Your GM once produced 40% of your GNP all on its own. And GM - together with the rest of 'Detroit' - have been abusive: they deliberately destroyed some fantastic (and expensive) trolley car systems so they could go on selling motor vehicles, and later, with the rest of 'Detroit', when they'd approached what they regarded as 'market saturation' - two in the garage, one on the street - they turned to planned obsolescence and researching inferior alloys, wild and wacky designs that changed dramatically year after year and such to force consumers to junk their products more often.
And it worked, for a while - until the Scandinavian and Japanese got in the market. GM - and Detroit as a whole - responded with this 'be patriotic - buy US cars' campaign, which the US consumer couldn't give a hoot about. Bottom lines speak their own language.
It took a competitor to force GM and Detroit to change their tune.
Program helps under-served communities, schools and NGOs realise their potential
How are people going to realise their potential using Microsoft products?
This is like the Gates Foundation donating computers to libraries - computers that MUST be configured with exactly the Microsoft products the Foundation insists on, and which may NOT use any other software whatsoever.
Something like the gorgeous Mother Teresa.
A few years back Gates was asked about software piracy in China. Yes, they're stealing software in China, said Gates, and as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal OUR software. Then in a few years, when they're hooked on it, we'll figure out a way to make them pay.
This is more snake-oil business. Get these people hooked on MS Shiteware and then make them pay through the nose later.
A) Apple would dearly love to get back their market share. The ACG is testimony to this.
B) No matter how paltry the Apple market share, it's still several times larger than the one Linux currently 'enjoys'.
C) MS are scared shitless of Linux. Apple are a contour of the same threat.
D) Apple - and NeXT - have often set design standards. MS are watching developments here all the time.
E) The weather is currently bad in the Seattle area. MS are being sued all over the place, and more and more companies and institutions and governments are fleeing the MS camp. MS have to play it careful or lose everything.
F) The iPod might sell, but Xserve has received a lot of R&D attention. MS don't have anything like this.
Conclusion? There is a flank. There is enough of a flank for MS to be worried, just as the Halloween Docs show they were worried six years ago, long before Herr Torvalds got to Mars.
Mac OS was designed from the ground up with security in mind.
Says who? I'm sorry, but says who?
OS X is NeXTSTEP, and that's based on - runs on - FreeBSD, and that's Unix, and Unix was definitely not designed from the ground up with security in mind.
In fact, security was a very low priority at Bell Labs, because they were all working together and primarily wanted an environment that worked for them.
The security that came to Unix came much later, and part or even most of this may be due to the fact that it was a multiuser system from the beginning, whereas Windows is little more than either 1) a hardware interface (MS-DOS) or 2) an isolated LAN server (NT).
Also, it's unfair bordering on hype to cite 'Mac OS' as being the inherently more secure OS and to leave Unix - and Linux - out of the picture. All these operating systems are Unix; Unix is today a lot more secure; but OS X, despite some good features, does not stand alone here, and - I know this is heartbreaking to accept - Apple did not design Unix.
Cocoa apps are a security hazard, but then so is X11. Cocoa apps can be compromised through their input managers, the Objective-C runtime, and the Apple services menu. Which is why no Cocoa app should ever run SUID root: anything invoked will be root too.
But that being said, Apple have about the most secure platform going today. SUID stuff is taken care of being the scenes by console apps which are much more difficult to compromise, and security awareness is very high.
If I were to put my money on exploiting either Cocoa or X11, I'd go with X11.
NeXTSTEP did not run on four different platforms. OPENSTEP might have - NeXTSTEP did not.
And they never used 'fat binaries'. Apple did, NeXT did not. The whole idea of subdirectories under 'Contents' such as 'MacOS' contravenes this - they had different directories for different binaries at best, but remember, NeXTSTEP did not use HFS+, they used UFS, so there was no way they could have made a fat binary anyway.
The directory as an app only means you have a different model for application development. They saw no reason to bake everything into the same file so you got things that were only accessible by products such as Resource Workshop and the like.
The presumption is as well that few standalones, even on other platforms, are true standalones, and so - especially with the NSBundle class at your service - you can create and manage a single self-contained entity.
