The screenshot of rhapsody makes me think something rather neat was lost to the world. While the inner workings of os9 hold no appeal for me I REALLY adored the look and feel of the UI. the simple raised grey windows and 'platinum' themed buttons/menus.
Personally, I'd prefer working in an environment with those windows/gui elements and the cartoonish crisp simple icon style, than that of OSX. I realise it's very much a subjective thing - pity we don't have the choice of looks in OSX to go back to that platinum look
(and no, shapeshifter themes are nothing like the real thing)
...always listen to the most vocal people after macworld. Remember the iPod mini sucks, it won't sell, it's too expensive, nobody will like it, it'll flop. As read on Spymac! Macnn! macworld! Slashdot!.
And look how right they were!. pfft.
Congrats Apple. One more insanely succesful product:)
Take a look at the headlines in the news articles about this case on google news
All along the lines of "SCO Sues AutoZone Over Use of Linux"
The case IS NOT ABOUT LINUX. It is about using SCO claiming that autozone are using SCO SHARED LIBRARIES IN A WAY THEY'RE NOT LICENSED TO.
As has already been shown by Jim Geer's comments, they aren't doing so, but even if they were... it wouldn't matter WHICH os they were now using SCO shared libraries under. It could be using them on a Commodore 64 and it would be an identical case!
But, the press being what they are have soaked up the meme of "SCO is against linux" and repeated it back in the essence of their headlines, making the world at a casual glimpse think this case is about SCO code in Linux in general.
The crux of this SCO case seems to not be "Autozone are using linux, and linux contains SCO code (millions of lines or just a few.h files) therefore they're infringing IP" as their press release propaganda infer, but that:
1. Autozone used to use SCO products, and their whole system relied on them 2. Autozone converted to Linux, and IBM made them do so 3. Autozone's custom software which used to run under SCO products now run under Linux 4. They still run well and changed over efficiently, therefore they MUST still be running SCO code/shared libraries/etc with linux to do so, which is a breach of their original contract with SCO.
SCO seem to be insinuating that this is about copyright SCO code in ALL of linux, and autozone are just one of millions of linux users who are infringing, but the details of the case show this is NOT true at all. That makes it FUD. The press have been told for MONTHS that SCO are taking issue with code in linux in general, but now legal action is underway, it's in a case that takes issue with existing SCO code used in linux by a client. No damage to linux in general despite the press releases.
As SCO say... Upon information and belief, Autozone's new Linux based software implemented by IBM featured SCO's shared libraries which had been stripped out of SCO's UNIX based OpenServer by IBM and embedded inside Autozone's Linux implementation in order to continue to allow the continued operation of Autozone's legacy applications. The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with which the migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of shared libraries to run legacy applications on Linux. Among other things, this was a breach of the Autozone OpenServer License Agreement for use of SCO software beyond the scope of the license.
They claim IBM made moves to shift Autozone away from Linux, when SCO originally attempted to move autozone to linux themselves
They also claim that SCO shared libraries MUST be being used, because of the efficiency with which this changeover occurred. They don't get it, that they're not indispensible, and Autozone's systems did not rely largely on SCO specific features according to the guy who converted autozone's systems, who posted as such on groklaw here. The relevant parts of his post are: As to the claim that SCO's shared libraries were a necessary part of the port: false. No SCO libraries were involved in the porting activity.
As to the claim that IBM induced us to transition to Linux: false. It was, in fact, SCO's activities that 'greased the skids' and allowed the business case for using Linux to be made more easily. That is a story long in the telling; perhaps I'll share it another day.
I bet SCO keep insisting this is a generic copyright/linux issue, as they infer by claiming "AutoZone violated SCO's UNIX copyrights by running versions of the Linux operating system that contain code, structure, sequence and/or organization from SCO's proprietary UNIX System V code in violation of SCO's copyrights." and don't stress that it's a unique situation with regards to claims an existing customer switched to linux all too easily so must have both used linux and used SCO code in ways they weren't allowed to under their old contract
SCO is appearing like a jealous partner who just can't bear the thought that they're not the entire world to their clients, and are playing the stalking game, and running around town spreading rumours about infidelity. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now I know EV1 is a pushover, I have sent them letters in the name of my company advising them that an unknown but substantial piece of software that they are running infringes on my IP
I cannot reveal the nature of this software, but my company and I have identified thousands of pieces of it running on EV1's servers.
