"In any event, you'll probably get your wish as the IPod is halfway there anyway. It's got the hard drive and some basic PDA functions, now it just needs full-blown PDA action."
It lacks a kb, the size(the oqo is 2-3x larger) it lacks the color display, and the processor to run mac os x. the ipod is a mp3 player, small, light, quick to navigate... they won't bastardize an mp3 player by morphing it into a PDA.
Re:Linux compatibility?
on
OQO Examined
·
· Score: 1
The OQO is basicly a standard PC... it runs the desktop version of Windows, not PocketPC... It is x86 hardware, so ofcourse Linux can run on it... Just need drivers.
The idea has been brought up before, the problem being that Sun is a bigger company financially, than Apple. Apple can't acquire Sun, they would have to merge.
they are split because they don't want forks of java popping up in various distros, causing a huge revolt because java is now percieved as broken, when 1 distro ship incompatible/forked versions of java compared to another distro.
The problem with Sun open sourcing Java is the fear of forks, broken compatability, and the downfall of its greatest feature 'write once, run anywhere'...
I think the GPL is out of the question for the language, as it would easily fork...
How about, lgpl the entire library (that would allow for use of closed source apps in java, while gpl would not, right?) and do some very humble openning of the language, with strict control on the term of 'java' with stringent compatability tests.
RMS just had a heart attack, but you and I are in agreement, this situation is not a good one for linux...
Linux, essentially makes the OS commodity, what is left, then, is the hardware, support and software that runs on the OS. An OSS company, has to leverage one of those three(hardware, support, software) or a combination to be able to have a chance.
1. Microsoft is so much larger, that the additional testing is mute, they should still be significantly faster.
2. I really don't think a bugfix for IE has to be cross checked to see if cd-rom X from company Z will still work... the two are unrelated, and the OS should be able to seperate them accordingly.
you are lucky, most(the majority) of serious dos apps fail or are broken in XP, this is due to the dos emulation system being used, i believe.
Windows(win32) has a huge variety of applications, many old dos programs are, sadly, unusable anymore.
For your 'os with largest program list', reconsider macos x... it can run many mac classic apps(from 1-9.2.2, many fail, many run just fine), this represensts several thousand. It can run modern os X apps, again, sever(5, 10?) thousand more programs... with X11, it can run those x11 apps, that is tens of thousands. and finally, it can run many linux terminal apps with its darwin(mach/freebsd) kernel, with thousands of more apps, in a single recompile.
mac can run app for 4 different system(mac classic, macos x, X windows, unix terminal), and ofcourse has virtualpc or bochs to run dos and windows, in a non-native enviroment.
"2. Only a mailer problem." Spam should be fought at 2 levels, the mail server and the client. Improved mail server filtering(vastly improved) should be done, but also, MS should have bayesian filters that configure on-the-fly for client side... it isn't a 'client' only problem, it should be attacked at both fronts for maximum effectiveness.
"3. I also used Outlook 2003 to export my contacts as a single vcs file which Apple Address Book could read" He said automatic... It should be cleaner, easier, and one-click, essentially.
"4. I just used Outlook 2003 to forward an appointment as.ics to my home Mac" That isn't a very 'clean' solution... He wants either a web interface, i assume, that automatically syncs and shares calenders, not a 'forware an appointment'... Similar end result, but a good system would do this on a regular basis, without constant interfearance from the user.
"7. NO !!! It's not an OS's business, and especially not an unsecured one's." Agreed, this is a horrible idea.
"Sorry but this guy wants Microsoft to produce Macs, it's too obvious, he's not credible."
He doesn't want MS to produce macs, he wanted MS to release a product that Apple has since released, which they called.mac... The features he lists, in part, are covered by a similar product(.mac) from the competition, but has nothing to do with him wanting MS to produce Macs, how is that +4, Insightful?
This bundling also affects the lifecycle of the product: 5-6 years between XP and Longhorn is required because they need to do a lot of work! (Could their 're-write' do to them what Netscape's did?). There is so much in the bundle, and MS want to add so much more, that it takes a long time.
