When Mundie pointed out that Passport is based on Kerberos, he kind of made a point. There is a lot of software out there (especially web browsers, web servers, and LDAP) that include code from open source or free software projects. The argument that Microsoft makes, that free software is some how corrosive to the economy, is totally unfounded and false.
Most Unix utilities and projects are commonly available, community code. Had these projects not been, the cost of systems would have been higher. Also developers learn from these projects. In some cases these projects started as government funded reasearch, because the private sector didn't care. Now that some of these projects have shown commercial importance, the private sector is creating similar software. In fact, one could argue, if it weren't for free software and government/university funded research - our economy would be worse off.
You might have it open on your lap
on
Low-end Laptops?
·
· Score: 1
Since It's a laptop you might just have it open on your lap.
First, I do a fair amount of Java and C++ programming. Basically, if I want to get it done fast Java is a more forgiving runtime and language. If I need the program to run fast, it's C or C++. I've never done official tests, but Java always seems to take an order of magnitude more memory, and runs much slower.
Maybe someone can explain to me, how Java could be faster than C++. He claims Java to be 0.7-4.5 slower that C++. Is a language compiled on the fly faster than one that's statically compiled before running? Is Java doing a better job of optimizing code?
Most of the speed we seem to get from Java application servers seems to come from the fact the entire web pages are cashed in memory as servlets. Is the Java code doing a better job of caching data from images, sounds, etc. in ram?
Please, enquiring minds want to know!
Of course, if you could write games in Java, it wouldn't mean there would be a an avalanche of games. It would mean, however, that developers start writing more GUI apps as they get past the psychological part of the speed issue.
But, by porting to a BSD, they have a very short port o Mac OSX. This is probably a way for them to thumb their nose at the Linux people, subsidize their Mac development for the next version of Office, and make people believe they have a standard anyone could implement.
It will be interesting to see if Microsoft uses this to claim a copyright violation against Mono. (Because the source code is available).
When I started using a PC, a friend of mine owned a Mac. Most PCs at the time did not have 1) sound, 2) networking, 3) hard-drives, 4) 800 k drives. His had all the above and the graphics (albeit black and white) were great.
Except during the lean years in the 90's Apple was a step ahead of the Intel/Microsoft world. It was able to address megs of memory when I could only do 640k and beyond that required special hardware and extensions. Everything from scanners to graphics tablets were a snap on the Mac. I can't tell you how many hours I spent fidgeting with PC cards.
The Mac experience is focused on the user. The windows experience is focused on cost/performance and infrastructure. I always felt, even when I had PCs because I couldn't afford a Mac, a PC was about running programs like wordperfect. A Mac was about writing, publishing, communication, fun, science, or whatever you needed it to do. It's like a Ford Taurus is about trasportation - but a Mercedes is about comfort, elegance, ease, and safety.
Apple's ability to incorporate new technologies is about this experience. A DVD burner should just work so you can make DVD movies. The reason for buying a DVD burner isn't so you can spend hours trying to flash new BIOS into your PC to have it recognize the new device. Apple slips these technologies in to enhance that user-centered experience.
It's not a cult - it's a family.
Re:The Real Problem With Cheap Laptops
on
Low-end Laptops?
·
· Score: 1
That's not fair. I have many friends who can wield a soldering iron. They have girlfriends that are quite technologically advanced. Some even come with fancy CO2 systems for rapid inflation.
But my point is the hero of my story (or heroine - don't want to get flamed by Techno-Lesbians) is not competant. His battery leaked all over his.... undercairrage.
Re:Unfair article to Linux but...
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 1
While OSX is by no means perfect, it does have a better out of the box experience. What makes OSX so interesting is both Linux and OSX have similar features in many regards. My beef with Linux (and it's not really a beef - more like a soy beef substitute) is the out of the box experience.
When I have problems on Linux I grab a How-To, do a google search, and I have an answer (even if it isn't one I like). I also understand what DMA is, what IRQ's are, and how a chipset on a graphics card relates to a particular model. For most users struggling with getting X to work is a pain in the ass. Frankly, as I get older, it becomes a larger pain in the ass for me as well. I like OSX because stuff I plug in just works.
I didn't like mail either -so I went ahead and bought office. (Not just because of mail) Frankly, I probably don't care if OpenOffice is available for OSX (but I do agree that it's annoying that some people just want free software). I care about being able to just sit and use the machine. No, config files, no work-arounds because AbiWord crashes. I throw in a CD, hit one button, and I have it MP3ed. No download this, update that, configure this, etc.
I could run, but don't run, server software on OSX. Most of it's set up on my Linux box and works fine. I don't have to play with it to get it to compile. I don't want to spend the hours to figure out why something won't build on OSX. Most of those builds work fine on Linux and./configure-make-make install works great.
Linux can learn from OSX and become better poised to do well in the desktop market. Right now it is in the category with OS2 and others. With improvements some Linux distros could be at the counter of every CompUSA as a free OS - take it home and user it. However, it has to get away from being a desktop you have to tinker with to one you can just use.