Yes, you could have multiple binaries within foo.app; but these are not 'fat'; they're distributed into different subdirectories. Big difference.
Second, an OS X application is actually a directory with '.app' trailing the name. This is possibly the dumbest thing that I've ever seen Apple do recently. Not only is it cumbersome and extremely resource intensive, but it is a glaring security hazard.
A.) Apple didn't do it - NeXT did.
B.) How is this cumbersome?
C.) Resource intensive? Bollocks.
D.) Glaring security hazard? Bollocks again. Double bollocks.
Writing console mode: it's still Unix, so there's really no 'migration' involved. Writing 'Carbon' is tangled, as it involves all those legacy APIs - and concepts - Apple became bogged down with so many years ago. Writing 'Cocoa' - essentially NeXTSTEP - involves an 'API' which many estimate is about four times as complex as Win32 - and how many programmers still write hard-core Windows code (ie w/o the MFC, ATL et al)?
I've had students a few years back migrating from Unix to NT and aghast at how extensive the Win32 API was. 'I've had only seventeen system calls all told!' blurted one.
so Microsoft ramped up Windows NT server development and took on NetWare
Inaccurate on all counts.
1. Cutler moved Prism from Seattle to Redmond long before this became an issue.
2. Cutler's Prism was a file server. Console. To be run by intelligent admins. No GUI.
3. MS let Cutler and the Tribe work along a while before they put the pitch to them. Cutler's reaction has been deleted from the history books.
4. Novell panicked - as so many MS competitors do. They were afraid of the impending release of NT, and hurried their NetWare 4 out the door before it was ready. Bugged as it was, it almost single-handedly ruined Novell's reputation.
MS never 'took on' NetWare. MS wanted a 'real' OS, Cutler was their chance, Prism was server and only server from the beginning, Novell 'blew it'.
I refuse to believe there is any software for any platform that is so unique and so irreplaceable that abandoning the platform itself becomes impossible. One continually sees all these posts by the supposed Linux militant about 'yeah I still use MS because...' and that's never been a good enough excuse. Even MS document formats are not indispensable - and should have been abandoned long ago, as they don't serve in the best interests of anybody. And if it's games you want, and these games are only available on glorious Windows, then guess what? You're SoL and will stay that way.
If you believe in open source, or just in using Unix or Linux instead of Windows, there's no in between, and the only reason you haven't migrated is you lack the cojones to do it.
Now mod this way down, because it's almost a direct attack at all the hypocritical mods out there who don't want to look in the mirror and see who they really are.
MS might be easy to use, but elegant it's not. Let's watch our words here. Although MS did let some IBM sense rub off on them (CUA ==> CUI), MS is strictly third-rate about everything they do. It has to have been invented and developed somewhere else first - then MS can bastardise it in their unique way.
It's more popups - more adware, probably spyware, and more annoyances.
Jim Rapoza of eWEEK has been hammering at these morons for quite some time, trying to get them to understand that no one can build up a business like this. His quote at the bottom here says it all. JR has the word.
Spyware Needs to Go http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1396972,0 0.as p More Than A Nuisance http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,113 0527,00.as p Pop-up Ads: Bad for Business http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,154 2836,00.as p 'If you have to question whether people will hate a new form of Web-based advertising, they probably will.'
Slashdot Mirror
Or 43 million they regularly spam to death?
Gee I'd like to see them all cross a motorway on foot and slip and fall.
A corollary:
Your GM once produced 40% of your GNP all on its own. And GM - together with the rest of 'Detroit' - have been abusive: they deliberately destroyed some fantastic (and expensive) trolley car systems so they could go on selling motor vehicles, and later, with the rest of 'Detroit', when they'd approached what they regarded as 'market saturation' - two in the garage, one on the street - they turned to planned obsolescence and researching inferior alloys, wild and wacky designs that changed dramatically year after year and such to force consumers to junk their products more often.
And it worked, for a while - until the Scandinavian and Japanese got in the market. GM - and Detroit as a whole - responded with this 'be patriotic - buy US cars' campaign, which the US consumer couldn't give a hoot about. Bottom lines speak their own language.
It took a competitor to force GM and Detroit to change their tune.
Linux may be seen as just such a 'competitor'...
