ooops, sorry, the explanation i posted explains unix-y systems relationship between the kernel, CLI, and GUI, my fault... but MacOS X DOES have a CLI (well at least the server version and because of the fact that its based on a BSD kernel (rendering it more *nix than before) it actually does function in a similar way that i explained) Im not sure but i believe MacOS functions in the same way (kernel, CLI, GUI) but its just that the CLI is hidden to the user... not sure tho, anyone know?
Simply its whats between the actual OS and the perty graphic ui. Think of the whole thing as 3 layers for a moment. On the bottom you have the most basic OS, it sits there, waiting for something to be handed to it. But for it to be handed anything, it needs a messenger. That messenger is the CLI, the CLI has a set of commands that the use can give it, when it is given one of those commands, it runs to the base and says "hey, the user says you should do this", and, normally, it does it. This is the basic funtioning of a machine, it takes commands from the user and executes them. Now the top most layer is the Graphical User Interface, or GUI. this is all them pretty colors and pictures (Lisa was the first of these). What the GUI does is sit on top of the CLI and throws messages at it. For example, lets say the user clicks on an icon (ummm... lets say this icon is set to open netscape) the user double clicks on it, the GUI says "hmmm... that user person just did somethin... oh it clicked on that icon, whats that icon do, lemme check its instructions... OH! it wants netscape, i better run to the CLI and tell him" the GUI runs to the CLI and says "Hey! the user wants $netscape" the CLI takes $netscape and relays it to the base, and the base says ok, well, i think ill open netscape", and if all goes right, the user happily gets netscape and rejoices to the gods. and thats the story of the CLI...
But your wrong... How many "Big-business" companies are still holding onto m$ products for dear life? The fact is, most big businesses dont like change, and will stay with one thing as long as possible, and when the do finally make a change, its going to be for a long time.
I almost totally agree with what goliard is saying.
I am 16 now, but a few years ago I was tormented for my "above average" intelligence (both physically and verbally). I was a misserable person, my grades simply weren't what they should have been. I was sent to a psychologist for about a year and a half, and given a plethera of medication for depression, but that didn't help any because the constant bullying continued. Fortunately for me, my mother was always there to support me, and pointed out, to a school system that constantly turned a blind eye to this sort of situation, what was happening.
I agree, intervention is quite often necessary, but i also I feel that "geek profiling" is a total invasion of ones personal rights. This sort of profiling only fuels the anger that many adolescents feel by further seperating them from the "average" society.
Instead we need to look at the individuals, the actual person behind the profile. These geek profiles will never be a realistic substitute to what we see with our own eyes. And further more, we can't be conducting witch hunts like many schools already are, we should look around us and see what is happening instead of looking at lists of names and hobbies.
Most importantly, when we do see a problem, we must intervene, and find a solution to the individual problem.
~~~
who, technically, owns the net?
on
License to Surf
·
· Score: 1
I'm interested in who actually owns it, the millions who have personally used it for years now and are the driving force behind it, or the origonal creators of it? Also Ive been thinking, do the creators and owners of certain services have the right to say "I dont want people to have to use those licences on my service"? Also, is there a patent on the internet?
ok, this has been bugging me for quite some time now, lets get this straight.
Successful, by definition, is something that survives. i.e. a virus. A virus, to be a successful one, must feed off of its host without causing it to stop providing (in other words dying). I believe that Microsoft is slowly "killing" its user base by systematically warding off all compitition, no matter what they bring to the technology table. This would make Microsoft an unsuccessful buisness. Now I recognize that Microsoft has a ludicrous amount of money, but that really doesn't matter when it comes to the quality of their product, it simply means that they've, in my opinion, duped more people (including myself for a brief period).
Now the second thing I GREATLY dissagree with you on is when you say "With 50 million lines of tight, solid code, Windows 2000 will come to dominate every aspect of modern computing". First off, complexity is NOT the way to go when it comes to quality software, simplicity is. This is where Microsoft has been going wrong for years now. They are constantly building right on top of their previous releases. What I'd personally like to see Microsoft do is take their present product and look carefully it's code, modify, tweak, improve, it, trash the krap code and replace it with good, quality, simplistic, "solid" code. Because the current "50 million" lines of code they have now is undoubtedly krap, and by no means "solid" or "tight".
Another thing Microsoft needs to seriously contemplate doing is opening some of its source, and allow the public to look at it, work on it, and present their work back to Microsoft for evaluation. Now this isn't saying that Microsoft should throw its code to the public and let them do whatever the hell they want with it. I'm saying that Microsoft should release what they feel needs some serious work, and what they feel wouldn't hurt them as a company, and make it clear that they expect any and all revisions of that code back. Which brings me to what i feel is another problem with Microsoft, their unceasing attitude of buisness. This hurts them in some serious ways. I don't feel i can get into that right now though, but hopefully all yous slashdotters will start a FRIENDLY AND CIVIL dialog concerning what i've just presented.
I have to point out that the CNet "Ten Tricks For Digital Pranksters" article's #4 trick Inter OS relationships involved adding a mac look to windows and windows look to mac. The suggested "counter attack" to this trick was "Download and install Linux"
Is it just me or does anyone else find this technology that can be fired at an incoming warhead, track it (even with all the variables involved), and disarm, or destroy, the warhead before causing any damage to the target. I do realize that the testing of this technology was extreamely foolish on the US's part because of all the treaties it poked at. The governments gotta start asking the people their opinions before going ahead and toying around with our safety and general well being. But hey, these are just my thoughts...