Re:The Real Problem With Cheap Laptops
on
Low-end Laptops?
·
· Score: 1
While one might be able to whip out their trusty soldering iron and jimmy up a new battery, not all are that capable.
Used Laptop $50
Soldering Iron $19.95
Replacement cells $23.75
Copay after going to the emergency room because the home-made battery leaked hot acid over your dirty-bits $400
The look on your girlfriend's face as you explain you can't have sex for three weeks while the chmical burns heal - priceless
Re:Used? Maybe. New? Not hardly.
on
Low-end Laptops?
·
· Score: 1
I definitely agree with you on the hand-held part, If you can live with a pen interface. You also give up the CD, floppy, possibly network access (depending on the hand-held and what speed you consider). For a contact manager, schedule, taking notes, etc, I pull out my antqiue Palm III, not my new Dell. High-end hand-held machines with a (real) keyboard tend to be much pricier - pretty much in laptop range.
But, if you need something that can run (real) Windows, or Linux (including regular apps), then laptop is the way to go. The only problem is yesterday's crotch-warmer is today's used laptop. I got about 2 hours of life on my laptop 5 years ago. I get about 2 hours of life on my Dell now.
Re:Used? Maybe. New? Not hardly.
on
Low-end Laptops?
·
· Score: 1
Add 256 meg to go to 384 and there's very little swapping.
Re:Yeah! But try getting it to look as nice as LaT
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
How is text-editting the format of your output saving time? Where I work we use standard document templates, where you select the appropriate style per section. We use a lot of tables, and embedded spreadsheets and charts. I can't imagine any scenario where (essentially) programming the format I want saves me time. Point - click-macro are much easier.
As much as I love OpenSource many of the office tools are open-sores. Star office is good enough for me to use day to day. I can open my co-workers MS documents and I can save in MS format. This is the way most companies work because it's fast and efficient.
When I'm done with a document, BTW, that gets published, I don't send it out. It goes to a technical writer that formats it in (sometimes in Quark). This technical writer would have to learn LaTeX instead of a point-and-click program.
I use gcc, Makefiles and Emacs, because it's easier to code on Unix for Unix. But I don't have any illusions that VC++ isn't a faster development environment, just as I don't believe LaTeX could possibly be faster than word. If you use a GUI front end to LaTeX, then you're in the same boat as Word, and less stable.
Re:How well would BeOS run on one
on
Low-end Laptops?
·
· Score: 1
I wish I'd had the courage. Be had it running on a couple of lap-tops. Mostly so JLG and Co could do demos. (As opposed to: "Here, let me just set up this computer...."). Bascially their information stated (I'm paraphrasing) "Try it, but it probably won't work and may damage your laptop. If it fails - don't call us. If you got it to work - tell us but we probably won't tell anyone else."
Re:Address lines and outdated but orphan BIOS
on
Low-end Laptops?
·
· Score: 1
I'm assuming (how do we spell assume?) that the reply was referring to the fact that recently manufactured machines use a standard memory. Older machines used their (almost) proprietary designs. So, if you wanted to go from 32Mb to a whopping 96Mb on your Compaq, you have to buy the 64Mb upgrade for that laptop.
If you buy a recently manufactured machine you will be able to easily find a 64 or 128 mb upgrade (even if there is a 192 mb cap). But, this is a newer laptop - not bargain basement.
However, you're right on on the BIOS. In fact, there may be no more flash updates to the BIOS - and the manufacturer is still in business. They just don't support old hardware. The BIOS issue can also affect our ability to use USB and PCMCIA cards (like fire-wire).
Loved it. Very cool. Is there source access so others may help?
Re:GNUStep? - Maybe not
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 1
As both a Linux and Mac user (who loves OSX because it's a vast improvement over 7.1-9.0) I don't think changing a window manager will do it.
As a concrete example, there's support for my Graphire pad on my Mac. I can also hot plug/unplug it and it works fine with my GUI, and the mouse is still plugged in. I had to run an installer, but that was about it.
My Epson printer (USB) worked fine from the get-go. No driver installation. I didn't even have to run a setup program. Unfortunately I had to download a 3rd party app to use my HP Scanjet 5300 because of a lack of driver support. Otherwise, all my stuff works great.
With Linux I've been through USB hell with 2.2, LPR hell with RedHat 7.1, X configuration Hell in version 1.0.x - 2.4.2. Even network hell (at various times) depending on the NIC. Switching window managers fixes some ills, but still may require you to edit text files, trade one set of quirks for another, or even have to learn scheme to reall customize it.
What the author does not say outright is that OSX gives you 95-99% of the Unix stuff that's great about Linux. In return for maybe de-unixing somewhat, it gives you simplicity. Sure, my G3-350 isn't as crisp as when it ran OS 8.1, but so what. It's still faster than me (for the most part).
