Sadly, most of the Indian programmers I've spoken with have better English than most programmers I've met (or comments on Slashdot I've read), never mind L337 HAX0R D00D$...
It did work. For a few days, www.sco.com was the top link. Then, SCO demanded that Google remove them from their rankings, and Google did.
The geeks, though, were not to be put off. Many changed their links to www.caldera.com, which was the same as www.sco.com. Voila! It worked again. This was as late as *yesterday*.
Today, however, it seems that SCO has recovered from their DDOS enough to notice that the Caldera link was #1, and must have asked Google to remedy the situation...
The next question: what *other* SCO domains can we use?:)
I understand your point, but I do not agree with it. I am not talking about the attractiveness of the GUI. Windows has always been more polished. I'm talking about the power. The ability to transition from the filesystem to the desktop transparently. Where the desktop *was* the filesystem. Where a file's icon was the file, and working with that icon had more power than just opening or moving that file. Where "shortcuts" (shadows in OS/2) are not detached icons that are quasi-one-way-linked with something, they *are* that something: with the same features and power. Where opening or closing a folder can be configured to open or close a myriad of other items: programs, datafiles, etc. and maintain their size, position, even work state...
And that is just the everyday features of the interface. There were far more advanced items. Want to change an applications colors? Drop a color onto the part you want to change from the color app. Want to change a font? Do the same: either system wide or for that app only. Ever use an app like Relish? Want to schedule an appointment? Drag off an appointment from the appointment icon (template object) on the desktop. You can scatter the appointments around the desktop, folders, file system, *wherever* you wanted. Want a list of appointments? No problem: you can still bring up a boring old list. In other words, you had the same traditional list-type tools of any other PIM, but the ability to work completely object-oriented if you wished.
There were *so* many ways of making OS/2 work in an intuitive fashion. Even where your intuitive and mine were completely different. It was more than customizability, it was more than features, it was more than options. It was all of that and more.
If all you ever did was use OS/2 like a Windows or MacOS desktop, you would have never seen these features. All you would have seen was an ugly desktop. That's why saying, "Just look at it in Bochs (which, by the way, can't run OS/2: I've worked with the developers to fix this and it just won't!)" demonstrates that you don't understand the power available within the Workplace Shell. It has nothing to do with looks. It has everything to do with power.
Ugly? Yes. Different? Somewhat. Surpassed in polish, style and traditional GUI features by modern GUI's? Definitely. Surpassed in sheer intuitive usability, advanced features and depth of integration into the file system, network and application interface? Not at all.
Again, I've heard that BeOS is very similar. In fact, I've tried to find a place where I can easily get BeOS and play, but only just to see. I just wish there were a live OS with even half of the features I used for nearly a decade with OS/2...
You know what I love? The same OpenOffice.org that geeks drool over started life as StarOffice. StarOffice, a product that STARTED LIFE as an OS/2 product that was *PORTED* to Windows and Linux!
Those who forget history...
But, yeah, it's a *much* better product now that it runs on Linux... Whatever. I would kill for a platform that had a UI as powerful as the Workplace Shell. Object oriented since 1992. I hear BeOS is very similar, but I'm tired of being stuck with dead operating systems!:)
That's assuming that the sensor's format is 35mm, where a "normal" lens is 35mm. If the sensor is larger or smaller, the focal length of a normal lens is different...
The ability to replicate does not a Lotus Notes Database make. PostgreSQL is a relational database. It's data is highly ordered. Lotus Notes is closer to raw text files than ordered relational data.
There are virtually no rules governing the structure of a Notes document (analogous to a record in SQL). It can be changed at will. This is the exact opposite of relational data, which structure is difficult to alter.
Yes, you do need repliation. But there are lots of relational databases that replicate. It's just that they store very different types of data...
I too am a consultant. I do *not* get the right to tell them, "You are going to do this. You are going to do it now. And you are going to pay me for it." It's their money, it's their company. My job is to present them with options (and one option is *always* to do nothing), and make them aware of the consequences.
I make that point as strongly as I can, but in the end, I do not have the right to spend their money for them.
As much as I'd like to, when the client who *just* had to pay me for 12 hours of time to clean up from Blaster won't authorize 3 hours to protect them from the next worm...
