that you are considering using. Find out who their clients are. Talk to them. Reputations exist for a reason and they do not appear out of thin air.
Find out something about their technical setup. Do they run their servers on PCs or Sparcs or what? Software quality aside, the quality of the hardware they're running DOES make a difference. Then, obviously, are they using a reliable OS?
Do they recieve all of their bandwidth from the same providor, or do they maintain multiple routes in case one of them goes down?
Here's a big one: What's their backup policy? Do they maintain daily backups or weekly? Are backups extra or standard?
What happens when your bandwidth is exceeded? Are you simply cut off, or are you given fair warning and time to buy more?
The list goes on and on: logging, cgi's, do they support servlets?
My point: You can NEVER know enough about a service providor before making a decision.
Well, remember all the things we said we'd be predicting, like the downfall of Linux and mp3s taking over the world? Well, sorry, we were a bit late on that. THIS year, that will happen.
Oh ya, remember those flying cars, where you snap on a pair of wings, find a stretch of highway and take off? Those will FINALLY make it this year too.
Actually, if you read the article, you would see that he's selling for 60 million pounds, which comes to $97 million.
But of course you read the article, or you wouldn't be posting a comment about it, would you...?
I believe this is just the beginning of an evil plot by Nintendo to replace all the important and famous people in the world with Pokemon characters.
Picture if you would a grotesque little monster with greying hair named Clintoboinko that defeats his opponents by whipping out his... umm... on second thought, actually, don't picture that.
Saying that Linux is outselling the Mac is no more relevant than saying that Netscape Navigator is outselling the Mac. Both of them can be had for free and both of them will run on the Mac. There are a growing number of Linux distributions for the PPC that will run on Apple Macintosh's, for example, LinuxPPC, Yellow Dog Linux and Turbolinux.
I don't have any hard numbers, but I strongly suspect that the number of people using a Mac as their primary OS outweighs, by far, the number of people using Linux as their primary OS. (Primary being the one they spend the majority of their computing time using).
Anyways, this is comparing (no pun intended) apples to oranges. Someone running NT on their computer is one person who's NOT running MacOS. The same is not necissarily true for Linux. (I run MacOS and Yellow Dog Linux on my G3 Laptop)
>The drawbacks? Mach is _really_ slow -- the message passing just ain't fast.
mklinux is a version of linux originally developed with a team from Apple to run on PowerMacs. It ran on the Mach 3.0 kernel, with linux on top. There's another version of linux for the PPC, called LinuxPPC, which is a monolithic kernel.
Here you can read an article that states that the Mach based version was about 3.5% slower than the monolithic version. 3.5% is not a significant measure by any means.
(The original article seems to be down, which is why I linked to the cached google page.)
> NT was/is based on a microkernel design
I have nothing concrete to back this up, but I remember reading that NT being a microkernel design is a myth. NT, as I understood, was based on VMS.
At a certain point in the past, MacOSX Server was rated the fastest web server running on a PC on the market (with a tweaked version of Apache on it) and MacOSX Server is a Mach based system.
To me, this seems more like a plain-old security exploit, no different than the dozen or so major security flaws in IE and Navigator found in the last 3 years or so.
There are thousands of pieces of code out there that exploit security flaws such as buffer overruns right now and most of them are labled as pieces of code that expose programming flaws in the targeted application/server.
How is this any different and why is it being branded as a 'virus'? It uses a security flaw in Microsoft code to introduce unexpected/unwanted behavior.
I don't see this as furthering the viewpoint of "Well, the day has come when people can catch a virus from reading their email" any more than web servers having buffer overrun probelms furthers the viewpoint of "the day has come when people can catch a virus from running a web server". If a piece of software is poorly written, it will be exploited.
Do you think perhaps it is because a good majority of computer users use email, but a very small number run server software susceptable to typical server attacks? Though if you remember the WinNuke exploit exposed in Win95 several years back, that is an example of a security flaw that could attack any Win95 machine attacked to the Internet.