The essence of the "voluntary" dissolution of Be means that this money will not go to a sudden resurrection of the BeOS, as some have thought (foolishly hoped, perhaps).
Be Inc wisely (I think) dissolved "voluntarily" and did its best to ensure that investors did not get the short end of the stick. Be sold off all their intellectual property to Palm, and passed the cash amongst stock owners, minus costs. Be then had a single purpose - pursue the MS lawsuit. This money will be passed about, minus expences, to stock holders.
I hate XP with a passion. That aside XP offers these things over 2k:
Integrated PPPoE client
The only feature worth having in ME - System Restore
Built in CD burning capabilities
Built in firewall
Virtual directories - browse archives like directories, and consequently perform extractions from file manager
Windows 95 compatibility mode
Faster searching, with ability to search based on type (more sopisticated than *.txt searches)
Lots of random, minor cleanups - privacy controls in IE, primitive (and I do mean primitive) virus checking in OE, tools from the 2k administration pack included by default, etc
Well, the cultish whackjob really crosses genres . . ..
Thing is Orson Scott Card may be a touch cultish - though frankly, the Christians have numbers over the Scientologists - but he ain't a whackjob. He doesn't live far from here, and comes up to read at the local bookstore everytime he publishes. He's really a nice guy, and unlike Hubbard, Orson Scott has written things worth reading. Ender's Game is one of the great SciFi novels, period in my opinion.
Ayn Rand is a whackjob with diareaha of the typewriter.
If the mobsters shaking down your corner store finally get arrested, do you think they would offer refunds?
Well . . . no. If I beat the ever living shite out of you, and still your money, that can't even pretend to be legal. My defense will be "I didn't do it" or "I'm so crazy/damaged that I'm not responsible for the illegal beating". SCO is claiming that what they are doing is legal. If I sell you a car that doesn't exist, I should get my money back.
While compiling for an XP processor only vs compiling for anything made since the 386 will yield performance gains, none of them are truely 'real-world' gains.
Then why were the archetecture changes made in the first place?
You know, I hate it on Slashdot where someone makes a silly comment and then some dickwad goes "Did you not read the fscking article you fsking son of a french whore!".
But did you not read the release notes? I mean really? You used the software but didn't read the release notes. How strangely appropriate for Slashdot.
The difference between.Net and Parrot is focus. Both are virtual machines for cross platform operations. However Parrot is the child of Perl in a lot of ways - Perl has a VM now because Larry realized that the string substitution style interpreter of TCL or awk was both slow and poorly extensible. So, one of Parrot's stated goals is to fly as fast as it can. This is not a.Net stated goal.
.Net (and the JVM, for that matter) are great VM's for staticly typed languages. Perl (and Python, Ruby, and the ilk) must implement their more dynamic type system over the static VM types. The Parrot bytecode and interpretor are designed to make such systems both easy and fast.
You know, at this point it's probably not worth posting this, but . ..
For all of you trolling out there about how GNOME should get off it's ass and fix this or that before resorting to implementing this sort of eye candy, or for those of you trolling that KDE had this first, a couple of facts:
This was not done by a GNOME developer, or is in any way part of the GNOME project. This was done by Olivier Fourdan, the head developer of the second most popular GTK+ based desktop environment, XFce [1].
Drop shadows in X11 are a hack, Qt or GTK+. Hack, hack, hack. No alpha blending.
Olivier know's it's a hack. And that is why he did it. It was fun. It was a side trek from his over a year of work on the GTK+ 2 rewrite of XFce. It will not be a part of the standard GTK+. It does class up my desktop however, so I like it.
-Erik
[1] Yes, there are DE's other than GNOME or KDE. XFce (xfce.org) is currently finishing up it's GTK+ 2 development branch, XFce4 (it's in BETA 2). ROX (rox.sf.net) just finished it's GTK+ 2 branch. Wanna good winning combo, to have the best of 3 worlds? Take GNOME, replace Metacity with XFce4's window manager (xfwm), replace Nautilus with ROX's file manager (ROX-Filer), and be amazed.
Well, to some degree, that's harder to test objectively. And because of that the article kindly included contrasting screen shots as the last "benchmark". Look yourself.
Frankly, I've had enough of the "if we eliminated competition on such and such a level, we could win the OS war" crap. What OS war? Personally I want a computer that does what I need it to do, does it well, and doesn't leave me at the mercy of a billion dollar company. Why is it that computer geeks can only think in terms of replacing one mind share monopoly with another? Replace Microsoft with Linux is the mantra, and frankly that doesn't make me any happier.