Low end laptops are tough...
on
Low-end Laptops?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That's nirvana - picking up a low-end laptop and running Linux on it. After all, Linux runs find on modest hardware. And, the latest laptops have all this freaky hardware which doesn't seem to want to run with Linux.
The reality is that laptops aren't all that cheap. They have components (namely the battery) which tends to crap out fairly early in life. I've tried to do the same thing. Find a cheap laptop I can use (even if it's still plugged in) to do usefull stuff.
Unfortunately I don't have a good answer for you. The prices for the used stuff aren't great. They have parts that are lighter and tend to break faster. They have slower bus speeds and clock speeds than desktops. They tend to take less ram (used may only accomodate 256 Meg), they have small, expensive drives, and both ram and drives are expensive to upgrade. They have very limitted resolution screens (especially used).
If you need a box, I think you might be better served with used desktops on shear price. If you need the protability - I would look for a less expensive but new laptop. I don't think used saves you much when you look at what you're getting.
The advantage will be when Sony puts out a new CD with a big (preferrably orange) sticker that says "This Disc does not conform to industry standards (Red Book). It may not play in all consumer devices, personal computers or audio-visual equipment. The purchaser assumes any risk may not return this disk for a refund." In addition, it has to go into another section (not with all the Compact Discs) because it is not a compact disc. It will be amazing to see how few of these Sony will sell.
In addition, (feel free to correct me) but I thought Macrovision was part of the DMCA and required. Also, the region coding for DVDs is part of the standard. So, if I buy a DVD in the US I should reasonably not expect it to play in my European DVD player. However, when I buy a CD I do not expect it to be unplayable on my car stereo, computer, or home theater. I think the record industry will see a drop in sales as people choose to not waste $18 on a bum CD they can't play.
Dave Smith gets up one morning and decides he's going to write an automated widget layout program to minimize waste when manufacturing widgets. More widgets will be stamped out of raw material with less waste, reducing the manufacturing costs of widgets. Dave gets together $5 million in venture capital funding and writes a nifty widget layout program.
However, when Dave goes to market with his widget layout software - he's bombarded by patent suits. Oscar, the grouchy patent attourney from a large corporation, says "Stop - Our company has a patent on software to layout woogies. You violate our patent." To which Dave replies "But I'm laying out widgets and your software does nothing to optimize the placement of the woogies. In addition the use of software to layout parts on raw material prior to manufacture is virtually ancient." To which the patent attourney replies "That matters not. I have been granted an injunction, feel free to take me to court. To take me, my company and our 4 billion attourneys to court for the next 75 years."
Dave consults with his VC (the second round VCs all split when they got hold of the patent infringement suit). The VC is able to negotiate a settlement (sealed of course) wherein Dave promises not to challenge the patent (which he didn't have the resources to do - anyway) and pays the Oscar and the large company a tidy percentage of software sales. Dave is now in the clear? Wrong - Cruella, a patent attourney from another company, now indicates that Dave's interface to the CAM system violates their patent. But wait! The interface to the CAM system is a published API! That matters not, Cruella has an injunction. Oh, here we go again, Dave. And this time without Dave's VC, who bolted because of the second infringement case.
What happens to poor Dave? Maybe Dave should have figured in a budget line item in his business plan to pay off patent holders. That way he can ask for $6 million next time. $5 million to actually build the product and $1 million to pay each and every patent holder that makes a claim worthy of an injunction.
Mary, Dave's friend and fellow widget afficianado, decides to write open-source widget design software. If she puts the software out there people can use it and design better, more efficient widgets and make everyone better off. Unfortunately she finds herself in the same boat with Dave but without the deep pockets to pay off her patent infringement claims. No, Mary just winds up with a tonn of legal bills and possible personal bankruptcy for her effort.
Alas, what is the moral of the story? Is it "be careful and research all the patent information regarding your product"? No, it's "Patents are poised to become the next big racket - get in on it while you can". If you want to make money off software development without writing a line of code, simply accumulate patents (even crap patents). Look for people creating new software. Sue them until they pay you enough money to go away. For fun, you can sue open source efforts just to make the lives of hard-working, good-humored people miserable. (Actually, I've patented this 'process', so you can't do it without paying me my royalty.)
By the way, Dave dropped his whole idea. He patented one part of his program and sued the next 5 developers who tried something even remotely similar. Thanks to two of those developers, Dave is now sipping mai-tai's on a beach in Hawaii.
I would like to apologize to Michael Eisner and Jack Valenti for statements I made about them in recent posts regarding the SSSCA, Digital Rights Management and Senate Commerce Committee. Please understand that these comments were made with a humorous intent and were not intended to cause emotional harm to either Mr. Eisner or Mr. Valenti.
Tauzin-Dingell allows Bells to deny other companies access to their copper to provide DSL. This kind of stuff will happen more and more as communitees are denied fair access to broadband services because the providers and money-grubbing dick-wads.
