Or NeXTSTEP. Apple bought it and large portions are open sourced. Apple maintains the upper layers like the window server.
There is an outlay, but apple could not write an OS internally to replace OS 8. They had to buy their way out of it, eventually choosing NEXTSTEP over Be OS.
Yeah, to recycle a computer, monitor, keyboard, and power cables, it is $30 here. If I can sneak it in the dumpster, it's free.
I don't understand why recycling isn't encouraged. I'd even be willing to pay taxes to pay for it indirectly, but I sure as hell don't want to be nickel and dimed every time I need to get rid of an old PC or VCR.
Simple, the industry goes through cycles. Virtualization is hot and some people love it. They want to run it even if there isn't a good reason for it. Some people mistakenly believe it improves security.
Virtualization is good for testing software and a few other cases where you need to run a different OS but don't want to deal with dedicated hardware or dual booting. I don't see any use in server environments except possibly web hosting.
We need to use USB devices in Windows XP in our computer labs at work. In our case, we're using Mac OS X so using parallels or vmware is the easiest solution. Unfortunately, half of the devices cause kernel panics. If that weren't the case, we would not need to use boot camp and it would indeed make our lives easier. Only one or two classes need Windows for anything.
We have 5 machines running OS X server. 3 are xserves (G4, G5, intel), and two are old PowerMac G4s in computer labs. Our entire department is on Mac OS with the exception of a few PCs. There's actually more machines running BSD or Linux than Windows.
I'd much rather deal with BSD, Linux or even Windows server most of the time. The only good feature to me is the user management (preferences, etc).
I'm just glad we don't run DNS for our department.
Speak for yourself. I have an 95% Mac environment at work that I help administer. It's a computer science department at a university. I have two work computers, a dell running MidnightBSD and a intel iMac. The only windows installs are a server and one lab with parallels.
About half of my games didn't work when I ran vista, but it was x64 ultimate. Some games supposedly work on 32bit vista. The most common problems are the anti copying software which wasn't updated for vista x64. So, you can get Age of Empires II to work, but not the expansion pack because that had a different protection scheme which fails on vista x64. Macrovision offers an update for 32bit vista, but not x64 vista. It's hard to find on their site, but it allows some games to work that don't otherwise.
I also found that I'd lose sound or experience crashes, but that seemed to be tied to the crappy sound blaster audigy driver I was using for vista. The onboard didn't have drivers at the time to switch to.
I dealt with it for about 10 months as I use BSD for many things anyway. Then I had complete data loss due to the mistake of upgrading my RAM to 4GB from 2.5GB. Games that had worked ran about about 5fps less. I went back to XP after the crash for gaming and visual studio work. It's been a much better experience for me. Some of the problems I experienced were scheduled for the chopping block in SP1. I never bothered to try it. I'll just wait for the next windows release or a reason to try vista again.
Even a yearly renewal after a certain point would be nice. The artist (not the record company) would have to fill out some form every year to retain rights.
My first PC was a Packard Bell Pentium 100. It was slower than shit. In fact, I ended up buying a motherboard, case, and power supply for it eventually. Most of my lame benchmarking software was about twice as fast, and it was the difference with playing games. Of course, it was probably the cache on the new motherboard that the PB didn't have. However, that system worked with OS/2 warp, Windows NT, and Linux better than anything I've ever owned. That was redhat 5.0 though. They sucked, but they were generic enough to run damn near anything in the 90s.
Actually you could say that about all developers. Many complaints about Vista or Leopard are based on the GUI changes. There are other problems, but most end users complain about what they see. Even if the frontend isn't disruptive in changes, people don't understand there's a backend that needs an overhaul every now and then.
It's not just developing the software, it's attracting the users from facebook and other sites to an open source site. Also, consider that you've still got to offer more to get people to stick with your site rather than the thousands of clones that can popup because it is open source.
It's a real problem for computer geeks to guess what popular teenage girls want to use. Hell, I couldn't figure them out when I was in high school.:)
You also mentioned figuring out the lies. I'm never sure how much information to collect on my site. I only ask for a first name, email address, and account name at a minimum. If a user was harassing another user and law enforcement got involved, I don't have a lot to give them. Maybe an IP from my webserver logs. Someone dishonest would probably use fake info anyway.