What I really want is to replace closed standards with open ones - I'm not evern talking about open versus closed source, I'm talking about Adobe becoming a highly successful company by (amongst other things) making PostScript and PDF open. KDE and GNOME have been fighting the limitations of X standards to the point where they have their own extensions to X. These extensions are open ones - I can solve most interoperability problems by running KDE or GNOME with a Window Manager that is compliant to both - specifically I use OpenBox.
Frankly, innovation comes from competition. After innovation comes consolidation - the GNOME and KDE projects (plus RoX and XFCE) have been extending X through various internal protocols, innovating in terms of X as a platform for building a desktop. Now the Freedesktop project consolidates the results from an open specification into an open standard. This means that the best results of all four projects get put together, increasing the ability of third party developers to create working applications for both, and allowing applications to be cross compatible. The next step is for the desktops to compete on other levels, allowing for innovation.
I wouldn't have it any other way. And frankly neither would you. Without the existance of not two, but four DE projects, the current state of the X desktop would be much poorer - where would we be if we had sunk everything into CDE? Would CDE have excited any developers into doing the work in the first place?
Well, really you don't want it for just yourself. Well, you might but really just buy SuSE's Office Desktop, as opposed to Enterprise Desktop. Besides, SuSE connects to that exchange server using Ximian Connector, so might as well just pop it into Evolution on a distro your already comfortable handling if it's just a one box thing.
A grant is not a paycheck. Historically, a grant means money given without immediate strings. We give grants to brilliant artists and theorists whose ideas contrast with the status quo in order that they may continue without having to alter their work in the light of their employers opinions. That ia what a grant is supopsed to be, not employment. And in the case of employment, the US (and Canada) has some opinions about restrciting employment on the basis of political, religious, or economic beliefs, so this doesn't hold water anyway.
Yes De Raadt said something bad about the US government. So what?
Actually Perl has exception handling, and it is not bad. Perl's exception handling suffers from it's elegance in a sense - Perl exception handling was made by overloading the meaning of two operators in a relatively clean way which allowed older programs to throw trappable exceptions with no code changes. It is perfectly backwards compatible. This also means that there is no unified method of sending and trapping exceptions in a Perl program, which is a major issue. But as time progresses I see this being rectified. The Perl 6 project not only has a reasonable exception system, but envy of that system is causing more and more people to adopt it in Perl 5 - expanding the current system culturally rather than programmatically.
Not perfect, but a long way from "Perl has no exception handling".
Nope, nothing of value, save giving Bennet the adventure of the life time, and moving it from the theoretical "Yeah, it probably might work," to "Jesus the bastisge did it".
Which I think is what he's actually after. Innovation is cool, but this guy is going into space, and I probably won't.
Just like PR agents work the way they are intended? That doesn't mean that PR agents are not without the ability to adversly affect the public psyche
But the issue here is not Google. The issue here is the internet, the rapid revolution of content and web based nature of hypertext give us a world where linguistic evolution is radically increased. Increased to the point where in a month and a half we can radically alter the common world meaning of phrase. Google is simply the internet's face, and the interface to which these events happen. It is a major player, but the internet as a whole is the phenomenon under scrutiny, legitimately I think.
Guarenteeing that software which recieves a certain level of popularity becomes Open Source means that the community can pick up development where the company left off.
There is always the danger that a company will cease to support a product which has become integral to your operation. This is one of the much touted benefits of Open Source - self and community support. This guarentees that sort of support in the long term while ensuring that the companies get there profits.
What is with this "Linux ain't UNIX" crap? I mean, no offense, but it only creates more confusion than it clears up.
UNIX is an operating system with features x, y, and z. UNIX was implemented in BellLabs. In fact it was implemented twice before it was in large use internally or commercially available externally. It was reimplemented and forked by large companies who recieved source code licences from Lucent or whatever company had the most recent IP rights (SCO, for example). So, this family of things we call UNIX are a set of distinct operating systems implemented by different companies, with branching source code, which conforms to a loose standard set of features. Linux conforms to those features, and the only historical difference is that Linus had no relation with BellLabs. Saying that Linux isn't UNIX is like saying my Subaru isn't a car because Ford didn't make it.
And OS X is as UNIX like as Linux. It has as much connection to Lucent/Bell/SCO as Linux does, and has a lot more quirks which deviate from the standard features of a UNIX - ask any of the OSS groups porting large *BSD or Linux projects over.
- if they haven't applied patches, then i can't see how a consumer of bandwidth could have any argument at all
Well . . . . we can all say "apply the patch" all we want, but it's not gonna get us anywhere.
I can see telling people to apply patches that have been proven not to break anything. But how many times have you as a system administrator refused to apply a *fresh* patch to a mission critical application or OS? How many businesses still run NT 4.0 networks because they get the job done and the sys admins know it inside and out?
