That IBM/OS project wasn't aborted! It released OS/2 1.0, which was a fully multitasking OS with no GUI. I believe Microsoft was still involved when OS/2 1.1 was released. This release included Presentation Manager, the first GUI for OS/2.
Also, your progression for DOS isn't really correct. DOS and Windows were concurrent things for years. All 16-bit versions of Windows required you to actually go out and buy DOS. They weren't just two different things from a technical standpoint. They were two different things from a marketting standpoint. It was really more like:
DOS 3.0 >> DOS 4.0 >> DOS 5.0 >> DOS 6.0 >> Windows 95 Windows 1.0 >> Windows 2.0 >> Windows 3.1 >> Windows 95
It's time we stopped trying to shoehorn seventies era multiuser designs (or eighties era single user designs) onto modern PCs. What we really need is an OS redesigned entirely from the ground up for the sort of tasks a modern home or business user needs on the desktop. Linux is no more that then Windows.
All of the complaints about Linux on the desktop boil down to the fact that it is a clone of an OS designed for minicomputers with multiple users. All of the complains about Windows boild down to the fact that it is an extension of a single-user, single tasking machine.
In both cases, the OSes have been stretched into something else. In both cases, the stretching has caused problems. Better to start from scratch.
Oh, yeah, right, letting you use any GUI toolkit as long as it has exactly the same interface...that's smart.
It's one of the reasons why 90% of client apps are written in something other than Java.
Anyhow, you do realize that all those C/C++ libraries you listed are modular, right? Shared libraries? DLLs? Ring any bells?
Demanding everone use the same interface is tantemount to demanding that everyone use the same library. This results in a complete lack of choice in terms of GUI toolkits.
You mean that programming languages are going to get even more bloated and overly complex!?
Bleah. Count me out.
What happened to the idea of modularity? Programming languages shouldn't be OSes. They should have access to a modular interface to different OS elements. But now, "modern" languages include all kinds of crap, like GUI code, that should be kept in nice, modular libraries. You know, so that you, the coder have choice.
#ifdef THOSE_BASTARDS_CHANGE_THE_SPEC_BACK_AGAIN // lots of code
#endif
This text is here because the above code triggers the lame filter. You know, that thing they put in the slash code to force crapflooders to be creative.
Go to Options - Preferences - Setup. The last checkbox is "Allow Winamp to report basic, anonymous program usage information".
Most mp3 players have something like this, to a greater or lesser extent.
I'm also amazed that the allegedly technical slashdot audience has not yet figured out that in order for these "bandlink" CDs to work, the user would need to install special software on their machine. I mean, read the fucking site. These "bandlink" CDs don't do squat unless the user specially and deliberately installs the software.
It is very clear that this is not some sort of behind the seems privacy invasion but an above board trading of information for privacy. (Which, indeed, has issues of its own, but...) Other companies (Real, Musicmatch, etc.) do worse right now.
When I was a teenager, a friend called me up, ecstatic, about getting his hands on a videotape of The Last Starfighter, which was opening in a couple of weeks.
I sat there watching, squinting, trying to make out the plot through grainy video and wavering camera, wondering why the hell we were bothering.
It did, indeed, cost Hollywood $6.50, though, because the movie sucked, and there was no way we'd pay to see the real thing.
But funny, this taping, which has obviously been going on for twenty years now, has not killed Hollywood yet.
Funny, my KA7-RAID motherboard blew a capacitor just last week. Up until then, I thought it ruled.
Anyway, I got that horrid ozone burnt-electronics smell and the damn machine powered itself off. Sometimes I can get almost a half hour of uptime before it shuts itself off. I found the casing to a capacitor next to the power hookup at the bottom of the case.
Just be aware that all the "Add/Remove Software" thing does is call uninstall program the program registered. There is no guarantee that a particular program a) registers an uninstall program when it installs and b) actually removes all components when it uninstalls.
So their relatives reproduce the same while those with the autism reproduce less, making it a net loss, and therefore a trait that is selected against.
Slashdot Mirror
OS/2 couldn't run DOS programs until Version 2.0. That's a pretty good sign that it wasn't "just DOS".
No...Unix became dominant over VMS on the PC because it was ported (more than once) to PC class machines while VMS was not.
That IBM/OS project wasn't aborted! It released OS/2 1.0, which was a fully multitasking OS with no GUI. I believe Microsoft was still involved when OS/2 1.1 was released. This release included Presentation Manager, the first GUI for OS/2.
