While he answered all the questions, his answers were certainly terse. I realize that he is probably a busy man, but if you're going to agree to do something like this, I would have hoped he would have put some more of the ole "William Shattner that we know and love" into it. Of course that the bothered at all was certainly nice of him.
That said, I wonder how much of the way he replied had to do with his not fully grasping what/. is? Not that we're some all powerful force or anything (well except for unsuspecting websites) but I wonder if he thought that we were just a group of a dozen pimply faced nerds not very far removed from Trekies/ers?
Right but not all pieces of software care about all those options. Pretty much no piece of software (other than the OS) cares much about storage devices, this has been abstracted away for them. They utilize an api and access things without concern for exactly what that thing is.
To further beat the bridge analogy to death, you might have to move it to different locations without mods, but at each location you'd build the site up to facilitate the bridge. In this way the bridge could "easily" be made to fit many different locations.
Well I'd disagree, kinda. While there may be a finite numbers of ways to construct a bridge, there are a greatly varying number of site and site conditions to build a bridge on. Each site having unique properties that require thought and creativity to solve. Span lengths, soil conditions, wind conditions, earthquake requirements, environmental issues, ergonomic issues, aesthetic issues, the variables are many.
Your statement about the weights reminds me of one of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes comics. Calvin is riding with his parents in their car when they cross over a bridge with a "load limit" sign. Calvin asks "how do they determine the weight limits on the bridges?". His dad responds that they drive increasingly heavier trucks across the bridge until it collapses. They weigh the last truck and then they rebuild the bridge.
I worked in a company that received ISO9000 certification, and I can tell you that it doesn't mean squat. If you define what you are doing in a vague enough fashion, and document the crap you ended up writing, hey guess what, your ISO9000 compliant. It did not improve the software one bit. It's a lot like taking a test, when the test becomes the goal (vs what the test is supposed to achieve, measuring someones knowledge of a subject), then people have a tendency to focus on this new goal (passing the test) and actions become geared towards that goal vs the original. So all of a sudden it's not "hey lets improve our process and maybe we can achieve ISO9000", it becomes "hey lets change our process to achieve ISO9000".
The nature of programming hasen't changed because the way we attack the problem is no different than 40 years ago because it mimics how humans attack problems. Break it down into managable chunks and try to make the chunks work together nicely. Whether it be structured or OO, the pen and paper change but the mind behind the pen and the words produced have stayed the same (i.e. not improved).
At which OS version did they officially drop support for BeBoxen and Macs? I still have OS cd's floating around here somewhere, but haven't looked at BeOS in four years or so.
Read the article, OpenBSD does work on USI and USII machines, it is specifically the USIII that they are having problems with. And it also states that Sun had given the Linux clan some info under NDA about USIII that has allowed Linux to run properly. BeOS on Sparc? I haven't heard of that port? Unless your comment about DOS also implies that they were using the DOS compat. cards that Sun has (or even worse, running on the old i386 machines)
One must look at this in terms of the bigger picture (no pun intended). Some are saying that Sony is going up against the big boys, well no, the FCC has mandated that cable systems get the collective act together and enable consumers to purchase their own STB's retail and be able to use them on any cable system (The Telecommunications Act of '96). I believe they have until 2006 to make this happen. This is similar to the DOCSIS standard for cable modems.
Actually it wasn't gcc the compiler, but rather the libraries that I was curious about. With M$, you are granted a license to use the libraries for whatever purposes, I wasen't sure if the libraries that came with gcc also stated the same (since some third party libraries are clearly GPL).
So do they not use gcc? I thought anything that was developed with gcc or included it's libraries also had to be OS (just a question, I have no idea)?
As for "leeching" off of Linux, how many people who actually use Linux (or any GPL code for that matter) have actually contibuted, regardless of whether or not they make any money from it (note that I would consider those who use it for their job someone who is making money from it).
If they utilize the tools available, don't break the rules governing it, and produce a good usable product, why not support them?
Other than the hot swapping, there are a couple of systems that are dvr's that are designed specifically for the surveillance industry. Here is just one:
Now it isn't cheap (nor are any of the other solutions you're likely to find), those vertical market solutions always bend you over. Now this is the real market for those who like to roll your own since the savings can truely be significant.