Also break down what these sites are. It's a dating/blogging/picture gallery/instant messaging site with plugin support for third parties to add stuff. Sounds a lot like AOL was years ago, but with blogging and no dial up. I'm pretty far on the blogging and starting to work on the picture gallery, but the other aspects I have not interest in developing. My server code is BSDL and the clients are GPLv2 or BSDL. I've not gotten one developer to assist me, in part because I was learning java when I started and it shows. (server side)
When apple can't fix it and they have to move on completely. Authenticating with LDAP is a nightmare on 10.5. I've been trying to upgrade a lab to leopard, and it's very painful. I wouldn't even consider migrating servers yet. Most of the NeXT guys retired. This was their first big release out of that and it shows. I know how they feel because I've had problems with releases too. The difference is that I don't charge for my work.
Most of these complaints are probably bugs in the underlying open source software they used. They can't fix Firefox 3 overnight or rewrite gnome. Maybe they can come up with some fixes and patches, but I think you're expecting too much from them. They don't write the whole thing like Microsoft. They don't charge like Apple or Microsoft. If you hate the quality control, help them. Offer your time. Also, file bug reports with Mozilla and Gnome. The DVD drive thing could be a different kernel on the install cd versus the install or some other weird thing.
People underestimate how hard it is to pull an OS release together. Ubuntu is big enough to get some testers, but still it's difficult to put all that open source stuff together and keep up on security as well as stability.
It might help a little in the short term, because investors would here more oil coming. Part of the problem is the perspective of the investors on wallstreet. I don't think it would matter much after a few days.
Windows doesn't come with a lot of crap, new PCs come with a lot of crap. That will change as linux moves into the desktop.
People complained when Microsoft started shipping a browser, media player, etc in windows, and now it's a standard thing to do in most operating systems. Now people are using it in favor of linux? You also have the problem of people liking different software. OSS gives you a lot of choice, and in turn what do you ship? User A likes Firefox, and user B likes konquerer, and then user C has a slow PC and wants to use Opera 9.2.x. That's just browser software. Some of us only use things like lynx or links.
I find it difficult to actually choose what to bundle with MidnightBSD. No matter what I pick, I lose someone who hates "bloat". If I don't ship any browser, I get pissed off users who don't want to spend five minutes downloading packages.
Others have already made points, but consider that dell does sell another operating system. You can buy systems with ubuntu or freedos on them. Plus there's their vista and XP offerings.
I count 4 on the desktop.
Well you do need to keep adding things like hardware support. That often involves rewriting a lot of code when we get big jumps in technology. For instance, say apple had frozen os features a few years ago and just focused on optimization. They might not have 802.11g/n right now. dtrace and zfs (read only) might not have happened. It's a tough balance between fixing things and moving forward. I'm glad apple claims they're fixing leopard. I hope it's true.
"I'm talking about "how long does it take to boot to the GUI".
yeah. Well it's not a 1:1 relationship, but more on the disk does mean it takes longer. I don't see why you can't connect what I'm saying to what you're saying. It takes time to detect and setup hardware during boot. It takes time to init a display, setup a login or window manager, etc. If we're talking about boot to gui time, dos doesn't matter. Mac OS matters. NeXTSTEP matters. THings that existed during that time period which had guis. I have a NeXT, and I can tell you it doesn't boot all that fast, especially with OpenSTEP 4.2. My old sun machine doesn't boot very fast either. Both of them have guis and hard drives. You also forget that often things are not in order on a CDROM drive (or floppy). Seeking has to occur. So more stuff means more to go through before you find something. That's clearly going to slow it down. So more stuff = slower. Most people try to blame one aspect of a system on it's slow boot time. For instance, many linux fans think replacing init will make it go super fast. It may help, but there's still other things that happen in the kernel before you get to init. Linux boots faster than FreeBSD (at least 6.x) in my experience. I'm referring to kernel + init. However, I think it's mostly the kernel from my own informal benchmarks. Another thing that is different now is hardware. We have SMP as a common case. Doing locking for SMP is very expensive and slows things down at startup.
You seem to be complaining about something that you can't demonstrate an example of when it did work right. It's true that hardware got faster, but we also threw a lot of new things at it to do in the process.
You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I agree that Gnome and KDE are too bloated. Most software is these days. People are taught that memory and disks are cheap so it's OK to code badly. My point is that people expect more from a "boot disk" now than they did 10-20 years ago. So any benefit from new hardware is lost on the extra cruft we get along with it. Many gnome applications are written in python now. I find that insane.
Most people do NOT tweak live CDs. So comparing them doesn't make sense. As a baseline, let's say the windows 98 se boot floppy. That loaded a memory disk with scsi drivers and a bunch of crap most people don't need. Some people did have scsi drives, but it slowed down booting up while all the adaptec drivers for each version scanned for controllers. Just by eliminating that crap, one could get a quicker load up with cdrom support intact. So we could compare the boot speed of a linux or midnightbsd console only live CD to that windows 98 se floppy with hardware from their release period. I bet it's closer than you think. I know my live CD sucks. I admit that.