As an ISP I can't feasibly require customers to use a specific operating system, application or apply a specific patch, and expect to keep my customers.
Slashdot Mirror
The essence of the "voluntary" dissolution of Be means that this money will not go to a sudden resurrection of the BeOS, as some have thought (foolishly hoped, perhaps).
Be Inc wisely (I think) dissolved "voluntarily" and did its best to ensure that investors did not get the short end of the stick. Be sold off all their intellectual property to Palm, and passed the cash amongst stock owners, minus costs. Be then had a single purpose - pursue the MS lawsuit. This money will be passed about, minus expences, to stock holders.
Then all Be will be is a trademarked logo.
Well, to be fair, we we're just discussing what technical changes had occured between 2k and Xp, not what change were useful . . .
Well, the cultish whackjob really crosses genres . . . .
Thing is Orson Scott Card may be a touch cultish - though frankly, the Christians have numbers over the Scientologists - but he ain't a whackjob. He doesn't live far from here, and comes up to read at the local bookstore everytime he publishes. He's really a nice guy, and unlike Hubbard, Orson Scott has written things worth reading. Ender's Game is one of the great SciFi novels, period in my opinion.
Ayn Rand is a whackjob with diareaha of the typewriter.
Combine this with My Pal Mickey and you can fire the tour guides. Until My Pal Evil Dinosaur starts eating people who won't buy what he tells you to.
If the mobsters shaking down your corner store finally get arrested, do you think they would offer refunds? Well . . . no. If I beat the ever living shite out of you, and still your money, that can't even pretend to be legal. My defense will be "I didn't do it" or "I'm so crazy/damaged that I'm not responsible for the illegal beating". SCO is claiming that what they are doing is legal. If I sell you a car that doesn't exist, I should get my money back.
While compiling for an XP processor only vs compiling for anything made since the 386 will yield performance gains, none of them are truely 'real-world' gains.
Then why were the archetecture changes made in the first place?
You know, I hate it on Slashdot where someone makes a silly comment and then some dickwad goes "Did you not read the fscking article you fsking son of a french whore!".
But did you not read the release notes? I mean really? You used the software but didn't read the release notes. How strangely appropriate for Slashdot.
The difference between .Net and Parrot is focus. Both are virtual machines for cross platform operations. However Parrot is the child of Perl in a lot of ways - Perl has a VM now because Larry realized that the string substitution style interpreter of TCL or awk was both slow and poorly extensible. So, one of Parrot's stated goals is to fly as fast as it can. This is not a .Net stated goal.
.Net (and the JVM, for that matter) are great VM's for staticly typed languages. Perl (and Python, Ruby, and the ilk) must implement their more dynamic type system over the static VM types. The Parrot bytecode and interpretor are designed to make such systems both easy and fast.
It might have something to do with being larger than a couple of Australia's
You know, at this point it's probably not worth posting this, but . . .
For all of you trolling out there about how GNOME should get off it's ass and fix this or that before resorting to implementing this sort of eye candy, or for those of you trolling that KDE had this first, a couple of facts:
-Erik
[1] Yes, there are DE's other than GNOME or KDE. XFce (xfce.org) is currently finishing up it's GTK+ 2 development branch, XFce4 (it's in BETA 2). ROX (rox.sf.net) just finished it's GTK+ 2 branch. Wanna good winning combo, to have the best of 3 worlds? Take GNOME, replace Metacity with XFce4's window manager (xfwm), replace Nautilus with ROX's file manager (ROX-Filer), and be amazed.
Well, to some degree, that's harder to test objectively. And because of that the article kindly included contrasting screen shots as the last "benchmark". Look yourself.
Actually, that is enough.
Frankly, I've had enough of the "if we eliminated competition on such and such a level, we could win the OS war" crap. What OS war? Personally I want a computer that does what I need it to do, does it well, and doesn't leave me at the mercy of a billion dollar company. Why is it that computer geeks can only think in terms of replacing one mind share monopoly with another? Replace Microsoft with Linux is the mantra, and frankly that doesn't make me any happier.
What I really want is to replace closed standards with open ones - I'm not evern talking about open versus closed source, I'm talking about Adobe becoming a highly successful company by (amongst other things) making PostScript and PDF open. KDE and GNOME have been fighting the limitations of X standards to the point where they have their own extensions to X. These extensions are open ones - I can solve most interoperability problems by running KDE or GNOME with a Window Manager that is compliant to both - specifically I use OpenBox.
