Apple originally put much of the OS in ROM for 2 reeasons: 1. Provide services at start-up, before the OS had fully loaded 2. In 1984, RAM was expensive and the size of the OS was a real concern. By putting functions which would have to be loaded in ROM, they could reduce the amount of RAM needed. 3. In 1984, ROMs could easily be made faster than RAM.
Apple switched to ROM-in-RAM with small Open Firmware-based boot ROMs with the Blue & White PowerMac G3, iMac and other machines of that era. The switch was made for three reasons: 1. ROMs had now become more expensive, and slower, than RAM. 2. Everyone puts a ridiculous amount of RAM in their machines now (except the pitiful iBook) 3. Putting the ROM in RAM allowed updates to the services which had formerly been embedded in ROM. This increased Apple's ability to add functions and services to the core OS. These reasons will still be true, even with IBM's new PPC boards. In addition, IBM's new boards don't include the same Open Firmware Boot ROM as Apple's, since Apple's is a proprietary design, so they can't simply be made into Mac clones (although I'm sure some enterprising developer could come up with a software fix).
So what does this mean for the UCITA? Well, there will always be nefarious and underhanded ways to protect intellectual property, regardless of any law. But these will not always be compatible with the most efficient and elegant way to do things. As consumers demand more from companies, efficiency and elegance (=market share?) may become more important than the short-term protection of intellectual property. Look, for example, at OS X. For example, Apple still has a lot of proprietary stuff in there. But many basic functions, such as networking, 3-D graphics, and even the kernel, are open source or based very closely on existing open source code. In the race for performance, they have chosen the more efficient and elegant way to do things -- despite the fact that it gives many developers access to large chunks of their basic operating system.
If this example holds true, UCITA-adhering software developers will eventually fail in the face of superior software from, shall we say, more IP-liberal developers such as those from the Open Source community.
Judge Jackson was looking back to the IBM trial as he ran the M$ trial, and set things up so that his verdict would be essentially appeal-proof. By breaking his rulings up into findings of fact and findings of law, he's limited the grounds for a M$ appeal. The findings of fact are going to be difficult if not impossible to challenge, given that no major evidence was disqualified. This leaves only the findings of law to be appealed. To allow an appeal on these grounds, a court would have to conclude that, based on the exact same facts that Judge Jackson heard, they would have applied the law differently. Even if M$ does appeal, and a higher court decides to hear the appeal, all that M$ could do is introduce legal opinions from scholars -- no new factual evidence. And many appeals courts wouldn't want to hear the appeal, they'd find things bulletproof enough. So, probably, we won't be talking about 15 years of appeals, only one or two. Say, just in time for Windows 2000.
Now, sure, at first this seems like a darned clever application of modern technology and capitalism. But it's actually a horrible mistake. To wit: -Most car companies make you haggle to get your new automobile. People hate this; while there's a few who like to make deals, most people feel like they're getting ripped off. Saturn comes along and starts their big "no pressure, no haggle" thing. Consumers love it, Saturn gets market share and repeat buyers, other car companies have to think about changing their pricing structure. -Airlines sell just about every seat in the plane for a different price. Everybody's sure that they're paying too much, and the entire internet travel industry springs up -- people are willing to spend hours on-line to find a cheaper fare, just because they think the airline pricing structures are out to get them. Seems to me that, if you buy from a temperature-sensitive Coke machine, you'll always remember that 15-cent soda you got on January 3rd, and evey other can you buy it'll seem like Coke is ripping you off. So people will try to save money, go to another machine (maybe one in an air-conditioned building) with a cheaper price. Or they'll just buy Pepsi, which has a price they can count on all the time. If they'll buy from Saturn or Priceline to save money, they'll sure do it for a soda they buy every single day.
The real "killer app" (sorry) for this seems like it would be self-administering computers... processes work out resource allocation by fighting for memory and CPU cycles. More important processes get BFGs and can get all the resources they need. Minor processes have to hide in a corner. Badly-behaved processes, like, say, Netscape, look mean but get on the wrong side of csh and go down. The result? Important stuff can stay up forever, other programs only work when there's space
So programmers have to write well-behaved code for non-essential processes and applications or they get toasted. Big Professional Word-Processing Application a resource hog? Well, lookee here, it's getting in the way of csh. Oops, now it's dead. Little Well-Behaved Word Processing Application sits in its 2 or 4 little MB of RAM and never misbehaves and keeps going. Guess which one evrybody will use?
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only person who sees the potential cool-factor in this?
/. This disc will self-destruct in 5 seconds."
"Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to seek out and destroy all Natalie Portman trolls on
Hey, someone had to do it.