As EV1 have not indicated to me that they are not running such software (and as with SCO, the burden of proof is obviously on EV1 duh) then I have no option but to request the payment of $1599 per deployment of my IP on their systems. This comes to a total of $65,900,000 (some of their machines are running multiple instances of my IP).
All fees will be waived if they provide proof they are not running my IP, which I do not believe they will be able to do. I expect payment within 90 days. If payment is received, I will not take legal action against EV1.
(yeah I'm joking but damn, how far can protection rackets go once the weak cave in)
Let's imagine we have a monoculture of Linux boxes, all quite similar, all based on a huge install 'dump' of one massive base system.
There's a lot there for an intruder to play with. Makes it easier even, for automated intruders (worms etc) too.
Now, imagine there's Linux as a majority, but split into so many different specific tasks that there's few similarities between them, except for a micro base system; where even the kernels differ in their capabilities due to function. it CAN'T ever become a monoculture even if the same 'distro' group were preparing these systems, unless suddenly the entire world was running webservers, or were running desktop office machines, or running desktop home machines, or running as cluster nodes etc.
Of course, the extra fiddling around of several well-defined task based versions of linux is a pain in the butt then, but hey - just a thought.
Hint: update to something made within the last year and there's no difference between installing/updating gentoo and any other OS, and you get the advantage of gentoo's optimization in space and speed. I know which I'd go for.
I installed debian with a full kit of KDE in under an hour on an iMac 400. You're saying there's some new hardware that can build that equivalent with gentoo within 60 minutes?
> It should be out for sale beginning or mid March
No it won't. I've used the latest builds of 4.0 and it is NOWHERE near ready. Not even close.
I'm afraid the Amiga reality distortion field (which puts steve jobs to shame) doesn't affect me. AmigaOS 4 in its current state is virtually unusable for doing anything useful. Nice for showing off some concepts, but that's about it.
While the heading refers to Linux on Macs, there's a number of other PPC machines that'll run Linux
a pegasos I or II is a PPC based machine, there's also Amiga One boards - a new Mini-ITX AmigaOne looks REALLY appealing, as long as it's not slugged with the "Amiga Tax" (double the price for the privilege of being able to run AmigaOS4 if it's released). a Mini ITX board with a GHz or more G4 - not a scaled down VIA type setup, but a full honest-to-goodness G4. That's appealing.
There's also several VMEbus boards based on PPC chips from PPC440 to G4s, and a newer one out soon from Momentum computer, Dual G5s on an ATX board. Pricey, but it's just a reference board at the moment.
If prices dropped on these, especially on the Momentum board, I could see these being real alternatives to x86, especially for people a bit worried about MS's palladium plans. A mac is a wonderful thing, but if you ask 'Why bother" about putting Linux over the top of a machine that'll run OSX, one of the above solutions might be an option.
You're very right in that details comment. Honestly too, I think many people CAN get around having problems with inconsistent UIs. After all, there's millions of people swapping between office PCs, their home PCs, and they're not necessarily exactly the same. I don't think it takes a great deal of smarts to work out there's a difference between how 2 apps work, it's more on the level of small annoyance.
What frustrates many people with Linux is in details like... Joe Average buys a digital cam, hooks it up to his linux box. It has a USB port, he has the right cable, he has a supported cam, he has the right software and everything setup to work. However when it's plugged in... what then?
A linux loving friend of mine who's not short on smarts (but perhaps a little behind on cluefulness when it comes to anyone but pure geeks) would say "It takes three seconds to mount the camera as a drive. duh". For Joe Average, finding out HOW to do that in 3 seconds can be 2 days of frustrated chasing information on how the OS works on a device level around the net.
Now thats just one example, but there's so many little things like that with linux that still pop up. They're TINY things, MINISCULE things, but for a user who has no tech knowledge apart from operating a gui, it's the difference between 'hey linux is a neat replacement for windows!" and "this linux OS is a heap of shit, there's so much fucking around".
That being said, it IS getting better. piece by piece...