First off attacking Apple for the entertainment industry's inability to secure their own content isn't really attacking the problem. Let's say all mac users steal music, that's max 5% of the market share. That means for every Mac user there are 19 windows users potentially stealing. Say that Apple does make it easier, so only 50% of Windows users steal music. That's still 10 to 1. Why doesn't Disney go after windows? Because they want to pick on an easier target.
Secondly, Apple has made some efforts to deter piracy. Most windows products may no attempt to deter piracy. In fact, most CD burners don't come with exhuastive warning labels. Arguably, Apple has at least made a token effort. It's stupid to go after the one guy that's trying to help you out a little, but that's not what Eisner cares about.
Before people flame me as being anti-Microsoft, I'm not. Things like iTunes seem to just make it easier, but it's nothing you can't do on any OS. Even if there were controls, eventually someone would circumvent the controls. I think DRM is an attractive idea politically, but will practically be of little use.
Okay, the title's a joke. although it did make no provision for DRM. Anyway, the one part that bugs me is the wireless networking. I don't care how good the think it is, it still seems like a Security hole? cavity? cavern? Every hear of war-driving?
If you think I'm over-reacting I encourage you to read both the SSSCA and the testimony recently before the Senate Commerce Comittee. (Sorry no link). Read it carefully and ask yourself, questions like - what's an interactive digital device? Why that's my computer, telvision, DVD player, phone, and oh, yes, my micro-wave. Ask yourself what safeguards are built into the SSSCA, like what happens if I want to buy a CD, rip it to my PC and then transfer it to my portable hard drive, so I can take it home with me to listen on my other computer.
The SSSCA is that bad and does not need to happen. There will be some push for DRM and we'll just have to live with that. However, the SSSCA as worded would be a disaster.
First it could possible esconce Microsoft into a permanent monopoly if they are they only OS that provides DRM that Hollywood accepts. Everyone else (including the server side) and go the way of the dodo.
It wold kill Linux, BSD, a whole bunch of other projects, and proprietary O/Ses that can't afford to make the jump.
It would destroy the ability of individuals in garages to start great new companies.
It would take away your rights as a consumer to use the shit you own the way you want to, given th level of protection intended by the entertainment industry. I'm allowed to copy for my own purposes, record for my own purposes, and lend people my CD's/DVD's and books. Eisner, Valenti & Co. want none of that.
At least the European draft stresses repeatedly the need for an open system and one that preserves consumers' rights. The SSSCA and Hollywood don't give a damn if the system is open to all, they just want it to work. They also want it to work almost all the time. At least the Europeans believe it can't work 100% of the time because it gets cracked.
There's a big difference between the SSSCA putting DRM on everything with a processor and a speck of RAM and a little firmware to decrypt movies in you DVD player. Frankly, I don't think DRM can ever be done, unless you no longer allow developers to write device drivers on any operating system - ever. (Even proprietary systems maintain information on how to write device drivers and examine kernel information.)
The countries that engage in DRM will have to build digital fortresses around their countries if they hope to keep out non-DRM and DRM cracking software. It would require a level of censorship that I find intollerable.
What the SSSCA and Hollywood want is an industry crippling bill. It may even make all your nifty hardware legally obsolete. (Which might be an unintended boon to the hardware guys). I believe it will also make all the DVD players, digital TV's, analog TV
s, camcorders, CD players, Amplifiers, and probably even PDAs and some cell phones obsolete. It may deny internet access to millions of people, schools, and organizations as they are unable to access an ISP that allows non DRM systems because they can't afford to upgrade all their hardware.
The best thing for the entertainment industry to do is to offer, legal,inexpensive, high quality systems that compete with pirated stuff. I can't sand watching movies on my computer - it sucks ass and so does the movie quality. My TV and DVD are much better for that. Offer something more affordable. I hate getting a screwed up MP3, I'd rather pay a buck a song and get a perfect copy.
Just remember Jack Valenti is a maggot riddled puss-bag from hell and Eisner's mouse is really a syphillitic rat. In case anyone want's to sue I was just kidding.
IPV6 is better. Autoconfiguration, neighbor discovery, big address space, compatability with IPV4, etc
IPv6 is in NO way compatable with IPv4. Have you even looked at the specifications? I cann't believe you got modded up for this.
And in what way does this make IPv6 backwards compatable with IPv4?
I never said backwards compatible. It will, however, coexist nicely on the same network. A number of the Unix configuration files are the same, such/etc/inetd.conf. A number of Unix services such as SSH, FTP and TELNET have IPV6 implementations. BIND already support IPV6.
Can you shoot IPV6 packets into an IPV4 only router and expect it to get delivered? Not really. Can you get two IPV6 networks to talk to each other over an IPV4 network. Sure. Works well. If a router understands both IPV4 and IPV6, works great. It's not like ATM, which has a much different packet layout and is a virtual switched network as opposed to packet switched. That suits my definition of compatible.
Now the real point I was trying to make was not to come to a definition of compatible. IPV6 will make life easier. However, the focus is on making IPV4 work. I just think it's unfortunate that people's time and money are being poured into IPV4 maintenance and not going toward IPV6 deployment.