2 points: netscape, literally rewrote, from scratch, their browser, while microsoft just kept refining(or, after 6, virually stopped new development) the existing code to work better.
Apple. While this isn't a perfect example, the complexity of Windows is relatively similar to the complexity of MacOS X, in that, they are both desktop operating systems. SO, how can Apple, a significantly smaller, and less profitable company, release 4 significant(equivalent to a 'second edition', like upgrade, not a 2000 -> XP upgrade, but still impressive) upgrades in 4 straight years? And they are getting ready to release.4(the 5th release, including the initial 10.0) soon, previewing it this summer.
How can Apple, with a product that fulfills roughly the same goal(desktop/workstation OS), be so much more rapidly developing software than microsoft. I understand longhorn has major updates planned, but multiple announcements, reported at/., have had MS not only lower the included features(and thus, expectations) but also push back the release date...
Microsoft's development, just from release schedule and siginificance of releases(service packs from MS vs. 10.x updates from Apple) are stageringly different, and show a shocking state of Microsoft's development cycle.
Note: This was typed on windows xp, in mozilla, i also own a mac, with the vast majority of experience being windows.
and the boss replies: "yes, we 'get' those developers, but so do all our competition, along with all the code we produce(if it is gpled software".
So company A, using GPLed software, and has a decent inhouse developer staff to customize the code, while company B, uses the same GPLed software and competes against A, house no, or only a small fraction of the developer staff of A, but company B gets all the innovation of A, due to the GPL license requiring the code to be GPLed itself.
How does A compete with B, when A is doing (essentially) R&D for B, and B has significantly lower costs, overall.
it doesn't have to be a valid reason for evolution. People define their own language, thus, if people decide the virii is the plural of virus, then it is. It doesn't have to make sense, or break new ground, it just has to have momentum, which can be artificially created, in all honesty.
Use encryption where it makes sense. If somebody gets their hands on your laptop and has hours and hours to look through your files, is there anything on there that you need to protect? There probably is. The whole hard disk doesn't have to be encrypted but maybe a couple of folders do, or maybe your whole documents directory (the one that gets backed up most often and doesn't include huge files like music and movies and downloads). If you use a modern OS there is probably a really easy way to get an encrypted disk image or home directory set up that is mostly transparent when you use it.
Just get a spare p1 server with a decent harddrive and do an rsync cron job at night. sync your home dir to a tarball or whatever and viola! constant backup...
Load that server up with ram, and get it on dsl or cable, and you can do vnc or remote X session over ssh when you need to.
what is said, is that not only does everyone KNOW the reference to a prop used in a now cancelled sci-fi show, but that the comment was modded +5, Insightful.
Slashdot just gives me warm geek fuzzies sometimes...
O i realize that, but at the same time, they are borrowing from FreeBSD's and Linux's tcp/ip stack,(i believe that is what i read) so that will speed things up. Also, they are not all working on the networking stack, ofcourse.
after 7 years, the infrastructure is almost there to use a dhcp client... but dhcp, is a layer 7 protocol, and that implies a LOT of stuff working below(in ip, tcp, etc...) and a lot of the OS working, for something as high-level as dhcp to work. if it was ping, then big deal, but dhcp implies a lot. Besides, the firt 60% is the hardest, just plain work that isn't fun... and it goes the slowest, but once that 60%, or whatever the magic tipping weight is, a lot of stuff just falls into place... it might take 10 years to achieve X, but once X works, that means Y and Z both work, and Z and X combine to make A, B and C all work...
it snowballs my friend. It is a slow rolling snowball, but it grows and grows and grows.
Why doesn't the NSA have control over the level of security for government things? I think they do, to a degree, with the security levels it issues to operating system(win2k is level 4 certified, and such)... Why doesn't the NSA do a big push away from Windows in all the critical areas? Linux would be more secure, more lean, and cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
The publicly posted LIST would be a good place to start. The Virginia Tech computer ranks third.
"In any event, you'll probably get your wish as the IPod is halfway there anyway. It's got the hard drive and some basic PDA functions, now it just needs full-blown PDA action."