1. learn prada's RFID tags 2. scan random people for them 3. mug the people who have them
Nice simple way to know who's got $$ and who hasn't. Random credit card numbers might be nice if you only want a few hundred from each of them, but oh what a platinum visa might be worth.
One I hear repeated often is that the first woman in space was Sally Ride in June 1983. Sadly, this isn't just a US misconception, as it was one I was taught in Australia too.
It completely ignores Valentina Tereshkova, a russian woman who was not only the first woman in space 20 years earlier (almost to the day, in June 1963) but was about the sixth person into space entirely (I may have that position slightly wrong)
Go into kazaa and gnutella and search for any.doc files. Or some likely sounding names like "resume" or "job application"
It's surprising what people will sit in their kazaa upload directory, using it like a documents dump. Legal papers, company's employee policy documents, employee records, sensitive stuff, medical records.
Taken straight from people's HDs, no hacking, cracking or other media-unfriendly terms needed, just the ignorance of the people who leave this stuff open is needed.
When looked at objectively, that's only a small thing. As far as marketing goes, a logo and name can be HUGE and well worth recognising.
Tulip, the company who own the commodore name now have released a few small components for PCs, (one being a USB memory stick, nothing amazing) and I don't know a person who's seen mine who hasn't commented "it's commodore!". I actually bought mine because of the commodore logo and name, when all else was the same as any others.
And that's a name/logo that's been 'dead' for 10 years before being revived.
More truth in what you say than many might realise I think.
give me a library of 10,000 photos I can scroll through. I bet I could quite easily pick some of the wedding ones. If those photos are organised by time photographed then they're all going to be packed together making it twice as easy.
I have more like 3,000 digital photos on my machine and I've never had a problem finding the ones I want. It can take a minute or two, but that is still an order of magnitude faster than I would with a box of printed film images.
We never needed to buy new 2nd hand was a good option, and perfectly acceptable for most courses was also owning the previous revision for a book, as lecturers took that into account, making it a great deal easier for students. This was in 1999.
What got me however was the extraordinary price of the books. I still have one on Computer Graphics, that I needed to buy new as the 2nd hand copies were unavailable. $129.99 for one textbook.
I've been wondering about the effects of these machines on mars itself. I'm sure the energy they're putting out is pretty minimal, and isn't going to do much, and I'd hazard a guess there's more radioactive spots around than the rover carries. But what about life that gets through? Are there any little organic compounds sitting on the rovers/landers/airbags that could make a big difference? Seeing how some lichens survive at phenomenally low temperatures, could a few little spores stuck to parts of the airbags eventually build up a colony, then move to nearby rocks, and from there on... who knows where else?
Not that I'm quite worried in 10 years we'll be attacked by lichen-looking martians, but I'm curious
The RAD6K really does run at 20 Mhz. They're creakingly slow. They're spec'd to run up to 33 Mhz, but the customer can get them to clock at lower speeds (I've seen them run at 12.5 Mhz). The only drawback is the PCI bus is also clocked as the same speed as the CPU. This is a mixed bag - but a slower PCI bus helps improves signal integrity and decreases power consumption.
This is the part I'm curious about. 20MHz is slow by any measures compared to current desktop machines, but how do they compare to other CPUs of the time, or other CPUs of the same speed? would a 20MHz RAD6000 under or out perform a 486? a 68040? perhaps the first of the real PPCs, a 601, at the same speed?
I know speed and outright performance is a much tinier part of the whole picture with a spacecraft's computers, where the track record of reliability and capability proved true, rates as high as anything else, but I'm curious about whether there are some unique parts to the RAD6000's logic, separate from its radiation hardening, that make it especially worthwhile for the uses they're put to.
Slashdot Mirror
The screenshot of rhapsody makes me think something rather neat was lost to the world. While the inner workings of os9 hold no appeal for me I REALLY adored the look and feel of the UI. the simple raised grey windows and 'platinum' themed buttons/menus.
Personally, I'd prefer working in an environment with those windows/gui elements and the cartoonish crisp simple icon style, than that of OSX. I realise it's very much a subjective thing - pity we don't have the choice of looks in OSX to go back to that platinum look
(and no, shapeshifter themes are nothing like the real thing)
...always listen to the most vocal people after macworld. Remember the iPod mini sucks, it won't sell, it's too expensive, nobody will like it, it'll flop. As read on Spymac! Macnn! macworld! Slashdot!.