I appreciate the comments, and yes, I am a bit dated (old). That joke for me goes back to more like 1992. When I was in class way back when IPv5 was "an experimental protocol" however no one knew if it would have legs. I remember some O/S support for it in commercial O/Ses and products. People played with it. Some people thought we would ditch IP altogether in favor of ATM networking if we wanted to do broadband. 10 years ago we actually thought video on demand over data networks was just around the corner. Now, it looks like video on demand over IP networks is just around the corner:)
Slashdot Mirror
When Mundie pointed out that Passport is based on Kerberos, he kind of made a point. There is a lot of software out there (especially web browsers, web servers, and LDAP) that include code from open source or free software projects. The argument that Microsoft makes, that free software is some how corrosive to the economy, is totally unfounded and false.
Most Unix utilities and projects are commonly available, community code. Had these projects not been, the cost of systems would have been higher. Also developers learn from these projects. In some cases these projects started as government funded reasearch, because the private sector didn't care. Now that some of these projects have shown commercial importance, the private sector is creating similar software. In fact, one could argue, if it weren't for free software and government/university funded research - our economy would be worse off.
Since It's a laptop you might just have it open on your lap.
First, I do a fair amount of Java and C++ programming. Basically, if I want to get it done fast Java is a more forgiving runtime and language. If I need the program to run fast, it's C or C++. I've never done official tests, but Java always seems to take an order of magnitude more memory, and runs much slower.
Maybe someone can explain to me, how Java could be faster than C++. He claims Java to be 0.7-4.5 slower that C++. Is a language compiled on the fly faster than one that's statically compiled before running? Is Java doing a better job of optimizing code?
Most of the speed we seem to get from Java application servers seems to come from the fact the entire web pages are cashed in memory as servlets. Is the Java code doing a better job of caching data from images, sounds, etc. in ram?
Please, enquiring minds want to know!
Of course, if you could write games in Java, it wouldn't mean there would be a an avalanche of games. It would mean, however, that developers start writing more GUI apps as they get past the psychological part of the speed issue.
I think their dislike of Linux is obvious
But, by porting to a BSD, they have a very short port o Mac OSX. This is probably a way for them to thumb their nose at the Linux people, subsidize their Mac development for the next version of Office, and make people believe they have a standard anyone could implement.
It will be interesting to see if Microsoft uses this to claim a copyright violation against Mono. (Because the source code is available).
When I started using a PC, a friend of mine owned a Mac. Most PCs at the time did not have 1) sound, 2) networking, 3) hard-drives, 4) 800 k drives. His had all the above and the graphics (albeit black and white) were great.
Except during the lean years in the 90's Apple was a step ahead of the Intel/Microsoft world. It was able to address megs of memory when I could only do 640k and beyond that required special hardware and extensions. Everything from scanners to graphics tablets were a snap on the Mac. I can't tell you how many hours I spent fidgeting with PC cards.
The Mac experience is focused on the user. The windows experience is focused on cost/performance and infrastructure. I always felt, even when I had PCs because I couldn't afford a Mac, a PC was about running programs like wordperfect. A Mac was about writing, publishing, communication, fun, science, or whatever you needed it to do. It's like a Ford Taurus is about trasportation - but a Mercedes is about comfort, elegance, ease, and safety.
Apple's ability to incorporate new technologies is about this experience. A DVD burner should just work so you can make DVD movies. The reason for buying a DVD burner isn't so you can spend hours trying to flash new BIOS into your PC to have it recognize the new device. Apple slips these technologies in to enhance that user-centered experience.
It's not a cult - it's a family.
That's not fair. I have many friends who can wield a soldering iron. They have girlfriends that are quite technologically advanced. Some even come with fancy CO2 systems for rapid inflation.
But my point is the hero of my story (or heroine - don't want to get flamed by Techno-Lesbians) is not competant. His battery leaked all over his .... undercairrage.
While OSX is by no means perfect, it does have a better out of the box experience. What makes OSX so interesting is both Linux and OSX have similar features in many regards. My beef with Linux (and it's not really a beef - more like a soy beef substitute) is the out of the box experience.
When I have problems on Linux I grab a How-To, do a google search, and I have an answer (even if it isn't one I like). I also understand what DMA is, what IRQ's are, and how a chipset on a graphics card relates to a particular model. For most users struggling with getting X to work is a pain in the ass. Frankly, as I get older, it becomes a larger pain in the ass for me as well. I like OSX because stuff I plug in just works.
I didn't like mail either -so I went ahead and bought office. (Not just because of mail) Frankly, I probably don't care if OpenOffice is available for OSX (but I do agree that it's annoying that some people just want free software). I care about being able to just sit and use the machine. No, config files, no work-arounds because AbiWord crashes. I throw in a CD, hit one button, and I have it MP3ed. No download this, update that, configure this, etc.