By definition, with the speed of context switches and other overhead the same, a system with "low-latency" switching (switching faster between interactive jobs) will be slower. It switches more often, therefore wasting more cycles with switching overhead.
Of course, there is the possibility of trimming cycles from the process of switching contexts. Linux, though, already had that pretty low. That's why Linus is so resistant to shared-memory, shared-context threads: the cost of processes is so low that the benefits are small. However, some speed was gained in context switches.
Overall, though, more switching means slower performance, even though the user feels like the system is faster. It's not faster. It's actually slower. It's just more responsive.
You know what's funny? You just described the Atlas, Delta, and Arianne boosters.
In other words, we've already got all of that, commercially viable (read: profitable), ready to go today.
It's the computer that got me started. When I was 8 I was given an old VIC-20 mostly as a video game system (it had a bunch of cartridge games). However, it has the thick spiral-bound manual with a little cartoon computer on it that guided you through BASIC. I fell in love with that thing.
I can remember having to leave the computer on for *weeks* while I was working on a program because my tape drive had burned out... Ah, those were the days.
This is a common mistake: confusing a supercomputer (or worse, a cluster) with a mainframe.
Mainframes have one job: to move data from point A to point B as quickly as possible, while doing a relatively minor amount of processing on the way. Mainframes are what you use when you want to process every ATM transaction that happens around the world, all at the same time. In fact, your average mainframe is not really any more powerful than a dual- or quad-CPU Intel server, raw processing wise.
Supercomputers are the exact opposite. They're stacks and stacks of CPU's that process largely independent chunks of data. They do huge amounts of processing on each chunk of data. They do *not* move data particularly well. In many cases, supercomputers are held together with Gigabit Ethernet. That's not exactly *fast*...
Maybe in the 4.x days, but ever since 5.0 (4 years ago), both Notes clients and Domino servers have done POP3, SMTP, IMAP, HTTP, NNTP and more out of the box.
The Notes client can function completely standalone. You use the best part of Notes (collaboration), but it still functions as a mail client, calendaring, etc.
As someone else wrote, Notes' ability to function as a Mail client is not its best part. Its best parts are the advanced collaboration tools and the easiest to program, free-form database structure. Mail is more of an afterthought than anything else. But it does it decently well, and with a slew of advanced features found in few other mail-only clients.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, yes, I *am* the Monopoly Rules Nazi. And no, there is *no* money on Free Parking! :)
It did work. For a few days, www.sco.com was the top link. Then, SCO demanded that Google remove them from their rankings, and Google did.
The geeks, though, were not to be put off. Many changed their links to www.caldera.com, which was the same as www.sco.com. Voila! It worked again. This was as late as *yesterday*.
Today, however, it seems that SCO has recovered from their DDOS enough to notice that the Caldera link was #1, and must have asked Google to remedy the situation...
The next question: what *other* SCO domains can we use? :)
I'm all for LEGO's, and even video games in moderation. But no wonder children are having obesity problems...
Sigh. I am getting OLD.
And that is just the everyday features of the interface. There were far more advanced items. Want to change an applications colors? Drop a color onto the part you want to change from the color app. Want to change a font? Do the same: either system wide or for that app only. Ever use an app like Relish? Want to schedule an appointment? Drag off an appointment from the appointment icon (template object) on the desktop. You can scatter the appointments around the desktop, folders, file system, *wherever* you wanted. Want a list of appointments? No problem: you can still bring up a boring old list. In other words, you had the same traditional list-type tools of any other PIM, but the ability to work completely object-oriented if you wished.
There were *so* many ways of making OS/2 work in an intuitive fashion. Even where your intuitive and mine were completely different. It was more than customizability, it was more than features, it was more than options. It was all of that and more.
If all you ever did was use OS/2 like a Windows or MacOS desktop, you would have never seen these features. All you would have seen was an ugly desktop. That's why saying, "Just look at it in Bochs (which, by the way, can't run OS/2: I've worked with the developers to fix this and it just won't!)" demonstrates that you don't understand the power available within the Workplace Shell. It has nothing to do with looks. It has everything to do with power. Ugly? Yes. Different? Somewhat. Surpassed in polish, style and traditional GUI features by modern GUI's? Definitely. Surpassed in sheer intuitive usability, advanced features and depth of integration into the file system, network and application interface? Not at all.