Frankly, innovation comes from competition. After innovation comes consolidation - the GNOME and KDE projects (plus RoX and XFCE) have been extending X through various internal protocols, innovating in terms of X as a platform for building a desktop. Now the Freedesktop project consolidates the results from an open specification into an open standard. This means that the best results of all four projects get put together, increasing the ability of third party developers to create working applications for both, and allowing applications to be cross compatible. The next step is for the desktops to compete on other levels, allowing for innovation.
I wouldn't have it any other way. And frankly neither would you. Without the existance of not two, but four DE projects, the current state of the X desktop would be much poorer - where would we be if we had sunk everything into CDE? Would CDE have excited any developers into doing the work in the first place?
Well, really you don't want it for just yourself. Well, you might but really just buy SuSE's Office Desktop, as opposed to Enterprise Desktop. Besides, SuSE connects to that exchange server using Ximian Connector, so might as well just pop it into Evolution on a distro your already comfortable handling if it's just a one box thing.
Well, this is quite good. But, a little quip, you shouldn't need the /i regex modifier at the end, as .* is inherently case insensitive.
Those things were some of the most baldfaced propaganda since WWII. But DeskMate will still hold a blackened and cancerous chunk of my heart . . .
The word is "grant".
A grant is not a paycheck. Historically, a grant means money given without immediate strings. We give grants to brilliant artists and theorists whose ideas contrast with the status quo in order that they may continue without having to alter their work in the light of their employers opinions. That ia what a grant is supopsed to be, not employment. And in the case of employment, the US (and Canada) has some opinions about restrciting employment on the basis of political, religious, or economic beliefs, so this doesn't hold water anyway.
Yes De Raadt said something bad about the US government. So what?
Actually Perl has exception handling, and it is not bad. Perl's exception handling suffers from it's elegance in a sense - Perl exception handling was made by overloading the meaning of two operators in a relatively clean way which allowed older programs to throw trappable exceptions with no code changes. It is perfectly backwards compatible. This also means that there is no unified method of sending and trapping exceptions in a Perl program, which is a major issue. But as time progresses I see this being rectified. The Perl 6 project not only has a reasonable exception system, but envy of that system is causing more and more people to adopt it in Perl 5 - expanding the current system culturally rather than programmatically.
Not perfect, but a long way from "Perl has no exception handling".
Nope, nothing of value, save giving Bennet the adventure of the life time, and moving it from the theoretical "Yeah, it probably might work," to "Jesus the bastisge did it".
Which I think is what he's actually after. Innovation is cool, but this guy is going into space, and I probably won't.
Just like PR agents work the way they are intended? That doesn't mean that PR agents are not without the ability to adversly affect the public psyche
But the issue here is not Google. The issue here is the internet, the rapid revolution of content and web based nature of hypertext give us a world where linguistic evolution is radically increased. Increased to the point where in a month and a half we can radically alter the common world meaning of phrase. Google is simply the internet's face, and the interface to which these events happen. It is a major player, but the internet as a whole is the phenomenon under scrutiny, legitimately I think.
DOOM?
Quake?
Guarenteeing that software which recieves a certain level of popularity becomes Open Source means that the community can pick up development where the company left off.
There is always the danger that a company will cease to support a product which has become integral to your operation. This is one of the much touted benefits of Open Source - self and community support. This guarentees that sort of support in the long term while ensuring that the companies get there profits.
What is with this "Linux ain't UNIX" crap? I mean, no offense, but it only creates more confusion than it clears up.
UNIX is an operating system with features x, y, and z. UNIX was implemented in BellLabs. In fact it was implemented twice before it was in large use internally or commercially available externally. It was reimplemented and forked by large companies who recieved source code licences from Lucent or whatever company had the most recent IP rights (SCO, for example). So, this family of things we call UNIX are a set of distinct operating systems implemented by different companies, with branching source code, which conforms to a loose standard set of features. Linux conforms to those features, and the only historical difference is that Linus had no relation with BellLabs. Saying that Linux isn't UNIX is like saying my Subaru isn't a car because Ford didn't make it.
And OS X is as UNIX like as Linux. It has as much connection to Lucent/Bell/SCO as Linux does, and has a lot more quirks which deviate from the standard features of a UNIX - ask any of the OSS groups porting large *BSD or Linux projects over.
Well . . . . we can all say "apply the patch" all we want, but it's not gonna get us anywhere.
I can see telling people to apply patches that have been proven not to break anything. But how many times have you as a system administrator refused to apply a *fresh* patch to a mission critical application or OS? How many businesses still run NT 4.0 networks because they get the job done and the sys admins know it inside and out?
As an ISP I can't feasibly require customers to use a specific operating system, application or apply a specific patch, and expect to keep my customers.