Slashdot Mirror
Or NeXTSTEP. Apple bought it and large portions are open sourced. Apple maintains the upper layers like the window server.
There is an outlay, but apple could not write an OS internally to replace OS 8. They had to buy their way out of it, eventually choosing NEXTSTEP over Be OS.
Yeah, to recycle a computer, monitor, keyboard, and power cables, it is $30 here. If I can sneak it in the dumpster, it's free.
I don't understand why recycling isn't encouraged. I'd even be willing to pay taxes to pay for it indirectly, but I sure as hell don't want to be nickel and dimed every time I need to get rid of an old PC or VCR.
Simple, the industry goes through cycles. Virtualization is hot and some people love it. They want to run it even if there isn't a good reason for it. Some people mistakenly believe it improves security.
Virtualization is good for testing software and a few other cases where you need to run a different OS but don't want to deal with dedicated hardware or dual booting. I don't see any use in server environments except possibly web hosting.
We need to use USB devices in Windows XP in our computer labs at work. In our case, we're using Mac OS X so using parallels or vmware is the easiest solution. Unfortunately, half of the devices cause kernel panics. If that weren't the case, we would not need to use boot camp and it would indeed make our lives easier. Only one or two classes need Windows for anything.
We have 5 machines running OS X server. 3 are xserves (G4, G5, intel), and two are old PowerMac G4s in computer labs. Our entire department is on Mac OS with the exception of a few PCs. There's actually more machines running BSD or Linux than Windows.
I'd much rather deal with BSD, Linux or even Windows server most of the time. The only good feature to me is the user management (preferences, etc).
I'm just glad we don't run DNS for our department.
Could you generalize it to how any search engine works. Then Yahoo or any other engine before 2000 is prior art.
Speak for yourself. I have an 95% Mac environment at work that I help administer. It's a computer science department at a university. I have two work computers, a dell running MidnightBSD and a intel iMac. The only windows installs are a server and one lab with parallels.
About half of my games didn't work when I ran vista, but it was x64 ultimate. Some games supposedly work on 32bit vista. The most common problems are the anti copying software which wasn't updated for vista x64. So, you can get Age of Empires II to work, but not the expansion pack because that had a different protection scheme which fails on vista x64. Macrovision offers an update for 32bit vista, but not x64 vista. It's hard to find on their site, but it allows some games to work that don't otherwise.
I also found that I'd lose sound or experience crashes, but that seemed to be tied to the crappy sound blaster audigy driver I was using for vista. The onboard didn't have drivers at the time to switch to.
I dealt with it for about 10 months as I use BSD for many things anyway. Then I had complete data loss due to the mistake of upgrading my RAM to 4GB from 2.5GB. Games that had worked ran about about 5fps less. I went back to XP after the crash for gaming and visual studio work. It's been a much better experience for me. Some of the problems I experienced were scheduled for the chopping block in SP1. I never bothered to try it. I'll just wait for the next windows release or a reason to try vista again.
Even a yearly renewal after a certain point would be nice. The artist (not the record company) would have to fill out some form every year to retain rights.
My first PC was a Packard Bell Pentium 100. It was slower than shit. In fact, I ended up buying a motherboard, case, and power supply for it eventually. Most of my lame benchmarking software was about twice as fast, and it was the difference with playing games. Of course, it was probably the cache on the new motherboard that the PB didn't have. However, that system worked with OS/2 warp, Windows NT, and Linux better than anything I've ever owned. That was redhat 5.0 though. They sucked, but they were generic enough to run damn near anything in the 90s.
Actually you could say that about all developers. Many complaints about Vista or Leopard are based on the GUI changes. There are other problems, but most end users complain about what they see. Even if the frontend isn't disruptive in changes, people don't understand there's a backend that needs an overhaul every now and then.
OS Integration? How about OS support. Firefox 3 is a real pain in the ass on non winodws/mac/linux systems.
It's not just developing the software, it's attracting the users from facebook and other sites to an open source site. Also, consider that you've still got to offer more to get people to stick with your site rather than the thousands of clones that can popup because it is open source.
It's a real problem for computer geeks to guess what popular teenage girls want to use. Hell, I couldn't figure them out when I was in high school. :)
You also mentioned figuring out the lies. I'm never sure how much information to collect on my site. I only ask for a first name, email address, and account name at a minimum. If a user was harassing another user and law enforcement got involved, I don't have a lot to give them. Maybe an IP from my webserver logs. Someone dishonest would probably use fake info anyway.