It lacks a kb, the size(the oqo is 2-3x larger) it lacks the color display, and the processor to run mac os x. the ipod is a mp3 player, small, light, quick to navigate... they won't bastardize an mp3 player by morphing it into a PDA.
The OQO is basicly a standard PC... it runs the desktop version of Windows, not PocketPC... It is x86 hardware, so ofcourse Linux can run on it... Just need drivers.
The idea has been brought up before, the problem being that Sun is a bigger company financially, than Apple. Apple can't acquire Sun, they would have to merge.
could they use some proxy or anonymous redirector to mask their identity?
they are split because they don't want forks of java popping up in various distros, causing a huge revolt because java is now percieved as broken, when 1 distro ship incompatible/forked versions of java compared to another distro.
The problem with Sun open sourcing Java is the fear of forks, broken compatability, and the downfall of its greatest feature 'write once, run anywhere'...
I think the GPL is out of the question for the language, as it would easily fork...
How about, lgpl the entire library (that would allow for use of closed source apps in java, while gpl would not, right?) and do some very humble openning of the language, with strict control on the term of 'java' with stringent compatability tests.
RMS just had a heart attack, but you and I are in agreement, this situation is not a good one for linux...
Linux, essentially makes the OS commodity, what is left, then, is the hardware, support and software that runs on the OS. An OSS company, has to leverage one of those three(hardware, support, software) or a combination to be able to have a chance.
i don't buy it.
1. Microsoft is so much larger, that the additional testing is mute, they should still be significantly faster.
2. I really don't think a bugfix for IE has to be cross checked to see if cd-rom X from company Z will still work... the two are unrelated, and the OS should be able to seperate them accordingly.
You are an AC, but I will reply anyway...
You don't have to be the superior company to showup first and get a contract signed for your product, in the IBM/MS deal, it was a good deal of luck.
With IBM shipping DOS, many PC Clones(which obviously, cloned the IBM PC), shipped dos too.
With many contracts to ship DOS, it makes sense that they 'upgrade' to Windows, since it was the same company, and was the succesor of DOS.
Microsoft had momentum and contracts. It had nothing to do with superiority.
you are lucky, most(the majority) of serious dos apps fail or are broken in XP, this is due to the dos emulation system being used, i believe.
Windows(win32) has a huge variety of applications, many old dos programs are, sadly, unusable anymore.
For your 'os with largest program list', reconsider macos x... it can run many mac classic apps(from 1-9.2.2, many fail, many run just fine), this represensts several thousand. It can run modern os X apps, again, sever(5, 10?) thousand more programs... with X11, it can run those x11 apps, that is tens of thousands. and finally, it can run many linux terminal apps with its darwin(mach/freebsd) kernel, with thousands of more apps, in a single recompile.
mac can run app for 4 different system(mac classic, macos x, X windows, unix terminal), and ofcourse has virtualpc or bochs to run dos and windows, in a non-native enviroment.
"2. Only a mailer problem."
.ics to my home Mac"
.mac... The features he lists, in part, are covered by a similar product(.mac) from the competition, but has nothing to do with him wanting MS to produce Macs, how is that +4, Insightful?
Spam should be fought at 2 levels, the mail server and the client. Improved mail server filtering(vastly improved) should be done, but also, MS should have bayesian filters that configure on-the-fly for client side... it isn't a 'client' only problem, it should be attacked at both fronts for maximum effectiveness.
"3. I also used Outlook 2003 to export my contacts as a single vcs file which Apple Address Book could read"
He said automatic... It should be cleaner, easier, and one-click, essentially.
"4. I just used Outlook 2003 to forward an appointment as
That isn't a very 'clean' solution... He wants either a web interface, i assume, that automatically syncs and shares calenders, not a 'forware an appointment'... Similar end result, but a good system would do this on a regular basis, without constant interfearance from the user.
"7. NO !!! It's not an OS's business, and especially not an unsecured one's."
Agreed, this is a horrible idea.
"Sorry but this guy wants Microsoft to produce Macs, it's too obvious, he's not credible."
