"Today, one can start with Python/Java/Ruby/whatever and the internet and be light years ahead of where we all started out."
Still, everything under the runtime libraries or virtual machine will be completely opaque for this programmer who has no clear understanding of even how the processor accesses main memory.
Shouldn't it be rather easy to do a Wine counterpart to OSX? Windows is, in every aspect it can, Unix-offensive. The same is not true for OSX and I think it would not be that much insane to do a "compatibility layer" for OSX executables.
At that time, you could browse the ROM and OS of an Apple II or C64 (the Apples even provided a nice disassembler - and the original II had an assembler and the Sweet-16 virtual processor) and, with some work, fully understand it. You could study it and, with the proper tools (an EPROM programmer, some soldering), modify it. You could package and sell your modifications.
You can't do that with any modern computer. You can't learn from watching a multi-layer motherboard where you can't find out what connects to what in what fashion without a multi-thousand-dollar lab and a high-res X-ray machine. You can't just look up what a modern thousand-leg GPU does the way you could with a 74LS74. There are no books on that. You can't cut a trace and rewire something, not anymore.
Different times require different tools. Open source is probably the only way to see what happens in a computer these days. That's why the OLPC should be open from top to bottom.
Orion is a really dumb design. NERVA and ROVER were far more viable and could be done with today's technology in Orion-friendly timescales. The nuclear lightbulb designs, while posing big challenges, are even more promising.
Orion was a nice idea, but the environmental impact is horrendous. The only reason to do it would be if we were going to be hit by something really, really, really big and Orion-class payloads would be the only thing that could stop it.
Just testes this in Brazil (sender and receiver) with the url "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Fbk52Mk1w" and it worked. The traditional http://server.com/download.php is still blocked.
Well... I am not sure where you intend to go, but I have been using ethanol in cars for the past two decades. Of my last, say, 10 cars, 9 ran on ethanol.
All we need is a decent and fast implementation of JavaScript. Apple seems to have a nice one in Safari that appears decent in Midori/Webkit.
And, BTW, we need one badly, because the Flash (I don't trust Adobe) and Silverlight (I don't trust MS) crowds are coming and won't wait for a fast JavaScript engine.
You could try it as an emulator stacking contest. You could run an Amstrad emulator inside a qemu session under a VM in VMWare. What is the current record on emulator stacking?
They only price would be to make the parts of GPL'ed code they changed. If they were clever enough, all their code resides in the userspace or in driver blobs.
And, still, any enhancements they made to Linux in order to make it work better for their use would still be available to the public.
"1) It takes away leverage from Microsoft to use the new OS as a weapon of change (like pushing XAML or something)."
They will still push their new wares in every new computer that is sold. People with older XP boxes will feel the urge to "upgrade" to Vista as soon as they notice MS pushing their newer stuff.
"2) The presence of Vista on all new systems could well compel other users to go Mac or Linux instead."
That's marginal. Most people don't care which OS their computer runs.
"they don't even need a hostile takeover -- it will be a willing one"
A hostile takeover always implies someone willingly sells their stock to someone else. If the hostile takeover is obtained at gunpoint, it's not called a hostile takeover.
"Doesn't matter how good it is if it continues to get horrible press."
Sorry, but no. Do you see all HP, Acer, Sony and Dell computers getting shipped with Vista? Every one of them means a couple bucks in MS's pocket. In most cases, it's not even possible to buy a computer without Vista. It's slow, inefficient and plain ugly, but the newer computers (the ones that are really "Vista Capable") make up for everything but the ugliness.
Vista was a colossal blunder, but I bet they will recover the investment by the time the next release hits the shelves.
They should worry about the enterprise segment. Any loss there is hard to recover.
Because, in the end, you don't really need either.
I work on a notebook. I keep a mouse-keyboard-monitor-big-hard-drive combo on my desk for when I am here.
The rest of the time, it's my data, my apps and it's the same environment I work in with about a third of the disk storage and half the pixels and a smaller keyboard but still quite usable.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually sadder than that. 85% of the population were born and educated in a police state and were trained to think this is the best approach.
"Today, one can start with Python/Java/Ruby/whatever and the internet and be light years ahead of where we all started out."
Still, everything under the runtime libraries or virtual machine will be completely opaque for this programmer who has no clear understanding of even how the processor accesses main memory.
That is the signature of a very bad programmer.
I saw a lot of them.
Shouldn't it be rather easy to do a Wine counterpart to OSX? Windows is, in every aspect it can, Unix-offensive. The same is not true for OSX and I think it would not be that much insane to do a "compatibility layer" for OSX executables.
Many parts of OSX are even open-source.
Has anyone ever considered this seriously?
Yes, it would be far less expensive, but it would also be quite ugly.