So what % of TiVo sales goes to GNU/Linux? Or is Tivo just riding on Linux's back?
Why should any of it? Isn't the point that they should be putting the source back out for people to benefit from? And if they are doing this, aren't they fulfilling the gpl and any requirements and/or obligations they have to the OS community?
Well by your definition of "force", you are "forcing" me to come to your way thinking. I do understand what you're talking about however, though I would claim that those in the evolutionist camp are just as bad as those in the creationist camp (at least in my own personal experience). One thing about creationist expousal in a forum such as/. that one should keep in mind though, we rarely see anything posted that has a christianic bent, we are more likely to see articles such as the one that started this thread since it falls under the heading of "science". So from a christian standpoint, one way of belief is being foisted to the exclusion of another major belief.
As for the earth being flat, the point was that scientist at the time made an assumption based on observation and the "common" knowledge of the times. Which is basically what todays scientists do. Now we are more "sophisticated" for sure, but that doesn't mean that 400 years from now scientists will look at our theories of how life began and call it quaint.
And finally, as to your statement, two things. You have to remember that again, many christians do not not believe in the general theory of evolution, that living things evolve. It's just a matter of how far back you're willing to attribute evolution to. Just because one can't get their heads or hearts around the concept of some all powerful being doesn't make it not so. As to which is more plausible, for me personally, both require a certain leap. Also keep in mind that creationists could always claim that it was the big guy that set things into motion and that the time frames mentioned in the bible/etc are not really human timeframes and that non creationist theory is simply the human level explanation of what happened between the second and third days (don't quote me on the days, my Genesis is rusty;)
Actually you didn't answer his statement about you stating that you were somehow being "forced" to believe in God. Why, just because he was being sarcastic and "mocked" evolutionary theory this somehow "forces" you to believe in God?
Note that it is denoted a theory but has such overwhelming evidence in favor of it that it has been accepted by general scientific community as fact until rebuffed.
Well keep in mind that at one point the general scientific community thought the earth was flat and that electrons were tiny bits of stuff that ran in discrete rings around a nuclei. As for your overwhelming evidence, overwhelming evidence of what exactly? That living matter on this planet goes through (and has gone through) an evolutionary process? If so then most creationist would agree with you. Now if you're talking about the absolute origins of life, then thats another thing altogether and one in which the "general scientific community" has a generally accepted theory, but that most are not 100% behind since there is not "overwhelming evidence" of that nature. Just lots of general ideas and theories that are related (such as the one posited in this article).
Of course nobody will see this since this topic has run itself out, but here goes anyway:
Apple killed the best development platform on the market (OpenStep) in favor of a relatively crippled cartoon GUI
In the words of many great vampire movies, "You can't kill what's already dead". Please, OpenStep was going nowhere slowly, Apple is not an OS charity, they took something that had a good foundation and applied what they knew about the market to give people what they wanted (or at least what Apple figured they'd purchase).
They paid off Sorenson so that no competitor would be allowed to license the most common QuickTime codec, keeping the format effectively proprietary
OK, I'll give you that one.
They killed the entire third-party Mac market (and several capable vendors) because they found themselves to be an inept competitor.
Hmm, they canceled a business practice that was causing them to suffer and threatened the entire Mac market. Sounds evil to me. Don't forget, without Apple there IS/WAS no Mac/clone market. The clone makers were just leaching off of Apple anyway since Apple was so desperate to create that market.
they bait-and-switched developers who were holding out for Rhapsody-ready hardware
Is your complaint that they droped Rhapsody? I'm not familiar with what you are complaining about here.
And let's not forget the look-and-feel lawsuit
Well back then a gui was innovative, so look and feel was an important issue. Not saying that Apple had a leg to stand on considering the whole PARC thing, but one could easily see why it was at least worth a shot, esp. when you consider Apples position in the market at the time vs IBM/Microsoft.
Apple is one of the few vendors that's actually worse than Microsoft, if you look past the hype.
While I can understand the frustration from your complaints, much of it is just whining. Apple is a business that would dearly love to stay in business. To achieve that considering the market position that they hold, they sometimes have to make unpopular decisions. Now are all their decisions morally on the up and up, well just like anybody/entity, no. But to complain about some of the items that you have makes no practical sense.