He doesn't want MS to produce macs, he wanted MS to release a product that Apple has since released, which they called
This bundling also affects the lifecycle of the product: 5-6 years between XP and Longhorn is required because they need to do a lot of work! (Could their 're-write' do to them what Netscape's did?). There is so much in the bundle, and MS want to add so much more, that it takes a long time.
.4(the 5th release, including the initial 10.0) soon, previewing it this summer.
/., have had MS not only lower the included features(and thus, expectations) but also push back the release date...
2 points:
netscape, literally rewrote, from scratch, their browser, while microsoft just kept refining(or, after 6, virually stopped new development) the existing code to work better.
Apple. While this isn't a perfect example, the complexity of Windows is relatively similar to the complexity of MacOS X, in that, they are both desktop operating systems. SO, how can Apple, a significantly smaller, and less profitable company, release 4 significant(equivalent to a 'second edition', like upgrade, not a 2000 -> XP upgrade, but still impressive) upgrades in 4 straight years? And they are getting ready to release
How can Apple, with a product that fulfills roughly the same goal(desktop/workstation OS), be so much more rapidly developing software than microsoft. I understand longhorn has major updates planned, but multiple announcements, reported at
Microsoft's development, just from release schedule and siginificance of releases(service packs from MS vs. 10.x updates from Apple) are stageringly different, and show a shocking state of Microsoft's development cycle.
Note: This was typed on windows xp, in mozilla, i also own a mac, with the vast majority of experience being windows.
and the boss replies: "yes, we 'get' those developers, but so do all our competition, along with all the code we produce(if it is gpled software".
So company A, using GPLed software, and has a decent inhouse developer staff to customize the code, while company B, uses the same GPLed software and competes against A, house no, or only a small fraction of the developer staff of A, but company B gets all the innovation of A, due to the GPL license requiring the code to be GPLed itself.
How does A compete with B, when A is doing (essentially) R&D for B, and B has significantly lower costs, overall.
it doesn't have to be a valid reason for evolution. People define their own language, thus, if people decide the virii is the plural of virus, then it is. It doesn't have to make sense, or break new ground, it just has to have momentum, which can be artificially created, in all honesty.
great, now we need to run ad-aware on our bios chips, for fear of spyware and popups generated and the motherboard chip level!
Just get a spare p1 server with a decent harddrive and do an rsync cron job at night. sync your home dir to a tarball or whatever and viola! constant backup...
Load that server up with ram, and get it on dsl or cable, and you can do vnc or remote X session over ssh when you need to.
well thank god they finally fixed THAT crucial bug.
aw, but you are not in Soviet Russia. ;)
what is said, is that not only does everyone KNOW the reference to a prop used in a now cancelled sci-fi show, but that the comment was modded +5, Insightful.
Slashdot just gives me warm geek fuzzies sometimes...
virus scum are always the ones to make it through a catastrophy. they have all the luck.
O i realize that, but at the same time, they are borrowing from FreeBSD's and Linux's tcp/ip stack,(i believe that is what i read) so that will speed things up. Also, they are not all working on the networking stack, ofcourse.
after 7 years, the infrastructure is almost there to use a dhcp client... but dhcp, is a layer 7 protocol, and that implies a LOT of stuff working below(in ip, tcp, etc...) and a lot of the OS working, for something as high-level as dhcp to work. if it was ping, then big deal, but dhcp implies a lot. Besides, the firt 60% is the hardest, just plain work that isn't fun... and it goes the slowest, but once that 60%, or whatever the magic tipping weight is, a lot of stuff just falls into place... it might take 10 years to achieve X, but once X works, that means Y and Z both work, and Z and X combine to make A, B and C all work...
it snowballs my friend. It is a slow rolling snowball, but it grows and grows and grows.
Hey, don't get ahead of yourself, Office still runs under WINE on Linux. ;)
Why doesn't the NSA have control over the level of security for government things? I think they do, to a degree, with the security levels it issues to operating system(win2k is level 4 certified, and such)... Why doesn't the NSA do a big push away from Windows in all the critical areas? Linux would be more secure, more lean, and cheaper.