Macs are beautiful for the same reasons Porshes are beautiful.
Pretending an ugly Dell box is a Mac is like pretending a Volkswagen is the same as a Maybach.
As opposed to Windows nodes on a botnet...
At that time, you could browse the ROM and OS of an Apple II or C64 (the Apples even provided a nice disassembler - and the original II had an assembler and the Sweet-16 virtual processor) and, with some work, fully understand it. You could study it and, with the proper tools (an EPROM programmer, some soldering), modify it. You could package and sell your modifications.
You can't do that with any modern computer. You can't learn from watching a multi-layer motherboard where you can't find out what connects to what in what fashion without a multi-thousand-dollar lab and a high-res X-ray machine. You can't just look up what a modern thousand-leg GPU does the way you could with a 74LS74. There are no books on that. You can't cut a trace and rewire something, not anymore.
Different times require different tools. Open source is probably the only way to see what happens in a computer these days. That's why the OLPC should be open from top to bottom.
I hope you understand it's not like riding a chemical rocket into space. It's exploding a trail of nuclear devices.
The environmental impact of a couple dozen nuclear detonations all the way from the lowest atmosphere to LEO is simply ridiculous.
First we need clean nukes. Then we can talk about Orion.
What would it take to add ASCOM support to Stellarium? http://www.stellarium.org/
Orion is a really dumb design. NERVA and ROVER were far more viable and could be done with today's technology in Orion-friendly timescales. The nuclear lightbulb designs, while posing big challenges, are even more promising.
Orion was a nice idea, but the environmental impact is horrendous. The only reason to do it would be if we were going to be hit by something really, really, really big and Orion-class payloads would be the only thing that could stop it.
Maybe we could go there and look for WMDs ;-)
Where are you and your friend?
Just testes this in Brazil (sender and receiver) with the url "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Fbk52Mk1w" and it worked. The traditional http://server.com/download.php is still blocked.
Well... I am not sure where you intend to go, but I have been using ethanol in cars for the past two decades. Of my last, say, 10 cars, 9 ran on ethanol.
All we need is a decent and fast implementation of JavaScript. Apple seems to have a nice one in Safari that appears decent in Midori/Webkit.
And, BTW, we need one badly, because the Flash (I don't trust Adobe) and Silverlight (I don't trust MS) crowds are coming and won't wait for a fast JavaScript engine.
You could try it as an emulator stacking contest. You could run an Amstrad emulator inside a qemu session under a VM in VMWare. What is the current record on emulator stacking?
And that goes a long way towards the ideal of making stupidity painful.
If only we could make it fatal...
They only price would be to make the parts of GPL'ed code they changed. If they were clever enough, all their code resides in the userspace or in driver blobs.
And, still, any enhancements they made to Linux in order to make it work better for their use would still be available to the public.
Why do they use Linux?
If that's their thing, they could easily leech off the work of the fine folks that make *BSD without a problem...
It's you! You are the one using Opera! ;-)
Probably no.
Unless there is no OOo for PPC.
"1) It takes away leverage from Microsoft to use the new OS as a weapon of change (like pushing XAML or something)."
They will still push their new wares in every new computer that is sold. People with older XP boxes will feel the urge to "upgrade" to Vista as soon as they notice MS pushing their newer stuff.
"2) The presence of Vista on all new systems could well compel other users to go Mac or Linux instead."
That's marginal. Most people don't care which OS their computer runs.
'cause you know two bricks float better than one.
"they don't even need a hostile takeover -- it will be a willing one"
A hostile takeover always implies someone willingly sells their stock to someone else. If the hostile takeover is obtained at gunpoint, it's not called a hostile takeover.
"Doesn't matter how good it is if it continues to get horrible press."
Sorry, but no. Do you see all HP, Acer, Sony and Dell computers getting shipped with Vista? Every one of them means a couple bucks in MS's pocket. In most cases, it's not even possible to buy a computer without Vista. It's slow, inefficient and plain ugly, but the newer computers (the ones that are really "Vista Capable") make up for everything but the ugliness.
Vista was a colossal blunder, but I bet they will recover the investment by the time the next release hits the shelves.
They should worry about the enterprise segment. Any loss there is hard to recover.
Because, in the end, you don't really need either.
I work on a notebook. I keep a mouse-keyboard-monitor-big-hard-drive combo on my desk for when I am here.
The rest of the time, it's my data, my apps and it's the same environment I work in with about a third of the disk storage and half the pixels and a smaller keyboard but still quite usable.
They offered decent performance for the time they were introduced. It's just that what we call decent performance has grown by an order of magnitude.
This and that Windows CE has always sucked really bad.
And I have an IBM Z-50. I can tell you exactly how much Windows CE sucked.