What companies have you been looking at? Plenty of companies have Solaris x86 boxes in production
I said that I personally knew of 0 companies, I wasn't exactly going out of my way to look for them though;) I work in the CRM/call center market so I do get a chance to see a lot of decent sized setups where uptime is everything. Lots of Sun/Solaris, more and more PC/WinNT, a few IBM/AIX (and even one or two OS/2) and of course plenty of other misc setups. I don't doubt that there are other industries that might use them, but either way not a large part of Suns big picture.
I am indeed wrong about SO being a Java app, my bad. But I still hold that Sun never seriously thought that they could make LARGE inroads into the MSO market. They were certainly hoping that on the platforms that M$ ignored that they could secure that market, but in the end, nobody cared since Solaris/Linux/OS2 never amounted to enough on the desktop to make SO even a blip. BTW, I have also heard good things about StarCalc, I just don't need a spreadsheet in my day to day to get past the other negatives.
Java was intended to be the killer app, not SO (and as I've been corrected, SO is not a Java app). In any case, Sun always had intended to "give away" SO and even back then M$ was not shaking in their boots. Sun might have fancied thoughts of SO somehow taking some good market share, but doubt that internally they were hanging any hopes on it.
You are correct. For some reason I was always under the assumption that SO was a Java app. Actually, for me this is even worse news as SO always felt ponderous and I always had chalked it up to being a Java app, no it has no such excuse.
because when it was free, people believed it was inferior to the expensive Microsoft Office suite
Believed? It was significantly inferior. It was majorly slow and didn't behave in a way that people had gotten used to (at least those weaned in the Windoze/Office world). I haven't looked at a version in about 2 years or so, so it could be significantly better, but I doubt it.
Anyway, StarOffice was NEVER intended to be a MSO killer, Sun always intended it to be a Java showcase to prove that it could be used to make "real" enterprise apps (I won't even touch this subject).
Sun probably cannibalized sales of lower-end (e.g. Sun Blade 100) systems. Those who wanted to run Solaris could do so without having to buy anything from Sun.
Not really. People don't buy Sun stuff just for Solaris, they want the package. They wanted (allegedly) stable Sun hardware on (allegedly) stable Sun software. I doubt if Sun lost any money to speak of because people were buying Solaris and running it on their Dell's (I personally know of 0 companies running x86 Solaris in a production environment, I do know some that use to as a cheap developers box).
Solaris clearly will not be a serious competitor to Windows or Linux in the x86 market.
I agree, but you're missing the point that it was never meant to be. Sun already had a x86 port when they came out with their i386 boxes years ago. They were just leveraging that work by keeping the code base portable. It's always been a red headed step child and always will be. But generally I don't think it's that massive a drain on their resources.
Cheap? You can purchase SparcStation 10's or Ultra 1's on ebay for ~$20-$100 that will easily run Solaris 9. Now they won't be the most spritely, but if the issue is getting something up and going _cheaply_ can't beat it. Sure is a lot better than messing around with pc hardware that will make Solaris x86 happy. Just plop the cd's in and go. A great way to learn Solaris on the cheap.
Hey guys don't you realize what's happening? Since it's a holiday they're doing a "Best of/." show due to the lack of meaningful events on the turkey day. Hell, they probably have a script that just plops up a story from a list they have preselected while they're off stuffing their faces and taking naps while watching bad football (and that'd be 'mericun football NOT soccer for all you ferners).
Phoenix the BIOS company actually does sell a web browser (FirstView Connect). Now it's targeted towards the embedded market, but how much more clear a trademark issue can you have here?
If Microsoft came out with an open source browser intended only for Windows use and called it MSzilla, people would be flipping their lids and crying foul.
Sure, why not? If I were to create a rival BIOS company and name it Pfeonix, why shouldn't Phoenix be able to claim trademark rights? The issue here is that Phoenix the BIOS company also sells software (well a BIOS is software to, but..) AAMOF, they actually sell a browser (FirstView Connect).