Also, your progression for DOS isn't really correct. DOS and Windows were concurrent things for years. All 16-bit versions of Windows required you to actually go out and buy DOS. They weren't just two different things from a technical standpoint. They were two different things from a marketting standpoint. It was really more like:
DOS 3.0 >> DOS 4.0 >> DOS 5.0 >> DOS 6.0 >> Windows 95
Windows 1.0 >> Windows 2.0 >> Windows 3.1 >> Windows 95
XP actually ships with both cmd.exe and command.com. (command.com works via emulation of the DOS calls, of course, so yes, he's an idiot.)
It's time we stopped trying to shoehorn seventies era multiuser designs (or eighties era single user designs) onto modern PCs. What we really need is an OS redesigned entirely from the ground up for the sort of tasks a modern home or business user needs on the desktop. Linux is no more that then Windows.
All of the complaints about Linux on the desktop boil down to the fact that it is a clone of an OS designed for minicomputers with multiple users. All of the complains about Windows boild down to the fact that it is an extension of a single-user, single tasking machine.
In both cases, the OSes have been stretched into something else. In both cases, the stretching has caused problems. Better to start from scratch.
Oh, yeah, right, letting you use any GUI toolkit as long as it has exactly the same interface...that's smart.
It's one of the reasons why 90% of client apps are written in something other than Java.
Anyhow, you do realize that all those C/C++ libraries you listed are modular, right? Shared libraries? DLLs? Ring any bells?
Demanding everone use the same interface is tantemount to demanding that everyone use the same library. This results in a complete lack of choice in terms of GUI toolkits.
That's like an illustrated "War and Peace". Who needs pictures, it's the text, man, the text.
You mean that programming languages are going to get even more bloated and overly complex!?
Bleah. Count me out.
What happened to the idea of modularity? Programming languages shouldn't be OSes. They should have access to a modular interface to different OS elements. But now, "modern" languages include all kinds of crap, like GUI code, that should be kept in nice, modular libraries. You know, so that you, the coder have choice.
Thanks, Apple, for helping me decide not to support the Mac.
Right now, 2.x, but I am releasing a version that supports both 2.x and 3.x this week sometime.
#endif
This text is here because the above code triggers the lame filter. You know, that thing they put in the slash code to force crapflooders to be creative.
I mean, how else is the guy gonna know that "metallica-enter_sandman.mp3" is copyrighted!?
This is a pretty typical "we'll give you personalized content in exchange for personal data" deal. Hardly new and alarming.
Go to Options - Preferences - Setup. The last checkbox is "Allow Winamp to report basic, anonymous program usage information".
Most mp3 players have something like this, to a greater or lesser extent.
I'm also amazed that the allegedly technical slashdot audience has not yet figured out that in order for these "bandlink" CDs to work, the user would need to install special software on their machine. I mean, read the fucking site. These "bandlink" CDs don't do squat unless the user specially and deliberately installs the software.
It is very clear that this is not some sort of behind the seems privacy invasion but an above board trading of information for privacy. (Which, indeed, has issues of its own, but...) Other companies (Real, Musicmatch, etc.) do worse right now.
I need something to backup my 120 gig drive onto.
But the whole fucking world has known about it since the sixties.
I sat there watching, squinting, trying to make out the plot through grainy video and wavering camera, wondering why the hell we were bothering.
It did, indeed, cost Hollywood $6.50, though, because the movie sucked, and there was no way we'd pay to see the real thing.
But funny, this taping, which has obviously been going on for twenty years now, has not killed Hollywood yet.
Hearing two geekboys complaining about how the Two Towers trailer "ruined it" by showing the "spoiler" that Gandalf wasn't dead.
Anyway, I got that horrid ozone burnt-electronics smell and the damn machine powered itself off. Sometimes I can get almost a half hour of uptime before it shuts itself off. I found the casing to a capacitor next to the power hookup at the bottom of the case.
(Given that the ship must not be reaching relativistic speeds for most of the journey if it is taking 10 years to go 4.7 light years.)
Just be aware that all the "Add/Remove Software" thing does is call uninstall program the program registered. There is no guarantee that a particular program a) registers an uninstall program when it installs and b) actually removes all components when it uninstalls.
You mean, a success at running through a known mathematical algorithm that, unsurprisingly, got the expected result?
This is a success in that it is actually advancing the state of human knowledge.
So their relatives reproduce the same while those with the autism reproduce less, making it a net loss, and therefore a trait that is selected against.
There's no evidence that autistic children improve the reproductive success of their relatives.
You'd think the