.... because every WARY county clerk is being entrusted to ensure that these machines aren't tampered with, yet have the greatest opportunity to do so themselves....
Because OS X is a shell, like Gnome or KDE, not an operating system, like the BSD UNIX that it runs on. Apple, years ago, prided themselves (and rightly so) for creating an environment (read shell) for the Mac OS that was very user friendly. Nearly all of the functionality was displayed to the user, without revealing any of the inner workings of the underlying OS. The only real difference between the MacOS of old and the new OS X, is that Apple got smart and let someone develop the engine. Now, all they worry about is how pretty the paint job is and how the chrome shines. If you want to compare OS X to anything, compare it to KDE or Gnome or another shell. And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
RIA (Rich Internet Applications) is a marketing term Macromedia (Flash, Cold Fusion) conjured up as a way to get people looking at their development products. Even googling on the term only points you back to one vendor. Not exactly what I would call a model...
Also from the snopes article:
Despite a spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977, and it's hard to find any specific action of Gore's (such as his sponsoring a Congressional bill or championing a particular piece of legislation) that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being, much less validate Gore's statement of having taken the "initiative in creating the Internet."
Try reading the entire article next time...
I am surprised to see very few references to anything but SCO and IBM in these postings. Has anyone stopped and considered why Microsoft bothered to license the code from SCO? I like to think of this battle as two old men on the beach, one old and frail (read SCO), the other a Jack LaLanne body-builder type (read IBM), who kicks the other old man. The frail and weak old man attempts to defend himself, by calling the body builder out and threatening to sue him for damages. A couple of blankets over sits an 800 lb gorilla (read Microsoft) who happens to like the frail and weak old man and has already given him a banana (read licensing fee). The gorilla just sits and watches the body builder, waiting to see if it needs to step in and help its friend... As much as IBM might like to drive SCO into the ground, one has to wonder whether Microsoft will enter into these proceedings, either indirectly by supporting SCO financially (remember the non-controlling-interest investment in Apple) or directly, by acquiring SCO, and possibly even Novell, which would afford them the intellectual property rights they would need. And with $40+ billion in the bank, they can afford to take on Big Blue. And wouldn't this further their case against open source (read linux) environments? Also consider the effect of Microsoft paying the licensing fee. Might this not lend credibility to SCO's claim of Intellectual Property? Something to chew on...
Slashdot Mirror
At least with Windows, you just get the blue screen of death... not a core meltdown...
.... because every WARY county clerk is being entrusted to ensure that these machines aren't tampered with, yet have the greatest opportunity to do so themselves....
Novell hasn't been a force to be reckoned with in years. I'm not even sure why Microsoft bothers. Sure miss NetWare 3.X and 4.X. Talk about stable...
First, get the version right, dimwit. Second, they already did. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/05/182 6248
That's like suggesting that AOL users have learned how to effectively use the internet... Gotta go a little deeper than that me thinks...
Doesn't look like it. Besides, this didn't look particulary informative or relevant, for that matter... :)
Because OS X is a shell, like Gnome or KDE, not an operating system, like the BSD UNIX that it runs on. Apple, years ago, prided themselves (and rightly so) for creating an environment (read shell) for the Mac OS that was very user friendly. Nearly all of the functionality was displayed to the user, without revealing any of the inner workings of the underlying OS. The only real difference between the MacOS of old and the new OS X, is that Apple got smart and let someone develop the engine. Now, all they worry about is how pretty the paint job is and how the chrome shines. If you want to compare OS X to anything, compare it to KDE or Gnome or another shell. And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
RIA (Rich Internet Applications) is a marketing term Macromedia (Flash, Cold Fusion) conjured up as a way to get people looking at their development products. Even googling on the term only points you back to one vendor. Not exactly what I would call a model...
Also from the snopes article: Despite a spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977, and it's hard to find any specific action of Gore's (such as his sponsoring a Congressional bill or championing a particular piece of legislation) that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being, much less validate Gore's statement of having taken the "initiative in creating the Internet." Try reading the entire article next time...
I am surprised to see very few references to anything but SCO and IBM in these postings. Has anyone stopped and considered why Microsoft bothered to license the code from SCO? I like to think of this battle as two old men on the beach, one old and frail (read SCO), the other a Jack LaLanne body-builder type (read IBM), who kicks the other old man. The frail and weak old man attempts to defend himself, by calling the body builder out and threatening to sue him for damages. A couple of blankets over sits an 800 lb gorilla (read Microsoft) who happens to like the frail and weak old man and has already given him a banana (read licensing fee). The gorilla just sits and watches the body builder, waiting to see if it needs to step in and help its friend... As much as IBM might like to drive SCO into the ground, one has to wonder whether Microsoft will enter into these proceedings, either indirectly by supporting SCO financially (remember the non-controlling-interest investment in Apple) or directly, by acquiring SCO, and possibly even Novell, which would afford them the intellectual property rights they would need. And with $40+ billion in the bank, they can afford to take on Big Blue. And wouldn't this further their case against open source (read linux) environments? Also consider the effect of Microsoft paying the licensing fee. Might this not lend credibility to SCO's claim of Intellectual Property? Something to chew on...