I could run, but don't run, server software on OSX. Most of it's set up on my Linux box and works fine. I don't have to play with it to get it to compile. I don't want to spend the hours to figure out why something won't build on OSX. Most of those builds work fine on Linux and ./configure-make-make install works great.
Linux can learn from OSX and become better poised to do well in the desktop market. Right now it is in the category with OS2 and others. With improvements some Linux distros could be at the counter of every CompUSA as a free OS - take it home and user it. However, it has to get away from being a desktop you have to tinker with to one you can just use.
While one might be able to whip out their trusty soldering iron and jimmy up a new battery, not all are that capable.
I definitely agree with you on the hand-held part, If you can live with a pen interface. You also give up the CD, floppy, possibly network access (depending on the hand-held and what speed you consider). For a contact manager, schedule, taking notes, etc, I pull out my antqiue Palm III, not my new Dell. High-end hand-held machines with a (real) keyboard tend to be much pricier - pretty much in laptop range.
But, if you need something that can run (real) Windows, or Linux (including regular apps), then laptop is the way to go. The only problem is yesterday's crotch-warmer is today's used laptop. I got about 2 hours of life on my laptop 5 years ago. I get about 2 hours of life on my Dell now.
Add 256 meg to go to 384 and there's very little swapping.
How is text-editting the format of your output saving time? Where I work we use standard document templates, where you select the appropriate style per section. We use a lot of tables, and embedded spreadsheets and charts. I can't imagine any scenario where (essentially) programming the format I want saves me time. Point - click-macro are much easier.
As much as I love OpenSource many of the office tools are open-sores. Star office is good enough for me to use day to day. I can open my co-workers MS documents and I can save in MS format. This is the way most companies work because it's fast and efficient.
When I'm done with a document, BTW, that gets published, I don't send it out. It goes to a technical writer that formats it in (sometimes in Quark). This technical writer would have to learn LaTeX instead of a point-and-click program.
I use gcc, Makefiles and Emacs, because it's easier to code on Unix for Unix. But I don't have any illusions that VC++ isn't a faster development environment, just as I don't believe LaTeX could possibly be faster than word. If you use a GUI front end to LaTeX, then you're in the same boat as Word, and less stable.
I wish I'd had the courage. Be had it running on a couple of lap-tops. Mostly so JLG and Co could do demos. (As opposed to: "Here, let me just set up this computer...."). Bascially their information stated (I'm paraphrasing) "Try it, but it probably won't work and may damage your laptop. If it fails - don't call us. If you got it to work - tell us but we probably won't tell anyone else."
I'm assuming (how do we spell assume?) that the reply was referring to the fact that recently manufactured machines use a standard memory. Older machines used their (almost) proprietary designs. So, if you wanted to go from 32Mb to a whopping 96Mb on your Compaq, you have to buy the 64Mb upgrade for that laptop.
If you buy a recently manufactured machine you will be able to easily find a 64 or 128 mb upgrade (even if there is a 192 mb cap). But, this is a newer laptop - not bargain basement.
However, you're right on on the BIOS. In fact, there may be no more flash updates to the BIOS - and the manufacturer is still in business. They just don't support old hardware. The BIOS issue can also affect our ability to use USB and PCMCIA cards (like fire-wire).
Loved it. Very cool. Is there source access so others may help?
As both a Linux and Mac user (who loves OSX because it's a vast improvement over 7.1-9.0) I don't think changing a window manager will do it.
As a concrete example, there's support for my Graphire pad on my Mac. I can also hot plug/unplug it and it works fine with my GUI, and the mouse is still plugged in. I had to run an installer, but that was about it.
My Epson printer (USB) worked fine from the get-go. No driver installation. I didn't even have to run a setup program. Unfortunately I had to download a 3rd party app to use my HP Scanjet 5300 because of a lack of driver support. Otherwise, all my stuff works great.
With Linux I've been through USB hell with 2.2, LPR hell with RedHat 7.1, X configuration Hell in version 1.0.x - 2.4.2. Even network hell (at various times) depending on the NIC. Switching window managers fixes some ills, but still may require you to edit text files, trade one set of quirks for another, or even have to learn scheme to reall customize it.
What the author does not say outright is that OSX gives you 95-99% of the Unix stuff that's great about Linux. In return for maybe de-unixing somewhat, it gives you simplicity. Sure, my G3-350 isn't as crisp as when it ran OS 8.1, but so what. It's still faster than me (for the most part).
That's nirvana - picking up a low-end laptop and running Linux on it. After all, Linux runs find on modest hardware. And, the latest laptops have all this freaky hardware which doesn't seem to want to run with Linux.
The reality is that laptops aren't all that cheap. They have components (namely the battery) which tends to crap out fairly early in life. I've tried to do the same thing. Find a cheap laptop I can use (even if it's still plugged in) to do usefull stuff.
Unfortunately I don't have a good answer for you. The prices for the used stuff aren't great. They have parts that are lighter and tend to break faster. They have slower bus speeds and clock speeds than desktops. They tend to take less ram (used may only accomodate 256 Meg), they have small, expensive drives, and both ram and drives are expensive to upgrade. They have very limitted resolution screens (especially used).