Slashdot Mirror
While he answered all the questions, his answers were certainly terse. I realize that he is probably a busy man, but if you're going to agree to do something like this, I would have hoped he would have put some more of the ole "William Shattner that we know and love" into it. Of course that the bothered at all was certainly nice of him.
/. is? Not that we're some all powerful force or anything (well except for unsuspecting websites) but I wonder if he thought that we were just a group of a dozen pimply faced nerds not very far removed from Trekies/ers?
That said, I wonder how much of the way he replied had to do with his not fully grasping what
Right but not all pieces of software care about all those options. Pretty much no piece of software (other than the OS) cares much about storage devices, this has been abstracted away for them. They utilize an api and access things without concern for exactly what that thing is.
To further beat the bridge analogy to death, you might have to move it to different locations without mods, but at each location you'd build the site up to facilitate the bridge. In this way the bridge could "easily" be made to fit many different locations.
Well I'd disagree, kinda. While there may be a finite numbers of ways to construct a bridge, there are a greatly varying number of site and site conditions to build a bridge on. Each site having unique properties that require thought and creativity to solve. Span lengths, soil conditions, wind conditions, earthquake requirements, environmental issues, ergonomic issues, aesthetic issues, the variables are many.
Your statement about the weights reminds me of one of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes comics. Calvin is riding with his parents in their car when they cross over a bridge with a "load limit" sign. Calvin asks "how do they determine the weight limits on the bridges?". His dad responds that they drive increasingly heavier trucks across the bridge until it collapses. They weigh the last truck and then they rebuild the bridge.
I worked in a company that received ISO9000 certification, and I can tell you that it doesn't mean squat. If you define what you are doing in a vague enough fashion, and document the crap you ended up writing, hey guess what, your ISO9000 compliant. It did not improve the software one bit. It's a lot like taking a test, when the test becomes the goal (vs what the test is supposed to achieve, measuring someones knowledge of a subject), then people have a tendency to focus on this new goal (passing the test) and actions become geared towards that goal vs the original. So all of a sudden it's not "hey lets improve our process and maybe we can achieve ISO9000", it becomes "hey lets change our process to achieve ISO9000".
The nature of programming hasen't changed because the way we attack the problem is no different than 40 years ago because it mimics how humans attack problems. Break it down into managable chunks and try to make the chunks work together nicely. Whether it be structured or OO, the pen and paper change but the mind behind the pen and the words produced have stayed the same (i.e. not improved).
At which OS version did they officially drop support for BeBoxen and Macs? I still have OS cd's floating around here somewhere, but haven't looked at BeOS in four years or so.
Read the article, OpenBSD does work on USI and USII machines, it is specifically the USIII that they are having problems with. And it also states that Sun had given the Linux clan some info under NDA about USIII that has allowed Linux to run properly. BeOS on Sparc? I haven't heard of that port? Unless your comment about DOS also implies that they were using the DOS compat. cards that Sun has (or even worse, running on the old i386 machines)
One must look at this in terms of the bigger picture (no pun intended). Some are saying that Sony is going up against the big boys, well no, the FCC has mandated that cable systems get the collective act together and enable consumers to purchase their own STB's retail and be able to use them on any cable system (The Telecommunications Act of '96). I believe they have until 2006 to make this happen. This is similar to the DOCSIS standard for cable modems.
Actually it wasn't gcc the compiler, but rather the libraries that I was curious about. With M$, you are granted a license to use the libraries for whatever purposes, I wasen't sure if the libraries that came with gcc also stated the same (since some third party libraries are clearly GPL).
So do they not use gcc? I thought anything that was developed with gcc or included it's libraries also had to be OS (just a question, I have no idea)?
As for "leeching" off of Linux, how many people who actually use Linux (or any GPL code for that matter) have actually contibuted, regardless of whether or not they make any money from it (note that I would consider those who use it for their job someone who is making money from it).
If they utilize the tools available, don't break the rules governing it, and produce a good usable product, why not support them?
Other than the hot swapping, there are a couple of systems that are dvr's that are designed specifically for the surveillance industry. Here is just one:
Visual Witness
Now it isn't cheap (nor are any of the other solutions you're likely to find), those vertical market solutions always bend you over. Now this is the real market for those who like to roll your own since the savings can truely be significant.