Also break down what these sites are. It's a dating/blogging/picture gallery/instant messaging site with plugin support for third parties to add stuff. Sounds a lot like AOL was years ago, but with blogging and no dial up. I'm pretty far on the blogging and starting to work on the picture gallery, but the other aspects I have not interest in developing. My server code is BSDL and the clients are GPLv2 or BSDL. I've not gotten one developer to assist me, in part because I was learning java when I started and it shows. (server side)
Not to mention that it will be dangerous to be on a motorcycle with all these people surfing while driving.
When apple can't fix it and they have to move on completely. Authenticating with LDAP is a nightmare on 10.5. I've been trying to upgrade a lab to leopard, and it's very painful. I wouldn't even consider migrating servers yet. Most of the NeXT guys retired. This was their first big release out of that and it shows. I know how they feel because I've had problems with releases too. The difference is that I don't charge for my work.
People underestimate how hard it is to pull an OS release together. Ubuntu is big enough to get some testers, but still it's difficult to put all that open source stuff together and keep up on security as well as stability.
It might help a little in the short term, because investors would here more oil coming. Part of the problem is the perspective of the investors on wallstreet. I don't think it would matter much after a few days.
between 1GB and 3GB of RAM. I didn't think about less than being used for tags.
Vista is a disaster that requires 1GB x 3GB of ram to work.
Windows doesn't come with a lot of crap, new PCs come with a lot of crap. That will change as linux moves into the desktop.
People complained when Microsoft started shipping a browser, media player, etc in windows, and now it's a standard thing to do in most operating systems. Now people are using it in favor of linux? You also have the problem of people liking different software. OSS gives you a lot of choice, and in turn what do you ship? User A likes Firefox, and user B likes konquerer, and then user C has a slow PC and wants to use Opera 9.2.x. That's just browser software. Some of us only use things like lynx or links.
I find it difficult to actually choose what to bundle with MidnightBSD. No matter what I pick, I lose someone who hates "bloat". If I don't ship any browser, I get pissed off users who don't want to spend five minutes downloading packages.
No updates is right. I'd worry about security running something that old.
Others have already made points, but consider that dell does sell another operating system. You can buy systems with ubuntu or freedos on them. Plus there's their vista and XP offerings. I count 4 on the desktop.
Well you do need to keep adding things like hardware support. That often involves rewriting a lot of code when we get big jumps in technology. For instance, say apple had frozen os features a few years ago and just focused on optimization. They might not have 802.11g/n right now. dtrace and zfs (read only) might not have happened. It's a tough balance between fixing things and moving forward. I'm glad apple claims they're fixing leopard. I hope it's true.
yeah. Well it's not a 1:1 relationship, but more on the disk does mean it takes longer. I don't see why you can't connect what I'm saying to what you're saying. It takes time to detect and setup hardware during boot. It takes time to init a display, setup a login or window manager, etc. If we're talking about boot to gui time, dos doesn't matter. Mac OS matters. NeXTSTEP matters. THings that existed during that time period which had guis. I have a NeXT, and I can tell you it doesn't boot all that fast, especially with OpenSTEP 4.2. My old sun machine doesn't boot very fast either. Both of them have guis and hard drives. You also forget that often things are not in order on a CDROM drive (or floppy). Seeking has to occur. So more stuff means more to go through before you find something. That's clearly going to slow it down. So more stuff = slower. Most people try to blame one aspect of a system on it's slow boot time. For instance, many linux fans think replacing init will make it go super fast. It may help, but there's still other things that happen in the kernel before you get to init. Linux boots faster than FreeBSD (at least 6.x) in my experience. I'm referring to kernel + init. However, I think it's mostly the kernel from my own informal benchmarks. Another thing that is different now is hardware. We have SMP as a common case. Doing locking for SMP is very expensive and slows things down at startup.
You seem to be complaining about something that you can't demonstrate an example of when it did work right. It's true that hardware got faster, but we also threw a lot of new things at it to do in the process.
Most people do NOT tweak live CDs. So comparing them doesn't make sense. As a baseline, let's say the windows 98 se boot floppy. That loaded a memory disk with scsi drivers and a bunch of crap most people don't need. Some people did have scsi drives, but it slowed down booting up while all the adaptec drivers for each version scanned for controllers. Just by eliminating that crap, one could get a quicker load up with cdrom support intact. So we could compare the boot speed of a linux or midnightbsd console only live CD to that windows 98 se floppy with hardware from their release period. I bet it's closer than you think. I know my live CD sucks. I admit that.