Program helps under-served communities, schools and NGOs realise their potential
How are people going to realise their potential using Microsoft products?
This is like the Gates Foundation donating computers to libraries - computers that MUST be configured with exactly the Microsoft products the Foundation insists on, and which may NOT use any other software whatsoever.
Something like the gorgeous Mother Teresa.
A few years back Gates was asked about software piracy in China. Yes, they're stealing software in China, said Gates, and as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal OUR software. Then in a few years, when they're hooked on it, we'll figure out a way to make them pay.
This is more snake-oil business. Get these people hooked on MS Shiteware and then make them pay through the nose later.
Gates doesn't have a benevolent bone in his body.
This link was commented out of the article. It may be interesting to /. readers. It's about the FDA of 1906.
It is located in Trivandrum, India
Sounds like a nice place. Gotta visit sometime. Looks like India put a spanner in the works of the good old DMCA.
Apple invoked the DMCA? That was the last thing people thought would happen, right? I mean, Apple are our heroes - right?
Ugly is right, and it's typical of MS to want to make 'compiled HTML files' in the first place.
They made their bed; now they can toss and turn in it.
A) Apple would dearly love to get back their market share. The ACG is testimony to this.
B) No matter how paltry the Apple market share, it's still several times larger than the one Linux currently 'enjoys'.
C) MS are scared shitless of Linux. Apple are a contour of the same threat.
D) Apple - and NeXT - have often set design standards. MS are watching developments here all the time.
E) The weather is currently bad in the Seattle area. MS are being sued all over the place, and more and more companies and institutions and governments are fleeing the MS camp. MS have to play it careful or lose everything.
F) The iPod might sell, but Xserve has received a lot of R&D attention. MS don't have anything like this.
Conclusion? There is a flank. There is enough of a flank for MS to be worried, just as the Halloween Docs show they were worried six years ago, long before Herr Torvalds got to Mars.
I think you're referring to Microsoft Linux (and its mascot will indeed be Clippy, colleagues at the recent PDC tell me).
Microsoft Linux is due out 2007, right after the breakup (of MS that is).
Yeah! So right!
I'll stick with OS X where I get Expose for only $129,
Actually, this might be a smart move by MS - not that they would realise why, but nonetheless.
There are so many 'features' of their Longwait that literally scare the you know what out of people. Features that have been around spooking before.
Now MS are hard put and have to remove (or delay) these features - and ironically, and sadly, this might actually help their acceptance.
Where's Rob Rosenberger when we need him? Somebody buy him a Mac!
Mac OS was designed from the ground up with security in mind.
Says who? I'm sorry, but says who?
OS X is NeXTSTEP, and that's based on - runs on - FreeBSD, and that's Unix, and Unix was definitely not designed from the ground up with security in mind.
In fact, security was a very low priority at Bell Labs, because they were all working together and primarily wanted an environment that worked for them.
The security that came to Unix came much later, and part or even most of this may be due to the fact that it was a multiuser system from the beginning, whereas Windows is little more than either 1) a hardware interface (MS-DOS) or 2) an isolated LAN server (NT).
Also, it's unfair bordering on hype to cite 'Mac OS' as being the inherently more secure OS and to leave Unix - and Linux - out of the picture. All these operating systems are Unix; Unix is today a lot more secure; but OS X, despite some good features, does not stand alone here, and - I know this is heartbreaking to accept - Apple did not design Unix.
They designed Copland.
Cocoa apps are a security hazard, but then so is X11. Cocoa apps can be compromised through their input managers, the Objective-C runtime, and the Apple services menu. Which is why no Cocoa app should ever run SUID root: anything invoked will be root too.
But that being said, Apple have about the most secure platform going today. SUID stuff is taken care of being the scenes by console apps which are much more difficult to compromise, and security awareness is very high.
If I were to put my money on exploiting either Cocoa or X11, I'd go with X11.
NeXTSTEP did not run on four different platforms. OPENSTEP might have - NeXTSTEP did not.
And they never used 'fat binaries'. Apple did, NeXT did not. The whole idea of subdirectories under 'Contents' such as 'MacOS' contravenes this - they had different directories for different binaries at best, but remember, NeXTSTEP did not use HFS+, they used UFS, so there was no way they could have made a fat binary anyway.