:)
And look how right they were!. pfft.
Congrats Apple. One more insanely succesful product
So. why doesn't John Glenn want the rest of us to go to the moon? what's he hiding? WHAT DO THEY KNOW IS UP THERE.
whoops. ignore I said any of that. tinfoil hat slipped
More proof this is just FUD!
Take a look at the headlines in the news articles about this case on google news
All along the lines of "SCO Sues AutoZone Over Use of Linux"
The case IS NOT ABOUT LINUX. It is about using SCO claiming that autozone are using SCO SHARED LIBRARIES IN A WAY THEY'RE NOT LICENSED TO.
As has already been shown by Jim Geer's comments, they aren't doing so, but even if they were... it wouldn't matter WHICH os they were now using SCO shared libraries under. It could be using them on a Commodore 64 and it would be an identical case!
But, the press being what they are have soaked up the meme of "SCO is against linux" and repeated it back in the essence of their headlines, making the world at a casual glimpse think this case is about SCO code in Linux in general.
That makes me sad.
The crux of this SCO case seems to not be "Autozone are using linux, and linux contains SCO code (millions of lines or just a few .h files) therefore they're infringing IP" as their press release propaganda infer, but that:
1. Autozone used to use SCO products, and their whole system relied on them
2. Autozone converted to Linux, and IBM made them do so
3. Autozone's custom software which used to run under SCO products now run under Linux
4. They still run well and changed over efficiently, therefore they MUST still be running SCO code/shared libraries/etc with linux to do so, which is a breach of their original contract with SCO.
SCO seem to be insinuating that this is about copyright SCO code in ALL of linux, and autozone are just one of millions of linux users who are infringing, but the details of the case show this is NOT true at all. That makes it FUD. The press have been told for MONTHS that SCO are taking issue with code in linux in general, but now legal action is underway, it's in a case that takes issue with existing SCO code used in linux by a client. No damage to linux in general despite the press releases.
As SCO say...
Upon information and belief, Autozone's new Linux based software implemented by IBM featured SCO's shared libraries which had been stripped out of SCO's UNIX based OpenServer by IBM and embedded inside Autozone's Linux implementation in order to continue to allow the continued operation of Autozone's legacy applications. The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with which the migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of shared libraries to run legacy applications on Linux. Among other things, this was a breach of the Autozone OpenServer License Agreement for use of SCO software beyond the scope of the license.
They claim IBM made moves to shift Autozone away from Linux, when SCO originally attempted to move autozone to linux themselves
They also claim that SCO shared libraries MUST be being used, because of the efficiency with which this changeover occurred. They don't get it, that they're not indispensible, and Autozone's systems did not rely largely on SCO specific features according to the guy who converted autozone's systems, who posted as such on groklaw here. The relevant parts of his post are:
As to the claim that SCO's shared libraries were a necessary part of the port: false. No SCO libraries were involved in the porting activity.
As to the claim that IBM induced us to transition to Linux: false. It was, in fact, SCO's activities that 'greased the skids' and allowed the business case for using Linux to be made more easily. That is a story long in the telling; perhaps I'll share it another day.
I bet SCO keep insisting this is a generic copyright/linux issue, as they infer by claiming "AutoZone violated SCO's UNIX copyrights by running versions of the Linux operating system that contain code, structure, sequence and/or organization from SCO's proprietary UNIX System V code in violation of SCO's copyrights." and don't stress that it's a unique situation with regards to claims an existing customer switched to linux all too easily so must have both used linux and used SCO code in ways they weren't allowed to under their old contract
SCO is appearing like a jealous partner who just can't bear the thought that they're not the entire world to their clients, and are playing the stalking game, and running around town spreading rumours about infidelity. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now I know EV1 is a pushover, I have sent them letters in the name of my company advising them that an unknown but substantial piece of software that they are running infringes on my IP
I cannot reveal the nature of this software, but my company and I have identified thousands of pieces of it running on EV1's servers.