So what % of TiVo sales goes to GNU/Linux? Or is Tivo just riding on Linux's back?
Why should any of it? Isn't the point that they should be putting the source back out for people to benefit from? And if they are doing this, aren't they fulfilling the gpl and any requirements and/or obligations they have to the OS community?
Well by your definition of "force", you are "forcing" me to come to your way thinking. I do understand what you're talking about however, though I would claim that those in the evolutionist camp are just as bad as those in the creationist camp (at least in my own personal experience). One thing about creationist expousal in a forum such as /. that one should keep in mind though, we rarely see anything posted that has a christianic bent, we are more likely to see articles such as the one that started this thread since it falls under the heading of "science". So from a christian standpoint, one way of belief is being foisted to the exclusion of another major belief.
;)
As for the earth being flat, the point was that scientist at the time made an assumption based on observation and the "common" knowledge of the times. Which is basically what todays scientists do. Now we are more "sophisticated" for sure, but that doesn't mean that 400 years from now scientists will look at our theories of how life began and call it quaint.
And finally, as to your statement, two things. You have to remember that again, many christians do not not believe in the general theory of evolution, that living things evolve. It's just a matter of how far back you're willing to attribute evolution to. Just because one can't get their heads or hearts around the concept of some all powerful being doesn't make it not so. As to which is more plausible, for me personally, both require a certain leap. Also keep in mind that creationists could always claim that it was the big guy that set things into motion and that the time frames mentioned in the bible/etc are not really human timeframes and that non creationist theory is simply the human level explanation of what happened between the second and third days (don't quote me on the days, my Genesis is rusty
Actually you didn't answer his statement about you stating that you were somehow being "forced" to believe in God. Why, just because he was being sarcastic and "mocked" evolutionary theory this somehow "forces" you to believe in God?
Note that it is denoted a theory but has such overwhelming evidence in favor of it that it has been accepted by general scientific community as fact until rebuffed.
Well keep in mind that at one point the general scientific community thought the earth was flat and that electrons were tiny bits of stuff that ran in discrete rings around a nuclei. As for your overwhelming evidence, overwhelming evidence of what exactly? That living matter on this planet goes through (and has gone through) an evolutionary process? If so then most creationist would agree with you. Now if you're talking about the absolute origins of life, then thats another thing altogether and one in which the "general scientific community" has a generally accepted theory, but that most are not 100% behind since there is not "overwhelming evidence" of that nature. Just lots of general ideas and theories that are related (such as the one posited in this article).
Of course nobody will see this since this topic has run itself out, but here goes anyway:
Apple killed the best development platform on the market (OpenStep) in favor of a relatively crippled cartoon GUI
In the words of many great vampire movies, "You can't kill what's already dead". Please, OpenStep was going nowhere slowly, Apple is not an OS charity, they took something that had a good foundation and applied what they knew about the market to give people what they wanted (or at least what Apple figured they'd purchase).
They paid off Sorenson so that no competitor would be allowed to license the most common QuickTime codec, keeping the format effectively proprietary
OK, I'll give you that one.
They killed the entire third-party Mac market (and several capable vendors) because they found themselves to be an inept competitor.
Hmm, they canceled a business practice that was causing them to suffer and threatened the entire Mac market. Sounds evil to me. Don't forget, without Apple there IS/WAS no Mac/clone market. The clone makers were just leaching off of Apple anyway since Apple was so desperate to create that market.
they bait-and-switched developers who were holding out for Rhapsody-ready hardware
Is your complaint that they droped Rhapsody? I'm not familiar with what you are complaining about here.
And let's not forget the look-and-feel lawsuit
Well back then a gui was innovative, so look and feel was an important issue. Not saying that Apple had a leg to stand on considering the whole PARC thing, but one could easily see why it was at least worth a shot, esp. when you consider Apples position in the market at the time vs IBM/Microsoft.
Apple is one of the few vendors that's actually worse than Microsoft, if you look past the hype.
While I can understand the frustration from your complaints, much of it is just whining. Apple is a business that would dearly love to stay in business. To achieve that considering the market position that they hold, they sometimes have to make unpopular decisions. Now are all their decisions morally on the up and up, well just like anybody/entity, no. But to complain about some of the items that you have makes no practical sense.