Slashdot Mirror
ooops, sorry, the explanation i posted explains unix-y systems relationship between the kernel, CLI, and GUI, my fault... but MacOS X DOES have a CLI (well at least the server version and because of the fact that its based on a BSD kernel (rendering it more *nix than before) it actually does function in a similar way that i explained) Im not sure but i believe MacOS functions in the same way (kernel, CLI, GUI) but its just that the CLI is hidden to the user... not sure tho, anyone know?
CLI=Command Line Interface
Simply its whats between the actual OS and the perty graphic ui. Think of the whole thing as 3 layers for a moment. On the bottom you have the most basic OS, it sits there, waiting for something to be handed to it. But for it to be handed anything, it needs a messenger. That messenger is the CLI, the CLI has a set of commands that the use can give it, when it is given one of those commands, it runs to the base and says "hey, the user says you should do this", and, normally, it does it. This is the basic funtioning of a machine, it takes commands from the user and executes them. Now the top most layer is the Graphical User Interface, or GUI. this is all them pretty colors and pictures (Lisa was the first of these). What the GUI does is sit on top of the CLI and throws messages at it. For example, lets say the user clicks on an icon (ummm... lets say this icon is set to open netscape) the user double clicks on it, the GUI says "hmmm... that user person just did somethin... oh it clicked on that icon, whats that icon do, lemme check its instructions... OH! it wants netscape, i better run to the CLI and tell him" the GUI runs to the CLI and says "Hey! the user wants $netscape" the CLI takes $netscape and relays it to the base, and the base says ok, well, i think ill open netscape", and if all goes right, the user happily gets netscape and rejoices to the gods. and thats the story of the CLI...
in a totally coincidental turn of events, Heather Graham has been spoted at a local bar with none other than Rob Malda... freaky...
But your wrong... How many "Big-business" companies are still holding onto m$ products for dear life? The fact is, most big businesses dont like change, and will stay with one thing as long as possible, and when the do finally make a change, its going to be for a long time.
Just a suggestion, add an optional box to the side of slashdot's main page for new products supporting linux.
well, suppose your at fault. if you didnt have the night vision goo on, that would put you in a bit of a pickle (mmmmmm... pickles)
I almost totally agree with what goliard is saying.
I am 16 now, but a few years ago I was tormented for my "above average" intelligence (both physically and verbally). I was a misserable person, my grades simply weren't what they should have been. I was sent to a psychologist for about a year and a half, and given a plethera of medication for depression, but that didn't help any because the constant bullying continued. Fortunately for me, my mother was always there to support me, and pointed out, to a school system that constantly turned a blind eye to this sort of situation, what was happening.
I agree, intervention is quite often necessary, but i also I feel that "geek profiling" is a total invasion of ones personal rights. This sort of profiling only fuels the anger that many adolescents feel by further seperating them from the "average" society.
Instead we need to look at the individuals, the actual person behind the profile. These geek profiles will never be a realistic substitute to what we see with our own eyes. And further more, we can't be conducting witch hunts like many schools already are, we should look around us and see what is happening instead of looking at lists of names and hobbies.
Most importantly, when we do see a problem, we must intervene, and find a solution to the individual problem.
~~~
I'm interested in who actually owns it, the millions who have personally used it for years now and are the driving force behind it, or the origonal creators of it? Also Ive been thinking, do the creators and owners of certain services have the right to say "I dont want people to have to use those licences on my service"? Also, is there a patent on the internet?
ok, this has been bugging me for quite some time now, lets get this straight.
Successful, by definition, is something that survives. i.e. a virus. A virus, to be a successful one, must feed off of its host without causing it to stop providing (in other words dying). I believe that Microsoft is slowly "killing" its user base by systematically warding off all compitition, no matter what they bring to the technology table. This would make Microsoft an unsuccessful buisness. Now I recognize that Microsoft has a ludicrous amount of money, but that really doesn't matter when it comes to the quality of their product, it simply means that they've, in my opinion, duped more people (including myself for a brief period).
Now the second thing I GREATLY dissagree with you on is when you say "With 50 million lines of tight, solid code, Windows 2000 will come to dominate every aspect of modern computing". First off, complexity is NOT the way to go when it comes to quality software, simplicity is. This is where Microsoft has been going wrong for years now. They are constantly building right on top of their previous releases. What I'd personally like to see Microsoft do is take their present product and look carefully it's code, modify, tweak, improve, it, trash the krap code and replace it with good, quality, simplistic, "solid" code. Because the current "50 million" lines of code they have now is undoubtedly krap, and by no means "solid" or "tight".
Another thing Microsoft needs to seriously contemplate doing is opening some of its source, and allow the public to look at it, work on it, and present their work back to Microsoft for evaluation. Now this isn't saying that Microsoft should throw its code to the public and let them do whatever the hell they want with it. I'm saying that Microsoft should release what they feel needs some serious work, and what they feel wouldn't hurt them as a company, and make it clear that they expect any and all revisions of that code back. Which brings me to what i feel is another problem with Microsoft, their unceasing attitude of buisness. This hurts them in some serious ways. I don't feel i can get into that right now though, but hopefully all yous slashdotters will start a FRIENDLY AND CIVIL dialog concerning what i've just presented.
thanks for your time
I have to point out that the CNet "Ten Tricks For Digital Pranksters" article's #4 trick Inter OS relationships involved adding a mac look to windows and windows look to mac. The suggested "counter attack" to this trick was "Download and install Linux"
Is it just me or does anyone else find this technology that can be fired at an incoming warhead, track it (even with all the variables involved), and disarm, or destroy, the warhead before causing any damage to the target. I do realize that the testing of this technology was extreamely foolish on the US's part because of all the treaties it poked at. The governments gotta start asking the people their opinions before going ahead and toying around with our safety and general well being. But hey, these are just my thoughts...