The directory as an app only means you have a different model for application development. They saw no reason to bake everything into the same file so you got things that were only accessible by products such as Resource Workshop and the like.
The presumption is as well that few standalones, even on other platforms, are true standalones, and so - especially with the NSBundle class at your service - you can create and manage a single self-contained entity.
Yes, you could have multiple binaries within foo.app; but these are not 'fat'; they're distributed into different subdirectories. Big difference.
Second, an OS X application is actually a directory with '.app' trailing the name. This is possibly the dumbest thing that I've ever seen Apple do recently. Not only is it cumbersome and extremely resource intensive, but it is a glaring security hazard.
A.) Apple didn't do it - NeXT did.
B.) How is this cumbersome?
C.) Resource intensive? Bollocks.
D.) Glaring security hazard? Bollocks again. Double bollocks.
It depends.
Writing console mode: it's still Unix, so there's really no 'migration' involved. Writing 'Carbon' is tangled, as it involves all those legacy APIs - and concepts - Apple became bogged down with so many years ago. Writing 'Cocoa' - essentially NeXTSTEP - involves an 'API' which many estimate is about four times as complex as Win32 - and how many programmers still write hard-core Windows code (ie w/o the MFC, ATL et al)?
I've had students a few years back migrating from Unix to NT and aghast at how extensive the Win32 API was. 'I've had only seventeen system calls all told!' blurted one.
So the learning curve can be steep indeed.
so Microsoft ramped up Windows NT server development and took on NetWare
Inaccurate on all counts.
1. Cutler moved Prism from Seattle to Redmond long before this became an issue.
2. Cutler's Prism was a file server. Console. To be run by intelligent admins. No GUI.
3. MS let Cutler and the Tribe work along a while before they put the pitch to them. Cutler's reaction has been deleted from the history books.
4. Novell panicked - as so many MS competitors do. They were afraid of the impending release of NT, and hurried their NetWare 4 out the door before it was ready. Bugged as it was, it almost single-handedly ruined Novell's reputation.
MS never 'took on' NetWare. MS wanted a 'real' OS, Cutler was their chance, Prism was server and only server from the beginning, Novell 'blew it'.
Does that hare know anyone in Lindon, Utah?
I refuse to believe there is any software for any platform that is so unique and so irreplaceable that abandoning the platform itself becomes impossible. One continually sees all these posts by the supposed Linux militant about 'yeah I still use MS because...' and that's never been a good enough excuse. Even MS document formats are not indispensable - and should have been abandoned long ago, as they don't serve in the best interests of anybody. And if it's games you want, and these games are only available on glorious Windows, then guess what? You're SoL and will stay that way.
If you believe in open source, or just in using Unix or Linux instead of Windows, there's no in between, and the only reason you haven't migrated is you lack the cojones to do it.
Now mod this way down, because it's almost a direct attack at all the hypocritical mods out there who don't want to look in the mirror and see who they really are.
MS might be easy to use, but elegant it's not. Let's watch our words here. Although MS did let some IBM sense rub off on them (CUA ==> CUI), MS is strictly third-rate about everything they do. It has to have been invented and developed somewhere else first - then MS can bastardise it in their unique way.
It's more popups - more adware, probably spyware, and more annoyances.
0 0.as p3 0527,00.as p4 2836,00.as p
Jim Rapoza of eWEEK has been hammering at these morons for quite some time, trying to get them to understand that no one can build up a business like this. His quote at the bottom here says it all. JR has the word.
Spyware Needs to Go
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1396972,
More Than A Nuisance
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,11
Pop-up Ads: Bad for Business
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,15
'If you have to question whether people will hate a new form of Web-based advertising, they probably will.'
No, that's 'Powe rPC', a form of IPC (interprocess communication) invented by Franklin Douglas Powe.
He also invented the 'r4' SMP cluster environment.
Who said that we need millions to implement great ideas ?
The military.
As long as all these 'followers' are determined to ape everything the Beast does, down to the Teletubbie look of Windows XP, how can Linux fail?
Wow. That gravity probe is pretty heavy stuff. I remember them discussing it in that movie 'The Incredible Lightness of Being'. Far out.