If you need a box, I think you might be better served with used desktops on shear price. If you need the protability - I would look for a less expensive but new laptop. I don't think used saves you much when you look at what you're getting.
The advantage will be when Sony puts out a new CD with a big (preferrably orange) sticker that says "This Disc does not conform to industry standards (Red Book). It may not play in all consumer devices, personal computers or audio-visual equipment. The purchaser assumes any risk may not return this disk for a refund." In addition, it has to go into another section (not with all the Compact Discs) because it is not a compact disc. It will be amazing to see how few of these Sony will sell.
In addition, (feel free to correct me) but I thought Macrovision was part of the DMCA and required. Also, the region coding for DVDs is part of the standard. So, if I buy a DVD in the US I should reasonably not expect it to play in my European DVD player. However, when I buy a CD I do not expect it to be unplayable on my car stereo, computer, or home theater. I think the record industry will see a drop in sales as people choose to not waste $18 on a bum CD they can't play.
Dave Smith gets up one morning and decides he's going to write an automated widget layout program to minimize waste when manufacturing widgets. More widgets will be stamped out of raw material with less waste, reducing the manufacturing costs of widgets. Dave gets together $5 million in venture capital funding and writes a nifty widget layout program.
However, when Dave goes to market with his widget layout software - he's bombarded by patent suits. Oscar, the grouchy patent attourney from a large corporation, says "Stop - Our company has a patent on software to layout woogies. You violate our patent." To which Dave replies "But I'm laying out widgets and your software does nothing to optimize the placement of the woogies. In addition the use of software to layout parts on raw material prior to manufacture is virtually ancient." To which the patent attourney replies "That matters not. I have been granted an injunction, feel free to take me to court. To take me, my company and our 4 billion attourneys to court for the next 75 years."
Dave consults with his VC (the second round VCs all split when they got hold of the patent infringement suit). The VC is able to negotiate a settlement (sealed of course) wherein Dave promises not to challenge the patent (which he didn't have the resources to do - anyway) and pays the Oscar and the large company a tidy percentage of software sales. Dave is now in the clear? Wrong - Cruella, a patent attourney from another company, now indicates that Dave's interface to the CAM system violates their patent. But wait! The interface to the CAM system is a published API! That matters not, Cruella has an injunction. Oh, here we go again, Dave. And this time without Dave's VC, who bolted because of the second infringement case.
What happens to poor Dave? Maybe Dave should have figured in a budget line item in his business plan to pay off patent holders. That way he can ask for $6 million next time. $5 million to actually build the product and $1 million to pay each and every patent holder that makes a claim worthy of an injunction.
Mary, Dave's friend and fellow widget afficianado, decides to write open-source widget design software. If she puts the software out there people can use it and design better, more efficient widgets and make everyone better off. Unfortunately she finds herself in the same boat with Dave but without the deep pockets to pay off her patent infringement claims. No, Mary just winds up with a tonn of legal bills and possible personal bankruptcy for her effort.
Alas, what is the moral of the story? Is it "be careful and research all the patent information regarding your product"? No, it's "Patents are poised to become the next big racket - get in on it while you can". If you want to make money off software development without writing a line of code, simply accumulate patents (even crap patents). Look for people creating new software. Sue them until they pay you enough money to go away. For fun, you can sue open source efforts just to make the lives of hard-working, good-humored people miserable. (Actually, I've patented this 'process', so you can't do it without paying me my royalty.)
By the way, Dave dropped his whole idea. He patented one part of his program and sued the next 5 developers who tried something even remotely similar. Thanks to two of those developers, Dave is now sipping mai-tai's on a beach in Hawaii.
I would like to apologize to Michael Eisner and Jack Valenti for statements I made about them in recent posts regarding the SSSCA, Digital Rights Management and Senate Commerce Committee. Please understand that these comments were made with a humorous intent and were not intended to cause emotional harm to either Mr. Eisner or Mr. Valenti.
Tauzin-Dingell allows Bells to deny other companies access to their copper to provide DSL. This kind of stuff will happen more and more as communitees are denied fair access to broadband services because the providers and money-grubbing dick-wads.
First off attacking Apple for the entertainment industry's inability to secure their own content isn't really attacking the problem. Let's say all mac users steal music, that's max 5% of the market share. That means for every Mac user there are 19 windows users potentially stealing. Say that Apple does make it easier, so only 50% of Windows users steal music. That's still 10 to 1. Why doesn't Disney go after windows? Because they want to pick on an easier target.
Secondly, Apple has made some efforts to deter piracy. Most windows products may no attempt to deter piracy. In fact, most CD burners don't come with exhuastive warning labels. Arguably, Apple has at least made a token effort. It's stupid to go after the one guy that's trying to help you out a little, but that's not what Eisner cares about.