As EV1 have not indicated to me that they are not running such software (and as with SCO, the burden of proof is obviously on EV1 duh) then I have no option but to request the payment of $1599 per deployment of my IP on their systems. This comes to a total of $65,900,000 (some of their machines are running multiple instances of my IP).
All fees will be waived if they provide proof they are not running my IP, which I do not believe they will be able to do. I expect payment within 90 days. If payment is received, I will not take legal action against EV1.
(yeah I'm joking but damn, how far can protection rackets go once the weak cave in)
Is this done with a camera in the TV? I so seriously do NOT want a camera in anything I sit in front of all day long that can transmit.
contrary to popular belief, batteries do not look like explosive devices.
Excellent! I'll make an explosive device that looks like a battery then.
Foolproof!
I think this is the way security works best.
Let's imagine we have a monoculture of Linux boxes, all quite similar, all based on a huge install 'dump' of one massive base system.
There's a lot there for an intruder to play with. Makes it easier even, for automated intruders (worms etc) too.
Now, imagine there's Linux as a majority, but split into so many different specific tasks that there's few similarities between them, except for a micro base system; where even the kernels differ in their capabilities due to function. it CAN'T ever become a monoculture even if the same 'distro' group were preparing these systems, unless suddenly the entire world was running webservers, or were running desktop office machines, or running desktop home machines, or running as cluster nodes etc.
Of course, the extra fiddling around of several well-defined task based versions of linux is a pain in the butt then, but hey - just a thought.
Hint: update to something made within the last year and there's no difference between installing/updating gentoo and any other OS, and you get the advantage of gentoo's optimization in space and speed. I know which I'd go for.
I installed debian with a full kit of KDE in under an hour on an iMac 400. You're saying there's some new hardware that can build that equivalent with gentoo within 60 minutes?
Bullshit.
It is. Part of it's taken from old slashdot apple trolls, and part from a post on Amiga.org.
Personally I found the cat vs dog version of the "freelance gig" mac vs PC troll absolutely hilarious. Wish I could find a link to that one.
> It should be out for sale beginning or mid March
No it won't. I've used the latest builds of 4.0 and it is NOWHERE near ready. Not even close.
I'm afraid the Amiga reality distortion field (which puts steve jobs to shame) doesn't affect me. AmigaOS 4 in its current state is virtually unusable for doing anything useful. Nice for showing off some concepts, but that's about it.
While the heading refers to Linux on Macs, there's a number of other PPC machines that'll run Linux
a pegasos I or II is a PPC based machine, there's also Amiga One boards - a new Mini-ITX AmigaOne looks REALLY appealing, as long as it's not slugged with the "Amiga Tax" (double the price for the privilege of being able to run AmigaOS4 if it's released). a Mini ITX board with a GHz or more G4 - not a scaled down VIA type setup, but a full honest-to-goodness G4. That's appealing.
There's also several VMEbus boards based on PPC chips from PPC440 to G4s, and a newer one out soon from Momentum computer, Dual G5s on an ATX board. Pricey, but it's just a reference board at the moment.
If prices dropped on these, especially on the Momentum board, I could see these being real alternatives to x86, especially for people a bit worried about MS's palladium plans. A mac is a wonderful thing, but if you ask 'Why bother" about putting Linux over the top of a machine that'll run OSX, one of the above solutions might be an option.
You're very right in that details comment. Honestly too, I think many people CAN get around having problems with inconsistent UIs. After all, there's millions of people swapping between office PCs, their home PCs, and they're not necessarily exactly the same. I don't think it takes a great deal of smarts to work out there's a difference between how 2 apps work, it's more on the level of small annoyance.
What frustrates many people with Linux is in details like... Joe Average buys a digital cam, hooks it up to his linux box. It has a USB port, he has the right cable, he has a supported cam, he has the right software and everything setup to work. However when it's plugged in... what then?
A linux loving friend of mine who's not short on smarts (but perhaps a little behind on cluefulness when it comes to anyone but pure geeks) would say "It takes three seconds to mount the camera as a drive. duh". For Joe Average, finding out HOW to do that in 3 seconds can be 2 days of frustrated chasing information on how the OS works on a device level around the net.