Apple originally put much of the OS in ROM for 2 reeasons:
1. Provide services at start-up, before the OS had fully loaded
2. In 1984, RAM was expensive and the size of the OS was a real concern. By putting functions which would have to be loaded in ROM, they could reduce the amount of RAM needed.
3. In 1984, ROMs could easily be made faster than RAM.
Apple switched to ROM-in-RAM with small Open Firmware-based boot ROMs with the Blue & White PowerMac G3, iMac and other machines of that era. The switch was made for three reasons:
1. ROMs had now become more expensive, and slower, than RAM.
2. Everyone puts a ridiculous amount of RAM in their machines now (except the pitiful iBook)
3. Putting the ROM in RAM allowed updates to the services which had formerly been embedded in ROM. This increased Apple's ability to add functions and services to the core OS.
These reasons will still be true, even with IBM's new PPC boards. In addition, IBM's new boards don't include the same Open Firmware Boot ROM as Apple's, since Apple's is a proprietary design, so they can't simply be made into Mac clones (although I'm sure some enterprising developer could come up with a software fix).
So what does this mean for the UCITA? Well, there will always be nefarious and underhanded ways to protect intellectual property, regardless of any law. But these will not always be compatible with the most efficient and elegant way to do things. As consumers demand more from companies, efficiency and elegance (=market share?) may become more important than the short-term protection of intellectual property. Look, for example, at OS X. For example, Apple still has a lot of proprietary stuff in there. But many basic functions, such as networking, 3-D graphics, and even the kernel, are open source or based very closely on existing open source code. In the race for performance, they have chosen the more efficient and elegant way to do things -- despite the fact that it gives many developers access to large chunks of their basic operating system.
If this example holds true, UCITA-adhering software developers will eventually fail in the face of superior software from, shall we say, more IP-liberal developers such as those from the Open Source community.
"eXchange"
And Sprint is called Sprint because it was a spinoff of the Southern Pacific Railroad and used their right-of-ways to lay their fiber-optic cables.
I don't know what the "int" in Sprint stands for, tho. I'm willing to guess "International."
Pennsylvania, I seem to recall.
Judge Jackson was looking back to the IBM trial as he ran the M$ trial, and set things up so that his verdict would be essentially appeal-proof. By breaking his rulings up into findings of fact and findings of law, he's limited the grounds for a M$ appeal. The findings of fact are going to be difficult if not impossible to challenge, given that no major evidence was disqualified. This leaves only the findings of law to be appealed. To allow an appeal on these grounds, a court would have to conclude that, based on the exact same facts that Judge Jackson heard, they would have applied the law differently. Even if M$ does appeal, and a higher court decides to hear the appeal, all that M$ could do is introduce legal opinions from scholars -- no new factual evidence. And many appeals courts wouldn't want to hear the appeal, they'd find things bulletproof enough. So, probably, we won't be talking about 15 years of appeals, only one or two. Say, just in time for Windows 2000.
Now, sure, at first this seems like a darned clever application of modern technology and capitalism. But it's actually a horrible mistake. To wit:
-Most car companies make you haggle to get your new automobile. People hate this; while there's a few who like to make deals, most people feel like they're getting ripped off. Saturn comes along and starts their big "no pressure, no haggle" thing. Consumers love it, Saturn gets market share and repeat buyers, other car companies have to think about changing their pricing structure.
-Airlines sell just about every seat in the plane for a different price. Everybody's sure that they're paying too much, and the entire internet travel industry springs up -- people are willing to spend hours on-line to find a cheaper fare, just because they think the airline pricing structures are out to get them.
Seems to me that, if you buy from a temperature-sensitive Coke machine, you'll always remember that 15-cent soda you got on January 3rd, and evey other can you buy it'll seem like Coke is ripping you off.
So people will try to save money, go to another machine (maybe one in an air-conditioned building) with a cheaper price. Or they'll just buy Pepsi, which has a price they can count on all the time. If they'll buy from Saturn or Priceline to save money, they'll sure do it for a soda they buy every single day.
The real "killer app" (sorry) for this seems like it would be self-administering computers... processes work out resource allocation by fighting for memory and CPU cycles. More important processes get BFGs and can get all the resources they need. Minor processes have to hide in a corner. Badly-behaved processes, like, say, Netscape, look mean but get on the wrong side of csh and go down. The result? Important stuff can stay up forever, other programs only work when there's space
So programmers have to write well-behaved code for non-essential processes and applications or they get toasted. Big Professional Word-Processing Application a resource hog? Well, lookee here, it's getting in the way of csh. Oops, now it's dead. Little Well-Behaved Word Processing Application sits in its 2 or 4 little MB of RAM and never misbehaves and keeps going. Guess which one evrybody will use?