We use Solaris x86 at my current job, running on 4x4 Dell boxes and 2x1 no-name boxes
Just out of curiosity, what type of work are these boxes doing?
What companies have you been looking at? Plenty of companies have Solaris x86 boxes in production
;) I work in the CRM/call center market so I do get a chance to see a lot of decent sized setups where uptime is everything. Lots of Sun/Solaris, more and more PC/WinNT, a few IBM/AIX (and even one or two OS/2) and of course plenty of other misc setups. I don't doubt that there are other industries that might use them, but either way not a large part of Suns big picture.
I said that I personally knew of 0 companies, I wasn't exactly going out of my way to look for them though
I am indeed wrong about SO being a Java app, my bad. But I still hold that Sun never seriously thought that they could make LARGE inroads into the MSO market. They were certainly hoping that on the platforms that M$ ignored that they could secure that market, but in the end, nobody cared since Solaris/Linux/OS2 never amounted to enough on the desktop to make SO even a blip. BTW, I have also heard good things about StarCalc, I just don't need a spreadsheet in my day to day to get past the other negatives.
Java was intended to be the killer app, not SO (and as I've been corrected, SO is not a Java app). In any case, Sun always had intended to "give away" SO and even back then M$ was not shaking in their boots. Sun might have fancied thoughts of SO somehow taking some good market share, but doubt that internally they were hanging any hopes on it.
You are correct. For some reason I was always under the assumption that SO was a Java app. Actually, for me this is even worse news as SO always felt ponderous and I always had chalked it up to being a Java app, no it has no such excuse.
because when it was free, people believed it was inferior to the expensive Microsoft Office suite
Believed? It was significantly inferior. It was majorly slow and didn't behave in a way that people had gotten used to (at least those weaned in the Windoze/Office world). I haven't looked at a version in about 2 years or so, so it could be significantly better, but I doubt it.
Anyway, StarOffice was NEVER intended to be a MSO killer, Sun always intended it to be a Java showcase to prove that it could be used to make "real" enterprise apps (I won't even touch this subject).
I sorta disagree.
Sun probably cannibalized sales of lower-end (e.g. Sun Blade 100) systems. Those who wanted to run Solaris could do so without having to buy anything from Sun.
Not really. People don't buy Sun stuff just for Solaris, they want the package. They wanted (allegedly) stable Sun hardware on (allegedly) stable Sun software. I doubt if Sun lost any money to speak of because people were buying Solaris and running it on their Dell's (I personally know of 0 companies running x86 Solaris in a production environment, I do know some that use to as a cheap developers box).
Solaris clearly will not be a serious competitor to Windows or Linux in the x86 market.
I agree, but you're missing the point that it was never meant to be. Sun already had a x86 port when they came out with their i386 boxes years ago. They were just leveraging that work by keeping the code base portable. It's always been a red headed step child and always will be. But generally I don't think it's that massive a drain on their resources.
Cheap? You can purchase SparcStation 10's or Ultra 1's on ebay for ~$20-$100 that will easily run Solaris 9. Now they won't be the most spritely, but if the issue is getting something up and going _cheaply_ can't beat it. Sure is a lot better than messing around with pc hardware that will make Solaris x86 happy. Just plop the cd's in and go. A great way to learn Solaris on the cheap.
Hey guys don't you realize what's happening? Since it's a holiday they're doing a "Best of /." show due to the lack of meaningful events on the turkey day. Hell, they probably have a script that just plops up a story from a list they have preselected while they're off stuffing their faces and taking naps while watching bad football (and that'd be 'mericun football NOT soccer for all you ferners).
Phoenix the BIOS company actually does sell a web browser (FirstView Connect). Now it's targeted towards the embedded market, but how much more clear a trademark issue can you have here?
If Microsoft came out with an open source browser intended only for Windows use and called it MSzilla, people would be flipping their lids and crying foul.
Sure, why not? If I were to create a rival BIOS company and name it Pfeonix, why shouldn't Phoenix be able to claim trademark rights? The issue here is that Phoenix the BIOS company also sells software (well a BIOS is software to, but ..) AAMOF, they actually sell a browser (FirstView Connect).