Now thats just one example, but there's so many little things like that with linux that still pop up. They're TINY things, MINISCULE things, but for a user who has no tech knowledge apart from operating a gui, it's the difference between 'hey linux is a neat replacement for windows!" and "this linux OS is a heap of shit, there's so much fucking around".
That being said, it IS getting better. piece by piece...
Is there a version for PPC machines?
thanks
1. learn prada's RFID tags
2. scan random people for them
3. mug the people who have them
Nice simple way to know who's got $$ and who hasn't. Random credit card numbers might be nice if you only want a few hundred from each of them, but oh what a platinum visa might be worth.
One I hear repeated often is that the first woman in space was Sally Ride in June 1983. Sadly, this isn't just a US misconception, as it was one I was taught in Australia too.
It completely ignores Valentina Tereshkova, a russian woman who was not only the first woman in space 20 years earlier (almost to the day, in June 1963) but was about the sixth person into space entirely (I may have that position slightly wrong)
They don't seem to be, although many could. There's just too many unique ones out there IMHO.
Then again I don't have a WP that'll run those scripts.
Go into kazaa and gnutella and search for any .doc files. Or some likely sounding names like "resume" or "job application"
It's surprising what people will sit in their kazaa upload directory, using it like a documents dump. Legal papers, company's employee policy documents, employee records, sensitive stuff, medical records.
Taken straight from people's HDs, no hacking, cracking or other media-unfriendly terms needed, just the ignorance of the people who leave this stuff open is needed.
> This "will be the first time mammals of any kind have lived in > partial gravity for an extended period."
As opposed to those reptilian astronauts.
When looked at objectively, that's only a small thing. As far as marketing goes, a logo and name can be HUGE and well worth recognising.
Tulip, the company who own the commodore name now have released a few small components for PCs, (one being a USB memory stick, nothing amazing) and I don't know a person who's seen mine who hasn't commented "it's commodore!". I actually bought mine because of the commodore logo and name, when all else was the same as any others.
And that's a name/logo that's been 'dead' for 10 years before being revived.
More truth in what you say than many might realise I think.
give me a library of 10,000 photos I can scroll through. I bet I could quite easily pick some of the wedding ones. If those photos are organised by time photographed then they're all going to be packed together making it twice as easy.
I have more like 3,000 digital photos on my machine and I've never had a problem finding the ones I want. It can take a minute or two, but that is still an order of magnitude faster than I would with a box of printed film images.
We never needed to buy new 2nd hand was a good option, and perfectly acceptable for most courses was also owning the previous revision for a book, as lecturers took that into account, making it a great deal easier for students. This was in 1999.
What got me however was the extraordinary price of the books. I still have one on Computer Graphics, that I needed to buy new as the 2nd hand copies were unavailable. $129.99 for one textbook.
At least I've had good use from it since.
I've been wondering about the effects of these machines on mars itself. I'm sure the energy they're putting out is pretty minimal, and isn't going to do much, and I'd hazard a guess there's more radioactive spots around than the rover carries. But what about life that gets through? Are there any little organic compounds sitting on the rovers/landers/airbags that could make a big difference? Seeing how some lichens survive at phenomenally low temperatures, could a few little spores stuck to parts of the airbags eventually build up a colony, then move to nearby rocks, and from there on... who knows where else?
Not that I'm quite worried in 10 years we'll be attacked by lichen-looking martians, but I'm curious
The RAD6K really does run at 20 Mhz. They're creakingly slow. They're spec'd to run up to 33 Mhz, but the customer can get them to clock at lower speeds (I've seen them run at 12.5 Mhz). The only drawback is the PCI bus is also clocked as the same speed as the CPU. This is a mixed bag - but a slower PCI bus helps improves signal integrity and decreases power consumption.
This is the part I'm curious about. 20MHz is slow by any measures compared to current desktop machines, but how do they compare to other CPUs of the time, or other CPUs of the same speed? would a 20MHz RAD6000 under or out perform a 486? a 68040? perhaps the first of the real PPCs, a 601, at the same speed?
I know speed and outright performance is a much tinier part of the whole picture with a spacecraft's computers, where the track record of reliability and capability proved true, rates as high as anything else, but I'm curious about whether there are some unique parts to the RAD6000's logic, separate from its radiation hardening, that make it especially worthwhile for the uses they're put to.