Again, I've heard that BeOS is very similar. In fact, I've tried to find a place where I can easily get BeOS and play, but only just to see. I just wish there were a live OS with even half of the features I used for nearly a decade with OS/2...
Those who forget history...
But, yeah, it's a *much* better product now that it runs on Linux... Whatever. I would kill for a platform that had a UI as powerful as the Workplace Shell. Object oriented since 1992. I hear BeOS is very similar, but I'm tired of being stuck with dead operating systems! :)
Not one of them would reproduce it. Most of them printed all white as magenta.
It's been that way for *years*: the Savin is 7 years old...
So I don't know why the HP scanner people think it's "near impossible": the competition has been doing it forever...
Side note: This only worked with money face-side on the glass. It would copy the back just fine...
That's what I get for nit-picking.
Yes, I'm also a photo geek. No, I can't help it.
Care to let us know more about this competition? I'd love to see a website...
I can't believe I'm replying to this. I'm such a geek.
Sigh.
There are virtually no rules governing the structure of a Notes document (analogous to a record in SQL). It can be changed at will. This is the exact opposite of relational data, which structure is difficult to alter.
Yes, you do need repliation. But there are lots of relational databases that replicate. It's just that they store very different types of data...
P.S., we're in Southeast Michigan... ;)
I too am a consultant. I do *not* get the right to tell them, "You are going to do this. You are going to do it now. And you are going to pay me for it." It's their money, it's their company. My job is to present them with options (and one option is *always* to do nothing), and make them aware of the consequences.
I make that point as strongly as I can, but in the end, I do not have the right to spend their money for them.
As much as I'd like to, when the client who *just* had to pay me for 12 hours of time to clean up from Blaster won't authorize 3 hours to protect them from the next worm...
Of course, there is the possibility of trimming cycles from the process of switching contexts. Linux, though, already had that pretty low. That's why Linus is so resistant to shared-memory, shared-context threads: the cost of processes is so low that the benefits are small. However, some speed was gained in context switches.
Overall, though, more switching means slower performance, even though the user feels like the system is faster. It's not faster. It's actually slower. It's just more responsive.
Confused yet? :)
Just becaues you can't see its use outside of a toy, doesn't mean everybody can't.
Everything else you said was right on! :)
It's the computer that got me started. When I was 8 I was given an old VIC-20 mostly as a video game system (it had a bunch of cartridge games). However, it has the thick spiral-bound manual with a little cartoon computer on it that guided you through BASIC. I fell in love with that thing.
I can remember having to leave the computer on for *weeks* while I was working on a program because my tape drive had burned out... Ah, those were the days.
Mainframes have one job: to move data from point A to point B as quickly as possible, while doing a relatively minor amount of processing on the way. Mainframes are what you use when you want to process every ATM transaction that happens around the world, all at the same time. In fact, your average mainframe is not really any more powerful than a dual- or quad-CPU Intel server, raw processing wise.
Supercomputers are the exact opposite. They're stacks and stacks of CPU's that process largely independent chunks of data. They do huge amounts of processing on each chunk of data. They do *not* move data particularly well. In many cases, supercomputers are held together with Gigabit Ethernet. That's not exactly *fast*...
Different computers, different tasks.
The Notes client can function completely standalone. You use the best part of Notes (collaboration), but it still functions as a mail client, calendaring, etc.
As someone else wrote, Notes' ability to function as a Mail client is not its best part. Its best parts are the advanced collaboration tools and the easiest to program, free-form database structure. Mail is more of an afterthought than anything else. But it does it decently well, and with a slew of advanced features found in few other mail-only clients.
That's exactly what you get: a completely database driven mail client. Pretty, easy to use, powerful, works out of the box.
With as many messages as I've seen echoing your thoughts, maybe IBM needs to spend a little more money in marketing?
Does it out of the box: Archive.
Of course, it doesn't work with headers worth anything, but it does archive well. And full-text search. Can't forget that, either.