Before people flame me as being anti-Microsoft, I'm not. Things like iTunes seem to just make it easier, but it's nothing you can't do on any OS. Even if there were controls, eventually someone would circumvent the controls. I think DRM is an attractive idea politically, but will practically be of little use.
Okay, the title's a joke. although it did make no provision for DRM. Anyway, the one part that bugs me is the wireless networking. I don't care how good the think it is, it still seems like a Security hole? cavity? cavern? Every hear of war-driving?
If you think I'm over-reacting I encourage you to read both the SSSCA and the testimony recently before the Senate Commerce Comittee. (Sorry no link). Read it carefully and ask yourself, questions like - what's an interactive digital device? Why that's my computer, telvision, DVD player, phone, and oh, yes, my micro-wave. Ask yourself what safeguards are built into the SSSCA, like what happens if I want to buy a CD, rip it to my PC and then transfer it to my portable hard drive, so I can take it home with me to listen on my other computer.
The SSSCA is that bad and does not need to happen. There will be some push for DRM and we'll just have to live with that. However, the SSSCA as worded would be a disaster.
First it could possible esconce Microsoft into a permanent monopoly if they are they only OS that provides DRM that Hollywood accepts. Everyone else (including the server side) and go the way of the dodo.
It wold kill Linux, BSD, a whole bunch of other projects, and proprietary O/Ses that can't afford to make the jump.
It would destroy the ability of individuals in garages to start great new companies.
It would take away your rights as a consumer to use the shit you own the way you want to, given th level of protection intended by the entertainment industry. I'm allowed to copy for my own purposes, record for my own purposes, and lend people my CD's/DVD's and books. Eisner, Valenti & Co. want none of that.
At least the European draft stresses repeatedly the need for an open system and one that preserves consumers' rights. The SSSCA and Hollywood don't give a damn if the system is open to all, they just want it to work. They also want it to work almost all the time. At least the Europeans believe it can't work 100% of the time because it gets cracked.
There's a big difference between the SSSCA putting DRM on everything with a processor and a speck of RAM and a little firmware to decrypt movies in you DVD player. Frankly, I don't think DRM can ever be done, unless you no longer allow developers to write device drivers on any operating system - ever. (Even proprietary systems maintain information on how to write device drivers and examine kernel information.)
The countries that engage in DRM will have to build digital fortresses around their countries if they hope to keep out non-DRM and DRM cracking software. It would require a level of censorship that I find intollerable.
What the SSSCA and Hollywood want is an industry crippling bill. It may even make all your nifty hardware legally obsolete. (Which might be an unintended boon to the hardware guys). I believe it will also make all the DVD players, digital TV's, analog TV s, camcorders, CD players, Amplifiers, and probably even PDAs and some cell phones obsolete. It may deny internet access to millions of people, schools, and organizations as they are unable to access an ISP that allows non DRM systems because they can't afford to upgrade all their hardware.
The best thing for the entertainment industry to do is to offer, legal,inexpensive, high quality systems that compete with pirated stuff. I can't sand watching movies on my computer - it sucks ass and so does the movie quality. My TV and DVD are much better for that. Offer something more affordable. I hate getting a screwed up MP3, I'd rather pay a buck a song and get a perfect copy.
Just remember Jack Valenti is a maggot riddled puss-bag from hell and Eisner's mouse is really a syphillitic rat. In case anyone want's to sue I was just kidding.
This is getting old, but...
IPV6 is better. Autoconfiguration, neighbor discovery, big address space, compatability with IPV4, etc
IPv6 is in NO way compatable with IPv4. Have you even looked at the specifications? I cann't believe you got modded up for this.
And in what way does this make IPv6 backwards compatable with IPv4?
I never said backwards compatible. It will, however, coexist nicely on the same network. A number of the Unix configuration files are the same, such /etc/inetd.conf. A number of Unix services such as SSH, FTP and TELNET have IPV6 implementations. BIND already support IPV6.
Can you shoot IPV6 packets into an IPV4 only router and expect it to get delivered? Not really. Can you get two IPV6 networks to talk to each other over an IPV4 network. Sure. Works well. If a router understands both IPV4 and IPV6, works great. It's not like ATM, which has a much different packet layout and is a virtual switched network as opposed to packet switched. That suits my definition of compatible.
Now the real point I was trying to make was not to come to a definition of compatible. IPV6 will make life easier. However, the focus is on making IPV4 work. I just think it's unfortunate that people's time and money are being poured into IPV4 maintenance and not going toward IPV6 deployment.
Odd reference for a joke (from 1998?)
I appreciate the comments, and yes, I am a bit dated (old). That joke for me goes back to more like 1992. When I was in class way back when IPv5 was "an experimental protocol" however no one knew if it would have legs. I remember some O/S support for it in commercial O/Ses and products. People played with it. Some people thought we would ditch IP altogether in favor of ATM networking if we wanted to do broadband. 10 years ago we actually thought video on demand over data networks was just around the corner. Now, it looks like video on demand over IP networks is just around the corner :)